People who believe in god are broken

[zapatos]

So you think you validated your position?

Sorry for not giving you a yes/no answer but I don't want to add any confusion by using 'validate' differently than you might use it.

 

I've stated several positions on various aspects of this topic. On some positions I believe I did not adequately support them well enough to feel confident that my position is still correct. On other positions I feel that I did adequately support them and do not feel that counter arguments were sufficient to prove them false or make me change my mind. I therefore still believe them to be true. If the positions I still have confidence in are indeed true, then the statement 'people who believe in God are broken' is false.

[Moontanman]

Sorry for not giving you a yes/no answer but I don't want to add any confusion by using 'validate' differently than you might use it.

 

I've stated several positions on various aspects of this topic. On some positions I believe I did not adequately support them well enough to feel confident that my position is still correct. On other positions I feel that I did adequately support them and do not feel that counter arguments were sufficient to prove them false or make me change my mind. I therefore still believe them to be true. If the positions I still have confidence in are indeed true, then the statement 'people who believe in God are broken' is false.

 

 

I have followed this topic pretty closely and I haven't seen what you are asserting at all...

[zapatos]

I have followed this topic pretty closely and I haven't seen what you are asserting at all...

You didn't see my posts, or you don't understand them? If you don't understand them can you be more specific?

[iNow]

Let's do this to move it forward, as it's been a long thread and I'm unsure what points you're referencing.

 

Zapatos - What specific arguments did you make that you feel were not addressed? I'd like the chance to try offering a rebuttal or conceding my agreement if I missed them previously.

[Moontanman]

You didn't see my posts, or you don't understand them? If you don't understand them can you be more specific?

 

 

I feel like I understood everything you've asserted, but to be honest I am quite certain that you have yet to support any of your arguments any more than any other theist has so far. I don't want to risk you thinking I am simply not respecting you as a person but while you are welcome to your beliefs, none the less at this point, you have not supported them with anything but faith, and maybe that is enough for you and I do respect that but not enough to concede your beliefs to mirror reality.

[zapatos]

Let's do this to move it forward, as it's been a long thread and I'm unsure what points you're referencing.

 

Zapatos - What specific arguments did you make that you feel were not addressed? I'd like the chance to try offering a rebuttal or conceding my agreement if I missed them previously.

Ok, although just to be clear I did not say that some of my arguments were not addressed. Rather, that the counter arguments made were not sufficient to make me change my mind.

 

Disclaimer: I make some general statements that are probably not necessarily agreed to. Feel free to modify. For example, I say that 6 billion people believe in God. If you want to claim it is only 5 billion, or whatever, I'll be happy to concede the point up front.

 

In my opinion the biggest problem with the OP is that it makes a sweeping generalization of, by some estimates, 6 billion people. "Generalizations never work." Since technically we only need to find one person who believes in God who we do not consider broken to consider the OP false, I feel it is doomed from the beginning. Of course if we found that 'most' of those 6 billion were broken I'd be happy to condede the point.

 

My next problem with the OP is that it does not define 'broken'. While not defining 'broken' makes for interesting conversation I feel it will be too big a hurdle to overcome to declare the OP valid. To me 'broken' implies something like 'it did work but now it doesn't'.

 

And finally, there is no attempt to define God in the OP. In this case, since there are so many versions of God (possibly up to 6 billion of them) I feel we must accept all definitions. That means if you believe in the God of Abraham, Zeus, or an impersonal God, any of those beliefs must be considered as belonging to someone who is broken.

 

So the point we are at in order to validate the OP, is to see if we can prove the accuracy of the proposal that 85% of the earth's population, who hold a very general supernatural belief in common, used to be capable of working in some sort of undefined way,and now are not.

 

So now I'll explore some examples of people who believe in God who I do not believe are broken.

 

Believers who have doubt:

 

A 15 year old guy is raised to believe in God. Eveyone he know says it is true including his parents. He has never had any reason to believe otherwise. He believes in God, although not being entirely naive, he does have some doubt. He's never seen God, so he decides it is possible it is not true. To me this is the workings of a properly functioning mind. He may change his mind later, but this is a reasonable proposition at this point in time.

 

Believers who are immature:

 

When I'm young and immature I believe those who are in a position of authority. Being immature I don't reason well or thoroughly. My partents told me God exists, the priest told me, my grandparents, etc. I believe someone who believes in God who is not sufficiently mature cannot be considered broken. I would in fact say they are functioning as built.

