Originally Posted By magnet *>>First of all, this is not what organized religion does. They don't "search" for answers, they claim to HAVE all the answers, right down to exactly what "god" wants from us and what we need to do to please him.<<* Well, that's a red herring, X. This is your personal bias against organized religion. That's important to you, but try to separate it from the point I'm trying to make, which is independent of organized religion. Also, the sun argument is outside the realm of this discussion because that's something that can already be understood rather well. I'm talking about how we approach things that we don't understand or can't prove. You can prove that the sun will rise again by established physical law. *>>And pointing to the Bible as a "historical record" is silly, it's a religious text...there are tons out there and none of them, NONE of them offer up anything more than morality tales the way they were viewed a long time ago. They aren't history books.<<* I wasn't saying that the Bible IS a historical record. I'm saying that people use it that way to justify their beliefs, the way you use past successes in medicine to give you confidence that we can succeed again. Like I said, that's not irrational, but it's also not guaranteed. It comes down to confidence, or faith. We use the word "logical" a lot when we really mean that it's just something that inspires faith in us. If we could prove it, we would have the cure. The pursuit is not irrational, but the inner drive is not based on a guarantee that we will succeed. That IS faith, X!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You can prove that the sun will rise again by established physical law.*** But that is entirely my point. We didn't *always* have that information, and back when we didn't have the answer some people made up a "Sun God" in order to explain it. That's what people are still doing today, in fact, with their distain for science and trying to prove that since science can never know *everything*, then goddidit is an acceptable, alternate answer. It isn't. ***I wasn't saying that the Bible IS a historical record. I'm saying that people use it that way to justify their beliefs, the way you use past successes in medicine to give you confidence that we can succeed again.*** Sure they use it to justify their beliefs, but past scientific achievement has nothing to do with that. They don't use past achievements to "give them confidence", they use the data to build upon it and further their aims. Really, we don't see eye to eye on even the basics of this argument bro. I don't see scientists working from past successes to be "faith" in the sense you're trying to make it out to be. Whole different story. ***Like I said, that's not irrational, but it's also not guaranteed. It comes down to confidence, or faith.*** Confidence is not the same as faith. I can be reasonably confident that my next flight won't kill me, based on statistics and past experience, but no amount of faith on my part will change the outcome one way or the other (unless you believe in god intervening sometimes but not always, as does Josh with his car keys story). ***We use the word "logical" a lot when we really mean that it's just something that inspires faith in us.*** No, we use "logical" when something makes sense based on evidence. ***If we could prove it, we would have the cure.*** Maybe. Maybe not. ***The pursuit is not irrational, but the inner drive is not based on a guarantee that we will succeed. That IS faith, X!*** No, it's confidence. And of course it's not based on a guarantee, but it IS based on rational thought and evidence. There are no guarantees whatsoever anyway, an asteroid the size of Saturn could slam into the planet 10 seconds after I hit "post" and vaporize us all. I'm confident that's not very likely though.
Originally Posted By magnet *>>Confidence is not the same as faith. I can be reasonably confident that my next flight won't kill me, based on statistics and past experience, but no amount of faith on my part will change the outcome one way or the other (unless you believe in god intervening sometimes but not always, as does Josh with his car keys story).<<* Faith is confidence in something you can't prove, X. Just because we found a preventitive for polio and TB doesn't mean we are going to find a cure or preventitive for cancer. The vaccines for polio and TB are not data points in support of our eventual discovery of a cancer vaccine. You can't liken this to a decision to get on an airplane because the statistical likelihood of crashing is low. Our prior medical successes aren't the statistical data points telling us that the cancer vaccine won't "crash." Statistical confidence is not what I have been talking about. You don't need faith to believe in something that is highly probable based on prior results of similar actions. Discovering something new is not within the realm of statistics because each case is unique - you've found something that no one knew before. So, you need faith to go looking. The search is conducted in a rational way, but without a rational guarantee of success. Faith is an inescapable part of the human experience, X. Embrace it!
Originally Posted By fkurucz FWIW, only Protestant Fundamentalists subscribe to the theology of the "Rapture".
Originally Posted By magnet C'mon, give in, X! Anyone who thinks he is some white knight of reason and logic, riding constantly above the influence of inner beliefs that can't be proven is fooling himself. It's a sham. We all have bias and prejudice. We try to fight them because they're bad. However, faith for things that make the world and us better is good. You've got to keep your feet firmly planted on the ground, but where would the world be without dreamers who tried to make those dreams come true? *cough* Walt *cough* Disney
Originally Posted By Mr X To quote ChurroMonster from another thread; "Beliefs can not ever be facts. Beliefs and facts should not be part of the same debate." Nuff said. G'night.
Originally Posted By utahjosh If I believe it, it can't be a fact? You guys are messing with semantics. I should have originally said, if it's TRUE. I believe the earth is round. So it's not a fact?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Semantics are everything. Language always need precision in argumentation. This is why speech communication remains an undergraduate degree favorite amongst pre-law students. Semantically speaking, you do not "believe" the earth is round. You "know" the earth is round. But you "believe" that God exists. You know the earth is round because you can prove it. You cannot prove the existence of God, therefore, it is a belief. Our society's use of the word, "believe" has never been precise.
