Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why should religion get a free pass?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 46 of 112 (466602)
05-15-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
05-15-2008 5:14 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Do you consider a belief to be nutty simply because it lacks empirical evidence?
I only consider them truly nutty, when they have been falsified yet someone still actually believes them.
I think you could exhaust entire threads establishing the criteria for a belief to be considered nutty, but I don't think we have to establish those criteria to be having this conversation, so I'll just say that I think your lone criterion doesn't cover enough ground. For instance, going back to an example I used earlier today, the idea that there really are little green men living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri is nutty but certainly not falsified.
Concerning what the OP means by challenging a belief, I think that depends upon context. If someone introduces a nutty belief at a church social, I'm always going to just go with the flow of conversation and not give any voice to the challenges that go on in my own mind. It would be a different matter if someone tried to introduce the nutty belief at a school board meeting, in which case I'd probably be outspoken. But in both cases I believe I am challenging the belief.
Even Dawkins is very restrained with his criticism in the presence of expressions of sincere religious beliefs in many contexts. As militant an atheist as he is, he still isn't the type of person to disrupt dinner parties or church socials, and neither are most people. There are many situations where challenging someone's religious beliefs overtly is inappropriate and probably counterproductive, too, and saying nothing in such circumstances doesn't seem equivalent to a free pass.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-15-2008 5:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by helenavm, posted 05-16-2008 4:16 PM Percy has not replied

  
helenavm
Junior Member (Idle past 5794 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 04-18-2008


Message 47 of 112 (466724)
05-16-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Percy
05-15-2008 7:54 PM


quote:
Catholic Scientist writes:
Do you consider a belief to be nutty simply because it lacks empirical evidence?
I only consider them truly nutty, when they have been falsified yet someone still actually believes them.
Percy writes:
I think you could exhaust entire threads establishing the criteria for a belief to be considered nutty, but I don't think we have to establish those criteria to be having this conversation, so I'll just say that I think your lone criterion doesn't cover enough ground. For instance, going back to an example I used earlier today, the idea that there really are little green men living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri is nutty but certainly not falsified.
Certainly if modern psychology is a valid science, it can help explain distinctions between beliefs based on mental illness(nutty) and beliefs based on faith (not nutty, unless the position is that all religious people are mentally ill).
It should also be able to determine whether the faith itself is a product of a mental illness. It seems to me that beliefs that fall into this category clearly DON'T get a free pass. Witness the FLDS group in Texas, and the cult led by that Michael Travesser that thinks he's the second coming. Or the suicide cult several years ago that believed that their souls would be spirited away by a comet.
My point is the beliefs that get a free pass are usually the ones based on beliefs that are common to all religions, such as belief in some higher power and/or an afterlife.
Some beliefs DO seem to ring more true than others. If this were not the case, why are there so many believers in God/Allah/Jehovah etc. and no long lasting and widespread cults to the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
The following article does a good job of addressing this.It's a NY Times article from last year about the work of Scott Atran, who posits a Darwinian approach to religious beliefs. It makes sense whether you are religious or not, IMHO.
Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - The New York Times

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 05-15-2008 7:54 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rahvin, posted 05-16-2008 6:00 PM helenavm has replied
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 05-16-2008 6:16 PM helenavm has not replied
 Message 51 by Larni, posted 05-18-2008 8:25 AM helenavm has not replied
 Message 52 by Fosdick, posted 05-18-2008 11:36 AM helenavm has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 48 of 112 (466736)
05-16-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by helenavm
05-16-2008 4:16 PM