 

Believers who are improperly educated or uneducated:

 

I imagine a great portion of the world's God-believing population is mostly uneducated. If I am raised in the middle of a heavily religious area, where everyone believes in God, no one ever discusses the possibility it is not true, and I cannot even read and write, I think that believing in God is the only rational thing to do. I don't think that a young man raised in a small Taliban village can be considered broken for believing in God.

 

Those with a simple belief in an impersonal God:

 

If I see no evidence of God, and no evidence that God does not exist, some say he does and some say he doesn't, how do I decide? I know the universe exists and I have no idea how it got here. I readily admit that I have no way of knowing one way or the other, but my options seem to be that it either was here all the time, or it came into being at some point in time. I'm going to choose one over the other and say that it was created by 'someone' whom I will choose to call 'God'. Don't really know what that means or if it is true, but it seems as likely as the other possibility, maybe even a little more so given what I know about cause and effect. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that I was wrong though.

 

In my opinion this is not the thinking of someone who is broken. It is an inquisitive mind that is trying to figure out the universe, and at this point in time, this is the best he can do.

 

These are examples of people I do not consider broken, and for whom I have not seen a convincing argument to make me believe otherwise.

 

Had the OP made an attempt to add additional characteristics other than simply 'believing in God' I may have been convinced that some believers in God are broken. For example, those who believe despite contrary evidence, or those who are illogical. As it stands I believe there are too many exceptions to accept the OP.

 

I feel like I understood everything you've asserted, but to be honest I am quite certain that you have yet to support any of your arguments any more than any other theist has so far. I don't want to risk you thinking I am simply not respecting you as a person but while you are welcome to your beliefs, none the less at this point, you have not supported them with anything but faith, and maybe that is enough for you and I do respect that but not enough to concede your beliefs to mirror reality.

I don't believe that any of the arguments I've made in this thread are arguments based on faith.

[Moontanman]

Ok, although just to be clear I did not say that some of my arguments were not addressed. Rather, that the counter arguments made were not sufficient to make me change my mind.

 

Disclaimer: I make some general statements that are probably not necessarily agreed to. Feel free to modify. For example, I say that 6 billion people believe in God. If you want to claim it is only 5 billion, or whatever, I'll be happy to concede the point up front.

 

In my opinion the biggest problem with the OP is that it makes a sweeping generalization of, by some estimates, 6 billion people. "Generalizations never work." Since technically we only need to find one person who believes in God who we do not consider broken to consider the OP false, I feel it is doomed from the beginning. Of course if we found that 'most' of those 6 billion were broken I'd be happy to condede the point.

 

I have to admit i have problems assigning the label broken to non fundamentalist types, but I blame them for not speaking out more against the fundie fringes who in the USA are more of a mainstream than fringe group.

 

My next problem with the OP is that it does not define 'broken'. While not defining 'broken' makes for interesting conversation I feel it will be too big a hurdle to overcome to declare the OP valid. To me 'broken' implies something like 'it did work but now it doesn't'.

 

My own personal definition of broken in the context is using faulty reasoning, i admit much harder for someone in a theistic society who has little or no contact with reading and writing to get past.

 

And finally, there is no attempt to define God in the OP. In this case, since there are so many versions of God (possibly up to 6 billion of them) I feel we must accept all definitions. That means if you believe in the God of Abraham, Zeus, or an impersonal God, any of those beliefs must be considered as belonging to someone who is broken.

 

I think it's safe to say that any supernatural belief is at risk in this thread.

 

So the point we are at in order to validate the OP, is to see if we can prove the accuracy of the proposal that 85% of the earth's population, who hold a very general supernatural belief in common, used to be capable of working in some sort of undefined way,and now are not.

 

i think this is a strawman, i don't see anyone but you advocating the once worked now does not work definition.

 

I don't see the inference there. Its that the person is capable and insists on using reasoning in every way other than Religion, not that they are dysfunctional.

 

So now I'll explore some examples of people who believe in God who I do not believe are broken.

 

Believers who have doubt:

 

A 15 year old guy is raised to believe in God. Eveyone he know says it is true including his parents. He has never had any reason to believe otherwise. He believes in God, although not being entirely naive, he does have some doubt. He's never seen God, so he decides it is possible it is not true. To me this is the workings of a properly functioning mind. He may change his mind later, but this is a reasonable proposition at this point in time.

