|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2006 : 03:43:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So what the fuck is wrong with someone using their intuition on a religious issue that science (so far) has no beef with?
I don't know. According you you, religious issues have no definition, therefore science can't have a beef with them and neither can you. We can't tell people that prayer has no effect. We can't tell people that Emily Rosa debunked Therapeutic Touch. We can't tell people how people are easily fooled in any way, because that would be insulting to "liberal" theists. Those people that have no dumb ideas.
quote:
Do you read any theology written by non-fundamentalists? Do you ever sit down and have long, open-minded talks with thoughtful, intelligent liberal Christians? Why don't you go do that and stop having this same argument with me over and over where I repeat the same things and next time you just forget everything that I explained.
If you read what I wrote and responded to that, I wouldn't have to keep asking the same questions, and you wouldn't think we're having an argument at all, much less the same argument. What exactly is your point here, and how is that relevant to anything that I've asked you? Yes to all of those things. That's why I see no difference between those who reject reality and those who reject reality, whether they believe in the supernatural or not.
People are dangerous or not, as you've repeatedly said, regardless of whether they believe in a supernatural ruler of the universe (definition of religion). Some do good things, some do not. Sure, some don't believe in evolution, but put all their dumb ideas and dangerous behaviors in a bag and religion makes little difference. Dumb ideas are dumb ideas. Religion is just one of them. Religion is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. Some fare better than others with it, sure.
Last I checked, the fundamentalists in Kansas don't wrap themselves with bombs over evolution, so there is something else at play here besides religion. Are the prisons full of fundamentalists? I don't know. My guess is they're full of "liberal" theists. We'll never find out from you because you keep arguing in circles. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 07/18/2006 03:44:16 |
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 06:56:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
However, in a country where religious freedom and freedom of speech, how exactly does the law draw the line at certain types of religious “indoctrination”?
There's the rub. It's never quite black and white, no matter how objective we think we are being. Indoctrination that endorses/encourages killing of the "infidels" would be an example that may justify intervention. Perhaps this could already be done with laws preventing "hate crimes" and such, although I'm not aware of any examples of this type with respect to children. In this case the religious aspect could perhaps be "ignored", or at least irrelevant.
quote:
Freedom of thought must be protected and I and I ACLU would fight on the side of the fundies if the state started telling them that certain “ideas” that are “known to be harmful” cannot be taught to their children.
In principle I agree with you, although I might be persuaded otherwise depending on the degree of "harm".
quote:
The opposite solution does no less than sacrificing many parents' rights in an attempt to save a few minds. I do not trust the government to decide what ideas and religious beliefs are acceptable and what aren't. A free society isn't a perfect one, but no society is perfect.
That's the thing with freedom, if you've want it, you've got to accept that it comes at a cost. Complete freedom, to the extent of anarchy or a state controlled society are both unattractive options. Where to draw the line is always going to be up for grabs. Societies evolve, and this is generally a good thing, and unstoppable in any case.
quote:
If adults are free to believe what they want, how can we say children aren't allowed to be taught those same beliefs. Sure, children can't choose for themselves, but they can when they are adults.
Again, I agree in principle, but there's a degree of indoctrination which makes it almost impossible for a child to receive, digest and make use of "good" information.
Essentially, I don't think we disagree on all that much. We could probably argue ad infinitum on exactly where to draw certain lines, but I don't think there are any universal ideals in that regard.
I must say I enjoy discussing things with someone who's arguing for the theists who isn't a raving loon.
 |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 07:22:08 [Permalink]
|
Well said, John. My suspicions are raised when someone (including myself) makes a statement like "Freedom of thought must be protected."
Not that I'm arguing against it, but it's just one of those "everybody knows" kind of things like "everybody knows that fundamentalists do bad things."
I think it's always worth examining those kinds of statements. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 08:10:59 [Permalink]
|
In response to Gorgo: quote:
According you you, religious issues have no definition, therefore science can't have a beef with them and neither can you. We can't tell people that prayer has no effect. We can't tell people that Emily Rosa debunked Therapeutic Touch. We can't tell people how people are easily fooled in any way, because that would be insulting to "liberal" theists. Those people that have no dumb ideas.
You fail to understand the distinction I've made over and over about the difference between an irrational religious idea and a religious belief that falls into another category of neither being rational or irrational because reason cannot be applied due to lack of enough information. Then, in your failure to understand, you throw out a bunch of examples of various beliefs and claim that I said we couldn't criticize them because it might insult liberal theists. Why don't you put a few more words in my mouth?
religious issues have no definition – I imagine you inferred this from me telling you that there is no specific way the world would be if there were “the supernatural”? You sure jumped to one hell of a broad conclusion: that I think religious issues have no definition. How very logical of you! If you read what I wrote about that a little more carefully you'd see that I was saying that the supernatural has a different definition in different contexts according to different believers. I agreed with you that the world would be very different if, say, the fundamentalist Christian concept of the supernatural were true (for example there would be no evidence of evolution). But I guess that amount to me saying that religious issues have no definition?
We can't tell people that prayer has no effect Bullshit – that can be scientifically studied and it has been scientifically studied. Here, let me repeat myself for umpteenth time: Progressive believers don't reject science! They put scientific evidence before faith! Progressive believers acknowledge that and are aware that prayers are not a practical solution to anything. People do pray for other reasons other than to try to get stuff.
quote:
Yes to all of those things.
I think you don't understand my definition of progressive believers (those who put scientific evidence before faith on all issues were science can be applied) and you are including theists who might be liberal on many issues but who don't actually fit the definition I've given.
quote:
That's why I see no difference between those who reject reality and those who reject reality, whether they believe in the supernatural or not.
