|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/16/2007 : 09:15:39 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: quote:
I think the difference is between labeling theists stupid (often inaccurate), and labeling theistic beliefs and lines of reasoning stupid (entirely accurate).
That's a very good point and it did vaguely cross my mind at some point as I was incessantly quoting your use of “stupid”. I accept that you are convinced that it is entirely accurate to call any kind of theistic belief “stupid”. I, however, am not convinced. I think it is arrogant to be convinced of that. And maybe the best way to describe why I feel that way would be with a comparison:
Take human evolution. The Multiregional theory used to be the theory widely accepted among anthropologists. But then the Out of Africa theory came on stage, and slowly started kicking the crap out of the old Multiregional theory. By the time I was studying this stuff 7 years ago, Out of Africa was firmly on top and I thought that anyone who still believed in Multiregional was uninformed and probably racist. And indeed, probably many are. But then I had a prof who believed in Multiregionalism. He didn't try to convince his students, he was simply honest with us about what he thought. He admitted that if he was in our place, he's probably believe Out of Africa instead. But he had studied hominid fossils in China for twenty years and was convinced by lots of subtle observations and experiences that Multiregionalism was the correct theory. Now, I still think the guy is wrong, and at some point it might become so plain obvious that he's wrong that his holding onto his old beliefs would be stupid. But for then, I took it that he was not thinking stupidly, but rather, he was thinking from a different perspective and using a different approach. Not a bad approach or even a necessarily bad perspective, and I am simply not confident enough in my own information to be sure that he's being stupid, even though I think he's wrong.
This is how I feel about a lot of religious beliefs. I think Biblical literalism in societies that have access to libraries and the Internet is stupidity. But I'm not at all convinced that the much more transcendent and progressive views on theology are stupid. Still disagree, of course, but not arrogant enough to think, as Kil put it, that us rationalists have “cornered the Truth”.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/16/2007 09:42:39 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 09:42:06 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis wrote: quote:
Is it less mean to think something than say it? Or are both a reflection of that person more than of the offended.
No, it is not less mean. I don't advocate PC because I think people should hide what they think. I advocate PC as a means for making people more aware of their thoughts in the hopes that mean thoughts will be self-acknowledged as wrong and thus reconsidered.
quote:
I am not intentionally mean, and I think being so is a sign of social ignorance, like talking with you mouth full or worse yet showing the chewed food as a joke (and etc.). I have met and know a few people like this even though they are old enough to know better. However, that does not change the fact that I will say things as I believe them to be when I want to share that thought regardless of who is present.
I would not suggest you do otherwise.
quote:
I think that being right is always most practical.
Remembering that Kil meant “right” as in correct about reality, not as in good, I would have to completely disagree. The only clear example off the top of my head is from the movie “Jacob the Liar”. In it, Robin Williams plays a character who lives in a Jewish ghetto that is being isolated and terrorized by the Nazis. Cut off from any kind of info on the war, the people live in fear and many begin killing themselves. Jacob spontaneously comes up with a lie that he has a radio and that he heard that the allies are winning. He does this because he fears that his close friend is going to commit suicide. The lie spreads and brings incredible hope to the people of the town that helps them endure the nightmare until it is over.
There are reasons why human beings evolved the ability to deceive, fantasize, imaginatively transcend literal thoughts, and double-think, and the use of those and other similar abilities are not always impractical. Because of how complex our ways of thinking can be, and how diverse and complex our personal experiences can be, I have decided it is most sensible to not get up and arms about how or why people think in private, and more be concerned with what actions they advocate and how they behave.
quote:
So in effect, I think that being critical and scientific (if you will) is the best way to further civility.
I believe that being critical and scientific is necessary but not sufficient for furthering civility.
quote:
God doesn't bother me, his rules and requirements do.
