Serious Discussion

(Puffergoose/138937) I'm not going to tell anyone that they have to abandon their lea...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:42:00 -0600

I'm not going to tell anyone that they have to abandon their learning style and
by no means going to tell anyone what they have to believe from a religious
standpoint.  I find religion very interesting and like learning about them all
and I can't say which one or who's is right.
I am going to say that people are going to follow through more in places that
they are more invested.  If you really believe that your actions here are going
to follow you even beyond death, you are going to be a little more careful
about your actions and choices.  It isn't to say you can't be just as careful
if you don't believe in it following you after death.... but you have less
invested in it.
In generally I think we forget the powerful incentive investment gives.  People
care for cars more that they buy and pay for with their own earned money vs.
rentals...... same goes for homes.  I listened to someone recently complain
about insurance companies not paying for people to go to see dieticians because
of course that could prevent diabetes.  Now that make sense on some level but
we have to believe that the person is going to listen and change themselves but
lets face it, people are resistant to change.  Sometimes for good reasons.  I
think if people are willing to take the time to make and go to the dietician
appointment and invest your own money to pay for it, there is more invested
there and it is a better chance you will make a change the dietician suggests.
You still might not.  But investment will increase the chance you will.

(Salamano/138936) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:23:00 -0600


Step>>

One more thing...

I've stated that in my view atheism is a perfectly defensible philosophical
belief.

I'd like to know whether you would say the same with respect to Judaism and
Christianity?  (I don't mean to imply that it is my view that other religious
belief systems are philosophically indefensible.)

(Salamano/138935) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:07:00 -0600


Step>>

I've answered your question.

I believe it is important to learn time tables.

You believe it is important to learn time tables.

We both place the same positive value on learning time tables.

Research has shown that more people succeed in learning time tables better and
faster when a visual approach to teaching is employed.

I'm an auditory learner.  That's *my* learning style.

Should I abandon my preferred learning style because more people are visual
learners?

Addendum:  Since I do not know anything about the "Great Sneezing Panopticon,"
I can't tell you whether it's possible or not for me to *know* whether belief
in something that is "untrue" enters into the picture.  Presumably, you are
drawing a parallel to God, and presumably you *know* there is no such thing.
At least, that is what your question implies.  I'm wondering how you *know*
this to be true?

Your premise contains a fallacy I reject.

(Steppenwolf/138934) Actually, Puff's making my point for me very well... and for onc...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:00:00 -0600

Actually, Puff's making my point for me very well... and for once, I don't mean
that in a bad way.

He's suggesting that no matter if two people hold exactly the same moral
beliefs, if one of those people holds an additional belief not about morality
but about the world itself (i.e. "There exists an afterlife where all this will
be punished or rewarded,") that person is more likely to act according to the
moral code that they both share.

I get theists telling me this ALL THE TIME. Sal's been implying as such for the
last hundred posts. I'm curious what he would do if he were convinced of the
opposite--that he could be rationally convinced that according to
_his_own_morality_ he would actually behave better if he also believed in the
Great Sneezing Panopticon. even though he knew it were untrue. Sal seems
utterly unable to even consider the possibility, which is fascinating, given
what he's been trying to tell me about religion--that is, that it makes more
moral people by MY moral code.

(Puffergoose/138933) Knightshade> There is no way to prove if it is true that billio...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:44:00 -0600

Knightshade>  There is no way to prove if it is true that billions of people
have been wrong that there is a higher power.  You have to have faith about
that.
-
Of course there is always the matter of what is moral and how does one
determine this.  Religious folks get help with determining their moral compass
from their religion.
Dostoyevsky made a case once that if there is no immortality, then there is no
real reason for morality.  If there is no worry about any kind of punnishment
after death, the value of staying alive is much less.

(Gwynn/138932) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:48:00 -0600

Step:

I agree with Sal, and I think you're really smuggling things in here, as hard
as you're trying not to. It's sort of like before in the disscussion, when you
started saying, "are untestable beliefs true? Tough question." But then your
later posts kind of started talking about religions having "fact-statements"
and implying that they were wrong, whether they were testable or not. To wit,
you're assuming that we can find X which produces the highest amount of moral
behavior. But you've said you don't think there's even an objective way to
demonstrate morals. So how can you assume that there's a singular X that
produces the most/best moral behavior, in all people?

I think this is one of my big gripes about what's happened to science, we tend
to want ONE thing to explain everything. So for instance, if you've ever read
Durkheim or Freud or what have you, the origin of religion was "a neurosis", or
"to keep society together", and so on. It makes far more sense to me that
religion serves many functions, and so likely has no one common origin. Even if
you assume, as I do, that it involves experience, those experiences would be
different for different people, hence the different religions, and would
probably lead to an emphasis of some functions over others.

So to sum up, I disagree, and I think Sal. does too, with your example, because
I don't think there is X that produces better/the best moral behavior for all
humanity. So for instance, we could expect, say, Judaism to be more charitable
than Satanism, but Satanists are actually pretty into helping those they feel
deserve it, from all I've heard about them. So they might be really giving to
their friends or whomever else they feel to be worthy of help. A professor I
had for some class or other was telling us how, at least in Sri Lanka, the
Buddhist way of doing things is you just give money to people. So where we
might go, "wait, if I give that guy money he's just going to buy alcohol with
it", Buddhists go "here, have some money, you need help." So I mean, which is
more moral? I mean, if we give money to an alcoholic, yeah, he'll probably buy
more alcohol, so is that immoral? Or are Buddhists more moral, because they
give you freedom?

(Salamano/138931) I'd say that Arkleism is the best way for Arkleists to "get to...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:53:00 -0600


I'd say that Arkleism is the best way *for Arkleists* to "get to good."
Judaism is the best way *for Jews* to do so, and atheism is the best way *for
atheists*...in much the same way as I wouldn't attempt to force a learner who
is obviously visually oriented to learn in an auditory oriented manner simply
because visual learners, on average, have obtained higher test scores than
auditory learners.  At the same time, I'd take issue with those who insisted
upon a "one size fits all" approach to teaching.

(Salamano/138930) I do place a premium on behavior. But as I wrote in my previo...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:42:00 -0600


I *do* place a premium on behavior.  But as I wrote in my previous post, people
are different, and are animated by differing ideas and beliefs.  What inspires
you to perform certain actions may differ from that which inspires me.  I hold
the same view with respect to education: there's no one best way to teach.  But
we're going to encounter real problems if we can't agree on what the product of
effective teaching should look like.

My kids are at liberty to become Arkleists if Arkleism's beliefs and teachings
should resonate more strongly with them than Judaism's.

(Steppenwolf/138929) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:38:00 -0600

Sal:

Do you care about moral values, or moral behavior? Your statements lead me to
think you care about what people DO, not what people think.

So if you taught your kids to be Arkleists, they would be more likely to meet
your moral values. Would you do it?

You answered "No," before, but haven't yet said why or why not.

(Salamano/138928) Steppenwolf>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:26:00 -0600


Steppenwolf>>

Again, I don't care about differing theologies.  I only care about shared moral
*values*.

People are different.  We are animated by differing ideas and beliefs.  You
hold certain beliefs to be more important, and I hold certain beliefs to be
more important.  What's important to me is that we hold common *moral values*.

My observations concerning religious groups building more hospitals and
establishing more charities than atheists were NOT meant to persuade atheists
to become religious...only to persuade atheists to be as tolerant of a
religious believer like me as I am of atheism, which I consider to be a
perfectly tenable philosophical disposition.

(Steppenwolf/138927) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:14:00 -0600

Sal:

First, I'm not (yet) suggesting that you give up your beliefs, or that anyone
should. I would only do such a thing where they demonstrably and clearly
contradict absolute fact, and even then I'd be nice about it. :)

Second, the reason I would not teach my kids a new religion I thought false has
nothing to do with "personal preference."

Third, doesn't it seem odd, for this hypothetical, that you "prefer" a less
moral theology? What is it about your personal theology that you would retain
it, and instill it in your children, over something more moral?

(Salamano/138926) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:59:00 -0600


Step>>

My answer is the exactly the same as your answer to the question of why you
wouldn't teach my beliefs if you thought my religion produced demonstrably
greater degrees of moral behavior than your belief system.  It's a matter of
personal preference for the respective beliefs we hold.  I would NOT, however,
insist that anyone who was committed to moral behavior abandon their beliefs
and think the same way as me.

(Steppenwolf/138925) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:35:00 -0600

Sal:

You already accepted, for the sake of argument, that Arkleism was provably
better than Judaism. To say then that you wouldn't teach it even though it was
provably better is potentially an interesting stance for the argument I'm
eventually trying to make. I'm trying to get a clear answer on why you prefer
your faith tradition over one that is MORE moral and provably makes people
better than your own.

(Salamano/138924) Steppenwolf>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:55:00 -0600


Steppenwolf>>

Do you believe there are other acceptable ways of "getting to good" than the
way you choose for yourself?  Because if you do, I'm really not sure what it is
we're discussing.

(Salamano/138923) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:20:00 -0600


Step>>

Because I don't believe that my way of "getting to good" is the only way.  It's
simply the way I choose.

(Steppenwolf/138922) Thanks, KS.

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:41:00 -0600


Thanks, KS.

Sal: Why not?

(Salamano/138921) No.

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:15:00 -0600

No.

(Knightshade/138920) Sal,

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:54:00 -0600

Sal,


I think what he's asking is this-



Let's say it's PROVABLE that followers of judaism are more moral, more
generous, more community oriented, than others.


Now lets say you are an athiest who doesn't believe in god at all.

But you have kids.


Should you essentially "lie" to them and tell them to follow the torah and
talmud, and worship the god of abraham, knowing it will make them better
people, even if you yourself don't believe a word of that stuff?

(Salamano/138919) Steppenwolf>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:49:00 -0600


Steppenwolf>>

I feel as if we're speaking different languages and, therefore, talking past
one another.  In your last message you wrote:  "It's whether I should teach the
truths of their beliefs in order to make the world a better place."

I don't know how to respond to this any more clearly than I've attempted to do
previously.  For me, "truths of their beliefs" is a contradiction.  As far as
I'm concerned, religious beliefs (as I see them) ought not be confounded with
knowledge.  They are not, therefore, subject to verifiability and cannot be
established as being true.  I could care less that you believe the same thing
as the followers of the Great Sneezing Panpticon.  If they are a morally
virtuous group, I'd hope that both you and I would act similarly.  I've never
argued that one must hold any particular view to behave in a morally virtuous
manner.  I have argued that religious believers have organized to do more good
than have atheists, but that view isn't intended to implore atheists to become
believers.  I'm simply asking that they not work themselves into such a snit
over non-verifiable beliefs that appear to induce those who hold them to try to
be good people.

Keep in mind that I come from a faith tradition that doesn't proselytize.

(Gwynn/138918) BTW, we don't have to invent this theory, it's already happened....

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:38:00 -0600

BTW, we don't have to invent this theory, it's already happened. I think they
did some study where they just used stuff like pictures of eyes, and the idea
that somebody/something was watching made people more honest. Of course, since
you can apparently do it with pictures of eyes, you've already got a secular
out, though you could argue that a simple picture would easily lose its force
once everybody knew what it was, but religion, ala Clifford Geertn, would be
much better at this. Here's his definition of religion, with some commentary,
and note here, religion doesn't have to involve gods at all.

http://www.colorado.edu/ReligiousStudies/chernus/4800/GeertzSummary.htm

(Steppenwolf/138917) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:31:00 -0600

Sal:

STarting from the back:

"As long as the believers in the Great Sneezing Panpticon
aren't perpetrating evil in its name, why not let them continue to be moral
exemplars?"

The question isn't "letting them" be moral exemplars. It's whether I should
teach the truths of their beliefs in order to make the world a better place.

You seem to be saying "no." It seems to me remarkable that you would not want
to make the world a better place, since you've been selling me on the idea of
letting religion thrive because it makes the world a better place. Can you
explain that to me?

(Salamano/138916) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:25:00 -0600


Step>>

You wrote:  "Do you think it wouldn't be immoral to teach your children to be
less than perfectly moral? Or at least to TRY to?"

No, I don't think it would be immoral to teach my children to be less than
perfectly moral.  I don't believe that "perfect morality" is achievable.
Moreover, I believe we'd actually be doing harm to our kids if we were to lead
them to believe that they're capable of being morally perfect - or perfect in
*any* way, for that matter.   I try to teach my kids to be the best people they
can be.  I also don't believe that falling short of the moral standards we
uphold necessarily makes us immoral.  (Maybe some of us religious folk are
actually more realistic in certain ways than some of you atheists!)

You wrote:  "Say that the actual source of the moral behavior relies on
believing that there is a Great Sneezing Panopticon watching all our moves.
That people ACTUALLY behave better when there is this belief... like you said,
what people do, not what people say."

That's what I HAVE been assuming.  I'm saying that the weirdness (to you) of
the underlying belief should have nothing to do with your estimation of the
desirability of the behavior it motivates.  Your whole premise is, ostensibly,
that any desirable behavior can and should be performed and encouraged on the
basis of compelling *other-than-religious* evidence.  If you can't substitute
such evidence/reasons you consider suitable in lieu of the weirdness, it's
*your* problem.  As long as the believers in the Great Sneezing Panpticon
aren't perpetrating evil in its name, why not let them continue to be moral
exemplars?

(Steppenwolf/138915) Because Sal's comments sting a bit, I might step back a second a...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:39:00 -0600

Because Sal's comments sting a bit, I might step back a second and explain more
clearly my own version of atheism, versus the New Atheist perspective I've been
trying to justify about half the time here.

Personally, I see no evidence of the existence of a God, and strongly suspect
that given what we know of science now, someone who was brought up without
anyone ever suggesting its existence would ever hypothesize one. Religion by
and large started moving away from making factual claims to making more obscure
ones only when science started filling the field, for the most part, which
suggests to me that it was never founded on any kind of reality to begin with.

