Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 24, 2018, 10:18:29 AM
-
The interview doesn't really give much of a case.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/76597-why-an-agnostic-philosopher-says-we-re-all-religious.html
-
I think he makes some interesting suggestions, which might explain why many humans have a religious need.
-
Seems very circular to me in that the main argument is we need religion because we have it. It also seems to confuse religion with anything non science, makes the usual mistake on agnostic, and talks of 'spontaneous conversations with the universe' as if that has clear meaning
-
Seems very circular to me in that the main argument is we need religion because we have it. It also seems to confuse religion with anything non science, makes the usual mistake on agnostic, and talks of 'spontaneous conversations with the universe' as if that has clear meaning
I didn't quite see it that way.
-
I didn't quite see it that way.
Yes, I get that. Why?
-
These two suggestions make sense to me as to why some people find religion helpful in their lives.
People think of religion as a system of beliefs but it is fundamentally an emotional management system, one that science and any other kind of “cultural technology” cannot offer.
We evolved things such as prayer to manage our spontaneous yearning to survive and flourish
-
These two suggestions make sense to me as to why some people find religion helpful in their lives.
People think of religion as a system of beliefs but it is fundamentally an emotional management system, one that science and any other kind of “cultural technology” cannot offer.
We evolved things such as prayer to manage our spontaneous yearning to survive and flourish
So the first is an argument by incredulity.
And I have no idea what the second point is trying to say - he likes the word spontaneous but he seems to use it in a way with which I'm not familiar.
-
So the first is an argument by incredulity.
And I have no idea what the second point is trying to say - he likes the word spontaneous but he seems to use it in a way with which I'm not familiar.
As I said it seems to make sense to me, even though it wouldn't work for me.
-
As I said it seems to make sense to me, even though it wouldn't work for me.
So do you agree that the first statement being an argument by incredulity is using a fallacy?
And what do you think the second statement means?
-
People think of religion as a system of beliefs but it is fundamentally an emotional management system, one that science and any other kind of “cultural technology” cannot offer.
...is an argument by incredulity.
Please explain why you think it's an argument from incredulity.
-
...is an argument by incredulity.
Please explain why you think it's an argument from incredulity.
Because it rules out all possible other 'cultural technology' without being able to state what all that would be. He cannot imagine any 'cultural technology' that could do so it is an argument by incredulity.
-
He is suggesting that religion offers emotional reassurance in a way that science cannot. That seems a pretty unremarkable statement to me, and I fail to see how it comes under the incredulity fallacy.
-
He is suggesting that religion offers emotional reassurance in a way that science cannot. That seems a pretty unremarkable statement to me, and I fail to see how it comes under the incredulity fallacy.
He's adding in something called 'cultural technology' without defining it, that seems to be something other than science though so concentrating on science would be a mistake here and ignoring what is written. If he cannot know all 'cultural technologies' then he cannot rule out except by incredulity that none of them could be sufficient.
-
Apparently some wealthy atheists have done really well out of religion. There should be a windfall tax on such.
-
Apparently some wealthy atheists have done really well out of religion. There should be a windfall tax on such.
Well I'd quite like to see a windfall tax on any one or any organization that becomes wealthy out of religion. I don't see that there needs to be a distinction based on atheism.
-
Apparently some wealthy atheists have done really well out of religion. There should be a windfall tax on such.
I think they paid tax though unlike the churches.
-
I think they paid tax though unlike the churches.
Churches getting tax relief, Good because pissing certain people off is always worth the investment.
Atheist writers not paying windfall tax, Bad.
-
Well I'd quite like to see a windfall tax on any one or any organization that becomes wealthy out of religion. I don't see that there needs to be a distinction based on atheism.
Balanced, reasoned thinking on your part Trent.
-
Churches getting tax relief, Good because pissing certain people off is always worth the investment.
Atheist writers not paying windfall tax, Bad.
That sounds awfully Stalinist
-
That sounds awfully Stalinist
More Stalinesque.
I have repented and go along with Trent's Nike Trainers approach ''Just Tax it!''
-
More Stalinesque.
I have repented and go along with Trent's Nike Trainers approach ''Just Tax it!''
