[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[cj.23]

Knowing how actual knowledge of our world is arrived at, should be enough of a clue for anyone of a religious mindset to see why believing in pink unicorns or Muhammed or Jesus is the same type of bull.

I'll respond to your other challenge later - I'm cooking. First, do you understand the difference between rationalism and empiricism? I fail to see why knowledge of our world is particularly relevant to the question of belief in deities?

cj x

 

[DanishDynamite]

If you actually had a theory that your gym socks rule the White House (which you don't), I suspect it wouldn't be internally consistent. However, there is nothing to say it couldn't be internally consistent.

I grant you that an individual who held a belief that was at variance with observed reality would have an irrational belief, unless their belief system had a consistent explanation for the variance.

Name an example of the latter.

I'm not saying anything about whether your gym socks work as theory. I just think we shouldn't redefine words needlessly. Rational and irrational have specific meanings, let's stick with them.

Indeed, let's.

Well, I don't want to drag dictionaries into this, but basically, "reason" in this context is offering justification from a rational basis. In other words, supporting what you say from an internally consistent set of axioms.

Add "consistent with reality" and we agree.

In other words, you can be reasonable and wrong if your axioms are mistaken. That's why I give the example of Aristotle. Many consider him one of the fathers of reason...but his conclusions were waaaaay off and set back science by a 1000 years because his axioms were little more than idle conjecture.

Uh?

That seems a strange assumption to make, that they are generally ignorant and particularly ignorant of science. It is fairly trivial to find examples of people who are highly educated and accomplished scientists who have some religious beliefs. Do you really assume them not to exist?

The examples of those who educated in the sciences and nevertheless refute their education by believing in nonsense, is fairly limited.

Or does your definition of ignorant mean something besides a lack of knowledge and/or education? I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but I find it hard to believe you actually think these PhDs lack education and these scientists lack scientific knowledge. (I'll leave it to your Google Fu to find examples)

Being a Ph.D. in ancient languages does not qualify you for speaking knowledgably regarding religion or other irrationalities.

Did you mean to make a narrower statement, perhaps?

In what sense?

The seems illogical on its face. For instance, there either is life after death or there is not. Just because there is no scientific way to find the answer doesn't mean there is no answer.

There clearly is no life after death. That is the very definition, is it not? A definition with which Science agrees.

Rational = non-contrariness
Reason = uses the principles of logic (see above for discussion)

Philosophy attempts to know the unknowable just as religion does. I find it curious you give it a free pass here. There is no scientific method in philosophy...I had expected you to be rather down on it.

Uh...yes there is. Philosophy looks at stuff beyond our current knowledge. But ant philosophic idea whic does not at least accord with current knowledge, is disregarded.

As I pointed out in my original post, it is easy to point to a specific religion and demonstrate elements that are irrational and unreasonable. But it doesn't follow that people who are members of a religion accept everything a religion tells them. People tend to build a personal belief system that is both rational and reasonable.

People are not all the same. Yes, of course.

Come on, you believe things that you didn't read about in Journals, don't you? Culture and other sociological influences did nothing to shape your beliefs?

Once again, I'm brought back to the question of philosophy: what repeatable experiment gave rise to your understanding of ethics, meta-physics and epistemology? You clearly have beliefs in these areas, I'd like to read the peer reviewed articles where you got them.

I mean, isn't this whole thread about epistemology?

No.

This whole thread is about the idiocy of believers and religion.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'll respond to your other challenge later - I'm cooking. First, do you understand the difference between rationalism and empiricism?

Yes, I think so.

I fail to see why knowledge of our world is particularly relevant to the question of belief in deities?

cj x

I fail to understand what you mean. It seems complete bollocks.

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

I think what Danish really means is that he is less of an idiot that the billions of religious persons on the globe. The views he holds concerning certain details of the universe are more accurate and he is, therefore, in a completely higher realm of intelligence than your average idiotic religious adherent. Surely, he is an intellectual god amongst a sea of drooling idiots

Ok well seeing as intellectualy you and dd are "gods" I pose a simple challenge!

Between the 2 of you come up with a brilliant answer to put me and the rest of us believing "idiots" in our "place" that will change our minds.

