To the Christians here...

[kittynh]

Oh thanks Nova Land. Look, you want a lesson in a really good religious person, meet Nova Land. You will never think of a "religious" person the same way again. I have been re reading Martin Gardners book "Fads and Fallacies" He's rather open in it about his religous views, at least as far as saying, "No this is NOT what religion is about" when talking about the woo. To be honest, it is a big insult to the thinking Xian!

I won a language award with my post about being a Xian/believer here on the forum. I'm not sure how to access it, but I think it stated with honesty how I am a believer, yet also able to post on this board.

And I think Randi is way cool.

 

[Tricky]

Not really. It's the only way to prove or disprove the situation.

Except you can't prove anything to someone who no longer exists. But then, I don't mean what would it take to prove it to you, because I don't think there's anything other than math that has proofs. I meant, what would it take to convince you. Convincing is something you can only do with a living person.

With words? Pictures?

What can illustrate the possibility or impossibility of a spiritual dimension in a physical world?

Again, I'm not talking possible or impossible, I'm talking about what it would take for you personally to admit you were wrong. I can think of several things that would convince me that I had been wrong, even if it wasn't proof.

 

[I less than three logic]

Death, then darkness.................

This is the kind of idea that prompts the fear of death, and the desire of (or need to believe in) an afterlife. Darkness, nothingness, loneliness; is that really what you think non-existence would be like? I didn’t exist before I was born, and I can’t say those 15 billion years were unpleasant. What would make you think another non-existent state would be any different?

 

[scimystic]

Martin Gardner, a founder member of CSICOP and, through his writings, in many ways a standard bearer of modern scepticism, is a theist.

His defence for his belief in god? "Because it comforts me."

Such a defence completely skirts the epistemological issues surrounding god's existence, and instead applies a utilitarian motivation. Such is, I think, the most rational approach.

'Luthon64

I would contest that the approach is rational, or that it avoids the epistemological issues. I would argue that it is, at best, 'a'rational. A little thought will suffice to show that we can come up with a much larger number of irrational things, than rational things, to believe. Many of these might be comforting to us. For example, I would be comforted right now to believe that tomorrow morning I will find an abandoned suitcase full of $100 bills. I do not believe that I will find such a suitcase, even though it would be comforting to me, and even though it is possible (in exactly the same sense that the existence of Mr. Gardner's God is possible) because I have other and stronger reasons for believing that my belief in my predestination to find the suitcase would be to my detriment. On the basis of these stronger reasons I believe that although I might be blissfully comfortable for a few hours, while maxing out my credit cards in an orgy of consumption, I would be on balance more uncomfortable in the morning when my expectation of finding the suitcase failed to be realized. In the light of this I think that the best justification that can be offered for any entirely subjectively based belief (and I suspect, the justification that Mr. Gardner would offer for his if he could now join our discussion) is that it is value neutral from the point of view of reason. That, while being subjectively comforting, it can be seen to offer no overcompensating objective downside. This is where the question of Mr. Gardner's theism would really get interesting. I think that I can demonstrate a pretty strong objective downside (analagous to my financial situation on the day after my comfortable night of imaginary wealth) to any theism strong enough to be worthy of the term. But I would admit that I loose this ability as the theism shades off into deism.

BR to you and Rocket,

Keith

 

[Tricky]

This is the kind of idea that prompts the fear of death, and the desire of (or need to believe in) an afterlife.

Fear is the greatest tool that religion has. We have all seen death and the finality of it. It is terrifying to think that some day we might not be at all. In my opinion, it is the same unwillingness to accept the nothingness of death that makes the believer, be he Christian, dualist, idealist or other, require something "before the beginning" point of the universe, and require some concept of soul, spirit or karma after the end of life. It is either beyond comprehension or too horrible to accept that it could be otherwise.

from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

A Moment's Halt--a momentary taste
Of Being from the Well amid the Waste--
And Lo!--the phantom Caravan has reach'd
The Nothing it set out from--Oh, make haste!

 

[infornography]

If you need to write off my comments as "bashing" in order to keep your faith, go for it. Ignorance is really the only way to "keep one's faith" as far as religion goes, you know.

Hmm, I find it interesting that you assume I am defending my own faith when I have stated, in what I thought were clear terms, my position earlier in this very thread. I find your assumption to be somewhat telling.

Unless they are not doing it to feel vindicated in the first place. Perhaps they really hold the strong viewpoints that they do, and for good reason?

I am sorry, but I fail to see a good reason for any form of bigotry be it racial or religious, etc.

