Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind?
Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,022 Views)
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

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.


I haven't mentioned the number scientists who are not theists in this thread.

However whilst the number of people in general is not evidence for something. [For there is great precedent for people believeing all kinds of silly things].

The _trendline_ seen in scientific circles whereby one observes that the more talented the scientific mind the less likely theistic belief would seem significant. Indeed it is significant, for the reason it occurs is because the more talented the scientific mind the more likely they are too see religious mythology for what it is.

Quote:
 

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.


You don't understand what proof is. Klaus recommended a book introducing the philosophy of science to someone in another thread. That manner of text would be a useful introduction

Quote:
 

3. discount the importance of having such proof to justify making such sweeping claims as irrelevant.


As i said your problem is you don't understand what proof is or where proof applies. However given that your previous arguments failed even considering direct observational evidence as proof i don't think you a leg to stand on here.

Quote:
 

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 repeat the same argument because it's not answered. The reason invisible monkeys are unlikely is because nothing suggests their existence. When confronted with precisely the same argument against God you start trying to attack reason itself. Your argument is self-refuting since by making an argument you are presumably appealing to reason. But what's more it's hypocritical for it would invalidate an argument you yourself accept - that invisible monkeys are absurdly unlikely.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

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.


Since i've already accepted there may be short comings to science or reason in finding truth. Your accusation is somewhat bizzarre.

As for the Earth possibly sprining up yesterday. Indeed it might and i accept the possibility. (might want to read what i've been writing to Dewey before you accuse me of not grasping this idea :lol:) It's simply absurdly improbable.

If we want to limit our selves to the language of probability ok, fine it's just that in everyday language we commonly describe certain things that become so probably that we cannot concieve of them being false as "facts".

But this is simply a matter of semantics and is of no real consequence.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Semantics is one thing but maintaining two parallel and opposite lines of argument as the occasion arises strikes me as being something altogether different.

I stand by what I said. You just have failed to grasp my point and continue to wallow in your self-constructed prison of reason and science. I am a proponent of both but refuse to lash myself to them to the extent you obviuosly have.
"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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Apr 7 2007, 04:36 PM
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.

Yes, I believe that a person who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old is wrong. Regardless of what they may believe about God, Jesus Christ, and the Scriptures, I believe that to use that faith and to interpret the Scriptures in that way is still erroneous.

But irrational? I'm not so sure. I think it is an entirely understandable mistake, but in its own way, quite rational.

If a believer has experienced the truth of his faith in so many other areas of his life, and has come to see the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, it is very understandable to extend that to a literal interpretation of the timeline of the earliest portions of the Bible. A believer has seen the truth of the faith in his own life, often in contradiction to "conventional wisdom," that it isn't necessarily irrational to believe the same situation to exist in other areas of the faith.

This isn't anything new. Virtually all of Jesus' teachings ran contrary to conventional wisdom, and continues to be discomforting and hard to accept - by believers as well as non-believers - because it often is "irrational" by normal standards. It could be argued that his whole message is intended to shake us out of following the path that we could all easily consider "rational." Given that, I easily see how that can transfer to the "age of the earth" issue.

As I've said, I don't agree with the validity of such a belief in this particular instance, and I do not agree with the stance that understanding some scriptural passages "non-literally" results in the truth of the Scriptures to collapse like a house of cards - far from it, actually. But even while disagreeing with their outcome, I can understand it as a rational process on the believer's part, without having to resort to thinking him mentally diseased. In my opinion, the believer is merely making decisions from the basis of a broader range of truth than simple empiricism and Enlightenment definition of "rationalism." I guess I'm actually positing that our definition of rationalism, which eliminates the potential for the input of a supreme being into a process, is actually incomplete. If, in fact, there is such a being, allowing for his operating in time and space is quite "rational," and disallowing such divine actions would be "irrational." Because of that, I believe that the common, secular definition of "rational" is flawed - as currently framed, it presupposes that there is no God at all, in which case it forfeits its use in any way when considering the workings of the mind when considering issues related to God. It's something like trying to measure shoe size in quarts; the thing to be understood is incompatible with the chosen mode of measurement. To a large degree, asking if a religious belief is "rational" is about as appropriate as it would be to reply to the question with an answer of "Orange."
"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I haven't mentioned the number scientists who are not theists in this thread.


