| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,023 Views) | |
| Dewey | Apr 7 2007, 11:38 AM Post #51 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Atheism is not merely a synonym for disbelief. It is a specific type of disbelief; disbelief in a god, or gods, however one may choose to define them. To say that I don't believe in the Muslim explanation of God doesn't make me an atheist, since, in my disbelief of the Muslim concept, I retain a belief in another understanding of God. Atheism is a rejection of belief in any, and all, expressions of God. This is why Dawkins' argument fails. In his inability, or refusal, to think of a God that is not defined or "owned" by Zoroatrianism, or Presbyterianism, but rather, believes a priori that any God is a mere human invention, he can't even properly understand the meaning of the concept of atheism. It's entirely possible to both understand the concept of a God, the attributes of whom are entirely independent of the human understandings of any religious structure, and still not believe in such a God. Rather than Dawkins being the glory boy of atheism, I actually see him as being so intellectually stunted (as pertains this topic) that he's beaten before he gets out of the starting block. He spends 400 plus pages not really arguing a point nearly so much as justifying a foregone conclusion. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Apr 7 2007, 11:46 AM Post #52 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Exactly. I was just doing the same equation from the other direction. The problem with all your analysis--worthy though it is, it doesn't account for as I might have mentioned before, things like hope and beauty. You really dismiss a lot of facts of life as nothing. There IS beauty. It exists beyond statistical analysis. It's something beyond rationality and beyond the human capacity to understand. But for some reason we can recognize it. That may not point to a God to you, but surely you have to recognize that there is something beyond just the factoids of biology. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Apr 7 2007, 12:05 PM Post #53 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Why bother? We're talking about Faith. Either you have it, or you don't. If you have it, you may disagree with a fundamentalist's interpretation of Scripture, but you don't think he's a bug-eyed loon. If you don't have Faith, it would be easier to describe the color red to a blind man. Let them that have ears hear. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 7 2007, 12:33 PM Post #54 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Moonbat, you're just going around in circles, making the exact same arguments - argument, actually - just introducing us to a yet more creative menagerie of invisible characters.
In fact I can, until all of these things are proven not to actually exist, despite any percentage probability for their existence. Until that time, the best that your invisible elephant argument can do is to permit you to say that something is extremely likely, in your opinion. Nothing more. Before you accuse me of advocating for the existence of invisible elephants, here's my point. It's obvious that at this point in your life, you have not seen - I'd suggest, that you have not been able to comprehend - any evidence to support the idea of a God, much less a transcendent/personal God worshipped by Christians. Big deal; you may go through your entire life without this scenario changing. You may not. Either way, I believe it isn't up to me, or even you. All that I can tell you is that if/when the situation ever changes, you'll look back on your current position in utter amazement, wondering how you could possibly have been so blind to what you'll then consider the iron-clad reality that was staring you in the face all along. The point is that you have insufficient evidence to make the categorical statements of "fact" that you make, like
in the absence of proof - and you can't simply dismiss the need for such proof to be irrelevant. In fact, your entire position hinges on precisely the need for proof. I'm not trying to, nor is it my responsibility, to prove God's existence to you. You're the one arguing against God's existence. You have to prove your position to me, not the other way around. Your mouth and brain are conspiring to write checks that your checking account of provable knowledge can't cash.
But semantics, along with the taking a dig at Larry, is the entire purpose of this thread. Is religious fundamentalism a mental disorder, or not. I voted no.