Wrong. The most popular threads on this forum are by far the ones with lots of heat.

To this I will quote a brilliant post from earlier in this very thread.

When people win an argument by bashing their opponents, they set back the cause of skepticism by demonstrating that insults trump reason. I'd rather win or lose an argument based on the quality of my evidence and my reasoning, not on the quality of my rhetoric. I'll do my best to state my points as clearly as I can, but I wouldn't want to win just because I could come up with more colorful language and wittier put-downs than the person I was disagreeing with.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'd rather see cool well reasoned debates than hot headed and short sighted arguments.

 

[rocketdodger]

Hmm, I find it interesting that you assume I am defending my own faith when I have stated, in what I thought were clear terms, my position earlier in this very thread. I find your assumption to be somewhat telling.

My assumption is that you think everyone's views should be considered and respected with equal weight. When it comes to religion, if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

I am sorry, but I fail to see a good reason for any form of bigotry be it racial or religious, etc.

I don't. I vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'd rather see cool well reasoned debates than hot headed and short sighted arguments.

What about hot headed well reasoned arguments?

 

[infornography]

My assumption is that you think everyone's views should be considered and respected with equal weight. When it comes to religion, if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

I am sorry that you percieve such a problem.

I am sorry, but I fail to see a good reason for any form of bigotry be it racial or religious, etc.

I don't. I vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life.

If you honestly believe that all of the faithful are purposefully interfering in your life then I would say it is you who is being purposefully irrational.

What about hot headed well reasoned arguments?

Those are fine. Unfortunately in this thread you have not succeeded in the second part of that however.

 

[Kopji]

"Because it comforts me"

I enjoy Gardner's books very much, but I cannot respect this justification for belief in God. He is simply wrong. This idea of following what comforts you is anathema to those with mental illness. I don't see how anyone can share his view without sacrificing or abandoning people to a freaky world that asserts there might really be voices in their heads, or the visions might be real.

It better that a few people should suffer in order for faith to prosper? When my child asks me if the voices he hears are God or not, I stand against Gardner, and all who hold the view of comfort as being a guide to truth.

I am here, often imperfectly, to afflict the comforted.
The truth is sometimes a bitter friend but it is the only way.

All things are not possible, some are just crazy: Biology not working as intended, or maybe working in some obscure way that has benefited survival.

Have an extremist day.

 

[rocketdodger]

I am sorry that you percieve such a problem.

So am I, it kind of sucks.

If you honestly believe that all of the faithful are purposefully interfering in your life then I would say it is you who is being purposefully irrational.

Except that virtually by definition all major religions involve interfering with those who lack "faith." Or that the laws where I live exhibit a bit more than 0% religious influence.

Those are fine. Unfortunately in this thread you have not succeeded in the second part of that however.

No, I have. Unfortunately, however, my reasonable questions have gone un-answered by elliotfc and I have nothing better to do for the time being other than flame at the other side.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's not a bad thing for everybody.

Arrogant, pompous, self-important people actually need to do that in order to lend importance to themselves.

So, let's see ... that's humorless, angry, snide, stupid, dishonest, hypocritical, and totally lacking in self-awareness ... I'm impressed that you managed to display almost 30% of your grosser personality defects in such a short post.

 

[infornography]

Except that virtually by definition all major religions involve interfering with those who lack "faith." Or that the laws where I live exhibit a bit more than 0% religious influence.

Just because some practitioners of a religion have imposed their viewpoint or will upon you does not mean that this should be or even logically could be extrapolated to mean all of those who are religious intend to do so.

Honestly, most religious people I have met have a very much live and let live attitude toward those of disagreeing faiths.

Also there is nothing in the definition of religion that means or even implies a need to interfere with others of differing beliefs. Some religions do seem to have such concepts in their holy books but by no means would I say all, or even most major religions qualify in that regard. And even the ones that do can be easily interpreted to mean that those who are ready and interested should be brought into the fold, not those who are spiteful or apathetic.

 

[rocketdodger]

Just because some practitioners of a religion have imposed their viewpoint or will upon you does not mean that this should be or even logically could be extrapolated to mean all of those who are religious intend to do so.

I didn't say impose their viewpoints, I said interfere. This can be as little as trying to give me a flyer on the street or voting for a law based in religion.

Obviously, the level of my bigotry towards some hari-krishnas on campus is very different from that towards islamic extremists.

