People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. …[This] convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency. that they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly. Nor is there any visible intellectual dignity in theologians. Few of them know anything that is worth knowing, and not many of them are even honest.

~H.L. Mencken (1956)

 

 

 

 

This also touches on this conversation quite directly.

 

[MonDie]

Mondays Assignment: Die,

 

While I agree with your direction here, there is an implication I draw that you may not have drawn. If you lack vital information about a thing, and you are a scientist, believing in the scientific method, you have faith that the "natural" explanation exists, and can be found, can be understood, that there IS a real explanation. And this belief in an unknown natural explanation requires a belief in a greater reality, that nature consists of, that you are part of, and cogniscient of. AND this complete, huge beyond belief, old beyond comprehension, consistent, wonderful thing that you are exploring and learning about, and wondering about MUST be the same one Religious people are looking at. Because there is but one of these realities that all us humans share.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I'm unsure of where you wanted my thoughts to go.

Explanations aren't experienced. Rather, they're developed through reasoning. Religious people are experiencing the same world, but they're reasoning differently.

[Greg H.]

Mondays Assignment: Die,

 

While I agree with your direction here, there is an implication I draw that you may not have drawn. If you lack vital information about a thing, and you are a scientist, believing in the scientific method, you have faith that the "natural" explanation exists, and can be found, can be understood, that there IS a real explanation. And this belief in an unknown natural explanation requires a belief in a greater reality, that nature consists of, that you are part of, and cogniscient of. AND this complete, huge beyond belief, old beyond comprehension, consistent, wonderful thing that you are exploring and learning about, and wondering about MUST be the same one Religious people are looking at. Because there is but one of these realities that all us humans share.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Faith doesn't enter into it. I don't need to have faith that a natural explanation exists - if one exists, science will, eventually, uncover it once our understanding and our technology catch up to the challenge the problem exhibits. This conclusion isn't based on faith, it's based on previous experience with scientific inquiry over centuries of human beings trying to figure out how the universe works.

 

The only belief, if you want to call it that, is that the universe isn't obfuscated. It doesn't hide its nature, or operate under the arbitrary whim of some guiding influence. It runs under the guidance of laws that can be determined through observation and experimentation. But that belief isn't based on faith. It's based on the available evidence.

[MonDie]

Faith doesn't enter into it. I don't need to have faith that a natural explanation exists - if one exists, science will, eventually, uncover it once our understanding and our technology catch up to the challenge the problem exhibits. This conclusion isn't based on faith, it's based on previous experience with scientific inquiry over centuries of human beings trying to figure out how the universe works.

 

I have one disagreement. Science has been explaining more and more, so it probably will continue to explain more. But it only follows that science will eventually explain everything that it can explain. If the underlined part is removed from my previous statement, the logic becomes flawed.

That is why I included this argument:

"[T]he argument that something cannot be explained naturally leads nowhere because one can only prove the absence of natural explanations for some event by discovering every natural concept there is to discover. So we can really only make progress by finding natural explanations, not by asserting the absence of them." Furthermore, people who aren't experts shouldn't pretend to know that the experts don't know.

 

By the way, does anybody know the correct grammatical format for my only/not statements, such as the one in the second blue sentence?

Edited May 22, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Greg H.]

I have one disagreement. Science has been explaining more and more, so it probably will continue to explain more. But it only follows that science will eventually explain everything that it can explain. If the underlined part is removed from my previous statement, its logic becomes flawed.

 

I'll concede that. It's a valid point - eventually our understanding of the natural world could become so advanced we have nothing left to uncover through science as we know it today.

 

 

"[T]he argument that something cannot be explained naturally leads nowhere because one can only prove the absence of natural explanations for some event by discovering every natural concept there is to discover. So we can really only make progress by finding natural explanations, not by asserting the absence of them."

 

By the way, does anybody know the correct grammatical format for my only/not statements such as the one in the second blue sentence?

 

It seems fine to me. Am I missing something?

[MonDie]

I made a mistake. You never claimed otherwise. If I only had a brain.

It's good to see that you never edited the post. Maybe I'll stop editing my submitted posts.

 

Faith doesn't enter into it. I don't need to have faith that a natural explanation exists - if one exists, science will, eventually, uncover it once our understanding and our technology catch up to the challenge the problem exhibits. This conclusion isn't based on faith, it's based on previous experience with scientific inquiry over centuries of human beings trying to figure out how the universe works.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[imatfaal]

/snipped

"[T]he argument that something cannot be explained naturally leads nowhere because one can only prove the absence of natural explanations for some event by discovering every natural concept there is to discover. So we can really only make progress by finding natural explanations, not by asserting the absence of them." ...

