Is atheism a threat to humanity?

[Augustus]

Vague claim.

It's pretty explicit actually.

A: it actually is. Since you want 'common'here is the first definition that pops up on Google:

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Other than containing numerous subjective concepts that don't rule out a lower threshold for what qualifies as science (what constitutes a 'systematic enterprise? What constitutes 'building and organising' knowledge?), definitions do not necessarily flow backwards i.e. because science = X, anything I can claim to be X = science.

Car: a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.

Same applies to a truck, but a truck is not a car

It's pretty clear that people do not commonly use the term science in the way you are claiming they do, just as people don;t claim a truck is a car because it theoretically matches the dictionary.

A cleaner mopping the floor is not generally considered to be conducting a scientific experiment. If someone asks if you are interested in science, most people would find it odd if you replied "Yes, I love tennis".

I have given you no reason to believe I might hold that view, which I do not.

"Science is all of our knowledge and the reliable ways of getting to it, testing it, and verifying it... The second you can reproduce knowledge though a repeatable methodology, it becomes science.

If you can't reproduce it in such a way, it isn't really knowledge."

This is mostly a problem for people that would prefer some form of mysticism like astrology or creationism be included as science. Granted, it can also be argued if soft science such as psychology should qualify(I don't think psychology is science).

For the rest of us, there is falsification.

It has absolutely nothing to do with creationism or astrology or some imaginary "religious agenda", but the secular study of the philosophy of science, the same discipline that tells us creationism and astrology are not sciences. Just as the majority of contemporary philosophers of science don't think creationism is science, they don't think that falsification is a necessary component of science either (although it is certainly one component that may be useful in differentiating science from 'not science', but it is not considered universally

Philosophy of science does not meet you definition of knowledge though.

Ahh. And by what sort of methodology do you suppose they examine and compare evidences, to decide what is probably true about history...

Could it be...gasp..scientific methodology?

Not really, hence it forms part of the humanities. It often relies on a number of philosophical assumptions that would not meet the criteria for being scientific.

That's a nice opinion piece. Her last name seems to fit.

Repeated out of hand rejection of the value of the philosophy of science while making arguments regarding the philosophy of science is an 'interesting' approach.

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61–574)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The point is that this is information which deals with the external world, with how the world works - which is the domain of science. Just because it's easy science, doesn't make it any less scientific. It is the domain of science.

You don't seem to understand that you are forbidden to use the word science that way. The point of all of this is to create the straw man that those who claim that useful knowledge about the world and our experiences of it comes only from the application of reason to empirical experience are saying that all useful knowledge comes from a test tube in a laboratory or a telescope in an observatory in order to then condemn that position, one I've never seen anybody express ever, and then sneer at such scientism.

So, your efforts (and mine) to explain that what we actually believe is that the source of acquired knowledge can be called scientific if science is understood to mean an experiencing and interpreting of reality in order to generalize from that experience and derive useful inductions that can help us predict reality and thus help control outcomes will be ignored, a definition that neither of us uses will be insisted upon, and the straw man flailed.

When I moved to my present location and began exploring the neighborhood, I learned that the pier was five blocks south and three blocks west of my front door empirically, that is, by walking and driving around rather than being told. I gained a useful piece of knowledge that I can use to predict and control outcomes such as successfully walking to the pier from my front door. This is what I (and I believe you) are referring to as easy or informal science, and it surely is just that - deriving useful generalizations from empirical data that allow us to navigate life (literally, in this example) more optimally.

Then we are told that using the word science that way renders it meaningless. Apparently not to you or me. I find this manner of organizing thought and using language extremely useful.

Of course, the real issue is not whether all empirical learning can be called science or just the part done by scientists, but whether there is such a thing as acquired knowledge derived from any other method than reason properly applied to evidence (instinct such as how to nurse should be called knowledge as well, but not learned).

I think that what is being objected to here is the rational skeptic and empiricist's rejection of woo and faith-based thought as a source of knowledge, especially claims of spiritual knowledge or knowledge of gods based on a feeling or a hope. That seems to anger some people. They resent that we are dismissive of their claims.

I think our friend here respects that kind of thinking and resents others rejecting it, which is why he feels the need to tell us repeatedly that we're not as rational as we think and we should trust him when he says there is consensus among experts.

It also seems to be the purpose of trying to impose the definition of science prescriptively, and then make the straw man scientism argument, which is only a distraction from the epistemological question of where useful knowledge comes from and which methods do and do not produce knowledge.

My favorite food is just an expression of my personal preferences. An opinion. Me expressing my personal preferences concerning food, is not a truth claim about the world.

I gave the example of reproducibly having an unpleasant experience when eating Brussels sprouts. Yes, this is a subjective experience, and it is my opinion that Brussels sprouts taste bad, but it is different from opinions such as who I think will win a ball game, which is at best an educated guess.

