|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2007 : 15:01:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
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 don't see how this counters my point. I am aware that religion can be influenced by things other than faith but that observation is irrelevant since faith and not reason is foundational to religion.
| 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. |
This sounds like a "new agey argument" to me. Hah. (Well you did it first with the slippery slope thing.) But is "God deserves all the credit for anything good I do." really so far removed from "Gays are to blame for the moral decay occuring in the United States today."?
| I view any religion that explicitly promotes religious tolerance as an ally against religious intolerance. |
Well of course. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 17:56:03 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Then perhaps self-righteousness is the basic problem, |
That's what I think. | and things like religion and nationalism simply enable it and encourage it more than do, say, spelunking, cartography, rock music or particle physics. |
People have twisted scientific and historical facts to justify their self-righteous interests, although I admit that those who claim to depend on science are almost always actually using pseudo-science. In "A Modest Proposal" Jonothan Swift criticized rationalist thinking (among other things) as being an insufficient tool for setting social policies and solving social ills. Einstein, too, once said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Of course I and most skeptics know that Einstein's idea of God more resembled watered-down Deism or Stoicism, or better yet, poetic humanism - it is unlikely he believed in a personal, intelligent being called God. And he didn't involve himself in organized religion. So I think it is fair to assume that in the above quote, Einstein used the term "religion" loosely, and meant a worldview complete with a system of compassionate morality or ethics. He was endorsing the preservation of a concept of right and wrong. And to many people today, religion and faith is what Einstein refers to in this quote, not some very specific set of literal and narrow-minded beliefs.
| 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? |
I hold to the proposition that no god exists pretty certainly. I don't think my personal conviction toward my atheism is any less than an evangelical atheist's. I really am not an agnostic at all. I really am an atheist. Hard core. I just don't think the world would be a kinder, gentler, more civil, or more progressive place if everyone were an atheist. I don't care about converting others, and I don't think that my atheism is a sign that I'm smarter or better than theists in any way. It's just my personal belief system. But for evangelical atheists, it should be everyone's personal belief system. That - self-righteousness - is the only difference. It has nothing to do with how strong our beliefs about literal reality are, and has everything to do with thinking those beliefs make us morally superior. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 18:11:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
People have twisted scientific and historical facts to justify their self-righteous interests, although I admit that those who claim to depend on science are almost always actually using pseudo-science. |
And I said that in my opinion, religion encourages self-righteousness more than other things. Anything can be twisted for bad ends, but neither science nor history encourage a self-righteous attitude. Especially not like Christianity does.| In "A Modest Proposal" Jonothan Swift criticized rationalist thinking (among other things) as being an insufficient tool for setting social policies and solving social ills. Einstein, too, once said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Of course I and most skeptics know that Einstein's idea of God more resembled watered-down Deism or Stoicism, or better yet, poetic humanism - it is unlikely he believed in a personal, intelligent being called God. And he didn't involve himself in organized religion. So I think it is fair to assume that in the above quote, Einstein used the term "religion" loosely, and meant a worldview complete with a system of compassionate morality or ethics. He was endorsing the preservation of a concept of right and wrong. And to many people today, religion and faith is what Einstein refers to in this quote, not some very specific set of literal and narrow-minded beliefs. |
You've lost me.| I hold to the proposition that no god exists pretty certainly. |
Then you've not one of the faithful atheists. They're not, after all, "pretty certain," they are completely and self-righteously sure that there is no god. They either think they have evidence or a logical proof, and criticism is ignored or taken as a personal affront. And so, people who don't agree with them are either enemies or fools. I don't see any substantive difference between that sort of person and a fundamentalist. Both are fanatical in their beliefs. |
- 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 : 18:18:00 [Permalink]
|
| I am aware that religion can be influenced by things other than faith but that observation is irrelevant since faith and not reason is foundational to religion. |
Sorry for making myself unclear. I'll try again: You said that this makes religion different – and that it is thus less easily constrained by reason. I disagree. Anything humans do includes bias. Even when we think we are being totally rational, we are often succumbing – at least to some degree – to biases that we aren't even aware of. Many religions are constrained by reason. Many religions champion reason, even if they also champion faith, and simply apply one to the natural world, and the other to what is unknown. Many religions in fact apply and champion reason more than a lot of other institutions, philosophies, and causes. I guess I just fail to see why the bias of faith is any different from any other bias. If faith is truly relegated to only unknowns, it is just as harmless to our reasoning as if it were absent.
