The dumbing down of America continues...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

I am reading Dawkins right now, so it is at the front of my mind. Most of his arguments are not new, and I don't agree with all of his takes.

There is quite a discussion going on now following the release of The God Delusion, God is Not Great (Hitchens) and The End of Faith (Harris).

Did anyone follow the debates in the US this week. Notice how all the Reps and Dems go out of their way to say they are religious (when quite probably 10-20% of them are not)?

Dude, you can't read Harris and Hitchens along with Dawkins and expect a fair discussion on the role of religion in people's personal lives. I personally like a lot of their arguments. For example, Dawkins view on childhood indoctrination of religious views being tantamount to child abuse is a perfect depiction of the damage being done by politically motivated, religious zealots all over the world.

A lot of bad, stupid people practice religion. Clearly their views will conflict with a rational and logical view on life. That's the reason for this pseudo-conflict between religion and humanism/atheism/science(?).

However, I do take issue with a number of things that Dawkins et al. assert in their writings. Off the top of my head there are two questions I ask.

1) Are ALL religious people like this? Is the only route to spirituality through the Einsteinian appreciation for the orderliness and beauty of the universe?

2) Is the belief that human beings can be ruled by almost completely individual, self-interested, and rational actions almost as false as say a belief in a literal Bible?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, I am pretty aware of that. I've read a fair variety of evolutionary theory, counter-arguments to the YEC and ID arguments and how this all pertains to religion.

The big problem I have with Dawkins is his cross of the boundary between scientific objectivity and pure advocacy. He trys to reason like a scientist but argues like a lawyer. He comes pretty close to providing a scientific alternative to religion. Close, but in my opinion too much of what he is trying to do is simply raise doubts about the certain fundamentialist factiosn of religion, without presenting enough of the other side to make his argument a fair and balanced one.

Troutman's a lawyer. Probably a very good one. However, I definitely don't want an advocate telling me how I should make the most personal and spiritual decisions of my life.

I can't say I agree with everything he talks about in the book. But it is one of the best/most popular counter arguments to religion out there. But I guess there are parts of faith and religion that you can't argue science with, so he was to use his logic and I guess that come across as an advocate.

But in Troutman's defence I don't believe he is trying to convince one way or the other as to whether or not to believe. But he is definitely trying to make a point that science and religion cannot employ the same means in the search for the truth or at least religion cannot claim to be using scientific ways and methods.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I can see the curve of the earth every time I fly in an airplane, or try to use my GPS without direct line of sight.

Or even better, just watch a ship sail over the horizon from any beach or harbour.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by troutman

I am reading Dawkins right now, so it is at the front of my mind. Most of his arguments are not new, and I don't agree with all of his takes.

There is quite a discussion going on now following the release of The God Delusion, God is Not Great (Hitchens) and The End of Faith (Harris).

Did anyone follow the debates in the US this week. Notice how all the Reps and Dems go out of their way to say they are religious (when quite probably 10-20% of them are not)?

Haha, the Dems were struggling in the debates when asked about religion, for some reason they don't spout religious zealousnous as well as some of their republican counterparts. (gross oversimplification). Hilary resorted to talking about how she prayed to God about how to lose weight.

Religion has such an insidious influence on politics in the U.S. If I was a political advisor (for sheerly political purposes in an very facetious way) I would recommend that the somewhat secular politicians smarten up and appease the Conservative Christians by saying they are not going to advertise their faith to further their political careers. They could easily just quote some passages about pharisees and how they were not going to profess their religion publically in that manner and then say they wouldn't talk about it any longer so they could really focus on more important issues.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Dude, you can't read Harris and Hitchens along with Dawkins and expect a fair discussion on the role of religion in people's personal lives. I personally like a lot of their arguments. For example, Dawkins view on childhood indoctrination of religious views being tantamount to child abuse is a perfect depiction of the damage being done by politically motivated, religious zealots all over the world.

I'm not an anti-theist like Dawkins or Hitchens. I think there is value is studying mythology.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by peter12

Both you Troutman and Flashpoint are obviously very smart people, but both of you are yapping text almost verbatim from "The God Delusion".

Great book, made me think. However... sort of a biased view of religious people. Don't you think?

I couldn't telll you. I haven't read it. Sounds like I should though! As far as a biased view of religious people, I am guilty as charged. I don't have a problem with people who believe whatever they want. I have a problem with people who preach lies as fact. For example - creationisim, intelligent design, the pople is infalible. If someone wants to believe those things, go ahead.

Just don't expect to say them around me, and not get challenged on them.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by llama64

...What does the Bible mean by "years"? Who the hell knows...