 

By the way, does anybody know the correct grammatical format for my only/not statements, such as the one in the second blue sentence?

 

 

I am posting this only because you asked about grammar and syntax.

 

So we can really only make progress by finding natural explanations, not by asserting the absence of them.

Old-fashioned grammarians might claim that in your sentence 'only' is a modifier to 'make progress' and not to 'finding natural explanations'. Be assured, I believe it is quite clear which meaning you intended.

 

The above is a complex sentence so taking a simpler example:

1. "I am posting this only because you asked about grammar and syntax." - i.e. only because you asked

2. "Only I am posting this ...." - i.e. I am the only poster

3. "I am posting this because only you asked about grammar and syntax." - i.e. You were the only one to ask.

4. "I am posting this because you asked about only grammar and syntax." - i.e. You asked about grammar and syntax, not about anything else

and many others all of which have subtly different meanings.

 

The use of the 'not' phrase after a comma to exemplify a false alternative seems perfect to me. Some people might call for a semi-colon; however, I would use a semi-colon only when the phrase could stand alone as a sentence.

 

Skitt's law will almost certainly apply.

[A Tripolation]

In no other arena do people display such a double standard en masse, and in no other arena is it considered acceptable to hold confidently to such an extraordinary assertion in the face of such inadequate evidence, logic, or reason.

 

I understand what you're saying, but to those of us that do believe, there is enough evidence, logic, and reason. Simply because you find it lacking doesn't mean it's not enough. This is entirely subjective.

[Moontanman]

I understand what you're saying, but to those of us that do believe, there is enough evidence, logic, and reason. Simply because you find it lacking doesn't mean it's not enough. This is entirely subjective.

 

 

I disagree, I don't see how reality can be subjective... Your take on reality might be subjective but that take cannot be based on empirical evidence...

[iNow]

I understand what you're saying, but to those of us that do believe, there is enough evidence, logic, and reason.

But that's sort of the point. Nobody has been able to name ANY other arena in our entire shared existence where the burden of proof has been set so ridiculously low, yet that "non-burden" is enough for you to accept such an incredibly extraordinary claim as true.

 

Really, all you have is the fact that you *want* to believe, but that's about it... Ergo you have dropped your normal standards of evidence to the point of them being nearly nonexistent. Seriously, I could probably show you something as unrelated as this pen sitting in front of me on my desk, or this stack of post-it notes and you would treat it as "proof" of gods existence.

 

You wouldn't do that anywhere else in your life. You'd have at least *some* standards beyond this... You'd require more if the concept were not religion or god. That's the point. That's why I suggest it's broken.

 

You wouldn't think Thor is real because I pointed to a thunderstorm, yet you think Yahweh is real because I pointed to a flower. You have to know you're lying to yourself somewhere deep within you.

[immortal]

But that's sort of the point. Nobody has been able to name ANY other arena in our entire shared existence where the burden of proof has been set so ridiculously low, yet that "non-burden" is enough for you to accept such an incredibly extraordinary claim as true.

 

Really, all you have is the fact that you *want* to believe, but that's about it... Ergo you have dropped your normal standards of evidence to the point of them being nearly nonexistent. Seriously, I could probably show you something as unrelated as this pen sitting in front of me on my desk, or this stack of post-it notes and you would treat it as "proof" of gods existence.

 

You wouldn't do that anywhere else in your life. You'd have at least *some* standards beyond this... You'd require more if the concept were not religion or god. That's the point. That's why I suggest it's broken.

 

You wouldn't think Thor is real because I pointed to a thunderstorm, yet you think Yahweh is real because I pointed to a flower. You have to know you're lying to yourself somewhere deep within you.

 

 

There is an another arena according to Kierkegaard where we do that in our life i.e in love. People just trust in an another person without any proof about the righteousness of that person and show commitment. Similarly, in religion, people trust the scriptures and show commitment by leading a practical life based on faith. The joy of such faith comes in the end when we get the answers for our most important questions.

 

Physicists have a job on their hands until they provide accurate explanations for the correlations seen in quantum entanglement and the theists too have a job on their hands to give explanations for the correlations seen accross different religions existing in different cultures at different timelines and faith is the tool that they use to test such assertions in the religious scriptures. So I don't think we somehow display low standards for accepting something as true when it comes to religion.

[Moontanman]

There is an another arena according to Kierkegaard where we do that in our life i.e in love. People just trust in an another person without any proof about the righteousness of that person and show commitment.