Please re-read my quote.

Quote:
 
Indeed it is significant, for the reason it occurs is because the more talented the scientific mind the more likely they are too see religious mythology for what it is.


That's an awful lot like saying the more talented a surgeon is, the more likely they are to not be a chef. I expect scientists to understand science, but I don't want to drive across a bridge designed by a chem major. Put as bluntly as possible, scientists usually are outside their realm of expertise when dealing with matters related to God; they make bad theology at least as often as theologians make bad science.

Quote:
 
You don't understand what proof is.


Actually, I understand perfectly well what proof is. You simply feel no need to require it in order to make global categorizations.

Quote:
 
I repeat the same argument because it's not answered. The reason invisible monkeys are unlikely is because nothing suggests their existence. When confronted with precisely the same argument against God you start trying to attack reason itself.


Incorrect here as well. Your opinion is that "nothing suggests the existence" of invisible monkeys, and that the same is true of God. I can tell you quite positively that the latter half of that assumption on your part is very much mistaken. Not that you would, or even can, accept the indications of God's existence, despite the fact that you're surrounded by them. As I've said before, there isn't anything that I can say to "make" you believe, or "prove" God to you. It isn't in my abilities, or in my responsibilities as a believer. You continue to think that it's my job to prove God, or to refute an argument against God. it quite simply isn't. That's between you, and God.
"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
dol: "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."

Not sure that they do really believe it. For example, in today's NYTimes magazine (page 48) they cited a survey that said 40 percent of Anglican priests (priests, not ordinary churchgoers, mind you) do not believe in the virgin birth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Apr 7 2007, 07:20 PM
dol: "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."

Not sure that they do really believe it. For example, in today's NYTimes magazine (page 48) they cited a survey that said 40 percent of Anglican priests (priests, not ordinary churchgoers, mind you) do not believe in the virgin birth.

Sadly, this is a phenomenon of many mainline Protestant clergy. I actually suspect that the percentage of clergy who feel this way exceeds the percentage of the laity who feel the same way; it has long been a fact that the clergy is more liberal than the laity. On the other hand, all mainline denominations are steadily losing membership, in no small measure because the people in the pews see their leadership turning from many essential tenets of the faith; and an explosion in the more evangelical wings of the faith. I suspect that the percentage of evangelical clergy and laity who don't believe in the virgin birth is a pretty slim number.

"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Jeffrey
Apr 7 2007, 07:20 PM
dol: "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."

Not sure that they do really believe it. For example, in today's NYTimes magazine (page 48) they cited a survey that said 40 percent of Anglican priests (priests, not ordinary churchgoers, mind you) do not believe in the virgin birth.


Yup, you figured it out, nobody really believes.

Those countless billions over thousands of years were just kidding.

You guys are sooo smart.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Dewey
Apr 7 2007, 06:39 AM
Quote:
 

This also marks what to me is a crucial difference among various fundamentalists. It's become pc to dump all religious fundamentalists into the same category. I don't. There are (for the sake of this matter) two different types of fundamentalist:

1. those who are willing to let societal matters be decided by the society at large, recognizing the pluralistic nature of the society; and who will individually and corporately adhere to their own belief system even if the larger society rejects it, and

2. those who do not recognize the pluralism of society (most importantly, pluralism of conscience), and who would deny the larger society itself to decide societal matters; opting instead for a socio-religious structure imposed top-down by a minority onto the society as a whole.

This isn't a distinction based on the actual religion - or secular position - that is being fundamentalistically adhered to. This distinction can be made within, and across, those demarcations. One is a "tolerant fundamentalism;" the other is "fascist fundamentalism," regardless of the God, or god, being worshipped.

This bears repeating. So, why is it wrong to assume that there is something intrinsic regarding fundamentalism that allows for definition #2?