| This sounds like a "new agey argument" to me. |
Now yer just being mean. 
| But is "God deserves all the credit for anything good I do." really so far removed from "Gays are to blame for the moral decay occuring in the United States today."? |
Well, first of all, someone say that they are moved by their faith to do good works is not saying that God gets the credit for those good works. They are saying that their faith – which is more of an experience for most people than a specific, literal set of narrow beliefs – is the source of compassionate inspiration. But they are the one's who decide to take action based on that inspiration, and so they still credit themselves with doing good works.
Secondly, to answer your question: Yes, those two statements are far removed from each other. I'm not even sure what they have in common. In the first one God is controlling people and compelling them somehow to engage in certain benevolent actions. In the second one, nothing supernatural is even invoked (although usually when people make this sort of statement their basis for believing homosexuality is wrong is claimed to be religious scripture). Have you never met an atheist homophobe? Hell, I was listening to a radio program on the topic of homophobia just the other day, and someone called in saying that he was a liberal and not Christian, but that legalizing gay marriage was just too big of a risk to the social fabric of our society.
I said your argument was a slippery slope because religious tolerance or intolerance as individual people ascribe to it does not have to come in steps. Some people do slowly develop more and more tolerance or intolerance, sure. But other people change more suddenly through what feels like a revelation or epiphany spurred on by some experience or discovery.
|
"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 18:25:44 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 18:24:03 [Permalink]
|
| And I said that in my opinion, religion encourages self-righteousness more than other things. Anything can be twisted for bad ends, but neither science nor history encourage a self-righteous attitude. Especially not like Christianity does. |
I think nationalism and patriotism encourages self-righteousness just as often and to just as much of an extreme as certain religions. Also, many religions do not encourage self righteousness. In fact, many sects of Christianity do not encourage self righteousness. I totally agree with you that science and history as institutions generally do not encourage a self righteous attitude.
OK, sorry. Nevermind. It wasn't that important anyway.
| Then you've not one of the faithful atheists. They're not, after all, "pretty certain," they are completely and self-righteously sure that there is no god. They either think they have evidence or a logical proof, and criticism is ignored or taken as a personal affront. And so, people who don't agree with them are either enemies or fools. I don't see any substantive difference between that sort of person and a fundamentalist. Both are fanatical in their beliefs. |
I disagree that they are more sure of their atheism than other atheists. I also don't think they are all completely sure that there is no god, although certain some are. They are merely sure enough that they do, as you say, consider others to be enemies or fools. In short, I still think you are just twisting the word “faith” to make it mean something bad. The real culprit in this matter is self-righteousness.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 23:38:00 [Permalink]
|
I apologize that I didn't respond to this in a more timely manner, this if from page 3.
Dude wrote:
There is no rational reason to mention that the ToE doesn't explain the origin of the universe unless you are trying to set it up for criticism.
|
I think it is very important that people understand the exact range of a theory. In my high school biology class, we were first taught the concept behind evolution, and then straight into abiogenesis. When you learn about evolution, how life changes from generation to generation, and you start going backwards in time, it really begs the question of how life began. It is such a directly related concept that often people don't understand that it isn't part of evolution. And by stating this, the Pope is clearly and accurately establishing the range of evolutionary theory. As I posted on the first page of this thread, I've said almost these exact words. I certainly hope I wasn't setting up evolution for criticism. That wouldn't be a wise thing to do in a debate with a creationist.
