The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JediKooter]

Science is not stuck in dogmatic principles and ideas that can't change over time or is threatened by challenges to its core systems. That's because science works with actual evidence based on a hypothesis and if that hypothesis ends up being false, it is thrown out. That's why there is no Theory of Leprechauns and other non falsifiable 'things', because there is no evidence for them and no amount of faith or wishing for it is going to make that stuff be as real as something that is real.

Science is the most reliable and robust tool that we have and I think its proven itself over and over again that there has yet to be and more than likely ever will be, any competition to science and the scientific method. Faith is not science, faith doesn't prove anything and neither does wishing or believing, no matter how strong or popular that faith, belief or wishing is and I'm not strictly talking about religion here.

If anything, politics is more 'faith' based (ubiquitous faith), than any other thing you can categorize it as being. People very rarely look at it from a rational point of view (in my opinion) and think that, regardless of party affiliation, is what this person is trying to accomplish, make sense? Instead it is, "Hey, he or she is on my team, rational or not, I'm supporting them".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Me and DT probably agree on like 3 issues out of 1000's in the politics thread but Jon saying "There are those who attempt, persistently but in vain, to elevate science to the level of certainty that accompanies religion." is an absurd statement and DT is completely correct to respond to that nonsense. Don't care if this makes me sound arrogant but that is a really laughable statement.

Again, that's to you, but not to many adherents (regardless of their brand affiliation).

There's nothing I'm more certain of than my own religion, there's no level of proof that exceeds what a believer knows in their heart.

(Where's Skydog when I need him? Maybe he could articulate this better/differently, plus it would have the advantage of getting more attention for the message than the messenger)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's be clear here, my point isn't to bash DT, there's plenty of opportunities to do that elsewhere. My point here goes directly back to the sidebar about why "intellectuals" are so easy to dismiss.

Except when something matters. If you get sick, you aren't sitting in your room and praying to a God to cure you. You're going to go see one of those intellectuals. You're going to take medicine made by those intellectuals.

People are free to bash science all they want. I just find it funny how those people are not willing to back those words up with actions.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People are free to bash science all they want. I just find it funny how those people are not willing to back those words up with actions.

Sadly, there are. Too many stories of parents letting their kids die because their faith does not allow them to take their kids to the doctors for treatment.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Except when something matters. If you get sick, you aren't sitting in your room and praying to a God to cure you. You're going to go see one of those intellectuals. You're going to take medicine made by those intellectuals.

People are free to bash science all they want. I just find it funny how those people are not willing to back those words up with actions.

I mentioned this earlier. If this were really the case, there'd be a fuckload more Christian Scientists.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's nothing I'm more certain of than my own religion, there's no level of proof that exceeds what a believer knows in their heart.

That's a conveniently unproveable, untestable line.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Again, that's to you, but not to many adherents (regardless of their brand affiliation).

There's nothing I'm more certain of than my own religion, there's no level of proof that exceeds what a believer knows in their heart.

(Where's Skydog when I need him? Maybe he could articulate this better/differently, plus it would have the advantage of getting more attention for the message than the messenger)

I've never been able to square your passionate beliefs in Christ and the casual slaughter of those who don't like.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Sadly, there are. Too many stories of parents letting their kids die because their faith does not allow them to take their kids to the doctors for treatment.

We're talking an extreme minority there. And to be honest, I respect their beliefs far more than others. Yes I think it's crazy, but at least they aren't just paying lip service to religion. They truly believe that there is a God and that he can do the things they've been told he can accomplish. They live their lives that way. They aren't abandoning those beliefs the minute reality hits.

Of course it's different if we're talking kids. But if an adult believes his cancer will be cured by praying, more power to him. The guy actually practices what he preaches.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've never been able to square your passionate beliefs in Christ and the casual slaughter of those who don't like.

Have you read the Bible?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Have you read the Bible?

That's why I said Christ. My biggest challenge as a Christian is trying to come to terms with Christ's radical passivism.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

I know very little about science and zero about the answers to life's questions but I can say with 99.999% certainty (and this doesn't involve much more than a high school logic course) that organized religion is complete bullshit. Sorry if this offends anyone. I don't question there may be a higher power but calling it Jesus and making up stories about it doesn't make that the correct answer even if 90% of the United States population believes it.

