|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 23:32:52 [Permalink]
|
pleco wrote: | Why do religious people cry at funerals? |
Same reason I'd cry if someone I loved was going on a lifelong trip to some place far away – I'd miss them.
| I think the theistic evolutionists are stronger christians/muslims/etc. because they are able to see (to an extent) between the reality of the science and their faith. They do not put their god in a box. They are able to see the larger picture. |
I agree.
Humbert wrote: | However, they've learned that so long as they concern themselves only with unknowables and fictions, they don't need to concern themselves with reality. The people will still line up nonetheless. I guess you could call this theological desperation "stronger faith," but only with the implication that faith is not an admirable trait to possess. |
Only with the implication that faith is not an admirable trait? Well then, how do so many theistic evolutionists still regard it so admirably?
There is so much condescension toward religious belief, and so many sweeping derogatory analysis of the motivations and explanations for religious faith on this forum. It really pisses me off when a religious person makes these kinds of generalizations about atheism and the atheist mindset. Assuming that someone's beliefs reveals any specific weaknesses (or strengths) of character, without regard to the specifics of that individual's mind, experiences, and actions, is so much a belittling of the whole human condition.
This pope usually does shitting things. For once he did something right. Good for him. Does every conversation that even mentions any aspect of religion have to turn into a condescension-fest making derogatory analysis about religious belief in general? I know there are other atheists here who are curious about ALL the reasons (good and bad, useful and harmful) why people have religious faith and I don't.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2007 : 23:53:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Only with the implication that faith is not an admirable trait? Well then, how do so many theistic evolutionists still regard it so admirably? |
Why do the religious find faith a good thing? Because they are mistaken. Honestly, find me a deluded individual who doesn't champion their delusion. What a pointless question.
| There is so much condescension toward religious belief, and so many sweeping derogatory analysis of the motivations and explanations for religious faith on this forum. It really pisses me off when a religious person makes these kinds of generalizations about atheism and the atheist mindset. Assuming that someone's beliefs reveals any specific weaknesses (or strengths) of character, without regard to the specifics of that individual's mind, experiences, and actions, is so much a belittling of the whole human condition. |
Ok, so do you actually have an alternate explanation? Because I get tired of people telling me I don't consider possibilities they refuse to name. You think its condescension? Provide a more plausible argument.
| I know there are other atheists here who are curious about ALL the reasons (good and bad, useful and harmful) why people have religious faith and I don't. |
The reasons people have faith are a separate issue from whether or not faith itself is a good thing. People often adopt scurrilous positions for noble reasons.
|
"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 07/26/2007 23:53:28 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 00:20:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Robb said:
| I disagree. He is saying that evolution cannot explain where things come from. Which is correct. |
Its still a straw-man. He drops that line as if he thinks the ToE should be able to explain where things come from, when the simple fact is that the ToE has never made any claims to the origin of life. You'll note that he uses this strawman to set up his next line and lend false support to his own implied claims that religion is the answer to the question he posed.
Its dishonest no matter how you look at it.
|
I agree, I think. It's not that the Pope's actually saying the ToE should explain the beginning of life, the universe, and everything.
In fact, I think he's been quite careful not to say that. But (I feel) he's left an implication to that effect, one that I suspect is intended to resonate with Creationists. I think that implication is there, but subtle enough that it's hard to prove it's there. And thus, through talking out of both sides of his mouth, does the world leader of a huge and diverse cult try to keep all his sheep, from scientists to superstitious, illiterate peasants, in the same big pasture. He gives lip-service to both extremes. Who knows what he himself believes.
But, yes, what I see as his sly, double-edged, politically expedient approach is better (or less bad) on this issue than that of the nutty fundies who are quite clear-cut about anti-scientific absurdities like a 6,000 year old world, Noah, etc.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/27/2007 00:21:17 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 00:41:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
In fact, I think he's been quite careful not to say that. But (I feel) he's left an implication to that effect, one that I suspect is intended to resonate with Creationists. |
Not just creationists, Half, but the portion of the faithful who find "but scientists don't know everything" to be a valid justification for believing in any unprovable assertion one could name. But you are absolutely right, the implication is there.
|
"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 07/27/2007 00:43:38 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 02:20:16 [Permalink]
|
H.H. wrote:| Not just creationists, Half, but the portion of the faithful who find "but scientists don't know everything" to be a valid justification for believing in any unprovable assertion one could name. |
That's right, and there are probably more people "in the middle" like that, susceptible to an incremental disparagement of rationality. The Pope just chips away at critical thinking.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 06:32:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
pleco wrote: | Why do religious people cry at funerals? |
Same reason I'd cry if someone I loved was going on a lifelong trip to some place far away – I'd miss them.
|
My point was that if the religious "know" that the person who died went to heaven, and that when they die they will go to heaven, then why cry? They should be happy that this person is out of this world and in the next! And that very soon they will be joining them! It seems to me that the religious who cry do not have a strong faith... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/27/2007 06:40:47 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 07:20:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
My point was that if the religious "know" that the person who died went to heaven, and that when they die they will go to heaven, then why cry? They should be happy that this person is out of this world and in the next! And that very soon they will be joining them! It seems to me that the religious who cry do not have a strong faith...
|
I have always found this idea to be ridiculous. Emotions do not follow reason or faith. Emotions come on us no matter what we beleive. It is the thought that we will not see that person in this lifetime. It is sad for Christians as well as non christians. Altough there is a joy through the tears for Christians because of th eknowledge they are with God.