That said, I appreciate that it gives people a real sense of community, and if
nothing else I would miss it for the sheer cultural diversity it provides.
The world is a more interesting place for it.

If all religion could be a nice, non-pushy set of beliefs that don't
significantly interact with the material world, I would approve of it
wholeheartedly. But there are some really nasty religions out there, and made
more nasty precisely by the kinds of faith-based belief that I've been decrying
here on the behalf of the NEw Atheists.  And I'd be remiss if I didn't at least
wonder that this sort of fundamentalist, faith-based belief would be less
common in a world without religion.

So I understand their perspective. At the same time, I recognize that I don't
have the grounding to disprove all religious belief. I don't have their
experiences, I don't have any counterproof. So my personal attitude is to only
oppose religion when it violates my own moral code (as I would any ideology) or
when it makes fact-statements that are readily disprovable (so I don't
countenance creationism or ID). But otherwise, I personally am very much of a
live-and-let-live attitude towards theism, and I don't think that's an
intolerant view at all.

(Steppenwolf/138914) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:25:00 -0600

Sal:

"Who said you were behaving immorally?  Just because Person A
may do more good than Person B doesn't make Person B immoral."

Do you think it wouldn't be immoral to teach your children to be less than
perfectly moral? Or at least to TRY to?

"Surely, having reached such a judgment,  you could find appropriate non-
religious justification for engaging in and encouraging such behavior.
Couldn't you?  I mean, isn't that the cornerstone of your position?"

In the hypothesis, no. Say that the actual source of the moral behavior relies
on believing that there is a Great Sneezing Panopticon watching all our moves.
That people ACTUALLY behave better when there is this belief... like you said,
what people do, not what people say.

"You're taking a proctologist's view of religion.  It's biased, if not hostile,
and reflects pretty much the same sort of dogmatic belief you ostensibly
oppose."

I'm taking an extreme view to make a point here. :) I think it's at least as
legitimate, though, to focus only on the evil that faith-based thought causes
and to say that this doesn't jsutify the good as it is to do the opposite, as
you're doing.

"In fact, you're leading me to believe that one reason I prefer my religious
framework is that it's more tolerant of other beliefs than atheism."

It would be a mistake to think that all atheism is necesarily of the same
philosophy that I'm illustrating here. But either way, I don't believe what I
do about the existence of a Creator because of its instrumental effects. And
neither, I'll wager, do you. The belief comes first.

(Knightshade/138913) Feb 21, 2012 10:57 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:13:00 -0600



Feb 21, 2012 10:57 from Puffergoose
You have to have a faith that billions of people for many thousands of years
have all been wrong.






yes, but that's provable true, so you don't actually need faith at all.

I could go on for hours about shit the most of the world was wrong about for
years, decades, or even centuries.

If there's that long a list of stuff most people were wrong about for long
periods of time, it's easy to add one more to the list.

Especialy since in those thousands of years many of those billions of people
couldn't even agree with EACH OTHER on the topic, to the point of killing each
other by the millions over said disagreements.

(Salamano/138912) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:07:00 -0600


Step>>

In fact, you're leading me to believe that one reason I prefer my religious
framework is that it's more tolerant of other beliefs than atheism.

(Puffergoose/138911) You have to have a faith that billions of people for many thousa...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:57:00 -0600

You have to have a faith that billions of people for many thousands of years
have all been wrong.
You have to have faith that our exsistance is all coincidence.
Sure, it could be.  I used to believe that it was all coincidence.
Many athiests put their faith in science which is all and good but we have to
ignore that over and over science has rewritten itself because the best
knowledge of science has been wrong.  The whole point to a true scientist is to
not accept anything completely and to challenge accepted theory in the quest to
learn truth.  Not something that it is good to put your faith in really since
it is routinely wrong and rewriting itself.
There is a faith that there is no higher power in any shape or form.

(Salamano/138910) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:05:00 -0600


Step>>

You wrote:  "So you would expect me to behave immorally by not teaching my
children to believe in something that made them, and the world, better people?"

Wait a minute.  Who said you were behaving immorally?  Just because Person A
may do more good than Person B doesn't make Person B immoral.  But if that's
the way you see it, *you're* the one who ascertained that the Great Green
Arkleseizure believers were behaving in a way that was morally superior to you.
Surely, having reached such a judgment,  you could find appropriate non-
religious justification for engaging in and encouraging such behavior.
Couldn't you?  I mean, isn't that the cornerstone of your position?

You wrote:  "Given the harm that blind adherence to dogma does to the world, a
movement that seeks to eradicate such dogma might do more good than harm in the
long run."

You're taking a proctologist's view of religion.  It's biased, if not hostile,
and reflects pretty much the same sort of dogmatic belief you ostensibly
oppose.

(Steppenwolf/138909) Most New Atheists would disagree, with very good reasons that I'...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:38:00 -0600

Most New Atheists would disagree, with very good reasons that I'm sure you'd
respond to by merely repeating the same thing over and over. So I think I'll
ignore you for the rest of this discussion.

Personally, I think there is an element of faith to atheism as well, but the
difference is that atheism at least _tries_ to discern the truth by evidence.

(Knightshade/138908) Feb 21, 2012 10:36 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:38:00 -0600



Feb 21, 2012 10:36 from Puffergoose
And then we have to ignore that atheist beliefs require leaps of faith just as
much as any other religion to the point that atheism is a religion of itself.
[Serious Discussion> msg #138907 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->



Can you give some specific examples?

(Puffergoose/138907) And then we have to ignore that atheist beliefs require leaps of...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:36:00 -0600

And then we have to ignore that atheist beliefs require leaps of faith just as
much as any other religion to the point that atheism is a religion of itself.

(Steppenwolf/138906) Gislef:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:34:00 -0600

Gislef:

"Other then that more people have religious beliefs than athesist beliefs, I'm
not seeing that religion is "uniquely" pervasive."

LOTS more people. But sure, your point is taken.

"Nor am I convinced it
celebrates the power of blind faith (other than blind religious faith) more
than other secular causes, organizations, or dogmas."

I disagree. In few other ideologies is the fact that one can't prove what one
believes taken as a virtue, but in many religions (including Christianity most
notably), it is. The fervor of one's belief is seen as good... not the fervor
of having collected evidence that leads one to that conclusion.

(Gislef/138905) Other then that more people have religious beliefs than athesist...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:32:00 -0600

Other then that more people have religious beliefs than athesist beliefs, I'm
not seeing that religion is "uniquely" pervasive. Nor am I convinced it
celebrates the power of blind faith (other than blind religious faith) more
than other secular causes, organizations, or dogmas.

(Steppenwolf/138904) "Blind adherence to dogma is certainly bad, but it's hardly conf...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:06:00 -0600

"Blind adherence to dogma is certainly bad, but it's hardly confined to
religion. From the descriptions provided, it seems that New Atheism embraces
some dogma of its own."

Of course it's not confined to religion. And no atheist with a brain says it
is. Indeed, they try to get rid of it in all its forms. I feel like I've had to
repeat this to you over and over. It's not unique to religion, but religion is
uniquely pervasive and often in fact celebrates the power of blind faith,
providing cover for such to exist in other forms.

In my view, yes, the New Atheists are dogmatic as well... but don't tell them
that!

(Steppenwolf/138903) Gislef:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:00:00 -0600

Gislef:

And you're wondering if I, or if the New Atheists, would be attacking these
people?

I'd say that there's no consensus among the group. Some would think this is
fine. In fact, it's largely the case in Scandinavia, where very few people are
actual believers, but most people still practice some form of Christianity as a
social ritual. That's the side where I fall, but of course I'm a LOT easier on
religion than the New Atheists.

Others would think that as long as such religious practice gives cover for
fundamentalists and other true believers, or creates the possibility of
authoritarian belief from on high, it's bad, and disdain such practice. That
might be the case with Southern slaveholders, where the church acted as an echo
chamber for some reprehensible views.

But most, I think, would simply think it's a stupid ritual, roll their eyes and
let it go.

(Gislef/138902) Blind adherence to dogma is certainly bad, but it's hardly confi...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:02:00 -0600

Blind adherence to dogma is certainly bad, but it's hardly confined to
religion. From the descriptions provided, it seems that New Atheism embraces
some dogma of its own.

(Steppenwolf/138901) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:53:00 -0600

Sal:

"If you were to conclude that people who
believed in the Great Green Arkleseizure were better because of their belief,
the only change I'd expect you to make in your own behavior would be to stop
criticizing those people's beliefs."

So you would expect me to behave immorally by not teaching my children to
believe in something that made them, and the world, better people?

"I'm not saying that God-belief "seems to be
doing some good," but that it's doing a whole lot more good than atheism."

Given the harm that blind adherence to dogma does to the world, a movement that
seeks to eradicate such dogma might do more good than harm in the long run. Not
to mention it takes a pretty biased eye to look at the difference between

thousand-year-old religious communities and the institutions that have grown up
around them, then the relatively new emergence of a skeptical community, and
think, "Well, that must be because religion is better!"

(Gislef/138900) Step: I was thinking of people who say that they are Christians,...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:47:00 -0600

Step: I was thinking of people who say that they are Christians, and go to
church, but do it to maintain their status in the community, rather than
actually believing in God.

When I mentioned it, I was thinking of 19th century Southern slaveholders.
Going to church and saying you're a God-fearing church-going Christian was the
"thing" to do, even if in many cases you didn't believe in God. Given that, I
wouldn't consider them misapplying a belief in God, but rather simply having no
belief in God (closeted atheist/theists, i fyoui prefer) while claiming that
they did.

(Salamano/138899) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:30:00 -0600


Step>>

You wrote:  " Sal :You're not answering my question.  If you were convinced
that a) people who believe in the Great Green Arkleseizure were better, more
moral people because of that belief, but b) that there was no Arkleseizure and
that the concept is in fact absurd, would you teach your kids that the
Arkleseizure existed?"

I think you know that my position is that I don't care about what people
believe; I care about how they behave.  If you were to conclude that people who
believed in the Great Green Arkleseizure were better because of their belief,
the only change I'd expect you to make in your own behavior would be to stop
criticizing those people's beliefs.  The parallel for me, as a religious
believer is that I don't care about other religious believer's theologies; I
care about their values.  I have many conservative Christian friends who
believe I'm ticketed to roast in hell, and it bothers me not a whit.  (I do,
however, think it bothers *them*.)  I don't care what they believe about me.  I
care how they treat me.

You wrote:  " What this argument does provide, however, is a little bit of
cover for letting theists be, which is part of what Sal's arguing. That is, if
God-belief seems to be doing some good, even if _I_ don't believe, there's no
reason to attack Sal's belief, right?"

That's not quite what I'm arguing.  I'm not saying that God-belief "seems to be
doing some good," but that it's doing a whole lot more good than atheism.
While I can see the evil that has been wrought in the name of both religion and
atheism, I have great difficulty seeing the hospitals, charities, and
communities of support furnished by atheists coming remotely close to what
religious believers have accomplished.

(Steppenwolf/138898) Gislef:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:14:00 -0600

Gislef:

"What harm is caused by a faith-based belief in a supreme deity, in and of
itself?"

In my view, none per se. Other atheists try to come up with harms, but I don't
think they make much sense. The harm comes when a whole bunch of people have
license to have faith-based beliefs, which then get applied to a whole bunch of
ideas where they don't belong. Like I said before, on a broad scale such
beliefs don't get compartmenalized.

"I'd also be curious to know how they distinguish someone who truly believes in
God, from those that simply pay lip service by going to church and  saying taht
they're Christians."

What do you mean, "how do they distinguish"? I can think of a couple of ways
you might go with that.

(Gislef/138897) Step: Right, but homeopathy isn't specifically founded on a beli...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:41:00 -0600

Step: Right, but homeopathy isn't specifically founded on a belief in God.

What harm is caused by a faith-based belief in a supreme deity, in and of
itself? That seems to be the argument. Many things lead to racial prejudice or
homophobia, not just a belief in God.

I'd also be curious to know how they distinguish someone who truly believes in
God, from those that simply pay lip service by going to church and  saying taht
they're Christians.

(Steppenwolf/138896) I was thinking this whole belief question over last night, and I...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:53:00 -0600

I was thinking this whole belief question over last night, and I wanted to
clarify a few thoughts:

As I see it, there are a number of reasons for believing in God, some of which
an atheist may legitimately dislike, and others which _I_ think an atheist
should be forced to accept.

1) "I believe because I have faith!" This is sort of the purest version of what
atheists can't stand, where believing in something one has no true evidence
for, but what one _wants_ to believe, is held up as a virtue. Simply put, we
should never believe anything simply because we want to believe it, and we
shouldn't accept others doing that, because that sort of belief can be used to
buttress any moral tenet no matter how repulsive or any statement of fact no
matter how absurd. This is the ultimate "bad belief" that animates a lot of the
New Atheists and the old, and what causes them to attack other sorts of "woo"
as well.

2) "I believe because I come from a tradition of believers!" This is what one
might call social belief; admitting that one believes what one does because one
is part of a tradition, no more. I'm more sympathetic to this than many
atheists. If we (we meaning atheists) are being honest, we're forced to use
this sort of social proof for a lot of our beliefs. I can't build my own LHC to
test for the existence of the Higgs boson; I have to trust an institution of
science to do it right. And I largely believe that my own morality comes from
the values with which I was raised. At the same time, I think it's important to
not let those social values be the ONLY ground. The scientific tradition
justifies itself because in its ideal this is a rational, truth-seeking method.
And because of those goals, it _should_ have a better chance of finding truth.
Whereas a tradition that derives its claim to truth from nothing more than the
tradition isn't convincing, and ends up disintegrating into the pure faith
described in 1). What's more, tradition for its own sake has too much
authoritarian potential for a lot of atheists to trust.

