And yes, I was spoiling for a fight because your tone with Kelsey pissed me off and I was too jet-lagged to control myself. So, I'll stop derailing this conversation any further.
Well, I am sorry if my 'tone' with someone else irritated you. I maintain that the Bible can never say something it never said, and so when someone misrepresents writings, or speaks without having knowledge of them, I have to throw in my two cents. You might not agree, but I don't think I made anything personal with her. I admonish folk to study scripture if they're gonna use it, and I'll correct them if I see an error.
I'll say this one last time to Meatrace and let it go. Stop calling me names. I admitted my error and actually apologized twice. I explained where the mistake came from. I did, in fact, initially quote Mr. Watson in my original post, and your response came very naturally right after. I can't do more than admit the mistake and aplogize for it. If your standard for how you are treated online is so high, spend a few seconds thinking about how you cuss and insult other people. No one can make you. You can choose to have class or not. Matters not to me, I'm off to watch the Steelers gamecast. So I extended a handshake, you want to double down on your personal attack, and I'm perfectly happy leaving it at that.
Well now we're into telling people what religion they are instead of people telling us, which is a dangerous place. Of course there are categories we can put religion INTO, but the people who practice those religions tend to reject such categorization because to them the religion is personal.
Evidently I'm not being clear -- which is a curse of this communication medium. A (hopefully) better example: If a person believes in Trimurti, the reincarnation of the soul, avatars of multiple deities, and so on -- and also rejects the Quran in its entirety, except for some parts that he or she has deluded himself into thinking support a Hindu cosmology -- I don't really care if that person claims to be a "devout Muslim." He or she can put that on census forms and whatnot, but at some point there needs to be some identifying factor other than self-identification -- or, at least, there does if people actually believe that there is any validity to religious beliefs. I personally don't care much, but I would think that the actual devout Muslims would.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Global warming is the same way: a theory was developed decades ago. It made predictions. Those predictions were the most laughably, embarrassingly wrong thing in the history of science. The theory stayed largely the same after the predictions failed. Then we learned brand new ways to take temperatures and realized we were only taking temperatures at the same sprawling urban areas over time, so naturally they'd be warmer. Then we learned more about cyclical cosmic energy, carbon regeneration in the atmosphere, and more. Authors researched books to assail those who stalled progress on solving the problem, only to find out the problem is being sold to us more by marketing than actual research. Theory stayed largely the same, because the belief interprets the data.
I should really quit, but having broken silence on Buddhism, I figure I might as well go for broke and point out science misunderstandings -- particularly those close to my own area.
Identification of the urban heat island effect was a big step forward for the science, that's very true. The thing is, that was identified what, over 20 years ago now? And it was corrected for (Karl et al. developed methodology for that in 1988, IIRC, and it's been refined since then)... and the data STILL show warming, even after correcting for it. Your assertion that it isn't currently taken into account implies that your understanding of the science is decades out of date (or is being derived from listening to people who dishonestly represent the research). I don't know of any modeling currently being done that does not correct for heat island effects and incoming cosmic radiation to the best extent possible. You can make a claim that the corrections are inadequate or incorrect (some people do), but to pretend they don't exist is no good.
Serious people don't argue about whether the climate is warming now -- we all know it is. The question is about what proportion of this warming is anthropogenic -- most, some, or none at all.
Another example of something it never says is that homosexuality is any worse than eating Hamburger Helper.
...dare I ask whats IN hamburger helper to warrant that statement?
Another example of something it never says is that homosexuality is any worse than eating Hamburger Helper....dare I ask whats IN hamburger helper to warrant that statement?
Empiricism isn't testable, because scientific tests are meaningless if there is no objective reality.
Generally, the tests are of predictive power. Of course, you can claim that we're only imagining the results, and that we're only imagining that other people run similar tests and get similar results, and we only imagine interacting with them to share this information. So, yes, empiricism might be all wrong -- we might all be in storage as batteries, and God is feeding all of "reality" into our heads to fool us. But if that's your viewpoint, it really turns "atheism leads to nihilism" completely on its head, doesn't it? The "leap of faith" required to accept empirical results is a lot less than the leap of faith required to believe that The Matrix is real life rather than a sci-fi movie.