And yes I'm being 100% serious!

 

[neltana]

Since DD has made the distinction between idiots and those who are just ignorant, that implies that education isn't an option here.

How did you arrive at this odd view? I have repeatedly said that people believing in any religion aren't necessarily idiots if they had no chance to know otherwise. I.e. if they had no access to education.

I don't think you followed me. We are talking about the individuals you have deemed as idiots, not the ones you deemed as ignorant. Since your definition of the idiots presupposes that they have had a "chance to know otherwise," it would seem to follow that education wouldn't do much to change this.

Some realize the idiocy and become rational beings. Some perhaps want to leave the madness but havn't the personal guts. A bit like quiting smoking, perhaps.

Remember, the genesis of my question had to do with the meme being developed in this thread that religious beliefs are evidence of a mental defect or illness. Now it sounds like you feel it is more of a behavioral choice. Am I understanding this correctly?

Are you considering it similar to an addiction, perhaps?

Yes, the wish to treat someone suffering from shizophrenia or tuberculosous leads immediatelly to that someone wishing to medically changing people's political view and to want to rule the world.

Get a grip.

You've already said you are against mandatory treatment in a previous post. That wasn't clear from your previous posts (to me at least). Had you been for it, you could understand my concern, right?

But do you feel that there is any difference between a political view that is wrong and not supported by reality and a religious belief that is wrong and not supported by reality? Are the holders of political views you disagree with idiots or is that reserved for the religious?

 

[Macoy]

As I pointed out in my original post, it is easy to point to a specific religion and demonstrate elements that are irrational and unreasonable. But it doesn't follow that people who are members of a religion accept everything a religion tells them. People tend to build a personal belief system that is both rational and reasonable.

Like this?

 

[DanishDynamite]

I don't think you followed me. We are talking about the individuals you have deemed as idiots, not the ones you deemed as ignorant. Since your definition of the idiots presupposes that they have had a "chance to know otherwise," it would seem to follow that education wouldn't do much to change this.

I'm not following. It is idiotic to be a believer. But some believers may have had no other choice as they has no access to education. Such believers can be classified as just "ignorant".

Remember, the genesis of my question had to do with the meme being developed in this thread that religious beliefs are evidence of a mental defect or illness. Now it sounds like you feel it is more of a behavioral choice. Am I understanding this correctly?

We don't know at present .

Are you considering it similar to an addiction, perhaps?

No, I suspect it is a mental defect.

You've already said you are against mandatory treatment in a previous post. That wasn't clear from your previous posts (to me at least). Had you been for it, you could understand my concern, right?

No and no.

But do you feel that there is any difference between a political view that is wrong and not supported by reality and a religious belief that is wrong and not supported by reality? Are the holders of political views you disagree with idiots or is that reserved for the religious?

The question of how humans should best live among each other, is neither a question for science nor a question for religion, as religion is nonsense.

It is only a question.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Ok well seeing as intellectualy you and dd are "gods" I pose a simple challenge!

Between the 2 of you come up with a brilliant answer to put me and the rest of us believing "idiots" in our "place" that will change our minds.

And yes I'm being 100% serious!

Thank you for the challenge. I suspect neither of us are up to the task, as no one has been up to the task for 2000 years, but let me think on it for a while.

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

Thank you for the challenge. I suspect neither of us are up to the task, as no one has been up to the task for 2000 years, but let me think on it for a while.

I will wait for the answer.

But to me it still seems extremely idiotic to say that someone like myself is an idiot for my belief in God.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I will wait for the answer.

But to me it still seems extremely idiotic to say that someone like myself is an idiot for my belief in God.

Perhaps so, but such is obviously the case, whether you think so or not.

 

[neltana]

Name an example of the latter.

Indeed, let's.

Add "consistent with reality" and we agree.

Uh?

I feel that our back and forth here has more to do with semantic differences unrelated to our core points. We can revisit them if you want, but I'm going to bypass these for now.

The examples of those who educated in the sciences and nevertheless refute their education by believing in nonsense, is fairly limited.