So, not all fundamentalists are like definition #2. Some are. And some are Christians in the US, whether that is pc to say or not.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Copper
Apr 7 2007, 06:47 PM
Jeffrey
Apr 7 2007, 07:20 PM
dol: "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."

Not sure that they do really believe it.  For example, in today's NYTimes magazine (page 48) they cited a survey that said 40 percent of Anglican priests (priests, not ordinary churchgoers, mind you) do not believe in the virgin birth.


Yup, you figured it out, nobody really believes.

Those countless billions over thousands of years were just kidding.

You guys are sooo smart.

:yes: :lol2:
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Copper
Apr 7 2007, 04:47 PM
Jeffrey
Apr 7 2007, 07:20 PM
dol: "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."

Not sure that they do really believe it.  For example, in today's NYTimes magazine (page 48) they cited a survey that said 40 percent of Anglican priests (priests, not ordinary churchgoers, mind you) do not believe in the virgin birth.


Yup, you figured it out, nobody really believes.

Those countless billions over thousands of years were just kidding.

You guys are sooo smart.

So what? Many people, including some Christian denominations, question the mythology of the virgin birth.

Jews don't believe it for a second.

Muslims do. Are you a Muslim?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jeff, i presume u were referring to the article on the pope in todays ny times magazine...

i havent read the full article yet, just a quick peruse but i noticed something which i have long considered a truth and i will mention again here...

the quote...

Quote:
 
Comparing survey data on church attendance in Europe and the United States is doubly revealing. In Western Europe as a whole, fewer than 20 percent of people say they go to church (Catholic or Protestant) twice a month or more; in some countries the figure is below 5 percent. In England, fewer than 8 percent go to church on Sundays. In the U.S., by contrast, 63 percent say they are a member of a church or synagogue, and 43 percent of respondents to a 2006 Gallup Poll said they attended services weekly or almost weekly.


i have long noticed that in countries without clear separation of church and state, secularism reigns while the united states with its long history of spearation remains a religious nation.

in my opinion, the more one identifies religion with government, the more suspect it is. people generally are suspect of the government that taxes and makes laws, restricts freedoms and in general is a pain in the ass. throw in religion and its all suspect.

ok, there is another thread going on this topic, but i thought it was timely.

anyway...i will give the article more careful reading later in the day...

"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Certainly true of Canada and in particular Quebec which until the 1960's was a Catholic state province nation within Confederation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Apr 7 2007, 08:01 PM
Axtremus
Apr 7 2007, 04:36 PM
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.

Yes, I believe that a person who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old is wrong. Regardless of what they may believe about God, Jesus Christ, and the Scriptures, I believe that to use that faith and to interpret the Scriptures in that way is still erroneous.

But irrational? I'm not so sure. I think it is an entirely understandable mistake, but in its own way, quite rational.

If a believer has experienced the truth of his faith in so many other areas of his life, and has come to see the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, it is very understandable to extend that to a literal interpretation of the timeline of the earliest portions of the Bible. A believer has seen the truth of the faith in his own life, often in contradiction to "conventional wisdom," that it isn't necessarily irrational to believe the same situation to exist in other areas of the faith.

This isn't anything new. Virtually all of Jesus' teachings ran contrary to conventional wisdom, and continues to be discomforting and hard to accept - by believers as well as non-believers - because it often is "irrational" by normal standards. It could be argued that his whole message is intended to shake us out of following the path that we could all easily consider "rational." Given that, I easily see how that can transfer to the "age of the earth" issue.


Not really sure why "conventional wisdom" or experiences of contradiction thereof has anything to do with supporting the outright rejection of physical evidence as "rational."

If I may construct a rather stark example: Suppose I am a trader who trades in the stock market. Among the general population of traders, there are, of course, "conventional wisdoms." Let's further suppose that I am also an avid follower of Bob Prechter's work in Elliot Wave theory, and that through out my career as a stock trader, I've made quite a few immensely profitable trades going by Elliot Wave predictions that flew against "conventional wisdoms" as commonly understood among stock traders. Now let's say for a particular stock XYZ that is currently trading at $45 a share in April, Elliot Wave analysis predicts that it will hit $85 a share by June. Suppose XYZ tanks to $20 a share instead by May and stayed in the $20 range throughout June -- fast forward to July, would I be "rational" to believe that XYZ has indeed fetched $85 a share in June? Had I believed that XYZ has indeed fetched $85 a share in June, would you still think that I am being "quite rational, in my own way"?