Even if it is, and the "imaginary" results are always consistent with actual empirical ones, what difference does it make?
Again, I am not rejecting empiricism, simply explaining how a rational adult can accept an idea that they cannot scientifically prove.
No one can finally "prove" anything, only assign higher chances of something being correct. But that doesn't mean that every possibility is equally likely. I can't prove that a meteor won't hit me the instant I step outside, but that doesn't in any way imply that there's a 50% chance of that happening. At some point, it pays to accept that all this talk about Absolute Truth(TM) is a hindrance -- a case of perfect being the enemy of good.
I removed some posts with name calling. And frankly, the whole thread needs to simmer down some. Maybe you're looking for the Civil Discussion thread?
I removed some posts with name calling. And frankly, the whole thread needs to simmer down some. Maybe you're looking for the Civil Discussion thread?
Was part of the troublesome behavior mine? I did post some stuff I shouldn't have, but I'm pretty sure I deleted it all myself about 45 minutes later.
And that's in a lab which, let's face it, is pretty far removed from life given as how, in life, we can't control for all the variables to the same degree.
On a continuum of causality those are minor quibbles easily chalked up to invisible factors. The last time you flushed the toilet, it did not try to eat your hand. The last time you microwaved a burrito, it didn't turn into a banana. We rely on these things because we expect them to happen.
Though I'm sure Kirth has a much more nuanced reply forthcoming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must admit that I'm unaware of any established religion which has a myth of the hand eating toilet.
It's less ridiculous than most. At least I've SEEN a toilet. I've never seen an angel.
And, yet, despite the fact that you've never seen an angel, there's plenty of scientific evidence which supports the efficacy of faith and prayer (as pain relief, for example). It seems deeply stupid to reject faith simply because there's no evidence of the thing there is faith in when faith is useful.
Its a matter of net benefits, not whether it does anything at all. Some people have made a lot of money on ponzi schemes, including charities who put the money to good use. That doesn't mean that they're a good idea.
Swearing, porn, videogames, and anger can all help for pain as well.
It's possible for someone to accept a different set of first principles and still be a rational person; their line of logic is just going to be very different from yours.
I provided the only alternative I could think of -- it's something akin to Last Thursdayism. Yes, you can embrace the Matrix and reject empiricism, but the result is that your behavior will certainly seem irrational to everyone else, because you won't care about stepping out into traffic.
I believe in porn, videogames, and anger.And, yet, despite the fact that you've never seen an angel, there's plenty of scientific evidence which supports the efficacy of faith and prayer (as pain relief, for example). It seems deeply stupid to reject faith simply because there's no evidence of the thing there is faith in when faith is useful.Its a matter of net benefits, not whether it does anything at all. Some people have made a lot of money on ponzi schemes, including charities who put the money to good use. That doesn't mean that they're a good idea.
Swearing, porn, videogames, and anger can all help for pain as well.
If hard pressed I might call that my religion. Holy trinity.
I'm glad to see that we've got some common ground. If X has benefits, then do X - especially since no one has proven any negative affects of X.
X, of course, referring to faith.
Well...I wouldn't exactly say it's faith though. You're talking about the positive thought that is sometimes a side-effect of strong faith. There are other ways to think positively or to relax or to achieve the same sorts of results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A different set that includes empiricism, causality, and the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, for example. Not a different set that excludes empiricism and causality.
If this God allows things to run predictably, so that causality and empiricism do apply, then you have Deism and a watchmaker God -- that's more or less where Tom Paine, Ethan Allen, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and those guys ended up, and it's a logically coherent position.
However, if God actively interferes with causality in the form of miracles and intervenes constantly in Earthly events -- as most evangelicals vigorously assert -- then empiricism becomes uselss. Every claim of "it must be God's plan for me!" is another claim that causality is unknowable and that empiricism shouldn't be bothered with. When those people then turn around and DON'T step blindly into the street, that's cognitive dissonance.
X, of course, referring to faith.
Many of the negative effects HAVE been pointed out, on this very thread even.
No, they've been asserted with no actual proof that the assertions are valid.
Right, But by your postmodernist perspective proof is impossible. Anything you like is a given, anything you don't like can't be proven.