Certainly if modern psychology is a valid science, it can help explain distinctions between beliefs based on mental illness(nutty) and beliefs based on faith (not nutty, unless the position is that all religious people are mentally ill).
There's very little distinction, helenavm. It's typically a distinction of popularity, meaning "if enough people believe in a completely insane idea, we can't call it insane any more."
That's basically the very topic of this thread: if one type of belief based upon no evidence is considered "crazy," why does it magically stop being crazy when we call it a "religion?"
Scientologists believe that human suffering is the result of brainwashed alien souls who were carted off to Earth in suspended animation and then dumped into the Hawaiian volcanoes with a few nuclear warheads for good measure. They are frequently regarded as "nutty" for this belief, because they have no evidence to support it.
Christians believe that human suffering is the result of eating a piece of fruit, and that their deity sacrificed himself to himself over a rule he made in the first place. This is typically not regarded as "nutty," despite the fact that Christians have no objective evidence to support their belief.
Why is one nutty, and the other not? Could it be popularity? Could it be that the majority in the Western world are Christians, and really really don't want to admit that their beliefs have no evidence to back them up?
Could it be the exact same reason Creationists like Buzsaw and ICANT constantly try to paint science as being just as faith-based as religion in a giant "you do it tooooo!" argument, so that they don't have to admit that they can't support their beliefs?
It should also be able to determine whether the faith itself is a product of a mental illness.
How so? We don't have the ability to determine the cause of a person's beliefs by scanning their brains, you know. Gve us a few more years. Schizophrenia for example is diagnosed based on behaviors, not on some super-Star-Trek brainscan that tells us whether the voices are "god" or "crazy."
It seems to me that beliefs that fall into this category clearly DON'T get a free pass. Witness the FLDS group in Texas, and the cult led by that Michael Travesser that thinks he's the second coming. Or the suicide cult several years ago that believed that their souls would be spirited away by a comet.
Once again: what's the difference between a cult and a religion?
Popularity. At some point a movement gains critical mass, and it becomes politically inconvenient, or even socially rude to challenge the group's beliefs no matter how nonsensical because it would "deeply offend" that group. It's fine to call 1, 5, 10, or even 500 people "delusional." It's not fine to call greater than 90% of your own country's population "delusional," even if it's true by the exact same test.
My point is the beliefs that get a free pass are usually the ones based on beliefs that are common to all religions, such as belief in some higher power and/or an afterlife.
Those are not actually common to all religions. Buddhism, for example, does not acknowledge any "higher being." Many religions don't even consider an afterlife. Scientology also does not believe in a "higher being" in the way Christianity does.
Or did you mean "common to all flavors of Judeo-Christianity?" Because that's what Creationists usually mean when they talk about religion.
Some beliefs DO seem to ring more true than others. If this were not the case, why are there so many believers in God/Allah/Jehovah etc. and no long lasting and widespread cults to the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
The FSM is not a serious religion, helenavm - it's a mockery of religion. It's used as an analogy for all unfalsifiable, faith-based nonsense beliefs. It illustrates that, in the absence of evidence, any and all speculation regardless of how completely insane is equally valid. It is a demonstration that the beliefs of Christians are just as completely bonkers as belief in the FSM, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or fairies, or anything else from imaginationland. And it's rather difficult to have "lasting and widespread cults" for a deity that was only imagined a few years ago. You, like most Christians, obviously didn't get the joke.
Your beliefs likely "ring true" because you were raised from birth believing in them, or at the very least surrounded by people who did. You'll note that Christianity is not all that popular in China, for instance, where people don't spend their entire lives hearing about Christian beliefs whether they want to or not. Traditional Chinese religions still hold the majority there. Likewise, in India, Hindus are still the overwhelming majority, and Judeo-Christian converts are extremely rare. There is no "inherent belief" in the Judeao-Christian deity as you are claiming - this is solidly proven by the fact that missionaries typically have a difficult time gaining converts in non-Christian areas. Popularity is irrelevant to any connection to objective reality.
Besides that, some of the offshoots of Judaism (Islam and Mormonism in particular) are so incredibly different from Protestant Christianity or Catholicism that lumping them all together in the way you have is not really appropriate. They have some of the very basics in common, but when it really comes down to it, you may as well just lump all of monotheism together. Hell, Mormons aren't even strictly speaking monotheistic. Ask a Muslim why they call Christians "infidels." Your argument is silly, based solely on your personal experiences and not from objective facts.
Your argument, as best I can tell, is that "Common beliefs get a free pass even if they are identical to beliefs commonly identified as delusional, because they are popular. Also, they are popular becasue they have some undefinable ring of truth to them - you know, becasue my beliefs are not delusional, even though I have no objective evidence for them."
The first argument is simply an Appeal to Popularity - it's a logical fallacy. Arguments to not gain logical cohesion or factual correctness by being popular - truth is not a democracy. Whether an argument is valid or not is the same whether 10 people or 1,000,000 agree. Was the Earth actually flat when everyone thought it was a few hundred years ago?
The second argument is a bare assertion - and a false one, because your "ring of truth" doesn't gain you converts in areas that are not already highly Christian.
You're simply defending your sacred cow, helenavm, and you have failed to provide a reason to give religions a free pass (and it's typically the case that only certain religions are given that free pass).
The fact is, religions are given a free pass because the majority of the world is religious, and to admit that one religion is essentially a mass delusion would mean that your religion could also be a mass delusion. This is unacceptable, and accusing a significant (or majority) percentage of the population of being delusional is socially and politically unacceptable even if it is factually correct - and so religions are granted a free pass.
That's all. Religious beliefs are completely indistinguishable from delusional beliefs except in their popularity, and rather than affirming any sort of connection to reality, this simply shields them from criticism behind a wall of political correctness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by helenavm, posted 05-16-2008 4:16 PM helenavm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by helenavm, posted 05-17-2008 3:49 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 49 of 112 (466740)
05-16-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by helenavm
05-16-2008 4:16 PM