The fact that you put all religious beliefs into the same bag of ideas that “reject reality” shows exactly where you and I disagree. Progressive believers embrace reality fully. To put acceptance of young-earth Creationism (for someone educated in the modern world) on par with the belief that God probably used evolution as the method for creating life is absurd. One of those ideas is blatantly irrational and truly does reject reality. The other doesn't conflict with any scientific evidence at all.
Of course if we're going to really be honest, most people never actually think deeply about any of this shit and so couldn't really be called irrational or rational since there is no thought process that connects what they say and do. But among the people who think about what they beli |
"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 - 07/18/2006 : 08:14:57 [Permalink]
|
JohnOAS wrote: quote:
Essentially, I don't think we disagree on all that much. We could probably argue ad infinitum on exactly where to draw certain lines, but I don't think there are any universal ideals in that regard.
This is true. I just get really nervous about the government having the right to decide that certain lifestances shouldn't be taught to kids because it seems such a thing could be too easily abused. It is sort of similar to how I feel about the death pentalty: I don't think it is inherently always wrong to kill someone who isn't an immediate threat. I just don't want the government to have that particular power in the vast majority of cases.
Incidentally, hate crime legislation bothers me a lot.
Tricky stuff indeed. And it was nice discussing this with you as well. |
"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 07/18/2006 08:15:25 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 08:22:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course if we're going to really be honest, most people never actually think deeply about any of this shit and so couldn't really be called irrational or rational since there is no thought process that connects what they say and do. But among the people who think about what they believe and the meaning of life, etc, everything we're talking about does apply.
Wow. That's an interesting insight. Don't know that I can agree or disagree and it's not really a new thought to me, but an interesting way to put it.
Don't know that we can ever really communicate on the subject, but I appreciate the fact that you gave it a pretty good try. Thanks. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 09:07:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Would it be correct to say that not thinking about it would be irrational in and of itself, as it would "not be consistent with or using reason?" Just a thought.
I don't agree with that thought, and I think this is where all this debate began. I hold that just because something isn't rational doesn't mean it is irrational. It might be neither. My decision to eat breakfast this morning wasn't made through reason. I felt hungry. Sure, I could have made it rationally - I could have said "I feel hunger and so therefore I will satisfy this hunger by eating." A cat isn't being rational or irrational when it runs from a dog or scratches an itch.
Someone might read Danniel Dennet's new book "Breaking the Spell" about how religion is a normal and natural phenomenon with a clear beneficial evolutionary purpose, and that person might find all the new science very interesting and plausible, and might even accept the basic premise of the book, and they still might also believe that God made it that way. Is that belief irrational, or is it neither rational nor irrational? I'd say the latter. But the person who reads Dennet and says, "Well that goes against the Bible and so it must not be true" is being irrational. |
"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 07/18/2006 09:07:54 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 09:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Most fascinating.
I don't think that was what I was saying about religion at all. Here we move into a discussion about the definitions of reason, etc. I don't think humans can eat without thinking and reasoning, nor can they invent religions for themselves.
I'll have to think on this, though. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 09:58:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Most fascinating.
I don't think that was what I was saying about religion at all. Here we move into a discussion about the definitions of reason, etc. I don't think humans can eat without thinking and reasoning, nor can they invent religions for themselves.
I'll have to think on this, though.
Just to be clear, do you mean that "The individual does not create a religion for themself" or that "Humans do not create religions" ? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 09:59:36 [Permalink]
|
| Maybe an incomplete sentence. They cannot create religions without thinking. Everyone probably creates their own religion. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 10:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't agree with that thought, and I think this is where all this debate began. I hold that just because something isn't rational doesn't mean it is irrational. It might be neither. My decision to eat breakfast this morning wasn't made through reason. I felt hungry. Sure, I could have made it rationally - I could have said "I feel hunger and so therefore I will satisfy this hunger by eating."
You are confusing the process of reasoning with rationality. Most often irrationality is marked by an absence of reason, but it isn't defined as such. Did you have cereral or toast for breakfast? Then you acted rationally, even if you didn't need to consciously reason out your breakfast. You would have acted irrationally if you had eaten broken glass for breakfast, even if you also gave that no thought.
|
"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 07/18/2006 10:36:02 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 10:31:19 [Permalink]
|
| But is it possible to do that with "no thought?" |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 07/18/2006 10:34:41 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 10:35:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
But is it possible to do that "without thought?"
It is possible without higher-order thinking, like reasoning and logic. Hell, some people have been known to get up and make sandwiches while sleepwalking. But some thought is required, obviously. You can't be brain dead.
|
"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 07/18/2006 10:36:47 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 13:20:04 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: quote:
You are confusing the process of reasoning with rationality. Most often irrationality is marked by an absence of reason, but it isn't defined as such. Did you have cereral or toast for breakfast? Then you acted rationally, even if you didn't need to consciously reason out your breakfast. You would have acted irrationally if you had eaten broken glass for breakfast, even if you also gave that no thought.
While this does start to stray a bit from the topic, I think your criticism/clarification of what I said is dead on.
And... quote:
It is possible without higher-order thinking, like reasoning and logic. Hell, some people have been known to get up and make sandwiches while sleepwalking. But some thought is required, obviously. You can't be brain dead.
I agree with this as well. If we want to use a really broad definition of "thought" I suppose we could say that thought is required for various insects to fly with a trajectory dictated by the position of the moon, but the insect certainly isn't conscious of what it is doing. Otherwise it wouldn't kill itself so often by mistaking lightbulbs for the moon. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