3) "I believe so I can get into heaven!" -or- "I believe because beliefs make
us good!" We could call this instrumental belief; I believe because it causes
some good. The problem atheists have with this is that it's fundamentally
insincere; people aren't being honest with themselves. This is what I'm getting
at with my ARkleseizure argument; it's highly unlikely that instrumental belief
would be significant if it weren't also supported by one of the other kinds of
belief in this list. What this argument does provide, however, is a little bit
of cover for letting theists be, which is part of what Sal's arguing. That is,
if God-belief seems to be doing some good, even if _I_ don't believe, there's
no reason to attack Sal's belief, right?  The only good counterargument to
that, in my view, is to show that the belief people actually have is described
in 1) or 2), and that those are essentially bad. And I'd freely agree that the
evidence for that question is still very much unsettled.

4) "I believe because when I look at the evidence, the existence of God seems
more likely than not." What do you do with this if you're an atheist? Most
atheists would say that people wouldn't honestly do this if a) they understood
all the evidence, and b) didn't already have the preconception that God exists.
But that's sort of irrational on their part, if you ask me. I would say I felt
this way for about five years or so; I didn't particularly believe in any
religion, but felt that the atheistic explanation of human behavior wasn't as
believable as a theistic explanation. I eventually grew convinced of the
opposite, but I would have a hard time saying that someone who believed
otherwise was necessarily, obviously, and hopelessly wrong. Now, if you start
talking about theists who use this same argument for claiming that facts about
their mythologies are true, I'm far more skeptical, and in general doubt that
the evidence is such to prove any one religion true. The theist who says,
"Well, based on all my research, not only is there some sort of Creator, but He
made the world in six days and sent down his only Son to die for our sins"
probably has one of the first two kinds of beliefs and is looking for evidence
to confirm, not test, those beliefs. This is basically what William Lane Craig
does, to name one. So most atheists largely doubt the sincerity of the
religious who make this kind of argument.

5) "I believe God because I have had a powerful experience that I can only
attribute to the Divine." I think most atheists really, truly undervalue this
one, and I get a LOT of flack whenever I have the temerity to bring it up. But
I don't see how people can be asked to discard their personal experiences based
on the say-so from Darwin-wielding atheists. Most of them either make the claim
that we have enoguh neuroscience to prove that the brain doesn't work that way
(utterly false, in my view, and Gwynn's made this point excellently in the past
in other forums) or that the vast majority of believers are insincere in this,
only deciding that perfectly normal experiences are divine based on the
experiences if 1) and 2) above. From my perspective, though, even though I
think that there is a mistake being made by such theists, not being in their
shoes I can't personally tell them that they're wrong. So I tend to accept this
kind of belief.

Sorry, this got far longer than I expected. But I hope it explains a bunch of
the arguments that have been going on here.

(QUITTNER/138895) Beliefs may influence behavior, but it's the actual day-by-day b...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:46:00 -0600

Beliefs may influence behavior, but it's the actual day-by-day behavior which
is far more important than the beliefs and the "labels" or lack of a label.

(Steppenwolf/138894) Gislef:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:52:00 -0600

Gislef:

I refer you to my homeopathy example. That is, believing things based on
whether one wants them to be true, rather than testing the world to see that it
is true, leads one to a lot of wrong answers.

The New Atheist paradigm is that many, many bad things in the world are the
result of this faith-based reasoning, from racial prejudice and homophobia to
quack medicine. In general, it's unremarkable to say that blind faith the world
corresponds to your view is a bad thing, and the New Atheists see no reason to
say that God-belief is somehow excluded from that because we can conceive of
ways in which God's existence conveniently MIGHT not be testable.

Where I differ from them is that I think many theists use some form of
evidentiary thought in deciding that God exists, though I'm still skeptical
(ha!) that most are really testing their beliefs that closely.

(Gislef/138893) And I'm not gettng my question answered. _Why_ is the manner of ...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:55:00 -0600

And I'm not gettng my question answered. _Why_ is the manner of belief
consistently harmful, such that religion is (as New Atheists would have it)
generally frowned upon.

I'm also not totally sure what "manner of belief" means. What you _do_ with
that belief can certainly be harmful. But is harmful in the manner by which you
come to that belief?

Proportionately, has the manner of belief that God doesn't exist been any less
harmful than the manner of belief that God _does_ exist?

(Steppenwolf/138892) Sal :

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:32:00 -0600


Sal :
You're not answering my question.  If you were convinced that a) people qho
believe in the Great Green Arkleseizure were better, more moral people because
of that belief, but b) that there was no Arkleseizure and that the concept is
in fact absurd, would you teach your kids that the Arkleseizure existed?
s

(Steppenwolf/138891) Gislef :

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:30:00 -0600


Gislef :
The belief isn't harmful, but the manner of belief is.
Or so I suspect.  Other atheists may disagree, but I think they smuggle their
reasons in under the definition of belief.

(Salamano/138890) "There exists a conscious entity, which I call God, that is resp...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:20:00 -0600


"There exists a conscious entity, which I call God, that is responsible for the
creation of the universe and takes a personal interest in humanity" is not a
fact statement.

The above-stated belief can certainly cause harm.  It can also cause good.  If
it can be empirically established that such a belief tends to produce "net
good," what makes it undesirable?

I can think of situations in which telling a deliberate untruth is good.  I'm a
bit puzzled as to why propositions whose truth is not subject to verification
are necessarily undesirable.

(Gislef/138889) How does holding a belief in the existence of God, in and of its...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:00 -0600

How does holding a belief in the existence of God, in and of itself, cause harm
by holding it?

I reject the existence of God. how am I no longer harmed? What was it I was
harmed from that I no longer am?

(Steppenwolf/138888) I should note for the purpose of this question only it doesn't m...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:37:00 -0600


I should note for the purpose of this question only it doesn't matter if the
statement is provable or not, just what one should do when the more moral
action requires rejecting a belief not because it has been proven false, but
because holding it causes harm. A statement regarding objective reality, I
might add.

(Steppenwolf/138887) On phone, so short reply:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:17:00 -0600


On phone, so short reply:
A fact statement like "There exists a conscious entity, which I call God, that
is responsible for the creation of the universe and takes a personal interest
in humanity. "

(Mean Mr Mustard/138885) Do you believe that Lazarus was truly, literally, clinically dea...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:57:00 -0600

Do you believe that Lazarus was truly, literally, clinically dead, and that
Jesus truly, literally brought him back to life?

(Salamano/138884) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:37:00 -0600


Step>>

You wrote:  "But, and here's the difference, I'm also more than willing to
consider evidence that it's NOT true. This is true based on my observation of
the real world, but if sufficient data came in showing
otherwise, I would actually change my mind."

I don't think that's the difference at all, because I'm perfectly willing to
consider empirical evidence and to change my mind so as not to stand in
contradiction to conclusive empirical findings.  What I see as the difference
between our views is that you don't appear willing to countenance any belief
that isn't subject to empirical verifiability.

You wrote:  "I'm more interested in the truth of the belief than holding that
particular belief."

Do you believe that every belief is verifiable?  If the verifiability
principle, itself, subject to empirical verifiability?  I certainly don't think
so.  I see it as a theoretical convention, and a damned useful one at that.
But it's no more "factual" than are the shared underpinnings that enable
meaningful religious discourse.

You wrote:  "If I were convinced that religion made the world more moral,
should I tell my children to be religious, and avow religious belief, even if I
felt that many of the fact-statements the religion claimed to be true were
clearly wrong?"

I guess I'm hung up on what you have in mind by "fact statements."  I'm not a
fundamentalist.  I'm not sure what sort of religious "fact statements" you
think I hold.  Could you provide an example?

(Steppenwolf/138883) Gwynn:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:53:00 -0600

Gwynn:

1) I think most religions make SOME fact-statement; i.e. there exists some
conscious force known as God, whether or not It made the world in six or six
hundred days. I don't mean the mythology but the basic truth of how it
understands the world.

2) I'm assuming that the moral stance is intimately connected for the sake of
argument, yes; otherwise, what you have is a set of moral laws divorced from
the religion itself, and then the religion becomes useless. The classic example
of this would be that you need some sort of Supreme Being to provide a moral
absolute, but there are other examples as well.

(Gwynn/138882) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:42:00 -0600

Step:

That assumes a couple things:

1. Religion is making "fact-statements", e.g. you're assuming that something
like Genesis is some sort of factual account, "God did X, then God did Y", as
opposed to something else.

2. Even assuming religions make "fact-statements", you're assuming that it's
moral stance is intimately connected to the "fact-statements". This strikes me
as something akin to the fundamentalist idea that we need God's laws, because
if we didn't have them, we'd all be out raping and pillaging. To put it another
way, I don't have to literally believe that an ant met a grasshopper, and the
grasshopper played all summer while the ant did industrious ant things, and
then the grasshopper was fucked in the winter, to get the moral of one of
Aesop's fables.

So I guess what I'm getting at is, SHOULD you do it? I dunno. But you COULD do
it, easily enough it seems to me. I'm not implying of course that religion and
fables are on some sort of equal ground, just that the myths, for isntance,
aren't necessarily factual in the way you seem to conceive them to be, at least
for me.

(Steppenwolf/138881) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:17:00 -0600

Sal:

"Ahem!  And you *know* that such a proposition is true exactly how?"

I don't. I suspect it to be true. But, and here's the difference, I'm also more
than willing to consider evidence that it's NOT true. This is true based on my
observation of the real world, but if sufficient data came in showing
otherwise, I would actually change my mind. (For example, if there were a
society where people begrudged charity but did not otherwise harm the lower
classes or denigrate them, and continued to give at the same amount. Not hard
to imagine.)

I'm more interested in the truth of the belief than holding that particular
belief.

"In the few instances in which a religious believer such as myself would tend
to
answer "because this is what I believe God intends," I imagine you would adduce
your own, purely naturalistic reasons/evidence for supporting or rejecting the
moral view in question."

It's not the moral view, it's the practical question. If you wanted to do the
right thing, and the right thing appeared to be to assert religious views you
felt were hilariously wrong, could you do it? Or would you not do it, even if
your refusal to do so wouldn't lead to the world being a more moral place?

That might not be clear, let me rephrase. If I were convinced that religion
made the world more moral, should I tell my children to be religious, and avow
religious belief, even if I felt that many of the fact-statements the religion
claimed to be true were clearly wrong?

(Salamano/138880) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:06:00 -0600


Step>>

You wrote:  "My point is that you are apparently content that way. If we were
all content about our beliefs, without seeking to verify them and transform
them into knowledge, then the world would be a backward place."

What you're actually saying is that belief has no place in a "forward thinking
world."  But then you offer the following:  "Like I said in my answer, if you
don't eventually teach people to donate lovingly, eventually those donations
will dry up."

Ahem!  And you *know* that such a proposition is true exactly how?

Of course you don't *know* that such a proposition is true.  What you have
stated is a *belief*.  Apparently, room exists in a forward thinking world for
some people's beliefs, but not other's.

You wrote:  "But here's my real concern: what is someone like me supposed to
do? I am pretty well convinced that no God exists. If I were to determine that
religion made people behave better, what should I do?"

In the few instances in which a religious believer such as myself would tend to
answer "because this is what I believe God intends," I imagine you would adduce
your own, purely naturalistic reasons/evidence for supporting or rejecting the
moral view in question.

(Gwynn/138879) Not to mention, that usually gets misunderstood. For instance, t...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:45:00 -0600

Not to mention, that usually gets misunderstood. For instance, take Galileo.
The RCC didn't say "ghaaaa! You're attacking our cherished theology, stop it
science man!" Basically what they said was, "that's cool, if you use it as a
mathematical model", and Galileo said, "no fuck you, it's totally true". But it
kind of wasn't, remember he was defending the Copernican theory here, and he
had no more evidence for it than anybody else did. The problem wasn't his work,
the problem was that he asserted his work was true, or rather, that it proved
the Copernican theory, when it did no such thing.

Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying it's cool that the RCC had that
much power. I'm not saying that because the RCC had a point, what they did to
Galileo was totally cool. I don't think any organization should have that much
power. But my point is, the RCC wasn't necessarily doing this kneejerk reaction
against Copernicanism, there were other models at the time that looked equally
probable, and Galileo ignored one of them at least that was contemporary, I
think Brahe came up with it but I forget offhand. And sure, part of it was
political, the Reformation was in full swing and the RCC wasn't super
interesting in challenges to established knowledge. But they weren't reacting
against science, as such. Galileo's claims outstripped his evidence. The fact
that he turned out to be more or less correct doesn't really change that.

(Giraffe/138878) Catholicism is probably the poster child for dogmatic religion. ...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:41:00 -0600

Catholicism is probably the poster child for dogmatic religion. What exactly is
it that they teach despite actual evidence that it isn't true?  They certainly
don't teach that the world was created in 4004 BC.

(Steppenwolf/138877) Yeah, but that's only true for some religion, which means it's a...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:25:00 -0600

Yeah, but that's only true for some religion, which means it's a poor ground to
try to reject ALL religion.

(Danix/138876) The problem with dogmatic religion is that dogma doesn't just as...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:13:00 -0600

The problem with dogmatic religion is that dogma doesn't just ask you to have
faith-based beliefs, it asks you to do so even when there's actual evidence
that it isn't true.

See the rejection of the heliocentric model for our Solar System.
- Creationism vs. Evolution.
- "The world was created in 4004 BC."

(Steppenwolf/138875) Replies to Sal, Gislef, and Gwynn follow:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:01:00 -0600

Replies to Sal, Gislef, and Gwynn follow:

Sal:

"First off, you can't establish that what I believe is untrue any more than I
can establish that it's true.  I keep stipulating that what I possess are
*beliefs*.  You keep responding as if I'm making claims to *knowledge*."

My point is that you are apparently content that way. If we were all content
about our beliefs, without seeking to verify them and transform them into
knowledge, then the world would be a backward place. Of course, to some extent
most of us DO compartmentalize, but most atheists would say "not enough."