Oh, I quite agree, but hey, it's your position, not mine. Moonbat, you've gotten to a point where in this thread or others, you 1. claim that there is no correlation between how many people believe something and its truth, while in practically the same breath arguing against a theistic position by citing the number of scientists who are allegedly non-theists. 2. make categorical statements that could be justifiable only with proof - proof, not merely a reasonable amount of evidence, as interpreted by your own filter of factuality. 3. discount the importance of having such proof to justify making such sweeping claims as irrelevant. 4. make the "invisible elephant" argument, then back up and essentially say "wait, wait, here's a better argument - this time, let's talk about invisible monkeys!" South Park's mad cloning scientist Dr. Mephisto specializes in creating animals with four asses, all of them equal in relevance and value as the number of invisible animals you'd like to try to turn into arguments against the existence of God. I might say that my car is green, and since it actually is, I can make a pretty good argument for it. But the truthfulness of that statement is not negated by the fact that my neighbor could make the same argument, using the exact same words, and be completely wrong, since his car is actually white. God's existence, or nonexistence, is not determined by whether I believe God exists, or whether you believe God doesn't. It's got nothing to do with the idea that similar arguments can be made for invisible monkeys, elephants, or even teapots. Feel free to weigh the evidence regarding God's existence however you may, or are able to. But in order to back up the categorical statements that belief in God is delusional, indicative of an intellectual disconnect or impairment - in order to state this as "fact", you need "proof", not "evidence." And proof is one thing that you are lacking in. It's crucial to your position, so, in its absence, you have to deem it irrelevant. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Apr 7 2007, 12:45 PM Post #55 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Moonbat, the terminology "systems of logic" is common in academia, in the study of philosophy and epistemology, in particular, but also in maths and the sciences. As a grad student, you really have not had to take a test that required you to compare and contrast several systems, at some point? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, btw...I'm genuinely puzzled that you seem not to have run across this in school. I am assuming that Dewey is using the phrase in the academic sense in which I understand it. (correct me if I'm wrong about that, Dewey) If you're interested in learning more, there is a ton of literature readily available. You might check your library there for Norman Martin's "Systems of Logic". It's an older book, I had it as a textbook in a class, I'm sure there are better/newer texts available but I imagine Martin's book would be easy to find. If you haven't read Koslow's A Structuralist Theory of Logic, I think it's right up your street. It's pricey...but again, it might be in the library there. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 7 2007, 12:58 PM Post #56 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dewey - Dawkins's main argument is not new. It is that belief in a personal god is incompatible with modern scientific knowledge, and that the hypothesis that a god created the observable world is merely to explain the obscure by the more obscure. Less than 1 percent of Nobel Laureates in the sciences belief in a god. No "miracle" has ever been scienfifically documented in a peer reviewed journal. Not one single one, ever. He also adds many smaller side points, like the one above. Religion as a anthropological matter includes Zoroastrianism, wood fairies, and witchcraft. In societies that believe such things, belief in these systems of faith work exactly like Christianity works in our society, and people say the same exact things in their favor. And Christians are, nevertheless, atheist disbelievers in those systems of thought (using the word loosely). |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Apr 7 2007, 01:07 PM Post #57 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So what? It's a point of semantics, nothing more. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 7 2007, 01:12 PM Post #58 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
To call Christians 'atheist' anything is absurd. To say they do not believe in wood fairies, etc. is no different than saying they do not have faith in Allah, Bhudda, or Shinto spirits. It does not make them atheists, simply disbelievers. There is no such thing as a 'relative atheist'. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 7 2007, 01:13 PM Post #59 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So... which one is "closer" to being a "disease of the mind"? Extreme intolerance or extreme irrationality?