I'm not guessing that I won't like those Brussels sprouts if I eat them. This is a subjective truth for me (and some but not all others), and a claim about the world as I experience it. So I file it along with all other knowledge induced from experience that allows me to have a better day, which includes avoiding Brussels sprouts. To distinguish between these two types of opinions, one which I can also call fact, I call that one subjective truth, and the other a(n educated) guess.

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Watch and see if somebody doesn't try to reject that definition, one which includes what I have called informal science. This is what every sentient creature capable of learning does in the process of maturing and learning how best to achieve its goals, including the process of arriving at useful inductions about walking to the pier and eating Brussels sprouts.

By that definition, we're all informal, amateur scientists. All of our lives we have been collecting data (experience), hypothesizing (if I wish real hard, maybe I can move the chair telekinetically), testing our hypotheses for predictive power (nope, still there), modifying our generalizations so that they do have greater predictive power, and accumulating what we think are the ideas that work while modifying or discarding those that don't.

That's a systemic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe, and to the extent that we do that successfully, we are being scientific. It's when we slip and start accumulating untested and untrue ideas that we are being irrational.

Even my dogs do this to some extent. They hear keys or a refrigerator door and come running, because they have learned to generalize about the possible meaning of those sounds. I give my black lab a heart medication twice a day wrapped in smoked deli meat. She understands that when she hears the bag being opened, that a treat will follow. Sensory experience/evidence, induction, hypothesis, predictive power. Science.

But when people are simply incorporating basic experiential knowledge into their decisions (such as the trolly case) this does not meet the criteria for it to be considered science that is informing their decision.

Whose criteria? It meets the criteria of at least three people disagreeing with you on this thread.

Speaking of citing anonymous so-called experts as a reason to believe or behave in a particular way, I was recently in a discussion on RF with an American conservative Christian arguing that I should accept that a historical Jesus actually existed for reasons similar to yours - his unevidenced claim that the overwhelming majority of experts agree that one did live, which is irrelevant even if correct.

Why irrelevant? For starters, what is a historical Jesus? What are we saying either did or did not exist? Presumably, these people aren't including the supernatural aspects of Jesus. If by historical Jesus they mean according to what is offered as history in the Gospels including virgin birth, walking on water, raising the dead, and being resurrected three days after death, then no. I don't care how many people claim that such a person lived, I reject their claim.

So, apparently, we get to strip away parts of the story and call what's left a historical Jesus. But here's where the so-called experts all fail. How much of this story can be myth before we say that no such person existed? What if he only had nine or no apostles, but the rest was more or less accurate? Is that a historical Jesus?

How little of this story needs to be true to say that a historical Jesus walked the earth? The question begins to not make sense if you think about it. Certainly there were peripetetic people preaching Judaism in the Levant 20 centuries ago, possibly one or more named Jesus or something similar. But how can we call any of them the historical Jesus rather than just an historical Jesus without good evidence that a single man very closely resembling the man depicted in the Gospels once lived, evidence we don't have?

I understand that there was no census in Bethlehem the year Jesus was said to be born. If that's correct, then did a historical Jesus live? Can we remove this from the story and call the rest, if true, a description of a historical Jesus? From Wiki:

"The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1–5), but places it within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 9 years earlier.[2][3][4] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible,[5] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made an error.[6]"

So right there, we can reject these so-called expert's opinions that a historical Jesus existed if no clear idea of what that would be exists. There may be consensus that a historical Jesus lived, but so what if these people have different standards for what that means?

Also, why would we care what so-called experts believe about this matter or any matter in which we can evaluate the evidence that they base their opinions on ourselves? I can't disagree with experts in fields like subatomic physics or advanced mathematics because I'm not qualified to understand their evidence or follow their arguments (have you seen the proof of Fermat's last theorem? I think only six people in the world were qualified to referee the paper).

But in the matter of a historical Jesus, I am qualified to make my own judgment, and so can disagree with their conclusions if I read the evidence otherwise. Don't just tell me that experts believe or don't believe that the Shroud of Turin is genuine, because it won't influence what I believe to be the truth. Show me what those that say it is are basing that conclusion on, and I'll tell them if I agree or not - even if they claim to be an expert and should be deferred to.

Here's what I think of so-called experts in soft areas like the humanities. Consider this quote from C. S. Lewis. According to this self-proclaimed expert, anybody who disagrees with Lewis about whether a magical story is factual is by virtue of that fact incompetent as a literary critic. :

“All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that’s my job. And I’m prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legends or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic."

Dismissed. Your fallacy, Mr. Lewis : argumentum ad verecundiam (authority). Lewis is displaying his incompetence as a rational thinker.