Huh? God's rules and requirements are not consistent in any literal interpretations of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim scripture, old or new, nor are they consistent from religious community to religious community or even from religious individual to religious individual. So what bothers you is how certain religious followers have interpreted what they see to be God's rules and requirements. I must also point out that there are plenty of religious followers who have interpreted God's rules and regulations in a highly humanistic way that you would love in practice, even if you |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/16/2007 09:47:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 10:05:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
What's the point? You are a hardline rationalist, and theologies start with the basis that while reason is necessary, it is not sufficient; spiritual revelation is also necessary. You think people who believe in revelation of any kind are thinking stupidly, and they think you are spiritually blind. Conversation is game over.
From what I've recently read, both Deists and Progressive Theologists reject special revelation. The Deists, in particular, seem to be under the impression that the existence of what they call "God" can be verified through reasoning from first principles and observations of nature. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 10:15:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: quote:
From what I've recently read, both Deists and Progressive Theologists reject special revelation. The Deists, in particular, seem to be under the impression that the existence of what they call "God" can be verified through reasoning from first principles and observations of nature.
That is true of most Deists and some progressive theologians, but not all of either. Even merely saying things like "I have this feeling I can't ignore..." or "When I look out into the grandeur of the stars..." or "When I look at my fellow human beings, I can't help but think..." is at least an appeal to intuition, a sort of pseudo-spiritual revelation. I've been called "spiritual" by tons of my atheist, agnostic, and religious friends simply because I think so deeply about the meaning of life and ethics. I meant spiritual revelation to cover any conclusion, however tentative, that is reached partially or entirely through subjective experience instead of reason. So maybe I'm taking some liberties with such a broad definition.
Certainly there are Deists and theists and even atheists who claim to be basing their beliefs entirely on reason, but I think anyone who claims that a purely rationalist worldview results in anything other than agnosticism/negative atheism (opposed to positive or strong atheism) is fooling themselves about their own ulterior motives. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/16/2007 10:15:34 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 10:50:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
That is an inordinantly childish and self-centered epistemology. Are we really obliged to characterize the "provisional Deism" of an E.O. Wilson as "stupid" because you do not find it "compelling"?
Get over yourself ...
No, it's not childish, it's Occam's razor. Never presume god exists when not presuming it works just as well. Even in a "tie," atheism wins. Theism needs to be more compelling if it is to warrent belief. Anything else is faith and all pretenses to reason and rationality go out the window.
quote:
That would be in keeping with your avatar.
 Now you're the one who hasn't a clue.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 11:00:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Still disagree, of course, but not arrogant enough to think, as Kil put it, that us rationalists have “cornered the Truth”.
It would be arrogant to claim we have "cornered the Truth." But I don't think it's inaccurate to say that we have the only provenly reliable method for determining truth. Special revelation, as you say (using your definition to include intuition, etc.), cannot make that claim.
I would never claim god does not exist. I do claim that based on current evidence, it's unjustifiable to believe he does. Skeptism and the scientific method are not conclusions, they are methods for getting as close to truth as humanly possible. Anyone who doesn't apply them mercilessly to every aspect of life is actively engaging in wishful thinking. They are choosing to dupe themselves.
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." --David Brooks.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/16/2007 11:01:23 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 11:22:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...but I think anyone who claims that a purely rationalist worldview results in anything other than agnosticism/negative atheism (opposed to positive or strong atheism) is fooling themselves about their own ulterior motives.
Well, um, fooling oneself is, uh, rather, erm... stupid... isn't it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 16:04:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marf:
But then I had a prof who believed in Multiregionalism. He didn't try to convince his students, he was simply honest with us about what he thought. He admitted that if he was in our place, he's probably believe Out of Africa instead. But he had studied hominid fossils in China for twenty years and was convinced by lots of subtle observations and experiences that Multiregionalism was the correct theory.