So given the atheists are taxed already, you just want to additionally tax churches? Or do you want atheists to be taxed more, which would put you back in Stalinacry again?
-
So given the atheists are taxed already, you just want to additionally tax churches? Or do you want atheists to be taxed more, which would put you back in Stalinacry again?
No........ I want rich atheists windfall Taxed. Them and televangelists.
-
No........ I want rich atheists windfall Taxed. Them and televangelists.
All rich atheists or are you passing a special tax for monies made in connection with religion? Surely you don't want an actual windfall tax anyway but just a graduated tax system that applies to religious as well as non religious?
-
All rich atheists or are you passing a special tax for monies made in connection with religion? Surely you don't want an actual windfall tax anyway but just a graduated tax system that applies to religious as well as non religious?
Anything that means fifth floor Garret rather than Miami Condo.
-
Anything that means fifth floor Garret rather than Miami Condo.
Miami Vice recast with Dawkins and Craig - two mismatched cops, one an antitheist who hates blind watchmakers, the other an apologist who starts every interview with 'what was the first cause.' Separately, they rock, together they roll,
-
He is suggesting that religion offers emotional reassurance in a way that science cannot. That seems a pretty unremarkable statement to me, and I fail to see how it comes under the incredulity fallacy.
Whatever fallacy it comes under, the fact remains for me that science and what man has achieved give me a solidly based emotional security which belief in a totally unevidenced idea is impossible to do.
And responding to the title of the topic, man does not need religion, superstitious belief arose, was expanded and grew into a variety of religions all of which were thought up by the humans around. People might think they need religion, but if they had started off with facts instead of superstition, the question would never have arisen in the first place.
-
Whatever fallacy it comes under, the fact remains for me that science and what man has achieved give me a solidly based emotional security which belief in a totally unevidenced idea is impossible to do.
And responding to the title of the topic, man does not need religion, superstitious belief arose, was expanded and grew into a variety of religions all of which were thought up by the humans around. People might think they need religion, but if they had started off with facts instead of superstition, the question would never have arisen in the first place.
What emotional security can you base on science? Emotion is in the world of oughts, science is neutral to that.
-
What emotional security can you base on science? Emotion is in the world of oughts, science is neutral to that.
I didn't just say science, I said science and what man has achieved.
-
I didn't just say science, I said science and what man has achieved.
whatever man has in your opinion achieved, that's just more is, more facts. I don't see where you get to emotional security from that. To link to the discussion on Fine Detail in the Gospel, what about climate change and mass extinction?
-
What emotional security can you base on science? Emotion is in the world of oughts, science is neutral to that.
Are things such as cognitive therapy science-based? Because many find them to give them a way of accessing emotional security without faith.
-
Are things such as cognitive therapy science-based? Because many find them to give them a way of accessing emotional security without faith.
Didn't say that you need faith. Just that facts don't get you to an ought.
-
Didn't say that you need faith. Just that facts don't get you to an ought.
Isn’t the original premise here that religion provides emotional security in a way that nothing else can? Because that manifestly isn’t true.
-
Isn’t the original premise here that religion provides emotional security in a way that nothing else can? Because that manifestly isn’t true.
And I disagree with that premise. I think the writer offers a false dichotomy. But that doesn't mean I think that science and man's achievements offer emotional security.
-
whatever man has in your opinion achieved, that's just more is, more facts. I don't see where you get to emotional security from that. To link to the discussion on Fine Detail in the Gospel, what about climate change and mass extinction?
I suppose from my point of view I get a certain amount of emotional security(satisfaction?) from having an understanding about things, at least as far as I am able to ascertain that understanding is based upon solid ground, that is, and that would almost certainly include what passes for facts. I would even say that I would find comfort in an acceptance that certain things are simply unknown. So, what science has to say about the universe, even with its present unknowns, is to me more emotionally comforting than any amount of unevidenced conjecture. I suppose that I see science as the best way of approaching reality because it is the least interested in subjective interpretations.
For instance, if I was suffering from some sort of illness/disability, even if it was not able to be successfully treated, I would much prefer, emotionally, to understand the nature of the problem than to be subject to conjecture and inexpert opinion(whether from myself or others). For me, in this situation, the role of medical science would be paramount.
