|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 12/15/2007 : 19:41:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Accuracy demands that you restate the above prefaced by "to me..." or its equivilant. Your implicit assumption that all readers of your highly presumptive statement reacted with the same affect that you experienced, is unfounded; and I fear, would be difficult to substantiate. |
It's an assumption you read into my post, which lacked any usage or implication of the preface "to us..." or its equivalent. If you want to engage in that sort of game, I wish you luck on finding a playmate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 15:35:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by moakley
"As a fideist I don't think there are any arguments that prove the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Even morethan that, I agree with Unamuno that the atheists have the better arguments. So it is a case of quixotic emotional belief that is really against the evidence and against the odds." Credo consolans, I believe because it is consoling.
|
I can think of no better answer.
|
Seriously? Because I can. The best answer is the truth, and the second best answer is the truth as close as we can approximate it. I believe what the facts allow me to believe and reject consoling fiction.
|
From the perspective of the believer, Martin Gardner, being able to say, "I believe because it is consoling" to me seems honest and refreshing. Looks like I should have included, "From a believer ..." |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 16:23:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
From the perspective of the believer, Martin Gardner, being able to say, "I believe because it is consoling" to me seems honest and refreshing. Looks like I should have included, "From a believer ..."
|
Oh, I see.
Well, yes and no. It is honest, but I read it essentially as an admission of defeat. Gardner is smart enough to realize his beliefs cannot be rationally justified, and self-aware enough to understand that his emotions and desires are truly what motivate his belief. Yet he makes no attempt correct this. This strikes me as the same as when a news station admits to strong bias in their reporting, but rather than making an effort to be fair, instead revels in their bias unrepentantly. What's the point of acknowledging errors in thinking unless one means to remedy them?
Like the drunk who knows he's a drunk but feels he can't change, Gardner is essentially asking that we leave him to his vice out of a sense of pity. I fail to find anything noble in Gardner's position, only cowardice. So it isn't all that "refreshing," in my eyes. Rather sad, if anything.
|
"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 12/16/2007 16:25:44 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 19:02:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by moakley
From the perspective of the believer, Martin Gardner, being able to say, "I believe because it is consoling" to me seems honest and refreshing. Looks like I should have included, "From a believer ..."
|
Oh, I see.
Well, yes and no. It is honest, but I read it essentially as an admission of defeat. Gardner is smart enough to realize his beliefs cannot be rationally justified, and self-aware enough to understand that his emotions and desires are truly what motivate his belief. Yet he makes no attempt correct this. This strikes me as the same as when a news station admits to strong bias in their reporting, but rather than making an effort to be fair, instead revels in their bias unrepentantly. What's the point of acknowledging errors in thinking unless one means to remedy them?
Like the drunk who knows he's a drunk but feels he can't change, Gardner is essentially asking that we leave him to his vice out of a sense of pity. I fail to find anything noble in Gardner's position, only cowardice. So it isn't all that "refreshing," in my eyes. Rather sad, if anything.
|
His belief somehow provides solace. Considering the number of other answers that we have heard from believers on why they believe, this answer, in light of the rest of the quote, I find honest. Honesty from a believer is refreshing. I am simply not willing to judge him for not taking the next reasonable step to remedy this error in thinking. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 08:35:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
I am simply not willing to judge him for not taking the next reasonable step to remedy this error in thinking.
|
Why not?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 08:47:55 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | Like the drunk who knows he's a drunk but feels he can't change, Gardner is essentially asking that we leave him to his vice out of a sense of pity. |
Not so much pity as simple respect. He's not the kind of person of faith who is trying to push his beliefs on anyone else. He is acknowledging the personal nature of his own beliefs.
I don't see how this is comparable to a drunk. A drunk is someone who abuses alcohol. The abuse of alcohol does harm which is clearly evident in real life. What harm is clearly evident and being directly caused by Garner's faith?
| I fail to find anything noble in Gardner's position, only cowardice. So it isn't all that "refreshing," in my eyes. Rather sad, if anything. |
Rather mundane if you ask me. Not sad at all. Why is it sad? Is he sad? Aren't you projecting your values on him to make it sad? I don't think it is noble either, however, since that requires also projecting values on him. I don't really put any value judgement on it at all since it doesn't seem to connect to any specific action other than Gardner's own internal mentality about the meaning of life, and I regard that as a personal matter.