I suppose you can say that psychologically, in a "Christian Fundamentalist"'s own psyche, that he thinks he is "rational" to cling onto the believe that "Earth is 6000 years old" just because he has experienced X number of instances where his God+Jesus+Bible believe holds true flying against "conventional wisdom." Perhaps that's what you meant by "in its own way, quite rational." But is it really "rational"? Is it "rational" outside that person's own psyche?

We might be arguing "psychology" vs. "reason." The "understandable mistake" and the "in his own way" qualifier seem rather clearly to be matters of psychology rather than matters of reason.

On the point of "psychology vs. reason," I am reminded of this: An article on infant behavior claims that some babies like to break the few pieces of solid food given to them into many tiny little pieces because the babies equate "more pieces" to "more food." So is it "understandable" that a baby might think that he's getting "more food" just because he's broken the same amount of food into "more pieces"? Yes, it is "understandable." Is it probable that this sort of thinking seems "quite rational, in the baby's own way"? Yeah... perhaps the babies just think "of course, more pieces = more food, what could be more obvious than that?" But is this sort of thinking really "rational"? I'd hope that all us adults know better.

[Off topic: As I think about the "more pieces = more food" example, I'm also reminded of Mark 6:40 where it's written that Jesus fed five thousand men using five loaves and two fish. Perhaps there is a way to produce "more food" by breaking it into "more pieces," and the babies know something we grown-ups have "forgotten" along the way as we grow up. ;) ]

Dewey
Apr 7 2007, 08:01 PM
As I've said, I don't agree with the validity of such a belief in this particular instance, and I do not agree with the stance that understanding some scriptural passages "non-literally" results in the truth of the Scriptures to collapse like a house of cards - far from it, actually. But even while disagreeing with their outcome, I can understand it as a rational process on the believer's part, without having to resort to thinking him mentally diseased. In my opinion, the believer is merely making decisions from the basis of a broader range of truth than simple empiricism and Enlightenment definition of "rationalism." I guess I'm actually positing that our definition of rationalism, which eliminates the potential for the input of a supreme being into a process, is actually incomplete. If, in fact, there is such a being, allowing for his operating in time and space is quite "rational," and disallowing such divine actions would be "irrational." Because of that, I believe that the common, secular definition of "rational" is flawed - as currently framed, it presupposes that there is no God at all, in which case it forfeits its use in any way when considering the workings of the mind when considering issues related to God. It's something like trying to measure shoe size in quarts; the thing to be understood is incompatible with the chosen mode of measurement. To a large degree, asking if a religious belief is "rational" is about as appropriate as it would be to reply to the question with an answer of "Orange."


Going by that line of thinking -- would you further accept that even a revised definition of "rational" that includes a God is still flawed/incomplete -- because it does not allow for multiple/infinite number of Gods (and perhaps also multiple/infinite number of hierarchies of Gods) operating in time and space?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Now let's say for a particular stock XYZ that is currently trading at $45 a share in April, Elliot Wave analysis predicts that it will hit $85 a share by June. Suppose XYZ tanks to $20 a share instead by May and stayed in the $20 range throughout June -- fast forward to July, would I be "rational" to believe that XYZ has indeed fetched $85 a share in June?


Of course not. But the parallel breaks down because there is no final date on which the answer to the question of the earth's age is actually verified. Where there is a very definite end to the month of June, there is no end to the progression of further scientific advancement and understanding. I think a fundamentalist Christian would say that he understands the evidence offered today that explains the earth being far, far older than the age he believes it to be. But I think he'd suggest that the physical evidence has either been misinterpreted; or that the cataclysmic forces of creation distorted the processes that we've come to understand and accurately use to date geological and other processes occurring in less cataclysmic geological times; etc. - and that, in the fullness of time, either through further advances in the sciences, or through direct divine revelation, their position will ultimately be vindicated. The fundamentalists are simply putting their faith in a more favorable interpretation of the data at a later date.

