|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2007 : 05:38:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Absolutely, just like those values give religious groups the right to door-to-door proselytize. |
No, not really. Yet another separate issue.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 06:29:58 [Permalink]
|
In response to the OP, and having not read beyond page 1, I'm not surprised she had serious doubts at all. (Who wouldn't?) An aquaintance of mine was devoutly faithful, to the point of insanity IMO, until he earned a divinity degree at Yale. After that he confessed he thought god probably didn't exist but that religion was important in providing philosophical comfort to everyone and material comfort to the poor and suffering. That is, even if God's not real, religion is a useful and necessary balm for the pain of the human condition. Perhaps this was Mother Theresa's approach. It wouldn't surprise me if most who are highly educated in religion reached similar conclusions - I'm not sure how you couldn't. For me, I respect her more knowing she felt this way and I don't hold her silence on the subject against her.
On a further note, I wonder if the Church will still cannonize her. I'm thinking probably. They never let truth get in the way of matters of faith & business. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 07:05:03 [Permalink]
|
| That is, even if God's not real, religion is a useful and necessary balm for the pain of the human condition. |
No, it isn't. |
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
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 07:42:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
| That is, even if God's not real, religion is a useful and necessary balm for the pain of the human condition. |
No, it isn't.
|
I'm speaking an opinion here, and not my own at that. Personally, I'm not sure, on balance, if religion's done more harm than good over the history of civilization. Today, IMO, it's usefulness has waned, but over history, I don't know. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/29/2007 07:43:58 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 07:47:37 [Permalink]
|
I've got to break out the heavy shovels for this, Marf.
| Sorry, but tolerance and pluralism are too important values for me to associate with a movement where "most" of the leaders are tolerant! |
Okay, I should have said "nearly all New Atheists are tolerant." (Actually all of them that I'm aware of.) Hardly something that can be said for theists.
Overemphasis on a single worldview that explicitely pits itself against other worldviews is dangerous IMO. These are some of the very seeds of religious discrimination and hatred. These are some of the very seeds of religious discrimination and hatred.
|
That's the "NOMA" bullshit again, with a slippery slope argument added for good measure. I don't buy it. NOMA's basically like the ID tactic of trying to say all "theories" are somehow all equally legitimate. They're not. Rationally rejecting superstition is not "dangerous," just good sense. Theism is primitive magical thinking, and a time-proven danger.
| To give an extreme example for the purpose of illustration - you have the right in this free nation to organize a non-profit whose purpose is to alter the US constitution to ban religious expression. Freedom and tolerance give you that right, but you would be a heinous monster as bad as the worst Christian Dominionists for doing such a thing. |
Strawman, and slippery slope combined. I know of not a single living atheist who would want to ban religious expression. Do you?
You have at least implied that the New Atheists might be potential monsters. I don't agree. Having read Dawkins' The God Delusion, I was impressed with how fair-minded and tolerant that New Atheist is of the theists whose ideas he so soundly rejects.
|
“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 08/29/2007 08:05:50 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 07:53:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
To be quite honest, Dave, I fear anyone with a singular, spell-out worldview who is part of a social movement, and that goes for skeptics too. I'm with Kil on this big tent thing. Skepticism is a great thing to value and promote. I'm all about that. I'm just not about promoting only skepticism, or valuing it above all else. Maybe I'm really splitting hairs here… yeah probably... but what you are saying about Bidlack sounds very derogatory in its tone. You seem to be questioning his very integrity. If that is the case, you are pushing your overall values onto him, and that strikes me as self-righteous, even if it is a mild sort. I'm not trying to offend you or set up a strawman, so if I got this totally wrong tell me so and why. I'm very interested in this discussion, you are one of the most articulate people who will converse with me on such subjects. |
The question was, "is skepticism compatible with religion?" The answer is still "no," because the only logically defensible position on the god question is "I don't know." The answer, "I don't know, but I believe anyway" is a position that requires compartmentalization.
Bidlack presents an example of obvious compartmentalization. He uses admittedly emotional arguments and the horrors of death and destruction in defending his compartmentalization. He appears to refuse to bring his armament of critical thinking skills to the subject (and in fact rejects their use there), and so doesn't engage in skepticism with regard to his faith, no matter how much he might doubt.
