|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Identifying false religions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3766 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Rahvin writes: That study certainly is interesting. However, that was actually a NYTimes article, and so I have to take it with a grain of salt - reporters are not scientists, and they tend to sensationalize. Most of the misconceptions we have today about things like cosmology and evolution are because of sensationalism in reporting science and journalists trying to convey ideas they don't understand themselves. Rahvin, you've ignored that fact that the NYT article was written, in first person, by the very researcher- Paul Bloom of Yale University. If you go to this link... http://pantheon.yale.edu/~pb85/Paul_Bloom.html and scroll down, its the second article on the listings. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3766 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Kitsune writes: Well that's interesting. I'm all in favour of empirical research marrying up with the psychodynamic theories I am learning on my counselling course. What this looks like to me, is that babies' brains come hard-wired for making choices that favour harmonious group life (I would hesitate to use a judgmental term like morality here), Hold on. According to most atheists I've encountered (both here and elsewhere), morality is defined as "getting along with each other." Alternate renditions might be prettier than that but that's the meat that's left when you strip the adjectives and adverbs and junk. So, are you trying to say that babies come with a under-developed ethical sense...which when developed through culture, and family becomes what you term-morality? IOW, a baby's ethical sense is like a jewel in the rough...its there but it needs to be polished and developed? But how is a baby's sense of we...let's not call it morality...let's just say, it's ethical sense different from what adults have? How is what they have not morality when you guys indeed define morality as "Getting along with each other"? Seems like a contradiction to me. Either you've gotta admit that babies come with a sense of morality (in terms of what you define it as) OR , admit that morality, like the rest of us think, is more than just "getting along with people. " Look at the study and more like it, it clearly shows that babies know how to get along with each other from a very very young age...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3766 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Hi Rahvin, Yeah, we're getting close to it becoming a more Christianity-specific discussion, I think. I'll tell you why in my post...
No. That's not what I believe, and not what I intended to convey in my writing. Faith involves willing belief in certain claims without expecting any corroborating evidence that support said claims. Without is the key word. Faith is when I believe in a given claim or idea knowing that it might never be proved true by means that I can understand (ex: God's existence cannot be proven by empiricism) or is NOT provable by tangible means. Evidence does not even enter the question...when I'm making a conscious effort to believe claims in my religion. I treat religion differently because there is not much that is tangible about religion. It is not like science or history where one can effortlessly rely on empiricism. It is different. It has more to do with the heart than with the mind or eyes. Therefore, we deal in terms of faith and doubt...not in terms of fact vs fiction.
That fact that faith is irrational is obvious to everybody- as you say, even me. I a not a worshiper of rationality and empiricism. This is exactly what I meant when I gave you the....remember the car-crashing demon illustration? People view the world differently and this greatly affects their conclusions. I believe that there is more than meets the eye. That our minds...and our numbers...and out research....and a lot out there can and does deceive us. If I defy all that "facts" tell me and choose to believe in a claim that is not factually valid (or invalid, for matters concerning faith), then so be it. This is just the way some people think. If my beliefs eventually are the source of harm to the society and myself, then I obviously must discard them. When you say "Faith could easily lead to false conclusions", it makes me think of Christians that would like to see homosexuals killed, or Christians who like to see people on death row hanged because they did something wrong. And I'm with you on that, that hate should not prevail BECAUSE of faith. However, Rahvin, that hardly is a blemish on the religion itself. People don't realize that Christianity does not call for hatred. Both the Christians who do hate, and the outsiders watching them hate. At the end of the day, the religion has to suffer all reproach.
You're missing the point. After one subscribes to faith, one does NOT look for evidence to prove it. If answered/unanswered prayers count as evidence for/against the existence of God, then why do I even need to have faith in Him when I can just evaluate His existence while being a skeptic by weighing the answered against the unanswered prayers? Right? When a person has faith, that means irrespective of whether or not God answers prayers, he has taken a oath that he believes that God exists.