Anyone who can read the Bible in its original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, or anyone who can read any of the very thoroughly researched and meticulously composed standard translations of the available manuscripts whould have no problem whatsoever understanding what the Bible means by what it says. The Old Earth Creationist's attempt to reconcile the veracity of the ridiculous doctrine of inerrency and infallibility with the re-interpretation of the seven days from Genesis 1 as geological ages are deluding themselves. The truth of the matter is that when the Book of Genesis was written (it was probably composed during the Persian period from a variety of local legends and ancient religious myths) people ACTUALLY BELIEVED that the earth was only 3500–4000 years old, and generally accepted that there was a God, and that he created everything in the span of 144 ACTUAL hours...AND THEY WERE WRONG

The Bible is a complicated, bewildering collection of a wide variety of literature, and while it should be read "plainly", it should never be applied literally. For centuries, Jews and Christians had no problem with contradictions and errors in Scripture: Hell, the idealized gospel presentation of Jesus even proposes imporvements to the Sacred Writings (cf. the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain from Matthew 7 and Luke 5, and take special notice of all the instances where Jesus says: "You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."

If you respect the Bible as I do; if you cherish it for what it is—a remarkable record of faith; a production of religious propoganda; and a fine collection of literature—you would never misappropriate it or misunderstand it in an idolatrous commitment to its words as something of supernatural origin. It may contain the word of God for those of us who are Christians and who take their faith very seriously, but it is NOT a replacement for God.

[peter12]

Hahaha, one of the banner ads that just popped up for me was one for the LDS. God is watching!!!

Seriously, great posts by everybody here. This debate hasn't dissolved into meaningless partisan sniping and I appreciate that.

[AC]

Flashpoint said it well. I don't have a problem with people believing in their deity of choice.

It's when they take that belief and begin to affect others with it as if it were fact which bothers me.

Such as the Pope condemning the use of condoms, even in third world countries where AIDs kills 600-1000 South Africans daily alone.

Or impeding scientific progress, disrupting scientific teaching, etc.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hahaha, one of the banner ads that just popped up for me was one for the LDS. God is watching!!!

Seriously, great posts by everybody here. This debate hasn't dissolved into meaningless partisan sniping and I appreciate that.

Yes, indeed. Thanks for starting a discussion about Dawkins. Some of his points get stretched too far IMO - ex. religion is the cause of war and conflict. I think there would still be war and conflict if there was no religion. We would differentiate ourselves from the "other" by some other criteria.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

Yes, indeed. Thanks for starting a discussion about Dawkins. Some of his points get stretched too far IMO - ex. religion is the cause of war and conflict. I think there would still be war and conflict if there was no religion. We would differentiate ourselves from the "other" by some other criteria.

Furthermore, just because religious claims are scientifically unverifiable, there is just cause to eliminate it altogether. I largely agree with much of what Dawkins has written, but I simply cannot bring myself to abandon my faith. The whole issue is so much more complicated than merely deciding between fact v. fallacy, truth v. myth, faith v. reason, and right v. wrong.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Yes, indeed. Thanks for starting a discussion about Dawkins. Some of his points get stretched too far IMO - ex. religion is the cause of war and conflict. I think there would still be war and conflict if there was no religion. We would differentiate ourselves from the "other" by some other criteria.

Well he specifically ignores alot of primatology research on chimpanzee group politics which clearly note that group conflict and indeed even genocide, are not the sole product of human action. People kill or harm other people because those people look different or simply own something that is coveted.

Another great evolutionary scientist, Frans De Waal, has some great things to say about liberal religion accentuating human's evolved sense of empathy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Furthermore, just because religious claims are scientifically unverifiable, there is just cause to eliminate it altogether. I largely agree with much of what Dawkins has written, but I simply cannot bring myself to abandon my faith. The whole issue is so much more complicated than merely deciding between fact v. fallacy, truth v. myth, faith v. reason, and right v. wrong.

I'm not a religious person--but I can recognize, like all atheists should, in my opinion, one central fact about science. It can never grant us access to cosmic or non-material truth. One knock on science from fundamentalists is that it is materialist--and they're right.

Of course, that doesn't mean that science will lead to nihilism, or that faith and science are incompatible. Treating "religion" and "science" as though they were opposite poles in a debate is a bit silly to me--kind of like having an argument over whether we prefer vacuum cleaners or ice cream sundaes. They have different purposes, and make different kinds of truth claims.

The problem occurs when people use the logic of one to criticize the other--like when people use the Bible as evidence to prove that the world is a certain age. Science will never tell us whether there is a god, because if there is, he/she/it inhabits some extramaterial dimension that is outside of the empirically observable--which is another way of saying that it comes down to what you want to believe. In my experience, most atheists are pluralistic rather than dogmatic about this--Dawkins may be an exception, I suppose.