Could you, at least, read a book, maybe get at least a little informed - please?
Could you perhaps argue for your position with something other than snide ad homs and insults? This "you disagree with me, therefore you're a moron, therefore you're wrong" malarkey that you're pulling with everyone is the standard schtick of every pseudo intellectual on the internet.
Even on the offhand chance you're the one person on the internet that's in some way justified talking down to people like this rather than one of the 2 billion others pretending they are, you're not having a conversation with what you're doing. There's no exchange of information or ideas.
If you have a point make it and back it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen it happen many times. For example, a husband gets dragged along to church because his wife has become a member and then, two years later, the husband is a died-in-the-blood true believer(tm). He didn't choose to have deep conviction, but he realized that going through the motions would make his house a lot more peaceful. Then, he developed deep conviction.
I don't think it's possible to decide to have deep conviction in something, especially if you're doing so for reasons external to the faith.
*To the tune of the hallelujah chorus*
in-doct-ri-nation, in-doct-ri-nation,
indoctri-nation indoctri-nation
Your not describing someone choosing to have faith, your describing someone putting themselves in the firing line of cult indoctrination, with the additional added bonus of turning of their defence mechanisms, so they can have a quiet life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, they've been asserted with no actual proof that the assertions are valid.Many of the negative effects HAVE been pointed out, on this very thread even.
X, of course, referring to faith.
Lets just start by defining a term.
Faith: positive belief in the absence of evidence.
In the context of this discussion lets defineit a little further, by stating that the "belief" we are talking about is in invisible, intangible, supernatural beings, who take an active part in the world.
So onto the meat of the issue, what are the negative effects of faith.
Faith is a suspension of rationality:
"What is faith? it is belief in the absence of evidence. Now, i don't propose to tell anybody what to believe, but for me, believing when there's no compelling evidence is a mistake. The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence. And if the universe does not comply with our predisposition, Ok, then we have a wrenching obligation to accommodate to the way the universe really is."
We live in a world, where we can make reasonable decisions about the way in which the world will respond to our actions. I of a morning walk down stairs, and leave the house by the front door, rather than exiting by a window on the second floor. I do this even if I am idly playing with the idea I can fly, which after my recuring and very vivid flight dream, I sometimes do.
I do this because rationality has provided me with tools for evaluating the claim of the idea.
For instance Occam's razor.
I know that there are a set of rules which govern flight (and falling) and that flight is very complex. I also know that dreams are biological phenomena that appear to have function in 'filing' short term memory, into long term memory. I know that dreams can be vivid, and quiet convincing.
Occam's razor tells me, "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones." So I ask my self, is it more likely that I am experiencing the left over impression of a dream, or that I have learned to fly in my sleep? I always conclude that former
is more likely.
Later on once I am outside, being the curious sort that I am I'll give it a little try anyway. After all, I would be a fool to dismiss it as impossible(as opposed to ), and it would be very cool(so the negligible cost of 30 seconds trying once a month is probably worth it, but only because of the immeasurable awesome that would result should flight occur). But I make sure it is done in such a way as to ensure that the outcome is not a broken neck.
"Invisible magic sky-daddies" very complex explanations for anything. Rationally, we have to reject every possible natural explanation for a phenomena, before we reach for a supernatural explanation, and "Invisible magic sky-daddies", are not the simplest of the supernatural explanations.
We haven't even began to reject all the possible natural explanations of anything yet. We have libraries of evidence supporting naturalistic explanations of the phenomena we see around us.
Given that we haven't even begun to get close to the bottom of the naturalistic barrel, it is a rejection of reason to start claiming that the Galilean Undead are responsible for anything.
Now, why is faith as a rejection of reason a 'bad thing'? Well, as with the flight example above, reason is rather good at stopping you from doing 'stupid s%%@', like jumping out of the window. If I simply had faith that I could fly, I would by now be dead, having no doubt fallen to my death from some unreasonable attempt to fly. Faith of the variety largely being talked about here ask individuals to accept all sorts of strange and unreasonable claims, without evidence on the authority of magic sky daddy, such claims as scriptural prohibition against interracial marriage, or homosexuality, or that 'the world was created in six days, some 6,0000 odd years ago'.