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 7 2007, 01:16 PM Post #60 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
What the heck are you talking about? I have never stated that I agree with the way "another member" uses the term. All your comment shows is that you were not clever enough to call "another member" to justify his comments from objective mental health research data. I am hereby publicly calling attention to the fact that the argument is a copyrighted idea, and all future use is subject to a licensing fee. If anyone wishes to use the argument in any form of challenging the use of "mental disease", "disease of the mind" or any other similar formation by recourse to DSM-IV or any other professional standard for the evaluation of mental health issues, please PM me and I will grant limited use license upon payment to my PAYPAL account.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Horace | Apr 7 2007, 01:19 PM Post #61 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
as a non-believer, I pretty much agree with this. For me, non-theism is not a "choice", it's just how my brain operates. More and more I figure it's just that I'm missing a part, more or less. |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 7 2007, 01:22 PM Post #62 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Jeffrey: "Carrying Water for Dawkins since 2007"® ![]() "Dawkins, Dawkins, he's our man If he can't do it no one can! GOOOOOOOOOOO DAWKINS!" |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 7 2007, 01:26 PM Post #63 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
That's a very good point- it shows how little is understood about the nature of fundamentalism. Most people on the outside do not realize how fractional the Christian fundamentalist movement is. It is not at all like Catholicism or mainstream Protestant denominations. While there are some fundamentalists- e.g. Phelps, Robertson and to a limited extent, Falwell- who would reign down hellfire and damnation on all around, there are many others, probably the majority, who quietly go about their devotion and pretty much keep it within their family and church community. If there is a commonality to almost all fundamentalist movements, it is a focus on the logos of faith rather than the mythos of faith and piety. This is manifest in an insistence that scripture is the inerrant word of God and therefore it is to be read and understood literally. Anything that cannot be traced back to scripture is man made and therefore false dogma- hence the uneasy relationship between many fundies and the Pope. It is therefore no surprise that a rationalist approach to Scripture gives rise to such mass and grassroots movements as Creationism and Intelligent Design to counter secular science. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 01:32 PM Post #64 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
But i accept all our experiences Tom. I accept all the qualia of life. I don't accept it is necessarily beyond our grasp, there is a lot of historical precedent of people who claim humanity will never know X only to be shown to be wrong further down the line. I mean perhaps we will never grasp how it is we come to experience beauty but certainty in such a position seems unfounded. Further whilst we clearly don't understand how we come to experience beauty and love that doesn't imply that some kind of dualism is true. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 7 2007, 01:36 PM Post #65 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Still... given the overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary, if you still believe that the Earth is 6000 years old -- you're still wrong, you're still irrational. Doesn't matter if your basis to arrive at the "Earth is 6000 years old" believe comes from your believe in God+Jesus+Bible. Once you're shown physical evidence that Earth is more than 6000 years old, then, much like physicists who have been shown evidence of time dilation or length contraction have to admit that Newtonian mechanics is wrong or at best incomplete, you have to accept that whatever it is that you used to believe in God+Jesus+Bible is wrong or at best incomplete to be "rational." These "Christian fundamentalists" (as you described them) pretty much reject physical evidence showing Earth is a lot older than 6000 years -- this is, at is core, "irrational." [If you want to argue probability that there's a non-zero chance that indeed the Earth is 6000 years old, then I'd argue that the probability of Earth is 6000 years old is not much better than the probability of there being an invisible unicorn on Mars. So those who believe in the Earth being 6000 years old is not all that much "rational" than those who believe in the invisible unicorn on Mars.] Now whether you can still call folks who admit that traditional thinking on God+Jesus+Bible is wrong or at best incomplete "Christian Fundamentalists" is another matter of definition. Whether "irrationality" qualifies as a "disease of the mind" is also a separate matter for debate. (Note Bach's posts on the different "axes.") But the "rationality" of those who believe in Earth being 6000 years old, there's not much to debate there, I don't think. |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Apr 7 2007, 01:40 PM Post #66 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
And I, for one, accept all the scientific data there is. Dark matter, dark energy: all that quatifiable stuff--I go along with. It doesn't explain the meaning of any of it. It doesn't explain why it exists in the first place. It just tells us what is--and occasionally how it does what it does. God explains the why. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 01:47 PM Post #67 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I am unfamiliar with the phrase but then my philosophy is based on the sciences not the humanities, the epistemology that interests me is the distinction between realism and idealism. And i think the humanities guys aren't going to get anywhere because to understand reasoning you're going to have to understand Baysian statistics, to understand deductive logic you're going to have to understand the theory of computation and through it and the results of scientific analysis understand the meaning of mathematics. In this instance i doubt it will make any different to my argument for when i use the term reason or logic i refer to something inherent to working stuff out. However i will look out for your text, thanks for the recommendation. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 7 2007, 01:49 PM Post #68 |