There certainly are rational reasons for making sure the public understands exactly what the Theory of Evolution does and does not cover. Granted, I don't recommend taking scientific lessons from the Pope, but what he said was accurate and truthful. And given the fact that he is saying the Roman Catholic church adheres to evolution, I don't think he would be implying criticism in the same breath. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 07/29/2007 23:38:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 07:12:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I think nationalism and patriotism encourages self-righteousness just as often and to just as much of an extreme as certain religions. |
And I think nationalism is a bad thing, also. And patriotism shouldn't even be a goal.| Also, many religions do not encourage self righteousness. |
Being on the "inside" with a group that claims secret knowledge encourages self-righteousness.| In fact, many sects of Christianity do not encourage self righteousness. |
Do they do this by ignoring a bunch of Christ's teachings?| In short, I still think you are just twisting the word “faith” to make it mean something bad. The real culprit in this matter is self-righteousness. |
Faith by itself is neither good nor bad. Fanaticism is oftentimes the result of an overabundance of faith, and certainly leads to self-righteousness. |
- 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 - 07/30/2007 : 10:26:57 [Permalink]
|
| And I think nationalism is a bad thing, also. And patriotism shouldn't even be a goal. |
OK, I agree with you. Touche.
| Being on the "inside" with a group that claims secret knowledge encourages self-righteousness. |
Secret knowledge? Yeah lots of religions do consider the revelations to be secret, but not all by a long shot. Most of the Christians I've met say their beliefs are self evident to them in the same way as my atheist view is self evident to me. I agree with you about group that think their particular faith makes them morally or intellectually superior to other people in some way, but that is often not the case at all.
| Do they do this by ignoring a bunch of Christ's teachings? |
Depending on how you interpret scripture, all Christians must ignore various literal aspects of scripture, either through sheer ignorance, or theological interpretation. I've read the gospels, and I fail to see a Jesus who has one consistent and obvious message. It has be interpreted, and lately I keep hearing atheists who claim that the fundamentalists are the only ones actually keeping with scripture. That is a ridiculous idea. Many tolerant Christians have indeed read the gospels and adamantly believe they are abiding by Christ's teaching by promoting religious tolerance.
| Faith by itself is neither good nor bad. Fanaticism is oftentimes the result of an overabundance of faith, and certainly leads to self-righteousness. |
Fanaticism is also oftentimes the result of insecurity, or not enough faith. Some fanatics so badly want their beliefs to be true that they feel the need to convert others based on the inclination that claim are more likely to be true in more people accept them. Almost everyone ascribes to that gut feeling even if skeptics acknowledge it is a logical fallacy. Generally, religious minorities are not taken as seriously as religious majorities, so I can see how insecurity over one's desired beliefs could lead to fanaticism. I think this is the case for many evangelical atheists too.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 11:22:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
OK, I agree with you. Touche. |
I think we agree on more things, too. It just takes talking about 'em to come to that realization.| Secret knowledge? Yeah lots of religions do consider the revelations to be secret, but not all by a long shot. Most of the Christians I've met say their beliefs are self evident to them in the same way as my atheist view is self evident to me. |
The "secret" knowledge of Christians comes either through a "personal relationship with Jesus" which can be talked about but not adequately described due to transcendant nature, or through the Pope.| I agree with you about group that think their particular faith makes them morally or intellectually superior to other people in some way, but that is often not the case at all. |
I'm saying that thinking that Jesus has told you how to gain everlasting life makes one feel superior. Even "all you've got to do is read the Bible and you'll understand" is a condescending attitude.| Do they do this by ignoring a bunch of Christ's teachings? |
Depending on how you interpret scripture, all Christians must ignore various literal aspects of scripture, either through sheer ignorance, or theological interpretation. I've read the gospels, and I fail to see a Jesus who has one consistent and obvious message. It has be interpreted, and lately I keep hearing atheists who claim that the fundamentalists are the only ones actually keeping with scripture. That is a ridiculous idea. |
I understand your point, but perhaps I disagree on its import. Christ allegedly told his followers lots of different things to make them feel good about following him. I find it hard to imagine a person ignoring all of that self-righteousness-inducing stuff and still being a Christian.| Many tolerant Christians have indeed read the gospels and adamantly believe they are abiding by Christ's teaching by promoting religious tolerance. |
I get what you're saying here, but I've gotta say that since I find religion to be "bad" like I find nationalism "bad," pointing out a bunch of people who are practicing tolerance of a bad thing isn't particularly comforting to me, marf. | Fanaticism is also oftentimes the result of insecurity, or not enough faith. Some fanatics so badly want their beliefs to be true that they feel the need to convert others based on the inclination that claim are more likely to be true in more people accept them. Almost everyone ascribes to that gut feeling even if skeptics acknowledge it |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 14:54:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
You said that this makes religion different – and that it is thus less easily constrained by reason. I disagree. |
Sorry if this seems obtuse of me but are you sure you disagree. From your arguments you seem to be presuming the best case scenario for religion instead of the typical case. Yes people with religious faith can be just as rational in all the ways that really matter as people without religious faith and yes we should judge individuals as individuals but the point is that as a group they tend not to be.
