 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:36:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I have many friends who are true believers. ...
> > they don't try to convince me that I'm wrong.
>
> And often the true believers who don't try to convince you you're wrong
> are as "invisible" to such things as a quiet atheist. If they never talk
> about it, you never know if they're true believers, so they don't modify
> your "all believers are loud" experiences.
True, though I have had some fairly in-depth discussions with people who
are true believers. Generally that comes long after the friendship has
been built, though - gotta have a certain amount of trust and respect
before you start talking religious beliefs.
Which I think was part of Warp's point as his first (and maybe only) post
in this thread. This group has some fairly weak trust (and respect) at
certain points, so religious discussions tend to get out of hand when
those members who show a lack of trust/respect start the discussion or
get involved in it.
Not saying that's good or bad, but just my observation of the way it is.
Personally, I enjoy talking about the ideas with those who aren't
threatened by such discussion. It's when those whose beliefs are
threatened by the discussion get involved that things get out of hand.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:33:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Well, maybe, but what's wrong with that?
>> Nothing, if you accept irrationality.
>
> Exactly. There's no dictum that states that humans have to be 100%
> rational 100% of the time. Some scientists (and quite well known
> scientists, at that) believe there may be a higher power.
>
And, all of them would have a century ago. This doesn't mean much.
> Some also, I understand, look at the universe and consider it possible
> that there was a "supreme being" that set things in motion, but the
> natural laws of the universe are such that once things are set in motion,
> they're in motion. Kinda like playing "Mousetrap" and enforcing a rule
> that once you hit the trigger to start the whole thing off, you can't
> interfere with it until it's done.
>
> Some also consider that there might have been a "creation" event, but
> that evolution is the means by which life progresses.
>
Both of which are meaningless, since they don't provide anything at all
useful. The arguments are not even "made", except as a means of keeping
alive the more specific, and far less plausible, idea that this same god
made up a bunch of rules to follow, and following them right means you
get to spend eternity drinking mead and.. oh, wait, wrong mythological
gibberish.
> I'm not saying I agree with any of these things, but there are ways to
> interpret things that do not make these two ideas incompatible.
>
True, but again, they are almost totally pointless interpretations,
unless the believer "gets" something out of it for believing in it.
Otherwise, you could make up almost "anything", and it would be just as
plausible, just as ridiculous, and just as irrelevant to anything in the
real world.
>>> Religion has always been used
>>> to explain that which can't be explained. The ancient Romans used a
>>> polytheistic system to explain various scientific phenomena that they
>>> couldn't understand.
>> Is this really true? Did romans *really* think Zeus threw lightning
>> bolts, or was it that Zeus was in their stories and he just got assigned
>> the blame?
>>
>> I mean, did they really think Apollo was towing the sun with his
>> chariot, or was it "we don't know why the sun moves, but babies come
>> from storks" kind of things? Nobody believes that the wolf would dress
>> up like grandma, but it's a good story because it keeps young kids from
>> wandering into the woods and getting eaten.
>
> Could be, but it seems to me that the idea of Apollo pulling the sun
> across the sky in his chariot is an explanation that was used for quite a
> long time - so there are likely some who took it seriously.
>
And, such people, when they find their ideas being sidelined, get really
pissy about it, even to the point of, like modern fundies, doing
everything short of killing you, to stop people from pointing out that
less and less people believe their version any more. Though, it should
be noted, more than a few seem to have what has been termed "fatwa
envy". This is exhibited as some wacko stating, "I hate you, you will
burn in hell, and you should be glad I ain't one of them Muslims,
because *they* would kill you for it." (To those making this argument:
Uh.. Shouldn't that be more accurately stated as, "I can't get by with
killing you for it?", because.. seriously dude, if the comic sans,
random capitalizations and apparent lack of ability to spell more than
two words a sentence correctly, wasn't enough to call it into
question... the fact that you also 'wish' you could kill me would seem
to imply that you are a tad 'unhinged'. lol) Seriously, this is pretty
much par for the course. If one of them ever really "got" elected, I
wouldn't be surprised if entire state documents where done in this
style, and that they would "insist" on preventing other people editing
it so that it didn't look insane to normal people.
>>> This isn't a binary option - ie it's not "either you believe the whole
>>> bible is the truth as written or you believe the whole thing is
>>> fiction". Mythologies don't evolve that way.
>> I don't think the concern is with people who only believe some parts.
>
> And yet it seems that many who don't believe in a deity point to
> Christianity and the related religions and say "one thing in this is
> ridiculous/provable to be incorrect, therefore the whole thing is" - and
> then go on to ridicule those who believe any of it.
>
Umm. Hardly. Some of its "history", in the sense of places, and
sometimes people, are not that inaccurate (well, unless you consider
getting the wrong century and Egyptian leader to be "critical", for
example. But, heh, at least they didn't place it in Norway or
something..) Actual details of events.. not so much. Most of the
contents are pure gibberish, even if the places are right. In some
cases.. you get the same "character" supposedly conquering 3-4 places,
when the "archeology" suggests that one fell to region wide earth quakes
100 years later, and a couple others couldn't have been by the same guy,
unless he could be in two places at the some time, or had modern Jet
flight..
And, it just gets worse after that. The NT being the "real" gem. Since
nearly all evidence of its contents in self referential, and what isn't
can't be proven to be written "later" than the NT itself (or more
specifically the NT earlier), and the rest, seem to conveniently be by
the Flavians, who became the first members of the new faith, or by their
servants.
Its not that parts are wrong, therefor the whole thing is. Its like..
Arguing that because the **places** in Hemingway's novels existed, we
should "also" assume that any or all of the characters did too, that
they did the things they did in the books, and that references to "real"
people of the time, which may have been made, are somehow "evidence" of
this, even when we have no evidence at all that they "did" meet in real
life. Or, to put it another way, not unlike claiming that because Data
talked to Samuel Clemens on Star Trek:TNG, that he really traveled into
the future. After all, he existed, the places he appeared in the "past"
,in the story existed, he is quoted as saying some of the things
repeated in the story, therefor the "made up people" and events are
"credible".
The problem isn't that some of it may be true, its that there is *no*
valid criteria, nor may we ever have any, by which to judge which, if
any, parts are a) exaggerations, b) misunderstandings of what was being
witnessed, c) made up after the fact, then amplified in retelling, or d)
as implausible as all modern understandings of the world make such
things, actually somehow real.
You might as well come back in 2,000 years and argue that Harry Potter
really existed, based on photos of the actors, and pointing out how
there really where train stations back then.
>> I
>> think the concern is with people who only believe some parts, but then
>> want to force you to follow their interpretation of those parts because
>> it's from God.
>
> There are extremists on both sides of the fence in this one.
>
Hmm. Yeah. Met some of the extremists on my side the other day. I think
they laughed at someone, then bought a copy of Skeptical Enquirer. It
was horrifying! lol Seriously though, this isn't entirely accurate. The
problem here is delusional thinking, not specifically religion, and the
"extremists" on the side against religion tend to trade belief different
gibberish for what "would have been" religion.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:01:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Sure, there are "nice" people, who don't fall into that category. Sort
>> of...
>
> You really need to meet more people - if your sample is so small that you
> believe that all believers aren't nice (etc.), then you don't have a
> sufficiently large sample size to understand the POV of someone who does
> believe.
>
> I live in Utah. I have many friends who are true believers. They've
> helped me move house, they understand that I don't believe what they do,
> and they don't try to convince me that I'm wrong.
>
Try doing something that "really" conflicts with their views in some way
though. Reality is, there is almost always "something" that will set
them against you, if you cross some undefined, imaginary, line. The ones
that don't.. Are usually a hairs breadth from being "basically"
agnostics, or UU members. I.e., they either follow the religion because
they "hope" its meaningful, and its become habit, or they have a view of
religion that is so nebulous that they would rather just leap to the
conclusion that you are good, therefor following god, even if you don't
know you are, and thus "saved" anyway. Nice ones are wishy washy in
views, either about the religion itself, or if not that, then as to
their "interpretation" of who is "really" following it. The minor
exception is a few that think being nice to everyone is "mandated", but
still share, among themselves, the certainty that you, being a
non-believer, are in deep shit later.
The problem with these later groups is that they invariably have "some"
members who, if they didn't have a more aggressive and nasty group to
join, would feel the need to "invent" one, so they could teach the
"proper" lessons, unlike their parents, which means "not being nice".
You can't hold to a religion that contains the "seeds" for such
practice, and plenty of examples, and not expect recidivism to a nastier
version on occasion.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:40:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Exactly. There's no dictum that states that humans have to be 100%
>> rational 100% of the time. Some scientists (and quite well known
>> scientists, at that) believe there may be a higher power.
>>
> And, all of them would have a century ago. This doesn't mean much.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
>> Some also consider that there might have been a "creation" event, but
>> that evolution is the means by which life progresses.
>>
> Both of which are meaningless, since they don't provide anything at all
> useful. The arguments are not even "made", except as a means of keeping
> alive the more specific, and far less plausible, idea that this same god
> made up a bunch of rules to follow, and following them right means you
> get to spend eternity drinking mead and.. oh, wait, wrong mythological
> gibberish.
That's only true if one holds the point of view you hold. In order to
understand it, you have to step out of your own frame of reference and
look at it from a different perspective. That can be very difficult to
do, admittedly, but it's not impossible.
>> I'm not saying I agree with any of these things, but there are ways to
>> interpret things that do not make these two ideas incompatible.
>>
> True, but again, they are almost totally pointless interpretations,
See my above comment about stepping out of your own frame of reference.
>> Could be, but it seems to me that the idea of Apollo pulling the sun
>> across the sky in his chariot is an explanation that was used for quite
>> a long time - so there are likely some who took it seriously.
>>
> And, such people, when they find their ideas being sidelined, get really
> pissy about it,
That happens even with rationalists, too. The "punishment" tends to be
ridicule rather than more the extreme punishments you outline for the
"modern fundies", but the reaction is quite similar.
>> And yet it seems that many who don't believe in a deity point to
>> Christianity and the related religions and say "one thing in this is
>> ridiculous/provable to be incorrect, therefore the whole thing is" -
>> and then go on to ridicule those who believe any of it.
>>
> Umm. Hardly.
I've seen it time and again in various religious discussions, so please,
don't tell me it doesn't happen. It does. Maybe not every time, but I'm
not outlining something that happens in every discussion, just something
that in my experience happens a lot of the time in the discussions I
participate in.
> The problem isn't that some of it may be true, its that there is *no*
> valid criteria, nor may we ever have any, by which to judge which, if
> any, parts are a) exaggerations, b) misunderstandings of what was being
> witnessed, c) made up after the fact, then amplified in retelling, or d)
> as implausible as all modern understandings of the world make such
> things, actually somehow real.
This is why I often take the stand that the Bible is a mythology, because
the stories have likely evolved. There was an oral tradition at the time
(so I've been led to understand) and that tends to amplify and modify
stories, as anyone who's played the "telephone" game knows.
>> There are extremists on both sides of the fence in this one.
>>
> Hmm. Yeah. Met some of the extremists on my side the other day. I think
> they laughed at someone, then bought a copy of Skeptical Enquirer. It
> was horrifying! lol Seriously though, this isn't entirely accurate. The
> problem here is delusional thinking, not specifically religion, and the
> "extremists" on the side against religion tend to trade belief different
> gibberish for what "would have been" religion.
Again, I've seen extreme positions taken on both sides of the debate,
from the self-proclaimed rationalist side, this tends to take the form of
extreme ridicule rather than the proclamation of something like a
fatwah. But it does happen, and again, I've seen it over and over in
discussions I've participated in over the years.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:49:37 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:01:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, there are "nice" people, who don't fall into that category. Sort
>>> of...
>>
>> You really need to meet more people - if your sample is so small that
>> you believe that all believers aren't nice (etc.), then you don't have
>> a sufficiently large sample size to understand the POV of someone who
>> does believe.
>>
>> I live in Utah. I have many friends who are true believers. They've
>> helped me move house, they understand that I don't believe what they
>> do, and they don't try to convince me that I'm wrong.
>>
> Try doing something that "really" conflicts with their views in some way
> though.
I think making a declaration of being more aligned with Pagan beliefs and
being an ex-Lutheran (I was raised Lutheran and it turned me into a cynic
about organised religion) certainly qualifies. Most took it as an
opportunity to learn more about what that means rather than as a reason
to react with fear. Of course some reacted negatively (ironically, those
outside the immediate geographical area and of other faiths than LDS
tended to react a lot more strongly - one friend of mine who is a devout
JW, for example, was utterly horrified).
These days, I tend more towards agnosticism probably more than anything.
I'm not prepared to say there *definitely* is nothing more than this
existence, I think there is a lot about life we don't know. <shrug> I'm
also not particularly bothered by uncertainty, though, and that's a hard
thing for most people. That's part of the reason some (not all) who are
religious/deeply devout/whatever grab onto a religion - because it
provides some certainty in an otherwise uncertain world.
> Reality is, there is almost always "something" that will set
> them against you, if you cross some undefined, imaginary, line. The ones
> that don't.. Are usually a hairs breadth from being "basically"
> agnostics, or UU members.
Not the ones I know. One of my best friends here is very strong in his
LDS faith.