Faith is given undue respect
Faith says 'its okay to believe things without evidence', and that leads to some pretty kooky ideas, even in really mainstream religious though, I'm looking at you zombie jebus.
The idea that an individuals is the son of god, died and then came back from the dead(walking around with lethal wounds at that) is ridiculous. It conflicts with everything we know about the world, as do a great many such myths. Clearly, without substantial evidence from the claimants these are ideas we should reject, and which are innately pretty funny.
Yet, when we ask "where is your evidence", or when we laugh, or make a joke, as well we might, we are told 'be respectful people's deeply held beliefs.'
Now, by contrast, taste in music. I think we will find broad agreement here that it is laughable that Justin Beiber has a career as a musician, while many more able, gifted and interesting musicians struggle to achieve even basic success. Jokes about the horrors of his simpering balladry will not earn you a demand to be 'respectful of people's deeply held beliefs'
The idea that some one was raised from the dead and walked around for a while, is no less ludicrous than the horrors of young Mr. Bieber's so called music, yet faith has high jacked a place of special and undue respect.
Worse still it uses this 'shield of respect', not only to avoid the ridicule it brings on itself from it's absurd claims, but also from reasonable non-humorous criticism.
People act on their faith
If faith Faith is a suspension of rationality: and Faith is given undue respect where the end of it, i would have little problem with religion. Individual believers would be suspending their reason and that would be sad, but well that is there choice, and the level of harm would be small enough that it would be hard to justify intervening to protect them from themselves.
But unfortunately that isn't where it ends. Faith is acted upon, at the level of the individual, family, community, and the nation. In the US, you have a situation where around 45% of american believe that god created the world and that evolution is a lie (a faith based claim, contradicted by vast amounts of evidence), in numerous nation states, we have a situation where woman can be flogged adultery, thanks to having been raped, worse still they can be forced to marry their rapist. Globally we are in a position where individuals and communities allow their children to suffer and die by denying them modern medical treatments, based on faith.
Your claim that faith doesn't cause harm is utterly spurious
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen it happen many times. For example, a husband gets dragged along to church because his wife has become a member and then, two years later, the husband is a died-in-the-blood true believer(tm). He didn't choose to have deep conviction, but he realized that going through the motions would make his house a lot more peaceful. Then, he developed deep conviction.
I don't think it's possible to decide to have deep conviction in something, especially if you're doing so for reasons external to the faith.*To the tune of the hallelujah chorus*
in-doct-ri-nation, in-doct-ri-nation,
indoctri-nation indoctri-nationYour not describing someone choosing to have faith, your describing someone putting themselves in the firing line of cult indoctrination, with the additional added bonus of turning of their defence mechanisms, so they can have a quiet life.
You're using words in ways that I don't know what you mean - the way you're using them is clearly not the common definition.
For example, "cult". There are two common definitions of "cult". One of them refers to a fringe religion. The other one requires a charismatic and irrefutable (his word is law) leader. You've used neither of these definitions, but, instead, have given the word some idiosyncratic meaning.
"Indoctrination". This word simply means that a person has had the doctrine of the organization instilled in them. It doesn't have any negative connotations. A science student, for example, may be indoctrinated with empiricism and occam's razor. But, again, you're using some idiosyncratic definition.
There are far more than two definitions of cult. I mean you'll find variations in definition for each of the major usage of the word, between major dictionaries, and there several meanings.
Below you'll find the first two definition from merriam webster.
cult noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\
Definition of CULT
1
: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
Lets move onto indoctrination.
in·doc·tri·nate verb \in-ˈdäk-trə-ˌnāt\
transitive verb
1
: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2
: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
I am using 2, not the "to imbue with" and the "Sectarian opinion."
Oh, and here is one of the examples of use from MW.
"The goal should be to teach politics, rather than to indoctrinate students in a narrow set of political beliefs."
Indoctrination certainly can be a negative thing.