And that is the point. He does have evidence that he uses to base his conclusion. And the evidence can eventually disprove his position. The reason I say that most religious discussion and the consequent positions are 'stupid' (I really mean highly unecessary and distracting) is because they are by definition untestable and thus, came from the imagination of the two discussing parties. So then the answer of who is right and who is wrong is a waste of good thinking power. No one could ever know, not even the original postulators. Also, 90% of all religious teaching/ideas about how to live and such edicts are themselves unecessary when viewed from another earlier viewpoint (as in, if we ask why god would command the action/behavior then the answer if made the goal (as opposed to the pleasing of god) would have as much basis. Example: Why refrain from killing people. To have less dead people or to make god happy?)
Semantically, stupid means (according to my oxford dictionary) lack of intellectual acuity. In this case, I belief that religion does lack intellectual clarity of position. Excluding all of the testable facets such as anthropology, culture, geography, and event histories, the rest is ungrounded in reason. Thus, these things I would call stupid for wasting time and building foundations that are false. Contrarily, I would say that the previously mentioned fields studying religious history as well as the sociological and psychological impacts of religion are also valid. I mean only to criticize the religious debate over edicts, god's will, character, goals, etc. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 17:37:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
No, it is not less mean. I don't advocate PC because I think people should hide what they think. I advocate PC as a means for making people more aware of their thoughts in the hopes that mean thoughts will be self-acknowledged as wrong and thus reconsidered.
Making people aware of their thoughts, I am all for. What I am not for is making those people think that they cannot share their thoughts because they are offensive. Instead, I am for letting people know that their thoughts are erroneous and unfounded, thus they offend those people who struggle with these mischaracterizations. I think PC is a band-aid not a solution. A kin to keeping your mother in law quite so that she doesn't say anything foolish. It certainly does not impact how she feels about the issue, it just prevents the others from knowing it.
quote:
quote:
I think that being right is always most practical.
Remembering that Kil meant “right” as in correct about reality, not as in good, I would have to completely disagree. The only clear example off the top of my head is from the movie “Jacob the Liar”. In it, Robin Williams plays a character who lives in a Jewish ghetto that is being isolated and terrorized by the Nazis. Cut off from any kind of info on the war, the people live in fear and many begin killing themselves. Jacob spontaneously comes up with a lie that he has a radio and that he heard that the allies are winning. He does this because he fears that his close friend is going to commit suicide. The lie spreads and brings incredible hope to the people of the town that helps them endure the nightmare until it is over.
There are reasons why human beings evolved the ability to deceive, fantasize, imaginatively transcend literal thoughts, and double-think, and the use of those and other similar abilities are not always impractical. Because of how complex our ways of thinking can be, and how diverse and complex our personal experiences can be, I have decided it is most sensible to not get up and arms about how or why people think in private, and more be concerned with what actions they advocate and how they behave.
First, I was not talking about always being honest. I was talking about being correct. Be as in a personal state of being.
Second, the war could have gone the other way or those characters could have died before being released. In such a case, at least they had hope. Hope is good, and as I stated in one form or another in these threads, one's actions, I think, should best beget their goals. If hope is the goal lying may be in order. This is really more of a side-bar on moral thought than whether being right is important. I would never suggest that taking people's hope is justified for the sole cause of furthering accuracy but for other goals it certainly does not weigh in much. I also, would not purposfully instill hope if i thought it were hopeless based on the evidence available.
Allow me to produce a similar anecdotal scenario. Imagine that Steven has cancer so far advanced that his doctors know he will die in six months with or without painful treatment. Steven then asks you if you would suggest undergoing the treatment which will sap his energy and produce alot of pain. Or if he might be served well to seek alternative treatments that will likely cause him no pain, but will b |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 17:55:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What a joke. In fact, you haven't a clue. 
But remember, there's never a reason to hold to theistic assumptions unless they're more compelling than not holding them.
That is an inordinantly childish and self-centered epistemology. Are we really obliged to characterize the "provisional Deism" of an E.O. Wilson as "stupid" because you do not find it "compelling"?
Get over yourself ...