Some beliefs DO seem to ring more true than others. If this were not the case, why are there so many believers in God/Allah/Jehovah etc. and no long lasting and widespread cults to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
To be fair to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodliness) he has only had 3 years to build up a following since going public, despite rumours of underground Pastafarian cults over previous centuries. When you compare that to the ~2000 years for Jesus and considerably more for Jehovah I'd say the FSM isn't making a bad showing. I certainly don't see why longevity should be seen as proof of veracity.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by helenavm, posted 05-16-2008 4:16 PM helenavm has not replied

  
helenavm
Junior Member (Idle past 5794 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 04-18-2008


Message 50 of 112 (466788)
05-17-2008 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rahvin
05-16-2008 6:00 PM


quote:
Rahvin writes:
There is no "inherent belief" in the Judeao-Christian deity as you are claiming - this is solidly proven by the fact that missionaries typically have a difficult time gaining converts in non-Christian areas. Popularity is irrelevant to any connection to objective reality.
I wasn't claiming anything about the Judeo-Christian deity, just deities in general. I was making the argument that most peoples have religious beliefs, and the ones most commonly held are the ones that ring the most true to the culture they're in, and therefore will get a free pass, where the ones that seem nutty to the culture will not. I guess I didn't make that clear enough, since you seem to think I was only defending Christianity.
The article I posted before (Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - The New York Times ) talks about possible evolutionary origins of mankind's need or ability to believe in higher powers and souls and such, that our brains somehow may have evolved to accept certain beliefs that help us cope with mortality and loss, and coexistence.
If that has any basis in reality ,it would explain why common religious beliefs get a free pass, because we may have evolved to accept the supernatural mores of our respective cultures. Or it might be complete BS , I posted it hoping someone more educated than myself might have an opinion on it.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Your argument, as best I can tell, is that "Common beliefs get a free pass even if they are identical to beliefs commonly identified as delusional, because they are popular. Also, they are popular because they have some undefinable ring of truth to them - you know, because my beliefs are not delusional, even though I have no objective evidence for them."
Yes, that is part of my argument, that the most common sort of beliefs get a free pass where they are commonly accepted. I am not claiming my own particular beliefs have more of a ring of truth than anyone elses, just that certain ideas seem to ring true for a given society, and that those get the free pass, where the "nutty" ones do not. Since I'm not a scholar of all world religions, I'll have to assume that the other religions you mentioned are given free passes where they are most commonly accepted.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
The fact is, religions are given a free pass because the majority of the world is religious, and to admit that one religion is essentially a mass delusion would mean that your religion could also be a mass delusion. This is unacceptable, and accusing a significant (or majority) percentage of the population of being delusional is socially and politically unacceptable even if it is factually correct - and so religions are granted a free pass.
And there might be a reason why the majority of the world is religious, even if it has nothing to do with the existence of a higher power. The article I posted talks about some theories of how mankind's belief in a spiritual realm might be a function of our brain chemistry which evolved over time. That might be an alternative to the mass delusion hypothesis, and it does explain how religious beliefs can seem plausible where other sorts of fanciful things seem less so, even though the lack of scientific evidence is the same.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Religious beliefs are completely indistinguishable from delusional beliefs except in their popularity, and rather than affirming any sort of connection to reality, this simply shields them from criticism behind a wall of political correctness.
If you know of a study where average religious people and people suffering other delusions usually associated with mental illness are compared side by side, I would certainly be interested in reading it.
Edited by helenavm, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rahvin, posted 05-16-2008 6:00 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 51 of 112 (466888)
05-18-2008 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by helenavm
05-16-2008 4:16 PM


helenavm writes:
why are there so many believers in God/Allah/Jehovah etc. and no long lasting and widespread cults to the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
That would be the cultural genocide performed by these religions in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by helenavm, posted 05-16-2008 4:16 PM helenavm has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 52 of 112 (466898)
05-18-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by helenavm
05-16-2008 4:16 PM


helenavm writes:
why are there so many believers in God/Allah/Jehovah etc. and no long lasting and widespread cults to the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
I thought John Paul I was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He was the last Italian pope.
”HM

A wink's as good as a nudge to a blind horse. ”Eric Idle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by helenavm, posted 05-16-2008 4:16 PM helenavm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by atatty, posted 10-11-2008 4:20 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
atatty
Junior Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 53 of 112 (485773)
10-11-2008 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Fosdick
05-18-2008 11:36 AM


Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
Just read this article (see link) and wondered what to think?
According to a recent study, a new generation of scientists is turning on the evolutionary scientific establishment. According to one participant, “Evolutionists and their dogma have become obstacles to scientific advancement”...
A New Generation of Scientists Turning Against Evolution : Cleveland IMC (((i)))
In a lot of school districts many school board members now want to ban evolution teaching in schools.
Thank you, Al