|
MAMIL
|
The belief that the earth is 6000 years old isn't necessary to be a fundamentalist, is it? It is a bit of a silly belief, on a par with those of the flat earth society, but I don't think it qualifies as mental illness any more than my daughter's belief in Santa Claus. Willfull intellectual blindness would be a better description, and let's face it, most of us suffer from that in one area or another. This fundamentalist atheist ( :rolleyes: ) voted no. I would like to take issue with an earlier statement that as an atheist I can't understand faith. How is it possible for anybody to know what I can and can't understand? I understand faith pretty well, I just don't see a reason to share it. Quantum mechanics I have more trouble with. There are no hard sums in The Bible, unless you are trying to decode it as a glorified Enigman machine, as some people seem intent on doing. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 01:52 PM Post #69 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
That presupposes there is a cosmic meaning/purpose in the first place. The question what is the meaning is only valid _if_ there is a cosmic mind who preconcieved everything. The latter conclusions needs a basis. But it has none. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 7 2007, 01:56 PM Post #70 |
|
Senior Carp
|
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neuro...logy/index.html |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 7 2007, 02:02 PM Post #71 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I suppose you're probably right and that mental illness is not a very good term - there are significant differences afterall between what we currently call mental illnesses and theological beliefs. But i don't think your description totally captures the matter either. I don't think it's willfull atleast not consciously so. It's funny my colleagues often believe that deep down religious people know it's all made up, but i really don't think they do. I think they really believe it, i think they are sincere when they claim they want to know the truth, indeed they are sincere but something prevents them from seeing the idea on it's merits something disrupts their mind to the point where they somehow end up attacking reason itself rather than seeing things for what they are. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Apr 7 2007, 02:02 PM Post #72 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
This fundamentalist atheist will fully admit that I don't understand faith. I just don't get it. I don't feel the need, I've never felt any pull towards any particular branch of any particular church. I don't feel like I'm missing anything. I just don't get it. In fact, I was about 20 before I truly understood that religious people TRULY believe what they're saying, and I was shocked when I realized it. I have no problem saying I don't get it - I just don't seem to be wired that way. I truly don't understand where faith comes from. And I don't particularly care that I don't get it (one of the benefits of not understanding it in the first place, I suppose). People can believe or not believe whatever they like. As long as they give me that same respect, I'm good. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 7 2007, 02:26 PM Post #73 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
This is not a nit-pick. I goes back to Klaus' argument that you cannot find truth with science. Only more plausible explanations that fit the observable facts. I do not like dogma dressed up as science (e.g. the Intelligent Design so-called theory) nor do I like science dressed up as dogma. An inability to recognize the short-comings of science or reason in finding truth is a sort of fundamentalism. The Buddhists say reality is an illusion. You probably have something to say in reply that involves pink unicorns or something but you would only demonstrating just how far from the truth you really are. The earth could have sprang into existence yesterday complete with you and your memories of all that occured the day before and the sight of you unravelling mysteries with science and insisting on "full stop" truths would be just that much more comical. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Apr 7 2007, 02:33 PM Post #74 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I thought this deserved a repeat. It's one of the big puzzles for me; I can't understand the obsession with some old written texts. The need for faith, for belief in a higher power; I can understand that, it's personal, I can see how that could be important, and I get that. But to make decisions based on ancient writings, I don't. And to endlessly debate about what those ancient writings really mean, I get even less. I voted no, but then I also don't think liberalism is a disease of the mind. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 7 2007, 02:54 PM Post #75 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Dang. I thought we'd already settled that one. There are some holdouts I see.
|
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










will fully admit that I don't understand faith. I just don't get it. I don't feel the need, I've never felt any pull towards any particular branch of any particular church. I don't feel like I'm missing anything. I just don't get it. In fact, I was about 20 before I truly understood that religious people TRULY believe what they're saying, and I was shocked when I realized it. 

12:45 AM Jul 13