"I'm saying that if what I believe -not *know*, but *believe* - to be true and
you believe to be untrue can feed and clothe people, the good that results
trumps the indeterminate status of an epistemological claim you seem intent on
demanding."

I'm saying that by not wishing to convert beliefs into knowledge, this method
of believing in the end does much more harm than good. Like I said in my
answer, if you don't eventually teach people to donate lovingly, eventually
those donations will dry up.

But here's my real concern: what is someone like me supposed to do? I am pretty
well convinced that no God exists. If I were to determine that religion made
people behave better, what should I do? Should I lie to my children? Should I
say, "We're going to pretend that there is a God so that you are better
behaved?" Or let's put this in your situation: what if it turned out that the
religion that clearly had the greatest, most in-depth and beautiful teachings
of morality derived that information from a mythos that included the Earth
being sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure, less than 500 years ago, in
complete defiance of all verifiable scientific evidence? Could you put aside
your faith just because it was better in teaching others to be good and what
being good meant?

Gislef:

"I didn't get the impression that Sal was saying that religion was
superior to atheism for determining moral "truths.""

I'm pertty sure he was saying that religion is a superior way of determining
what behavior is moral and inducing that behavior. Sal can correct me if I'm
wrong.

"When we're talking about "moral knowledge" and "moral truths," I guess I'm not
clear what kind of evidence, other then non-testable evidence, _does_ exist. Or
again, how a "right" answer to a moral question is determined."

I agree, I don't know that there is either, though I'm not confident enough to
say it's impossible. Thus, I keep on citing Harris' work, but frankly don't
know that it suffices or that I'm at all convinced by it. I think it might be
the case that there are objective moral truths, but it seems to me unlikely.

Gwynn:

"Wait, so when you say that the atheist doesn't trust a society where truth
isn't important, you're talking about some other kind of truth?"

I'm trying to distinguish between wondering if being X is a "friend," a
definitional sort of truth which is basically subjective, versus determining if
there is a phenomenon at all that is Being X--an objective question. Subjective
truth is important in the sense of trying to be consistent, but that's
something that religion frequently though not always can handle. Worrying about
objective truth is different entirely.

It's sort of like pantheism. If you want to define the object of the reverence
one has towards the cosmic order as "God," then an atheist can't really stop
you; that's a definitional question. But very, very few variants of religion do
that: most lay claim to actual phenomena, objective truths and reality.

"I'd still be interested in exploring how we get purely atheist crazy, like the
guy I posted, if anybody's interested."

In another post. I have a lot going on!

(QUITTNER/138874) It is important to consider sources of information that can be q...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:27:00 -0600

It is important to consider sources of information that can be quite wrong, but
is passed on to others as completely true. Most people have no way of
verifying and/or checking information. People in authority are being believed
often implicitly - but where did that information come from originally?

(Gislef/138873) Step: I didn't get the impression that Sal was saying that relig...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:32:00 -0600

Step: I didn't get the impression that Sal was saying that religion was
superior to atheism for determining moral "truths." I certainly don't find it
so. I don't find atheism superior to religion for doing so, either.

When we're talking about "moral knowledge" and "moral truths," I guess I'm not
clear what kind of evidence, other then non-testable evidence, _does_ exist. Or
again, how a "right" answer to a moral question is determined.

(Gwynn/138872) Wait, so when you say that the atheist doesn't trust a society w...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 07:07:00 -0600

Wait, so when you say that the atheist doesn't trust a society where truth
isn't important, you're talking about some other kind of truth? Now I AM
confused. But what's sort of interesting is that you're saying: A. friendship
isn't specific enough, but B. that's Ok because we do use evidence. So what's
the problem if religions don't agree on what "god" is, for lack of a better
term, or morality, or whatever? Sure, "god" isn't specific, but we do use
"evidence", e.g. religious experiences, do we feel we're getting something out
of the religion, Etc.

Now I don't think these things are a problem for you specifically, but I've
seen other people make the same argument who hold to something a lot closer to
the new atheists, and it's weird to me. Because so far as I can see, we can
treat something like "friendship" and "religion", the same way, as far as how
we deal with figuring out its relevance in our lives. But that's somehow a
problem, because one uses evidence, even though it's not specific enough to be
scientifically tested, and the other is ... I dunno, so far it has "faith" or
"faith-based reasoning", and I guess now it doesn't care about truth either. I
guess for me I can see those, but I disagree that they characterize religion as
a whole.

P.S.

I'd still be interested in exploring how we get purely atheist crazy, like the
guy I posted, if anybody's interested.

(Salamano/138871) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 07:00:00 -0600


Step>>

First off, you can't establish that what I believe is untrue any more than I
can establish that it's true.  I keep stipulating that what I possess are
*beliefs*.  You keep responding as if I'm making claims to *knowledge*.

I'm saying that if what I believe -not *know*, but *believe* - to be true and
you believe to be untrue can feed and clothe people, the good that results
trumps the indeterminate status of an epistemological claim you seem intent on
demanding.

I think you came close to concurring when you said it is preferable to donate
$100 grudgingly than $10, lovingly.  The former does the greater good.  A net
greater amount of behavior predicated on beliefs that are not empirically
verifiable is preferable to a lesser amount of good behavior that is.

(Steppenwolf/138870) Gwynn:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 06:53:00 -0600

Gwynn:

That's a completely different argument from the one Sal's making, which is that
truth doesn't matter.

This is the problem with talking to three of you at the same time, each of whom
has different perspectives and interests. Answers that make sense in responding
to one seem to confuse the issue in another.

As for friendships, whether someone is a "friend" is largely not amenable to
truth claims, because "friend" is not a sufficiently specific term and is prone
to too many definitions. But even if that were set aside, we certainly do use
evidence to determine whether someone is a good friend--how they treat us, how
much we enjoy their presence, etc..

(Gwynn/138869) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 06:42:00 -0600

Step:

But that assumes that truth == amenable to the scientific method, and nothing
else. And I disagree with that, and the reasons should be patently obvious.
Unless You want to claim that your friendships, let's say, are scientifically
verified.

(Steppenwolf/138868) Sal: You don't think there's any dishonesty involved in trying t...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 05:52:00 -0600

Sal: You don't think there's any dishonesty involved in trying to pass bad
checks?

Under this view, the theist says, "I don't care if it's true, because it works
for me."
The atheist responds, "What happens to a society where people stop caring if
something's true? Do you really think you can compartmentalize that attitude
towards the things that don't matter/ aren't testable?"

The atheist doesn't trust a world where truth is not held as an important
value.

(Salamano/138867) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 05:35:00 -0600


Step>>

I don't believe my analogy involved "defrauding others."  As I mentioned, the
"badness" of the "bad check" exists only in the mind of the payor, who is *not*
harmed in any material way.

I think I pretty much buy into what I think Gwynn was getting at a while back,
though I would put it in terms of a language, instead of a system of Geometry.

Religion can be likened to a language.  If you speak it, it both possesses and
is capable of creating meaning.  If you don't speak it, it's gibberish.  If you
speak it, you recognize its rules and conventions.

(Gwynn/138866) I thought since we're talking about how people get led astray in...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:05:00 -0600

I thought since we're talking about how people get led astray into crazy, I'd
post this, but first, let me make some statements. This is long, but I urge you
to read the whole thing, if you can. It's disgusting, on a level that's
difficult for me to articulate. I think this is one person, and, much as I
violently disagree with just about everything Ayn Rand said or wrote, I don't
think this is the logical end of Objectivism. In other words, yes, I realize
this is just this one guy, though see the comments, people seem to love
agreeing with him.

But this sort of thing is precisely why I have difficulty with the claims of
the new atheists in particular. There is no "religion" here, that is, we don't
have a god, we don't have priests, Etc. Well, sort of, one organization
certainly wants to set itself up as the dictator of what's Objectivist and
what's not, but you get the idea. If you don't know much about Objectivism and
don't feel like looking it up, it's a sort of precursor to Libertarianism, if
you're familiar with that. Certainly there were others, but Esp. early
Libertarians drew heavily on Ayn Rand's ideas. That having been said, here's
one of the more disturbing pieces of insanity you're likely to read, at least,
I hope we'd all agree on that.

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2011/08/our-post-911-world-ten-year.html

(Steppenwolf/138865) nod Which then raises the question, "Is non-testable evidence ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:36:00 -0600

*nod* Which then raises the question, "Is non-testable evidence trustable
evidence?" Which is a particularly difficult question to answer, I think.

(Gwynn/138864) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:34:00 -0600

Step:

Somebody would have to do this, but I'm wondering how much of that idea is
based off of Paul, "faith is the evidence of things not seen", Etc. Whatever
that quote is, I'm not a big fan of Paul. That is, if you examined the majority
of the world's religions, how would they believe? Would they just believe
because whatever, or would they believe because they feel they have evidence?
See for instance my recent post in Linguistics.

(Steppenwolf/138863) And I don't think you're being, well, unreasonable. :) But if th...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:07:00 -0600

And I don't think you're being, well, unreasonable. :) But if there's one
difference between religion and other ideologies, it might be this: religion
makes a positive virtue of faith, and believing without knowing or testing. And
that sure looks like inculcating this magical thinking.

But, applying my own standards to what I've been thinking, it could be just the
reverse: humans very frequently prefer faith-based thinking to test-based
thinking, so of COURSE religion exists, because that's what people do!

I can see it both ways. *shrug*

(Gwynn/138862) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:54:00 -0600

Step:

And see, if you look at things like Objectivism, and soccer riots, Etc., or
current political discussion in this country, I guess I have to say, I'm not
seeing it. Instead I see a Japanese proverb at work. It's about fugu, that
poisonous blowfish people eat. It says: "People who eat fugu are stupid. People
who do not eat fugu are also stupid."

As an example of what I'm talking about, sorry but here comes some more
reading:

http://www.spiralnature.com/phil/objectivism/unlikelycult.html

If you want a bit more history with the crazy denunciations and
excommunications, I can dig up some of that too. Now I guess the argument could
be, well religion is so pervasive that even if you reject it you were raised
with it, so you're kind of infected with faith-based reasoning, whether you
want to be or not. But that really strikes me like Ayn Rand's idea that
laissez-faire capitalism will produce the freest society ever, OMG totally! But
then she admits, well, there's no place in history where we've had the purely
laissez-faire society she envisions. OK, so how the hell do you KNOW that will
work then? Same thing with Marxism, for instance.

I mean, I guess for me, I absolutely agree with atheists that the attitude that
you're absolutely right, and you really refuse to deal with other people's
points of view, or question your own, Etc. is a problem, and I agree that shows
up in religion. I'm just not at all convinced that religion is some sort of
magical path to inculcate that, or leads to it in the majority of cases, or
whatever the hell atheists think it does these days. Again, I think that kind
of thing is just human beings being human beings.

(Steppenwolf/138861) Gwynn:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:49:00 -0600

Gwynn:

"Is it just the idea that "faith"
can lead you more easily to do stupid things?"

I think that's the only argument I've ever found really convincing... that is,
that faith-based reasoning can excuse a whole bunch of really bad decisions and
should be avoided. Atheists have a bunch of others, none of which I've thought
all that strong.

The second strongest is that, by encouraging dogma from elsewhere that can't be
reasoned with, it supports potentially dangerous authoritarianism. Again, this
isn't unique to religion, but it's perhaps uniquely pervasive.

(Steppenwolf/138860) Gwynn:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:35:00 -0600

Gwynn:

"I think, to a large
extent, they do in fact agree on what's moral. Now, whether that's because it's
religion, or whether that's just something from being human, well, I think
that's up for debate."

That's what I was trying to get across. However, it seems to me unlikely that
religions with such vastly different ideas of deity and means of determining
what's moral all came to the same conclusion because they're doing the same
thing somehow. More likely that these are the easiest rules of human nature.
But I agree, it's up for debate.

I'll look at that page this evening and see if I have any genius comments about
it. :)

Gislef:

You wrote: "How does atheism determine the good suggestions from the bad
suggestions, in a
way superior to the way that Sal's religious tradition has?"

Did I say that it did? No. That's what I'm trying to get across. Sal's the one
suggesting religion is superior. I'm saying that at worst, it seems likely that
they're equal, and I submit it's at least possible that a fully test-based
reasoning system might yield superior answers, like Sam Harris' project.
(Personally, I doubt that this is the case, but I think it's possible.)

Sal:

I'm not sure I buy the analogy. But if I did, here would be my response: "What
becomes of a society where people think it's okay to defraud others for the
greater good?"

If I have no reason to believe in God, should I pretend to for society's sake?
What's the harm going to be when we have a bunch of people who are pretending
to be something they're not? It's one thing, I suppose, to be like Norway where
religion is basically becoming a set of social rituals rather than belief. Or
is that sufficient for you?

(Gwynn/138859) Yeah, I guess I'd sort of like to see Step., since he's being ni...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:41:00 -0600

Yeah, I guess I'd sort of like to see Step., since he's being nice about this,
expand on the other problems he thinks religion can cause, or maybe I should,
that he thinks atheists claim it can cause. Because so far, religion and
atheism seem to be equal, morally speaking. Is it just the idea that "faith"
can lead you more easily to do stupid things?

(Gislef/138858) How does atheism determine the good suggestions from the bad sug...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:27:00 -0600

How does atheism determine the good suggestions from the bad suggestions, in a
way superior to the way that Sal's religious tradition has?

I have no problemwith pointing out the supposed weaknesses of religion in
finding out moral knowledge, but the same weaknesses seem to exist in atheism
as a means of obtaining moral knowledge. Determining the weaknesses also seems
to be reliant on faith-judgements as to what is "good" and "bad."

(Salamano/138857) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:48:00 -0600


Step>>

While I appreciate your response, the essence of what I'm trying to say can be
expressed in the following analogy: It strikes me that atheists insist that
others must make their payments in cash because it is impossible to know that
their checks won't bounce.