 

Believers who are immature:

 

When I'm young and immature I believe those who are in a position of authority. Being immature I don't reason well or thoroughly. My partents told me God exists, the priest told me, my grandparents, etc. I believe someone who believes in God who is not sufficiently mature cannot be considered broken. I would in fact say they are functioning as built.

 

Believers who are improperly educated or uneducated:

 

I imagine a great portion of the world's God-believing population is mostly uneducated. If I am raised in the middle of a heavily religious area, where everyone believes in God, no one ever discusses the possibility it is not true, and I cannot even read and write, I think that believing in God is the only rational thing to do. I don't think that a young man raised in a small Taliban village can be considered broken for believing in God.

 

Those with a simple belief in an impersonal God:

 

If I see no evidence of God, and no evidence that God does not exist, some say he does and some say he doesn't, how do I decide? I know the universe exists and I have no idea how it got here. I readily admit that I have no way of knowing one way or the other, but my options seem to be that it either was here all the time, or it came into being at some point in time. I'm going to choose one over the other and say that it was created by 'someone' whom I will choose to call 'God'. Don't really know what that means or if it is true, but it seems as likely as the other possibility, maybe even a little more so given what I know about cause and effect. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that I was wrong though.

 

In my opinion this is not the thinking of someone who is broken. It is an inquisitive mind that is trying to figure out the universe, and at this point in time, this is the best he can do.

 

These are examples of people I do not consider broken, and for whom I have not seen a convincing argument to make me believe otherwise.

 

Had the OP made an attempt to add additional characteristics other than simply 'believing in God' I may have been convinced that some believers in God are broken. For example, those who believe despite contrary evidence, or those who are illogical. As it stands I believe there are too many exceptions to accept the OP.

 

 

I don't believe that any of the arguments I've made in this thread are arguments based on faith.

 

 

They are all none the less defined by faith not by empirical evidence. A man in a third world country who is unable to read and write and who never gets any information about anything but the local religion who will believe very nearly anything his head religious figure says would still never in a million years buy a horse without seeing it first or at least insist on getting his moneys worth. it's not that the person is somehow unable to function, it's just in this idea of the supernatural we seem to be self deceptive... broken

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

But we do have to consider, one of the other meanings of broken that has been discussed. That of "separated", as in the falling from Grace, or the fall of man. If looked at in this light, the uneducated, the "innocent child", the ignorant, are those of us, that are "closer" to nature, who have not yet been "polluted" by knowledge. Who have not yet eaten the fruit from the tree of wisdom. Who do not make a distinction between good and evil.

 

There is, in Eastern Religions, this idea of purity, of "discounting" or attempting to remove the "unclean" from your being. This thought of "removing" the selfishness and want that "being separated" creates in your being. And of course that "unity" idea, which would be quite the opposite of broken.

 

If "nature" is to be considered good or "god", which by most accounts it is, then "obeying it" or "getting close to it", or "believing in it" is not a false, broken thing, but a way to be that is desireable, and will yield both personal and common benefits.

 

Few of us believe a child or a deer, or even a rat or goat-eating jaquar, is going to hell. We don't consider them responsible for their behavior and do not hold them to the same standards, that we hold ourselves, as "rational", learned, mature, responsible human beings. Theory being, that we have made the "break", where as, they have not.

 

Regards, TAR2

[John Cuthber]

Ouch! And I thought I was both open minded and had made valid counter points.

 

I believe you've won some battles, but you may be a little premature with the Mission Accomplished claim.

 

It's not that I'm trying to antagonise anyone.

As far as I can tell this post contains some assertions, like "(I) had made valid counter points"

and " you may be a little premature with the Mission Accomplished claim."

but no actual evidence: no counter points (just a flat contradiction) and no citation of any examples.

To me, that looks a lot like a demonstration of iNow's point

"but some refuse to accept that despite their lack of valid counter points or refutations".

 

It really isn't enough to say "I have made valid counter points": you need to say what they were- at least give us a citation, if not the actual points.

[the asinine cretin]

That's right.

 

My point is that religious claims are of the same general kind as those made by psychics, UFO abductees, astrologers, etc. Supernatural religious claims are similar to the claims of pseudoscience because they are both unfalsifiable. Not only is that an essential reason they are similar, it is the most important and the least refutable reason they are different from scientific claims.

 

To elaborate where I was coming from, there are many perfectly rational beliefs that are not scientific claims and that are not falsifiable.

