[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[Macoy]

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.

Welcome indeed to the Maelstrom!

 

[Egg]

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.

Hi Dr H, and welcome to the forums .

That's a good answer and makes a lot of sense, but only deals with one definition of "reliable". MSN Encarta suggests two definitions:

1. dependable: able to be trusted to do what is expected or has been promised
She is extremely reliable and a hard worker.

2. likely to be accurate: able to be trusted to be accurate or to provide a correct result
That clock is not very reliable.

If we use the first definition, how can we know that any particular religion might not provide reliable answers, so long as it is not contradicting scientific discovery?

Do you fancy having a go at answering the point that was made along with this : "every answer it has suggested has been shown to be wrong. By science. " ?

 

[Egg]

Just. Name. One.

We can go back and forth on this, but this is your claim. Perhaps you might like to start with CJ23's suggestion of Anglicanism.

Yes I did. What might I have missed?

My point it seems. I brought up peer reviews.

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

So are you basing your claim on ignorance or can you show that religion and science are mutually exclusive?

 

[neltana]

Seriously...

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

So, you feel Darwin never bought into that whole evolution thing and that was why he believed in theism?

Really?

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.

Well, if we both accept that there are, why would I google around to find examples? Or was that a sarcastic "sure there are?"

If that is the case, I guess I'd have to ask how many examples of scientists with religious beliefs will it take to refute your assertion that people with religious beliefs are generally ignorant and specifically ignorant of science. Also, since you don't feel Darwin qualifies because he is pre-Internet, what date range are you willing to accept?

Or, if you have no doubt that I will find a number of examples, just revise your original statement to express what you were actually trying to say.

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

Well, I would think that people without access to an education in science would be also be more likely to be ignorant of comparative literature...a lack of access to a science education is likely correlated to a lack of education in general.

But if I were looking for someone who was knowledgeable about religion, I would probably look for someone with a degree in theology or comparitive religion rather than a physicist. They tend to be best with physics (hence the name).

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.

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

So, the only way to be knowledgeable about religion, according to you, is to explicitly not study it. Interesting. And somehow, explicitly studying an unrelated field does make you knowledgeable about it.

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.

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.

No, as I was aware of that definition already.

I see. Interesting.

So, how exactly is it "clear" to you that consciousness does not exist in some form after the physical death of the body? Here you profess knowledge of something that seems to me to be unknowable. Your knowledge is not the product of scientific method, where did it come from?

 

[neltana]

Like this?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/263347c88b8561c89.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, like the Simpsons...or is that Futurama?

Actually, I don't think I understood the reference. Did I need to see the episode to get it?

 

[Macoy]

Yes, like the Simpsons...or is that Futurama?

Actually, I don't think I understood the reference. Did I need to see the episode to get it?

No.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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).

As I've said previously, if the believer had access to education, and yet still decides to believe in whather, that is even more damning.

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.

No, I don't recall saying I was against mandatory treatment and no I don't understand your concern.

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

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

If a treatment could be found I would be for letting any inflicted receive such treatment for free. Hope that is clear enough.

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

Would you also be against teating shizophrenics against their will?

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.

No, it is of no relevance at all to the question at hand. If you feel otherwise, kindly explain why.

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

I submit is was a bit too much.

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?

See history of the world since yesterday, for Ed's sake!

 

[AkuManiMani]

You mean like a forum on religion and philosophy?

Yes, but a gullible one. I'm sure there are thousands to choose from.

Why should I when you just agreed with me here:

Yes, the deeper we dig and the deeper we manage to probe, new phenomena do appear which need explaining. It is a philosophical question whether this will always be case.

The argument I made was a perfectly valid philosophical statement.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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.

That is complete nonsense as you know it is.

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.

It is utter tribe. It says that something has to have a cause. Yes, of course it does. But why suppose that this cause is some white bearded daddy with an interest in the hairless apes on planet Earth?

That is so far out there, you might as well say that Gremlins determine whether your computer or car starts properly.

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.

The conclusion of your "so-called" rational argument doesn't follow from its premisses. So what are you blabbing about?

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.

Make a rational argument then.

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

You are an idiot if you have any form of religious belief. I have already explained why, many times.

 

[DanishDynamite]

We can go back and forth on this, but this is your claim. Perhaps you might like to start with CJ23's suggestion of Anglicanism.

Just. Name. One.

It is a simple request.

My point it seems. I brought up peer reviews.

Sorry, what was your point, then?

So are you basing your claim on ignorance or can you show that religion and science are mutually exclusive?

They are mutually exclusive because one observes reality, makes predictions regarding how reality should react if their theory based on observing is correct and then tests whether the predictions are correct. The other makes declarations of how reality should be and then brings in the Spanish Inquisition to torture anyone who feels otherwise.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If science can't provide the answer, that is because there is no answer. Choosing to believe in magic just to get an answer of anykind, is idiotic.