Quote:
 
But is it really "rational"? Is it "rational" outside that person's own psyche?


Actually, any judgment of whether something is "rational" ultimately comes down to individual interpretation, whether one cares to admit it or not.

But in a way, such a position isn't limited to only the individual fundamentalist believer. Part of why I say that their position is in some way rational is that a Christian has two other data points to consider in this matter. They have both personal experience, and examples from the Scriptures, where what others would consider the rational thing to do or think, was stood on its head by God, and by those who have lived in steadfast faith in God. The Scriptures are so full of them that it is not the exception, but the rule. In fact, it could be argued that this is one of the core points meant to be gleaned out of the Scriptures: do not place your faith and trust, your ultimate understanding and allegiance, in the power of your own intellect, because the cosmos is so very much more than you as an individual know. In setting up yourself as the final authority of understanding and "reason," you both worship a lesser, false God, and only set yourself up for ultimate failure.

The Judeo/Christian faith tradition is packed with exhortations and illustrations to live a life of faith that frequently runs contrary to conventional wisdom or reason. Today, Christians celebrate the most significant single event in their faith, the physical resurrection of a dead man - and not just any man, but a man who was also the actual, physical incarnaiton of God. Surely, by the world's standards, that is the granddaddy of all irrationality. Yet every Christian knows this to be true, without any doubt, through the combination of revelation by God, and by faith.

We are told that we don't really see the whole picture yet from our vantage point. That's not an exhortation to stupidity or to ignore all common sense, but rather to a life that doesn't automatically overturn matters of faith in light of the latest article in the Boston Globe. Christians, and others, have seen many examples where something considered an ultimate scientific truth being revised or completely overturned in the light of newer, further evidence. The fundamentalists are simply holding out for such a reversal.

To a Christian, who has had such personal experiences and Scriptural illustrations to refer to, it would actually be quite irrational (not to mention contrary to the tenets of their faith) to act in a different way. That's why, while I disagree with their position on this particular issue, I can easily understand how they got there, and to a certain extent defend the process if not the outcome.


Quote:
 
Going by that line of thinking -- would you further accept that even a revised definition of "rational" that includes a God is still flawed/incomplete -- because it does not allow for multiple/infinite number of Gods (and perhaps also multiple/infinite number of hierarchies of Gods) operating in time and space?


Tying into earlier comments, what is "rational" is really just that which fits into an established line of knowledge, understanding, experience, and history of a given individual or group. It is thinking and acting in a manner consistent within that set of realities. So if an individual exists in an environment where multiple/infinite gods is the norm, then it is indeed rational for him to operate and act in manners that are consistent with that understanding. So you can see that I'm arguing that the term "rational" has no abstract, fixed meaning independent of its setting - it isn't an adequate tool to use in the manner that it has been attempted. In my opinion, what is "rational" is no more ultimately, finally definable by an eighteenth-century philosopher any more than by a twentieth century mathemetician, or a sixteenth century theologian, or a first century Asian, or an Egyptian pharoah. The concept of "rational", and "reason" has no absolute meaning outside a specific environment in which it is used. Ultimately, it only means "that which is reasonable to us, or to me, right here and right now."
"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
BTW, i read now the whole ny times piece...

some relevant stuff to our discussion here.

"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Bach - Yes, I have heard the theory that places with a state religion are less religious than those places that have freedom of thought about religion. America and much of Europe seem to confirm this. This could very well be a valid empirical conclusion. However, it could be "European exceptionalism" not state religions as such. Maybe Europe is a-religious for reasons independent of having state religions (perhaps the number of religious wars they have suffered from over the centuries, which they do not wish to repeat). Maybe it is because of the success of science in raising European living standards above those of the rest of the world.

What about Canada, India, Israel, Costa Rica? CR is not very religious, India is. Canada is largely agnostic/atheist (certainly more so than the US), but has a broadly similar political structure to the US. (AC will now raise some point I am sure.)