 

(Tangential, but I'm not as enthusiastic about naive falsificationism as I was when first reading Popper. For elaboration I would mention that I think Susan Haack has some interesting things to say in this lecture:

)

 

As an example, the consensus among scholars that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed is a reasonable view that is not "scientific." Similarly, believing that Mohammed actually existed is perfectly rational, while believing that he flew on a magic donkey is not, and the reasons for this distinction are not mere falsifiability. While it's an important aspect of scientific methodology, and knowledge in general, to insist that falsifiability is what makes beliefs rational or irrational may warrant the scientism epithet.

As an example (and in spite of "proofs" for the existence of God and the hyperbole of some apologists), Catholic doctrine does not assert that the existence of God is demonstrable in some scientific sense, but rather that there is sufficient reason for believing that there is a God. I think this is closer to the sense in which there is sufficient reason to hold that Julius Caesar actually existed, or that Paul of Tarsus existed, and not in the sense in which a scientific hypothesis is tested. (This sufficient reason then opens the door of the heart and mind to faith, which is a supernatural virtue and considered a gift of God, rather than something that can or should be completely justified on rational grounds. Within this framework is the necessity for, and validity of revelation.)

Thus, I don't think that the demarcation problem, and the claim that something is "pseudoscience," is always applicable to religious claims. Is the important point with respect to the miracle of the loaves and the fishes that affirming it is "pseudoscience," or the more basic fact that believing in a miraculous event based on alleged testimony far removed from the actual events, and in a genre of literature unconcerned with historical fact, is not rational?

 

Dammit. I'm not done but I've got to go.

Edited May 27, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[zapatos]

It's not that I'm trying to antagonise anyone.

As far as I can tell this post contains some assertions, like "(I) had made valid counter points"

and " you may be a little premature with the Mission Accomplished claim."

but no actual evidence: no counter points (just a flat contradiction) and no citation of any examples.

To me, that looks a lot like a demonstration of iNow's point

"but some refuse to accept that despite their lack of valid counter points or refutations".

 

It really isn't enough to say "I have made valid counter points": you need to say what they were- at least give us a citation, if not the actual points.

Ok, although I'm confused about why this is required. I would have thought anything I said in this thread would not have to be repeated in order for it to still be considered part of the record.

 

In post #157 I responded to the idea that faith based beliefs were flawed by stating that "Although just to be fair I guess we have to exclude those who are immature or insufficiently educated." This point went unchallenged.

 

As further support of my position I now submit the following:

 

For many years it was thought that brain development was set at a fairly early age. By the time teen years were reached the brain was thought to be largely finished. However, scientists doing cutting-edge research using magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, have mapped the brain from early childhood into adulthood and found data contrary to these beliefs. It now appears the brain continues to change into the early 20's with the frontal lobes, responsible for reasoning and problem solving, developing last.

http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm

 

My argument is that since the brain has not completed its development with respect to reasoning, and since that reasoning is required to accept or reject the concept of God, then the person with the immature brain cannot be considered broken.

 

Further, it is my contention that until an individual has sufficient education, either formally or through experience, faulty reasoning is normal. I feel it is reasonable for a person to believe that air travel is dangerous if their only exposure to air travel is reading about air disasters. Until they learn about the number of safe flights taking place everyday, see planes taking offf and landing at airports, fly themselves, etc., their conclusion about the safety of air travel may be considered flawed but not broken.

 

In post #224 and in other places I discussed the idea of "belief with doubt".

IMO you are not broken for coming to the conclusion that either God or the Big Bang are not supported by the evidence. You are also not broken for coming to the conclusion that God or the Big Bang are supported by the evidence, as long as you recognize that insufficient evidence means you have to accept that you could be wrong.

 

In post #239 I argued how a person's background could reasonably lead them to a conclusion:

One of the problems with calling people broken with such a broad brush as 'those who believe in God' is that there are so many things that could have led them to that position.

 

For example: Eighteen year old kid, just finished 12 years of religious school, religious services every Sunday, everybody he knows shares his religion, his parents are wonderful people who are quite devout, has had years of discussions on 'The Truth'. Hasn't really gotten out in the world. No one questions their religion. Doesn't start college until next fall.

 

We also don't know what he's seen, heard, experienced, etc.

 

To me that kid would not be considered broken. He is basing his belief on everything around him and so far it all confirms what he believes.