Yes, you--like many other people, were looking for some kind of vindication of your faith. That is not how it works. For if it did, that would not be faith. For example, if we treat answered/unanswered prayers as evidence and count up the number of answered/unanswered prayers (bascially, perform an experiment) and based on the results, conclude whether or not God exists---then faith does not come into the picture at all. Science does. And such a ideology is a fact not a belief. What is faith is, is when we believe something irrespective of what thousand people tell us...or what our own eyes fail to tell us. The existence of a god whose contingency rests on his answering prayers is the most retarded argument ever to come from a theist. I got a job--god answered my prayer, therefore he exists. Or vice versa. I did not get a job...don't be fooled into thinking such arguments are religion, Rahvin.
It makes no difference in terms of then rationality of the argument, that much I agree. Saying "God healed my leg because God says He meets physical needs" isn't more rational than "I think God healed my leg" I was just telling you that when Christians attribute events to divine intervention, then are doing it out of faith and respect....not of confusion or a love of saying "goddidit"
For you its called non-sequitur--a logical fallacy, for me its called faith-- the hope of discovering God. I don't care if science establishes a causality where there is correlation, because I already have faith that there IS causality irrespective of what 200,000 people tell me. If I deal with tangible, observable things in terms of faith and doubt, call me a fool. I reserve such things only for religion. Let me ask you this question Rahvin. Assume for arguments' sake that ALL religions' deities 1. empirically, 2. scientifically, 3. repeatedly, and 4. independently have been physically observed by the world. so much so that if you wanted, you could take your car to Buddha's house and I to Thor's house and have coffee with them. Every single one of them claims to be god. Who would you believe, Rahvin?
Why, why, why do you do this to yourself? How do you expect to "control" for a given deity? How do you... I don't know about the Norse gods, but now this a fairytale. What you just said. I don't for one minute believe you are using the right instruments to evaluate religion. When the game calls for faith and doubt, youre using rationality and science to play the game. IS it working?
Uh, actually, they are markedly different from fiction. Ask any scholar who has evaluated them properly.
The Bible is one of the best preserved historical texts of all history. Where there is uncertainty, there will always be debate. But when you compare it with other texts, there are remarkable facts about its preservation.
If higher probability should justify faith then why do we need faith at all? Isn't faith what you do when you have absolutely zilch probability of a claim being proved/disproved. Isn't faith also for things that we can never scientifically assign a probability to? IOW, isn't faith what we employ when dealing with intangible deities? Why then, do you bring probability into the picture? What does BLIND faith have to do with numbers?
Oh, I've encountered it before. My brother, a computer engineer, introduced me to it. It is a great tool......but not for evaluating religion. Religion is abstract.
In other words: The available evidence is inconclusive, and therefore I cannot draw an accurate conclusion. I don't know.....yet. What if, for arguments' sake, you life was at stake? You have two options 1. I don't know. 2. I will go with the eye-witness, it was a demon. And your life depended upon it, in some way. This is the situation people encounter in religion. Here is a person who claims to be god, who has certain demands. (in a sacred text, or some other means) Do they say 1. I don't know who you are or whether or not you even exist really or 2. I believe you are who you say you are based on the information given to me (either through a sacred text, or a missionary etc) irrespective of any evidence, I don't need it.
Sorry, Rahvin, but if you believed in the Christian God, you would not be believing that Odin even exists. I know, that is a giant logical leap. But such leaps happen in faith. Infact, that is how faith works. You look at them as logical leaps because for you, your reasoning power and analytical skills are more important in resolving matters. But in faith, people take people's words as plain fact irrespective of reasoning or analyzing. When God says that only He is the true God (John 14:6), then guess what, Odin doesn't exist. Thor doesn't exist. Frigga doesn't. Freya doesn't. Loki doesn't. I know, you might be uncomfortable with such thinking....but this is faith. But that was not my main point. I said all that to kind of drive my point home. And that is, when you wager, you wager on your best possibility. If the Norse gods appeal to you, wager on them. If Jehovah does, wager on Him. If Shiva does, wager on him. And when you do wager (IF you do), let go of all rationality which binds you and play the game in terms of faith. However, like you just said, you don't like to wager.You like to observe and analyze. So be it. I was just explaining it to you.
I agree with every thing you say. And I believe I have found THE one small point of disagreement. I probably would not have caught it had you not mentioned the phrase "appeal to authority of Biblical authors." Herein lies the crux of the matter. When people believe the pre-conception of God in the Bible to the true depiction of the real, existent God, they are essentially relying on the Biblical authors' credibility. They're staking it all on 40 people' words. And the reaosn some people are comfortable doing this, is because they treat the Bible just like it wants to be treated. A supernatural book. If it never claimed divine inspiration, people would not care about what the 40 men and women author's said in it....atleast not as much. I agree with you that we shouldn't take people's word/testimony as conclusive data. But when they claim something as unique as supernatural intervention, again....we're playing the faith game not the rationality game.
It might be. But the decision of whether or not to respond to my post was a voluntary choice based solely upon your will. It is not like there is a scientific law governing our conversation here on EvC. Which is why probability and evidence do not click. I might very well have evidence in the form of your previous posts, of your expressed interest in conversing...I might calculate the probability of your replying to my post at a high level...and yet, you are not compelled to reply. But you did. While playing peek-a-boo with a child, it not certain that the person behind the curtain will always appear...after 3 or 4 times, he might or not appear. It is based solely upon his will whether or not to appear before the child. But the child anticipates his appearing...that's faith. When he does infact choose to appear, then faith is justified. If he doesn't...then faith was in vain. Why do you bring probability into the conversation? Neither you are, not the person behidn the curtain is bound by probability, are you?
Yes, like theistic evolutionists. But even they, are missing the whole point.
The researcher wrote it. But if so, so be it. You always have the opportunity to go read the real research paper itself.
And what if, what my moral compass tell me about a religion is infact what I personally believe to be true. i.e reflect reality. You'll call that, irrationality. I call that faith.
Yes, it is. But that issue is resolved individually, not universally. It cannot be resolved universally, simply because it is dealing with abstract entities. And so, personal faith is a perfectly reasonable way to resolve the issue? To some it might look like irrationality, but what gives? My issue is resolved....for me, that is.
Science is the best way to study the physical universe. My moral compass, I reserve, only for religious purposes.
1. no, my sense of morality has nothing to do with the answer 2. The answer is determined solely by observation But, Rahvin, aren't we dealing with the moon here? Very much physical, an entity? And shouldn't we change our mode of analysis when dealing with an abstract entity, if we are interested in doing that?
You're looking at the facts, Rahvin. I'm looking at the moral content. All the time when I was talking about how I would use my moral compass as a means to navigate through various scriptures, I was talking about evaluating them moral content. But you apparently think I use it to evaluate general claims. I don't. All I use it for, is to evaluate the moral content. For example, if x religion commands its followers to murder, my moral compass tells me, no: don't follow this religion-it is going to cause harm to you and your fellow beings. That's it.
Here's where it gets, Christianity-specific. I tried to ignore these specific spots in this particular thread, but we can try to address them in another one. And this...
You just made our conversation 1000X more simpler and more clearer, Rahvin. If this is the outlook with which you now approach Christianity, then I am not surprised that you left it in the first place. Infact, I don't buy your "I once believed, but now don't" argument too. How is that possible? Not just with you but with anybody....If they "once believed" and "now don't", then obviously their faith was based on contingencies other than the ONLY necessary one--God. If your "once faith" was based on whether or not you approved of genocide, then how is that a faith in Jehovah God, Rahvin?
I am not proposing PAscal's wager as a solution to our problem. You missed the point I was trying to make with that. I was only trying to tell you that, there come situations in life where the ONLY the other option is to wager. The one option is to not have an opinion. The other option is to wager. We don't encounter such situations on a frequent basis, but religion is surely one of them. That was my point. Are we comfortable with wagering? Or are we with being agnostic? Pascal was with wagering. I am with wagering. You are with being agnostic...ar atheistic, whichever. That only was my point. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given. Edited by Pauline, : No reason given. Edited by Pauline, : editing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024