It is not a matter of personal preference. Your own argument here is your enemy. Evidence is undeniable because it can be reproduced. One cannot choose to believe something because it makes them feel better and then proceed to catagorize it as true. And all things unproven (ie not proven to be true) are best assumed not true until such time. Also, provisional deism has no provisions. It is described as a position that does not exclude or include theism because Wilson does not want to be associated with a god denier. H and I agree, we are not god deniers. No one can do so. Wilson's position is best described (by himself) as one that allows for a god that is not in any way interactive with the creation to be tested for but is yet possible to exist. I could not agree more. The only reason I call myself an atheist and not a provisional deist (like my fiancee does) is because I don't find that considering god (especially a deistic one) worthwhile and thus skip that unnecessary step of considering such a god and his anthropamorphized traits.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 20:04:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What a joke. In fact, you haven't a clue.
But remember, there's never a reason to hold to theistic assumptions unless they're more compelling than not holding them.
That is an inordinantly childish and self-centered epistemology. Are we really obliged to characterize the "provisional Deism" of an E.O. Wilson as "stupid" because you do not find it "compelling"?
Get over yourself ...
It is not a matter of personal preference.
Precisely. And it is remarkably naive to pretend that "compelling" is something other than a wholly subjective criteria. I frankly could care less what H. Humbert finds 'compelling'.
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
And all things unproven (ie not proven to be true) are best assumed not true until such time.
I suggest that all things 'unproven' are best acknowledged as 'unproven' and that all things confirmed (i.e., intersubjectively verified) are best acknowledged as tentatively confirmed - nothing more. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 22:36:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Precisely. And it is remarkably naive to pretend that "compelling" is something other than a wholly subjective criteria. I frankly could care less what H. Humbert finds 'compelling'.
Yes, compelling is subjective. However, H was using it in the context of conclusion rendering. As in, when evidence compels a conclusion once observed. Since religious ideas do not possess any evidence, they are not then compelling ideas in that sense.
In any case, the words used are not the point. The point is that they are 'stupid' ideas to discuss without evidence and data first. To quote my signature and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sherlock Holmes,
A Scandal in Bohemia
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
And all things unproven (ie not proven to be true) are best assumed not true until such time.
I suggest that all things 'unproven' are best acknowledged as 'unproven' and that all things confirmed (i.e., intersubjectively verified) are best acknowledged as tentatively confirmed - nothing more.
Yes, and to assume something unproven is to assume nothing about it at all. Which is precisely my point. We need not, nor should we, consider those things yet observed to exist. Elsewise, we may waste a good bit of our time thinking about those things that have yet had an impact and we have yet evidence to expect an impact on our lives and the lifes of others (such as Bigfoot, Unicorns, Fairies, and the Cookie Monster). |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2007 : 04:11:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
..., and to assume something unproven is to assume nothing about it at all.
That is simply nonsense. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2007 : 04:27:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
..., and to assume something unproven is to assume nothing about it at all.
That is simply nonsense.
No, you just seem to have a problem stumbling over words. If one were to assume something unproven (as in unproven to exist) one cannot then assume anything about the properties of that thing. Therefore, you cannot assume anything of or about that thing (excluding obviously, the original assumption that it is non-existent). If I have no reason to assume Santa exists, I certainly have no reason to assume he delivers toys. First, one must prove that Santa exists before beginning to study the properties him. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2007 : 17:21:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
..., and to assume something unproven is to assume nothing about it at all.
That is simply nonsense.
No, you just seem to have a problem stumbling over words. If one were to assume something unproven (as in unproven to exist) one cannot then assume anything about the properties of that thing.
You most certainly can. Much of the creative aspect of scientific enquiry is precisely that of abstracting and refining by means of provisional assumptions. And the scientist is often passionate in the (again provisional) belief that the scientific law she envisions can eventually be modeled such that it is intersubjectively verifiable. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 01/17/2007 17:22:15 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