But how can you say that with that much certainty. If you believe there can be a higher power, then if that higher power is God, why couldn't he have led people to create these "stories"?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've never been able to square your passionate beliefs in Christ and the casual slaughter of those who don't like.

And the Gospels in particular. They read more like a liberal manifesto than what modern American conservative "christians" have turned the religion into today. There's a huge disconnect there.

How did Christians become pro-life, anti-gay, associated with strict adherence to rules, etc? The original christians were huge liberal troublemakers.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But how can you say that with that much certainty. If you believe there can be a higher power, then if that higher power is God, why couldn't he have led people to create these "stories"?

If there is a "God" who led people to create these stories, and who, by extension, created man in his own image then why didn't he provide tangible evidence of his existence?

If we're made in his image then he's skeptical about things too - he would have known we needed actual physical evidence.

ZING!!

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But how can you say that with that much certainty. If you believe there can be a higher power, then if that higher power is God, why couldn't he have led people to create these "stories"?

It's nice to hear a little outside-the-box thinking.

I get irrationally annoyed when adults think they've discovered something incredible, "wait a minute - there couldn't scientifically have been a Noah's Ark! I figured everything out!". That's an insightful thought for an 8-year-old, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to put a definitive stamp of understanding on the essence of the universe, including the role that religion plays.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We're talking an extreme minority there. And to be honest, I respect their beliefs far more than others. Yes I think it's crazy, but at least they aren't just paying lip service to religion. They truly believe that there is a God and that he can do the things they've been told he can accomplish. They live their lives that way. They aren't abandoning those beliefs the minute reality hits.

Of course it's different if we're talking kids. But if an adult believes his cancer will be cured by praying, more power to him. The guy actually practices what he preaches.

I can see that. I don't take the same position on it as you do, but, I totally understand those people not being hypocrites.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

It's nice to hear a little outside-the-box thinking.

I get irrationally annoyed when adults think they've discovered something incredible, "wait a minute - there couldn't scientifically have been a Noah's Ark! I figured everything out!". That's an insightful thought for an 8-year-old, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to put a definitive stamp of understanding on the essence of the universe, including the role that religion plays.

Sorry there but it is that simple. Again call it 8-year old logic (which it is) but organized religion is absolute bullshit. The essence of nature has nothing to do with Jesus and Mohammad and Thor and David Koresh. Nothing. I don't think I have ever made it sound like I made an amazing discovery just astounded how many people have not made the simple discovery. Any attempt to twist the discussion to anything but the complete absense of logic or rational thought of any organized religion is just avoiding the question at hand.

EDIT: And the reason I keep bringing up Noah's Ark is because a majority of Americans believe it literally. Maybe you and most 8 year olds can see through it but unfortunately their elders cannot.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If there is a "God" who led people to create these stories, and who, by extension, created man in his own image then why didn't he provide tangible evidence of his existence?

If we're made in his image then he's skeptical about things too - he would have known we needed actual physical evidence.

ZING!!

Maybe he didn't create man in his own image. Maybe he didn't really create man at all. Maybe man created him, and through as-of-yet-undiscovered principles of physics, this explosion of spirtuality actually created something real on that level that we can tap into with meditation and prayer. Maybe god doesn't have the power to show himself or chooses not to. Can humanity, as we know it, even exist with ANY 100% certain principle about the origin and meaning of life? What would the world be like if there was a serious, no-doubt-about it God who judged us and did shit as we go? We wouldn't be human anymore. We'd be more like holy slaves or something.

My point, we don't really know shit, despite your simple and obvious conclusions about man-made ideas.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

The essence of nature has nothing to do with Jesus and Mohammad and Thor and David Koresh. Nothing.

I don't believe that "panerd" has figured out the "essence of nature", sorry. Einstein asked the same questions, I'm a little skeptical that you've figured them out.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't believe that "panerd" has figured out the "essence of nature", sorry. Einstein asked the same qur.estions, I'm a little skeptical that you've figured them out.

Whatever. Organized religion is for the simple-minded. I don't get the impression this is what you are getting at and I have no idea about the mysteries of the universe. But if you need to get together with your tribe and be told stories so that you don't fear death than have at it. Just don't get all bent out of shape when someone born in a different country than you does the same simple-mided thing in a mosque.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Whatever. Organized religion is for the simple-minded. I don't get the impression this is what you are getting at and I have no idea about the mysteries of the universe. But if you need to get together with your tribe and be told stories so that you don't fear death than have at it. Just don't get all bent out of shape when someone born in a different country than you does the same simple-mided thing in a mosque.