So what value should others place on the opinions of those telling us how me must think about science? None.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

shooting someone in the face also implicitly relies on knowledge of physics and is contributing to a moral harm. If they didn't have an 'empirical knowledge of physics' they would never be able to kill anyone deliberately so 'science' would be partly responsible for all murders.

Disagree. Science is responsible for letting us know the outcome of shooting somebody in the face. It is not responsible if one takes that option.

If the US government got in psychologists and other scientists to help maximise the impact of their torture techniques, then science helped contribute to a moral harm.

Disagree again for the same reason. You're confusing science with government. Science can tell us how to torture people, not that we should.

The scientists working on the Manhattan Project undoubtedly knew that they were working to build a huge bomb. But when they made the moral judgment to consent to help, at that moment, they were not doing science. They made personal moral judgments about how science should be used.

Science is normatively neutral. It tells us what is true, not what we ought to do with that knowledge.

The simplistic cases are the problem though, this is why there is the issue of demarcation between science and non-science (which is messy and complicated). The generally accepted view is that these simplistic cases do not cross a threshold to be considered science.

Not generally accepted on this thread. You've seen several of us refer to empiricism in daily life as science to good effect.

Also, the demarcation matter is not an issue to me. It kind of evaporates away when we recognize that there really is no demarcation between what goes on in laboratories and empirical knowledge gained using the same processes in daily life.

And generally accepted views should of little value in deciding what it true in areas where we can judge for ourselves. Arguments based in experts agree, everybody knows, it's common knowledge, or it's common sense simply aren't persuasive. They're appeals to authority, a logical fallacy. Why would we care what other people think is science and what is not? How many people have already rejected your attempt to limit how the word is used?

So when you said that 'determining your personal reality' was 'informal science' you didn't mean it was informal science?

What I said was "I didn't describe personal, subjective experiences as science" in response to your comment, "Once we start describing personal, subjective experiences as science we are really losing the plot."

Determining my personal reality by applying reason to those personal, subjective experiences and deriving general subjective truths from them by induction that I could apply to future situations in order to maximize experience is the science part. And the plot is to be able to predict outcomes, which is not lost, but rather, supported by that process.

Actually, understanding one's personal, subjective reality is just as important as understanding our common, external reality if one's purpose is to live life well, by which I mean with the most good feelings such as self-respect and lasting love, and the least bad feelings, such as divorce and shame or regret. We need to understand ourselves and what pleases and displeases us in order to manipulate external reality to achieve happiness.

If intelligence is knowing how to get what you want, wisdom is knowing what to want to be happy, which requires understanding of both what makes one happy (subjective truths of what is personally pleasant or unpleasant) and how to achieve it. Learning from experience that lying, stealing and desiring excessively are counterproductive to the pursuit of happiness is useful empirical knowledge. Failing to do that well because of not knowing what consistently and reproducibly brings one happiness is losing the plot.

You don't come across as being particularly rational when you reject scholarly consensus on issues you know little about simply because it is emotionally comforting to you.

You are wrong about why I reject so-called scholarly consensus in fields where I can judge the evidence myself. I gave you my argument just now, and find it to be very rational.

What is irrational is accepting claims from people that can be judged directly just because they or you call them experts. As I noted, to do so would be an logical fallacy and thus irrational.

Also, there is an important role for the irrational, such as enjoying the beauty of a sunset. This is not a reasoned response that we choose for any reason. Where reason comes in is learning how to manage external reality to facilitate the experiencing of these desirable irrational experiences. But without having such experiences, reason is useless. Imagine losing all irrational experience good or bad, but retaining reason. Thinking without feeling. Pointless.

In the language of Plato's charioteer, the horses died. From Wiki:

"Plato paints the picture of a Charioteer driving a chariot pulled by two winged horses. The Charioteer represents intellect, reason, or the part of the soul that must guide the soul to truth; one horse represents rational or moral impulse or the positive part of passionate nature (e.g., righteous indignation); while the other represents the soul's irrational passions, appetites, or concupiscent nature. The Charioteer directs the entire chariot/soul, trying to stop the horses from going different ways, and to proceed towards enlightenment."

I'll happily admit I'm not an expert on most things

My experience with you has you casting yourself in the role of the knowing one, others that disagree being dismissed as blind and wrong, irrational and emotional. You don't even consider the merit of any other position, and your tone is not that you disagree, but others are wrong. Why? You've read something. Forget that they also read, and some read quality non-fiction voraciously and with insight making them just as qualified to have their dissenting opinion.

Given you claim to value reason and scholarship I find it somewhat ridiculous when you dismiss all of these experts out of hand as being 'apologists' or some other spurious reason that never addresses the issue of why such a consensus exists

I don't value everything that you call scholarship. I don't value so-called theological scholarship, and I don't consider a degree in theology an academic degree.

