|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:17:21
|
I am certain that you have all heard this, or something like it, before, but I was wondering how you religious people react to this statement from 'Civilisation and its Discontents':
quote:
...assures him with careful Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustrations he suffers here. The common man cannot imagine this Providence otherwise than in the figure of an enormously exalted father. Only such a being can understand the needs of the children of men and be softened by their prayers and placated by their signs of remorse. The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how large a number of people living to-day, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of rearguard actions. One would like to mix among the ranks of the believers in order to meet these philoosophers, who think they can rescue the god of religion by replacing him by an impersonal, shadowy and abstract principle, and to address them with the warning words: 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!'
While I don't agree with everything he says, and he seems a little bit overzealous, I think that there is a grain of truth in that.
|
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:26:39 [Permalink]
|
Sounds like venting to me, faith requiring systems will probably never go away unless by some very heavy handed global conquering or something. Some logicians just need to vent their frustrations on that point sometimes.
Edit: BigPapa is not in any way shape of form a spiritual person mso perhaps he shouldnt have answered the topic.. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 10/12/2005 10:28:14 |
 |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 12:54:53 [Permalink]
|
Subjectmatter:
The whole thing is simply argument from incredulity. I could just as easily say that it's painful to think that so many people think that life could come from unlife. His two charges against religion are that it's "infantile" and "foreign to reality". To these charges I say: Yeah, so what?
At first, Christianity is infantile. 'Believe and be baptized and thou shalt be saved.' And most of denominational "Churchianity" is infantile. But we are called to study to show ourselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed.
As for foreign to reality, yes, religion is exactly that. I'm reminded of a story where a man meets a community of people who are all born blind, and when he talks about sight they think that he's insane.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 13:33:59 [Permalink]
|
Interesting. Although I interpret it slightly differently with regard to it being called 'infantile', the idea is that the source of the religious belief in an 'exalted father' is the childish seeking of the fathers protection extended into childhood, meaning that faith in god is a delusion.
I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that "...we are called to study to show ourselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed." Approved by whom? Study what? Religion? What is the relevance of 'workmen'? And of what would you be ashamed?
As to religion being foreign to reality... if you agree with that, then you must also agree that it is a psychosis (as Freud argues later in the same volume if I remember correctly). I'm not entirely sure that I would go so far as to claim that, but I am convinced that anybody claiming to hear the 'voice of god' - literally - in their head, are psychotic.
However, your tone suggests to me that you believe in religion despite agreeing that it is unreal. This is a contradiction, surely. After all, when one says that one believes in god, does one not mean that they believe that god is real? That they believe in the existence of god? How can you believe that god is real but know that it is not?
Thank you for your response. It has given me some things to consider. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 13:50:18 [Permalink]
|
Seems to be aimed at the fundies and some of their tactics.
Some of it is venting. Some of it is accurate.
My faith exists for me as a means for self improvement and communication with the devine. Not all of my fellow adherents use the religion for it.
I think Tommy Lee Jones summed it up best in "Men In Black", "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
That's why we have religion. To prevent unrest and violence caused by panic. Then are the people who don't need it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 14:02:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
.... However, your tone suggests to me that you believe in religion despite agreeing that it is unreal. This is a contradiction, surely. After all, when one says that one believes in god, does one not mean that they believe that god is real? That they believe in the existence of god? How can you believe that god is real but know that it is not?
Thank you for your response. It has given me some things to consider.
As "real" would be defined in a skeptic circle (i.e. "that which is in the domain of our 5 senses"), yes, God is unreal.
To a Christian, God is not unreal - he is superreal. He is transendant. Supernatural is not "unnatural", it's... well.. super natural! Natural plus. Beyond natural.
To a circle of skeptics, they have already defined "reality" as exclusive of supernatural, and in that "skeptic context" (where "skeptic reality" is not within "Christian reality", but instead "Christian reality" is some blob of nonsense out in left field), you can't even begin to talk about God, because it's nonsense from the outset. So what can they say to a skeptic in "skeptic's context" but "God is foreign to reality?"
By the way, I'm not necessarily saying there are not skeptic Christians, but their skepticism is of a very different sort, which a skeptic of the type present on www.skepticfriends.org would turn his nose up at!
The point?