Science can, in principle, explain anything it just can't explain everything [i.e. the ultimate "why" or cause].

 

[DanishDynamite]

So, you feel Darwin never bought into that whole evolution thing and that was why he believed in theism?

Really?



Well, if we both accept that there are, why would I google around to find examples? Or was that a sarcastic "sure there are?"

If that is the case, I guess I'd have to ask how many examples of scientists with religious beliefs will it take to refute your assertion that people with religious beliefs are generally ignorant and specifically ignorant of science. Also, since you don't feel Darwin qualifies because he is pre-Internet, what date range are you willing to accept?

Or, if you have no doubt that I will find a number of examples, just revise your original statement to express what you were actually trying to say.

Bring any examples you can find. It would be interesting to see what you can find.

Well, I would think that people without access to an education in science would be also be more likely to be ignorant of comparative literature...a lack of access to a science education is likely correlated to a lack of education in general.

Probably so. And?

But if I were looking for someone who was knowledgeable about religion, I would probably look for someone with a degree in theology or comparitive religion rather than a physicist. They tend to be best with physics (hence the name).

Why would look for someone knowledgable in religion? You might as well interview an expert in numerology.

So, the only way to be knowledgeable about religion, according to you, is to explicitly not study it. Interesting. And somehow, explicitly studying an unrelated field does make you knowledgeable about it.

There is no "knowledge about religion". There is at most history of religion. It is like talking about "knowledge on the healing powers of crystals". It is nonsense.

I see. Interesting.

So, how exactly is it "clear" to you that consciousness does not exist in some form after the physical death of the body? Here you profess knowledge of something that seems to me to be unknowable. Your knowledge is not the product of scientific method, where did it come from?

How is it clear to me that something representative of an alive being is not present when said being is dead?

Are you joking?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Why should I when you just agreed with me here:



The argument I made was a perfectly valid philosophical statement.

The argument was nonsense. But being the nice person I am, I suggested you seek an alternative site to peddle your delusion.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Science can, in principle, explain anything it just can't explain everything [i.e. the ultimate "why" or cause].

We don't know if this is true.

But more interrestingly, is the "prime cause" the reason you believe in the fairytale that you do?

 

[AkuManiMani]

The argument was nonsense. But being the nice person I am, I suggested you seek an alternative site to peddle your delusion.

Oh, and what exactly do you think my argument actually was? Do you even know what is it you're disagreeing with?

We don't know if this is true.

But more interrestingly, is the "prime cause" the reason you believe in the fairytale that you do?

What fairy tale? That our knowledge is, and always will be, finite?

 

[DanishDynamite]

What fairy tale? That our knowledge is, and always will be, finite?

Once again, is the reason you believe in the particular fairytale you do, that you lack an explanation of the "prime cause"?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Once again, is the reason you believe in the particular fairytale you do, that you lack an explanation of the "prime cause"?

And, once again, what "fairytale" are you referring to? I get the impression that you may be barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Egg]

Just. Name. One.

It is a simple request.

If you're not happy with Anglicanism, start with something you are happy with.

Sorry, what was your point, then?

My point was about why people believe the things they do. Would you say that for all the things you believe, you have checked on the evidence, the arguments and reasoning, the editors of whatever journal, the reviewers, to the point of leaving no doubt of the truth of each piece of information, or does trust come in at some point with some of it?

They are mutually exclusive because one observes reality, makes predictions regarding how reality should react if their theory based on observing is correct and then tests whether the predictions are correct. The other makes declarations of how reality should be and then brings in the Spanish Inquisition to torture anyone who feels otherwise.

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Well, they certainly don't in this day and age. Do you have an argument aside from such an obvious straw-man as to why somebody cannot trust the scientific method and still be religious?

 

[DanishDynamite]

And, once again, what "fairytale" are you referring to? I get the impression that you may be barking up the wrong tree.

And I get the impression a tree seems to be barking for no reason.

 

[humber]

Thanks for the effort AkuManiMani, but..

It wasn't so much a metaphor as a different definition of god. As for Einstein being "non-spiritual" I think you are gravely mistaken:
As you can see, by any definition, Einstein was very spiritual.

LORD XENU's original reference to Einstein was to illustrate that religious belief has nothing to do with intelligence. The fact that Newton was an avid alchemist is, itself, a moot point.

Then why mention it as support either way? Newton was also a Theist. So?

Einstein: God does not play dice
Bohr: Don't tell God what to do

Nietsche and Hume, both atheists, also referred to god.

I do not see the connection between what you see as spiritualism and belief in god. Einstein's quotes are evidence perhaps of some idealism, rather than spiritualism, let alone god, personal or otherwise.
I find quoted soundbites to be of little interest, and wonder why so many do. What was important about Einstein's legacy are the mathematical descriptions he left behind, and not his musings upon Viennese Sachertorte.