 

[Kopji]

Just because some practitioners of a religion have imposed their viewpoint or will upon you does not mean that this should be or even logically could be extrapolated to mean all of those who are religious intend to do so.

The point here is that it is religion that motivates the behavior of the few. If the source of the behavior is not dealt with, isn't dealing with the outward symptoms futile?

Honestly, most religious people I have met have a very much live and let live attitude toward those of disagreeing faiths.

Being raised in a tiny little sect of mormonism that almost nobody's ever heard of, I can still agree with you: People are basically nice even when they think you are an apostate, heretic, demon, or worse. It is religion, and not atheists or outsiders that build walls between themselves. Breaking down the walls and being nice to each other will probably destroy religion, the leaders rightly fear tolerance.

Also there is nothing in the definition of religion that means or even implies a need to interfere with others of differing beliefs. Some religions do seem to have such concepts in their holy books but by no means would I say all, or even most major religions qualify in that regard. And even the ones that do can be easily interpreted to mean that those who are ready and interested should be brought into the fold, not those who are spiteful or apathetic.

I think you may have missed his point, which was not the attitude toward those of differing faiths or belief, but that of the faithful toward unbelievers or atheists. A recent US survey affirmed that atheists were honored with designation of least trustworthy or most immoral (I forget which). Oh, I suppose atheists could have voted for themselves as being most immoral but that seems unlikely.

Christianity has lots of nice people in it and is great to have them on the forum. Supportive communities in pursuit of similar goals - if there is a reason for 'religion' it might be that.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I would contest that the approach is rational, or that it avoids the epistemological issues. I would argue that it is, at best, 'a'rational. A little thought will suffice to show that we can come up with a much larger number of irrational things, than rational things, to believe. Many of these might be comforting to us.

I enjoy Gardner's books very much, but I cannot respect this justification for belief in God. He is simply wrong.

Personally, I don't regard Gardner's justification as sufficient either, but it is certainly a necessary one, given the wide array of logical, empirical and epistemological objections to the existence of god. However, I think that one must acknowledge Gardner's more-than-adequate expertise in scientific, logical and philosophical matters, so it would be fairly safe to assume that his justification actually comprises a great many more tentacles, and that we are faced only with the essence of it (c.f. Descartes' cogito, ergo sum). Also, Gardner makes no attempt to assert the actuality of god's existence itself (and thereby he avoids ending up in all sorts of hot water); he merely provides a utilitarian reason for why he himself holds such a belief.

The question of taking comfort from believing that you might imminently receive a suitcase full of cash is not a good analogy. The existence of such suitcases and cash is hardly in question, and, though unlikely, it is not impossible that your belief might find actual validation. In contrast, god's existence is not established.

The point is that if, for example, you choose to believe that lime-green, vanilla-flavoured unicorns with pink hooves exist, then the most acceptable defence for your belief, absent any empirical or logical evidence for it, is that it affords you some practical and/or personal advantage. With this in mind, it would be presumptuous to deny that Gardner derives the comfort he claims to. Also, it is necessary to distinguish between a belief itself and the consequences it may provoke. There is nothing in principle wrong with holdingthe aforementioned belief in unicorns; however, if that belief includes the idea that household pets are preventing the unicorns from achieving their purpose and this prompts you to embark on a large-scale cat and dog extermination campaign, then that becomes a rather different matter.

'Luthon64

 

[infornography]

I didn't say impose their viewpoints, I said interfere. This can be as little as trying to give me a flyer on the street or voting for a law based in religion.

Obviously, the level of my bigotry towards some hari-krishnas on campus is very different from that towards islamic extremists.

While there are quite a few Christians who do vote for such laws and hand out flyers, I know of quite a few myself who vote against any law or leader that is obviously trying to push a religious or moralist agenda. One in particular has made it his personal crusade so to speak.

The point here is that it is religion that motivates the behavior of the few. If the source of the behavior is not dealt with, isn't dealing with the outward symptoms futile?

This is akin to saying that 'if we cannot cure humanity from consisting of humans, then isn't trying to prevent murder futile?'

Some sources cannot really be eliminated even if they should be. If it is not feasable to eliminate the source then should we ignore the symptom? It is best to moderate the symptoms knowing full well that completely eliminating them will be practically impossible but at least you can stabilize the condition so to speak.

Breaking down the walls and being nice to each other will probably destroy religion, the leaders rightly fear tolerance.

I doubt it. I have known quite a few wikkans for whom the closest thing they have to a religious leader is the book that introduced them to the faith and it advocates tolerance and acceptance. Faith is a much deeper thing than just the concept of 'us versus them' and it will take more than tolerance and acceptance to seriously diminish those who keep faith.