 

In post #258 I made an argument based on how someone making a decision based on insufficient evidence would not be considered broken for making the best decision they can given their capabilities:

My second point was that different people will view evidence different ways. For example, the prosecutor presents evidence of a crime and we have a hung jury. (Can't decide) A second jury decides he is guilty (believes the evidence). A retrial then finds the person not guilty (didn't believe the evidence). I don't find any of the jurors to be necessarily broken (although they may be). They were not there, they do not know for sure, but based on the evidence they see, their background/personality/education/experiences, they make a call. They know they can be wrong, but they are doing the best they can.

 

In a similar way people are looking at what is by definition unscientific evidence of God, and based on their background/personality/education/experiences, they make a call. Most know they can be wrong but this is the best they can come up with.

 

I don't see either group to be necessarily broken, because they are basing the call on what they know.

 

In post #405 I made arguments based on doubt and trust:

I don't believe that is a fair assessment. If you were to say that a person's reasoning is broken if they accept extreme claims on faith alone, and in the face of contrary evidence, that would be a lot closer. If I believe but have doubt, and see no contrary evidence, I don't think that suggests I am unable to reason properly.

 

I also don't think that it is as simple as a 'reasoning' issue. For example, I imagine that there are those who 'want' to believe and it never gets to reasoning. Possibly the problem is that they trust too easily, trusting that their parents and clergy would never tell them something if it was not absolutely true. If I accept them at their word and don't even try to reason it out myself, then I think the issue occurs prior to reasoning.

 

 

In post #412 I made the argument of how the world makes it easy to beleive and be accepted, thus not causing people to look too deeply:

First is the continuous support for believing in God from others. It starts out at birth and never stops. Baptism, confirmation, mass every Sunday, Christmas, Easter, marriage preparation counseling, radio, television, Rush Limbaugh, almost all politicians, almost all neighbors, almost all family, billions of people worldwide, pronouncements from the pope, holy wars, houses of worship on every other corner, catholic schools, baptist schools, lutheran schools, and on and on and on.

 

And the support comes from people you trust, who are educated, well trained, wealthy, poor, and people who have dedicated their lives to God.

 

Not to mention the negative feedback that comes to those who question God. The priest keeps you after school, your mother yells at you, your girlfriend refuses to marry you, you don't get elected to office, etc.

 

If you have even the slightest inclination for whatever reason to believe in God, it is very easy and comfortable to do so.

 

These are some of the arguments I've made in this thread. As I've posted around 50 times I could probably come up with more examples if asked.

 

Most of my points were addressed, some were not. It is my belief that many of my examples show how people in various stages of life and development can believe in God without being considered broken. It is also my belief that counter points have not been sufficient to discard my points. Given this, I felt it was safe to say that Mission Accomplished was premature. I also think that given the overly broad statement in the OP that iNow will never be able to claim that the OP has been validated.

[tar]

Thus, I don't think that the demarcation problem, and the claim that something is "pseudoscience," is always applicable to religious claims. Is the important point with respect to the miracle of the loaves and the fishes that affirming it is "pseudoscience," or the more basic fact that believing in a miraculous event based on alleged testimony far removed from the actual events, and in a genre of literature unconcerned with historical fact, is not rational?

 

the asinine cretin,

 

I didn't read your "falsifiability" link, yet, perhaps I might learn something when I do.

 

My mom (the departed mathematician, somewhat eccentric, strong believer in Christ, I often use as proxy for "believer",) would tell us (my sister, cousins, friends or whoever was present) her understanding of the fishes and loaves story. Jesus fed the multitude by pronouncing the several loaves and fishes that were apparently all they had, would be enough, and as these were passed around, the morsels and privately hidden peices of cheese and bread and berries or whatever, appeared from beneath the robes of those who had hidden such, for their own use, and were shared, and everybody ate.

 

There is no magic or psuedoscience involved in such a miracle. No fishes or loaves needed to magically multiply. No rules of the universe needed to be violated. Only "Christian brotherhood" and "Jesus' Love" are required for the miracle to occur.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

As further support of my position I now submit the following:

Thanks, zapatos. I will concede that it's more difficult to call children broken for holding these beliefs, but not impossible. I would like to note, though, that your point also implicitly suggests that any adult who holds these same beliefs is acting childishly, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

 

I will not concede, however, that people who have been isolated in a self-reinforcing cycle of brainwashing and non-exposure to alternative information and views are not broken. Just because someone has only seen religion, or only been exposed to the teachings of some subset of people does not mean they are not broken... quite the opposite, really. Although it may not be their fault that they've only had such experiences, they are still quite broken overall.