[peter12]

It can never grant us access to cosmic or non-material truth. One knock on science from fundamentalists is that it is materialist--and they're right.

Well, I would say it's ultimately a mistake that both sides make, dogmatic atheists and fundamentalists.

How can you possibly describe something which is supposed to exist completely outside the realm of materialism with materialist methods? It's actually not a drawback of science at all, indeed, it is a strength. Why would you want to?

[Azure]

I for one have to applaud most of the atheists and the agnostics on here for realizing exactly what IFF has just pointed out.

Of course, that doesn't mean that science will lead to nihilism, or that faith and science are incompatible. Treating "religion" and "science" as though they were opposite poles in a debate is a bit silly to me--kind of like having an argument over whether we prefer vacuum cleaners or ice cream sundaes. They have different purposes, and make different kinds of truth claim

And congrats on the baby IFF, I hope all goes well.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

How can you possibly describe something which is supposed to exist completely outside the realm of materialism with materialist methods? It's actually not a drawback of science at all, indeed, it is a strength. Why would you want to?

I couldn't agree more.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Ignorant morons eh?

The burden of proof is not on atheists or agnostics to prove that something doesn't exist. That's not how science works. This such a weak argument used all the time by people who have little understanding of the whole process. So you must believe in fairies, the flying spaghetti monster and a celestial teapot orbiting the sun, because science hasn't proved that they don't exist. Please before you go around calling people names and criticizing their thinking at least have a proper understanding of their views. In fact most atheists and agnostics would gladly change their view point given evidence of supernatural happenings/god/etc. Of course that is ignorant isn't it? We should just put on our blinders and follow the masses shouldn't we?

I find it interesting that if I state that I prefer believing in God in the absence of contradicting proof, then that is ignorant and blind and something for the sheep.

By ignorant morons I meant that athiests in general are identical to the religious sheep they claim to fight against. By latching on to scientific theories that most people are not trained enough to fully comphrehend and using them as "proof" of the validity of their beliefs, they lash out at any and all that dare to argue with them. In my experience, creationists are less pushy of their doctrine then most atheists.

Perhaps most of my atheist friends are jerks though, which may account for my perception of it.

Originally Posted by peter12

How can you possibly describe something which is supposed to exist completely outside the realm of materialism with materialist methods? It's actually not a drawback of science at all, indeed, it is a strength. Why would you want to?

Put much more eloquently then I could ever have written, and exactly why I think athiests should stick to arguing their case against what is known, and not against the existence of God.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

I find it interesting that if I state that I prefer believing in God in the absence of contradicting proof, then that is ignorant and blind and something for the sheep.

Why not believe in other Gods in the absence of contradicting proof? Why not believe in Zeus, there's no proof that Zeus doesn't exist.

You don't believe in God because there is no proof one way or the other, you believe in God for far different reasons (upbringing, influences in your life, personal experiences, etc).

They're just saying that you can't say "There's no proof there isn't a God so there must be"; that doesn't make sense logically. There's no proof there's an invisible dragon in my garage either, but no sane person would believe me if I tried to convince them of it without some proof.

Originally Posted by llama64

By latching on to scientific theories that most people are not trained enough to fully comphrehend and using them as "proof" of the validity of their beliefs, they lash out at any and all that dare to argue with them.

You keep saying "beliefs", but it has nothing to do with belief. It's to do with what's proven. It is possible for something to be proven without having first hand experience of that proof. Or do you only ever trust a fact that you have personally proven??

So I take it that if your child had an infection then you wouldn't give them penicillin until you'd discovered it and done all the tests on it yourself?

Put much more eloquently then I could ever have written, and exactly why I think athiests should stick to arguing their case against what is known, and not against the existence of God.

Most atheists argue that there is no evidence for God, which is a very different thing than arguing against the existence of God. Most atheists would change their view if provided with evidence that there is a God.

EDIT: And most would also agree that religion and science are describing two different things. The original topic of this thread was about people ignoring science and sticking with their religious views that they think contradict science.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by llama64

I find it interesting that if I state that I prefer believing in God in the absence of contradicting proof, then that is ignorant and blind and something for the sheep.

I didn't see anyone suggesting that. I called you yellow (nee gutless) for taking the easy way out and hedging your bets, believing that God exists strictly because of lack of contradicting proof rather than demanding some proof as you likely would in other circumstances, and because that would be the safe thing to do in the event he does exist and you potentially save yourself from a one way ticket to the netherworld. It's ironic, but something tells me that if your doctor told you that you six months to live you would demand imperical proof, instead of having faith in that one highly trained individual in that field. I also suspect that you would put every bit of energy and resource at your disposal attempting to extend your life, rather than putting your "faith" in God to save you. It's quite ironic how God fearing people who pooh-poohed science will turn to those same folks who they dumped on when threatened with their mortality.