As for people not really believing the superstitions of religion, I suspect many church (and synogogue and mosque) goers do so for cultural and social reasons, not because they believe any of the details. I know this from multiple personal discussions.

And I doubt that Anglican priests are more liberal than the laity. These people have committed their lives to a belief system, and have every reason to try desperately to believe it. But they cannot. I have been to England many times, and the populace is largely agnostic/apathetic in orientation, although they sometimes like the Anglican church for social/patriotic reasons. Religion plays no meaningful role in the public discourse, and I suspect far less than 60% of the general population of England believes in the virgin birth or any of the special details of any religion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Apr 8 2007, 08:13 AM
Quote:
 
But is it really "rational"? Is it "rational" outside that person's own psyche?


Actually, any judgment of whether something is "rational" ultimately comes down to individual interpretation, whether one cares to admit it or not.

...

... The concept of "rational", and "reason" has no absolute meaning outside a specific environment in which it is used. Ultimately, it only means "that which is reasonable to us, or to me, right here and right now."

Once you put the stake down that what's "rational" is a matter of individual interpretation, I suppose that's the crux of our disagreement and I see no way to move beyond this impasse.

We now have to admit that it can be "rational" for some one to go from "I found a pepper corn under my dinning table" to "the moon was once made out of green cheese" ("rational, in his own way")

We now have to admit that it can be "rational" for the stock trader to claim, in July, that XYZ has indeed fetched $85 a share in June ("rational, in his own way")

We now have to admit that it can be "rational" for some one to believe that 2+2 can sometimes equal 5 ("rational, in his own way") [this is actually less far fetched than "the moon was once made out of green cheese", because one can dream up or invent a system of arithmetic that allows 2+2=5 under some condition].

"Reason" is now quite similar to "love," "hope" and "beauty" that TomK trotted out earlier... got nothing to do with logic, and merely in the eye of the beholder.

While I really don't like the consequence of defining/framing "reason" as a matter of individual interpretation, I also admit that my not liking the consequence is not ground to tell you you're wrong. So... I see no way to move beyond this impasse, and just have to leave it there. :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
And I doubt that Anglican priests are more liberal than the laity. These people have committed their lives to a belief system, and have every reason to try desperately to believe it. But they cannot. I have been to England many times, and the populace is largely agnostic/apathetic in orientation, although they sometimes like the Anglican church for social/patriotic reasons. Religion plays no meaningful role in the public discourse, and I suspect far less than 60% of the general population of England believes in the virgin birth or any of the special details of any religion.


1. The fact that the laity is more conservative than the clergy within the Anglican church is quite evident by the current chasm between factions of that denomination today. The leaders are pulling one way, and the laity are not following. Either they recalibrate their moral compass, or they are a doomed entity.

2. And exactly how does discussion of the Anglican church, and what the average bloke in Liverpool believes, shed light on our current conversation?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Wow. The leaders who aligned themselves with the Nigerians were some whacked out extremists. If you are suggesting they [all] calibrate their moral compass accordingly, ... :hair:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Daniel
Apr 8 2007, 07:59 AM
Wow. The leaders who aligned themselves with the Nigerians were some whacked out extremists. If you are suggesting they [all] calibrate their moral compass accordingly, ... :hair:

Akinola?

He said the Church of England and other western members of the communion were in danger of becoming "a small economically privileged group of people [that] has sought to subvert the Christian faith and impose their new and false doctrine on the wider community of faithful believers."

I don't have a problem with that statement.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
JBryan
Apr 7 2007, 11:45 PM
Semantics is one thing but maintaining two parallel and opposite lines of argument as the occasion arises strikes me as being something altogether different.

I stand by what I said. You just have failed to grasp my point and continue to wallow in your self-constructed prison of reason and science. I am a proponent of both but refuse to lash myself to them to the extent you obviuosly have.

They aren't opposite at all. I'm a scientific realist so i think there is no ontological difference between scientific descriptions of say atoms and everyday descriptions of say chairs. There is a real world and scientists are in the buisness of trying to describe it.