 

I will, though, concede that people who express doubt in the existence of god(s) are less broken overall than someone who expresses certainty, but I would follow this with a caveat. The fact they have chosen to accept as valid the proposition that god(s) exist based on such inadequate evidence and despite their doubt means they are still broken to some degree. We can argue on their degree of brokenness, but not the fact that they are broken.

 

You mention that since there are so many people that believe we should not consider it broken. I cannot accept this, as it's little more than an appeal to popularity... A logical fallacy, and in no way relevant to finding truth.

 

You mention how there are so many different gods that people believe in, and that too seems only to reinforce my point (they are making a choice to believe in one, but not others... even though each rests on exactly the same footing).

 

Either way, you ask about what type of broken we mean, and a few ideas have been put forth. My central issue is with the lack of reasoning and enormous self-deception that is involved with any who believe. Your own "counter" arguments seem to support this. The examples you gave all reinforce the assertion that belief can only be held due to insufficient evidence or poor reason (see your comments about how children believe, how people believe because they don't know any better, or are uneducated, or how they believe because of some authority figure telling them to, or because so many other people seem to believe, too... all logical fallacies).

[Villain]

Are they using broken reasoning? Yes, I think we've established that.

Are they using broken logic? Yes, I think we've established the flaws in their unfounded premises.

Are they breaking the consistency with which they approach the world? Yes, they are applying double standards and being hypocritical.

 

 

Am I claiming that people who do not believe in god are not broken? No.

Am I claiming that believers are broken entirely... everywhere... and in everything they do? No, and nobody else has claimed that, either.

 

However, in this context, it's really not a big stretch nor is it an "incredible jump in logic" to summarize the position as "people who believe in god are broken," especially since we've allowed the term broken to mean different things to different readers.

Claiming that people who believe in god are broken when broken has no meaning is a rather useless.

 

You can disagree, and you can think that "people who believe in god" are not broken. That's cool, but I'd like you to explain why. The point is that this is a discussion forum, and this has IMO been an engaging and interesting discussion, and impressively cordial and civil given the topic.

The title of this thread is the only witness needed as ascertain the propaganda that was to follow. Seems 'we' have now gotten to the stage where burden of proof is on non-believers of said propaganda to prove why the starting point 'people who believe in god are broken' is not a given. It seems rather hypocritical to condemn faith but then rely on it to prove your point.

[iNow]

It what way have I relied on "faith" for anything here? You really do like those strawmen, don't you?

[John Cuthber]

OK, so the issue of children is complicated. I doubt many people would consider a 3 year old broken because they believe in Santa.

On the other hand, how long is it reasonable to hold that belief before you should "grow out of it"?

If you reach adulthood (by whatever definition) without learning that religion really isn't based on evidence and so you should question it rather than accepting it blindly, then I still think that's broken.

If it was any other belief, for example, belief in leprechauns or belief that you were Napoleon, then it would be generally recognised as "broken".

If this belief is because of your parents' behaviour then perhaps you are broken because they broke you.

That's going to upset a lot of people.

[the asinine cretin]

the asinine cretin,

 

I didn't read your "falsifiability" link, yet, perhaps I might learn something when I do.

 

My mom (the departed mathematician, somewhat eccentric, strong believer in Christ, I often use as proxy for "believer",) would tell us (my sister, cousins, friends or whoever was present) her understanding of the fishes and loaves story. Jesus fed the multitude by pronouncing the several loaves and fishes that were apparently all they had, would be enough, and as these were passed around, the morsels and privately hidden peices of cheese and bread and berries or whatever, appeared from beneath the robes of those who had hidden such, for their own use, and were shared, and everybody ate.

 

There is no magic or psuedoscience involved in such a miracle. No fishes or loaves needed to magically multiply. No rules of the universe needed to be violated. Only "Christian brotherhood" and "Jesus' Love" are required for the miracle to occur.

 

Regards, TAR2

Thank you. Fair enough. I suppose there is a spectrum of credulity among religious believers, but I think it's fair to say that in general there are doctrines that must be believed in a fideistic manner. Some Christians draw the line at some of the miracle and seek to contrive natural explanations, some perhaps at the Virgin Birth, some are naturalists when it comes to everything but the Resurrection. Most of the Christians I've known accepted just about everything except perhaps the more fantastic fables of the Old Testament. Finally, I know that there are people who describe themselves as Christians who reject even the Resurrection (Bishop Spong?), but these seem to me to be a fringe minority and I don't really know what to make of them. As Saint Paul said, "if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." In other words, what's the point?