| Anything humans do includes bias. Even when we think we are being totally rational, we are often succumbing – at least to some degree – to biases that we aren't even aware of. |
We all have biases sure. But we don't all have the biases which are introduced by religious faith.
| Many religions are constrained by reason. Many religions champion reason, even if they also champion faith, and simply apply one to the natural world, and the other to what is unknown. Many religions in fact apply and champion reason more than a lot of other institutions, philosophies, and causes. |
Well, as I said, I don't really have a problem with this type of faith but in my experience this type of enlightened religion is far from the norm.
| I guess I just fail to see why the bias of faith is any different from any other bias. If faith is truly relegated to only unknowns, it is just as harmless to our reasoning as if it were absent. |
Yes, but that's a pretty big if. Sure there are a few deists and theists who manage to pull it off but it's not something that seems to be catching on in the population at large in the world's religions.
| But is "God deserves all the credit for anything good I do." really so far removed from "Gays are to blame for the moral decay occuring in the United States today."? |
Well, first of all, someone say that they are moved by their faith to do good works is not saying that God gets the credit for those good works. |
Right but I was not addressing that exactly. I was just providing a specific example (which is not uncommon among Christians) to illustrate the point.
| Secondly, to answer your question: Yes, those two statements are far removed from each other. I'm not even sure what they have in common. In the first one God is controlling people and compelling them somehow to engage in certain benevolent actions. In the second one, nothing supernatural is even invoked (although usually when people make this sort of statement their basis for believi |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 15:26:47 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | I think we agree on more things, too. It just takes talking about 'em to come to that realization. |
More and more I think this is true.
The "secret" knowledge of Christians comes either through a "personal relationship with Jesus" which can be talked about but not adequately described due to transcendant nature, or through the Pope.
…
I'm saying that thinking that Jesus has told you how to gain everlasting life makes one feel superior. Even "all you've got to do is read the Bible and you'll understand" is a condescending attitude. |
The progressive faithful that I often defend on this forum do not feel they are superior in any way at all to those who hold different beliefs, including atheists. The sort of groups I associate with what you describe are born again Christians who think that everyone but them is going to hell, Jews who think they are literally the only chosen people, and there are many other such examples among the major world religions as well as new and other minority worldviews. But the faithful that I'm defending in this conversation (and I know a good number of people personally who think this way) genuinely believe in different paths for different people. They are religious pluralists through and through.
Whether this interpretation of Christianity (or any other religion) goes against scripture depends on theological interpretation of that scripture. I've read the Bible, and I can't see any kind of obvious message, so I agree with you that people who say just read the Bible and you'll get it are fooling themselves. Especially considering how many people come to atheism after reading the Bible. I think it is condescending when atheists tell Christians how to interpret their Bible, or tell Muslims how to interpret their Quran. For religious pluralists – and those are the quiet majority in the educated world IMO – religion is a deeply personal thing that is unique for each individual, not something that gives them membership to a special club that is morally and/or intellectually superior to everyone else.
| I understand your point, but perhaps I disagree on its import. Christ allegedly told his followers lots of different things to make them feel good about following him. I find it hard to imagine a person ignoring all of that self-righteousness-inducing stuff and still being a Christian. |
I don't find it hard to imagine considering that I've read books by liberal clergy, heard sermons from such people in Unitarian churches, and met people who have read the Bible and take a progressive interpretation. They don't ignore the bad stuff. They claim that it is mis-applied to the wrong contexts by fundamentalists. I'm not impressed by some apologetics, but other apologetics I find far more convincing than fundamentalist literal interpretations, such as on the issue of homosexuality. But the bottom line is, I, too, am a religious pluralist. I don't pretend to understand what other people get out of religion, but so long as they only apply their mystical beliefs to that which is actually unknown and aren't self-righteous about convincing others, I feel they are intellectually and morally equal to myself in that regard.
