|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 15:54:51 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | His statement is only true if you ignore the context! ToE has NEVER claimed to explain the origin of life of the cosmos. His mentioning it in that regard at all is dishonest of him! Sure, his words are technically and literally true, but when the context of his remarks is considered it is obvious that he only mentions that the ToE doesn't explain everything so that he can criticise the ToE. The implication is clear, obvious like a brick to the head. ToE can't answer where everything came from, therefore it is flawed and lacks the explanatory power ascribed to it by science. What bullshit. |
The ToE has never been claimed to explain the origin of life by scientists and people who actually understand some basics about the ToE. However, many laymen think that the ToE does claim this. The pope is obviously making his statements partially in response to Christian who don't think they can accept the ToE and still be Christians.
You say the implication is clear - like a brick to the head, but I'm not the only person on this thread who questions that implication. Maybe he did mean it that way, and may he did not, and maybe he's being intentionally ambiguous for the purpose of netting as many people as he can, not it is not obvious. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 16:02:18 [Permalink]
|
I think the Pope's statement was simply intended to be ambiguous, to keep all his people in his big tent. And he was quite successful at being ambiguous, if intelligent people can differ as to his meaning.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 16:02:40 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNAH!
Seriously, I couldn't agree more. Well said. |
You know, I already responded to this paragraph of Humbert's, so you could bother to counter my response, rather than only responding as if his was the last thing said on the topic. Here, I'll even make it easy by repeating myself: | Consider exchanging the word “faith” in this paragraph for the phrases “personal preference”, “might”, “desire” or any other concept that is used to rationalize peoples motivations and actions. Whether faith or any other motivator is considered a valid motivation for an action is dependent on the action in question, not on the motivator. People who admire faith don't excuse just anyone claiming to take action based on faith. Most religious people of any faith do not condone the murder of abortion doctors by fundamentalist Christians or suicide bombings by Islamic extremists. So I'm not persuaded by this argument. |
I will add - faith does not turn people into violent lunatics. There is zero evidence of that. For instance, Christians think sex before marriage is wrong, but are they any less sexually active on average? No. Just like alcohol doesn't turn someone into a violent drunk - that potential has to be in the person beforehand. And taking away the alcohol might stop them from acting out their problems through drunkenness, but it won't erase the root problem.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 16:04:01 [Permalink]
|
Half wrote: | I think the Pope's statement was simply intended to be ambiguous, to keep all his people in his big tent. And he was quite successful at being ambiguous, if intelligent people can differ as to his meaning. |
Yeah, the more I read it the more I think this is the correct interpretation. |
"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 - 07/28/2007 : 16:31:30 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| You know, I already responded to this paragraph of Humbert's, so you could bother to counter my response, rather than only responding as if his was the last thing said on the topic. |
What, like your response somehow countered H.H.'s point and rendered it defunct? pfffffft.
H.H. is right, you are wrong, imo.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 18:13:23 [Permalink]
|
What, like your response somehow countered H.H.'s point and rendered it defunct? pfffffft.
H.H. is right, you are wrong, imo. |
No, my counter didn't render Humbert's point defunct, but it did expand the conversation. Many times people on SFN had criticized Jerome for ignoring counters to his statements and then repeating his same statement later in the thread, as if it had never been responded to in the first place. I'm just asking for something along the lines of "No, HH is still right because bla bla bla" - but obviously worded in your own charming style. ;-)
Should any motivation that can be used to explain harmful actions never be considered a legitimate motivation for benevolent actions?
For example:
Children who are too young to make good decisions for themselves are properly motivated to action by trust in their parents. Of course when the parents are bad or make mistakes, that trust causes the kid to make bad decisions. Is a child's trust in his or her parents not something to EVER be encouraged and admired?
Sympathy is often a motivator for good, and most people would regard sympathy (in the abstract) to be an admirable trait. And yet, someone could do evil if they took action based on sympathy for the wrong person.
Ambition is often considered an admirable trait. And yet that, too, can be corrupted and become a motivator for doing harm.
Humbert stated that faith "should never be promoted" because "it can be used to justify anything". But any normally admirable trait can and is used to justify actions that most of us would say are detestable.
If someone is motivated by their faith to act with compassion, as well as accept science as the best known tool for understanding the natural world, how is that particular faith not a good thing? Why should people not promote that particular kind of faith?
|
"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 07/28/2007 18:13:50 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 20:23:32 [Permalink]
|
Interesting Skepticality podcast that seems appropriate.
After listening, it's clear that atheists can obviously be just as overbearing and rude as Evangelical Christians, it's still also clear that "you can't test my beliefs, but I have 'em anyway" is just about the weakest position anyone can take (on any issue). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 22:17:29 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
I'm just asking for something along the lines of "No, HH is still right because bla bla bla" - but obviously worded in your own charming style. ;-)
|
I am uninterested in having a conversation with you, because it isn't possible. As some famous person once said, the definifion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. Far to many times on these boards you have proven impossible to communicate with, so why would I bother trying again?
I was merely agreeing with H.H.'s point.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 23:00:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Should any motivation that can be used to explain harmful actions never be considered a legitimate motivation for benevolent actions? |
Motivations themselves can't be valid or invalid but religious faith can insert a distortion into a person's perception of reality which can cause people with good motivations to do bad things. Rationalism tends to produce actions that are more congruent with the underlying motivations. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 01:41:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: I am uninterested in having a conversation with you, because it isn't possible. As some famous person once said, the definifion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. Far to many times on these boards you have proven impossible to communicate with, so why would I bother trying again?