I realize, of course, that it is *eventually* possible to verify whether a
check will or will not bounce, and that it is never possible to verify
religious beliefs.  Nevertheless, I think the analogy possesses merit.  Why?
Because even if the check should be "bad," it fulfills *both* of the following
conditions:

A.  It succeeds in buying food to feed hungry people.
B.  It inflicts no material loss upon the payor.

(Gwynn/138856) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:30:00 -0600

Step:

I think I see a flaw in your reasoning. I didn't say Sal's tradition only came
up with good stuff because it agreed with other religions. I just countered
your idea that religions don't agree on what's moral. I think, to a large
extent, they do in fact agree on what's moral. Now, whether that's because it's
religion, or whether that's just something from being human, well, I think
that's up for debate.

I'm not particularly interested in the moral dimensions of religion, the way
Sal seems to be, so if it turns out that we have agreement because we have a
basic morality as humans, well there you go. That's not to say I don't care
about the moral dimension of religion, but I think Sal sees it as primary, and
I don't, necessarily. But to tackle belief and such, have you seen this
research?

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2012/02/ayn-rand-human-nature-19.h
tml

Some of these things might just be the way we are.

(Danix/138855) Actually, Step's comment is pretty spot on with why atheists or ...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:56:00 -0600

Actually, Step's comment is pretty spot on with why atheists or non-religious
people do less contributions to charity. While charity organizations are
intended to do positive stuff, some people believe that those functions should
be done by the government, thus such proposals like Universal Health care vs.
charity-run hospitals, State-run Orphanage Centers vs. Charity-run orphanage
Centers, etc.

For example, I rarely contribute to charities because I do not believe that
charity is actually solving the root cause for the problems they're tackling.
However, I have helped people in need who are actually trying to improve their
well being. Interestingly, I remember some religious teachings talking about
"teaching a man to fish vs. giving the man a big fish to eat". Charity is the
big fish.

(Steppenwolf/138854) Gwynn:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:41:00 -0600

Gwynn:

I'm not trying to present a critique of religion here; what I'm saying is that
religion has no additional advantage that we can see for moral reasoning. In
particular, Sal has described in his faith a millennia-long tradition of
working on morality. If we only know that it's getting good answers because
it's agreeing with other religions, even those who don't have a similar
tradition, why should I believe that the intellectual tradition is actually
finding any useful answers? It seems more likely to me that those answers are
just as you said: part of human nature.

So what I've been trying to do, probably more clearly than most atheists, is
try to separate religion from "faith-based reasoning." That is, most of the
things that religion does aren't that bad. Of course, you have fundamentalists,
but you have crazies of all stripes, religious or no. HOWEVER, if you broaden
that to faith-based reasoning, you can hypothesize that a number of ills arise
from that kind of thought, and that religion provides a convenient excuse for
people to continue to use it. The real problem here is not the actual belief in
God, but the way that people believe.

(Gwynn/138853) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:37:00 -0600

Step:

Just so. Now, I am not suggesting that all religions have the same moral
teachings. But I think on broad issues, like say, theft and murder, they
largely agree. Even in the fundamentalist Islam that obsesses Harris, which he
insists on taking as all of Islam, it's not the case that you can just kill
indiscriminately. They believe they are at war. Now I'd say their belief is
wrong, and I think we can even argue that it's wrong according to their own
religion. But my point is, even in a situation where people would look at it
and go, "wow, that's crazy and violent", you still probably have large
agreement on morality between say, Wahhabism and other religions.

Interestingly, if you look at it, Wahhabism actually has quite a lot of
parallels to fundamentalist Christianity. For example:

http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/a/wahhabi.htm

So again, I think really atheists should focus their arguments. I think one
question we should ask is, "is it the case that 'religion' in general is bad?"
Because I think we can all agree that fundamentalism, if not entirely
problematic, can become problematic in fairly short order. But this is also why
I disagree with Harris, because his claim is that moderates provide cover. I
don't see how, considering the moderates would disagree with the
fundamentalists and be just as horrified by the violence as anybody else.
Further, that basically says something like, "OK, you're a moderate Christian,
but you don't say a thing about Fred Phelps, because sure he's a bit whacky,
but he's Christian". But there are lots of Christians saying things against
Fred Phelps.

I just dunno. I mean, you say that religion's been at it for X thousand years,
and it hasn't come up with any definitive moral answers. But you ignore the
broad agreement between religious traditions, and then when pressed, you say
well, there probably are no objective moral answers. That sort of implies that
ANY attempt is doomed, so who cares that religion's been at it for X thousand
years, but hasn't come up with anything definitive? You just admitted that
probably nobody else can either. So I hardly see that as a valid critique of
religion.

I think most of the things atheists attribute to religion are just human
things, I'd think violence over soccer games, for example, should be enough to
demonstrate that. Or Objectivism, for example, it has excommunications and
everything! To be fair, I also think the atheists have a point, I think there
is a broad level of moral agreement across humanity. Of course, since we've had
religion as far back as we can tell, it makes it a bit more difficult
separating it, but I don't think you need a religion to have a morality.

(Steppenwolf/138852) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:28:00 -0600

Sal:

I do agree that Brooks' data is certainly evidence for an advantage to
religious institutions, and if that turns out to be true is an extremely potent
reason to find advantages in religion.

That said, the data are still fairly preliminary, wouldn't you say? We don't
have a correlation/causation question, we don't have a good control group to
American culture, and there has yet to arise the kind of atheistic social
institution that could help instill such goals. Moreover, as you've mentioned
previously, it's possible that Western atheists (who are predominantly
progressive) might prefer government intervention and feel (erroneously) that
their governmental contributions and favor of more such intervention suffices.

Lastly, it could be the stage at which we find atheistic society. Right now, to
a great extent atheism is forced to define itself in opposition to religion.
But what if in a few hundred years we find ourselves with different moral
variants of atheism fulfilling the same goals? In this corner we have the
Kantian Kabal, over there is the Theravadan School, or you could be an
Objectivist or Nozickian libertarian. In other words, once atheism isn't just
an alternative to religion, it might develop an array of strong moral theories
that can espouse the same kinds of charitable impulses.

(Salamano/138851) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:54:00 -0600


Step>>

You wrote:  "To provide my actual answer, in a vacuum it's better to grudgingly
donate $100, but in the broad scheme of life society is more likely to flourish
if we develop a morality where to help others is a joy and privilege."

To this I would respond by saying that while atheists are more likely to be
occupied with what they believe to be the a priori conditions for producing
the sort of morality to which you refer, religious believers are demonstrably
more likely to be engaged in activities intended to actually ameliorate human
suffering.

I'd surmise, for example, that those who believe they have a religious
obligation to give at least a tenth of their income to charity are likely to
donate a greater percentage of their income, on average, than those who hold no
such belief. Arthur Brooks' research certainly suggests that those who self-
identify as religious give more (proportionate to their income) - regardless of
their political affiliations - than their non-religious counterparts.  And they
don't simply give more to their respective churches.  They give more across the
board.

If the actual amelioration of human suffering trumps considerations of the
manner in which, or the reasons why such behavior was conducted, atheists might
consider giving a tip of the hat to those religious beliefs that underpin such
behavior. Unless, of course, one believes that what one believes is more
important than what one does...which, I suspect, is precisely what most
atheists believe.

Note that I am not claiming that there are no atheist charities, or that
individual atheists are incapable of being as generous, or more generous than
individual religious believers.  What I *am* suggesting is that the matter of
who tends give a greater proportion of their income to charitable causes is an
empirical question, and that the most prominent current research with which I
am familiar points rather conclusively in the direction of the religious.

(Steppenwolf/138850) Gwynn:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:50:00 -0600

Gwynn:

I presume not.

(Gwynn/138849) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:31:00 -0600

Step:

OK, now, what would the majority of the world's religions do in that situation?
Would the majority of the world's religions advocate throwing rocks at strange
women?

(Steppenwolf/138848) Sal: Empirical. There are many traditions of looking for moral a...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:28:00 -0600

Sal: Empirical. There are many traditions of looking for moral answers that
are nonetheless not religious.

So there!

(Salamano/138847) Steppenwolf>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:20:00 -0600


Steppenwolf>>

You wrote:  "I'll grant that a scholarly tradition of LOOKING for moral answers
is a great and wonderful thing, but that's not in any way reliant on religion."

Is that an empirical finding, or a statement of faith?  ;)

(Steppenwolf/138846) The role of women in society would be a huge one that comes to m...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:04:00 -0600

The role of women in society would be a huge one that comes to mind.

You know, like how strangers with skirts who go into some charedi neighborhoods
in Jerusalem get rocks thrown at them by the kids. That'd be one.

(Gwynn/138845) Gods, I can't believe I'm going to do this, but Step., what mora...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:22:00 -0600

Gods, I can't believe I'm going to do this, but Step., what moral answers have
they disagreed on? I mean for big questions?

(Steppenwolf/138844) "I'm not claiming that my faith tradition has produced "the trut...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:48:00 -0600

"I'm not claiming that my faith tradition has produced "the truth" about any
moral position.  I'm just sayin' that 2,000 years of pondering has produced
some damned good suggestions."

And no way to tell the good ones from the bad ones. That's MY point. The only
way I have to figure out whether your suggestions are any good is by recourse
to my own values and experiences and reasoning... which is what I would be
doing anyway.

I'll grant that a scholarly tradition of LOOKING for moral answers is a great
and wonderful thing, but that's not in any way reliant on religion.

"Let me ask you the following question: Is it preferable to donate $100 to a
charity that helps feed needy families, but to do so grudgingly...or to happily
and lovingly donate $10?  How would an atheist like yourself determine what you
consider to be the right course of action?"

The short answer is by recourse to my own values and experiences and reasoning.
Same as we figure out all our moral answers. :) To provide my actual answer, in
a vacuum it's better to grudgingly donate $100, but in the broad scheme of life
society is more likely to flourish if we develop a morality where to help
others is a joy and privilege.

(Salamano/138843) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:39:00 -0600


Step>>

I'm not claiming that my faith tradition has produced "the truth" about any
moral position.  I'm just sayin' that 2,000 years of pondering has produced
some damned good suggestions.

Let me ask you the following question: Is it preferable to donate $100 to a
charity that helps feed needy families, but to do so grudgingly...or to happily
and lovingly donate $10?  How would an atheist like yourself determine what you
consider to be the right course of action?  (Assume, for the sake of argument,
that the donor in question is capable of giving $100.)

(Steppenwolf/138842) Personally, no, I don't think that there's an objectively moral ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:55:00 -0600

Personally, no, I don't think that there's an objectively moral answer. But Sal
was saying that he belonged to a faith tradition that had spent several
thousand years working on finding moral knowledge. My answer was that, given
the variety of different answers people had come to from the same method, that
this faith tradition had not in fact provided the world with that knowledge;
the method failed to reveal truth.

What I was doing was not describing a particular advantage of atheism but
rather trying to weaken an argument for a particular advantage of some theisms.

That said, I'm leaving open the possibility that a test-based method of
attaining knowledge could reveal such truths if they exist. Not "atheism."
There are a lot of atheisms, like that contained in Communist dogma, that don't
really care about test-based knowledge.

(Gislef/138841) Why shoudl we think there is an objectively moral answer to a gi...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:57:00 -0600

Why shoudl we think there is an objectively moral answer to a given question?
Or that their are "right" answers to be found?

And who decides which answers are the "right" answers?

But atheists have been around since God was first acknowledged. So they've been
around at least two thousand years ago. Haev all atheists found that single
"right" answer to any given question? Aren't there also different "sects" and
philosophies of atheism? Did they all find the same "right" answers?

I'm certainly willing to concede that Judaism, or Shintoism, or Christianity,
haven't found the "right" answers to any moral questions. But I haven't seen
atheists, in the very long history of atheism, do so either. I have no way of
knowing which version of atheism has found "right" answers, so I have no reason
to believe them, either, individually or as a group.

Further, as you note, "IF there were an objectively moral answer to a given
question..." I'm not convinced there is.

(Salamano/138840) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:24:00 -0600


Step>>

Great responses.  Many thanks.

You wrote (not necessarily in your own name): "The standard atheist response
I've seen is that people are generally good anyway,"

Now *there's* an empirical claim to knowledge if ever I saw one!

(Steppenwolf/138839) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:33:00 -0600

Sal:

"What about the tremendous evils that have been
perpetrated by atheist polities?  I don't know how you can simply point your
finger at others without owning the massive evil wrought by atheists."

Who's pointing fingers? My point is merely that meditating on the truth for two
thousand years is no guarantee of finding moral truth. As for atheist
atrocities, of course they exist. That's why I stated that my "ultimate
principle" isn't necessitated by atheism in the slightest; it is simply the
dominant tenet of passionate atheists in the West. Atheism is no barrier to
having faith in a whole bunch of really, really bad ideas. But avoiding
faith-based reasoning might help that... or even if it doesn't, it helps on a
whole bunch of other levels.

"But what about the tremendous amount of good that is done in the
name of faith?"

The standard atheist response I've seen is that people are generally good
anyway, and it is not a surprise that major institutions would do good as well
as evil. Your call on how convincing you find this. More below.

"Another of religion's significant contributions
lies in the provision of community."

If you want to start a good argument among atheists, bring up this point. Some
will say that sure, maybe religion is better at this, but it's not worth living
a lie in order to gain the values of community; a world devoted to truth as its
highest value will be better off in the long run than one which is willing to
be fuzzy on the truth in order to promote community. Others think that atheists
can do this just as well as theists, and we need to start building institutions
right now, and even rituals and temples and so on (seriously!). Yet others
think that the idea of community threatens to install a form of groupthink and
dogma which is either oppressive or simply discards the value of truth over
that of community. Those are typically the people who are empowered by the very
marginalization of atheists, and who enjoy the outsider status, at least in my
view.