Because this kind of humble belief is, in terms of practical actions, the opposite of the kind of faith which inspires people to crash planes into buildings.
And because it is perfectly possible that belief is not a choice, that one can acknowledge one's beliefs as unlikely or even irrational, yet still not be able to help believing. |
"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 12/17/2007 08:48:30 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 10:08:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Not so much pity as simple respect. |
I can respect him as an individual already, but what is there to respect about his position?
| He's not the kind of person of faith who is trying to push his beliefs on anyone else. He is acknowledging the personal nature of his own beliefs. |
Again, irrelevant. Good ideas should be disseminated. He has offered his beliefs up for public consideration. I'm obliging by critiquing them. That's how the marketplace of ideas works.
| I don't see how this is comparable to a drunk. A drunk is someone who abuses alcohol. The abuse of alcohol does harm which is clearly evident in real life. What harm is clearly evident and being directly caused by Garner's faith? |
What harm does self-delusion ever cause? The harm done is to the truth and to the pursuit of it. The harm done to Gardner is the limitations he sets upon himself, the emotional crutch he fashions for himself. He uses religion the way a drunk uses alcohol--as a buffer against reality, as a tonic to deaden pain.
| I fail to find anything noble in Gardner's position, only cowardice. So it isn't all that "refreshing," in my eyes. Rather sad, if anything. |
Rather mundane if you ask me. Not sad at all. Why is it sad? Is he sad? Aren't you projecting your values on him to make it sad? |
Of course I'm judging him according to my values. Why wouldn't I?
| I don't think it is noble either, however, since that requires also projecting values on him. I don't really put any value judgement on it at all since it doesn't seem to connect to any specific action other than Gardner's own internal mentality about the meaning of life, and I regard that as a personal matter. |
If Gardner's beliefs were irrelevant, why did he share them? Perhaps because he understands that personal religious beliefs are central to determining a person's character, and so are far from the inconsequential abstraction you make them out to be.
| Because this kind of humble belief is, in terms of practical actions, the opposite of the kind of faith which inspires people to crash planes into buildings. |
No. It is not the opposite. Gardner's faith might be a restricted, neutered, dismal faith, but in the end it is still faith. It is still basing one's world view on what one wishes to be true rather than on what can one can reasonably conclude to be true.
| And because it is perfectly possible that belief is not a choice, that one can acknowledge one's beliefs as unlikely or even irrational, yet still not be able to help believing. |
And you don't find that sad? The idea that intelligent people are unable to reach sound decisions through a reasonable examination of the evidence isn't disconcerting to you? Then there is no point to promoting skepticism at all, since at best all it can do provoke mental discomfort in those unable to change anyway.
I have heard you say in the past that you had no choice in your atheism, that you simply don't believe. But what I think you mean is that you can't believe based on the current evidence. Nor should you, the current evidence doesn't justify belief. That's the whole point. Now, if new and compelling evidence were to come to light that did warrant belief in god, are you suggesting that you would be unable to reconsider your conclusion? Because only then is your atheism not a choice. Otherwise it very much is a choice: it's the determination reached after careful consideration of the evidence. And if it cuts one way, then theism is a choice as well, only is the choice to ignore the totality of the data. To excuse theism by suggesting "they have no choice but to believe" serves only to empower bad decision making. If people have no control over what they believe, then education and rational discourse are futile efforts.
|
"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 12/17/2007 10:09:56 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 19:32:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave and Kil.....
Further indications that there may be some sort of relationship between religiosity and intelligence appeared on wiki today. To wit:
In 1986, the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine summarized studies on religiosity and intelligence.[9] In it Burnham Beckwith summarized 43 studies on religiosity and its relation with attributes that he considered were positively linked with intelligence: IQ, SAT scores, academic ability and other measures of overall "success". Although conceding that it was easy to find fault with the studies he reviewed, "for all were imperfect," he contended that the studies he examined, taken together, provided strong evidence for an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious faith in the United States.
Certainly nothing approaching a significant statistical correlation, but perhaps another straw blowing in the wind as I have suspected for a long time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 22:12:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave and Kil.....