And consensus is irrelevant in the soft fields as I demonstrated with the historical Jesus thing. What do I care what fraction of people say that a historical Jesus existed or probably existed? Believing them without reviewing their evidence is believing by faith, and if I agree with their conclusions, then it doesn't matter what fraction of the whole they comprise, majority or minority.

Consensus has limited meaning even in the hard sciences. Consensus among climate scientists is not why I believe them. That would be faith-based thought akin to believing the Bible because a lot of people agree that it is the words of a deity.

I believe them because I have seen their evidence and argument, and have concluded that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. It's irrelevant whether 90% or 10% of climate scientists disagree. If there is a counter-argument, I can evaluate that for myself as well.

Where I have to rely on consensus is in areas where I cannot do that, such as the matter of the proof of Fermat's last theorem. As I said, very few people can follow the argument, and the few that can say it's valid. If I believe them, am I believing by faith? Yes, if I believe them without doubt. If I believe that they are probably right but might be wrong, that is not faith. That's a reasonable opinion of mathematicians based on prior experience with their intelligence and professional ethics.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It's pretty explicit actually.



Other than containing numerous subjective concepts that don't rule out a lower threshold for what qualifies as science (what constitutes a 'systematic enterprise? What constitutes 'building and organising' knowledge?), definitions do not necessarily flow backwards i.e. because science = X, anything I can claim to be X = science.

Car: a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.

Same applies to a truck, but a truck is not a car

It's pretty clear that people do not commonly use the term science in the way you are claiming they do, just as people don;t claim a truck is a car because it theoretically matches the dictionary.

A cleaner mopping the floor is not generally considered to be conducting a scientific experiment. If someone asks if you are interested in science, most people would find it odd if you replied "Yes, I love tennis".



"Science is all of our knowledge and the reliable ways of getting to it, testing it, and verifying it... The second you can reproduce knowledge though a repeatable methodology, it becomes science.

If you can't reproduce it in such a way, it isn't really knowledge."



It has absolutely nothing to do with creationism or astrology or some imaginary "religious agenda", but the secular study of the philosophy of science, the same discipline that tells us creationism and astrology are not sciences. Just as the majority of contemporary philosophers of science don't think creationism is science, they don't think that falsification is a necessary component of science either (although it is certainly one component that may be useful in differentiating science from 'not science', but it is not considered universally

Philosophy of science does not meet you definition of knowledge though.



Not really, hence it forms part of the humanities. It often relies on a number of philosophical assumptions that would not meet the criteria for being scientific.



Repeated out of hand rejection of the value of the philosophy of science while making arguments regarding the philosophy of science is an 'interesting' approach.

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61–574)

Well, I wasn't expecting anything different than before, so I am not surprised at this reply.

My last post clearly trumps these soft counters, so I see no need to further twist my heel.

You got your one.

 

[Augustus]

I don't value everything that you call scholarship. I don't value so-called theological scholarship, and I don't consider a degree in theology an academic degree.

And consensus is irrelevant in the soft fields as I demonstrated with the historical Jesus thing.

While you disparage 'soft' fields, actual critical thinkers see them as being of great importance. Thinking knowledge can be useful for those who seek the truth probably falls into your definition of 'woo' though.

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61–574)

Rather than raise any relevant points, your reply is mostly just a long psychological justification for why you can retain the pretence that you are being rational, while also continue believing whatever is emotionally satisfying to you.

You've taken a grab bag of things not being discussed like theology, woo, and areas of ancient history with minimal evidence (topped off with the classic Trumpian rejection of "so-called experts") to justify why you can dismiss the value of areas of history which are well-evidenced, and things which are essential to rational sceptical enquiry, like the philosophy of science.

Historical Jesus can be learned in about 10 mins as there is very little to learn, as such you can form an opinion easily. What you choose to believe is actually more of a question on the philosophy of history that you adopt.

On the other hand, when you have a lot of actual evidence, particularly when this evidence very explicitly shows something, your contention that someone who has made no effort to look at the evidence can rationally reject it is false. It's quite funny that a 'rational sceptic' is actually making a case that familiarity with evidence doesn't matter when making informed decisions. Just go with your feelings against the "so-called experts"

My experience with you has you casting yourself in the role of the knowing one, others that disagree being dismissed as blind and wrong, irrational and emotional...You've read something. Forget that they also read, and some read quality non-fiction voraciously and with insight making them just as qualified to have their dissenting opinion... What is irrational is accepting claims from people that can be judged directly just because they or you call them experts. As I noted, to do so would be an logical fallacy and thus irrational.