You're absolutely claiming to have ideas about the mysteries of the universe. Billions of people, many very brilliant, many scientists, have to some degree, tried to understand the universe through, in part or in whole, these different religious practices, the shared experiences these people have, what itch they're trying to scratch, etc. If you write off 100% of that, you're absolutely proclaiming your own, very specific, very unproveable "truth". No different than a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. I think THAT'S simple-minded. Religion in the human experience goes way beyond stories and whether they're "true" or not. That's the 8-year-old mentality.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

You're absolutely claiming to have ideas about the mysteries of the universe. Billions of people, many very brilliant, many scientists, have to some degree, tried to understand the universe through, in part or in whole, these different religious practices, the shared experiences these people have, what itch they're trying to scratch, etc. If you write off 100% of that, you're absolutely proclaiming your own, very specific, very unproveable "truth".

Sorry but again I will say one last time I am talking about organized religion. The spaghetti monster and pink unicorns tend to come across as an asshole response but are perfect examples of why organized religion offers no answers to any of the universes questions that you talk about. To most believers I am sure some of my other posts also make me sound like an asshole but that's not my intention at all I just don't feel like I have to respect them and not question what they claim to have answers for. I don't have any ideas about the mysteries of the universe. However, I am 99.99999% certain that Jesus, Thor, Elohim, Xenu, Mohammad are not God. Chrisitians agree with 80% of that last statement, Muslims agree with 80%. When someone says they literally believe in Noah's Ark they are saying they believe Jesus is God and lose any credibility for any deeper conversation you wish to have.

[DaddyTorgo]

Of course it goes beyond stories. The shared experience is that we all fear death. Always have...always will. It's an animalistic fear. The difference is that we've evolved coping mechanisms that other animals don't have (so far as we know).

[Greyroofoo]

Molson is love, Panerd is not...

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sorry but again I will say one last time I am talking about organized religion. The spaghetti monster and pink unicorns tend to come across as an asshole response but are perfect examples of why organized religion offers no answers to any of the universes questions that you talk about. To most believers I am sure some of my other posts also make me sound like an asshole but that's not my intention at all I just don't feel like I have to respect them and not question what they claim to have answers for. I don't have any ideas about the mysteries of the universe. However, I am 99.99999% certain that Jesus, Thor, Elohim, Xenu, Mohammad are not God. Chrisitians agree with 80% of that last statement, Muslims agree with 80%. When someone says they literally believe in Noah's Ark they are saying they believe Jesus is God and lose any credibility for any deeper conversation you wish to have.

If billions of humans worshiped the spaghetti monster for centuries, developed a culture and way of life around it, I believe (unproveable, of course), then it does then become something more than just a hypothetical religion we make up in an argument, even if it didn't "exist" before man came up with it. It does become it's own truth. It does matter in a way that nudges human psychology, evolution, and possibly even physics. It does touch the essence of the universe, though certainly not in a perfect way.

And that's just one idea. There's plenty of other ways organized religion can matter, can be "real" to the human experience without needing to literally belief that Noah's Ark happened under the rules of regular reality we follow. And that doesn't make Noah's Ark "untrue". That gets back to the discussion of truth a few pages ago. When someone answers one of those polls that they "believe" Noah's Ark happened, I believe a lot of them are giving their answer in this way. It IS their "truth", for their purposes, and that kind of "truth" may matter a little more, and be a little more legitimate than it first appears. Faith is a really complicated concept that I certainly can't get my mind totally around. But it's something more than "believing something is true."

So "arrogant atheism" does (irrationally) rub me the wrong way, especially when it seems to be based 100% on the first, elementary, obvious question.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

If billions of humans worshiped the spaghetti monster for centuries, developed a culture and way of life around it, I believe (unproveable, of course), then it does then become something more than just a hypothetical religion we make up in an argument. It does become it's own truth. It does matter in a way that nudges human psychology, evolution, and possibly even physics .

I'd quibble with your use of the word "truth" here, but I think other than that, it's an excellent point.

