Is religion being picked on?

[swansont]

 

It's disheartening to see over and over again, on Internet forums such as this one and elsewhere, Creationist critiques of evolutionary theory routinely dismissed, often without any analysis, as "not good science". We're never told exactly what the criteria for "good science" are, alas, otherwise these pesky Creationists, you, me, Peter, Paul, and Mary might ascertain these things for ourselves objectively without having to appeal to the soi disant "good science" guru for arbitration.

 

We're not told what the criteria are for good reason: several centuries of attempts to demarcate good science from non-science, pseudoscience, metaphysics, bad science, or whatever have not succeeded. There is no universally agreed upon set of criteria for what constitutes good science.

]

In my experience it's that the scientists don't want to explain *yet again* why it's bad science. There's also an issue of creationists not expending any effort to learn basic science in the first place.

 

As to the OP, it's not unfair, it's earned. Science works in telling us how nature behaves. Religion, not so much. Or at all, really.

[TJ McCaustland]

I think you are mistaken- the definitions of evidence are clear enough- there just isn't any for God.

 

Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence.

There's nothing intrinsically elitist about it. Anyone can do an experiment and, if it overturns a previously held belief in science then science will cough, splutter swear a bit (we are human, after all) and, eventually, accept the truth.

If, on the other hand someone shows religion to be wrong, or even just says that it might be, they risk getting killed for it.

 

Now, remind me- who was being "picked on"? Oh yes, I remember now- the ones who kill the unbelievers.

Did you think that through before you asked?

Stupid middle ages stuperstitions...... People were so ignorant back then.

[Phi for All]

Design -- or apparent design, if you prefer -- in nature is regarded these days, by those of a more scientific persuasion at least, as evidence supporting the theory of natural selection. But for centuries prior to Darwin the very same observation (design) was seen as powerful evidence for the existence of a designer -- yes, by scientists too!

 

This just shows me that we're capable of improving our knowledge. Until we have to deal with those who can't, then it's rational thought versus wild guesswork and wishful thinking.

 

You're basically arguing that the old way of thinking was good enough for a LOT of people for a looooooong time, so why should we change? I have an answer but I'm sure it won't impress you. It's rational.

[Prometheus]

So that's the metric for a realistic belief system? It could apply to a bunch of sedated lab rats as well.

 

But lab rats do not create narratives to their lives which help make them and their group happier.

 

The first criteria i mentioned, claims about the physical world requiring evidence, are enough to make a realistic belief system. But then we humans do like to find meaning to our lives, which is what i mean about creating a narrative. As a species we have created meanings for ourselves with our narratives. Creating a narrative does not require evidence: it is something we create.

 

Evidence then provides us with bounds for our belief systems so they can better reflect reality, but within these bounds we are free to make up our own meaning in life.

 

From all our narratives we can select those which seem 'best' to us - by what measure of best is not obvious.

 

I was going to give a specific example but struggling to be concise: i hope i have explained my perspective sufficiently.

[Reg Prescott]

 

This just shows me that we're capable of improving our knowledge. Until we have to deal with those who can't, then it's rational thought versus wild guesswork and wishful thinking.

 

You're basically arguing that the old way of thinking was good enough for a LOT of people for a looooooong time, so why should we change? I have an answer but I'm sure it won't impress you. It's rational.

 

I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking John to clear up what appears to be a problem for his claims. (was it evidence or not?)

 

Several problems actually. He hasn't addressed any of them yet.

 

Re your final remark. Please point out where I've been irrational. If you can't, why the insinuation of irrationality on my part?

[TJ McCaustland]

Once again this argument is like the cold war, Both sides can tear apart each other's arguments, but neither side can prove or disprove their points because all points that provide grounds for argument in favor of either sides' point in this are based on circumstantial evidence, So neither side can win or lose until he/she proves/disproves the other's point, so the only way to win is taking a neutral approach and using what facts you can muster to defend yourself while walking that fine line of neutrality.

Edited October 30, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[Phi for All]

Once again this argument is like the cold war, Both sides can tear apart each other's arguments, but neither side can prove or disprove their points because all points that provide grounds for argument in favor of either sides' point in this are based on circumstantial evidence, So neither side can win or lose until he/she proves/disproves the other's point, so the only way to win is taking a neutral approach and using what facts you can muster to defend yourself while walking that fine line of neutrality.

 

I disagree. It seems fairly obvious that science is a tool of reason based on observation. It doesn't work with religion, which is all about faith and NOT having evidence to back up your beliefs. The only "cold war" is when religion tries to imply it has the kind of evidence science looks for. It doesn't, never has, never will until god(s) become observable enough to make predictions that science can test.