 

To elaborate where I was coming from, there are many perfectly rational beliefs that are not scientific claims and that are not falsifiable.

...

Dammit. I'm not done but I've got to go.

 

I don't quite remember where I was going with this. I guess just that basic logic is sufficient to challenge or refute religious claims - and generally preferable. In my experience, the place for the philosophy of science discussion is in evaluating specific claims that can be addressed scientifically. Often paranormal claims are of this kind, while religious/theological claims seem often by nature to dodge that sphere of knowledge. Did Jesus rise from the dead? This is not necessarily falsifiable claim. It's a one-time historical event, which doesn't mean that it didn't happen. But might it be reasonable? We have the tools of historians and biblical scholars to put to use at least. Apologists/theologians have spilled a lot of ink arguing that it is plausible and that there are good reasons for entertaining it as a fact -- thereby being open the Holy Spirit and receiving the encounter with Christ, the gift of faith, and so on.

 

Meh, whatever. Never mind.

[zapatos]

Thanks, zapatos. I will concede that it's more difficult to call children broken for holding these beliefs, but not impossible. I would like to note, though, that your point also implicitly suggests that any adult who holds these same beliefs is acting childishly, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

It was not my intent to imply that this also holds for adults. I was only trying to say the immature should not be considered broken.

 

You mention that since there are so many people that believe we should not consider it broken. I cannot accept this, as it's little more than an appeal to popularity... A logical fallacy, and in no way relevant to finding truth.

Again, it was not my intent to imply that they are correct because so many believe it. My point was that given that there are 6 billion people you have a high burden of proof to show there are no exceptions.

 

You mention how there are so many different gods that people believe in, and that too seems only to reinforce my point (they are making a choice to believe in one, but not others... even though each rests on exactly the same footing).

I mention it because your premise has to apply to all. I think you can fairly easily discredit those whose belief in God is based on a literal interpretation of the bible. It is much more difficult to prove broken a version of belief like "Since it seems reasonable to believe that the universe was always here or that it was created at some point, it also seems reasonable that something I'll call 'God' was responsible".

 

Either way, you ask about what type of broken we mean, and a few ideas have been put forth. My central issue is with the lack of reasoning and enormous self-deception that is involved with any who believe. Your own "counter" arguments seem to support this. The examples you gave all reinforce the assertion that belief can only be held due to insufficient evidence or poor reason (see your comments about how children believe, how people believe because they don't know any better, or are uneducated, or how they believe because of some authority figure telling them to, or because so many other people seem to believe, too... all logical fallacies).

I disagree. None of those are logical fallacies. How is it a logical fallacy to say that an immature brain cannot make reasoned decisions yet? How is it a logical fallacy to say someone who lacks education about a topic shouldn't be expected to be able to make educated decisions regarding that topic?

 

I believe there have been many strong arguments suggesting that educated, mature, experienced people who believe in God are broken. But that was not the OP. The OP implied that everyone who believes in God is broken. The less educated, the less mature, and the less experienced a person becomes, the more difficult it is to prove the OP.

 

The way it looks to me you have on one end of the scale the educated, mature, experienced person who believes in a literal translation of the bible as a basis for belief in God. He is broken.

 

On the other end of the scale you have the 8 year old who believes in God. He is not broken.

 

And somewhere in between those two ends of the scale there are people who may be broken or not, although it is hard to say definitively.

 

It is still my opinion that the OP is too broad to validate without some refinements.

[iNow]

I disagree. None of those are logical fallacies.

Wrong. I was specifically referencing appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.

 

It is still my opinion that the OP is too broad to validate without some refinements.

That's fair. I think you said as much on the first or second page of the thread.

 

---

OK, so the issue of children is complicated. I doubt many people would consider a 3 year old broken because they believe in Santa.

On the other hand, how long is it reasonable to hold that belief before you should "grow out of it"?

If you reach adulthood (by whatever definition) without learning that religion really isn't based on evidence and so you should question it rather than accepting it blindly, then I still think that's broken.

If it was any other belief, for example, belief in leprechauns or belief that you were Napoleon, then it would be generally recognised as "broken".

Indeed. This nicely summarizes the issue here. God is truly no different than santa or leprechauns.