As a sociological phenomenon, religion certainly matters.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

If billions of humans worshiped the spaghetti monster for centuries, developed a culture and way of life around it, I believe (unproveable, of course), then it does then become something more than just a hypothetical religion we make up in an argument. It does become it's own truth. It does matter in a way that nudges human psychology, evolution, and possibly even physics. It does touch the essence of the universe, though certainly not in a perfect way.

And that's just one idea. There's plenty of other ways organized religion can matter, can be "real" to the human experience without needing to literally belief that Noah's Ark happened under the rules of regular reality we follow. And that doesn't make Noah's Ark "untrue". That gets back to the discussion of truth a few pages ago. When someone answers one of those polls that they "believe" Noah's Ark happened, I believe a lot of them are giving their answer in this way. It IS their "truth", for their purposes, and that kind of "truth" may matter a little more, and be a little more legitimate than it first appears.

I disagree agree completely with your premise that billions of people believing in the spaghetti monster somehow changes it from being anything but a made up story. I agree that a deeper discussion can be had about life, the universe, where I was in 1973, where I will be in 2173. But organized religion offers answers for none of this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Again, that's to you, but not to many adherents (regardless of their brand affiliation).

There's nothing I'm more certain of than my own religion, there's no level of proof that exceeds what a believer knows in their heart.

(Where's Skydog when I need him? Maybe he could articulate this better/differently, plus it would have the advantage of getting more attention for the message than the messenger)

This. I didn't have the same weirded out reaction as some on this forum towards JIMG's original statement, though Jon and I don't agree all that much on stuff, because he's quite right when discussing things from the point of view of the believer. The believer's faith is quite true and certain, and comes from a powerful experience, while some scientific principles may be murky (heck, most intelligent people have some issues with quantum physics).

I definitely do not believe that the principles and beliefs of a particular religion need to be introduced into the school system (no freaking way should creationism be taught in science class), but the way to do it is NOT to demean someone's strongly held belief, but to acknowledge that it is certain to that individual but the school ciriculuum is for all individuals and thus should include that which is scientifically provable rather than a revealed truth that everyone has not experienced.

That was a mismash, but what I'm getting at is that you can get farther by respecting peoples' faith and the truth they feel in that faith than you can by putting it odds with science (and you can even blend faith and science as people like Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, have done).

[Karlifornia]

Fear of death, fear of the uncertain. Fear our lives are lived in vain...these are fears that churches use to prey upon people and take their $$$. It's a great business idea, really:

There's an entity you can't see, hear, or detect in any way. Listen, though. Through my teachings and guidance, using me as a vessel to connect to this specter, you can live forever. You'll be reunited with all your loved ones, and all your dead pets in a magical paradise for all eternity. Donations are strongly encouraged.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'd quibble with your use of the word "truth" here, but I think other than that, it's an excellent point.

As a sociological phenomenon, religion certainly matters.

Yes, I could/should have put all references to "truth" in quotes there. Because I have no clue what that "truth" is, I just believe it adds up to something more than the sum of parts. At least, a sociological phenomenon, at the most, an actual interaction with physics and biology.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I disagree agree completely with your premise that billions of people believing in the spaghetti monster somehow changes it from being anything but a made up story. I agree that a deeper discussion can be had about life, the universe, where I was in 1973, where I will be in 2173. But organized religion offers answers for none of this.

I disagree to a point. Organized religion as a sociological phenomenon offers a fascinating snapshot of what humans feel like or would like the answers to these questions to be. It can tell us a lot about the inner workings of our collective psyche, or our individual psyches. Precisely because they're made-up stories, or mythologized stories of an actual human being.

Organized religion offers no TRUTHS regarding any of those questions, that I would agree with. It does offer answers.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This. I didn't have the same weirded out reaction as some on this forum towards JIMG's original statement, though Jon and I don't agree all that much on stuff, because he's quite right when discussing things from the point of view of the believer. The believer's faith is quite true and certain, and comes from a powerful experience, while some scientific principles may be murky (heck, most intelligent people have some issues with quantum physics).

I definitely do not believe that the principles and beliefs of a particular religion need to be introduced into the school system (no freaking way should creationism be taught in science class), but the way to do it is NOT to demean someone's strongly held belief, but to acknowledge that it is certain to that individual but the school ciriculuum is for all individuals and thus should include that which is scientifically provable rather than a revealed truth that everyone has not experienced.