I realise that others see things differently and derive emotional comfort from their own particular personal beliefs. Indeed my sister draws such comfort from her own Christian beliefs. I am not averse to this at all, as long as there is no attempt to impose such feelings upon others of course.
-
I suppose from my point of view I get a certain amount of emotional security(satisfaction?) from having an understanding about things, at least as far as I am able to ascertain that understanding is based upon solid ground, that is, and that would almost certainly include what passes for facts. I would even say that I would find comfort in an acceptance that certain things are simply unknown. So, what science has to say about the universe, even with its present unknowns, is to me more emotionally comforting than any amount of unevidenced conjecture. I suppose that I see science as the best way of approaching reality because it is the least interested in subjective interpretations.
For instance, if I was suffering from some sort of illness/disability, even if it was not able to be successfully treated, I would much prefer, emotionally, to understand the nature of the problem than to be subject to conjecture and inexpert opinion(whether from myself or others). For me, in this situation, the role of medical science would be paramount.
I realise that others see things differently and derive emotional comfort from their own particular personal beliefs. Indeed my sister draws such comfort from her own Christian beliefs. I am not averse to this at all, as long as there is no attempt to impose such feelings upon others of course.
That's a lovely thoughtful post. I don't disagree that knowing what facts are in any case are crucial but knowing the facts wills never get up into an ought. You need a choice based on desire for that. Those decisions aren't about what is. Your decisions about emotionally comforting don't make any sense scientifically.
-
whatever man has in your opinion achieved, that's just more is, more facts. I don't see where you get to emotional security from that. To link to the discussion on Fine Detail in the Gospel, what about climate change and mass extinction?
I have not been following the discussion you mention.
Anyone who believes that their faith belief in a totally unevidenced something - however much they may also believe that there is such evidence - gives them emotional security is labouring under a delusion. It's a house of cards and sooner or later there are going to be enough people who will make it clear that the card holding the whole thing up never existed in the first place. Where will their emotional security be then?
I cannot think of anything which gives me emotional support (not that I need much of that actually!) that does not have facts to back it up.
I would like to confront the AofC and ditto of York with that!!! Plus the Chief Rabbi and leaders of all the other major religiousb beliefs in the world.
-
That's a lovely thoughtful post. I don't disagree that knowing what facts are in any case are crucial but knowing the facts wills never get up into an ought. You need a choice based on desire for that. Those decisions aren't about what is. Your decisions about emotionally comforting don't make any sense scientifically.
Thanks for the compliment, NS. As regards your last point, I don't disagree at all. I am subject to emotions, which may well be explained in scientific terms, but, as you say, do not necessarily relate to personal scientific scrutiny. Perhaps it is simply part of my nature to find satisfaction in understanding, and thus evoking an emotional response in me.
-
Miami Vice recast with Dawkins and Craig - two mismatched cops, one an antitheist who hates blind watchmakers, the other an apologist who starts every interview with 'what was the first cause.' Separately, they rock, together they roll,
I guess they would get to refer to each other as ''Mofo'' (whatever that is)at regular intervals.
-
And I disagree with that premise. I think the writer offers a false dichotomy. But that doesn't mean I think that science and man's achievements offer emotional security.
Enki’s hit the nail on the head. Emotional security comes from making peace with unknowing, and I found how to access that in CBT and other cognitive therapies, not religion.
-
Enki’s hit the nail on the head. Emotional security comes from making peace with unknowing, and I found how to access that in CBT and other cognitive therapies, not religion.
Again I think there's a false dichotomy. I don't understand how anyone makes peace with the unknown via a set of facts when that's an emotional approach.
-
Again I think there's a false dichotomy. I don't understand how anyone makes peace with the unknown via a set of facts when that's an emotional approach.
You’re missing my point. Yes, making peace with the unknown is emotional but I’m talking about how to get there. I found it through a method that comes from evidence-based medicine - cognitive therapy - rather than religion. Religion had a very different effect on me and it fuelled my anxiety.
-
You’re missing my point. Yes, making peace with the unknown is emotional but I’m talking about how to get there. I found it through a method that comes from evidence-based medicine - cognitive therapy - rather than religion. Religion had a very different effect on me and it fuelled my anxiety.
