Fundamentalist Faith is Intolerance

[wesmorris]

"So whenever some atheist goes at religionists and claims that religious faith is "irrational" or "not based on any evidence" -- I just wonder which logic this self-proclaimed scientific atheist adheres to ... "


I won't bother to speak for other athiests, but blind religious faith is irrational to me from the perspective of lacking compelling evidence (while I realize the evidence is obviously compelling to one who has accepted it, it cannot be demonstrated as factual, or based in reality as I know it), and because it is based on lie of promotion as I mentioned before. The lie is to call it truth, where it is at best a hypothesis that cannot be evidenced in the same manner that I can demonstrate gravity for instance, or F= MA.

 

[skeptic]

wes, i agree with you. However, calling faith a hypothesis is even being too kind, as a hypothesis (in the scientific sense) is based on a collection of observations about the world around us, which can then be TESTED using controlled experiments to create a scientific theory....and if this theory holds up...it can eventually become a law.
Religious faith is not based on logic or emperical evidence and can never be tested, as it is unfalsifiable. It can not even be called a hypothesis in the scientific sense, even though the push amoung theists and creationists recently is to be recognized as a science. An unsuccessful push, thankfully.

Greg

 

[water]

I won't bother to speak for other athiests, but blind religious faith is irrational to me from the perspective of lacking compelling evidence (while I realize the evidence is obviously compelling to one who has accepted it, it cannot be demonstrated as factual, or based in reality as I know it), and because it is based on lie of promotion as I mentioned before. The lie is to call it truth, where it is at best a hypothesis that cannot be evidenced in the same manner that I can demonstrate gravity for instance, or F= MA.

I suppose this is directed at those with blind religious faith, like the Mormons who believe the planet Earth is 5000 years old (or something like that).
Frankly, I dodn't even consider those in my thinking, as I have written them off as ... well, irrational.

But as to what is rational is a fuzzy thing. In 1630, for example, it was rational to think that the velocity of a bullet or an arrow is the greatest some time *after* it has been shot -- the same as a man or a carriage reach their greatest velocity some time after they start moving. (Yes, we laugh at this nowadays.) Descartes reconceptualized the understanding of movement, by seeing it as a state, not a process. Was he thinking irrationaly? Nowadays, we'd say that he wasn't, but back then? The traditional theory of movement back then was rational in regards to the facts that were known to it. But Descartes' theory way rational on the basis of the new facts that his very theory enabled him to see. -- Thus, both theories were rational, each in regards to its own frame of evidence.


As for lies and truths: Could we say that the Mormons are lying when it comes to the age of the planet? How can you scientifically discard their methods of knowing? -- I know, it seems absurd to ask such a simple question, but yes: They say that they speak to God, or the Spirit. Technically, they could have a way of gathering evidence, a way that traditional science does not have. And, here's the thing: it *works* for them. It is feasible for them. Can we criticize something as negative, when it works? Based on what criteria can we criticize it, even though it works?

 

[water]

I'm sorry rosa, it does not matter how you prefix or suffix the word logic,
/.../
it's the product of reasoning.

... Your point being?
The suicidal person has logic too, you know.

it only has one meaning,and I quote.

Quoting from where?

 

[wesmorris]

However, calling faith a hypothesis is even being too kind, as a hypothesis (in the scientific sense) is based on a collection of observations about the world around us

Not necessarily, and I wasn't calling faith the hypothesis. Faith can be based on the hypothesis of god, or of some sort of relevance of a religious text. I might think "you know what, I'm not sure, but the bible works for me so I go with it.", which is perfectly rational to the extent that you aren't holding it to be true. You just think it's a good idea.

, which can then be TESTED using controlled experiments to create a scientific theory....and if this theory holds up...it can eventually become a law.

Technically, "scientific law" is a matter of faith. By that I mean "you cannot read the future, so there is nothing saying that all of the sudden the rules won't up and change on you." So the faith comes in by thinking "this rule will apply tomorrow the same as it did yesterday". Generally seems to be a safe bet but... I'm sure you see the point. I know what you mean, but the semantics of scientific "law" has seemed silly to me since the first time I realized it is silly.