And when they demonstrate any evidence of having done so on the topic being discussed I always seem to have a pleasant discussion with them. There's nothing I like more here at RF as I learn things I didn't know before. As you are no doubt aware from your own experience, if you know a reasonable amount about an issue, it's not difficult to tell the difference between someone who has read a decent amount and someone who hasn't though.

On the small number of issues we discuss at length, you tend to fall into the latter which explains your 'experience'.

On a small number of issues, people of your ideological inclinations (anti-theistic Secular Humanists) tend to be completely misinformed but don't know enough to realise this. I used to read/listen to the same people and make exactly the same arguments and it's just a bubble of self-reaffirming groupthink churning out the same old cliches based on historical myths (many of which are, ironically, appropriated from Protestant anti-Catholic polemics). No need to challenge the orthodoxy though as can just bask in the smugness of thinking "we're all so rational, how could we all be wrong?"

A true rational sceptic might forget ideology for a second and question why they belong to group a) though, especially as on basically any other issue they would be proponents of group b) (and would ridicule the other group).

a) People with a very strong ideological and emotional attachment to an issue and who have not made any effort to become familiar with the scholarship or the large amounts of evidence think X
b) People of all kinds of religious, irreligious and ideological backgrounds who have studied the issue extensively and critically examined a large amount of evidence think Y

(and if you don't think that is an an accurate characterisation, go and look at the issue yourself or at least read the wiki for 'conflict thesis'. You have previously stated you had real no interest in learning more though as it doesn't interest you which explains a lot. You even assumed your view was the dominant one, which even wiki will tell you is clearly wrong. Given this, why should a 'rational sceptic' think group a) is as 'qualified' as group b) and that people should assume they have 'read voraciously' on the issue?)

I think that what is being objected to here is the rational skeptic and empiricist's rejection of woo and faith-based thought as a source of knowledge, especially claims of spiritual knowledge or knowledge of gods based on a feeling or a hope. That seems to anger some people. They resent that we are dismissive of their claims.

Back to the same old strawman... You never seem to be able to grasp the fact that these are rational, secular positions that have nothing to do with 'faith' or 'woo' or some nefarious hidden religious agenda, but are based on the principles you claim to value.

If you want to know why I don't hold your views on such issues in particularly high esteem, think of how you would respond if someone continually reverted to saying you only believe in evolution because you 'hate God'.

What constitutes science is ultimately a philosophical question and thus has no objectively correct answer, I was just pointing out it is not the standard usage of the term, and watering down of important terminology is generally not beneficial to society. If that became the common usage you'd be giving a whole load of ammunition to those who genuinely do want to promote woo and anti-scientific partisan agendas, and it would likely be very damaging to the credibility of science in popular discourse (on both the 'left' and the 'right').

In the unlikely event you would like to hear a rational sceptic scientist and philosopher of science discussing similar points at an event for rational sceptics here's a video for you. It's hosted by the Centre for Enquiry, mission: The Center for Inquiry is a nonprofit advocacy organization. Its primary mission is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and secular humanist values.

Might not agree with it, but it is specifically aimed at people like you and at least you might finally grasp that it's an actual area of importance for rational sceptics so you don't have to keep on repeating the same fallacy

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Augustus @It Aint Necessarily So @Satans_Serrated_Edge @TagliatelliMonster

Keep it simple:
State your evidence using only strong science, that science matters!

You can't. It is an opinion.

Now I could throw a lot of words at it, but to me it ends here: Science matters to me, but there are also other things that matter.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

"Science is a toolbox" - Paraphrased from the video. That is it. Philosophy is a toolbox. Religion is a toolbox. Humanities is a toolbox. Social science is a toolbox. No particular order intended. BTW skepticism is a toolbox.

Now figure out as many tools as possible as the world is messy and if you just use a hammer, every problem is a nail.

 

[Howard Is]

My cat doesn't care about cosmic purposes

Your cat has you hypnotised.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

While you disparage 'soft' fields, actual critical thinkers see them as being of great importance.

What I disparaged was the degree of expertise possible in these areas, and the idea that one could or should trust an alleged consensus of the so-called experts in those fields. I gave you an excellent example of somebody playing that game with historical Jesus, and revealing just what one of these experts on historical Jesus sounded like, a very prominent and celebrated theist and writer.

Thinking knowledge can be useful for those who seek the truth probably falls into your definition of 'woo' though.

I'm looking for useful ideas. People on these forums are continually going on about spiritual truth, but I don't see any evidence that they have any ideas of value or that their searching isn't just wandering in the dark. They never seem satisfied, always still searching. I think that they're going about it incorrectly. My search for what matters resulted in a decade-long excursion into Christianity followed by a return to atheism, skepticism, empiricism, and rational ethics. I pretty much had my basic worldview intact by about age 35, and discovered that it was called secular humanism.