I come down as a mild form of the second option; I think institutions naturally
develop in a society, and religion has happened to be there and has taken up
most of the room. Given how few unbelievers there are, and how scattered they
are, it's no surprise that they haven't been able to develop alternate
institutions... especially given the relative newness of the movement.

But hey, we are working to turn Darwin Day into a holiday. :)

(Salamano/138838) Steppenwolf>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:20:00 -0600


Steppenwolf>>

There are bound to be extremists amidst every group, including Jews and, for
that matter, atheists.  (What about the tremendous evils that have been
perpetrated by atheist polities?  I don't know how you can simply point your
finger at others without owning the massive evil wrought by atheists.  Joseph
Stalin was no less an atheist than Baruch Goldstein was a Jew.  It's just that
Stalin murdered a vastly greater number of people.)

I made a point of separating myself from fundamentalists, such as "charedim."
They are a minority within Judaism.  The majority of Jews do not regard
scripture as being literally true, but mine it for the truth it contains.

That some people are incapable of living by the values they profess is not to
say the values are wanting or harmful.  (If the majority couldn't live by those
values it would be something else again.)

That religion has been responsible for some truly pernicious behavior is
undeniable.  But what about the tremendous amount of good that is done in the
name of faith?  What about all the hospitals built by various denominations?
What about the Salvation Army?  Catholic Charities?  There was an article in
today's Wall Street Journal about Jewish free loan associations that was quite
touching.  It would be facile, IMO, for atheists to respond by saying that such
good works need not be motivated by religious belief, unless the same atheists
can point to similar good works being done by fellow atheists on a similarly
massive scale.  This, of course, is unlikely.  (Are atheists more inclined to
forfeit responsibility for the provision of such charitable acts to
government?)

Which raises another point.  Another of religion's significant contributions
lies in the provision of community.  If someone in my faith community suffers a
loss, I will be there, along with others, to console, assist and support the
bereaved family, and I know others will do the same for me in my time of need.
Life cycle events are celebrated in community.  Social action and charitable
projects are initiated and implemented together.  We meet in different
groupings to study all manner of topics of both a religious and secular nature.
In an increasingly virtual world, it's nice to feel part of a large "extended
family" with whom one has consistent face-to-face contact.

What, if anything, do atheists celebrate together?  How do they support one
another?

(Gwynn/138837) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:06:00 -0600

Step:

I guess another thing I want is a distinguishing in the meanings of the word
"faith". The new atheists in particular seem to use it in the sense of "blind
belief", i.e. I have no justification whatsoever in believing X. But I think of
it much more as what Buddhists might call "faith in the teacher".

I don't have faith in the teacher, or I'm not supposed to anyway, because he's
an awesome teacher guy and deserves respect. I have faith in him because he's
gone where I want to be. He's meditated, he's dealt with the philosophy, Etc.
So if he tells me, "when you meditate, blah will happen", and I meditate, and
blah happens, good. Then my faith in him is justified, and we keep going, see
the shamanism example previously.

Now it may be that any number of believers believe because it's what they grew
up with, or whatever. But I'd guess a lot of them believe because it makes some
sort of sense to them, teacher said stealing is bad, I stole, it was bad. You
certainly don't need religion to arrive at moral conclusions like that, but I
guess I don't see the entire castigation of religion because of it. Let me give
an example from Sam Harris.

Harris has this Islam fetish, and his contention is that it's a violent
religion. His justification for this goes something as follows:  If a Buddhist
or Quaker did a suicide bombing, we'd be able to say right away, that's totally
against their religion. We can't say that with Islam.

But if that's the case, then shouldn't we promote the "better" religions,
seeing as how we're probably not going to be able to get rid of religion
entirely? I mean, on the one hand, he's saying religion is bad, period. OTOH,
he's going "well actually these ones over here teach some good stuff". It seems
pretty strange to me to say that class X is bad, but there are some decent
members of class X. In fact, I daresay it reminds me of something. It's almost
like Harris is saying, "some of my best friends are religions".

I think that blanket prejudice is my big problem with the new atheists in
particular, and as Sal's pointed out already, it's not like all of us who have
theistic beliefs reject logic and such. But you really wouldn't know that,
reading the new atheists. I guess I just wish we could have more intelligent
discussions about religion, and/or the lack thereof, like this one, rather than
the uninformed craziness and prejudice that usually infects both sides of the
argument.

(Steppenwolf/138836) Gislef:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:12:00 -0600

Gislef:

Salamano has described Judaism as a set of practices that have attempted to
find moral answers to a variety of conundrums. However, following the exact
same practices, different sects of Judaism have found very different answers.
Therefore, those practices must be deemed unreliable; since I have no way of
knowing which version of Judaism has found "right" answers, I have no reason to
believe either.

Thus, if there were an objectively moral answer to a given question, the method
Sal has described cannot be the correct route.

(Gislef/138835) I think most religions have provided moral knowledge. But it's n...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:08:00 -0600

I think most religions have provided moral knowledge. But it's not clear to me
what the "best moral answers" constitute. Or who is deciding that they're the
best. Who says that someone in a religion doesn't have the best moral answers?
How are New Atheists determining that their moral answers are better than (or
have the potential to be better than) anyone else's?

Who decided that, say, Judaism doesn't provide the best moral answers? Or
Shintoism?

(Steppenwolf/138834) Gislef:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:31:00 -0600

Gislef:

Right, sure. My point is merely that working over two thousand years trying to
figure out what the best moral answer is doesn't actually seem to get you the
best moral answers, as evidenced by the many different paths, some of them
quite nasty, that arise from that method. In other words, it doesn't actually
provide moral knowledge.

Gwynn:

Again, you and I largely agree here, and this is why I don't really consider
myself one of the New Atheists. However, the smartest answers aren't that you
have to get rid of all your givens... just that you should constantly be
questioning them, looking for ways to test them, and seeing if your beliefs
turn out to be invalid. In other words, not to be content with faith-based
reasoning, to see it as a failure, not an advantage. That's the difference
between them and people who apply faith reasoning to testable facts.

"But the new atheists haven't really done any work on
demonstrating how we determine good givens from bad givens, or demonstrating
that we don't need givens at all, which they'd really have to do, I think."

I just want to highlight this as something which with I particularly agree, and
a project that I think would be fascinating.

(Gwynn/138833) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:58:00 -0600

Step:

At bottom, we have givens for everything. I'm not so sure foundationalism is at
all possible, and that's really what we're ultimately talking about here, that
our beliefs are justified right down to the ground. So I mean, OK, this applies
to everything ... including atheism. I know I've hammered on this a lot, but
follow me for a minute.

Shamanism says, if you do X, Y will happen. I do X, Y happens. So I keep going.
Maybe first I hit a trance state, then I encounter spirits, or see the
underworld, whatever, it doesn't really matter what it is. So I'm going, OK, it
said do X and Y will happen, and lo and behold, that's exactly what happened.
Then it said, once Y happens, keep going and Z and A will happen, and yep,
again, there you are. For something maybe a bit more familiar, you can replace
shamanism with Buddhist meditation, let's say.

Now the new atheism wants me to deny that experience. It wants me to say, oh
well, that's some kind of brain thing. But again, if they're applying this to
everything, why don't they? I want to hear this conversation. Random Jim: "I
love my wife." New Atheist Bob: "No you don't, not really, you see that's all
just a chemical reaction in your brain and ..."

I mean, the arguments used to attack religion can be used to attack tons of
things we do. And see, I know you say they're doing it with politics and such,
but my point is, it seems to me that if you push their arguments to their
logical ends, what will we have left? They attack intuition, they attack
experiences, they seem to want logical verification but then when we try that
we get, "oh but that's not empirically verified", can you empirically verify
morals? Or politics?

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that it seems to me that their
arguments can be used to deconstruct most things we do as human beings,
possibly all of them, including the things they think are the right things to
do. So sure, I agree with you, GIGO, if your givens suck, it's likely your ends
will suck too. But the new atheists haven't really done any work on
demonstrating how we determine good givens from bad givens, or demonstrating
that we don't need givens at all, which they'd really have to do, I think.

Harris comes closest in trying to ground morality in what makes us flourish as
humans, I'll be nice and say shades of Aristotle rather than Ayn Rand, and he
wants to ground this in our biology, but I'm pretty sure I can come up with
counter examples pretty easily, of people defying this sort of biological moral
imperative.

(Gislef/138832) Replace "faith" with "belief" and you can apply that to almost a...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:35:00 -0600

Replace "faith" with "belief" and you can apply that to almost any group with a
set of beliefs, that they have stuff that splits off in non-positive
directions.

It wasn't just the Church that disagreed with Galileo.

If it seems like the Church (any church) has more power when it goes in a
non-positive direction, it's most likely beceause throughout a great deal of
recorded history, the Church has had much of the power.

(Steppenwolf/138831) Gwynn:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:58:00 -0600

Gwynn:

Well, sure, I don't particularly disagree with any of that. BUT the smart and
most common atheist argument isn't that you HAVE to believe in unicorns or
dragons, but that I have no reason to believe in the truth of any of your
statements when your reasons for having the givens you do could easily be
applied to believing in another religion, or unicorns or dragons or what have
you. See what I mean? If your givens suck, then it's a GIGO situation--garbage
in, garbage out.

(Steppenwolf/138830) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:42:00 -0600

Sal:

I think the average New Atheist would find your beliefs worth an eye roll. That
is, it would seem silly and pointless, but in and of itself only ultimately
harmful if the results that come out of it are harmful--either really evil
morality, or else some fact-statements about the world that are demonstrably
untrue and deceiving.

But the catch is, and it's a viewpoint that I've seen repeated time and again,
but stated most forcibly by the aforementioned Sam Harris, that many religious
communities use the acceptance of some faiths as reasons that their more
radical faiths and truth-statements be accepted as well. Or, to be less
abstract, the existence of moderate faith is used as an excuse to extend
tolerance to dangerous, radical faith, and there is not any particular way to
easily separate the two.

A good example would be your own faith tradition. Can you really say that it's
always split off in positive directions? Or don't you think it's true that
groups like the haredi could make exactly the claims you have, and yet have
used that edifice to reinforce some really ugly rules about our relationships
with one another and with outsiders?

So rather than try to pick and choose and say, "This kind of religion is good
and this is bad" when there might not be a real principled way to distinguish
the two, the preference is to attack religious faith as a whole... but again,
the real principle is an attack on faith, period. It's jsut that religion is
both the most pernicious example and the one for which atheists are
marginalized for refusing to believe.

(Gwynn/138829) Right, but I think the new atheists often mix these too. But my ...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:32:00 -0600

Right, but I think the new atheists often mix these too. But my point is, the
new atheists, some of them anyway, will say, "well if you believe that God said
X, suppose he says Y", where Y is something awful like go chop up your
neighbors. Or another favorite is, "well if you believe in a god on such
weak/lacking evidence, then you HAVE to believe in unicorns and dragons and
...." What I'm trying to get at here is that if you accept some particular
religion's axioms, as it were, no, you don't have to do any of that stuff.

Just as, if I accept Euclid, I don't have to believe that a triangle's interior
angles sum greater than 180 Dg., similarly, just because I accept religion X,
doesn't mean I have to believe any old thing that comes down the pike.
Similarly, I don't have to fight with people, or assume that because Euclidean
geometry doesn't agree with geometry on a sphere, all of mathematics is wrong.
That's another thing that gets hammered on, religions can't agree on anything,
or Christians can't agree on what God's like, Etc.

Anyway, my point is, if I accept Christianity, or Daoism, or Judaism, or
Buddhism, or I'm an animist, whatever, if I have this "faith-based reasoning",
whatever that's supposed to mean, I'm pretty sure NONE of those let me prove
any old thing I want, e.g. it's perfectly OK to start devouring babies. If I
accept the axioms of whatever religion, and follow them through, in theory
anyway, (I haven't sat down and worked all of them out), I shouldn't ever be
able to get to, devouring babies is cool, go for it! Conversely, I should be
able to pretty strongly demonstrate why that's actually wrong and a bad thing
to do, in any of those faiths. Well accept maybe animism, because that's really
less a religion and more a generic category covering a bunch of them. But you
get the idea.

(Steppenwolf/138828) Gwynn: For your first part, I'd take Sal's answer as my own: it'...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:30:00 -0600

Gwynn: For your first part, I'd take Sal's answer as my own: it's logical, not
empirical knowledge. That is, because of the faith-based core it's all a bunch
of statements about religion, but we don't know if any of it is empirically
true. Which is fine in a "castles in the air" sort of way, but harmful when we
start talking about reality. Well, potentially harmful.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that in the end, there are a bunch of
things one can't avoid taking on faith. But by George, the New Atheists are
gonna try, and if you read their private writings and discussions (like I said,
I read a number of their blogs), it's far more varied than just religion,
frequently getting into other realms of science and politics. Everyone sees
them as being directed at religion because that's what's transgressive and
shocking to people... that and because religion is such a pervasive influence
in society that there's some sense in trying to combat it first if you think it
most pernicious.

(Salamano/138827) Gwynn>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:50:00 -0600


Gwynn>>

Sure.  But you're talking about logical, rather than empirical knowledge.

(Salamano/138826) I dunno. The discussion doesn't feel relevant to me because, as...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:40:00 -0600


I dunno.  The discussion doesn't feel relevant to me because, as a person who
happens to be a religious believer, I have no interest in trying to pass off
"revealed knowledge" as empirical knowledge.  I recognize that what I and my
co-religionists refer to as "revealed knowledge" is actually a series of
*beliefs*.

That having been said, I am heir to a faith tradition that has spent the last
2,000 years engaged in the enterprise of applying human intellect to the
question of "what is the right thing to do?" with respect to just about every
conceivable moral circumstance.  While the responses to these questions may be
informed by a consideration of principles originating in religious texts, I
fail to see why they should be regarded as any less valid, or useful than
answers produced by the kind of "interrogation" to which Steppenwolf makes
reference.  (The responses that emerge from my faith tradition are dynamic,
non-monolithic, and are subject to evolving historical, social, and economic
developments.  It's all a bit more sophisticated than, "because God told me
to!")