 

Your argument (unless you're like SillyBilly, and aren't making any), implies this is more a difference of opinion, an argument across a fence, rather than religion trying to gain merit where it isn't warranted. There is no war; when religion tries to make physical assertions about reality using supernatural powers (think Shroud of Turin), science can refute them every time. And when religion falls back on god(s) that are unfathomable, unobservable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being(s), then science is completely useless for measurements since it relies on the natural rather than the supernatural.

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

Posts on the nature of evidence split to here.

[Arete]

In that case, how can we be sure the putative evidence supporting the theory of natural selection is not in precisely the same boat? i.e. we take it to be evidence but it is, in fact, no such thing.

 

Lightning used to be considered evidence of the wrath of Thor, Zeus, etc. We now believe it to be evidence of electrostatic discharges. Much like creation and evolutionary theory, the evidence for the competing explanations of lightning are not equal. Sure, further evidence may come to light that lightning is something other than electrostatic discharge or that the diversity of life on earth arose by a process other than biological evolution, but they are the best explanations we have given the current preponderance of evidence. Neither is equatable to supernatural explanations of the observations at hand, and neither is the method used to refine and adapt said theories in light of new evidence.

 

 

We're not told what the criteria are for good reason: several centuries of attempts to demarcate good science from non-science, pseudoscience, metaphysics, bad science, or whatever have not succeeded. There is no universally agreed upon set of criteria for what constitutes good science.

 

This is argumentum ad ignorantiam - the fact that you personally are unable to determine actual science from pseudoscience does not mean that it can't be done. There is a universally accepted standard for the dissemination of science, which is via the process of peer review. I will agree that

a) Vanity journals, predatory publishers and unaccredited institutions masquerading as genuine scientific outlets and authorities muddy the waters and can make it difficult for the layperson to distinguish the genuine article from deliberately deceptive material aimed to dupe the reader into thinking that the material has been through the rigors of peer review when it hasn't.

b) Peer review isn't perfect. Some articles with fatal flaws make it through, many of which are retracted after they are published, and presumably some of which slip through the net altogether. On other occasions, groundbreaking work can be rejected by peer review.

 

However, if a study is published in a legitimate scientific journal that conducts rigorous peer review, by an accredited author who is subject to an ethics board (e.g. at my institution, if I was found guilty of deliberately deceptive behavior or gross negligence in the papers I published, I could be fired, sued or even prosecuted and sent to jail by my institution) chances are pretty good that the study was conducted using current best practices in science.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Arete

[swansont]

On the subject of evidence, readers might like to consider, for example, the argument from design.

 

Design -- or apparent design, if you prefer -- in nature is regarded these days, by those of a more scientific persuasion at least, as evidence supporting the theory of natural selection. But for centuries prior to Darwin the very same observation (design) was seen as powerful evidence for the existence of a designer -- yes, by scientists too! So what are we to say about all this:

 

(i) The appearance of design in nature still constitutes evidence for the Designer (God) theory, but the same observations now confirm the natural selection theory to an even higher degree.

 

That's the problem, though. *Everything* is evidence for a supreme being. It's not a falsifiable proposition. Makes for weak prediction, too, except in very vague terms. Which is why it's not unfair to exclude it. It sucks at doing that job.

[Jagella]

Have atheists committed crimes? Yes, of course. Only a fool would argue otherwise, but the point you're trying to make is ultimately an irrelevant red herring.

 

You're basically comparing atheists who commit crimes in general against theists who commit them specifically in the name of their religion or belief system. Apples and oranges.

 

The challenge, as I'm sure you understand, is that atheism is not itself a belief system. It is not an ideology or worldview or religion any more than bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. The term atheist is not descriptive of a persons ideology in any way. It tells you nothing other than the person doesn't believe in god or gods. Full stop. End program.

 

Further, one cannot commit a crime in the name of atheism any more than one can commit a crime in the name of non-belief in the tooth fairy or lack of belief in puff the magic dragon. The concept is absurd on its face.

 

You know what we do see, however, and with heartbreaking despair-inducing regularity? Crimes and atrocities committed precisely because of ones religious beliefs, ideology, or the fact that they have differing worldviews from some other religious group or tribe (think Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ISIS, the crusades, etc.)

 

Unfortunately, the only response I suspect you can offer to this is a No True Scotsman fallacy when defining religion or a strawman fallacy when defining atheism, neither of which are terribly helpful or convincing.

 

"There's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion."