Further indications that there may be some sort of relationship between religiosity and intelligence appeared on wiki today. To wit:
In 1986, the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine summarized studies on religiosity and intelligence.[9] In it Burnham Beckwith summarized 43 studies on religiosity and its relation with attributes that he considered were positively linked with intelligence: IQ, SAT scores, academic ability and other measures of overall "success". Although conceding that it was easy to find fault with the studies he reviewed, "for all were imperfect," he contended that the studies he examined, taken together, provided strong evidence for an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious faith in the United States.
Certainly nothing approaching a significant statistical correlation, but perhaps another straw blowing in the wind as I have suspected for a long time. |
bngbuck, you wrote about that quote from that Wiki entry on page one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2007 : 06:19:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by moakley
I am simply not willing to judge him for not taking the next reasonable step to remedy this error in thinking.
|
Why not?
|
I find his belief mostly harmless due mainly to the idea that I don't believe he is (was) out there trying to infect others. I'd rather save my contempt for those trying to do real damage, like the bad people at the DI. Or the unthinking repeaters of anti-evolution sounds bytes who seem to come to my door about 5 or 6 times a year. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2007 : 06:59:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html?cnn=yes
| Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it's O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have. |
| He tried to get them to see that people who are coerced into renouncing their beliefs might not actually change their minds but could be acting out of self-preservation--an important lesson for young atheists who may feel pressure to say they believe in God. |
The funny thing is that atheist tout that they want people to make an informed decision on their own after presented with the facts, except for when it comes to religion, these atheists will not let their children make their own decision.
|
Robb, even though we don´t agree in a lot of things, I like you since you seem intelligent, polite and open-minded, so don´t take this as an offence, please.
When talking about religion, what "facts" can someone display in favour of this god or that god? The only "facts" would be: "Oh yes, that place existed, or this random guy seems to have existed (or someone named alike)."
Never have I been shown "evidence" of a god (christian, hindu, greek, whatever).
Evidence that a guy who talked about god is not the same as evidence of god.
Perhaps you had a personal experience that convinced you god exists. Unfortunately (for me) I have not, even though I used to be a christian for 20+ years.
Cheers. |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2007 : 10:31:32 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | What harm does self-delusion ever cause? The harm done is to the truth and to the pursuit of it. The harm done to Gardner is the limitations he sets upon himself, the emotional crutch he fashions for himself. He uses religion the way a drunk uses alcohol--as a buffer against reality, as a tonic to deaden pain. |
This is very general.
I do not have a beef with the intellectual debate over ideas. In fact, I am glad to and often do engage in debates about beliefs, and I am firmly on the side of a materialist-atheist worldview. But when you compare people who have religious beliefs to drunks you do two things that I disagree with. First, you put an ethical judgment on the mere belief by itself. I never ethically judge beliefs, only false claims of knowledge (such as fundamentalist claims), and harmful actions.
Second, by comparing this kind of believer to a drunk, you imply they are a social menace, potentially harmful to others. That sets up the mentality that authorities might at some point have to take some sort of action against religious believers. (This is my beef with Dawkins calling the religious instruction of children "child abuse".) I find this sort of language in the public arena dangerous. I know you don't mean that believers should dealt with by authorities, but if enough people start to regard faith itself as something harmful, the stage is set for religious persecution. And because I regard freethinkers as slowly winning culture wars against the faithful and eventually heading toward being the global majority, this is something I guard against.
| If Gardner's beliefs were irrelevant, why did he share them? Perhaps because he understands that personal religious beliefs are central to determining a person's character, and so are far from the inconsequential abstraction you make them out to be. |
I assume he shares them because he personally values his beliefs and thinks there are others with his mentality and wants to connect with them, let them know they are not alone, and not feel alone himself. All of religious belief itself is an inconsequential abstraction. It is only when it is examined on a case by case basis that we can make firm statements about it. And when I look at this case, I see nothing more than someone I have a very minor philosophical disagreement with. I don't see someone who is self abusive or harmful to others, as you are implying.
| And you don't find that sad? The idea that intelligent people are unable to reach sound decisions through a reasonable examination of the evidence isn't disconcerting to you? Then there is no point to promoting skepticism at all, since at best all it can do provoke mental discomfort in those unable to change anyway. |
There is very much a point to promoting skepticism. Even if people can't always change their personal beliefs, they can acknowledge or be made aware of the difference between personal belief and knowledge. If they have to compartmentalize to do it, fine, so long as they don't confuse belief that is personal with knowledge which should be regarded by all. They can believe in creationism, but understand why it can't be taught in public schools. They can think abortion is wrong because the soul enters the being at conception, but understand that legally banning it on these religious grounds is not right in a pluralistic society. They can realize that peoples' beliefs do not make them kinder, gentler, or more intelligent.