Generally, the tests are of predictive power. Of course, you can claim that we're only imagining the results, and that we're only imagining that other people run similar tests and get similar results, and we only imagine interacting with them to share this information. So, yes, empiricism might be all wrong -- we might all be in storage as batteries, and God is feeding all of "reality" into our heads to fool us. But if that's your viewpoint, it really turns "atheism leads to nihilism" completely on its head, doesn't it? The "leap of faith" required to accept empirical results is a lot less than the leap of faith required to believe that The Matrix is real life rather than a sci-fi movie.
Even if it is, and the "imaginary" results are always consistent with actual empirical ones, what difference does it make?When I've done any lab work, I've never gotten the same result twice. Rather, I've had to take the results of multiple trials and average them. I could never predict what the actual results of the next trial would be.
And that's in a lab which, let's face it, is pretty far removed from life given as how, in life, we can't control for all the variables to the same degree.
I can't help but suggest that maybe the problem is with your lab skills. Sounds to me like your not controlling your variables very well. Not an insult, I am terrible at lab work too.
Trying to claim that our respective "lab work fail", in anyway shows that theory doesn't have really very strong predictive abilities is very silly. It the predictive qualities of scientific theory that allow use to do things like go to the moon using slide rulers.
Generally, the tests are of predictive power. Of course, you can claim that we're only imagining the results, and that we're only imagining that other people run similar tests and get similar results, and we only imagine interacting with them to share this information. So, yes, empiricism might be all wrong -- we might all be in storage as batteries, and God is feeding all of "reality" into our heads to fool us. But if that's your viewpoint, it really turns "atheism leads to nihilism" completely on its head, doesn't it? The "leap of faith" required to accept empirical results is a lot less than the leap of faith required to believe that The Matrix is real life rather than a sci-fi movie.
Even if it is, and the "imaginary" results are always consistent with actual empirical ones, what difference does it make?When I've done any lab work, I've never gotten the same result twice. Rather, I've had to take the results of multiple trials and average them. I could never predict what the actual results of the next trial would be.
And that's in a lab which, let's face it, is pretty far removed from life given as how, in life, we can't control for all the variables to the same degree.I can't help but suggest that maybe the problem is with your lab skills. Sounds to me like your not controlling your variables very well. Not an insult, I am terrible at lab work too.
Trying to claim that our respective "lab work fail", in anyway shows that theory doesn't have really very strong predictive abilities is very silly. For instance, in lab work if you do get a result that is markedly different from what your expecting, it is often possible to look at the results you have, along with known factor, and work out what is wrong with the experiment.
It the predictive qualities of scientific theory that allow use to do things like go to the moon using slide rulers.
was a snide ad hominem and insult.
No, it wasn't. I was pointing out that your standards for proof are impossibly high for anything you don't like, ie, heliocentrism or the long and well documented use of religion to justify racism (which you yourself acknowledged happened) being a negative effect of religion
I don't know what you're guiding philosophy is. I don't think you're lying when you say you're not a post modernist but I suspect it's as distinguishable from post modernism as the peoples front of judea is from the Judean Peoples front.
You're being incredibly pedantic in a way that only makes sense in your own head. You have your own definitions of things and you think they're the one true definition and anyone else that deviates from them even slightly is using the word wrong when in fact words are rather vague. Meanwhile you deny objective reality and hide behind epistemic nihilism to avoid ideas that conflict with yours.
The fact that you can't take what you feebly try to dish out is your problem. If you stop trying to dish it out, you won't end up getting it in return.
I don't use insults AS the argument. You do. Your entire point relies on everyone but you being a moron. Take that out of the equation and it falls apart. Take the snark out of my posts and there's still facts coherently linked to a conclusion.
You cannot question a person's religion. It doesn't matter how ludicrous or bad an idea is, when its their religion its by definition beyond requiring proof. So when a bad idea becomes part of the religion it can't be attacked separately: questioning the idea is, in the believers mind, the same as questioning god, and that just makes you silly.
I think this is a clear case of religion making a bad idea harder to expunge. Good ideas thrive on their own. Bad ideas normally die on their own.
I think this is a clear case of religion making a bad idea harder to expunge. Good ideas thrive on their own. Bad ideas normally die on their own.
Removed from its context I think this is an apt summary of my opinion of religion on its own. Although it can be said about any ideology, including political ideology, which I won't deny either.