― Daniel C. Dennett

 

 

You know what we do see, however, and with heartbreaking despair-inducing regularity? Crimes and atrocities committed precisely because of ones religious beliefs, ideology, or the fact that they have differing worldviews from some other religious group or tribe (think Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ISIS, the crusades, etc.)

That's right, and we atheists need to take care not to act that way too.

 

I'm not comparing "crimes in general" which some atheists have committed to the crimes committed in "the name of religion." I'm speaking of crimes against unbelievers. Some atheists have persecuted the religious.

The challenge, as I'm sure you understand, is that atheism is not itself a belief system. It is not an ideology or worldview or religion any more than bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. The term atheist is not descriptive of a persons ideology in any way. It tells you nothing other than the person doesn't believe in god or gods. Full stop. End program.

That's my view of atheism. Other people may have different definitions.

 

Further, one cannot commit a crime in the name of atheism any more than one can commit a crime in the name of non-belief in the tooth fairy or lack of belief in puff the magic dragon. The concept is absurd on its face.

 

 

Sometimes people do things that may seem absurd to you. I see no reason why nobody could commit a crime in the name of atheism although I know of no examples.

 

Jagella

[iNow]

I see no reason why nobody could commit a crime in the name of atheism although I know of no examples.

But what does that even mean? You even said yourself that you cannot provide a single example of a crime committed "in the name of atheism" or based on the "atheist ideology." Do you know why? It's because there is no atheist ideology. It's not a worldview in much the same way that not playing baseball is not a sport.

[John Cuthber]

 

This seems like another non sequitur, John.

 

Theories of God are not examined in a judicial court. Neither are theories of science. Why the double standard?

 

And which "point" exactly are you referring to? I don't believe the validity of any of the points I've raised depends on the existence of God being provable in a courtroom.

 

Why not address them one by one?

Ho Hum.

Theories of God and of science are both examined regularly in judicial courts.

so, you are, in fact simply wrong.

For example, DNA typing was checked out in court and found to be valid.

The idea of "intelligent" design was tested in court and found to be balderdash.

And the point I referred to was a pretty obvious one.

You said that the definition of evidence was unclear.

Well, no, it isn't.

 

I see no reason why nobody could commit a crime in the name of atheism

 

 

Really?

You don't see why someone wouldn't do something evil on the basis of a lack of belief in something.

You must have a very poor opinion of humanity.

[Jagella]

Really?

You don't see why someone wouldn't do something evil on the basis of a lack of belief in something.

You must have a very poor opinion of humanity.

People can be irrational, cruel, and stupid. Atheists can be that way along with theists. As for doing something evil as a result of a lack of belief, I suppose lack of belief that people should be treated well might result in evil. In addition, some people might need belief in a punishing god to keep them from hurting others. I've had at least one person tell me that that is his case.

 

By the way, if you ever debate a Christian regarding the atrocities of Stalin, and she blames those atrocities on Stalin's atheism, then ask her if she would commit genocide if she lost her belief in God. If she says yes, then it exposes her mentality, if she says no, then she confirms that atheism might not have been Stalin's motive.

 

Finally, I happen to see people as basically good. If we were not generally good, then we could not survive.

 

Jagella

But what does that even mean? You even said yourself that you cannot provide a single example of a crime committed "in the name of atheism" or based on the "atheist ideology." Do you know why? It's because there is no atheist ideology. It's not a worldview in much the same way that not playing baseball is not a sport.

What does what mean? If you are referring to doing evil "in the name of atheism," then it might refer to a person who has such a fanatical commitment to atheism that she or he might hurt others if those persons are seen as a threat to atheism.

 

I don't know if I agree that merely because I cannot cite examples of evil in the name of atheism, then such acts do not occur. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence in this case. Would you like me to try ask.com to see if I can find examples of evil inspired by atheism?

 

I don't believe that there is any "atheist ideology," but many atheists may adhere to ideologies that might be dangerous. Communism is an obvious example.

 

In any case, we atheists need to practice what we preach. If we don't, then we are no better than religionists.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

In any case, we atheists need to practice what we preach. If we don't, then we are no better than religionists.

 

What is that "we" atheists preach?

 

 

many atheists may adhere to ideologies that might be dangerous.

 

So atheists should preach dangerous ideas?

 

 

Communism is an obvious example.

 

Is it? There is nothing inherently atheist (not dangerous) about communism.

[iNow]

I don't believe that there is any "atheist ideology," but many atheists may adhere to ideologies that might be dangerous.

So do many people who wear hats, or who choose not to ride bicycles. Still searching for the relevance.