I agree with Gislef's take that the "New Atheists" appear to be somewhat
fixated on discrediting belief in God. Let's say I happen to believe in the
existence of an invisible purple salamander - I know...sounds like Salamano -
that has revealed some basic moral principles to members of my faith community,
and that over the years, that community has tested, refined, expanded, re-
tested and continually honed those principles and their corollaries in light of
evolving, real-life circumstances.  Let's also say that neither I, nor other
members of my particular faith community believe that the salamander continues
to reveal anything, or to involve itself in the natural world, history, or
human affairs. The beliefs we hold regarding morality have been appropriated.
We don't claim they're true because they derive from principles revealed by an
infallible source.  We only claim that they're the best beliefs we've been able
to produce.  To engage in dialogue concerning the salamander strikes me as
pointless for both parties.

What I think is really at issue is that a non-believer has great difficulty
taking much of anything associated with someone who believes in a supreme
salamander seriously.  And this seems to be the attitude of many an atheist
toward anyone who professes a belief in God.

(Gwynn/138825) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:32:00 -0600

Step:

I disagree that you can't ever know whether you have an untrue belief with
faith, and here's why. Maybe somebody will accuse me of having special
religious logic again! :)

I take religions as sets of statements. Then I look at them like geometry. In
Euclidean geometry, even though I can't "prove" lines and points and such, they
must be taken as givens, once I accept those givens, I CAN "prove" that, say,
the interior angles of any triangle always sum to 180 degrees. Just so with
religion, once I accept it's statements, I should be able to "prove" that, say,
torturing animals is wrong.

But I kind of agree with Gislef, because there are a ton of things we take on
faith. Take, for instance, our Constitution and conception of rights. I'm not
going for the "we're a Christian nation!" bullshit, but really, what "proof" do
we have that we actually HAVE inaliable(sp?) rights? What "proof" do we have
that we've got the best political system going? Maybe we should become a
monarchy, maybe they're better, assuming a benevolent monarch, of course. You
can extend this toother spheres of politics readily enough, I assume I don't
need to multiply examples. So I'm agreeing with both of you I guess, they seem
to exclusively hammer on religion, for the most part, and there ARE things we
need to accept on faith.

So it seems to me, they're just misguided. If we HAVE to accept some things on
faith, or we HAVE to construct useful fictions like we all have rights just by
virtue of being a human being, then it would seem to follow is that what you
really want to do is sit down and really analyze faith, and faith-based
reasoning, and see how we make it better, not just keep yelling about how
anybody who has it is mentally deffective and possibly the next Hitler. It
might be true that an unexamined life isn't worth living, but I wish the new
atheists, th book writers in particular, would realize that there's only so
much examination one person can do. That cuts both ways.

(Steppenwolf/138824) Well, that's what sells on the shelves, but when you look at the...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:10:00 -0600

Well, that's what sells on the shelves, but when you look at their other
projects, they tend towards the "skeptical" movement, which is applying that
rejection of faith-based belief to other fields.

That's why I picked homeopathy, which is a great way to get one of the "New
Atheists" very very angry.

Like I said, this isn't a formal principle, but this is what I see from reading
atheist blogs and having atheist friends and the like; the ones that most
passionately identify with atheism tend to be thoroughgoing skeptics about
other stuff as well, or at least try to be.

(Gislef/138823) Looking through the literature, it seems like the predominant wo...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:38:00 -0600

Looking through the literature, it seems like the predominant works are focused
entirely on rejecting religion and religious-based belief, rather than
"faith"-based belief. With titles such as "God is Not Great," and "God: The
Failed Hypothesis" and "The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

I don't doubt that there are some who dismiss any faith-based belief, but the
common thread appeares to be the attempt to reject all _religious_-based
belief.

(Steppenwolf/138822) Well, atheists differ (I'm one who says that we can't avoid taki...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:13:00 -0600

Well, atheists differ (I'm one who says that we can't avoid taking things on
faith), but this aspect of the discussion started when Sal asked me if there
was an animating, ultimate principle to atheism. I said no, but if there was a
common thread among people who passionately self-identify as atheists in the
West, it's an attempt to reject all faith-based belief. Religion is just one
form of that, but because of its wide social acceptance and the way it
dominates moral arguments, it's the one that the New Atheists would consider
the most pernicious.

(Gislef/138821) I'm not convinced that "faith" and "religion" are the same thing...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:59:00 -0600

I'm not convinced that "faith" and "religion" are the same thing, however. I'm
not totally famliar with the New Athesists, but do they take nothing on
"faith"?

A belief that homoeopathy is effacious, for instance, doesn't seem to have a
religious component as far as I can tell. I am sure that some people (any new
Athesists?) use faith-based reasoning to come to the conclusion that it is, but
they don't seem to use religious-based reasoning.

(Steppenwolf/138820) Let's take, say, homeopathy. We can determine whether homeopathi...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:38:00 -0600

Let's take, say, homeopathy. We can determine whether homeopathic remedies work
or do not work by doing tests, and really we can figure out with a great deal
of confidence that the statement "Homeopathic remedies are more valuable than a
placebo" is wrong. Maybe change "valuable" for "efficacious at treating what
they're intended to treat." Test-based reasoning gets us there. Faith-based
reasoning does not; it can't really answer that question with any degree of
confidence. However, as long as faith-based reasoning is an acceptable
discourse, an acceptable way of deciding that a statement is true, it becomes
very very difficult to disabuse believers in homeopathy of that notion.

So what many of the New Atheists believe, and it's a statement with which I'm
fairly sympathetic but of which I'm not entirely convinced, is that religion
acts as a tacit acceptance of this sort of reasoning. As long as it's okay to
take some fact-statements entirely on faith, it acts like a virus, spreading
through our knowledge system.

TO a large extent, of course, many religious people realize this; this is why
people try to back up every religious assertion with scientific proof as well,
as if that would remove all doubt. Like you said, Gislef, people use factual
reasoning to determine that charity is good. But there's always a tendency to
say, "Well, THESE facts are okay to use faith-based reasoning about, while
others may not be." The New Atheists would say that it doesn't work that way;
once you've given people a license to rely on faith for knowledge, it will be
misused.

Obviously, this still leaves open the question of moral conduct, and whether
moral knowledge can exist. Honestly, there's not much consensus among atheists
on this question. Some, like Sam Harris, think that moral knowledge is
perfectly amenable to this mode of thought--see his latest book, "The Moral
Landscape." Others think you simply can't derive an "ought" from an "is" at
all, and simply strive to do the best with what you have. I think the best
answer is something like this: our morals are ineluctably derived from our
genetic makeup, our culture, and our reasoning about those experiences. The
best we can do is to be sure that the reasoning is accurate, so that when we
make a moral statement with a factual basis, e.g. "Same-sex marriage will harm
children," you have the tools and the method to research that and see if it's
actually true. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have.

(Salamano/138819) That's right. One can never know that one is wrong. But othe...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:06:00 -0600


That's right.  One can never *know* that one is wrong.  But other-than-
fundamentalist religious believers don't make claims to knowledge.  We
recognize that what we hold are *beliefs*.  Which is why I'm interested in
understanding how "interrogating" can produce *knowledge* in the realm of moral
conduct?

(Gislef/138818) I'll have to echo Sal in that I'm not entirely clear what that a...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:34:00 -0600

I'll have to echo Sal in that I'm not entirely clear what that all means. "know
if you're wrong" about what, exactly? Could you give a few examples of beliefs
that atheists can determine that they're wrong about, but religious types can
never know that they're wrong abouit?

It also strikes me that only relatively few religious types use _purely_
faith-based reasoning. For instance, it doesn't seem that religious types who
believe "charity is good" are only basing that on faith-based reasoning.

(Steppenwolf/138817) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:16:00 -0600

Sal:

No, think of it in reverse. When you're using faith-based reasoning, instead of
testing your beliefs, you can never know if you're wrong. You have no way of
ferreting out untruths.

(Salamano/138816) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:03:00 -0600


Step>>

You wrote:  "Yes, I hope I've made clear that right methods aren't guaranteed
to lead to right results, given that we are not ideal people. But with what we
might call faith-based reasoning, you NEVER know if you have a right or wrong
answer. You can never really tell if you've found a truth. With true
interrogation, you've got a shot at it. That's why actively testing one's
beliefs is more likely to find truth, and more to be trusted."

I honestly don't understand this point of view at all.  Could you, perhaps,
provide an example of a truth that is available through true interrogation but
unavailable through faith-based reasoning?

(Steppenwolf/138815) Thank you, QUITTNER. Indeed, your posts have always borne eloque...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:41:00 -0600

Thank you, QUITTNER. Indeed, your posts have always borne eloquent witness to
the dangers of believing things are true based on faith rather than questioning
and testing one's beliefs.

(QUITTNER/138814) From a global point of view, very many fiction books are written...

QUITTNER@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:51:00 -0600

From a global point of view, very many fiction books are written and sold every
year, but if you question the religious fictional beliefs in some countries it
may get you killed! Be careful what you say in which country!

(Steppenwolf/138813) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:46:00 -0600

Sal:

"And there are plenty of people I fear will end up making the wrong choices in
spite of what you might view as the "right" method, lest you fall prey to a
tautology in which the "right" method will, of necessity, produce the "right"
choices."

Yes, I hope I've made clear that right methods aren't guaranteed to lead to
right results, given that we are not ideal people. But with what we might call
faith-based reasoning, you NEVER know if you have a right or wrong answer. You
can never really tell if you've found a truth. With true interrogation, you've
got a shot at it. That's why actively testing one's beliefs is more likely to
find truth, and more to be trusted.

"I'd agree that religious belief is neither necessary, nor sufficient to
produce
moral behavior.  But the same is true of atheism."

Oh, of course that's true. But faith-based reasoning makes it impossible to say
that someone is wrong, other than by bald assertion. Testable reasoning gives
us that opportunity.

(Salamano/138812) Steppenwolf>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:39:00 -0600


Steppenwolf>>

Step>>

Cheers!

You wrote:  "there are plenty of people that I trust to end up at approximately
the 'right' choices in spite of what I might view to be wrong methods."

And there are plenty of people I fear will end up making the wrong choices in
spite of what you might view as the "right" method, lest you fall prey to a
tautology in which the "right" method will, of necessity, produce the "right"
choices.

I'd agree that religious belief is neither necessary, nor sufficient to produce
moral behavior.  But the same is true of atheism.

(Steppenwolf/138811) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:09:00 -0600

Sal:

"You're using the term "truths," rather than "beliefs."  Don't you mean the
latter?  (Or, didn't you mean to place "truths" in quotes?)"

I do mean beliefs... I think I used "truths" because I wanted to indicate how
strongly held they were.

"That aside notwithstanding, what is entailed by "interrogating?"  I mean,
there
are lots and lots of religious believers who reject the uncritical acceptance
of religious dogma."

I would say that "interrogation" means refusal to test testable facts, and
insisting on trying to test one's ideas. The problem that atheists would find
with such interrogation of religious dogma is that, unless you're testing it
against the real world, what could you possibly be testing it on? Aren't you
just building castles in the air if you're testing religious dogma against
other dogma?

"And isn't there much truth to be found in religious
"truths?""

Sure there is. But as long as you're willing to accept, to adapt your phrase,
uncritical acceptance of certain dogmas, then you're in grave danger of also
having wrong beliefs. This might not be a problem from person to person: there
are plenty of people that I trust to end up at approximately the "right"
choices in spite of what I might view to be wrong methods. But if there is
social acceptance of uncritical belief, then we lack a major tool for combating
wrong, and dangerous, belief.

If this post is a little muddled, it's because I've become a total lightweight
and two glasses of wine are a killer lately.

(Salamano/138810) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:59:00 -0600


Step>>

"It just suggests that reliance on faith-based truths, instead of interrogating
those truths, is likely to lead to social evil... whatever you think those
social evils are."

You're using the term "truths," rather than "beliefs."  Don't you mean the
latter?  (Or, didn't you mean to place "truths" in quotes?)  After all, if
they're actual truths, interrogation wouldn't change their status.

That aside notwithstanding, what is entailed by "interrogating?"  I mean, there
are lots and lots of religious believers who reject the uncritical acceptance
of religious dogma.  And isn't there much truth to be found in religious
"truths?"

(Steppenwolf/138809) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:47:00 -0600

Sal:

That's why atheism can't be understood as a complete moral system. It's not a
religion, and it doesn't work that way. People might try to find their morality
in deontological stuff like Kant or Rawls, or in utilitarian theories, or
whatever. But the point is that when you come up with an answer, you should
test it.

Similarly, "atheism" isn't going to tell you how to judge people. It just
suggests that reliance on faith-based truths, instead of interrogating those
truths, is likely to lead to social evil... whatever you think those social
evils are.

(Salamano/138808) Gwynn>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:21:00 -0600


Gwynn>>

Do you disagree with the proposition that it's exceedingly difficult for an
elected official to resist the temptation to spend new revenue?

(Salamano/138807) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:21:00 -0600


Step>>

You wrote:  "If we live our lives in a constant search for what is true, rather
than allowing ourselves to remain content with beliefs for which we have no
proof, we will be able to overcome the prejudices and lies that cause most of
the harm in our society."

That's great.  But how does your search for what is true inform moral action?
How, for example, do you as an atheist help those who are ill?  Is that a
question that even shows up on your moral compass *qua atheist*?  In the final
analysis, can't both atheists and religious persons only be judged on the basis
of what they do, rather than what they think?

(Gwynn/138806) Sal:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:11:00 -0600

Sal:

No, I'm not kidding. Because you're basically saying that politicians are
spending junkies, and then they got analogized to parents and the voters as
children. Thus, we're the children, and our politicians are the irresponsible
junkie parents.