How about Charles Darwin? Did his beliefs in theism and a God of first cause refute his education? Did it cloud his ability to do important scientific work? 'Cause a lot of people seem to like the guy.

I would post more, but my Google-Fu failed me and I'm late for dinner. There are a lot of lists on the internet that I found, but a quick glance revealed some glaring errors (Linus Pauling was pretty clear he was an atheist), so I don't trust them. However, there are a number of scientists who have made statements about their religious faith.

Being a Ph.D. in ancient languages does not qualify you for speaking knowledgably regarding religion or other irrationalities.

<snip>

Did you mean to make a narrower statement, perhaps?

In what sense?

In the sense that you said that people with religious beliefs were generally ignorant. It seems to me that demonstrable educational achievement is evidence that someone is not generally ignorant. In your example, a PhD in ancient languages would presumably have a solid liberal arts background.

That's why I proposed you meant something else.

I assume you would accept that someone with a BA in Sociology and a PhD in Religious Studies (specializing in Comparative Religion) wouldn't be generally ignorant and would also be qualified to speak knowledgeably regarding religion. I quick google turned up the CV of Michael W. Clark. Don't know anything about him, but he would seem to refute the generally ignorant claim.

There clearly is no life after death. That is the very definition, is it not? A definition with which Science agrees.

Here we have, perhaps, a language problem. In my country, the USA, the term "life after death" is a shorthand for the proposal that consciousness exists in some form after the physical death of the body.

Does that clear things up a little?

This whole thread is about the idiocy of believers and religion.

Isn't your central thesis that people with religious beliefs believe things which cannot be known? Isn't epistemology that study of what is knowable?

 

[Egg]

Name a religion which does fall into this category.

Any religion which doesn't include an insistence that one must ignore the scientific evidence to believe in its core tenets. I think that would probably include most of the world's major religions in some form or another.

Chains of logic as expounded in Geologic Journals and made easy to understand by scientific articles.

How do you know that they didn't fabricate the evidence that this logic is based on?

In which case we differ. It is stupid to be religious, of this we seem to agree. You, for some reason, won't call it idiotic. So be it.

We agree that a belief in something that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence is almost certainly a mistaken belief. We don't agree that it is necessarily stupid to be religious.

Name one reliable answer, somewhere.

You're the one making the claim, so it's up to you to show that there are none, but since you insist, how about Proverbs 18:2?
"A fool does not care whether he understands a thing or not; all he wants to do is to show how clever he is."

 

[DanishDynamite]

I feel that our back and forth here has more to do with semantic differences unrelated to our core points. We can revisit them if you want, but I'm going to bypass these for now.

Fine.

How about Charles Darwin? Did his beliefs in theism and a God of first cause refute his education? Did it cloud his ability to do important scientific work? 'Cause a lot of people seem to like the guy.

Charles Darwin did not live in an age where the obviousness of evolution could be looked up at any Internet site.

I would post more, but my Google-Fu failed me and I'm late for dinner. There are a lot of lists on the internet that I found, but a quick glance revealed some glaring errors (Linus Pauling was pretty clear he was an atheist), so I don't trust them. However, there are a number of scientists who have made statements about their religious faith.

I'm sure there are. Let me know when you find some relevant examples.

<snip>

In the sense that you said that people with religious beliefs were generally ignorant. It seems to me that demonstrable educational achievement is evidence that someone is not generally ignorant. In your example, a PhD in ancient languages would presumably have a solid liberal arts background.

People without access to an education in science are often ignorant in regards to religion, yes.

That's why I proposed you meant something else.

I didn't.

I assume you would accept that someone with a BA in Sociology and a PhD in Religious Studies (specializing in Comparative Religion) wouldn't be generally ignorant and would also be qualified to speak knowledgeably regarding religion. I quick google turned up the CV of Michael W. Clark. Don't know anything about him, but he would seem to refute the generally ignorant claim.

He would be one of the least able to render a qualified opinion on the matter in question. Otherwise, he's fine.

Here we have, perhaps, a language problem. In my country, the USA, the term "life after death" is a shorthand for the proposal that consciousness exists in some form after the physical death of the body.