| I have heard you say in the past that you had no choice in your atheism, that you simply don't believe. But what I think you mean is that you can't believe based on the current evidence. Nor should you, the current evidence doesn't justify belief. That's the whole point. Now, if new and compelling evidence were to come to light that did warrant belief in god, are you suggesting that you would be unable to reconsider your conclusion? Because only then is your atheism not a choice. Otherwise it very much is a choice: it's the determination reached after careful consideration of the evidence. And if it cuts one way, then theism is a choice as well, only is the choice to ignore the totality of the data. To excuse theism by suggesting "they have no choice but to believe" serves only to empower bad decision making. If people have no control over what they believe, then education and rational discourse are futile efforts. |
I set my worldview based on logic and scientific evidence. I do this because that is how my mind works. It is how my mind has always worked. But it is obviously not how everyone's mind works since there are people who know all the same things I do and yet have theistic beliefs. Also, there are atheists who are atheists for personal, emotional reasons that have nothing to do with logic and evidence. A woman in my local community, for instance, told me that she wouldn't consider herself a "skeptic" because even if all the saints and angels suddenly came down to earth, she still would remain an atheist. She called it "the essential core of my being". How people come to their beliefs varies, and so while there may be a way to convert everyone to a naturalistic worldview, it isn't one way, and the promotion of our way of thinking is only one way.
When I say that people can't choose their worldview, I really mean that they can't change the way they think. If they are the type to base belief on certain emotional factors or upbringing, and are able to compartmentalize that belief so it doesn't seem to conflict with evidence to the contrary, how can we debate them out of that using skepticism? We can't. So why not focus on what actually impacts the world – our choices. Our actions. Those are the things that matter most.
Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't intellectually criticize religious beliefs or have discussions which scrutinize theology and such. I encourage that. But it needs to be done with humility and respect, and ethical judgments needs to be left out.
|
"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 12/18/2007 10:36:44 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2007 : 16:59:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
This is very general.
I do not have a beef with the intellectual debate over ideas. In fact, I am glad to and often do engage in debates about beliefs, and I am firmly on the side of a materialist-atheist worldview. But when you compare people who have religious beliefs to drunks you do two things that I disagree with. First, you put an ethical judgment on the mere belief by itself. I never ethically judge beliefs, only false claims of knowledge (such as fundamentalist claims), and harmful actions. |
And that is most of your problem. Beliefs very much should be judged. In fact, we do it all the time. Racism is nothing more than "beliefs," yet people do make an ethical judgment that racism is immoral and then work to eradicate it. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that we should never address root causes. It's like you're trying to stop hate crimes but refusing to acknowledge that racism plays any role. I see your position as irrational, self-limiting, and worse that ineffective.
I think you should read this essay called "The Ethics of Belief" as it very much explains my position on this subject. It explains why beliefs must be considered open to moral consideration.
| Second, by comparing this kind of believer to a drunk, you imply they are a social menace, potentially harmful to others. |
Ok, first of all, I am implying no such thing. I explained exactly what my metaphor was meaning to convey. If I said an athlete was running "like a machine," am I implying he lacks emotion or runs on gasoline? You're simply reading in things that aren't there.
| That sets up the mentality that authorities might at some point have to take some sort of action against religious believers.(This is my beef with Dawkins calling the religious instruction of children "child abuse".) I find this sort of language in the public arena dangerous. |
Oh, Jesus Christ, Marf, my metaphor sets up no such thing. You're the one making the jump from criticism of religion to criminalization of religion and no one else. The two are not equivalent. You're erecting a huge straw man based on an ill-conceived slippery slope argument. It's far beneath you.
PZ Myers just so happened to recently deal with someone making the same bad arguments you make, and I think his response applies equally well to you:
The New Atheists...are members of a liberal democracy, a political institution that requires a well-informed and engaged citizenry to function well. Yet at the same time, we have people who propagate ignorance, who drill false ideas into the heads of their children, who do active, intentional harm to the intellectual development of young people. And further, these people are working hard to compromise the quality of education for all Americans, driven by their religious ideologies to make sure that no challenging ideas are ever discussed in the classroom. This is child abuse. That there are competing liberal values of parental autonomy is not something that we have denied or failed to recognize — but apparently, pointing out a real and genuine problem is "illiberal". I had no idea that denial and ignorance were liberal values.