I think you may have missed his point, which was not the attitude toward those of differing faiths or belief, but that of the faithful toward unbelievers or atheists. A recent US survey affirmed that atheists were honored with designation of least trustworthy or most immoral (I forget which). Oh, I suppose atheists could have voted for themselves as being most immoral but that seems unlikely.

I am familiar with the poll you quote but I am more addressing the general anti-religious statements from rocketdodger. Generalized statements of any kind irritate me. Generalized statements stemming from bigotry or hatred, especially from one who claims to be rational and a skeptic, really annoy me.

As for the ignorance of the majority... well a well known psychological phenomenon is that most people will believe what they are told if they do not have any immediately conflicting information available. Many of them are told that atheists believe in no god because they have no morals and few of them realize that they have met an "evil" atheist. I do not hate them for this ignorance nor does it really bother me.

Christianity has lots of nice people in it and is great to have them on the forum. Supportive communities in pursuit of similar goals - if there is a reason for 'religion' it might be that.

Actually I advocate religion for the people that need it for a variety of reasons. One good example is people like my brother. He was falling in with a very bad group of kids when he was in high school/jr high. He almost joined a gang and almost got himself killed a couple of times. Then he discovered religion. Now he is married happily with a great son and I respect him more now than I ever did before he was Christian.

This is just one example of when religion really helped a person improve their lives. There are many others. Just because you or I do not need a comforting delusion or faith based belief does not mean that others do not need it in their lives. Many people feel the need for faith and there is insufficient evidence for me to proclaim that it is merely a security blanket or actual sprituality so I withhold my judgement of them. Even if I were sure that it was nothing more than a crutch or security blanket, I would still respect them as people and respect their beliefs as long as they respected my position as well.

 

[elliotfc]

Oh yeah, in regards to predictions, religion also makes predictions.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If you will look under the word "lion" in your dictionary, you will find no mention of the fact that they eat zebras, nor is it "inherent" in the concept of a lion. Would it be "dogmatic" of me, therefore, to assert that they do indeed eat zebras?

No, that is a factual point. Lions exist. Zebras exist.

Rationality does not exist as a lion exists, or a zebras exists.

No, elliot, I have observed that there is such an association.

No, there is such a thing as predictive power. I agree. You associate that with rationality. You don't have to do that. You decide it's a good association. We can discuss that. Is in inherent? No. Rational thinkers of the past who are *declared to be rationalists* have not made such an assertion. You have.

Ironically, this is something you've made up. As amateur psychologists always come across as complete twats, I shall not speculate on your motives for so doing.

You better not. Something tells me you'd be absolutely wrong if you tried.

So don't. Thanks.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

I am familiar with the poll you quote but I am more addressing the general anti-religious statements from rocketdodger. Generalized statements of any kind irritate me. Generalized statements stemming from bigotry or hatred, especially from one who claims to be rational and a skeptic, really annoy me.

But my statements are not generalized at all. Perhaps you think that when I say "interfere" I mean that in a negative way -- I don't at all. In fact, most religious people want to interfere with others in a positive way, and this is what I was refering to when I said it was almost in the definition of major religions.

My problem with this is that I don't want interference at all. I am at a place in life right now where I only trust selfish people who can benefit greatly from letting me be. I don't trust anyone that wants to steal from me or harm me, and I don't trust anyone who wants to give to me or help me.

Furthermore, aside from my own twisted views, it is clear that the main problem with interfering with others out of benevolence is that your idea of benevolence is perhaps different from theirs.

 

[infornography]

But my statements are not generalized at all.

Ok, you want generalized... here we go.

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.

-- we deal in facts, logic, and reason, and all of these are veritable poison to the religious.

Ignorance is really the only way to "keep one's faith" as far as religion goes, you know.

When it comes to religion, if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Except that virtually by definition all major religions involve interfering with those who lack "faith."

If you dispute all of these statements as being generalized then perhaps you should go look up the word. They definitely seem to me to indicate that you are applying these beliefs of yours to religious people in general in an if not entirely inclusive way, then an almost completely inclusive bent.

Furthermore, aside from my own twisted views, it is clear that the main problem with interfering with others out of benevolence is that your idea of benevolence is perhaps different from theirs.

Some say there is a fine line between skepticism and cynicism. I think perhaps you have crossed that line a long time ago and can no longer see it in your rear view mirror.