That would be fine, if he'd kept things personal. But Bidlack is being held up as an example of faith being compatible with skepticism, and he seems to be going along with that premise. My beef with him is only along that line. (This is happening with Kenneth Miller, also, but to a lesser extent because he's not a "skeptic" primarily, but sticks to biology - the question there being "are science and faith compatible?" and the answer again being "no, but people compartmentalize all the time.")
In other words, I don't want him kicked out of the big tent because of his faith. I don't want him kicked out at all. I want the idea that skepticism and faith are compatible to be kicked out, simply because it is wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. But what Bidlack seems to be doing - and what other people are definitely doing - is embracing this wrong idea. I have a problem with that.
And yes, the idea that to be a "good skeptic" one needs to be an atheist should be eliminated from the club, also. Anyone who claims that it's logically or scientifically impossible for the most-vague of god-concepts to exist is also wrongity wrongwrong.
Because religion is assuredly a very personal thing, I imagine it appears as though I'm making personal attacks. But I do not - and can not - consider this any different than, for example, "are skepticism and palm reading compatible?" Given all the evidence at hand, and thinking critically about the subject, it must be said that even someone who believes in palm reading for their own personal reasons, who doesn't try to make money off it or convince anyone else that palm reading is worthwhile, who admits there's no hard evidence in its favor and who perhaps even doubts it sometimes, is still simply not engaged in skepticism regarding palmistry.
The assertion that skepticism is not compatible with faith should raise (and should have raised) no more of a fuss than the assertion that skepticism is not compatible with HIV/AIDS denial, or ancient astronauts, or lizard people running the government, or any other unevidenced belief. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 07:58:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
It's a conflict that he must deal with. He doesn't need us to tell him that it's not rational to believe in God. He is, after all, a critical thinker. |
I disagree. I understand the practicality of big tent politics, kil, but usually with skeptics when one person asks for a "pass" on a certain subject, others only agree to it when they need a "pass" themselves on some other topic. (I won't bust your balls about god, you don't bust mine about lei lines, and leave Phil's beliefs about Big Foot alone.) Such bargaining not only runs contrary to the skeptical method, but over time it risks diluting skepticism to the point of uselessness.
I remember reading an article you wrote, Kil (I think it was you), about one of those New Age alternative medicine expos you attended. You stated that one can tell the quacks apart from legitimate doctors and scientists because they always criticized a perceived common enemy, such as "the establishment" or "Big Pharma," but never criticized each other, even when it was obvious that conflicting views on heath or the human body were being promoted. I thought it was a good point then. I still think it's a good point now.
| I think it is important to remember that critical thinking is a tool kit. A set of tools that we want people to use. Obviously, even using the same tools, skeptics will not always come to the same conclusions. |
Like general skepticism, the scientific method is successful in no small part because of its intentional and systematic ability to weed out bias and personal opinion. In principle at least, this means that all scientists place results ahead of their own egos or desires. They can agree on what is real and true and what is an artifact of the mind or an illusion. Evolution is real, N-rays are not, and those conclusions are not informed by opinions.
Now, scientists don't always agree, especially on the frontiers of science. As well all know, this is a good thing, since vigorous debate is part and parcel of the scientific method. However, some areas are so well-established, the ground so well-trodden, that dissent indicates an individual's failure to actually practice science. To be an informed creationist requires such compartmentalization, such a willingness to ignore data or misread results, that few would argue that one can be both a creationist and a competent scientist. Now, you might be able to argue that good scientists can still be theists, but skeptics are supposed to have higher standards.
The question of god's existence has been so well hashed over the centuries that at this point that, for a skeptic at least, atheism or nuanced agnosticism are the only real conclusions. There is less evidence for god than there is for the Loch Ness Monster, yet I would wager nearly 99% of skeptics are in agreement that no monster exists. Skeptics should be able to agree that belief in god is untenable. To be a theist requires such compartmentalization, such a willingness to adopt logical fallacies, ignore Occam's razor, accept unreliable subjective experience as evidence, that I have a hard time believing that a theist could ever make a proper skeptic.
| I should note that Bidlack would not try to convince you of his way of thinking. He understands that his belief will not pass any test of reason.
|
"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 - 08/29/2007 : 08:03:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Actually, no. He has said many times that he questions his own faith. |
But if he isn't willing to abandon it, then the questioning is pointless. It's just an exercise in self-flaggelation.
