Again, I'd disagree with that completely, I don't see it as either-or. And again, I'd offer up as an existence proof a rational deist such as Gardner. Because I will say it again - we are all too complex to be neatly fit into little cubbyholes of "rational" and "irrational" - there are shades of gray. In fact I'd suggest that there is probably not one person who is wholly rational or one that is wholly irrational. To give a more realistic example of that kind, if Billy Bob is an alcoholic, but is able to stop because of AA and his religious convictions, then good for him. If it keeps a drunk driver off the road, then that is a good thing (provided he is not using his beliefs in some other bad way).
I cannot see how someone can be a deist and rational, they are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed concepts. Are you saying that it is perfectly rational to believe in that which has never been shown to exist? It would be very interesting to hear that argument, for it would certainly be one that could change my entire outlook on religion, and perhaps others. Sorry, I don't agree whatsoever. All that is being accomplished here is the substituing of one addiction with another. The problem of addiction has not been solved, but merely placated with fantasy.
see organised religion and athiests cause war. i just wanted to know something, what is the translation of xian? i was just interested. peace.
I think it is more a matter of strictly partitioning the respective domains of religion and scientific inquiry (a la Stephen Jay Gould, for example). Again, I'll use Gardner as an example - he states up fron that there is no evidence for God and that the atheist perspective is the most consistent. It's quite clear that the man understands these issues as well as anyone else here or elsewhere. He would of course concede that his belief in God is irrational. He chooses to believe because it improve the quality of his life - credo consolans. But this is strictly partitioned from his ability to consider questions of mathematics, science, and the paranormal from a completely neutral and rational perspective. This is easy to see as follows: If you were to never pick up one his philosophy books, where he discusses his fideism, you'd never have a clue as to his private beliefs. You'd be too busy reading his high quality Scientific American articles and essays and his debunking of frauds. You'd be too busy reading the kudos offered to him by the likes of Sagan and Penrose, or the support of organizations that support skeptical inquirey of all manner of pseudoscience junk. Gardner has written about how people are shocked to learn that he is a theist. And if he had never chosen to write about it, he'd still be a theist, but the funny thing is that most atheists would just assume he was one of them. Just because you hold irrational beliefs about a particular set of things does not mean that the irrationality necessarily extends into your consideration of other areas. The fact that I have an irrational fear of spiders does not impact my ability to rationally consider a scientific argument. Again, just because Joe Blow is irrational about x doesn't mean he is irrational about everything. More shades of gray. Perhaps, but there is a huge practical difference between the two. One is clearly a menace to society and a danger, the other isn't necessarily so.
He would be forced to concede his beliefs are irrational, and he would be labeled a hypocrite if his beliefs were held up to the rigor of science, yet he firmly held to them. Where does he stand on that principle? It doesn't make sense, on one hand he refutes that which has not been shown to exist and on the other hand believes in something else which has not been shown to exist. Surely, he must justify or explain this in some way? The only thing that makes sense is that he uses religion as an escape, the same way others use television or some other form of mind-numbing entertainment. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, since those irrational beliefs must be justified in some way if any credibility were to be considered. Your fear of spiders is not irrational in the same way as the belief in the supernatural, they can't be compared. Religious people are also menaces to our society. The treatment of alcoholism is not religion. Religion may mask the problem temporarily, but the addiction remains. It is the addiction that must be treated.
Don't know. He believes because it assuages a deep-seated despair. He discussed how his friend Carl Sagan once asked him if he just believed in God because it made him feel good. His response was that is precisely right, but that it was a very different kind of 'feel good' compared to the way you feel good after a few stiff drinks. It would be helpful to have some new definitions or terms to differentiate these, then. To me, irrational is irrational. Correction: they may be menaces to society. Just like some nontheists have been, and will be, menaces. Pol Pot didn't need religion, after all. And I have religious friends that are not a menace to anybody. They are just nice people with private convictions different from you and I. They have not done anything to be villified for. They are not somehow culpable for the many sins of organized religion.
It would be very interesting to find out, since it is the crux of the apostrophe, so to speak. He appears to use religion as an escape, no different than any other form of mild entertainment. Then, perhaps your fear of spiders is not irrational at all. Although Pol Pot studied at a Buddhist monestary and catholic church, he did go about attempting to abolish religion, but didn't just stop there. His vision of an agrarian utopia resulted in the deaths of millions. I'm all for abolishing religion, but through education, not genocide. Sure, your friends are nice people with private convictions. But it is those same 'nice people' who will most likely vote for a politician whose views are slanted by religion, will vote to bring laws that are slanted by religious convictions, and will rule society based on those very same convictions. They are, in that respect, every bit a menace as those who committed the atrocities of organized religion, because their convictions, one and all, are based on fantasy rather than reality.
------------------------------- The bible can be an absolute and you still have your free will.... You can chose to reject Him and walk off that short pier to your death. Jesus died in the flesh only.....we are tri-une beings. The answer Q is C, not A or B............. You have only limited yourself to that by your own delusions.
My point about Pol Pot is that you don't need religion in order to cause genocide. Religion isn't the root cause. It exacerbates things, sure. But even without it, we'll still kill each other, just like I'm sure we did before anyone ever started talking about Jehovah et al. Maybe some of them. Not all of them. Plenty of religious folks are on our side of the separation of church-state battle. Look here. Again and again I have to say it, I guess - with a big enough sample size of beings as complex as humans, you are going to have variation, and statistical outliers. Your brush is too wide, your cubbyholes too small. There are plenty of people that don't fit into the narrow categorizations.
Primarily, it is the root cause. Religion has been an influence on the world for centuries, it has molded the very fabric of our society. If we're still killing each other, we only have religion to blame for it. Had man taken the path of reason instead of fantasy from day one, perhaps killing each other would have been a concept of ancient history by now. Thanks for the link.
I really, honestly, emphatically disagree with this. I think the root cause is far more primal, more simple. Evolution favors that we treat members our close group altruistically, but to treat groups of outsiders as enemies competing for our resources. That is all it is. Chimps make war like we do, and I highly doubt that chimps do it for God. Religion is just a way to strengthen that group mentality. It's dangerous, I won't disagree with that. It is the gasoline that many an arsonist has used. But blaming religion for war is to blame the gasoline for the arson. I wish it were the case. You are welcome. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I mostly agree. Wars for resources (viable land, minerals, etc.) are very understandable in the context of evolutionary biology. However, religion seems to be responsible, not only for stifling the free inquiry of the human mind for thousands of years, but for promoting wars for the resource of the human mind, as it were. Philosophical wars. Particularly human wars. No?
Here's another sign that you're an xian: some of your beliefs severely contradict your other beliefs and defy reality blatantly. Fuck, Greco-Roman polytheism had a better sense of continuity than judeo-christian-islamic religion.
I agree that it has often caused the stifling of free inquiry. This is an effect that religion has obviously had (and continues to have in some places) but it is not an effect that it by definition has to have. It has certainly provided motivation for any number of horrors. It has provided an excuse, it has legitimized certain wars (in the eyes of the perps, that is) and it has been used to recruit and prepare sundry soldiers, kamikazees (sp?) and suicide bombers. It has a certain horrible efficiency in doing that, yes. I'm thinking of the play Henry V. Henry spends a lot of time, either in prayer before the battle at Agincourt, or in his questioning of the archbishop, in assuring himself that by waging this war his is doing "God's will." He uses it to assuage his revulsion at the fact that many lives will be lost. This is where religious thinking hits it's apogee of evil. It is horrible, it is unforgivable. However, I still cannot believe that even without religion, old Henry wouldn't have found some other justification to attack France. After all, even though God's will was invoked, it really all got back to an ancient dispute over who owned a particular piece of land. Maybe the wars would be less destructive. I don't know. Something like an Inquisition obviously would seem to have more religious roots. But the 20th century tells us that certain non-religious political ideologies can also bring us torture and murder. All because group A wants group B to think like them. It doesn't matter if it is a belief in the supremacy of God or a belief in the supremacy of the State. Same shit, different name. I'd suggest that there is an underlying root cause that unites the Grand Inquisitor and Joe Stalin, Pol Pot, and those wonderful leaders in China and North Korea. And it ain't Christianity. I'm not trying to defend oranized religion in this debate. I'm simply trying to state that the root causes for human horror go much deeper than holy books and gods.
Geeser _ I just want to say your post packs a one mean punch for the bible thumpers. Kudos for such an intelligent post.
Wow. That's something of a turnaround - a theist accusing an atheist of being delusional. "TheVisitor" - I love your certainty, and the brevity of your replies, but you aren't going to convince anyone with fear tactics - doesn't work for sex education, doesn't work for religion. I'm not scared of dying being the end. For some reason I'm more saddened by people who are religious and still depressing/depressed. If I believed in God I would aspire to be more like U2 and go rock my Father's World. If God thinks that the death of one (albeit very special) bloke is going to convince the world that he is great then he's not a very switched on Guy. He's supposed to be perfect - where's his promotional material? That Bible has been rewritten any number of times (especially recently) and it's still not really ringing any bells with me. Anyway, brevity is good, like I said...