 

That's going to upset a lot of people.

And that seems to prevent people from being able to approach this conversation in good faith. Having THEIR personally preferred version of god(s) compared to leprechauns or santa makes them get all apoplectic... They demand an unearned respect for THEIR type of belief... They ask for special deference where none is due... They attempt to mandate others apply a double standard, and exempt THEIR personal belief wherein they would not do that for other beliefs in Zeus, Apollo, or the tooth fairy.

[zapatos]

Wrong. I was specifically referencing appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.

I'm sorry, are you saying that I am making logical fallacies, or the believers in God are making logical fallacies?

[the asinine cretin]

Consider this addendum to my last post.

 

 

I've been reading Maarten Boudry's essays recently. Good stuff.

 

How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism

 

(See more papers in "Writings" section of nav.)

[immortal]

The allegory of cave from Plato and Socrates clearly depicts the funny battle that is going on between the religious people and the non-theists.

 

Here is a small dialectic of my thoughts.

 

Atheist: You're broken, you use faith to accept something as valid which is inconsistent.

 

Theist: You're the one who is in ignorance, you're like those prisoners in the cave who ridicule and make a mockery of those prisoners who were set free and who have achieved enlightenment and had seen the light.

 

---

 

Athiest: You don't question the existence of god and just accept it on blind faith.

 

Theist: You don't question the experience from your senses and you just accept it as real. For me anything or anyone outside of it is god.

 

---

 

Atheist: Religion has not contributed anything to the progress of humanity and you're self deluded and the idea of god is an infectious meme which needs to be minimized.

 

Theist: The natural world is ever changing, there is no point in investing our time in something which will eventually turn into a star dust. The world of forms is eternal and unchanging and truly worthy of knowing. You're the one who is deluded.

 

---

 

Atheist: We need to minimize the impact of religion and our political leaders should make rational decisions which affects all our lives in turn.

 

Theist: No, the world should be run by philosopher-kings who can give the right justice based on their knowledge in lofty things.

 

---

 

Atheist: We have explanations from pyschology as to why you hold such childish beliefs.

 

Theist: We have theistic explanations as to why some people don't believe in God.

 

---

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

 

 

Carl Sagan said of Plato: "Science and mathematics were to be removed from the hands of the merchants and the artisans. This tendency found its most effective advocate in a follower of Pythagoras named Plato." and: "He (Plato) believed that ideas were far more real than the natural world. He advised the astronomers not to waste their time observing the stars and planets. It was better, he believed, just to think about them. Plato expressed hostility to observation and experiment. He taught contempt for the real world and disdain for the practical application of scientific knowledge. Plato's followers succeeded in extinguishing the light of science and experiment that had been kindled by Democritus and the other Ionians."^[86]

 

 

 

I am just too ignorant of many things to call anyone broken.

[Villain]

It what way have I relied on "faith" for anything here? You really do like those strawmen, don't you?

 

You have relied on faith for your very title of the topic 'people who believe in god are broken'. You start the thread by asserting something without giving reason as to why you can make such an assertion which means it is a faith based claim.

[iNow]

I'm sorry, are you saying that I am making logical fallacies, or the believers in God are making logical fallacies?

Anyone who appeals to popularity and anyone who appeals to authority are making logical fallacies, regardless of the claim or the person.

 

---

You have relied on faith for your very title of the topic 'people who believe in god are broken'. You start the thread by asserting something without giving reason as to why you can make such an assertion which means it is a faith based claim.

I put forth a proposition and asked whether people agree or disagree, and to discuss why. You continue to argue against misrepresentations of what actually happened here... i.e. you continue to argue against strawmen.

 

Perhaps even funnier is how you've decided to try to play some ludicrous game of "gotcha" instead of addressing any of the direct criticisms of your position... aka evading and obfuscating.

 

Finally, if I did argue that people who believe in god are broken, I have evidence and logic to support the position. It is not based on faith.

[zapatos]

Anyone who appeals to popularity and anyone who appeals to authority are making logical fallacies, regardless of the claim or the person.

Yes, but I made an argument about why some people who believe in God should not be considered broken and you said a logical fallacy was used. I would like to know if you think I made a logical fallacy when I argued that they should not be considered broken, or if you think the theists are using logical fallacies in supporting their beliefs.

 

If you think I used a logical fallacy I would like to know specifically what it was so I can properly address it. If you think the theists are using fallacies, I agree that many of them do.