Studying the areas of interest to you further would do nothing for me.

Rather than raise any relevant points, your reply is mostly just a long psychological justification for why you can retain the pretence that you are being rational, while also continue believing whatever is emotionally satisfying to you.

You keep making that claim about being my being emotional rather than rational, yet it is your reaction here that is the emotional one. You're offended at how I think. You're offended that I reject as unimportant what you place great stock in.

By contrast, I have no emotional reaction to you. I just am not persuaded by you.

justify why you can dismiss the value of areas of history which are well-evidenced, and things which are essential to rational sceptical enquiry, like the philosophy of science.

I haven't dismissed the philosophy of science. I've been exploring it in this thread with two others. What I've dismissed is your philosophy of science. Your concept of what constitutes scientific investigation and knowledge is too limited. Doing it in a laboratory rather than on the streets in daily life does not define science.

History is another thing. I find much less value there. My knowledge of history only serves me when watching Jeopardy. Who is King James I? What is the Rubicon? Who was Anastasia? What is manifest destiny?

And I'm sure that that opinion offends you as well. You can give me your emotional response now and tell me what an incurious philistine I am, or that I'm not as rational as I think. You seem to get pleasure there.

Historical Jesus can be learned in about 10 mins as there is very little to learn

Agreed. Why would anybody defer to so-called experts there? Look at their evidence and form your own conclusion.

your contention that someone who has made no effort to look at the evidence can rationally reject it is false.

That's not my contention. What I'm rejecting is claims such as that since all of the experts agree with me, you should as well. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that I require the evidence and argument for my own review before believing.

It's quite funny that a 'rational sceptic' is actually making a case that familiarity with evidence doesn't matter when making informed decisions. Just go with your feelings against the "so-called experts"

Also not my position. Feelings don't enter into the matter for me. They apparently do for you. You can't get away from that straw man, can you? You are committed to berating me for not following you. Why remains a mystery. I don't care what you care about. I'm not interested in the fields that interest you. The humanities were of little value or interest to me, and that hasn't changed.

And what's the loss to me? As I said, I have already formulated a worldview that informs me of what is important, one that has served me well to date. I'm not looking to make mine more like yours.

And I don't care what people you call experts say when I can come to my own conclusions for reasons already given. I've explained the logical fallacy in just accepting your claims about experts, or theirs about their soft fields of endeavor. I thought that the CS Lewis quote illustrated that well, but apparently not. Why should I care what that guy thinks is true about the Gospels?

I also showed you the problem with ideas like the historicity of Jesus. I was told that the experts are in agreement that there was a historical Jesus, yet there can be no agreement about what it is that these experts are agreeing actually existed.

But look what you turned all of that into. Yet another straw man. I have never said that familiarity with evidence doesn't matter when making informed decisions. I have said the opposite.

What constitutes science is ultimately a philosophical question and thus has no objectively correct answer, I was just pointing out it is not the standard usage of the term, and watering down of important terminology is generally not beneficial to society.

I disagree that the term has been watered down. I believe it has been amplified in a beneficial way - linking the formal and informal empirical process and showing that just because you go into a lab and put on a white coat to draw generalizations about reality by observing it in order to generate useful inductions and successfully predict outcomes, you are not doing anything fundamentally different than you do outside the lab as you go through daily life observing, generalizing, and predicting. Building ones worldview and fund of knowledge in our early years is essentially the same process.

My reason for going there was the straw man that some people say that science is the only source of knowledge about the world. I believe that it was you that made that claim, but I'm not certain. Who says that? Most of my knowledge comes from living life and is unrelated to what you call science. What empiricists are saying is that useful information comes only from properly understanding experience, which is also what formal science is.

Regarding standard usage, why would that matter? Language evolves to meet the needs of the people using it.

Keep it simple: State your evidence using only strong science, that science matters! You can't. It is an opinion.

I say that science is useful. I'm happy that we have so many fruits of science to make our lives longer, more functional, more comfortable. less laborious, and more interesting. I think that matters, and you can call that an opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I say that science is useful. I'm happy that we have so many fruits of science to make our lives longer, more functional, more comfortable. less laborious, and more interesting. I think that matters, and you can call that an opinion.

Well, it is an opinion. The full sentence ought to read. Science can be useful to humans, but how it is useful, is subjective.
All you expressed above are not science. It is your 1st person opinion.

 

[Augustus]

You keep making that claim about being my being emotional rather than rational, yet it is your reaction here that is the emotional one. You're offended at how I think. You're offended that I reject as unimportant what you place great stock in.

By contrast, I have no emotional reaction to you. I just am not persuaded by you...

Offended? I'm amused. It's a forum, and completely inconsequential.

You surely don't get 'offended' that a fundy doesn't share your interest in science or that that they don't agree with you. You also don't expect for a second that they'll actually change their mind and say 'By jove! You are right. Thank you so much for enlightening me' either. It's just for fun.

Some people like finding Bible contradictions. Others like arguing about evolution. Others like arguing about how awful Trump is. I like seeing 'Rationalists' try to defend irrational positions while insisting they are completely rational (especially when, in other threads, they then go and ridicule others for doing exactly this behaviour). Each to their own.

And it's not an emotional reaction to me of course, it's an emotional attachment to a belief. It doesn't mean you get angry or annoyed, just that you have an attachment to maintaining this particular belief. To some extent, we all do this with that which is ideologically important to us, many 'Rationalists' seem to think they have uniquely transcended the limitations of human cognition though and fairly judge each issue on its merits (which is impossible).

What I'm rejecting is claims such as that since all of the experts agree with me, you should as well. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that I require the evidence and argument for my own review before believing.

No one has said you should agree because the experts agree though, that's your repeated misrepresentation like bringing up woo and faith.

I asked how you can rationally believe the experts are pretty all wrong on an issue with plenty of evidence (thus not remotely comparable to Jesus) given you admit you don't know much about the issue and are completely uninterested in becoming more informed.

Even someone as staunchly anti-theistic (and scientistic) as Lawrence Krauss rejects the naive conflict thesis myth you continually insist is true.

Asking why you think such a diverse collection of people could all look at a large amount of evidence and be all miss what is 'self-evident' to pretty much every 13 year old anti-theist is very different from demanding you believe it.

I have never said that familiarity with evidence doesn't matter when making informed decisions. I have said the opposite.

The you should understand why your stance on the conflict thesis amuses me

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I like seeing 'Rationalists' try to defend irrational positions while insisting they are completely rational

I don't think you're qualified to make that judgment. You have difficulty understanding what is written to you. You see what you want to see, and then attack your straw man. Is that rational?

No one has said you should agree because the experts agree

Why do you keep telling me what these people think? I've told you already that I am uninterested in what anybody else thinks about a matter that I can evaluate myself. I'd call that more rational than your argument from authority fallacy.

I asked how you can rationally believe the experts are pretty all wrong on an issue with plenty of evidence (thus not remotely comparable to Jesus) given you admit you don't know much about the issue and are completely uninterested in becoming more informed.

There you go again, converting what I wrote into what you want to see so that you can call it irrational and smugly posture yourself as superior.

How many times do you need to be told that I do not call your so-called experts wrong. What I have said repeatedly is that I don't care about their opinions.

The you should understand why your stance on the conflict thesis amuses me

More arrogant smugness from you.

Once again, you expect me to defer to you and your sources when I can see the conflict there every day right here on RF. I didn't read your material on that subject because I'm not interested. What could you or anybody else possibly have to say to make me think that the majority of attacking of science isn't coming from the church?

I have two favorite pieces of text that I like to bring out when I encounter these religious science deniers, each posted over a dozens times now. I could link you to multiple examples of my posting them, but I think that would violate RF terms of service. Here's what the first looks like:

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor in the comfort of your air conditioned home and in the glow of electric lighting, type into your cordless keyboard, then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server, one of untold numbers of computers interconnected into a powerful network of intercommunicating computers bringing the world and all of its information to your laptop.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could express your disappointment in science and say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.​

And here's the other:

"Are you proposing that we throw out a scientific theory that has unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, and trade it in for a sterile idea like creationism that can do none of those things? Why would we? Why would you?"​

These posts are all to Christians. Nobody else needs to be told these things. Who else do I need to point out the special pleading fallacy to when telling me that a cell is too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated, so they postulate an even more complex, undesigned and uncreated god to account for it?

So what do you or your so-called experts think you can tell me to make me think that these people aren't being taught that science is wrong or not to be trusted? Who teaches them to say that there is a barrier between lesser evolutionary changes over shorter periods of time and the same process over eons generating even more change. Who's teaching them that evolution says a dog can give rise to a cat? Their churches. Their Christian apologetics web sites like CARM, AiG, and ICR.

What do you think you can tell me that will change my opinion that the church's doctrine is in conflict with Darwin's theory, for example? Just because many denominations have given lip service to accepting the theory, they can't without modifying it since it directly contradicts their belief that man was made in God's image and that he has a soul. There is no place for either of those in evolutionary theory.

I can't see a reason for you to post like you do except to serve as a stealth apologist for Christianity. You seem to want to change my opinions about the church, but you have nothing to change them with - certainly not your passages of text saying that there is no conflict between religion and science when there is, nor your contention that secular humanism was an outgrowth of Christianity.