Does that clear things up a little?

No, as I was aware of that definition already.

Isn't your central thesis that people with religious beliefs believe things which cannot be known? Isn't epistemology that study of what is knowable?

No, my thesis is that believers are idiots for being believers. Their belief is no different from a belief in my magic gym socks. They are idiots beyond belief.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Any religion which doesn't include an insistence that one must ignore the scientific evidence to believe in its core tenets. I think that would probably include most of the world's major religions in some form or another.

Stop waffling. Name a religion which falls into the category.

How do you know that they didn't fabricate the evidence that this logic is based on?

Peer reviewed journal. Look it up some time.

We agree that a belief in something that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence is almost certainly a mistaken belief. We don't agree that it is necessarily stupid to be religious.

You find it sane to do so?

You're the one making the claim, so it's up to you to show that there are none, but since you insist, how about Proverbs 18:2?
"A fool does not care whether he understands a thing or not; all he wants to do is to show how clever he is."

I was asking for a reliable answer, not a proverb. Please provide one

 

[Egg]

Stop waffling. Name a religion which falls into the category.

This is your claim. Pick one and show how in any form still recognisable as that religion, it doesn't.

Peer reviewed journal. Look it up some time.

I take it you didn't read my previous post then?

You find it sane to do so?

I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. You clearly do, but I'm yet to see you argue convincingly why this is the case.

I was asking for a reliable answer, not a proverb. Please provide one

Depends on the question. What about if we asked if a fool cares if he understands a thing or not?

 

[DanishDynamite]

This is your claim. Pick one and show how in any form still recognisable as that religion, it doesn't.

Just. Name. One.

I take it you didn't read my previous post then?

Yes I did. What might I have missed?

I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. You clearly do, but I'm yet to see you argue convincingly why this is the case.

I have yet to see an argument why they are not.

Depends on the question. What about if we asked if a fool cares if he understands a thing or not?

What if we do?

Christ, Egg, you used to be interesting.

 

[neltana]

Failure to show harm...

I'm not following. It is idiotic to be a believer. But some believers may have had no other choice as they has no access to education. Such believers can be classified as just "ignorant".

Yeah...I know. We were talking about the other ones. The ones you don't classify as "ignorant"--the "idiots." It seems to me that your classification system assumes the idiots already have access to sufficient educational resources. Thus, it would seem, further education would be unlikely to change them (based on your model).

You've already said you are against mandatory treatment in a previous post. That wasn't clear from your previous posts (to me at least). Had you been for it, you could understand my concern, right?

No and no.

I only asked one question and got two answers. Since the middle sentence talked about what was clear to me, I'll assume you meant to negate the first sentence.

So, you aren't against mandatory treatment of the religious? What about this exchange earlier:

Would you propose mandatory treatment for those who don't believe as you think they should? Or would you just impose social sanctions on them?

I wouldn't propose either. I would make it a free possibility for those who would like the treatment.

I'd ask for you to clarify your stance on this subject.

Because I would find it very disturbing if you felt you were justified in "treating people" to change their beliefs against their will.

The question of how humans should best live among each other, is neither a question for science nor a question for religion, as religion is nonsense.

It is only a question.

How you answer this question is important. It matters and has consequences beyond yourself. How you answer it dictates how you will interact with others and the type of impact you will have on others.

I submit that "only" is something of an understatement.

I have yet to so you put forth any evidence or argument that religious convictions are, in and of themselves, bad or harmful. And yet, that seems to be an undercurrent to your arguments. Do you care to address that point?

 

[Dr H]

Hello. I'm a fairly new poster to this forum and this thread seems to have been going on for some time, so please bear with me if I don't have all the local protocols quite down yet, or if someone else has already made my point earlier in the thread. I will improve as time goes on.

I note a claim here to the effect that 'Religion has not provide any reliable answers,' and it was a response to that claim which has prompted my to post: ""How do you know religion has not provided any reliable answers? "

Certainly both science and religion frequently lay -claim- to high degrees of reliability. Key here is what is meant by "reliable."