I was merely agreeing with H.H.'s point. |
Fer crying out loud, Dude, must everything boil down to insults with you? I was merely trying to get you to say more on the topic because I think the debate is an interesting one and I know you to be a worthy opponent. If you don't have anything else to say, fine, but spare me the empty verbal lashing. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 01:50:52 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | Motivations themselves can't be valid or invalid but religious faith can insert a distortion into a person's perception of reality which can cause people with good motivations to do bad things. Rationalism tends to produce actions that are more congruent with the underlying motivations. |
I think I agree with you about motivations themselves not being valid or invalid. I mean, someone can regard them as such, but that seems rather pointless.
I don't think that distortions caused by religion are any greater on average than other distortions, such as those caused by personal feelings, aesthetic ideals, or political or other philosophical ideologies. If someone allows any irrational idea - religious or otherwise - to trump reason, then indeed they can end up doing bad things. But many types of religious faith do not allow their faith to trump what is known through science and reason. They relegate their faith to what is truly unknown. In practice, in action, such people will make decisions identical to the ones a philosophical rationalist would make. They would simply have different thoughts and feelings on the matter, and credit their religious beliefs with their motivation to take benevolent action.
Regarding rationalism, I agree on the principle, however, perfect rationalism is not possible in practice. Sort of similar to how the scientific method itself is objective, but scientific institutions and individual scientists suffer the plague of human biases and always will. People will always be guided by their own biases to some degree. How these biases are framed in their minds will vary, religious beliefs and feelings being one of those variants. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 02:49:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't think that distortions caused by religion are any greater on average than other distortions, such as those caused by personal feelings, aesthetic ideals, or political or other philosophical ideologies. |
The main difference I see with religion is that since it is expressly based on faith it is less easily constrained by reason. Other non-rational motivations do go off the rails at times they but they are not (for the most part) explicitly irrational.
| If someone allows any irrational idea - religious or otherwise - to trump reason, then indeed they can end up doing bad things. But many types of religious faith do not allow their faith to trump what is known through science and reason. They relegate their faith to what is truly unknown. |
While I still find this type of faith unsettling and irrational I don't have any real problem with it.
| In practice, in action, such people will make decisions identical to the ones a philosophical rationalist would make. They would simply have different thoughts and feelings on the matter, and credit their religious beliefs with their motivation to take benevolent action. |
I find the implication (by them not you) that they would not otherwise be motivated to take benevolent action somewhat troubling. I would suggest that misapplying the credit/blame for good/bad deeds is one of the early steps towards religious intolerance.
Regarding rationalism, I agree on the principle, however, perfect rationalism is not possible in practice. Sort of similar to how the scientific method itself is objective, but scientific institutions and individual scientists suffer the plague of human biases and always will. People will always be guided by their own biases to some degree. How these biases are framed in their minds will vary, religious beliefs and feelings being one of those variants.
|
Certainly I agree with all this, but I do find religious faith to be particularily pernicious. Perhaps that is just a bias of mine though. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 10:01:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Certainly I agree with all this, but I do find religious faith to be particularily pernicious. |
I do, as well, because I can think of no other human field of thought than religion (to include new-agey spiritualism and evangelical atheism) wherein a person who fails to share the basic bias is considered fundamentally defficient by the vast majority of adherents. |
- 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 - 07/29/2007 : 12:17:11 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | The main difference I see with religion is that since it is expressly based on faith it is less easily constrained by reason. |
Few religions are solely based on faith. Faith is just one of the things they are based on. They are also often based on things such as tradition, the authority of a leader or leaders, compassion, and often reason.
| I would suggest that misapplying the credit/blame for good/bad deeds is one of the early steps towards religious intolerance. |
That sounds like a slippery slope argument to me. Not everyone takes steps toward religious intolerance. Plenty of people just plunge right into, sometimes coming directly from atheism. There is no single path that leads any one individual into an religious intolerant mindset. I view any religion that explicitly promotes religious tolerance as an ally against religious intolerance.
Dave wrote: | I do, as well, because I can think of no other human field of thought than religion (to include new-agey spiritualism and evangelical atheism) wherein a person who fails to share the basic bias is considered fundamentally defficient by the vast majority of adherents. |
What about nationalism? Also, if you are going to include “evangelical atheism”, are you extending the concept of having faith to some atheists? That seems to me like stretching the word “faith” just for the purpose of proving it is something bad. Evangelical atheists do not have faith. They are merely self righteous about their atheism.
|
"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 07/29/2007 12:17:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 12:30:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
What about nationalism? Also, if you are going to include “evangelical atheism”, are you extending the concept of having faith to some atheists? That seems to me like stretching the word “faith” just for the purpose of proving it is something bad. Evangelical atheists do not have faith. They are merely self righteous about their atheism. |
Then perhaps self-righteousness is the basic problem, and things like religion and nationalism simply enable it and encourage it more than do, say, spelunking, cartography, rock music or particle physics.
But some atheists certainly do hold just as fast to the proposition that no god exists as theists do that one does. Their position is not one attained through reason and logic. How is it so unlike faith that it shouldn't be called faith? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Pope & Evolution