 

That's not really true, I doubt anyone goes on blind faith for love, it's a wonderful romantic notion but the other person has to earn that trust and it can be changed at the drop of a hat when new information comes in.

 

Similarly, in religion, people trust the scriptures and show commitment by leading a practical life based on faith. The joy of such faith comes in the end when we get the answers for our most important questions.

 

Evidence of this please?

 

Physicists have a job on their hands until they provide accurate explanations for the correlations seen in quantum entanglement

 

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

and the theists too have a job on their hands to give explanations for the correlations seen accross different religions existing in different cultures at different timelines

 

Please elaborate on this idea, i have no knowledge of wide spread correlations between different religions that had no contact with each other or that were not derived from each other.

 

and faith is the tool that they use to test such assertions in the religious scriptures.

 

How can faith be a tool to test assertions in religious scriptures?

 

So I don't think we somehow display low standards for accepting something as true when it comes to religion.

 

I disagree, so far all you have shown is that theists actually do use a lower set of standards when It comes to religion.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Moontanman

[iNow]

There is an another arena according to Kierkegaard where we do that in our life i.e in love. People just trust in an another person without any proof about the righteousness of that person and show commitment. Similarly, in religion, people trust the scriptures and show commitment by leading a practical life based on faith. The joy of such faith comes in the end when we get the answers for our most important questions.

This is different, though. There are measurable, empirical, physical manifestations of love. We can run an MRI. We can study changes in behavior, or body chemistry. We can look at blood flow, and spending patterns, and rate the tone of things people write as upbeat, etc. While love is seemingly an ethereal concept, it does have a measurable impact on the world that can be measured.

 

That is not the same as god(s). You are trying to conflate an established human emotion with the proposition that there is an all powerful sky dictator who cares if we eat meat on Fridays. You are suggesting that somehow the existence of something like happiness is equivalent to the existence of dragons.

 

Your comparison (or, the comparison put forth by our old buddy Soren K.) fails entirely, and is deeply false.

 

---

How can faith be a tool to test assertions in religious scriptures?

By definition alone, it cannot be. It would cease to be "faith" the moment you decided to test it for accuracy and consider the possibility that it's wrong or falsifiable.

[MonDie]

/snip

The use of the 'not' phrase after a comma to exemplify a false alternative seems perfect to me. Some people might call for a semi-colon; however, I would use a semi-colon only when the phrase could stand alone as a sentence.

 

Skitt's law will almost certainly apply.

Thanks,

I found an English forum post about comma+not. Apparently the comma replaces an "and."

[tar]

I'm unsure of where you wanted my thoughts to go.

Explanations aren't experienced. Rather, they're developed through reasoning. Religious people are experiencing the same world, but they're reasoning differently.

 

Mondays Assignment: Die,

 

If somebody else knows something about reality that I don't, which is the case, most of the time, it does not mean that what I know is wrong, and what they know is right, or vice a versa. I was hinting at the old "blind men and the elephant" story. Suggesting that God or reality if you please, is the elephant, and we, religious people and scientists, stupid people and geniuses, gay and straight, republican and democrat, capitalist and communist, sick and well, humanist and moslem, broken and unbroken... are the blind men. All of us, with NO exceptions, for any "reason".

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Just am listening to a news story how "The once troubled Darryl Strawberry has turned his life around, and is now batting for God." Seems he is now an ordained minister.

 

This would be contrary to the idea that people that believe in God are broken. That society would consider him now less broken, now that he has faith.

Edited May 23, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

Just am listening to a news story how "The once troubled Darryl Strawberry has turned his life around, and is now batting for God." Seems he is now an ordained minister.

 

This would be contrary to the idea that people that believe in God are broken. That society would consider him now less broken, now that he has faith.

If he is, in fact, less broken it is because he changed his lifestyle and stopped doing cocaine and hookers... not because he accepted a new imaginary friend into his world based on poor reasoning, irrationality, and lack of adequate evidence.

 

I enjoyed watching Strawberry play at Shea when I was younger, and appreciated his contributions in the world series', but it is not his faith that makes him "less broken." It is his decision to no longer partake in dangerous drugs and hordes of skanky women.

[tar]

Inow,

 

Or do you perhaps mean that people who believe in God are broken, like a wild horse is "broken" once a saddle and a rider can stay on his back.

 

Could open up an other aspect of the "value" of religion to society. We can't have a bunch of wild horses running about. Who would carry the master, or pull the plow?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

Inow,

 

Or do you perhaps mean that people who believe in God are broken, like a wild horse is "broken" once a saddle and a rider can stay on his back.