For me, and, I think, for science, "reliable" means that a given answer has some usefulness beyond the imediate specific question it proposes to answer; it can be used to gain useful insight into similar, but not necessarily directly related questions -- it has some sort of -predictive- value beyond the immediate moment.

With that in mind it is important to keep in mind that in a /particular/ case it is quite possible to come to state a conclusion which is in and of itself entirely correct and valid, but which has been arrived at by completely invalid and/or spurious means. For example:

Sidewalks are usually made of concrete
Concrete sidewalks make the Earth spin from west to east
Therefore, the sun will always rise in the east

The conclusion in and of itself is true, but the means by which it is arrived at are not valid, and hence not reliable. Those means will not, for example, allow us to make accurate predictions of the direction of sunrise on other planets, based on whether or not those planets have concrete sidwalks on their surfaces.

In my experience, this is the kind of answer frequently given by religion: a true conclusion, supported by a spurious or untestable chain of reasoning which is only valid within the dogma of that particular religion, and which may not even be wholly self-consistent in that domain.

By contrast, an answer given by science -- say, that water boils at a certain temperature under certain ambient conditions of temperature and pressure -- is applicable beyond the immediate situation. Given this sort of information about water, we can use it to predict with a fair amount of accuracy the behavior of water under other conditions, and we can verify by experiment that such predictions are reasonably valid. This kind of answer is therefore reliable, in the sense that the information it gives us is consistently useful in assisting us to gain additional useful information.

Sorry, I know this is long-winded, but the bottom line is that I have to side with the poster who says that religion has /not/ provided reliable answers and science has. Given STP conditions science will always agree on the temperature of boiling water; given the same starting conditions
two religions will rarely, if ever, agree on the cause of the result, the meaning of the result, or, in some cases, even the existence of the result.

 

[cj.23]

Yes, I think so.

I fail to understand what you mean. It seems complete bollocks.

Ok, yes i sympathize. It seemed like that to me too, and as a child I rejected it, as it seemed completely nonsensical. Later I converted to theism, in my late twenties.

OK, let's start with a rational argument for God. The classic is the Kalam Cosmological argument.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

This argument from First Cause (god) is pretty ancient. Here is the wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument


Now that is completely rational. Does it convince me to start believing in a god, or would it if I did not? No of course not. It may be utter bollocks, to use your phrase. However it is a completely rational grounds for belief -- there is no issue with the logic of the argument, given the a priori premises implied.

As I said, the rationality of an argument is logically independent of the truth or otherwise of the conclusion reached. Rational does not mean true! Henmce I think many atheist arguments are completely rational, but remain a theist.

However, one can rationally make a case like this for a deity. It's not how I would argue (that would take a long time) but this is my contention - one can rationally argue for a deity, and not be an idiot.

Next up, Science. I'm an Anglican. What science am I supposed to deny? OK, I admit it, I have grave doubts about cold fusion, and no time for claims of homeopathy. I also favour punctuated equilibrium (Gould) over gradualist models (Dawkins) of Evolution, but am willing to be convinced i'm wrong. Oh and i think memes are a fun idea but ultimately rubbish.

j x

 

[Beth]

Welcome Dr. H

I note a claim here to the effect that 'Religion has not provide any reliable answers,' and it was a response to that claim which has prompted my to post: ""How do you know religion has not provided any reliable answers? "

Sorry, I know this is long-winded, but the bottom line is that I have to side with the poster who says that religion has /not/ provided reliable answers and science has.

I thought Eggs example of:

Proverbs 18:2?
"A fool does not care whether he understands a thing or not; all he wants to do is to show how clever he is."

followed by:

Depends on the question. What about if we asked if a fool cares if he understands a thing or not?

was a clever example of a reliable observation made by religion.


Your point is well-taken that the arguments supporting religious beliefs may not be valid or consistent across religions but the conclusions can still be true. For a lot of people, that's all that matters. They don't care whether the earth is a few thousand years old or a few billion and give the matter very little thought. Their religion provides them with a well-tested set of values and other lifestyle choices to live by as well as a community of supportive people to help them out when they need it. So I must disagree that 'Religion has not provide any reliable answers,' but I think I am defining 'reliable' a bit differently than you are.