That was a mismash, but what I'm getting at is that you can get farther by respecting peoples' faith and the truth they feel in that faith than you can by putting it odds with science (and you can even blend faith and science as people like Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, have done).

Fair enough, and I probably should have articulated the point more like you did earlier with my whole example of creationism.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Fear of death, fear of the uncertain. Fear our lives are lived in vain...these are fears that churches use to prey upon people and take their $$$. It's a great business idea, really:

There's an entity you can't see, hear, or detect in any way. Listen, though. Through my teachings and guidance, using me as a vessel to connect to this specter, you can live forever. You'll be reunited with all your loved ones, and all your dead pets in a magical paradise for all eternity. Donations are strongly encouraged.

I don't go to church, and I don't believe I'm going to be reunited with any loved ones, so my religious and spirtual beliefs/questions/thoughts must have some other, (possibly sinsister), motives behind them....

[JediKooter]

Just because science may not have every answer, that doesn't mean a god or some higher being or thing did it. That's the 'god of the gaps' argument.

Even Einstein has mentioned god before, however, he made it quite clear his personal position on the matter: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Fear of death, fear of the uncertain. Fear our lives are lived in vain...these are fears that churches use to prey upon people and take their $$$. It's a great business idea, really:

There's an entity you can't see, hear, or detect in any way. Listen, though. Through my teachings and guidance, using me as a vessel to connect to this specter, you can live forever. You'll be reunited with all your loved ones, and all your dead pets in a magical paradise for all eternity. Donations are strongly encouraged.

This has been my position since 8th grade when I embraced atheism. As far as the church as a fabulous business model I mean. Think of all the thousands of priests/monks/etc. that it kept alive and accumulating wealth/power from the Dark Age through the Middle Ages, all the way through to today.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Even Einstein has mentioned god before, however, he made it quite clear his personal position on the matter: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Einstein said a lot of good stuff about religion.

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness"

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind"

And though Einstein certainly wasn't a practicing member of any religion during his adult life, I seriously doubt he ever called everyone else's religious practices "bullshit". Because his religious and spirtual expression wasn't superior to anyone else's.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

And though Einstein certainly wasn't a practicing member of any religion during his adult life, I seriously doubt he ever called everyone else's religious practices "bullshit". Because his religious and spirtual expression wasn't superior to anyone else's.

Not bullshit, but he did call it a "childish superstition". He also said:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

Einstein said a lot of good stuff about religion.

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness"

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind"

And though Einstein certainly wasn't a practicing member of any religion during his adult life, I seriously doubt he ever called everyone else's religious practices "bullshit".

He did call it child-like though if I remember correctly. As far as calling someones religion bullshit, eh, (I know, not surprising) I think it just depends on the situation and sometimes can be a bit harsh to say. I don't have to respect anyone's religion or give two cents worth of care to it. I will however respect that person's right to believe in it, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Contrary to what people may think, I strongly believe in a persons right to their religion and would defend that right to the end.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's nothing I'm more certain of than my own religion, there's no level of proof that exceeds what a believer knows in their heart.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This. I didn't have the same weirded out reaction as some on this forum towards JIMG's original statement, though Jon and I don't agree all that much on stuff, because he's quite right when discussing things from the point of view of the believer.

The existence and rationale behind gravity? The fact that the earth orbits the sun? The concept that if you consume more energy than you expend, you gain weight? The basic workings of the internal combustion engine?

Does the believer believe in these any less than they believe in God (or whatever construct in which they believe)?


Maybe the above is a silly example, but I think maybe it can serve to illustrate the disconnect here. Let me propose that the "believer", when faced with macro concepts (Why are we here? What's the purpose of life? How should I treat my fellow man? What's right and wrong?), will naturally and happily embrace the tenets of their belief for the answers. Even as a non-believer I think that's great. I'm happy to concede that for many of these types of macro questions a reliance on a belief system is just as valid as empirical evidence (should it even exist). And certainly more valid in the eyes of the "believer."

Then, conversely, I'm sure we can find that the "believer", when faced with "micro" concepts (such as the examples in the beginning of the post) is likewise happy to lean on scientific explanation instead of "belief", mainly (I would assume) because it's pretty cut-and-dry.

