Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[blauregen]

But in asking it, you stated a premise that isn't (in my opinion) true.

That what is purported to be the scientific method is unfit to lead to concepts like equality or ahimsa? Then i must have misunderstood the principle. In other threads here about truth from religions, about science making the belief in God obsolete and others, i got the impression that only from observation and deduction, from objective and observable facts, anything of value can come.

Aside from this I just tossed in a few possible answers to accept or reject.

That the rest should be discarded as delusions, nonsense and woo vexed me a little bit, so I admit guilt of provocation by angled phrasing.

I can see easily how you can reach an idea of equality if for example you start to negate an accepted principle that the best adapted procreates, that there are nobles and peasants by virtue of kind. From this initial leap of faith you develop your dream and you try to get your dream (an initial falsehood) accepted as consentual truth. As a premise for people to act upon.

I can easily see how the observation of strategies for defense and conquer and the negation of this principle can lead you to assume ahimsa ( a religious concept Ghandi based his idea of satyagraha, his philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance, on ) to be a viable principle. But again I see a leap of faith, where an initial falsehood, a negation of an accepted principle became for some a consentual truth that actually worked out.

Of course you can develop reasons why the latter is an effective strategy, based on sociological and psychological discoveries, but I doubt that this was Ghandi did, and it certainly wasn't what he preached.

But what is irrational about King's speech?

That the initial premise was not observable nor deductable by scientific means. Equality had to be accepted as a consentual truth for people to act upon it, before his dream could work. In a sense a non-truth, had to become a truth.

You have to ask 'What If?' instead of 'What and how is?' for this. You have to make an unproven assumption, and you not only have too gain supporting or contradicting evidence, you have to change beliefs and perceptions. You have to adapt reality to your model.

Of course it doesn't always work out. In most cases you get a lot of silly stuff from misunderstood discoveries or negation of accepted premises. A whole load of silly stuff came from false assumptions about the role of the observer in a part of quantum mechanics. But sometimes the silly dreams work out.

Oh, nicely done. Yes, obviously the gist of my post is that I don't want society to be a better place. Seriously, you can't see what a cheap shot that is?

I can. I am no saint, so I repaid your offer of compassion (I am really sorry for you), in kind by asserting that you of course are free to discard dreams. Neither do I seriously think that you either have to be completely irrational or to forfeit dreams, nor do I really assume you to be bare of ideals and emotions.

There's nothing irrational or unscientific or askeptical about having goals and hopes. How could science have progressed if scientists just said, "well, we can't [prevent smallpox, go to the moon, etc.] right now, so no point in trying"?

I agree. I just wanted to know whether people on this board would too. I was wondering whether this heavy focus on skepticism, the rejection of any ideas from religious sources, the summary disqualification of anything outside accepted scientific theories, had created a tendency to -figuratively spoken- throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[blauregen]

Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book on this subject - Unweaving the Rainbow.

Thank you. The library had it.

 

[blauregen]

We are often asked how we provide this or that, but perhaps we should start asking what it is that religion offers that we don't.

I think this is a very good idea. Not only to get a more wholesome perspective, but also for the very pragmatic reason, that it is easier for people to like and accept atheists, if they do not only come around as negators of beliefs and principles held to be truth, but also as a group who can offer alternatives.

 

[articulett]

People don't like and accept atheists because they have a prejudice that people like you foster... when people believe that all good comes from god... then they think there is no good in those who don't believe in god... they imagine nihilism and lack of emotion and immorality or dry conversations-- it's a lie... it's a lie that religions NEED the faithful to believe in. Atheists don't need to work on their "image" any more than those who don't believe in astrology do. The image is in the minds of the faithful and they NEED to see atheism a certain way so they can feel good and noble about their faith and not like the delusional folks that they imagine those who believe other woo are. The faithful need to worry more about how their holier than thou ignorance reflects on them... not telling us what we can do to make them "accept" us. We're not responsible for their delusions or the fact that reality doesn't match want they want to believe it does.