To understand what a Christian is saying when they say they "I believe in God," you have to adopt their context, or else it will sound like they are saying they believe in something unreal. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 14:36:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
.... However, your tone suggests to me that you believe in religion despite agreeing that it is unreal. This is a contradiction, surely. After all, when one says that one believes in god, does one not mean that they believe that god is real? That they believe in the existence of god? How can you believe that god is real but know that it is not?
Thank you for your response. It has given me some things to consider.
As "real" would be defined in a skeptic circle (i.e. "that which is in the domain of our 5 senses"), yes, God is unreal.
To a Christian, God is not unreal - he is superreal. He is transendant. Supernatural is not "unnatural", it's... well.. super natural! Natural plus. Beyond natural.
To a circle of skeptics, they have already defined "reality" as exclusive of supernatural, and in that "skeptic context" (where "skeptic reality" is not within "Christian reality", but instead "Christian reality" is some blob of nonsense out in left field), you can't even begin to talk about God, because it's nonsense from the outset. So what can they say to a skeptic in "skeptic's context" but "God is foreign to reality?"
By the way, I'm not necessarily saying there are not skeptic Christians, but their skepticism is of a very different sort, which a skeptic of the type present on www.skepticfriends.org would turn his nose up at!
The point?
To understand what a Christian is saying when they say they "I believe in God," you have to adopt their context, or else it will sound like they are saying they believe in something unreal.
To a Christian, God is real. However, God is a theological construct. One which has specific powers and meanings to the adherent. Non-adherents do not accept the concept as relevant or real to themselves. Truely, most skeptics I have had contact with are of the opinion that "religion is just fine for the people who practice it as long as they don't impose or inflict it on me".
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 14:48:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
My faith exists for me as a means for self improvement and communication with the devine. Not all of my fellow adherents use the religion for it.
Before the need to communicate to the divine arises, surely the belief in the existence of the divine must come first? What then is the source of this belief is what I'm primarily curious about.
quote:
I think Tommy Lee Jones summed it up best in "Men In Black", "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
Hah! Yes, I have quoted him many times, although I was unaware of where I got the quote from. I believe you are right about that, but it doesn't address from whence the individuals faith comes from, unless you are implying that it spreads from one person to another in a social setting?
ar:
quote:
As "real" would be defined in a skeptic circle (i.e. "that which is in the domain of our 5 senses"),
I doubt anybody believes that, it is a contradiction as well. Mathematics is undeniably real, yet I do not percieve it, the same is true of meanings of words. Not to mention intentions; your own and everybody else's...
Skepticism, in this forum at least, is not a philosophical position so much as a trust to the scientific method as a way of evaluating evidence for certain phenomena and their explanations.
Philosophical skepticism claims that there is no such thing as an physical world, that is an entirely different matter.
quote:
To a circle of skeptics, they have already defined "reality" as exclusive of supernatural,
I think you are mistaken here as well. Most people I know would define the natural world as everything that exists in the physical world. Thus ghosts, UFO, and psychics, are not supernatural, as all of these phenomena claim to exist in the natural world. The same is true of any conception of god where it is claimed that it produced the physical world.
Also, what do you mean by a circle of skeptics? Is it not in the nature of a skeptic to be individualistic? The only thing that binds them together, after all, is their skepticism of others' claims!
quote:
To understand what a Christian is saying when they say they "I believe in God," you have to adopt their context, or else it will sound like they are saying they believe in something unreal.
What does it mean then, to adopt the christian context? |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 14:55:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant DancerTo a Christian, God is real. However, God is a theological construct. One which has specific powers and meanings to the adherent. Non-adherents do not accept the concept as relevant or real to themselves. Truely, most skeptics I have had contact with are of the opinion that "religion is just fine for the people who practice it as long as they don't impose or inflict it on me".
That sounds suspiciously like "...god is an idea in our minds..."
quote:
"religion is just fine for the people who practice it as long as they don't impose or inflict it on me"
This of course does not mean that a skeptic is going to dismiss the phenomenon of religion as uninteresting or irrelevant, although they might, as you stated, dismiss the concept which is the subject of the religion. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 15:26:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
To a circle of skeptics, they have already defined "reality" as exclusive of supernatural...