And you are missing mine. I didn't say it has to be religion. That's the point about it being a false dichotomy. I am not sure that CBT qualifies as science but if it does I don't understand how anyone here from a set of is statements to something that covers oughrs.
-
I had a few sessions of CBT a year or two ago for my health anxiety, but it made it worse not better.
-
You’re missing my point. Yes, making peace with the unknown is emotional but I’m talking about how to get there. I found it through a method that comes from evidence-based medicine - cognitive therapy - rather than religion. Religion had a very different effect on me and it fuelled my anxiety.
What brought you back to an online forum on religion?
-
What brought you back to an online forum on religion?
Your warm and easy company.
-
Your warm and easy company.
That's a pretty good reason.
-
Dear Sane,
A very interesting article!
Religiosity is in human nature.
True, we are born crying out to a higher power, I read a article where a scientist made the claim that at the point of birth, it is more frightening than your first parachute jump.
Gonnagle.
-
I read a article where a scientist made the claim that at the point of birth, it is more frightening than your first parachute jump.
I wonder how the scientist came up with this?
I've no memory of the point of birth, and I've never done a parachute jump so I'm finding the comparison hard to take seriously.
And surely "we are born crying out to a higher power" is mere assertion.
I'm not arguing about whether or not "religiosity is in human nature" just the specifics of these points.
-
I don't actually remember popping into this world, which is probably a good thing, but I do remember being in a white canvas sided cot in the maternity hospital with the nurse looking down at me. I didn't feel scared.
-
I don't actually remember popping into this world, which is probably a good thing, but I do remember being in a white canvas sided cot in the maternity hospital with the nurse looking down at me. I didn't feel scared.
Strange occurences...Prodigious powers....
Are you making a pitch to become the David Icke of atheism?
-
Strange occurences...Prodigious powers....
Are you making a pitch to become the David Icke of atheism?
What on earth are you on about now?
-
I do remember being in a white canvas sided cot in the maternity hospital with the nurse looking down at me. I didn't feel scared.
If you remember the sixties...You weren't there.
-
If you remember the sixties...You weren't there.
I was born in 1950!
-
I was born in 1950!
It's a quote, and it's joking that if you got through the 60s without being chemically enhanced to the extent that you don't have clear memories of them, then you missed the point.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/07/remember-1960s/
-
It's a quote, and it's joking that if you got through the 60s without being chemically enhanced to the extent that you don't have clear memories of them, then you missed the point.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/07/remember-1960s/
I know I have heard it often enough. ::) I remember the 60s well, I wasn't off my head on alcohol and drugs like some people.
-
You'd have surely been too young for all that, LR, except maybe towards the end of the sixties.
I was a child but older cousins have many 1960s anecdotes which I've always loved hearing about - but not everyone was drunk or stoned all the time, there were limits for most & everyone matures to some extent.
The seventies were pretty good, for me 1974 particularly and onwards; I enjoyed but have to say I've enjoyed nearly all of my life so far.
We've strayed off topic, never mind, back to religion.
-
What emotional security can you base on science? Emotion is in the world of oughts, science is neutral to that.
It gives me great emotional security to have an alternative to believing there is a capricious maniac "up there" who would destroy my life on a whim.
-
And I disagree with that premise. I think the writer offers a false dichotomy. But that doesn't mean I think that science and man's achievements offer emotional security.
fortunately, you only need one counter example to disprove a hypothesis, and here I am. Perhaps Susan makes two.
-
fortunately, you only need one counter example to disprove a hypothesis, and here I am. Perhaps Susan makes two.
Yes, I do!
-
It gives me great emotional security to have an alternative to believing there is a capricious maniac "up there" who would destroy my life on a whim.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Equation of science with atheism.
probably the biggest argumentum ad populum in atheism.
-
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Equation of science with atheism.
probably the biggest argumentum ad populum in atheism.
Sorry but if you'll need to explain how my post equates science and atheism.
-
The interview doesn't really give much of a case.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/76597-why-an-agnostic-philosopher-says-we-re-all-religious.html
You would have nothing to talk about on this forum for a start and even fewer people to insult or rag. ::) ;D