Religious faith is not based on logic or emperical evidence and can never be tested, as it is unfalsifiable.

While I know what you mean and agree with you from my own perspective, others obviously disagree and by the context of their experience, find religious faith to be exactly based on logic and empiracal evidence... to the point of denying that up is up. I think it makes sense from the context of my first reply to tiassa in this thread.... it's about unity. There is emperical evidence that the odds of survival are increased, that if they all believe the same thing, the emotional element of the interactions of the tribe is much smoother, etc... through faith (because of the bonds it creates amongst the tribe), yielding a synergistic effect which they attribute to a higher power they call god blah blah. I wouldn't call it scientific, but someone who doesn't understand science or bastardizes it to their own justification cannot be convinced otherwise by anyone other than themselves... so if they call it "scientific evidence" there is little point to debating the issue unless they are willing to listen, which they probably won't be because of the strength of their bond to the faith of the tribe... so to them it will be scientific evidence, though to someone of another tribe it may appear pretty stupid.

It can not even be called a hypothesis in the scientific sense, even though the push amoung theists and creationists recently is to be recognized as a science.

Of course. I think the explanation I gave above helps explain why. Throw in a touch of psychology "the need for legitimacy and acceptance in society (perhaps wanting to expand the tribe or not recognizing the boundaries of it)" and the yearning of the religious to be accepted by the standard of society (science) is quite understandable.

An unsuccessful push, thankfully.

I hope it remains that way, but one MUST be wary that it could happen. I think if it did, it would simply be indicative of the emotional viability of humans at this point. If indeed the masses require faith for bonding, faith they shall TAKE from the universe. No matter how rational we perceive ourselves to be, we cannot quell an emotional black hole of the bulk of humanity. If it happens, we must accept it and try to promote reason to the best of our ability and hope the bastards don't burn us at the stake.

I like to think if you're understanding and open about it, it will minimize the inevitable clash between tribes. I'm not always sure that's possible because of shit that is hard to explain.. basically the iterations of personality and that some will ferociously promote their perspective and if they get the support of the herd badness can ensue if you don't see eye to eye with them. It's not quite that simple but it's a whole other conversation I think.

 

[wesmorris]

Thus, both theories were rational, each in regards to its own frame of evidence.

Certainly. Perhaps my post to Skeptic cleared up my perspective a bit.

As for lies and truths: Could we say that the Mormons are lying when it comes to the age of the planet?

No, their belief is likely honest in their context, but it's a lie to believe it to be true. Hypothesis is all there is. I say the earth is most likely around 4 or 5 billion years old due to what I've learned... but to hold that is that age is a lie... even if I were to have faith in it. That's because I don't know for sure, and neither does anyone else. We can only talk of likelihood. If you reject my evidence, no matter how convinced I am by it, there's not much more to talk about... so with that in mind, while what you say may be true, to pretend that you KNOW that it is, is a lie unless you have the knowledge first hand, and then it's still "my experience says this" and the concept of observational distance rules the day as you've made so clear. (I thank you for the term, because I've known of it for a long time but never had a good way to explain it.)

How can you scientifically discard their methods of knowing? -- I know, it seems absurd to ask such a simple question, but yes: They say that they speak to God, or the Spirit.

It's because of epistemology. If you claim absolute knowledge you are authoritative. That you are the authority for shit you can't actually know is a lie. Game over. You can "believe it" in the sense that you hope it's true, or you THINK it's true but to pretend that it is and there are no other possiblities is an authoritative fantasy which precludes other possibilities. The problem with this is easily shown from the perspective of hueristic problem solving as I stated to tiassa earlier. If your hueristic solution to a problem precludes the set that may hold the actual answer, you'll never find it. There is also the problem of rejecting evidence. If your solution set precludes eventualities, you find yourself in denial regardless of input.. which leads directly to neurosis and IMO, mental impotence.

Technically, they could have a way of gathering evidence, a way that traditional science does not have. And, here's the thing: it *works* for them. It is feasible for them. Can we criticize something as negative, when it works?

I don't look at it as negative except in certain contexts. All things have good and bad connotations as my value system is applied. You probably see what I mean by my analysis with skeptic above.

Based on what criteria can we criticize it, even though it works?

I do so on the criteria I mentioned above. To me it is undeniable, but if you insist otherwise we'll come to an impasse. I can respect an alternative opinion on this, as I do not claim authority for more than my own perspective.

 

[MacM]

wes, i agree with you. However, calling faith a hypothesis is even being too kind, as a hypothesis (in the scientific sense) is based on a collection of observations about the world around us, which can then be TESTED using controlled experiments to create a scientific theory....and if this theory holds up...it can eventually become a law.
Religious faith is not based on logic or emperical evidence and can never be tested, as it is unfalsifiable. It can not even be called a hypothesis in the scientific sense, even though the push amoung theists and creationists recently is to be recognized as a science. An unsuccessful push, thankfully.

Greg

I agree with your sentiments and I wish I could agree with your conclusions but I cannot.

While the BS of creationists thought was banned legally from being taught as science in our schools in the 1980's, they have re-grouped and are now being devious by not refering to a deity, etc and are pushing ID (Intelligent Design) to be tought in our schools.

Check this out. Very recent (as in YESTERDAY). Published in a major Journal:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04

Please read the article highlited as "detailed critique" by Panda's Thumb.
( http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/may/palevitz_p25_020527.html )

See what the Congress and Senate tried to do and in fact has done. Couple this with:

1 - Pushing School vouchers where religious schools get public funds from your taxes.

2 - Pushing Faith based charaties.

3 - Pushing for prayer in school.

4 - Pushing anti-abortion legislation (not for scientific reasons but religious ones)

5 - Pushing a "Constitutional Ammendment" regarding same couple marriage (I'm not in favor of them but the effort to ammend the Constitution for religious belief scares the hell out of me).

6 - Interviening and stopping "Stem Cell Research" on religious grounds.

7 - Our President (Bush) being quoted as having told Abba in a meeting regarding Isreal peace talks "God told me to strike Al Quida and I did, God told me to strike Saddam Hussien and I did,..................."

http://www.rense.com/general38/errand.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y (See the las two paragraphs)

I just hope people realize just how dangerous this President really is. If he or anyone thinks they are really in communication with God, I suggest they are dillusional and should be locked up not protected in our White House.

Now they have tried to put ID back in our schools by an act passed by the Senate!

Get pissed off people, vote and stop this nonsense (unless of course you believe in it and think you have the right to impose your beliefs on everyone else) which seems to be the case with the religious right.

 

[okinrus]

We should teach both theories, emphasizing evolution. Why is it that students cannot digest two different theories for creation? We shouldn't teach either as absolute proof, for no one as shown both to be absolutely correct. We ought to have teachers always present the evidence and let the students think for themselves for once.

 

[MacM]

We should teach both theories, emphasizing evolution. Why is it that students cannot digest two different theories for creation? We shouldn't teach either as absolute proof, for no one as shown both to be absolutely correct. We ought to have teachers always present the evidence and let the students think for themselves for once.

Creationisim and/or ID are not a "Theories", they are untestable. They are faith based concepts and should never be fed to our youth. Personally if I had the power I would likely be a dictator and close all churches. Since I can't I have to tolerate them but I do not have to allow teaching this crap to my children and my grand children.

Science is science and should be taught as science in our schools.

Faith is faith and belongs in churches and religious schools. You want that crap taught then go to church or attend a private religious school.

 

[okinrus]

MacM, the notion of a creative force is not a religious notion. Students should be aware of the presence of alternate theories of creation, and I don't think teaching the students of the existence of these alternate theories requires too much detail. But to simply pass of teaching such as evolution as absolute fact is not truly teaching the students anything.

Evolution also is "untestable." We cannot go back in time and observe how we were created. Nor does evolution have as much evidence as say Newton's laws 100 years ago.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution have underpinned a number of erroneous and inhumane theories and philosophies such as social darwinism and nazism. Hence, while I see the physical reality of it, I don't want to dwell on it. Further, I don't think any conclusion made from the theory will be in correct conscious. For if the fit are to survive, then one has made a precondition for life.

 

[MacM]

MacM, the notion of a creative force is not a religious notion.

True as far as you go but you left of the "Intelligent Design" aspect. Forces are not intelligent. We are clearly talking about a creator here not some natural force. This symanitical bush is not large enough to hide behind I'm afraid. You are supporting advocating religion as science.

Students should be aware of the presence of alternate theories of creation, and I don't think teaching the students of the existence of these alternate theories requires too much detail. But to simply pass of teaching such as evolution as absolute fact is not truly teaching the students anything.

I'm quite sure that the churches will inform them of the alternatives.

Evolution is not taught as a fact but as per its name "Theory". It is however, based on biology and the sciences and we have indeed tested it and observed it both in our labs and in nature. If you are not aware of that then perhaps you are making coments in an area where you are ill equipped to judge.

Evolution also is "untestable." We cannot go back in time and observe how we were created. Nor does evolution have as much evidence as say Newton's laws 100 years ago.

Funny. Certainly we can not go back in time but we can and have considered the millions upon millions of artifacts from history butressed by our modern understanding of biology and how it works. Actually you are wrong there is substantially more evidence for evolution than for views of gravity, etc from 100 years ago.

Or have you forgotten that Newton's gravity is not valid. That is why we now have AD HOC Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they don't know how else to explain it.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution have underpinned a number of erroneous and inhumane theories and philosophies such as social darwinism and nazism.

You cannot anymore hold evolution resonsible for these than we should Islam for the terrorists. These are bastardized interpretations not included in the theory nor intended or supported by it.

Hence, while I see the physical reality of it, I don't want to dwell on it. Further, I don't think any conclusion made from the theory will be in correct conscious. For if the fit are to survive, then one has made a precondition for life.

I would think that is a very logical conclusion. The unfit will not survive. Where do you see any cross purpose in such a view. It seems perfectly logical, if not mandated.

 

[the preacher]

Okinrus: why dont you become a teacher, then you can teach children, how darwins theory of evolution creates nazi's, WOW talk out of you mouth not your hat.
the only education a child should get is a constructive one, you cant give a child contradicting views, especially if one has no basis in reason.
you only have to look at life on this planet over the last hundred years to know that evolution is right, so it's easily testable, it's fact.

 

[MacM]

I would think it valid that those that support ID and Creatinisim and want it taught in our public schools should also support a drive to mandated that all churches and religious schools would also teach evolution.

After all we are only trying to insure they have the broadest possible view and can consider the alternatives.

Would you support that - okinrus?

 

[wesmorris]

We should teach both theories, emphasizing evolution.

Why? Evolution teaches practical skills of scientific rationalle. ID says, "we made up an imaginary, unprovable entity that purposefully designed you to think this topic is boring." How are you supposed to surmise intention? ID is necessarily exactly pure anthropomophism and fantasy by its nature and thus has zero merit in terms of explaining how we were created. Evolution takes given evidence and applies reason to it, surmising likelihoods of factuality. The difference is credibility. ID has none.

To consider the intention of a creator, you are roleplaying the creator after having presumed it, whereas all evidence for it is circumstantial by the nature of the scenario (meaning that since the designer created everything, there is no means by which to differentiate something he created from something he didn't, as such there is no means to demonstrate the factuality of the creator, in a venn diagram that takes god out of the closed space of yes and no.. into the oblivion of "indeterminate").

Why is it that students cannot digest two different theories for creation?

Why would they settle for only two? There is "the most likely" and the others. If you want to teach "the others" that's debatable, but IMO, that should be part of cultural classwork rather than science.

We shouldn't teach either as absolute proof, for no one as shown both to be absolutely correct.

Evolution shouldn't be taught as absolute proof. It is the best theory going, and demonstrable to an extent... so it should be thought of as the "best estimate" in general.