| And we really can't expect him, as a skeptic, to do more then that. |
Why not? Why can't we expect skeptics to adhere to certain standards?
| It is not for us to make him draw the same conclusion that most of us would. |
Make him? No, I agree that we shouldn't make him. Vocal opposition to his conclusions on this topic should suffice.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 09:05:30 [Permalink]
|
| For what it's worth, the New York Times has an op-ed about Mother Teresa's god problem. |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 14:43:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Skepticism isn't just something which you can pick up or leave off whenever you feel like. It isn't something which you can dabble in. It takes a commitment. Skepticism means giving up what one wants to be true for what one can reasonably demonstrate to be true, always. It means prostrating oneself before the evidence. It means sacrifice, Marf. It means actively repressing personal whims and desires. It requires vigilance and perseverance, since there can be no exceptions on personal grounds. |
If you replaced Skepticism with Religion, you'd see it is very similar. In my opinion, it's borderline fundamentalism with it's submission to a higher authority (evidence).
A good heathy dose of doubt is good for any philosphical stance. Provided that doubt propels you to explore truth (best concept I can think of)and not close it off.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 17:10:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
For what it's worth, the New York Times has an op-ed about Mother Teresa's god problem. |
Great link, Cuneiformist, thanks! From the article
But to conclude that Mother Teresa was a crypto-atheist is to misread both the woman and the experience that she was forced to undergo. |
Here is a very pertinent point: nearly all believers have had crises of faith. Many saints have. You cannot claim that somebody is/was an atheist simply because that person's confessions indicated doubt or a loss of connection. That is horribly presumptuous. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 17:42:39 [Permalink]
|
I second Boron's statement - great link Cune.
| Here is a very pertinent point: nearly all believers have had crises of faith. Many saints have. You cannot claim that somebody is/was an atheist simply because that person's confessions indicated doubt or a loss of connection. That is horribly presumptuous. |
I tend to think that such crisis of faith take radically different forms depending on the person of faith's conception of God previous to their doubting. When I was in Catholic HS, we learned about different concepts of God and how they related to maturity. The childish conception was a big bearded guy in the sky. The more advance, but still immature was a still very describable entity, mysterious in physical form, but anthropomorphized in mind. And the most advanced view was God understood as ultimately a mystery, even if He is often referred to as a more definable entity. This is what I was taught by a nun in twelfth grade.
I lost my faith in God when I was 13, and I'd say that I was at that second stage of understanding of God. When I prayed to God, I very much thought of him as a discreet being who thought much like I did, but with knowledge of all things. And when I lost my faith, it felt like the pain of losing an older, trusted relative and protector. When I first lost my faith, I often became paranoid and I think today that many of my irrational fears (of the dark, hospitals, and of all silly things - zombies!) today are the remnants of that philosophical awakening that we really are, if not alone, at least on our own in the universe.
As an atheist, today I regularly experience what I think could be described as crisis of faith. But now I'm using the word "faith" very loosely to apply to my own personal sense of values and morality, and when I have these crisis, my mind is drifting into nihilism and hopelessness. I talked with a friend last night who is contemplating suicide. I have often contemplated suicide when I am having my own atheistic crisis of faith. My friend was talking to me about his desire to kill himself because he thought it would help push away those desires, and he kept saying "I shouldn't do it." He's an atheist too, and he doesn't believe in universal morality any more than I do. When he says he shouldn't kill himself, he's appealing to values that most people share. In this case a value that is nearly universal to human nature.
The more I read about non-fundamentalist religiosity, the more I think that to many religious people, their concept of God is, in a practical sense, indistinguishable from my humanist values. Indeed, they conceive of it differently, and so it is different. They are theists, and I am an atheist. But I think that many religious peoples' crisis of faith is similar to mine in that it is really the temptations of nihilism more than the temptations of 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 08/29/2007 17:43:57 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 21:39:13 [Permalink]
|
Somehow, I am not moved by the Jesuit priest's apologia for MT (in Cune's link).
Father Martin fails to even mention how MT raised untold millions, possibly billions, without providing medical care to the poor, only to herself. This guy's bias shows. He's part of the campaign for MT's "sainthood," and to protect one of his Church's greatest cash cows.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 02:19:01 [Permalink]
|
I think Sam Harris sums it up best:
Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?
|
|
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
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Crisis of Faith- Time Mag