Nope. "Reality" is that which we can measure, prod, manipulate, etc. Stuff for which there exists evidence is real. The "supernatural" tends to not fall into this definition of reality because it cannot be measured (and when it can be, the measurements most-often fail to be anything other than what we'd expect if the supernatural phenomenon in question did not exist).
The Christian God, in particular, is defined by its proponents as being immune to testing, and thus by Christian definitions is "unreal." Many skeptics would truly enjoy evidence that God exists, but God's proponents say that they cannot - by God's will - have any. After all, proof denies faith.quote:
By the way, I'm not necessarily saying there are not skeptic Christians, but their skepticism is of a very different sort, which a skeptic of the type present on www.skepticfriends.org would turn his nose up at!
You don't know the SFN very well. Many of us are more than willing to grant a "Christian context" for the sake of argument, but it often turns out that such contexts aren't self-consistent, with different meanings applied to the same concepts at different times without any apparent methodology. Because those meanings are liable to change willy-nilly, it's incredibly difficult to have a good discussion about Christian theology without creating lots of frustrated skeptics.quote:
The point?
To understand what a Christian is saying when they say they "I believe in God," you have to adopt their context, or else it will sound like they are saying they believe in something unreal.
And my point is that adopting a context in which emotions and faith drive the evidence is anathema to an empiricist. Some of us do so anyway, out of a desire to try to understand the "Christian perspective," but are ultimately stymied by apologetic hand-waving. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 18:17:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I believe you are right about that, but it doesn't address from whence the individuals faith comes from, unless you are implying that it spreads from one person to another in a social setting?
I've been on both sides. I've been atheist, agnostic, Christian, anti-theist, and finally matured into Skeptic.
Looking back on my life, I can answer your question from personal experience:
Yes. It spreads from one person to another in a social setting.
Like a socially transmitted decease, which clouds judgement, logical and critical thinking, and inhibits your ability to digest scientific information. It infects you with Morton's Demon, and compels you to build straw-men. These are the most obvious symptoms of course. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 19:48:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ar
To a circle of skeptics, they have already defined "reality" as exclusive of supernatural...
Nope. "Reality" is that which we can measure, prod, manipulate, etc. Stuff for which there exists evidence is real. The "supernatural" tends to not fall into this definition of reality because it cannot be measured (and when it can be, the measurements most-often fail to be anything other than what we'd expect if the supernatural phenomenon in question did not exist).
I'm not sure what the "nope" is for, as you basically repeated what I said - that "reality" is we can observe via our 5 senses... measuring, proding, manipulating, etc.
And yes, this "reality" is exclusive of supernatural. If something supernatural turns out to be measurable, prodable, etc, it doesn't mean "supernatural" is real, it simply means we mislabeled the phenomenon as supernatural.
quote:
The Christian God, in particular, is defined by its proponents as being immune to testing, and thus by Christian definitions is "unreal." Many skeptics would truly enjoy evidence that God exists, but God's proponents say that they cannot - by God's will - have any. After all, proof denies faith.
I don't think he's defined as such as much as his nature as conveyed by the Bible is simply transendant of nature (obviously, if he created it out of nothing).
quote:
quote:
By the way, I'm not necessarily saying there are not skeptic Christians, but their skepticism is of a very different sort, which a skeptic of the type present on www.skepticfriends.org would turn his nose up at!
You don't know the SFN very well. Many of us are more than willing to grant a "Christian context" for the sake of argument, but it often turns out that such contexts aren't self-consistent, with different meanings applied to the same concepts at different times without any apparent methodology. Because those meanings are liable to change willy-nilly, it's incredibly difficult to have a good discussion about Christian theology without creating lots of frustrated skeptics.
Again, I'm not sure why the "You don't know the SFN very well" as everything you wrote is basically rewording what I wrote. You say you are willing to grant a Christian context - great! - I wouldn't think you wouldn't. Then you go on to expound on why you would turn your nose up at "christian skepticism."
quote:
quote:
The point?
To understand what a Christian is saying when they say they "I believe in God," you have to adopt their context, or else it will sound like they are saying they believe in something unreal.
And my point is that adopting a context in which emotions and faith drive the evidence is anathema to an empiricist. Some of us do so anyway, out of a desire to try to understand the "Christian perspective," but are ultimately stymied by apologetic hand-waving.