(Salamano/138805) Gwynn>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:03:00 -0600


Gwynn>>

You're kidding, right?  Or do you actually believe that because I said a
politician resisting the temptation to spend new revenue is akin to a junkie
politely declining a fix, I draw no distinction between elected officials and
heroin addicts?

It's the degree of difficulty involved in breaking a habit to which I'm drawing
a comparison.  If you know of a more suitable analogy, I'll be glad to
substitute it.

(Steppenwolf/138804) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:24:00 -0600

Sal:

Good gracious, an ultimate purpose? There is nothing approaching the kind of
unified belief that makes it possible to think of an "atheism" that has an
ultimate purpose.

So don't think of atheism as a true belief system that can have an ultimate
purpose.

That said, as a cultural question I think you can draw a conclusion about those
atheists in the West who strongly self-identify as such. It's not derived from
atheism, but rather describes the sort of people who are likely to become
strong atheists:

If we live our lives in a constant search for what is true, rather than
allowing ourselves to remain content with beliefs for which we have no proof,
we will be able to overcome the prejudices and lies that cause most of the harm
in our society.

This isn't to say that any one given belief is inherently bad. In fact, it may
well be true. But it deeply distrusts a certain method. Faith-based reasoning,
according to the above tenet, is likely to reinforce one's social prejudices,
contributing to bad governance at all kinds of levels.

It should also be noted that this doesn't just apply to religious belief; the
ideal atheist is applying this to all kinds of political, economic, and
personal life. Of course, we all fall short of this ideal--we're human, after
all--but the point is to interrogate our beliefs as much as possible, not to
take them on faith.

(Gislef/138803) Sal: Both. :) To the first, I think we have a system where polit...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:25:00 -0600

Sal: Both. :) To the first, I think we have a system where politicians have as
much meaningful status and wisdom as... well, the elementary school class
president and student council.

To the second, I don't object to it, but I don't think our current system puts
"parents" into the role of politicians. It puts the smartest (or most
brown-nosing) kids into leadership roles, but they're still kids. I think you'd
need a system closer to what was originally intended for the U.S.:
citizen-politicians, rather than a political "class."

(Gwynn/138802) Sal:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:26:00 -0600

Sal:

Considering you think of government as junkie parents being elected by
children, based on your recent posts, really, how much less can you expect of
government, at this point? I'd really be interested in seeing the analogy for a
lesser government, serial killers maybe?

(Salamano/138801) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:17:00 -0600


Step>>

I ask the following question out of innocent ignorance: What is Atheism's goal?

I know that the goal of my particular faith tradition (Judaism) is to create a
world in which disease, poverty, degradation and suffering are overcome such
that every human life can be sustained with dignity.  Such a goal obviously
demands action - action that is facilitated by organization and cooperation.

What, I wonder, is Atheism's ultimate purpose?

(Salamano/138800) Gislef>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:01:00 -0600


Gislef>>

And I'm simply lamenting the fact that in a "world of children" there are so
few that strive to be adults, particularly among those responsible for serving
as the stewards of our tax dollars.

That having been said, given your view, may I assume you expect even less of
government than do I?  Or, are you only objecting to the parent-child analogy?

(Gislef/138799) Sal: My point of view _is_ that given the child analogy, all you...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:53:00 -0600

Sal: My point of view _is_ that given the child analogy, all you have is
children electing children to be their leaders. A child saying, "Here, you're a
parent," does not make that child a parent, or make them responsible.

If you took a ten-year-old child and said, "Here, you're an adult," I wouldn't
consider them irresponsible if they failed to act like an adult.

It's another way of stating the adage, "The people get the government they
dserve."

(Steppenwolf/138798) Here's the article I was thinking of:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:56:00 -0600

Here's the article I was thinking of:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_
u_s_accept_its_atheists_.single.html

http://goo.gl/HcsXh

(Steppenwolf/138797) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:47:00 -0600

Sal:

I agree: Where we live is a LARGE part of it. I live about 40 miles northeast
of Michelle Bachmann's district, for example, in an area a little more
progressive but very small-townish. And if
I were to proclaim myself to the hills as an atheist, well, I could about lose
hope of a legal career here. I mean, much of the populace would just shrug, but
many, many wouldn't.

And this is still Minnesota. It's much worse in the South. I saw an article on
this the other day--being an atheist is a good way to lose your family. True
ostracism.

As for the Jeopardy question, given that atheists tend to know the Bible better
than most Christians, I'd suggest that the students' failure is a good sign of
our continuing religiosity as a nation. ;)

(Salamano/138796) Gislef>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:46:00 -0600


Gislef>>

There's a Talmudic saying: "In a place where there are no men, strive to be a
man."  (Substitute 'woman' if you wish.)

Your point of view appear to be: politicians do nothing more than give the
people what they want.  My point of view is that such behavior is
irresponsible.  What, after all, is entailed by leadership?

(Salamano/138795) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:31:00 -0600


Step>>

Perhaps it's partially a function of where each of us happens to live, but if
anything, I see free reign given to the bashing of religion and, by extension,
religious believers.  When a guy like Bill Mahre describes religion as a
"neurological disorder," what does that imply about someone like me?

Neither of us can prevent rudeness.  But there's a vast amount of conceptual
ground between engaging in rude behavior and attempting "to silence a
significant part of the nation."

As a somewhat related observation, I wonder whether you may have happened to
watch the Jeopardy College Tournament final the other night.  If you did, you
might have been struck, as was I, that *none* of the three contestants was able
to provide a correct response to four of the five items under "Books of the
Bible."  These kids are among the "best and the brightest" of our college and
university students.

When you reflect upon the fact that knowledge of scripture at one time
constituted an essential element of the post-secondary curriculum in our most
venerated colleges and universities, and you survey today's academic landscape,
it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that our intellectual elite are
probably less religious than ever before.  (Whether that makes them any wiser
or better is, IMO, questionable.)

(Gislef/138794) I'd consider it an assault. As much as someone with religion com...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:05:00 -0600

I'd consider it an assault. As much as someone with religion coming up to me
and telling me I'm wrong about my atheism is wrong.

I suspect that most New Atheists a) don't like religious types coming up and
trying to say they're wrong and/or convert them, and b) now that they have the
relative social freedom to so on behalf of atheism, figure it's time for some
payback. :)

(Steppenwolf/138793) Gwynn:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:43:00 -0600

Gwynn:

I don't disagree. Heck, I've told atheists that before when they can't believe
that *gasp* being told they're wrong about something fundamental is
threatening! Whoa!

I think that, at its best, what they're trying to do is reach people who have
been brought up to think that being in a religion is the norm, but might have
personal doubts. Those people might not realistically know that there is
someplace else to turn, might even be quite lost and not know what to do. For
those people, telling them that it's quite okay to feel the way they do could
be a true blessing and help them feel unity with another group they might not
have known truly exists.

But yes, for people who rely on that religious belief it would seem like an
assault. But atheism can't help that.

(Smoke Eater/138792) This reminds me of the time I was, unfortunately, speaking with ...

Smoke Eater@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:41:00 -0600

This reminds me of the time I was, unfortunately, speaking with Nikk Kaim about
how since he didn't like ISCABBS and didn't think we deserved it, he was going
to shut it down.

I see paralells between that and the same-sex marriage political activity.

(Egregious/138791) There was an anti-cheese movement that got featured on NPR, and ...

Egregious@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:36:00 -0600


There was an anti-cheese movement that got featured on NPR, and it included
the billboards.  NRP listeners reacted pretty viscerally with a "stop telling
me what to do" in the next day's segment.

(Gwynn/138790) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:25:00 -0600

Step:

Oh sure, I agree completely. But I think part of the problem is that atheists,
not just the new atheists, have this whole conversion thing going on. Let me
try to illustrate.

Suppose I think that TV is stupid, which I do. But suppose I think it's so
stupid that you shouldn't watch it. You can readily see the difference between
me not personally owning a TV, and me taking out billboards and such going "TV
is killing us all! You're a damned idiot if you watch it!" And I think even
milder expressions of atheism are kind of doing it. I mean, it's not even so
much we're having a conversation, and I go "oh I don't own a TV", and you ask
me why, and I can express my views about TV.

So I mean, what I'm trying to get at here is that I think people would feel
threatened in much the same way if you started telling them that anything that
has significance in their lives, and I think for most Americans TV definitely
qualifies, is not just something they might think about doing without, but that
it's actively causing them all sorts of problems. And I think a big part of
that is, you're kind of going "you don't know it, but you're fucked up". People
just don't want to hear that.

That would be an interesting social experiment, actually, to get a whole
anti-TV movement together with billboards and everything. Because I think you'd
probably see a lot of the same reactions. Maybe not all, an anti-TVist might
not be de facto barred from office, but you get the general idea. And maybe TV
isn't significant enough, but I'm sure we could find something. So I mean, to
go back to your stance, just in terms of relatios, you can kind of see why
people feel threatened too.

(Gislef/138789) Sal: That's fine in theory. But again, when you have "children" ...

Gislef@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:24:00 -0600

Sal: That's fine in theory. But again, when you have "children" electing other
"children," you don't get stewards as legislators.

So "legislators are stewards" isn't a reasonable expectation, given the nature
of the voters.

(Steppenwolf/138788) I'd agree that a lot of the New Atheist crowd take being rude an...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:15:00 -0600

I'd agree that a lot of the New Atheist crowd take being rude and offensive as
a virtue, and that's a shame. But that doesn't really address my point, which
is that even peaceful, inoffensive statements of atheism are considered
incredibly offensive to a significant portion of the nation. Perhaps even more
so than paganism, because unlike any other religion (which merely says "I
believe differently," but there's a parallelism there), atheism says by its
nature, "My belief system is premised on the negation of your belief system."
Many people find this very threatening. Many people try to shut that down. And
that's wrong.

It's possible that this long program of silencing is what has made the New
Atheists so obnoxious lately; now that they're finally empowered to speak,
knowing that others will be offended no matter what they say, many see no
reason NOT to be offensive. From my perspective, as a relationship-oriented
guy, that's a mistake, but you can see how it may have happened.

(Gwynn/138787) Step:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:50:00 -0600

Step:

The problem is, a lot of atheism is rude. Now don't get me wrong, a lot of
Christianity is rude too, and I object to that just as strenuously. Let me
illustrate with some stories.

When I was in college this guy comes to my door, and he's from blah and wanted
to know if I'd found my "church home" yet. I said, "well I'm pagan". "Oh OK,
you're pagan, that's good, but could you just do me a favor? Could you just
pray, 'heavenly father, if what this man says is true, give me a sign'." I was
like, "look, that's pretty insulting to my intelligence, you realize that
right? You're basically saying that I haven't put as much thought into my
religious commitment as you have to yours. Now get out."

Now the other story, which somebody emailed me. Dawkins was apparently on some
sort of talk show thing with some bishop, and was about to shake his hand, when
he stopped and basically said something to the effect of "I'm not going to
shake your hand because you're a bigot", and there was something else about his
religious beliefs.

I've said a million times, be as atheist as you like. I don't understand the
prejudice against atheists in office, I think it's stupid, I don't understand
why you won't let them put up billboards, I find "we're good without God" about
as mindlessly stupid as "you're nothing without Jesus", so hey go for it. My
problem, Esp. with a lot of the new atheists, is they have that fundie
conversion furver. It's like, as a friend of mine once put it, "Dawkins has
this whole vibe like, ooooo .. we're the guardians of the guttering flame of
rationality, keeping it alive against the tide of evil religious darkness!"

I say the same thing to atheists I say to Christians. Be as atheist/Jesusy as
you want, but give me the respect to be my thing as well. I don't think a chunk
of people influenced by the new atheists get that, hell just the other week
somebody on Facebook insisted I was mentally ill, and that I had to be
discriminatory, because I had a religion ... keeping in mind he had no idea
what my religion was, other than that I was some sort of polytheist, and in a
later post said that he was kind of OK with stuff like "Buddhism and paganism
and the other tollerant religions".

But I guess I was still mentally ill, because I believed in gods, and he just
didn't get that. It's fine if you think God/gods/whatever are the equivalent of
fairytales or what have you. It's maybe not so fine when, based on that one
single fact, you're going to be automatically prejudiced against me and
anything I say. Now that's not all atheists, by any means, let me make that
perfectly clear. I'm just saying, these are the sort of random encounters with
atheists I seem to be having lately. Swap "no god" for Jesus, and it's just
like talking to one of those Christians that show up at your door, except the
Christians are usually way more polite, even if they think you're crazy too.

Oh and here's where the Facebook thing came from. Somebody posted part of a
letter from David Attenborough where he was asked, "why don't you mention God,
when you cover the awesome beauty of nature?" His response was "well when I
think of nature, I think of the small African boy sitting on a riverbank with a
worm boring its way into his eye, which will eventually blind him. Why do
people only mention the beauty of nature when they talk about God? Because
surely he had to make that stuff too. So I'll stick to reporting the facts we
know, and leave you to draw your own conclusion."

my response was, "I agree with him completely, and that's why being a
polytheist makes more sense to me, because just as some people are nice and
some aren't, just as some animals will hurt you and some won't, same thing with
gods/spirits/what have you." In other words, what I was driving at is, he had a
perfectly valid point, and here's my religious response to it, simply to point
out that some of us ARE thinking about that kind of thing. That got me called
mentally ill and discriminatory, because he feels all religions are
discriminatory, no explanation as to why that is was given.

That's my ONLY problem with atheists, that they want to make it personal, oh
and tell you what to do, i.e. the "here's why I don't believe in God" comes,
implicitly or explicitly, with "and here's why you totally shouldn't either". I
have the exact same problem with Christians trying to convert me, for instance,
so this isn't unique to the atheists. But it's not like I'm sitting there going
"what? He thinks gods are like fairytales and he doesn't understand how anybody
could believe? That's horrifying, what kind of horrible universe does he live
in? I must save him now!" I just wish the new atheists and those influenced by
them would kind of settle the hell down, you know?