Why do parents cry when their children go to school for the first time or go away to college? They know they will probably see them again, but the emotions are that they miss that person. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 07:33:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by pleco
My point was that if the religious "know" that the person who died went to heaven, and that when they die they will go to heaven, then why cry? They should be happy that this person is out of this world and in the next! And that very soon they will be joining them! It seems to me that the religious who cry do not have a strong faith...
|
I have always found this idea to be ridiculous. Emotions do not follow reason or faith. Emotions come on us no matter what we beleive. It is the thought that we will not see that person in this lifetime. It is sad for Christians as well as non christians. Altough there is a joy through the tears for Christians because of th eknowledge they are with God.
Why do parents cry when their children go to school for the first time or go away to college? They know they will probably see them again, but the emotions are that they miss that person.
|
I guess all the Christians in my family are different because I never ever hear anyone talking about the "joy".
Also, I think parents cry more because they know their child is growing up and they miss having the concept of the little child. But with my daughter, I don't cry - I'm happy that she is growing up into beautiful human being, and I'm happy to see her mature and her curiosity for learning grow, and I'm happy to see her experience some of the same things I did when I was a child.
But maybe I'm just a cold-hearted analytical atheist who doesn't understand why emotion trumps knowledge/faith. This is probably the reason why I never made a good Christian back in the salad days and eventually threw off the religion completely. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/27/2007 07:38:05 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 08:21:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
I guess all the Christians in my family are different because I never ever hear anyone talking about the "joy".
Also, I think parents cry more because they know their child is growing up and they miss having the concept of the little child. But with my daughter, I don't cry - I'm happy that she is growing up into beautiful human being, and I'm happy to see her mature and her curiosity for learning grow, and I'm happy to see her experience some of the same things I did when I was a child. |
I too have two little girls and am happy that they are growing up but there is a part of me that does not want them to grow up just because I enjoy them so much as a little child.
But maybe I'm just a cold-hearted analytical atheist who doesn't understand why emotion trumps knowledge/faith. This is probably the reason why I never made a good Christian back in the salad days and eventually threw off the religion completely.
|
In the long run emotions do not trump knowlegde and faith. But at moments emotions can get the better of you. Have you ever had an emotion that you did not understand why you had that particular emotion? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 08:50:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
But maybe I'm just a cold-hearted analytical atheist who doesn't understand why emotion trumps knowledge/faith. This is probably the reason why I never made a good Christian back in the salad days and eventually threw off the religion completely.
|
In the long run emotions do not trump knowlegde and faith. But at moments emotions can get the better of you. Have you ever had an emotion that you did not understand why you had that particular emotion?
|
I should have not included faith with knowledge. I think faith is based on emotion, not on knowledge. But anyway...
Yes, I had emotions when there was no basis. A few years ago, I was going through a stressful time in my life and I had anxiety attacks and depression. I "knew" what they were and that they were not based on anything real, but I had no control over them until I was able to get professional help. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/27/2007 08:53:37 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 09:12:51 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | Why do the religious find faith a good thing? Because they are mistaken. Honestly, find me a deluded individual who doesn't champion their delusion. What a pointless question. |
One, I wanna be clear, whether someone's faith is literally correct and whether that faith has some positive impacts of them are two different things. Next, most religious people are not delusional – and we've had this conversation before on SFN. Third, you made the statement that progressive thinkers who also believe in God have only the option of implying faith is not an admirable trait. Obviously, for better or for worse, they disagree with you. That is what I was saying.
| Ok, so do you actually have an alternate explanation? Because I get tired of people telling me I don't consider possibilities they refuse to name. You think its condescension? Provide a more plausible argument. |
Peoples' beliefs are highly personal, complex things. Progressive thinkers do not come to faith through rational means, and they don't claim to, and yet you seem to be demanding a rational argument. They aren't irrational either, because they embrace what science tells us about the natural world, and they support secularism because they are humble instead of self righteous. But that's just not enough for some atheists. No, we have to condescend to them further, which frankly makes us look like narrow minded, arrogant, jerks.