[Reg Prescott]

 

Lightning used to be considered evidence of the wrath of Thor, Zeus, etc. We now believe it to be evidence of electrostatic discharges. Much like creation and evolutionary theory, the evidence for the competing explanations of lightning are not equal. Sure, further evidence may come to light that lightning is something other than electrostatic discharge or that the diversity of life on earth arose by a process other than biological evolution, but they are the best explanations we have given the current preponderance of evidence. Neither is equatable to supernatural explanations of the observations at hand, and neither is the method used to refine and adapt said theories in light of new evidence.

 

 

 

Everyone, yourself included, has evaded my questions in the post (#21) you're responding to here. Perhaps it was the apoplectic hammering of the "-1" reputation key that distracted them from the substantive content. I must ask you to clarify:

 

Are you telling us that lightning was merely considered to be evidence for Thor, or that it was not only considered to be so, but really was so?

 

If it's the former, then no one is in any position to make the unqualified claim "We have lots of evidence supporting the theory of natural selection". What they can claim unobjectionably is "We believe we have lots of evidence...."; after all, we might turn out to be quite wrong, as we presumably were about Thor.

 

If it's the latter, then John Cuthber's claim that there is no evidence for God is simply untrue.

 

Please acknowledge.

 

 

 

Ho Hum.

Theories of God and of science are both examined regularly in judicial courts.

so, you are, in fact simply wrong.

For example, DNA typing was checked out in court and found to be valid.

The idea of "intelligent" design was tested in court and found to be balderdash.

And the point I referred to was a pretty obvious one.

You said that the definition of evidence was unclear.

Well, no, it isn't.

Really?

You don't see why someone wouldn't do something evil on the basis of a lack of belief in something.

You must have a very poor opinion of humanity.

 

Incorrect. Intelligent design has been judged unscientific in court proceedings and thus ineligible for inclusion in the school science curriculum.

 

The legality of the issue hinges not upon ID or evolutionary theory being true, possibly true, or a load of bollocks; but upon their scientific status.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Jagella]

 

What is that "we" atheists preach?

 

 

So atheists should preach dangerous ideas?

 

 

Is it? There is nothing inherently atheist (not dangerous) about communism.

Many atheists criticize religion for its many evils including violence, bigotry, fanaticism, and irrationalism. Obviously, we should take care not to be violent, bigoted, fanatical, or irrational.

 

No, atheists should not preach "dangerous ideas." That's a strange question. Why do you ask?

 

You are correct that communism is not inherently atheistic, but many communists have been atheists. The two views go together according to Marx. I should point out that communism isn't necessarily bad, but those who have espoused it don't have very good track records.

 

In any event, I hope that as we shed the straight jacket of religion we do not don the straight jackets of any other nefarious ideologies.

 

Jagella

So do many people who wear hats, or who choose not to ride bicycles. Still searching for the relevance.

Again, I think that we atheists should take care to act rationally and morally. People may then be more likely to free themselves from religion.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

Many atheists criticize religion for its many evils including violence, bigotry, fanaticism, and irrationalism. Obviously, we should take care not to be violent, bigoted, fanatical, or irrational.

 

But no one says that only religion is violent, bigoted, fanatical or irrational. And it isn't just atheists who make such claims. I'm sure there are religious people who accuse football fans or politicians of those things.

 

So, again, you are arbitrarily inventing standards that you expect all people who don't believe in a deity to adhere to. For no real reason. Atheists are just as likely as anyone else to be violent, bigoted, fanatical or irrational. Or not.

 

No, atheists should not preach "dangerous ideas." That's a strange question. Why do you ask?

 

It was kind of a joke (not a good one): the only beliefs you seemed to be ascribing to atheists were "dangerous ones".

 

You are correct that communism is not inherently atheistic, but many communists have been atheists.

 

But many communists have been religious. So what?

 

The two views go together according to Marx.

 

Do they?

 

"The founder and primary theorist of Marxism, the nineteenth-century German thinker Karl Marx, had an ambivalent and complex attitude to religion,^[1] viewing it primarily as "the soul of soulless conditions", the opium of the people" that had been useful to the ruling classes since it gave the working classes false hope for millennia. At the same time Marx saw religion as a form of protest by the working classes against their poor economic conditions and their alienation. ^[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion

 

And, of course, that is Marxism, not communism.

[MonDie]

to OP

 

Religious groups pick on eachother. You don't need atheists for that.

 

In order to want God's nonexistence, you have to make some kind of investment on that assumption. A dedicated proponent of humanism, for example, might be reluctant to accept it since it would prove his efforts misguided.

My guess is that scientists and those dedicated to finding the truth would be the least reluctant since, after all, there is practically nothing that could undercut their cause.