Great! At least you try.
SubjectMatter
quote:
I think you are mistaken here as well. Most people I know would define the natural world as everything that exists in the physical world. Thus ghosts, UFO, and psychics, are not supernatural, as all of these phenomena claim to exist in the natural world. The same is true of any conception of god where it is claimed that it produced the physical world.
Ghosts and psychics might be said to have a presence in the physical world, but good luck convincing anyone that they are not supernatural, and do indeed obey the laws of physics, as all non-supernatural things must do! UFO's - not enough informationt to say anything about them (hence the name).
quote:
Also, what do you mean by a circle of skeptics? Is it not in the nature of a skeptic to be individualistic? The only thing that binds them together, after all, is their skepticism of others' claims!
However complicated you want to make it, there is a group of people here whose skeptical nature has led them to a fairly consistent set of views (not without exceptions) in religion, science, politics, etc - and that is what I am calling this "circle of skeptics."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 21:12:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ar
I'm not sure what the "nope" is for, as you basically repeated what I said - that "reality" is we can observe via our 5 senses... measuring, proding, manipulating, etc.
And yes, this "reality" is exclusive of supernatural. If something supernatural turns out to be measurable, prodable, etc, it doesn't mean "supernatural" is real, it simply means we mislabeled the phenomenon as supernatural.
Actually, the problem here is that you're making the assumption that the "supernatural" will always act in a particular way. Surely if God decides to reveal Himself to us, in a scientifically testable manner, it won't mean that we just "mislabeled" Him, as He'll still retain many of the characteristics that people associate with the "supernatural."quote:
I don't think he's defined as such as much as his nature as conveyed by the Bible is simply transendant of nature (obviously, if he created it out of nothing).
I don't think you've read the Book of Job, then.quote:
Again, I'm not sure why the "You don't know the SFN very well" as everything you wrote is basically rewording what I wrote. You say you are willing to grant a Christian context - great! - I wouldn't think you wouldn't. Then you go on to expound on why you would turn your nose up at "christian skepticism."
Well, you obviously have a very different definition of "turn your nose up at" than I do. Frustration doesn't imply prejudiced snobbery. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 22:08:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, you obviously have a very different definition of "turn your nose up at" than I do. Frustration doesn't imply prejudiced snobbery.
"Turn your nose up" was a bad way for me to put it. The mental image I had was one of legitimate frustration.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he's defined as such as much as his nature as conveyed by the Bible is simply transendant of nature (obviously, if he created it out of nothing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you've read the Book of Job, then.
That's a lot to deduce from such a short discussion!
Anyway, supernatural is a superset of natural - obviously supernatural can have "natural," measurable effects. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 07:22:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant DancerTo a Christian, God is real. However, God is a theological construct. One which has specific powers and meanings to the adherent. Non-adherents do not accept the concept as relevant or real to themselves. Truely, most skeptics I have had contact with are of the opinion that "religion is just fine for the people who practice it as long as they don't impose or inflict it on me".
That sounds suspiciously like "...god is an idea in our minds..."
Because it is our concept of a being which transcends existance. It is a philosophy which contains this higher, benevolent power. As for evidence, we assume it's existance. It's the basis of theological thought. As for communication with the devine, when one assumes the existance of the devine, communication with that being makes sense. The part where we assume the existance of that higher being may be illogical, but if we compartmentalize it from areas of scientific study, it's harmless.
quote:
quote:
"religion is just fine for the people who practice it as long as they don't impose or inflict it on me"
This of course does not mean that a skeptic is going to dismiss the phenomenon of religion as uninteresting or irrelevant, although they might, as you stated, dismiss the concept which is the subject of the religion.
Absolutely. But I believe it is the inflicting and imposing of religion onto the author of the quoted passage in the OP which elicted the response. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 07:27:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
My faith exists for me as a means for self improvement and communication with the devine. Not all of my fellow adherents use the religion for it.
Before the need to communicate to the divine arises, surely the belief in the existence of the divine must come first? What then is the source of this belief is what I'm primarily curious about.
The source of the belief is a combination of a psychological need for mysticism and ceremony that most folks have coupled with societal norms. It is a learned coping mechanism. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