Originally Posted By utahjosh The word in question, to me, is "Fact." Even if it can't be proven, something I believe might be TRUE, even though the scientific method hasn't been able to prove it yet.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Even if it can't be proven, something I believe might be TRUE, even though the scientific method hasn't been able to prove it yet.<< That's true, of course. The problem however, is that there is no limit to what someone can believe with this logic. By your own admission, what you believe cannot be proven by the scientific method. Well, neither can the flying spaghetti monster in the sky or the giant green unicorn that controls the universe. Or Scientology. Or Islam. Your approach makes all of these things equally plausible and equally deserving of the same kind of treatment. Personally, I think that's a pretty silly way to live life. But the privileging of one of these belief systems over the other, makes no logical sense. Since none of them can be proven, they're all equally likely. So what happens is that people - just like you, Josh - privilege them based on if they're born into it or not, not based on whether it has some basis in reality. Oh, of course they claim they're not. But realistically, people are members of their religion because they were born into it. Seems a silly reason to cause so much harm in the world through violence, or fighting against the civil rights of others.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Sorry, but semantics regulates our language. Your precision is lacking. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it to be true. If it isn't true, then it isn't a fact. It is a belief. This is the imprecise language handily used by the theocracy proponents to push their bigotry into legislation. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. It is a mish-mash of allegorical tales written over a span of several hundred years by dozens of individuals. It is not representative of facts. Religion is rooted in belief. Science is rooted in fact. Belief in a higher power is not representative of fact.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<But realistically, people are members of their religion because they were born into it. Seems a silly reason to cause so much harm in the world through violence, or fighting against the civil rights of others.>> Exactly, ecdc. This is the main reason why loons like Kirk Cameron and his fellow fundamentalists target non-religious universities. Most students who come from religious and conservative households enter with their family of origin beliefs, but exit with more liberal and more accepting beliefs and values. University teaches one to think more rationally, more logically. Most religious allegorical tales and rigid political views will eventually diminish in importance and most likely be rejected outright after graduation. Republican families lose their children in college to the Democrats. This is why the conservative GOP pundits and leaders hate the public university system so much. True courage is found in deep examination of one's belief system and the willingness to question it. It takes no courage whatsoever to blindly follow the belief system one was born into.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>This is why the conservative GOP pundits and leaders hate the public university system so much.<< Which always has cracked me up. Universities are homes to education, disciplined study, and information. They also tend to be much more tolerant and more progressive in their politics. Occam's Razor tells us that education and information, then, most likely leads to more tolerant views and more progressive politics. But conservatives aren't having it. Instead, it's easier to spin a tale of "elitism" and some odd conspiracy theory about how universities are just liberal cabals.
Originally Posted By ecdc And when it comes to education, I stand by what I've said before. Religion teaches people that they can know everything about how they have to navigate through life very easily. All they need to do is pray, read the Bible, and go to church. They can know all about homosexuality, the healthcare debate, geopolitical issues, etc. - all through prayer and church. God will tell them whether something is good or bad, right or wrong. And that's all they need to know. It teaches them that they don't need to take a whole semester of critical thinking, or reason and logic classes from the philosophy or math department. They don't need to take an ethics class. They don't need to take history classes on the founding of America or our religious history; they already know that America was founded by Christian fundamentalists and is a "Christian nation." They don't need to take biology classes, or classes on the women's movement or feminism, or on race relations, or on sociology, or psychology, or international relations, or civics, or politics, or any other damn thing at all. Everything they need to know is right there in the Bible and in their prayers. It doesn't take study, it doesn't take hard work, it doesn't take comprehension skills or critical thinking skills. Take a look at the teabaggers on 9/12. I promise you that a majority of them subscribe to this kind of thinking, if only indirectly. It's how they live their lives. And it makes the very "facts" that we're talking about fluid. Facts are whatever God tells them they are. And how do you have a conversation with people if you can't even agree on the same facts?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>True courage is found in deep examination of one's belief system and the willingness to question it.<< Agreed, but what about people who have done that and not wound up believing religion is all stuff and nonsense? What about people who find comfort and guidance through Jesus Christ? Are they all idiots? Because it sounds like if people examine their beliefs and don't reach a certain conclusion, then they are accused of "blindly" following a religion they were born into. I'm just saying that I know many people, accomplished, articulate, whole people, people I admire and respect, who have deep religious faith. There is a dismissive tone to religion in WE that I think ignores the feelings of reasonable people of faith. (And yes, I know full well to some "reasonable people of faith" is a contradiction in terms, because they don't see it possible to be reasonable and still have faith in God. No quips necessary.) While slamming the extremists, there is often a collateral damage to people who aren't using their faith as a weapon nor forcing it on others. This is a mirror image of the sort of off-putting religious zealotry most people claim they dislike, yet they engage in similar tactics.