So the problem lies in the middle. Perhaps the problem "believers" have, especially "strong believers" is that they're used to cut-and-dry explanations for both macro and micro concepts, so anything that's not as cut-and-dry engenders distrust. The problem with this, is that there's a fair bit of science that exists on a bit of a sliding scale where proof is concerned. There are unproven theories (special relativity, I think). There are drugs which only show adverse events after 1 million patients and can't be anticipated in a lab. Etc....

I'm reminded of the time my brother-in-law, who is a brilliant nuclear physicist, explained time dilation to me. The explanation was sufficiently complex that I'm not even going to try and relate it here, but suffice it to say that there were certain things about his explanation that I found hard to believe, but I just chose to assume was true.


If you are a "believer", and especially a "strong believer", these kind of examples of a lack of complete surety seem to taint the whole concept of science (all but the most obvious examples of scientific conclusions, of course). This, I propose, is how we get people not believing in the efficacy of vaccinations, or the theory of evolution, or a great many other things. It's not a lack of understanding that's the problem (though a lack of understanding may certainly be present), it's a lack of comfort with the gray-area explanation.

(As an aside, this is why you don't see these kind of problems with "believer" intellectuals - especially the scientists, because they have comfort in the process / explanation.)


Aside from the economic rationales (our future competitiveness in the global market), this is probably (to my mind) the biggest reason for good math & science education. We need everyone, including "believers" to understand enough of these concepts to feel enough comfort to operate in the world. I'm not suggesting one needs to fully believe in, say, the full theory of evolution, but at least understand where it lies on the scale of proof and what parts of it are incontrovertible and what parts are not.

Then, as a last explanation, I think this is the greatest concern we "unbelievers" have concerning this attack on intellectualism and its related attack on basic education. It's not necessarily about teaching people stuff like creationism, it's choosing to take away the grounding and tools people will need as they grow up to be able to understand these concepts and decide for themselves.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Whatever. Organized religion is for the simple-minded.

Aren't most organizations for the simple minded? Representative government is for the intellectually lazy. Marriage is an irrational institution. But isn't that the point? By subscribing to organizations that more or less go along with yours you can get on with your life and pursue more enjoyable things (fof).

I'm sure you do lots of philosophically irrational things in order to bring meaning into your life. but somehow being irrational religiously speaking is a crime against science whereas other emotional things people do to find meaning is not?

if all typical humans find some meaning in irrational/emotional things how can it be said that only rational/scientific things are true?

i understand your rational complaint against (organized) religions. where i have a problem is you only dismissing those authentic experiences as simple minded and not every other emotional/irrational experience as well

[JediKooter]

Good post flere.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

He did call it child-like though if I remember correctly. As far as calling someones religion bullshit, eh, (I know, not surprising) I think it just depends on the situation and sometimes can be a bit harsh to say. I don't have to respect anyone's religion or give two cents worth of care to it. I will however respect that person's right to believe in it, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Contrary to what people may think, I strongly believe in a persons right to their religion and would defend that right to the end.

Ya, I forgot about child-like, though that doesn't quite have the vitriol against religion that is so popular here (and everywhere these days). And child-like is fair, many people have that kind of relationship with their religion, I just think those views are just a part of that which creates a huge spirtual/religious conglomerate that makes up something bigger and something relevant. And I don't know why so many people feel the need to lash out against it. It feels to me like any other irrational hatred (like towards gays, minorities, etc.) based on insecurity or a small penis or whatever. It's like everybody has a need to feel a superiority to something, and liberals who don't have that feeling of superiority (or at least won't express it) towards gays, minorities, women ect can still get off by feeling superior to anyone who practices some kind of religion. It's a more PC way to express the hate that humans need to express.

[larrymcg421]

I would say, if anything, it's libertarianism that is for the simple-minded. No reason to think whatsoever. No to spending. No to regulation. No to anything. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The Libertarian Party is clearly the best party for the simple-minded to join.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I would say, if anything, it's libertarianism that is for the simple-minded. No reason to think whatsoever. No to spending. No to regulation. No to anything. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The Libertarian Party is clearly the best party for the simple-minded to join.