Science however is not about proof, we never get 100% analytical certainty, we can never be absolutely guaranteed our descriptions our correct. We can however have bets that are so good that we can essentially consider them true. (as long as we are willing to revise our ideas in the unlikely event the evidence swings the other way)

My argument with Klaus was that science was not purely about prediction. That it describes the world.

My argument with Dewey is that science does not give us proofs, we are never _analytically certain_ that our descriptions are true. We can however have vast amounts of evidence such that we can certain _beyond reasonable doubt_

See? No contradiction.

Turning to your earlier comment it is true that theoretically there is the possibility that the Earth is indeed 6000 years old however it's ridiculously small. Your objection is akin to objecting to this statement: "AIDS is not caused by Moonbats posts on the www.coffee-room.com, fullstop". Now technically it's true that we cannot have analytical proof that my posts are not drectly causing people's white cell counts to plummet but it is still utterly ridiculous to believe they are. Further more if you're honest with yourself you'll realise that you'd be perfectly happy with such a claim. (You constantly claim certain things are true in your political discussions without falling back on the technically correct but rhetorically clumsy language of probability) So your objection when it comes to the age of the Earth is rather hypocritical no?

As for shackling myself to science and reason that's just incoherent nonsense. I accept that we may not be able to work everything out. I accept that there may be aspects of reality fundamentally unimaginable. I accept the possibility of epistemological limits.

What i don't accept is that any of that makes hypothesise that lack any basis somehow plausible. None of the above implies invisible monkeys are likely, nor does it imply that mystical creators are likely either.

A hypothesis stands or falls by the basis one has for considering it. If you want a chance of being right you better have support for your ideas. Instead of clawing at your own minds by trying to distance yourself from reason and sense themselves. You should be saying "ah yes but look there is a basis, look X, Y and Z imply that my ideas are right". Furthermore what you should do is be aware the information you have is incomplete, perhaps tomorrow an alternative explanation for Z will be found. So then your conclusion will be weaker based only on X,Y. Perhaps a new phenomena will be seen (or some analysis which shows your ideas account for a currently mysterious phenomena) which provides further basis for you ideas so then you you will think it's right because of of A, X and Y.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Well indeed the core delusion is the thing that means people continue to think the Earth is 6000 years old or that humans don't share a common ancestor with other apes in the 21st century. That is at the heart of the pathology.


There is quite a lot of confusion on both sides of the fence over that one. The idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old is a relatively new view in the history of Christianity. The problem with it is that in addition to some Christians misunderstanding what is actually said in the book of Genesis, those who reject Christianity have pounced on it and made the mistake even more of a mess due to their desire to mock Christians and their beliefs, and due to their own ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches. Jews read the book of Genesis too, it is part of the Torah. They just understand it better.

As for the "common ancestor" thing, we now enter into the area of faith on *your* side of the fence.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Apr 8 2007, 06:07 AM
Daniel
Apr 8 2007, 07:59 AM
Wow.  The leaders who aligned themselves with the Nigerians were some whacked out extremists.  If you are suggesting they [all] calibrate their moral compass accordingly, ... :hair:

Akinola?

He said the Church of England and other western members of the communion were in danger of becoming "a small economically privileged group of people [that] has sought to subvert the Christian faith and impose their new and false doctrine on the wider community of faithful believers."

I don't have a problem with that statement.

In September 2006, the Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria, headed by Akinola, issued a Message to the Nation, taking up ten political controversies in Nigeria, among them a bill regarding same-sex relationships: "The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality." [23] The bill in question, as well as criminalising same-sex marriage, also proposed to criminalise "Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organizations" and "Publicity, procession and public show of same-sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise", on penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment. The proposed legislation was formally challenged by the United States State Department as a breach of Nigeria's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Some western supporters justify the legislation on the basis that it does not support the stoning to death of homosexuals under the Sharia code.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

As for the "common ancestor" thing, we now enter into the area of faith on *your* side of the fence.


Yea obviously you need faith to think that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Oh wait no you don't.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply