To the Anti-Religious

[Sententia]

*sigh*

Ok. I've read the book. We discussed the entire thing in class. I'm doing Religious Studies and Philosophy, two things which Dawkins (not ad hom - this is just blatant observation) has no real idea about. Dawkins does not have a PHD in Religious Studies, and he doesn't discuss anything more than Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist nuts. This is obvious if you've read the book. Have you?

Of course... The book. Well originally we were discussing Dawkins. I posted a video earlier of him presenting to TED. By the book I believe you refer to the God Delusion. Yes I have read it.

I realize that I haven't fully explained myself, but at the moment, I am completely swamped with homework -hence the fallacious action I took to cut through the ********. I simply don't have the time. But I do have notes on the inaccuracies of his book, and I do have much more to say on the matter. Dawkins is biased against religion, my professor is also an atheist, who thinks that Dawkins does a very poor job combating "all religion." The truth is that this is not one of his better works. He writes brilliantly on Biology - but not when it comes to religion. I figured this would be an obvious assertion to make, since I assumed everyone here had read the book and had actually thought critically about it. Clearly this is not the case. This book seems to be more of a publicity stunt than to stand up for the modern atheist. There are MUCH better arguments to be made for the atheist case than, "religious people are morons." If you can't understand this, I again have wasted my time...

While there can be some constructive discussions regarding how Dawkin's approaches the subject of why people believe the way they believe - I think its clear your summation of Dawkin's various arguments as "religious people are morons" is false.

If there is something in particular you would like to discuss or debate I think that would be more constructive.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Actually, the abstract perfection of mathematics NEVER works in actuality, except relatively. The principal of equality, for example doesn't actually exist. No two anythings are exactly the same, or they would actually BE THE SAME thing. Two actual things can only be considered equal in relative terms. They are equal only relative to the degree to which we ignore the ways they are not equal.

So, although as an abstract concept, two plus two equals four, perfectly and absolutely, in actual reality, it NEVER CAN.

Hmmmmm. How exactly would you measure that the two things are not equal?

 

[PureX]

Hmmmmm. How exactly would you measure that the two things are not equal?

It doesn't matter. There will always be some aspect that will not be equal. If ALL aspects were equal, they would not be two distinguishable objects.

 

[Beaudreaux]

It doesn't matter. There will always be some aspect that will not be equal. If ALL aspects were equal, they would not be two distinguishable objects.

I see. So the two objects are only relatively equal. How do we determine just HOW close to being equal they are?

 

[PureX]

I see. So the two objects are only relatively equal. How do we determine just HOW close to being equal they are?

That's up to us. Why does this matter?

 

[Beaudreaux]

That's up to us. Why does this matter?

I believe you know very well why it matters. Without mathematics there is no "unequal". I submit to you that there is no other way to determine their inequality than through math applied to measurable data. Do you disagree?

 

[fantome profane]

It doesn't matter. There will always be some aspect that will not be equal. If ALL aspects were equal, they would not be two distinguishable objects.

That actually reminds me of one of the more interesting facts of subatomic physics. Consider any two photons for example, you will find that they are in fact absolutely indistinguishable. We might as well say that they are the same photon, existing in two different places at the same time. They are equal. There are no unequal aspects.

 

[PureX]

I believe you know very well why it matters. Without mathematics there is no "unequal". I submit to you that there is no other way to determine their inequality than through math applied to measurable data. Do you disagree?

Life is full of paradox for we humans. My point is that "mathematics" is an intellectual paradigm that we use to "understand" the world around us. It works pretty well as long as we don't ask more of it than it can deliver. It is not, however, an aspect of the world we are seeking to understand, apart from us. Which is why it's accuracy can always and only be relative. Same, then, goes for our understanding of things.

It's something a lot of "anti-religious" folks I come across seem to forget.

 

[PureX]

That actually reminds me of one of the more interesting facts of subatomic physics. Consider any two photons for example, you will find that they are in fact absolutely indistinguishable. We might as well say that they are the same photon, existing in two different places at the same time. They are equal. There are no unequal aspects.

Yes, on the quantum level, those tiny anomalies that we normally overlook become huge, governing factors, and force us to rethink the way we understand our own "reality".

 

[Vile Atheist]

@ Storm

Instead of replying to a million tedious little quotes, I'm going to again attempt to clarify my position. I originally replied in that manner, but I accidentally hit the "Back" button and lost all I typed and a good portion of my patience with it.

Hell Houses - of the variety I linked to - are child abuse. Haunted Houses, even those with a religious theme, are not child abuse. Religion is not of itself child abuse, but some religious practices can be abusive. Pedobaptism and circumcision, both male and female for example. And Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have some form of genital mutilation or pedobaptism or both. There are some Christian sects excluded from that, but they are relatively minor.

And I have little problem with religion up until a set of religious beliefs devalues humanity. If a set of beliefs - intentionally or unintentionally - supports, condones, allows any action that causes misery or death - directly or indirectly - I will attack those beliefs. I have the belief religious opinions are irrational because they lack evidence to support them. But I won't attack beliefs on those grounds until they are waved in my face and someone is trying to convince me to buy them. Then I start asking for evidence.

I have no problem with people believing as they wish, up until the moment it devalues humanity. If the Catholic Church - for example - changed its positions tomorrow to something along the lines of "Gays can get married", "Women/gays can be clergy", "Abortion should be heavily conditional and only used as a last resort. We encourage family planning", "Contraception is allowed, but heavily discouraged in exchange for abstinence and family planning and sexual relations within the confines of marriage", "Euthanasia should only be performed with the willing consent of a terminally ill patient."...I would not have a problem with the Catholic Church. I would still find their beliefs irrational but I would not attack them as such...until they wave them in my face.

Religion - and when I say religion, I specifically mean Abrahamic religions as they constitute a majority of the world - are guilty of supporting - indirectly or directly - at least some of the above crimes. When a Jehovah's Witness allows their child to die because of their beliefs, then I have a problem with that. And any exceptions, great. I would love to find tons of exceptions to this. This is something I would love to be proved wrong on.

And that does not mean I hate or dislike theists for adopting their beliefs, but I attack these institutions because they contribute to the devaluing of humanity. If your religious beliefs - or any others for that matter - do not devalue humanity, I have little to no qualm with them. Hope that clears things up.

 

[Vile Atheist]

To add, I think I understand why this turned into mudslinging. I was under the impression you were downplaying the abuse that goes on in the Hell Houses I linked to. You must have been under the impression I was talking about benign religious haunted houses.

Then I was offended at how someone can downplay abuse like that (hence my comments), and you were offended I thought that, having probably thoughts of benign religious haunted houses.

So for that misunderstanding, I offer my apologies.

 

[Storm]

CM, I acknowledged at the beginning that religion can be used as a tool of abuse. What offended me was your implication that it is always abusive.

 

[Vile Atheist]

CM, I acknowledged at the beginning that religion can be used as a tool of abuse. What offended me was your implication that it is always abusive.

And unfortunately it often is.

At least the misunderstanding is sorted out .

 

[Tiapan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantôme profane
That actually reminds me of one of the more interesting facts of subatomic physics. Consider any two photons for example, you will find that they are in fact absolutely indistinguishable. We might as well say that they are the same photon, existing in two different places at the same time. They are equal. There are no unequal aspects.

I might suggest its pretty easy to differentiate between two photons, just look at their wavelength. It may be harder if they both have identical frequencies.

 

[Dunemeister]

You seem to be saying that a belief is warranted only if it is (perhaps only in principle) verifiable.
I would have thought that so foundational as be implicitly understood.
The baby isn't learning to trust her perceptual and cognitive apparatus. This is just their normal development. (Besides, do babies even have beliefs?)
This is simply not true. And I strongly suspect you KNOW it is not true. The entire period of infancy contains MOST of the learning we do. And it is so foundational that we simply take it for granted once learned. As you mentioned early. You don’t question your perception you take for granted. And WHY? Cause it has been proven to largely correct since you were infant. And you bet babies have beliefs. You sound like someone who never gotten up at 0300 to change a crying baby. They absolutely believe that if they make enough noise something good will happen. It took but a few weeks for THAT lesson to sink in. BTW, my cats have beliefs. Springing from the exact same process.
You can't verify my belief by any means whatsoever. Yet it's warranted for me (whether it is for you is debatable

Not me personally but any competent audiologist can in minutes. Provided you are willing to engage honestly in the effort. (And THERE is where the process may indeed break down.)

As for my skipping over your earlier example I noted they all had the SAME defect. To take your banana example you must certainly DO (or could quickly obtain) evidence to verify what you had. You can check the # of bananas in the fridge, you can examine the breakfast dishes, or you can check the trash for banana peelings. You could even have your stomach pumped. Your memory can indeed be verified by you are anyone who cares to go to the effort. You don’t do any of those things because your experience has taught you that your memory is pretty good about such things and you willing to accept it at face value. But that is something you have LEARNED by a process of trail and error. A process that continues even today.

Or maybe not.

I'll get back to this when I'm able, but that may not be for a couple of days. You are missing the relevance of some crucial distinctions, but as I said, I'll get to them when I can. Fortunately, raising a child creates worthwhile diversions from RF.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantôme profane
That actually reminds me of one of the more interesting facts of subatomic physics. Consider any two photons for example, you will find that they are in fact absolutely indistinguishable. We might as well say that they are the same photon, existing in two different places at the same time. They are equal. There are no unequal aspects.

I might suggest its pretty easy to differentiate between two photons, just look at their wavelength. It may be harder if they both have identical frequencies.

Speed changes (frequency), but the absolute properties of photons and related electro-magnetic phenomena do not differ. There is a very curious case regarding the satisfaction of Maxwell's equations. If one looks at the forward wave it very aptly describes light. But there is a secondary satisfying conclusion called the retarded wave (as it comes after the former) which describes anti-matter. Apparently light is its own anti-particle (which would tend to explain why two gamma rays slamming together gets you an electron and a positron) and describes anti-matter as actually going backward in time relative to normal matter. So a positron is exactly the same as an electron but traveling backward in time... (retrocausality is real, and I still have no clue what it means). The parity is there; annihilate a positron and an electron and you get two gamma rays, but the truly astounding possibility which some scientists have put forward is that there is only one actual electron/positron in the whole universe. That is to say that each instance of an electron or positron is the same particle at some different point in time; either head forward in time towards the "end of time" (or whatever passes for that) and the other heading backward in time towards the "beginning of time" and then becoming an electron again... Truly mind blowing if true!

MTF

 

[Nepenthe]

Life is full of paradox for we humans. My point is that "mathematics" is an intellectual paradigm that we use to "understand" the world around us. It works pretty well as long as we don't ask more of it than it can deliver. It is not, however, an aspect of the world we are seeking to understand, apart from us. Which is why it's accuracy can always and only be relative. Same, then, goes for our understanding of things.

It's something a lot of "anti-religious" folks I come across seem to forget.

I agree, and conversely, I find that most theists or mystics I come across see mathematical models as something inherent in the universe, and not a human creation to describe perceived patterns.

It works pretty well as long as we don't ask more of it than it can deliver. It is not, however, an aspect of the world we are seeking to understand, apart from us.Which is why it's accuracy can always and only be relative. Same, then, goes for our understanding of things.

While I tend to agree that accuracy through macroscopic devices is all we have and may be relative, but it's also the only means that have been shown to work. The magnetic moment of an electron is calculated in quantum electrodynamics to 1.00115965246. Its measured value is 1.001159652193+/-0.0000000010, accurate to one part in ten billion. Quantum effects are often claimed to be unpredictable, but here's a clearly predicted measured outcome that's astonishingly accurate. The point is that no other method besides science has even suggested anything matching its success in explaining the universe.

 

[Buttons*]

To add to what I said earlier, it seems that a lot of the posters here do not seem to be happy with your arguments unless you address every single possible religious belief and every interpretation of gods, deities, fairies, pixies, etc.

Obviously, this is an impossible task. So for future reference, when I say, "Religion is evil" or something of the sort, I'm talking specifically about the Abrahamic religions. And if I say "Religion is irrational", then I address all of them.

If you're unhappy with that, then stop needlessly insisting I address every variation of every religion explicitly. Of course there will be exceptions to what I say because I have to make generalizations. When covering 85% of the world, you need to do that, contrary to what UltraViolet seems to think is possible.

My point is that if you CANNOT do that, address all faiths, then you really have no business judging what you don't know about. Similrly, I can't judge a Biologist's findings, because I simply don't know THAT much about in depth Biology. In order to have the ability to asses one must be EDUCATED on the subject. You clearly aren't. I'm sorry.

 

[Buttons*]

To add to what I said earlier, it seems that a lot of the posters here do not seem to be happy with your arguments unless you address every single possible religious belief and every interpretation of gods, deities, fairies, pixies, etc.

Obviously, this is an impossible task. So for future reference, when I say, "Religion is evil" or something of the sort, I'm talking specifically about the Abrahamic religions. And if I say "Religion is irrational", then I address all of them.

If you're unhappy with that, then stop needlessly insisting I address every variation of every religion explicitly. Of course there will be exceptions to what I say because I have to make generalizations. When covering 85% of the world, you need to do that, contrary to what UltraViolet seems to think is possible.

My point is that if you CANNOT do that, address all faiths, then you really have no business judging what you don't know about. Similarly, I can't judge all Biologist's findings, because I simply don't know THAT much about in depth Biology. In order to have the ability to asses one must be EDUCATED on the subject. You clearly aren't. I'm sorry.

To generalize and reduce to one statement about the entirety of a subject is nothing more than ignorance... it's something that, being a Gnostic, I abhor.

 

[Vile Atheist]

My point is that if you CANNOT do that, address all faiths, then you really have no business judging what you don't know about. Similarly, I can't judge all Biologist's findings, because I simply don't know THAT much about in depth Biology. In order to have the ability to asses one must be EDUCATED on the subject. You clearly aren't. I'm sorry.

To generalize and reduce to one statement about the entirety of a subject is nothing more than ignorance... it's something that, being a Gnostic, I abhor.

Who says I haven't been educated? I grew up Catholic, later became Protestant and have attended religious schools my entire life. I even took World Religions courses.

And my point was not about addressing all FAITHS, but interpretations of God. Two people can claim to be Catholic and yet have differing opinions on God. And that's what I mean by "It is impossible to address all of them". You'd have to talk about each person's beliefs in their entirety individually, which is obviously painstaking to do and not something I'd be able to complete in this lifetime. So, as a matter of expedient, I take the common, rudimentary beliefs of each faith and judge them according to my criteria to determine if they are rational and moral beliefs. If I don't think they are rational, I don't particularly care a whole lot. If I don't think they are moral, I speak out against them. Nothing more, nothing less.