The "logical conclusion" I draw from the continuing practice of child abuse by religious parents is not to make laws that punish those parents — it's to fight for better education, to refuse to allow sectarian nonsense to be promulgated in our public schools, to encourage more critical thinking by citizens of all ages, and to use my public soapbox and my right to free speech to openly berate the credulous morons who frighten their children with hellfire if they open their eyes to the beautiful reality of our world. I'll also use it to chew out narrow-minded apologists for inanity who invent false dichotomies, such as that the only two possibilities in a liberal democracy are to pretend that damaging conflicts don't exist, or to start shipping dissidents off to the gulag. |
I consider this red herring dealt with. Moving on...
| I know you don't mean that believers should dealt with by authorities, but if enough people start to regard faith itself as something harmful, the stage is set for religious persecution. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "religious persecution." If you mean criticizing religious beliefs, then yes. If you mean making religious beliefs illegal, then you're insane because no one is suggesting any such thing, nor is any "stage being set." Your paranoia is not an argument.
| And because I regard freethinkers as slowly winning culture wars against the faithful and eventually heading toward being the global majority, this is something I guard against. |
Yes, critics of religion are winning the culture war. Men like Dawkins or Hitchens, people who've dared to point out the sheer inanity of religion are making progress advancing the cause of rational thinking. Apologists for religion, like yourself, have advanced nothing. You are ones slowing progress and defending the status quo.
| If Gardner's beliefs were irrelevant, why did he share them? Perhaps because he understands that personal religious beliefs are central to determining a person's character, and so are far from the inconsequential abstraction you make them out to be. |
I assume he shares them because he personally values his beliefs and thinks there are others with his mentality and wants to connect with them, let them know they are not alone, and not feel alone himself. All of religious belief itself is an inconsequential abstraction. It is only when it is examined on a case by case basis that we can make firm statements about it. And when I look at this case, I see nothing more than someone I have a very minor philosophical disagreement with. I don't see someone who is self abusive or harmful to others, as you are implying. |
That's because you're trying to limit this discussion to actions and not beliefs, consequences and not causes. Religious faith isn't only bad when it leads to fanaticism, it's bad because of what it is--an irrational thought process. That alone is worthy of criticism. Once again, PZ Myers explains:| I certainly don't regard [religious] extremism as normative. I consider the feeble gullibility of, for instance, the average Lutheran church member to be the real problem — that our country and our culture as a whole endorses institutions that encourage credulity in the face of religious baloney. Even if the radical fringe weren't throwing bombs, I'd still be asking people why the heck they believe in such patent nonsense. |
Skipping down...
| I set my worldview based on logic and scientific evidence. I do this because that is how my mind works. It is how my mind has always worked. But it is obviously not how everyone's mind works since there are people who know all the same things I do and yet have theistic beliefs. |
Yes, magical thinking is rampant. That's what I'm trying to change. Why do you waste your time defending it? When has irrationality ever needed defending? Don't we already have it in spades?
| When I say that people can't choose their worldview, I really mean that they can't change the way they think. If they are the type to base belief on certain emotional factors or upbringing, and are able to compartmentalize that belief so it doesn't seem to conflict with evidence to the contrary, how can we debate them out of that using skepticism? We can't. |
1) I disagree with your conclusion. I think we can change minds to a large degree, and I see your standing in the way of that progress counter-productive. It's like you've simply decided that irrationality can't be changed so you're going to frustrate any attempt to do so. This is a position so misguided I hardly have words to describe its backwardness. 2) Compartmentalization is not a long-term strategy. It works in some individuals some of the time, but to advocate it as a solution is madness. It is because minds can't stay compartmentalized that we even have this culture war. When you sell people on the idea that religion is a valid way of knowing, it's going to conflict with that other, truly proven method of knowing called science. So long as religionists and apologists for religion continue to nourish the seed of irrationality that is religious faith, it will continuously regrow and sprout thorns. H.L. Mencken, whose warnings about the dangers of unchecked religion have proven more than prescient, also outlined the proper course of action:
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. -- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925) |
And that's the right way to deal with religion.
|
"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 12/19/2007 17:01:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Sunday School