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Agreed, but what about people who have done that and not wound up believing religion is all stuff and nonsense? What about people who find comfort and guidance through Jesus Christ?<< Good for them. So what do they do with that comfort after examining it? Do they use it to guide their lives and live in peace? Or do they use it to tell everyone else that they've found comfort, so you should too. And by the way, Mr. Gay Man, you're a sinner so no marriage for you. I think I've always been clear that I have no problem with people who choose to lead lives of faith. But shouldn't it be done logically? Is it too much to ask that people acknowledge the short-comings of faith by acknowledging that it can't be proven or known with any certainty? And if they do that, then perhaps they won't go out and cause all the harm that they've caused, like that we saw last year with Prop 8? In short, if you're going to believe something that you can't even remotely prove is true, shouldn't you have a little humility with that instead of the opposite - total confidence and arrogance? >>While slamming the extremists, there is often a collateral damage to people who aren't using their faith as a weapon nor forcing it on others.<< Then those people need to stand up. They're no different than reasonable Republicans. Stand up and defend yourselves by denouncing the insanity. But instead, I've noticed a very common trend. People of faith, even the reasonable ones, would rather defend the crazies than agree with the critics. I'm not sure if its human nature, or what. But it's very common. Go check out the Kirk Cameron thread - rather than agree that Cameron is off his rocker for altering Darwin's book and distributing it, people would rather step in and defend him and say, "Gee, it's just what he believes; give him a break." And these same people would never, ever extend that same courtesy to atheists or Muslim fundamentalists.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Agreed, but what about people who have done that and not wound up believing religion is all stuff and nonsense? What about people who find comfort and guidance through Jesus Christ? Are they all idiots? Because it sounds like if people examine their beliefs and don't reach a certain conclusion, then they are accused of "blindly" following a religion they were born into.>> I did not question those individuals. That is why my language was specific: "True courage is found in DEEP EXAMINATION of one's belief system and the willingness to question it. It takes no courage to BLINDLY follow the system one was born into." If you've done your homework and studied your beliefs and how you arrived to them, and still decided that they worked for you, fine. You are no longer BLINDLY following your belief system. There are individuals who've done this work. It's difficult and scary, but possible. However, most people of faith, as ecdc pointed out, have never done this self-examination, nor ever will. Most individuals who follow a particular religious belief have done so since BIRTH. They were born into it, and taught to never question it. As a result, most of these individuals, not all, but most of them never find the courage to examine what their beliefs are and where they came from. <<While slamming the extremists, there is often a collateral damage to people who aren't using their faith as a weapon nor forcing it on others. This is a mirror image of the sort of off-putting religious zealotry most people claim they dislike, yet they engage in similar tactics.>> Not even close. The "slamming of extremists" is self-preservation, because the extremists are hellbent in reshaping the world in their image and "forcing it on others," as you described. The ones who sit quietly by the wayside and do nothing to stop the extremists have the right to do so, but at their own peril. Standing up against the extremists is not a mirror image of the "religious zealotry" they're fighting against; it's standing up for the rights of individuals to worship as they please and to live as they please, without being forced into religious practice and held to laws passed by those zealots who refuse to acknowledge any other belief system as equal to their own.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>However, most people of faith, as ecdc pointed out, have never done this self-examination, nor ever will.<< But that just isn't so. At least not amongst people I have spoken with, nor people I have read about. ecdc grew up in the Mormon world, so it may be a very different experience not necessarily representative of faith in general. Obviously that background is going to color how he views faith in general, I understand that. But very few people I know have always had an absolutely unshakable faith, almost all of them have been through a journey of soul-searching, of questioning, of wonder "what if?" Moments of doubt, moments of reflection, and some received what, to them, is a clear sign that God exists. Other friends have had those moments and came from them sure that God does not exist. >>The ones who sit quietly by the wayside and do nothing to stop the extremists have the right to do so, but at their own peril. << Whose sitting quietly? What I am saying is that there are millions and millions of people who have religious faith WHO ARE ON YOUR SIDE. But if people feel it necessary to start disparaging ALL religious faith, call it fairy tales and nonsense and so forth, then what you do is to hurt and offend a huge number of people who don't want their religious faith used as a weapon to prevent the happiness of others. Is that such a radical notion? Martin Luther King, as a man of God, was able to get people on his side because he searched for what they had in common, and under the guiding principle that they worshipped God and were all His children, and shouldn't they treat each other as brothers and sisters. I'm saying that proponents of gay marriage and those searching for a more fair society have a whole lot of people that share that view, who also happen to believe in God. But if they're going to be made to feel foolish at every turn, this is the collateral damage I am speaking about. It's also called cutting off one's nose to spite their face. >>Standing up against the extremists is not a mirror image of the "religious zealotry" they're fighting against; it's standing up for the rights of individuals to worship as they please and to live as they please, without being forced into religious practice and held to laws passed by those zealots who refuse to acknowledge any other belief system as equal to their own.<< I agree, but look back at this thread, look at the Kirk Cameron thread (and, well, just about any thread on the topic of religion here on LP) Is it about people fighting for the right to worship as they please or is it about scoring points showing how foolish religion is?