 

[Dunstan]

I agree. I just wanted to know whether people on this board would too. I was wondering whether this heavy focus on skepticism, the rejection of any ideas from religious sources, the summary disqualification of anything outside accepted scientific theories, had created a tendency to -figuratively spoken- throw the baby out with the bath water.

Well, it's a little unfair to complain about the "heavy focus on skepticism" on a board about skepticism.

But anyway, I would encourage you to look around this board for a little longer, and not just in the Religion and Philosophy and General Skepticism parts, but elsewhere. I think you'll get a different, and more well-rounded, impression of the people here.

 

[Lonewulf]

That the rest should be discarded as delusions, nonsense and woo vexed me a little bit, so I admit guilt of provocation by angled phrasing.

When someone makes a claim that something is true, without providing any evidence for this claim because it's "common sense", it is the job of the skeptic to say, "Wait, where's the evidence"? This is how things work.

There are some things, such as personal opinion and perhaps some political opinions, where scientific thought does not quite have it's place. However, religious belief in itself does not quite have a place here.

I can see easily how you can reach an idea of equality if for example you start to negate an accepted principle that the best adapted procreates, that there are nobles and peasants by virtue of kind. From this initial leap of faith you develop your dream and you try to get your dream (an initial falsehood) accepted as consentual truth. As a premise for people to act upon.

I can easily see how the observation of strategies for defense and conquer and the negation of this principle can lead you to assume ahimsa ( a religious concept Ghandi based his idea of satyagraha, his philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance, on ) to be a viable principle. But again I see a leap of faith, where an initial falsehood, a negation of an accepted principle became for some a consentual truth that actually worked out.

Of course you can develop reasons why the latter is an effective strategy, based on sociological and psychological discoveries, but I doubt that this was Ghandi did, and it certainly wasn't what he preached.

For every Gandhi, I can give you a million other religious figures that either exist in obscurity or in infamy. The reason why is simple: When you're relying on a non-skeptical outlook and assert something true thanks only to religious belief, then you can assert anything as true. Including that condom use is horrible to people in AIDS-ridden countries, for instance, or to families that really don't need an extra mouth to feed, although this doesn't quite affect Mother Theresa's fame.

However, it is perfectly reasonable to see that it is possible, in certain situations, to use such things such as nonviolent protest. In fact, many non-religious based groups have used nonviolent protest for many many years; Martin Luther King and Gandhi did not quite entirely invent the concept, although they are famous for it.

However, one thing I'd ask is this: Is the act of nonviolence more or less admirable when it comes from a specific religious dogma?

 

[articulett]

Blaugregen, in addition to reading more of this forum as Dunstan suggested, don't look to confirm your bias. Look to test the null hypothesis... look to prove yourself wrong. In my opinion this group has as much or more of any of the qualities you imagine coming from theism and the majority is nothing like what you stereotype atheists to be. How much have you read anyhow? Have you read anything in the forum community?

There are some very brilliant, poignant, artistic, kind, depthful, hysterical, and heartfelt people here... often rolled into one-- from all over the world-- of all ages... getting along pretty damn well for the most part and communicating on a variety of subjects.

With your stereotyping, you insult us as a group... perhaps you may wish to be specific about who bugs you and why... and then to respect that person's opinion of your opinion the way you want your opinion respected.

It is a skeptic forum... we probe ideas based on their value... the evidence behind them... religious sources are as "valuable" as any other self appointed authority on the divine or supernatural... nothing is "disqualified"-- but if there is no evidence behind it, then it's not really suitable for a conversation amongst skeptics... believers are free to associate with other believers or keep their beliefs private-- or to discuss them here. But they cannot force us to find them believable or respect-worthy. You want some brands of religion treated differently than other woo because you've come to associate it with "good things"-- but you've made no case for that. You've just imagined that atheists don't have those qualities that religion supposedly facilitates.

 

[blauregen]

When someone makes a claim that something is true, without providing any evidence for this claim because it's "common sense", it is the job of the skeptic to say, "Wait, where's the evidence"? This is how things work.

To which I happily agree. We have to differ here. First we have to see what of religion, wild philosophy, dreams and fiction,all without any observable evidence might be a good and valuable idea. And each and every one of those has to be viewed skeptically. I actually stated that the scientific method is the best for this job. I honestly believe that it beats reading tea leaves by far for this purpose.

The second is spreading the meme, which is what Ghandi did with a principle that can be traced back thousands of years, but which only became an important part of the public counscioussness, due to him and King preaching. While it still isn't a truth in the only sense that for a while seemed respected here, it became a belief common enough that it actually changed society for the better.

However, one thing I'd ask is this: Is the act of nonviolence more or less admirable when it comes from a specific religious dogma?

In itself neither. You would have to provide a context if you wanted to judge the motivation. In a framework that values trust and belief,non-violence as a principle of faith would likely be valued higher. In a framework assigning more value to reasoning a motivation deriving from this would likely be seen as having more merit.

The earliest mentioning of non-violence as a principle i am aware of is found in vedic religion, and the most concise expression in my eyes in Buddhism. Therefore I regard it as a religious principle. It could have been derived from pure reasoning too.

 

[articulett]

Regarding "exaltation" and whether skepticism has it or offers it, I suggest you listen to Sciam's podcast which featured James Randi recently: http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=53FC5DB9-CC9E-A00C-760A7F0BD708BA85

I think what reality offers is way richer and more useful than religion. Non violence may have been mentioned in religion... but it didn't "come from" religion. It came from humans thinking... it's all there in science and skepticism... the thinking is just honed and refined to focus on goals and not confused or infused with imaginary elements. I think its a false belief to think that religions or religious teachings offer something that can't be had equally or better on a more truthful basis. You don't need to appeal to magic to encourage non-violence... you just need to recognize that all humans have the same feelings as you do.

It doesn't have to be "mysterious" to be moving and inspiring, you know. I t certainly doesn't have to be based on faith or some wants of some invisible man. Real people count more than the imaginary ones.

 

[Lonewulf]

The second is spreading the meme, which is what Ghandi did with a principle that can be traced back thousands of years, but which only became an important part of the public counscioussness, due to him and King preaching. While it still isn't a truth in the only sense that for a while seemed respected here, it became a belief common enough that it actually changed society for the better.

What does this have to do with science, though? Carl Sagan used the power of the beauty of language in the spreading of his memes, and his methods weren't incredibly different than Martin Luther King. I wouldn't call him a "preacher", but at the very least he sought to educate and put beauty to simple scientific ideas, as well as his personal ideals and his own dreams of perhaps achieving contact with alien life.

Society was changed for the better, but not innately because of Martin Luther King's preaching. You talk about context and needing to know details, well if all you see are MLK's words, you fail to understand the overall context. Society was changed for the better not just because his words were pretty, but because innately we all agree with his overall message; that hurting others just because the color of their skin, even when they are no more incapable of thought, reason, emotion or ideas than men with other kinds of skin, is wrong. In fact, his message has been spread even before he ever existed, and while I would call him an important figure, I wouldn't say that he exists in a vacuum. (I have to note, by the way, that Thomas Paine had quite a few interesting things to say on the subject of slavery and even racism...)

I just don't quite get where you're coming from here, and why you seem to be putting so much emphasis on the ways words are used. No one is advocating removing the use of words, or the encouragement of ideals. No one.

In itself neither. You would have to provide a context if you wanted to judge the motivation. In a framework that values trust and belief,non-violence as a principle of faith would likely be valued higher. In a framework assigning more value to reasoning a motivation deriving from this would likely be seen as having more merit.

The earliest mentioning of non-violence as a principle i am aware of is found in vedic religion, and the most concise expression in my eyes in Buddhism. Therefore I regard it as a religious principle. It could have been derived from pure reasoning too.

This isn't just a chicken and the egg scenario, this has become a "is a chicken an egg?" scenario. Even if the idea first started as a religious principle, that doesn't make anyone that follows a similar idea to be following an innately religious principle. Those who engage in nonviolence protest do not have to believe in God or some spiritual entity in order to enact it out, so I don't quite get the point of calling it innately a "religious principle". If you want to regard it as that, that's just fine, but pardon me if I'm not very interested.

However, I would say that pursuing nonviolence for the sake of nonviolence is unwise. However, while I know MLK hinted that nonviolence should be pursued to the absolute extreme from what I've read, Gandhi from what I know, never advocated it as an absolutist position. But I digress.

I appreciate ideals that come out of a genuine love for the fellow man, not out of the desire to please the divine, personally. It seems that you might disagree, but that's okay.

But I have to ask: If an illusion is pursued, in order to please the divine... instead of out of genuine love for mankind, and genuine desire to better mankind... who exactly is being exalted? And what keeps others, claiming the same love for the same divine, from leading you to a path that can easily cause more harm than good to those that you would claim to exalt? If you embrace illusion over reality, then you cannot judge something on a merit other than that; the merits of illusion.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

snip...
However, it is perfectly reasonable to see that it is possible, in certain situations, to use such things such as nonviolent protest. In fact, many non-religious based groups have used nonviolent protest for many many years; Martin Luther King and Gandhi did not quite entirely invent the concept, although they are famous for it.
...snip

snip...
The second is spreading the meme, which is what Ghandi did with a principle that can be traced back thousands of years, but which only became an important part of the public counscioussness, due to him and King preaching.
...snip...
The earliest mentioning of non-violence as a principle i am aware of is found in vedic religion, and the most concise expression in my eyes in Buddhism. Therefore I regard it as a religious principle. It could have been derived from pure reasoning too.

King learned his lessons of passive resistance principally from Gandhi. IIRC, in his autobiography My Experiments With Truth, Gandhi was pretty explicit about where he got much of his own inspiration for passive resistance -- Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience.

Thoreau was a transcendentalist. Let's join Lonewulf and give credit where credit is due.

 

[krazyKemist]

I think what reality offers is way richer and more useful than religion. Non violence may have been mentioned in religion... but it didn't "come from" religion. It came from humans thinking... it's all there in science and skepticism... the thinking is just honed and refined to focus on goals and not confused or infused with imaginary elements. I think its a false belief to think that religions or religious teachings offer something that can't be had equally or better on a more truthful basis. You don't need to appeal to magic to encourage non-violence... you just need to recognize that all humans have the same feelings as you do.

It doesn't have to be "mysterious" to be moving and inspiring, you know. I t certainly doesn't have to be based on faith or some wants of some invisible man. Real people count more than the imaginary ones.

That is called empathy. Everybody who is not a sociopath has empathy to some degree. It comes from humans having enough imagination (and intelligence) to sense, in a way, how another human feels pain. Ironically, that quality also makes us very efficient at torture.

The earliest mentioning of non-violence as a principle i am aware of is found in vedic religion, and the most concise expression in my eyes in Buddhism. Therefore I regard it as a religious principle. It could have been derived from pure reasoning too.

Religion is a tool of control. It can be used for evil or good purposes. But do we really need such a tool of control ? Are we better off with it than without it ?

All religions have their downturn, even hinduism (think caste system) and buddhism (think sarin gas in subway). Would it have been better, for example, if Gandhi's non-violence movement had been entirely secular ? I'm of the opinion that yes, it would have. India is a multicultural, multitreligious country. Insistance on the movement being an Hindu thing provoked untold violence that lasts to this day in India. Sikh independantism (which crashed a plane full of innocent people over here in Canada), Tamil independantism, murder of muslim communities (and hindu communities in Pakistan), displacement of whole populations in and out of Pakistan and India are the results of this.

Who protests against this horror ? People, religious or not, speaking out from their own humanity. People, who thought for themselves, often contrary to their religious leaders, that what is done is evil. What we need is more people who think for themselves, not more people who blindly follow gurus, wherever
they might bring them. Religious revelation runs contrary to this. It puts your thoughts in the hands of others. However comfortable this might be, it allows untold misery to be inflicted on innocents without so much as a doubt flitting briefly in the minds of those doing it. As somebody said, the evil will always do evil, but for the good to do evil, that takes religion.

 

[TheAntiLuddite]

If one can't find something in the eyes of children that inspires you to want a better, more empowered future (with real human efficacy; not merely comfortable lies) for them, then I cannot help but question one's humanity. Religious "meaning" and "exaltation" are lies (a hijacking of our humanity by dogmas) intended to distract us from what is really important, really meaningful. The future; always the future.

Nominated.

Yes, I suppose I would like to see certain aspects of religion go away, and it must be acknowledged that if those aspects are no more, religion itself will largely be no more. I don't think blind faith, blind trust, or blind allegiance are good for us. I don't think taking our morals from a book we wrote, but ascribed to a god, is a good thing. The book never seems to change, but we do. How is that good, how is that progressive? How does that acknowledge our worth as a species?

So yes, I guess I would like to see religion go away, if it comes to that. Religion doesn't seem to want us to grow, to learn, to improve. Science does.

Yes. I prefer science.

Also nominated.


I love this forum. It's like dim sum for the mind.

Or tapas if you don't like Chinese cuisine.

 

[Lonewulf]

So, what, none of mine have been nominated yet?

Sigh.

 

[articulett]

You can nominate your own.

So how many people have you nominated lately?

And who wants to be nominated when Dr. A already has two nominations... both stellar?

 

[slingblade]

I know. It's just torture.






Vote for me; serve him right!

 

[articulett]

You can always hope he splits his fan base allowing others a chance at winning.

 

[dglas]

I'm more interested in the subject matter than the so-called language award. That's why I don't nominate posts - I see it at a meaningless enterprise. Unfortunately these forums have no real measure of the merit of posts. Instead we have a style over substance popularity game. I mentioned the nominations only because it seems that this thread is getting a seemingly disproportionate share - almost as if the subject matter were of some import, which I think it is. It is certainly of import to skepticism's and science's detractors.

Skepticism is a critical tool, but it's a critical tool that opens up possibilities. Far too many people focus far too much on the critical tool instead of possibilities for much, much better than we currently have. The status quo argues that all it is is a critical tool, and here we are detailing otherwise. Science is a building tool with skepticism at its core - an incredible powerhouse of potential, proven and trustworthy. Whole orders of magnitude better than anything that has come before. There is no harm is indicating why we find this potential inspiring. It couples hope with real possibility instead of wisps of vain wishes.

For my own part, I look at religious thinking and ask, "Is that all it offers? Just an eternity of self-loathing and submission to mere philosophies? Generation after generation of slaves to dogma?" And then I see science and skepticism and worlds of possibility open. How could I look back?

 

[articulett]

I know this isn't about the language award... but the little arrows next to the quotes have lead me to threads I wouldn't normally read and to posters I hadn't taken notice of before. It's a good place for new posters to find nuggets.

And dglas, as you know, I think what reality/scientific naturalism/and humanism offer is way way more glorious than the delusions and myths and childish thinking proffered by religion. Religions are "training wheels" at best for "exaltation".

The truth can be refined, honed, shared, passed on, and made into a legacy for the future. Faith pretends to do that while denigrating those who are doing that.

 

[ExMinister]

In terms of an exalting rationalistic world vision, I recommend Sam Harris, "The End of Faith." In it, he discusses at great length his vision of a science of good and evil/ethics and how religions are unhelpful, even destructive, in this regard. In essence, according to Harris we are all in the position to affect the happiness or suffering of others and as such we are obligated to turn our collective focus away from conflicting religious morality issues (which often have proven to increase rather than decrease human suffering), and onto improving the happiness and alleviating the suffering of other sentient beings. Very inspirational. Dawkins also recommends it.