> I.e., they either follow the religion because
> they "hope" its meaningful, and its become habit, or they have a view of
> religion that is so nebulous that they would rather just leap to the
> conclusion that you are good, therefor following god, even if you don't
> know you are, and thus "saved" anyway.
Nope, my friend knows I'm on a different path, and he wishes me well.
> Nice ones are wishy washy in
> views, either about the religion itself, or if not that, then as to
> their "interpretation" of who is "really" following it.
Nope again.
> The minor
> exception is a few that think being nice to everyone is "mandated", but
> still share, among themselves, the certainty that you, being a
> non-believer, are in deep shit later.
And nope, again. We've had that discussion. He believes his religion is
right for him, and that my beliefs are right for me. He and I see
religious belief as a deeply personal item, and that allows us to have
mutual respect that we have different ways of viewing the world, and
neither is particularly right or wrong, but work for us individually.
> The problem with these later groups is that they invariably have "some"
> members who, if they didn't have a more aggressive and nasty group to
> join, would feel the need to "invent" one, so they could teach the
> "proper" lessons, unlike their parents, which means "not being nice".
> You can't hold to a religion that contains the "seeds" for such
> practice, and plenty of examples, and not expect recidivism to a nastier
> version on occasion.
I really wonder what you have been exposed to of people who are truly
spiritual. I realise how that sounds, but it sounds to me like you've
had a slew of bad experiences and very few good ones.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-6-2009 7:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:40:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Exactly. There's no dictum that states that humans have to be 100%
>>> rational 100% of the time. Some scientists (and quite well known
>>> scientists, at that) believe there may be a higher power.
>>>
>> And, all of them would have a century ago. This doesn't mean much.
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
That it is only very recently that most scientists are either agnostics,
atheists, or at least not convinced that a God exists. In most of the
western world that change is probably only something that happened over
the last 40 years or so. Just as with more of such changes people living
now can not imagine that it was different. I should quote Terry
Pratchett here I guess, but I don't know where to find the quote.
For the generation of my mother that included e.g. living together
unmarried, homosexuality and same sex marriage were unthinkable. Firing
a woman because she go married was OTOH just the way things should be.
Nowadays things are much different. E.g. accepting homosexuality has
become part of the national identity.
If you look at why our right wing parties consider the muslims here
totally backwards it is because they act like and believe the same sort
of things as our parents did not even half a century ago. It would be
funny if they did not hurt so many peoples feelings.
In the US same sex marriage is still debated, but I would not be
surprised if 5 years after the last state changes its laws most people
can not understand anymore what the fuss was about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:10:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
> That it is only very recently that most scientists are either agnostics,
> atheists, or at least not convinced that a God exists.
I'd be interested to know the source for that statistic, because that's
the first time I've heard it cited. I think you'd find a surprisingly
large number of people who work in scientific fields also go to church
regularly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-6-2009 19:23, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:10:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> That it is only very recently that most scientists are either agnostics,
>> atheists, or at least not convinced that a God exists.
>
> I'd be interested to know the source for that statistic, because that's
> the first time I've heard it cited. I think you'd find a surprisingly
> large number of people who work in scientific fields also go to church
> regularly.
I don't have statistics, just my personal experience to draw upon. And
going to church or being religious is rather uncommon here. From the
people I worked with I know only 2 who did, even if there were 10 times
as many that I do no know of, it would still be less than 10%
It may be different in the US. Even so how do you explain this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Things-Computer-Scientist-Language-Information/dp/157586326X
Note to the people not in the field: Don Knuth is a big name in CS.
Known a.o. for 'The art of computer programming' and TeX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:44:23 +0200, andrel wrote:
> I don't have statistics, just my personal experience to draw upon. And
> going to church or being religious is rather uncommon here. From the
> people I worked with I know only 2 who did, even if there were 10 times
> as many that I do no know of, it would still be less than 10%
It's fair to say that the demographic would be different in different
parts of the world. The US tends to be a lot more religious, even though
that wasn't (at least as interpreted by many/most here) the intent of the
founders.
> It may be different in the US. Even so how do you explain this book:
> http://www.amazon.com/Things-Computer-Scientist-Language-Information/
dp/157586326X
> Note to the people not in the field: Don Knuth is a big name in CS.
> Known a.o. for 'The art of computer programming' and TeX
I have a lot of respect for Knuth, but a sample size of 1 isn't a real
good sample size for a statistical analysis. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'd be interested to know the source for that statistic
GIYF
http://www.google.com/#q=survey+scientists+religion
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