We ought to have teachers always present the evidence and let the students think for themselves for once.

Sometimes you give the wrong answer even though you won't stop arguing with your teacher that yours is right. ID is not science and should NEVER, EVER be taught in that light. Why not just say we all came from furry bunnies? Everyone.. likes.... furry bunnies....

 

[MacM]

Wesmorris,

Furry bunnies?? Is that what that furry thing is called? I had never heard it called that before. HeHeHe.

Now I do like those furry bunnies myself however.

 

[okinrus]

Darwin's theory was integral to Hitler's thoughts and propaganda compaign. True, the Nazi philosophy was based upon the false pretext that Aryans were superior to Jews. True, they mispresented science, forming psuedoscience. But in history many cultures have believed themselves to be superior; the belief that those who are not superior don't deserve to exist was a consequence of Darwin's theory.

For this reason the schools much show a great deal in how they teach. The style of teaching I've outliined is Socrates' method of teaching. Not that we have to go towards an extreme where everything is a question, but certainly students should be able to answer their own questions given valid facts. Giving them knowledge of contradicting scientific theories is logical; most classes on evolution teach a background historical knowledge of theories of how life began anyhow.

I would think it valid that those that support ID and Creatinisim and want it taught in our public schools should also support a drive to mandated that all churches and religious schools would also teach evolution.

After all we are only trying to insure they have the broadest possible view and can consider the alternatives.

School and church are two completely different things. Most of the students in our public schools are forced to go to school, or at least forced by economic concerns. On the other hand, don't like a specific church's doctrine, don't go there. As mentioned before, I don't have a problem with evolution, provided it is taught tacitly.

But I'm not sure if that can be done. Although the theory does have some saving graces in genetics, history has shown that emphasizing some parts of teaching gives students the wrong perception. Although we must teach biology, the subject of our origen might better be left to philosophy, religion and history. Posing evolution as science seems to be a misnomer.

 

[wesmorris]

Posing evolution as science seems to be a misnomer.

Since it IS science (as in a theory that is sought to be verified scientifically), your perception is demonstrated as incorrect. ID cannot be scientfically verified for the reason I explained above. (it's not science if you can't pursue it scientifically)

 

[water]

Ah, *the* big problem with *any* human knowledge is that it is relative, i.e. dependant on time and space, and changeable.

How can you come up with any proper justification for anything, when you know that all you have is at best a *very likely* hypothesis?

Humans seek stability, and yet while trying to survive, they learn. Learning and status quo are mutually exclusive.

To survive, we need some rules, we need to call upon some laws -- and yet these same rules and laws become to narrow, we grow out of them *while* living by them.

Maybe the problem with Western cultures is that they think analytically -- with all those numerous specific rules and laws (which in time, have the strong tendency to be proved false or invalid).
Maybe the solution lies in thinking synthetically -- coming up with rules that are context independent. (Like the Buddhist guideline of the "middle way".) But Westernes don't seem to be good at that sort of thinking, we have drifted too far into analytcity.

So I am left to repeat after Einstein: Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.

 

[MacM]

Posing evolution as science seems to be a misnomer.

:bugeye: And you favor teaching ID or Creationisim as science in our schools. Wow you have a heavy burden to unload don't you.

 

[Jenyar]

It's because of epistemology. If you claim absolute knowledge you are authoritative. That you are the authority for shit you can't actually know is a lie.

How do you know this?

Who decided that we can't actually know? You propose to know science provide authority, but you deny knowing it - taking full responsibility only for "your own perspective" doesn't quite explain on what grounds you or others expect everybody to share that bias.

If your hueristic solution to a problem precludes the set that may hold the actual answer, you'll never find it. There is also the problem of rejecting evidence. If your solution set precludes eventualities, you find yourself in denial regardless of input.. which leads directly to neurosis and IMO, mental impotence.

You do realize this must apply to you as well. What logic led you to conclude empirical methods present the only true (or even "most likely") epistemological route? Are you excluded from mental impotence by merit of not voicing your conclusions as "truth"?

I just had to ask.