Religious faith is a mindset, a way of thinking, that we rationalists do not share. In fact, our way of thinking is in many ways the total opposite, which is why certain scientific discoveries cause progressive religious peoples' faith to be strengthened while our atheism is simultaneously strengthened. We don't think the same. And when atheists condescend to believers or vice versa, applying our own mindsets and semantics and structure of philosophical thinking onto all the subtleties of others' beliefs, we are doing a misapplication.
| The reasons people have faith are a separate issue from whether or not faith itself is a good thing. People often adopt scurrilous positions for noble reasons. |
And it is perfectly possible for people to do noble acts, inspired by scurrilous positions, thus giving that scurrilous position a useful and beneficial function. Many people of faith do very noble things that they claim are inspired at least partially by their faith. Whether or not they'd do those noble things or not if they never had their faith is something we can't know. But we do know that there is no evidence which says that any one faith or lack of faith compels people to generally behave better. What makes people behave better in general are worldly factors. Individuals are not statistics. What works for one person because of the way they are wired and what they've experienced, doesn't work for another. As far as I can tell, religious people don't choose their faith any more than I could choose to believe in fairies. I refuse to condescend to them because of their faith alone. I think that's a shitty thing to do, and I will says so when other people do it. Humbert, I know you aren't going to agree with me. In fact, I don't even expect you to completely understand me, because it is incredibly difficult to express my thoughts on this matter – reminds me a lot like tryin |
"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 07/27/2007 09:17:05 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 09:15:39 [Permalink]
|
| But maybe I'm just a cold-hearted analytical atheist who doesn't understand why emotion trumps knowledge/faith. |
Why are atheists such as myself terrified of death when our rational mind tells us that death is painless nothingness. We have every reason to be at peace with the idea of our own inevitable demise, and yet many of us are absolutely terrified. Since when do emotions and our expression of emotions through crying and whatnot have to line up with everything else our head and heart is telling us?
Edited to add: Hell, for that matter, why do I jump and scream when I see a big silverfish in my house, even though I know they are harmless? |
"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 07/27/2007 09:16:40 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 09:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia...
C'mom, GeeMack, he was speaking metaphorically (about the voices of the Earth and such)... give the man a credit. It's better than many Evangelicals' positions, at least. |
Originally posted by marfknox...
As Siberia said, he was obviously being metaphorical. Metaphor isn't “mumbo jumbo.” It seemed pretty clear to me – he was saying that we need to use reason and empiricism – science – to understand the natural world so that we don't harm it and ourselves with it. And I agree with him whole-heartedly on that point. |
Of course I knew those comments were metaphors. But metaphors are only useful language tools if they provide a fairly specific understanding of their intended meaning. His didn't.
Was he saying that people should accept current scientific consensus regarding things like man's contribution to global warming? Maybe, but I doubt it. Did he mean that people should just follow their hunches and guesses about how the Earth is getting along? Could be, but that doesn't seem like productive advice. Yes, it's nice that the pope was all schmoozy and didn't suggest outright that his god is in control of the state of the Earth, but did he mean that's not the case? The list of possible meanings for his metaphors is open-ended.
The pope said, "We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive." Another metaphor? Probably. But what did he mean by the laws of creation? How do you suppose he meant we should go about learning these laws and what do you figure is involved in obeying them?
When he said, "Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive," it might seem obvious what he meant by the Earth talking to us part, but apparently he feels the Earth's message requires deciphering. Or was that another metaphor meaning we should listen to the scientific consensus, or maybe our priests, or our gut feelings? Or was he saying he doesn't really have any idea about the current state of the Earth? Is it pretty much a free-for-all when it comes to deciphering the message?
So okay, he didn't get all fundamentalist woo-woo. That's nice. Seems to me he was stroking both his flock and non-Catholics with ambiguous metaphors, successfully. I think the guy is intelligent and capable enough to come right out and say what he means, but apparently he's not willing to do that. Yes they were metaphors, but being metaphors doesn't preclude them from being mumbo jumbo. They were that, too.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 10:00:28 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack wrote: The list of possible meanings for his metaphors is open-ended.
...
Seems to me he was stroking both his flock and non-Catholics with ambiguous metaphors, successfully. I think the guy is intelligent and capable enough to come right out and say what he means, but apparently he's not willing to do that. Yes they were metaphors, but being metaphors doesn't preclude them from being mumbo jumbo. They were that, too. |
That is your interpretation. Here, I'll throw out another: he's the friggin' pope - a religious leader, not a scientist or politician. He knows that his word on anything will be mindlessly obeyed by many adherents. But on complex, secular matters, such as the environment, it isn't the role of the church to side with any specific current issues. So he leaves it open, encouraging adherents to think for themselves. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 10:11:18 [Permalink]
|
Marf said:
| Where are you getting that he thinks it should be able to explain origins? |
Do you ever tire of doing this shit? WTF is wrong with you? Let me quote myself, yet again, so maybe you'll actually read it and not straw-man me.
Dude said:
| He drops that line as if he thinks the ToE should be able to explain where things come from |
So lets look at what he said...
Pope Joey Ratz said:
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?'”
|
He doesn't need to add the sentence I bolded. The only reason for doing so is to cast aspersions on the ToE. It is his obvious intent to calumniate the theory of evolution. He can't stand up and declare it to be false (something I think he'd very much like to do) because a previous pope (and some other vatican officials), in very recent memory, accepted the fact of evolution publicly.
So he satisfies himself with taking sly little shots at it, like this one. Hes an educated man, obviously intelligent, so clearly he knows that the ToE does not (nor has it ever) make any claims about "where everything comes from". Its absurd on the face of it to think that the pope doesn't damn well know that.
The only way he can talk bad about the ToE, and not look like more of a retard than he already does, is to imply that it should be able to answer his questions and then criticise it for not being able to answer his questions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Pope & Evolution