You don't have to think much about government, yes, but there is a life beyond government (some believe).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I forgot about child-like, though that doesn't quite have the vitriol against religion that is so popular here (and everywhere these days). And child-like is fair, many people have that kind of relationship with their religion, I just think those views are just a part of that which creates a huge spirtual/religious conglomerate that makes up something bigger and something relevant. And I don't know why so many people feel the need to lash out against it. It feels to me like any other irrational hatred (like towards gays, minorities, etc.) based on insecurity or a small penis or whatever. It's like everybody has a need to feel a superiority to something, and liberals who don't have that feeling of superiority (or at least won't express it) towards gays, minorities, women ect can still get off by feeling superior to anyone who practices some kind of religion. It's a more PC way to express the hate that humans need to express.

Yes, it definitely does not have the vitriolic tone as you may hear today. From my side of the fence, that vitriol is there due to a number of factors. Part of it is, we are simply sick and tired of religion moaning and groaning that they are being discriminated against or trying to legislate their beliefs or have it instituted into public schools. Some atheists and non believers have a deep seated hatred for religion due to experiences in the past and you will hear the vitriol for sure from them. It's kind of hard to explain actually, but, I can see where someone that holds religion to a higher degree of respect or reverence, that they can be shocked or surprised that anyone would say anything bad about it.

I'm a fan of: no one has the right to not be offended. I don't have to respect any religion. I don't have to care about any religion. I only have to respect the person as a human being. Nothing says that I have to be nice either. There's nothing wrong with being nice and I think it goes a long way to be nice, but, it's not a requirement. Unfortunately, those big religious conglomerates try to push it on others that don't want it. That's when you will see a lot of backlash. In the past, you couldn't do that, you'd be burned at the stake or ran out of town if you spoke out against it. Believe me, there's no insecurity, jealousy, irrationality or penis envy to it .

It's hard to explain what it is to be honest, because the only common core to atheism is, we don't believe any gods or god and that's it. We don't have a leader, we don't have a rule book and we don't all agree with each other. The best suggestion to get a better idea of how we perceive religion in general would be to look at the skeptics.com forums and actually Richard Dawkins' forums (which are closed to comments now), but, you do have to filter out some of the bagging on religion to get to the informative stuff. You'll be able to tell right away what actually has some substance as opposed someone just being pissed.

Discussions like this is why I'd love it if the was a Religion/Non Religion thread, but, I fear it would lead to too many boxings and bannings.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I forgot about child-like, though that doesn't quite have the vitriol against religion that is so popular here (and everywhere these days).

Really? Religion has it so tough these days? Last I checked if you told the world you were an Atheist, you had no chance at major political office in this country. My calendar shows we have national holidays on multiple religuous landmarks. Our businesses rely on the 2-month stretch leading up to Christmas for much of their profits. "Finding God" seems to be a phrase that people use quite frequently when they have turned their life around.

My family is not religuous at all, yet if I brought home a nice Christian girl, I think they'd be ecstatic. Hate to say it, but I doubt the nice Christian girl's parents would be as enthusiastic about bringing home an Atheist. I don't see a lot of Atheists protesting outside Churches, but I do see a lot of Christian groups protesting outside strip clubs, casinos, and abortion clinics. Protesting what books our kids read, what television I'm allowed to watch, and what I can do with a lover in my own bedroom.

I do see a lot of hate toward religion, but it's hate from other religions. There were an awful lot of Christian groups protesting that Mosque in NYC, and that wasn't an Atheist getting on TV threatening to burn holy books. The many conflicts in the Middle East aren't being fought over science. Our own President decided to take us into war because a God told him to.

Not to say that there aren't troublemakers who are Atheists. But when I turn on the news, I don't hear much about people blowing up stuff in the name of Atheism. I don't see wars being started over disagreements in scientific theory. So I'm sorry, the little Fox News "Christians under attack" meme is pathetic and has no basis in reality.

I'll make cracks at some of the things I find funny about religion, but I don't hate it. I could care less as long as they don't fuck with my life. I don't care if that's a Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, or whatever. In fact, the one I like the most is probably the one I think is the goofiest. Scientologists do their own thing whether that's right or wrong, but they don't try and screw with my life.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The existence and rationale behind gravity? The fact that the earth orbits the sun? The concept that if you consume more energy than you expend, you gain weight? The basic workings of the internal combustion engine?

Does the believer believe in these any less than they believe in God (or whatever construct in which they believe)?