Edited October 31, 2015 by MonDie

[BlackSunGod]

This is a really hard question in my opinion. Some religions are being picked on, and they deserve it. They deserve it because its irrational claims have caused deaths, the slowdown of the human intellectual evolution, manipulation, they steal money, rape kids, cause wars, etc. Some religions are so irrational that they share the same God (namely Islam, Christian religion and Judaism) yet you can go to hell or heaven (even if you believe in him) depending on which book you BELIEVE in. What the fuck. These religions deserve to be abolished and forbidden for ever. Also the politics that cause deaths and such should be abolished, and also the sports that cause deaths, steal money etc lol

 

On the other hand, there are some religions such as Gnosticism and eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism), panteism, panpsychsm, etc that make a lot of sense and even some things that these religions said thousand of years ago are being proved nowadays by science. There are even higher attempts to explain the Soul, the afterlife, God, etc from a mathematical point of view, with a solid logic (there are more than 50 books on this subject alone written by the same anonymous group in the last 5 years.) But all of these are paying the price of being called "Religions", because when we think about religion we automatically link it to "faith, belief, irrationality, bullshit" thanks to Christian religion, Judaism and Islam.

In the end, if we manage to construct a solid Theory of Everything, and it actually explains everything, it will be a religion by definition. It will be a religion because it will have to explain the mind/soul and if it exists and what happens with it when we die and before we're born, the laws governing the universe, the basic elements of the Universe, the beginning and ending of the Universe, it will have to explain or disproof God and a lot of other things that by definition are related to religion. So what we should do is forbid irrational religions and embrace and be inspired by the rational ones. Period.

Edited October 31, 2015 by BlackSunGod

[Jagella]

 

So, again, you are arbitrarily inventing standards that you expect all people who don't believe in a deity to adhere to. For no real reason. Atheists are just as likely as anyone else to be violent, bigoted, fanatical or irrational. Or not.

 

But many communists have been religious. So what?

Yes. I've "invented standards" that I'd like people to follow. I'd like people to be rational, just, and peaceful. Do you have a problem with that?

 

I really don't wish to get into a lengthy debate about communism. My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies. We atheists should address that issue. I think that giving up belief in gods is a step in the right direction, but it isn't enough. We need to make sure we don't make the same mess of the world as the religious have done.

 

Jagella

[John Cuthber]

Yes. I've "invented standards" that I'd like people to follow. I'd like people to be rational, just, and peaceful. Do you have a problem with that?

 

I really don't wish to get into a lengthy debate about communism. My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies. We atheists should address that issue. I think that giving up belief in gods is a step in the right direction, but it isn't enough. We need to make sure we don't make the same mess of the world as the religious have done.

 

Jagella

You say

"My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies."

as if the two notions of atheism and communism are related.

Is that what you think, and if so, why?

Let's face it, Christ was a socialist so, if you are looking for links to communism, the place to look is as likely to be a religious commune as anywhere.

[Phi for All]

I think that giving up belief in gods is a step in the right direction, but it isn't enough. We need to make sure we don't make the same mess of the world as the religious have done.

 

This still sounds wrong. I certainly didn't give up anything. My belief system developed to a point where god(s) were an irrational option that was ineffective at explaining reality. I didn't decide one day to be an atheist; I realized at some point I squeezed the last bit of supernatural ignorance out of the gaps in my knowledge.

 

Yes. I've "invented standards" that I'd like people to follow. I'd like people to be rational, just, and peaceful. Do you have a problem with that?

 

I'm also at a loss as to why you think atheists should be singled out for these standards you'd like people to follow. Aren't the standards, the non-religious standards we operate under as citizens in our various societies, enough to cover these "dangerous" ideologies you're worried about? Which particular ideologies do you think we're vulnerable to when atheists have them?

 

This seems like you're persecuting atheists for something anyone might do, and something our society probably already has a defense against.

[BlackSunGod]

 

This still sounds wrong. I certainly didn't give up anything. My belief system developed to a point where god(s) were an irrational option that was ineffective at explaining reality. I didn't decide one day to be an atheist; I realized at some point I squeezed the last bit of supernatural ignorance out of the gaps in my knowledge.

 

Just nitpicking a bit here, but there are religious systems in which God doesn't explain reality but the inverse. God is the outcome of reality. Obviously in these systems God isn't a creator but is the outcome of all creation - the optimal, last state of the Universe. There are also systems like Panpsychism (states that basic consciousness is a property of all constituents of the Universe) that view God as a cosmic abstract mind instead of some anthropocentric bullshit (Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James.).

 

Not trying to convince you of anything just sharing my point of view

Edited October 31, 2015 by BlackSunGod