 

Could open up an other aspect of the "value" of religion to society. We can't have a bunch of wild horses running about. Who would carry the master, or pull the plow?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

TAR2 that is almost as creepy as the sheep/shepherd idea...

[tar]

So was his decision rational or not?

[iNow]

So was his decision rational or not?

Decision to improve his life? Yes, rational.

Decision to accept a delusional fairy tale as true based on inadequate evidence, faulty logic, and wish-thinking? No, not rational.

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Cross posting a bit. Sorry.

 

It was meant to be creepy. The Bible has authority and slavery written through and through. I was pointing out this motivation of religion. To maintain the master slave relationship between the Mullah and the people.

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

This is different, though. There are measurable, empirical, physical manifestations of love. We can run an MRI. We can study changes in behavior, or body chemistry. We can look at blood flow, and spending patterns, and rate the tone of things people write as upbeat, etc. While love is seemingly an ethereal concept, it does have a measurable impact on the world that can be measured.

 

That is not the same as god(s). You are trying to conflate an established human emotion with the proposition that there is an all powerful sky dictator who cares if we eat meat on Fridays. You are suggesting that somehow the existence of something like happiness is equivalent to the existence of dragons.

 

Your comparison (or, the comparison put forth by our old buddy Soren K.) fails entirely, and is deeply false.

 

There are components to such emotions which are not measurable, by running an MRI over their brain chemistry you are merely treating them as zombies, while I am very much open to the notion that these are emergent properties of brain modules and patterns, our apparent feeling that we are somehow more than machines and our inability to study such subjective aspects is one of the reasons for studying and believing in religion and such subjective emotions are not as disconnected to gods as you might think, it is very much connected to them and the ancients had a more better understanding of these emotions, they attributed that such emotions of pride, fear, happiness, anger, hatred etc were controlled by anthropomorphic gods and by worshiping such gods they were in control of such emotions according to their own will.

 

I am not asserting that gods exists just because these established emotions exist but I think gods can be one of the possible explanations for such emotions and we believe in it to find some support of such assertions or even to abandon our hope of explaining such things through gods.

[tar]

and hinting at Inow's motivation "to help people throw off the shackels".

[immortal]

That's not really true, I doubt anyone goes on blind faith for love, it's a wonderful romantic notion but the other person has to earn that trust and it can be changed at the drop of a hat when new information comes in.

 

 

Some of the theologians and religious scholars have indeed earned our trust and in neither circumstances it is in any way justifiable for the apparent leap in faith for showing such a strong commitment, that's why it is called as faith.

 

 

Evidence of this please?

 

Many are convinced that god exists by holding such an active faith because they have seen god and I am sure there might be some who are convinced that he doesn't exist, that's how it answers our questions.

 

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

That we cannot just go on without examining what the truth is.

 

Please elaborate on this idea, i have no knowledge of wide spread correlations between different religions that had no contact with each other or that were not derived from each other.

 

 

There are correlations, a single individual cannot practically study all the different traditions with his short life span and also he has to do something else to earn for his living, I don't think there is much financial support for scholars. It needs a collaborative work from people of different cultures who can study the literature with out any personal bias.

 

Courses like this which are concerned of Near and Far east traditions is what I am talking of.

 

http://web.mac.com/t...e/NFE_Info.html

Edited May 23, 2012 by immortal

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Didn't go to the link, sorry.

 

There is certainly many "traditions". And truth of one kind or another to find in all of them. But a lot that is not objectively real and therefore not "true", as well.

 

While I obviously don't know the answer to the thread question, since I have been all over the place, arguing every angle I can think of, pro and con, I would summarize my thoughts and feelings, by repeating something I think I mentioned before in this thread.

People have been around for a long time. We have learned alot about reality and each other, and taught what we have learned to each other, and our children. If some belief was not appropriate to hold, it would not have been held for very long, because it would not have made "sense" and would not have served a purpose.

 

Unlikely that any one of us could suddenly "see" the truth that everybody else has been missing for thousands of generations, over the vast expanse of this planet. Little things, particular things, new angles and insights, sure. But the big picture, the total package, we have had in view, the whole time. We are not the first, nor only to believe they knew the truth.

 

My theory is that everybody did, and everybody does, know the truth...about something...but nobody ever did, or ever will, know the whole truth, about everything. It is not humanly possible to do so.

 

But it is not dangerous or broken to pretend that there is such a thing as a view that sees it all. A God's eye view, from whose perspective you can "know" the whole truth, about everything, or at least have a "sense" of what that might entail. That it might be like what you DO know, multiplied by a zillion and having been like that for a long long time, and liable to continue that way, for a long time to come.

 

 

Regards, TAR2