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Fosdick, posted 05-18-2008 11:36 AM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Agobot, posted 10-11-2008 4:31 PM atatty has not replied
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2008 5:03 PM atatty has not replied
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2008 5:15 PM atatty has not replied
 Message 61 by Larni, posted 10-11-2008 7:35 PM atatty has not replied
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2008 7:57 PM atatty has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 54 of 112 (485775)
10-11-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by atatty
10-11-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
atatty writes:
Just read this article (see link) and wondered what to think?
According to a recent study, a new generation of scientists is turning on the evolutionary scientific establishment. According to one participant, “Evolutionists and their dogma have become obstacles to scientific advancement”...
A New Generation of Scientists Turning Against Evolution : Cleveland IMC (((i)))
In a lot of school districts many school board members now want to ban evolution teaching in schools.
Thank you, Al
The String Theory is fast becoming accepted as fact despite strong resistance from Evolutionists. The String Theory explains the existence of spirit beings, including God and angels. Psychic phenomenon, such as that observed on John Edward’s television programs, is explained by the String Theory. This model of existence includes a place where the deceased and angelic beings coexist with humans on earth.
For god's sake, this is not the humour section LOL
Or did you mean scientists are actually lying about the implications of the String Theory?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by atatty, posted 10-11-2008 4:20 PM atatty has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 112 (485776)
10-11-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by atatty
10-11-2008 4:20 PM


Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution--NOT
The article you cite is typical creationist nonsense.
Why don't you start a new thread here, and use that article as the starting point?
That should generate some great entertainment!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by atatty, posted 10-11-2008 4:20 PM atatty has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 56 of 112 (485779)
10-11-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by atatty
10-11-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
From your article:
The Big Bang Theory is now accepted as scientific fact. Evolutionists fought it because it proves that God created all matter including all the universes, stars and planets.
The String Theory is fast becoming accepted as fact despite strong resistance from Evolutionists. The String Theory explains the existence of spirit beings, including God and angels. Psychic phenomenon, such as that observed on John Edward’s television programs, is explained by the String Theory. This model of existence includes a place where the deceased and angelic beings coexist with humans on earth.
The Big Bang Theory and the String Theory have been created by and developed by Creationists.
Is this a joke? If not, it is truly disgusting. How many lies and misrepresentations do we have here??? I am a cosmologist and string theorist, and there is not one single element of truth here. That is quite impressive from a sick and twisted viewpoint. Are you telling me a CHRISTIAN wrote this?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by atatty, posted 10-11-2008 4:20 PM atatty has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 112 (485781)
10-11-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Larni
05-09-2008 2:53 AM


No Free Pass To Biblical Fundamentalism Necessary
Larni writes:
So, my question is: does religion get a 'free pass' and is it ok to give religion a free pass when it makes such extraordinary claims e.g. that we can reincarnate?
I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Many religions expect and get a free pass from their advocates. However that is not the case with Biblical fundamentalism which corroborates the Biblical record with actual archaeological, prophetical fulfillment, sociological, historical and other observational evidence such as complex design.
The Book of Mormon/Mormonism, the Koran/Islam, Zen Buddism, RC Hierarchal Vaticanism, Shintoism, Hinduism etc are some examples coming to mind which expect and get a free pass from their adherents.
It is true, however, that as with other hypotheses and theory, non-empirical and debatable aspects of Biblical fundamentalism exist.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Larni, posted 05-09-2008 2:53 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 10-11-2008 6:58 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2008 11:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 78 by Blue Jay, posted 10-12-2008 8:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 58 of 112 (485790)
10-11-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
10-11-2008 5:31 PM


Re: No Free Pass To Biblical Fundamentalism Necessary
Hi Buzz. Any chance of you providing evidence of your assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2008 5:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2008 7:24 PM Larni has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 112 (485794)
10-11-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Larni
10-11-2008 6:58 PM


Re: No Free Pass To Biblical Fundamentalism Necessary
Larni writes:
Hi Buzz. Any chance of you providing evidence of your assertion?
The evidences involve numerous topics. There are threads in the archives relative to much of this. Of course, as in most POVs the interpretation of the evidences is debatable.
I've cited numerous fulfilled Biblical prophesies, archeological stuff such as the Exodus Video, socialogical aspects and debates on ID relative to the Biblical record etc.
The Biblical Record is unique to the other faiths which I've cited in that it records specifics relative to prophecy, archeology, ID, creation, etc. Though it is significantly philosophical, most of these other religions are pretty much totally philosophical, especially the Eastern religions as well as voodoo, witchcraft and other paganistic tribal religions.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Larni, posted 10-11-2008 6:58 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Larni, posted 10-11-2008 7:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 60 of 112 (485795)
10-11-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
10-11-2008 7:24 PM


Re: No Free Pass To Biblical Fundamentalism Necessary
I'll take that as a 'No', then.
Well done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2008 7:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024