Maybe the above is a silly example, but I think maybe it can serve to illustrate the disconnect here. Let me propose that the "believer", when faced with macro concepts (Why are we here? What's the purpose of life? How should I treat my fellow man? What's right and wrong?), will naturally and happily embrace the tenets of their belief for the answers. Even as a non-believer I think that's great. I'm happy to concede that for many of these types of macro questions a reliance on a belief system is just as valid as empirical evidence (should it even exist). And certainly more valid in the eyes of the "believer."

Then, conversely, I'm sure we can find that the "believer", when faced with "micro" concepts (such as the examples in the beginning of the post) is likewise happy to lean on scientific explanation instead of "belief", mainly (I would assume) because it's pretty cut-and-dry.

So the problem lies in the middle. Perhaps the problem "believers" have, especially "strong believers" is that they're used to cut-and-dry explanations for both macro and micro concepts, so anything that's not as cut-and-dry engenders distrust. The problem with this, is that there's a fair bit of science that exists on a bit of a sliding scale where proof is concerned. There are unproven theories (special relativity, I think). There are drugs which only show adverse events after 1 million patients and can't be anticipated in a lab. Etc....

I'm reminded of the time my brother-in-law, who is a brilliant nuclear physicist, explained time dilation to me. The explanation was sufficiently complex that I'm not even going to try and relate it here, but suffice it to say that there were certain things about his explanation that I found hard to believe, but I just chose to assume was true.


If you are a "believer", and especially a "strong believer", these kind of examples of a lack of complete surety seem to taint the whole concept of science (all but the most obvious examples of scientific conclusions, of course). This, I propose, is how we get people not believing in the efficacy of vaccinations, or the theory of evolution, or a great many other things. It's not a lack of understanding that's the problem (though a lack of understanding may certainly be present), it's a lack of comfort with the gray-area explanation.

(As an aside, this is why you don't see these kind of problems with "believer" intellectuals - especially the scientists, because they have comfort in the process / explanation.)


Aside from the economic rationales (our future competitiveness in the global market), this is probably (to my mind) the biggest reason for good math & science education. We need everyone, including "believers" to understand enough of these concepts to feel enough comfort to operate in the world. I'm not suggesting one needs to fully believe in, say, the full theory of evolution, but at least understand where it lies on the scale of proof and what parts of it are incontrovertible and what parts are not.

Then, as a last explanation, I think this is the greatest concern we "unbelievers" have concerning this attack on intellectualism and its related attack on basic education. It's not necessarily about teaching people stuff like creationism, it's choosing to take away the grounding and tools people will need as they grow up to be able to understand these concepts and decide for themselves.

very interesting post. very well thought out. *nodding*

man...i think i've sparked a good vein of discussion here. zoinks.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I forgot about child-like, though that doesn't quite have the vitriol against religion that is so popular here (and everywhere these days). And child-like is fair, many people have that kind of relationship with their religion, I just think those views are just a part of that which creates a huge spirtual/religious conglomerate that makes up something bigger and something relevant. And I don't know why so many people feel the need to lash out against it. It feels to me like any other irrational hatred (like towards gays, minorities, etc.) based on insecurity or a small penis or whatever. It's like everybody has a need to feel a superiority to something, and liberals who don't have that feeling of superiority (or at least won't express it) towards gays, minorities, women ect can still get off by feeling superior to anyone who practices some kind of religion. It's a more PC way to express the hate that humans need to express.

who's lashing out against religion??

oh no...woe are the poor persecuted Christians in this country

[Marc Vaughan]

who's lashing out against religion??

Dunno but if you've been following the popes visit to England he's definitely bashing aetheists right royally .. not to mention comparing the country to a third world country and other impressive heart warming comments

Its probably best if I don't give my thoughts on his speech - this being a family forum and all ... so I'll leave it to the Daily Mash to give my viewpoint for me:

The Daily Mash - QUEEN TO HAVE LUNCH WITH INSANE CRIMINAL

PS - For people who were unaware of this here's one of the 'real' news items from the BBC website:
BBC News - Row after Pope's remarks on atheism and Nazis

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Dunno but if you've been following the popes visit to England he's definitely bashing aetheists right royally .. not to mention comparing the country to a third world country and other impressive heart warming comments

(and its probably best if I don't give my thoughts on his speech - this being a family forum and all)

nope - i hadn't heard that. interesting!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

man...i think i've sparked a good vein of discussion here. zoinks.

just imagine how great it would be if it were 1998, you could have "out-bibled" everyone