Perhaps you are used to intellectual plankton that you can persuade with posturing, walls of useless words, insulting the intelligence of those who won't yield, and feigned, smug superiority. You seem to want me to see the church in a more favorable light, but that's not going to happen unless you can make me forget what I've seen.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think you're qualified to make that judgment.

Yet the evidence shows it to be true

You have difficulty understanding what is written to you. You see what you want to see, and then attack your straw man. Is that rational?

You keep on inventing 'straw' strawmen by ignoring what I say in context. I can't be bothered to correct them all as you ignore the corrections too.

For example:

There you go again, converting what I wrote into what you want to see so that you can call it irrational and smugly posture yourself as superior.

How many times do you need to be told that I do not call your so-called experts wrong. What I have said repeatedly is that I don't care about their opinions.

Why wouldn't I smugly think opinions based on evidence are superior? Are you meek and humble when presented with arguments for YEC? What's good for the goose...

More to the point though, on the subject of straw strawmen, of course you are saying they are wrong because you say you are right.

You strongly advocate for the conflict thesis
They believe it is a myth borne of ignorance

Whether you care about their opinions or are explicitly saying they are wrong is beside the point, both positions can't both be right.

Next example of ignoring what I say:

Why do you keep telling me what these people think? I've told you already that I am uninterested in what anybody else thinks about a matter that I can evaluate myself. I'd call that more rational than your argument from authority fallacy.

For the nth time, it's not an argument from authority as I'm not providing it as the reason why you should believe this. It is a question: Given that you admit you haven't looked at and don't care to look at the evidence, how can you be so certain that the people who have looked at the evidence are wrong?

Also, noting a consensus among those who have looked at the evidence is information, doesn't mean you have to agree, just that rejecting it out of hand without looking at the evidence is irrational.

In the context of our discussions, which contain you repeatedly insisting that some kind of bias, anti-science agenda, apologetic agenda, advocacy of woo, etc. is at play, it is useful information. It is far more likely that someone who is ignorant of the evidence yet believes something that aligns with their strongly held ideological beliefs is biased, than a diverse collection of people who have looked at the evidence and reached a dramatically different conclusion.

If you want another of the straw strawmen: "I have never said that familiarity with evidence doesn't matter when making informed decisions. I have said the opposite."

Yet in this situation, you are indeed making the case that familiarity with evidence doesn't matter when making informed decisions as you a) accept you don't care enough to examine the evidence b) insist that you don't need to examine the evidence in order to consider your beliefs rational, and to [implicitly] reject the consensus opinion of those who have looked at the evidence.

I could continue, but you get the point (actually probably not, but we live in hope)...

Once again, you expect me to defer to you and your sources when I can see the conflict there every day right here on RF. I didn't read your material on that subject because I'm not interested. What could you or anybody else possibly have to say to make me think that the majority of attacking of science isn't coming from the church?

You are interested enough to make strident claims in support of the historical conflict thesis though.

Currently you are advocating that b) should be considered an equally good method as a) for understanding what happened in the past and that it is arrogant to contend otherwise.

a) Look at historical evidence in context
b) Look at modern American Protestant fundamentalists and just assume they are highly representative of the last millennium or two of global history thus negating the need to actually look at the historical evidence

Other than fundies, no one denies that many US fundies have an anti-scientific agenda (at least on a few issues), it's just not that relevant to a long period of global history.

I can't see a reason for you to post like you do except to serve as a stealth apologist for Christianity.

Just like all the historians of diverse religious and irreligious backgrounds who look at the evidence and reach the same conclusions.

See why it's useful information to mention the scholarly consensus? A rational person can use this information to identify that there are reasons other than hidden agendas to hold a particular belief

You seem to want to change my opinions about the church, but you have nothing to change them with - certainly not your passages of text saying that there is no conflict between religion and science when there is, nor your contention that secular humanism was an outgrowth of Christianity.

Perhaps you are used to intellectual plankton that you can persuade with posturing, walls of useless words, insulting the intelligence of those who won't yield, and feigned, smug superiority.

I don't care about your opinions either way as it's a win-win: you change you mind or provide amusement (and from the very beginning the assumption has been that it will always be the latter. This is because, in general, people rarely change opinions they are emotionally invested in especially when they have made numerous bullish public pronouncements in support of them as in such cases people aren't commonly persuaded by facts or logic. No reason why you should be any different. No doubt I do this too at times, it just happens not to be on this issue).

And as you don't care about either evidence or critical scholarship, I'll just continue with the same smugness and arrogance you display when dealing with fundies who don't care about these either

 

[Shia Islam]

Thank you all for your valuable contributions to the topic..
I really enjoyed reading through them..
This includes both, posts that support my stance, and those that do not..

All the best