By ignorant morons I meant that athiests in general are identical to the religious sheep they claim to fight against.

Wow, you offended everyone equally in that sentence. If your an athiest, you're a moron. If you're a God fearing person, or sheep as you called them, you're identical to the athiests, which makes you an ignorant moron. What is rich about this, you lumped yourself in as an ignorant moron! Gotta love it!

By latching on to scientific theories that most people are not trained enough to fully comphrehend and using them as "proof" of the validity of their beliefs, they lash out at any and all that dare to argue with them.

Yes, lots of lashing out going on in regards to "scientific theory". Exactly how many wars have been fought through the ages over "religious beliefs or affiliations" and how many have been fought over "scientific theory"?

In my experience, creationists are less pushy of their doctrine then most atheists.

Uh huh, and just how many athiests do you think are going to be picketting the opening of this museum? How many athiests knock on your door asking you if you'd like to talk about their lack of belief in God? How many atheists go on pilgrimages and missions to convert others to become non-believers in developing countries? How many athiests will picket a church, or a Christian family planning center? How many athiests will assassinate those who work there or bomb the facility itself? How many athiests will force their beliefs (evolution for example) on those educational institutions that are Christian or home schoolers? Yup, them athiests are a real pushy bunch.

Perhaps most of my atheist friends are jerks though, which may account for my perception of it.

Maybe your friends consider you to be their "religious" acquaintance who is the American Osteopathic College of Proctology poster boy, which accounts for their commitment to being atheist? Funny how that edge cuts both ways?

Put much more eloquently then I could ever have written, and exactly why I think athiests should stick to arguing their case against what is known, and not against the existence of God.

I don't believe that have any comprehension of what peter12 was saying. Try reading it again. Then post your thoughts on what he said. I'm interested as hell to find out what your intepretation of his comment is, and just how eloquently you can state it, because I think you missed his meaning all together. Again, in this whole thread I don't see anyone arguing the non-existence of God, like you are trying to suggest. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone deny the existence of God at all. Religion and the extreme Christians are taking a beating, but the existence of God has not really been debated.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

Why not believe in other Gods in the absence of contradicting proof? Why not believe in Zeus, there's no proof that Zeus doesn't exist.

Why not indeed?

Originally Posted by photon

You don't believe in God because there is no proof one way or the other, you believe in God for far different reasons (upbringing, influences in your life, personal experiences, etc).

Wait... so the only way a person is able to believe in god is because of upbringing? Then how did we get in this mess in the first place? I think you're being a little too limiting in your argument here.

Originally Posted by photon

They're just saying that you can't say "There's no proof there isn't a God so there must be"; that doesn't make sense logically. There's no proof there's an invisible dragon in my garage either, but no sane person would believe me if I tried to convince them of it without some proof.

You're right, that doesn't make logical sense. But... I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth and then trying to shoot me down with them.

Originally Posted by photon

You keep saying "beliefs", but it has nothing to do with belief. It's to do with what's proven. It is possible for something to be proven without having first hand experience of that proof. Or do you only ever trust a fact that you have personally proven??

So I take it that if your child had an infection then you wouldn't give them penicillin until you'd discovered it and done all the tests on it yourself?

You don't understand what "belief" is then. The moment knowledge is transformed from physical sensation into cognitive thought, something has to be accepted blindly in order to "trust" the validity of the conclusion. So, I still insist that even scientific understanding requires a person to take a blind leap of acceptance at some point along the chain.

If my child has an infection, I'll take them to a doctor (one who is trained in human medicine) and consider their advice. If the advice is reasonable to me, I'll follow it. If not, I'll seek other recommendations. But I'm not sure what all this has to do with the topic at hand...

Originally Posted by photon

Most atheists argue that there is no evidence for God, which is a very different thing than arguing against the existence of God. Most atheists would change their view if provided with evidence that there is a God.

I don't see the difference. In arguing that there is no evidence for God, people are actively trying to deny the existence of god. I agree though that most atheists would change their mind with the presence of undeniable proof... but by the very concept of a god, that is impossible to attain.

Originally Posted by photon

EDIT: And most would also agree that religion and science are describing two different things. The original topic of this thread was about people ignoring science and sticking with their religious views that they think contradict science.

My point, again, was that atheists are nothing more then a different "religious" group trying to stake territory for their own belief system. Whether a person tries to justify their conception of reality using a religious text or scientific proofs makes no difference to the behavior of the people involved. A proper education involves exposure to any and all contradictory opinions and theories. Atheists are just as guilty as any other group of trying to restrict knowledge to only that of which they approve.