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 16:16:16 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | Sorry if this seems obtuse of me but are you sure you disagree. From your arguments you seem to be presuming the best case scenario for religion instead of the typical case. Yes people with religious faith can be just as rational in all the ways that really matter as people without religious faith and yes we should judge individuals as individuals but the point is that as a group they tend not to be. |
Maybe the major difference in our perspectives on this matter is that I would never group all religious people together when thinking about this topic. What things such as “faith”, “God”, “souls”, “spirituality”, and “{insert whatever religious term}” are varies so wildly from one religious group to another that these words cannot be said to mean the same things from one group to another. I don't know how many times I've had a conversation with a progressive theist, and I go to criticize something literal about their faith, and they wince as if I've just made the most ridiculous strawman argument ever, and then say something like, “What are you talking about? Of course I don't believe that!”
In other words, I do not think any religious mindset is typical. That is exactly why it there is little use to grouping all religious people together (or all Christian together for that matter, since that is an especially diverse group of faiths.)
| We all have biases sure. But we don't all have the biases which are introduced by religious faith. |
The biases introduced by the faith of, say, the Quakers I know is that it is their spiritual and moral responsibility to care for the well being of their fellow mankind. Can't say that's a bad bias! My point is, not all religions have dangerous, hateful, or foolish biases built into them, and some have compassionate biases built into them, just like any other worldview or institution.
| Well, as I said, I don't really have a problem with this type of faith but in my experience this type of enlightened religion is far from the norm. |
Bummer for you, but that is your personal experience. Mine is quite different. I have rarely met fundamentalists, and when I do it is usually in some impersonal way such as them knocking on my door to proselytize. Most of the people I know have some kind of religious faith and it is this pluralistic and enlightened religion. Probably this is because I live in a major city (Philadelphia) that has a lot of religious diversity, I went to grad school for art, and I work at a Quaker school. However, beyond my personal experience, I also read a lot and hear a lot about progressive and pluralistic religious movements.
Here's an interview I happened to hear on NPR just last week with a progressive Muslim, Eboo Patel, whose passion is developing interfaith alliances that promote religious tolerance among youth: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12098469 (This link includes an excellent excerpt from Eboo Patel's book “Acts of Faith”.) In the interview, Patel even mentioned atheists at one point as part of the movement he is working for. People like him don't get a lot of attention from the media because polarization and extremism simply get better ratings.
"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 07/30/2007 16:22:43 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 16:23:26 [Permalink]
|
| hmmmm... we seem to have gotten way off topic. Sorry! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 16:36:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
The "secret" knowledge of Christians comes either through a "personal relationship with Jesus" which can be talked about but not adequately described due to transcendant nature, or through the Pope.
…
I'm saying that thinking that Jesus has told you how to gain everlasting life makes one feel superior. Even "all you've got to do is read the Bible and you'll understand" is a condescending attitude. |
The progressive faithful that I often defend on this forum do not feel they are superior in any way at all to those who hold different beliefs, including atheists. The sort of groups I associate with what you describe are born again Christians who think that everyone but them is going to hell, Jews who think they are literally the only chosen people, and there are many other such examples among the major world religions as well as new and other minority worldviews. But the faithful that I'm defending in this conversation (and I know a good number of people personally who think this way) genuinely believe in different paths for different people. They are religious pluralists through and through.
|
Uh, maybe it's just a cultural thing, but coming from a deeply religious country which is also very pluralist, I tend to agree except when it comes to accepting atheism as a path. Most people I know would accept anyone of any faith, but would immediately distrust an atheist open about his/her atheism. Those people seem to think some sort of spirituality and belief in the supernatural is essential for a happy healthy life (which we know is absurd).
Edit: methinks the big divergence here, Marf, is that you're extrapolating from your personal experiences to the masses. That is not quite true, at least over here - people are tolerant of pretty much everything and everyone, but to a point. That point, my experience dictates, is where belief in anything ends and skepticism and atheism begins. I don't see how that sort of behavior can be good.
I do agree that not all faith is fundamentally bad and not all believers are fundamentalists but like Marx said... opium of the masses. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 07/30/2007 16:50:04 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| | |
Pope & Evolution
