I think it is absurd to pretend that having a religion is any different than the other absurdity, belief in God.
The disguise of absurdity by added pretense is...compounded absurdity.
The absurdity of religious choice
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
The disguise of absurdity by added pretense is...compounded absurdity.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure what alternative there is.
I guess that faith, if that word is interpreted epistemologically as Christians often try to do, contradicts common sense. If it's interpreted to mean 'trust', then there's probably less problem.
To me, the biggest difficulty is that the preachers are often preaching objects of knowledge that simply aren't available to common sense. They preach God, a transcendent being, they preach miracles that violate the order of nature.
That's about the size of it.
I think that a common-sense approach can perhaps work in religion if religious paths are approached in terms of adopting this-worldly practices, as opposed to approaching them in terms of a-priori doctrinal belief and (epistemological) faith in supernatural matters.
You are the one saying that, such as with your insistence on the medical analogy for religious choice.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that Wynn is one of the most sophisticated posters on Sciforums, philosophically speaking. Along with Rav, CC, Techne and a few others, Wynn shows signs of having actually studied philosophy on the university level, or of having done quite a bit of independent-study reading in philosophy at that level.
What's more, Wynn appears to my eye to be very well-read and quite astute about religious studies. Many of the threads that Wynn starts, even if they annoy some of our atheists, do reflect contemporary debate in the philosophy of religion.
I think that's very cool.
You may have noted that Wynn and I often dsagree, fundamentally on occasion. I even disagreed with the subject line of this thread. But I like talking to her and, yes, arguing with her. (I can't recall one occasion when it's gotten angry, insulting or hostile.) Even when I disagree with them, her points are almost always interesting and thought-provoking. Considering ideas that might have grown out of very different presuppositions than my own, helps me grow. And it's fun, like intellectual stretching exercises.
I think you're full of it. She is befuddled by simple concepts, resorts to the same sarcastic quips when she's proven wrong, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding in any of the topics she discusses. Look at her reaction to a Moderator Note regarding HectorDecimal. She called it "religious hate." No educated person would have called his note such.
I'm sorry your standards are so low for intellectual stimulation, but clearly you've got it wrong about her.
Wait, are you talking about the same person who claimed there was no such thing as religious violence? :roflmao:
This is actually true. Well stated.
Not necessarily. I think it implies the person's interpretation of those values, whether they be the objective values we all share or the values contained within the texts of their religion of choice. As we know by the various branches of essentially every faith--and their often bloody disagreements--these interpretations tend to differ. Now, perhaps their differences don't exclusively center around interpretations of values, but that has been and is as much a part of it as anything else.
I don't know if it's fair to say they aren't committed to their religion. We've both seen posters here who will defend their faiths even when the tenants plainly disagree with that person's moral values. I brought her up recently, and I now I find myself doing it again, but do you remember Sandy? She would simply ignore the passages of the Bible that establish women's role as second-class citizens.
This is why I believe that people who chose their faith aren't really doing so because of a shared value system, but because of some other reason. Perhaps they were drug addicts and found "strength" through capitulation to Jesus; perhaps they had a near-death experience and saw a tunnel of light; perhaps they find the stories of the King James edition beautiful and decide that such beauty could only be true. I sincerely doubt that people put this much thought into their conversion. I mean, maybe some do, but I just can't imagine this being something most people do.
Yes, in theory. But I can't recall proselytizers ever appealing much to reason. My experiences have been mostly with those who threaten hellfire and eternal damnation.
The objective system of analysis is called science. It doesn't matter that some religions deny this, they automatically exclude themselves from the decision.
Divine inspiration, or being born into a religion.
It would also be interesting to observe what would happen if a state adopted an official religion and citizens would be obligated to adopt it too - Cuius regio, eius religio.
Exactly.
In fact, preachers often include a general formula to the effect of "You don't know anything, you can't think clearly, you are stupid."
I think that the modern multi-cultural, multi-religious situation is giving us a false impression of the availability of religion, and both those who already are members as well as outsiders, operate under this false impression.
Of course many religions suggest adopting this-worldly practices - except that the motivation for those practices is a matter of a-priori doctrinal belief and (epistemological) faith in supernatural matters.
I think religion is actually far far less available than preachers as well as formal scooling would have us believe.
Sure, someone living in a modern Western city may have within their reach, even within just walking distance, religious establishments of all the major religions - they can easily enough walk into a Jewish synagogue, numerous Christian churches, a Muslim mosque, a Buddhist temple, a Hindu temple, and a few more - but that means very little as to whether they actually can become a practicing Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu.
On the whole, I think a person can join a religion only if they are already born into it, or if they have divine inspiration.
Trying to work out via some common-sense decision-making strategy which religion is the right one seems a futile task.
This is a statement of faith.
actually I didn't use the medical analogy .. although that would be a second option.
BTW I forget to add why you omitted Buddhism from Christianity et al in this whole choice thing.
wynn said:
Au contraire. The denial of science is a statement of faith, because such denial is rooted in a stilted form of theism that can not come to grips with the fact that nature has no need for God; science can adequately manage without superstition, and still solve the problems of the day.
In contrast, the adoption of science as a basis for analysis is the opposite of faith. It employs reason, facts, evidence, and best practices for ensuring accuracy and honesty of conclusions.
There is a hybrid, which you rarely mention (if ever), and that is: it is entirely possible to maintain a pious religious world view, and embrace both the tenets of faith and the tenets of science. This only requires a love of honesty and accuracy, plus a belief that God gave people the power to reason, so it's fine to exploit that gift, even if it at times produces results that seem to contradict the religious world view. Even the medieval Christian church recognized that God does not make mistakes, so if a scientist discovers a fact about the universe that seems to conflict with religious doctrine, the doctrine must be at fault, and therefore must be amended to correct for the result brought by science.
Obviously there have been countless scientists who lived under the hybrid, including a majority of the best known contributors to the body of knowledge that modern theists complain about, as being anti-religion.
What's wrong with that picture? :shrug:
What do you mean? I didn't omit Buddhism.
Read your Quine.
I used to think wynn was an adaptive program created by a tinkerer. Only recently have I decided with 51% certainty that wynn is probably an actual human.
I can't determine where wynn stands in the areas you mention. I have yet to see wynn put forward much more than an anti-science agenda. This present thread already appears coded, from within the OP, as an anti-religious vehicle. The subtext to most of wynn's propositions seems to be: wynn has a world view superior to science and religion both.
The fact that these are nuanced at the level of subtext is clever, but I haven't seen the level of sophistication you observe.
It sometimes occurs to me that wynn may feel marginalized by my remarks, perhaps even helpless to answer me in plain terms when I pose a plain issue. It should have been apparent by now that on several occasions I have appealed to wynn strictly in pursuit of an unguarded, transparent and genuine response. But I do not recall ever cracking through what appears to me as a shell of artifice that wynn seems employ.
Perhaps wynn is brilliant, in which case I have been deprived the opportunity to recognize the benefits you allude to.
But what motivates a person to wrap brilliance in the dirty old rags of a homeless person, wandering the streets of reasoned dialogue, and dipping into the dumpster for an occasional bite at some half eaten quip by a literary figure, if not only to bum a dime every time one of us consigns our true values to some acquiesced token of argument, believing wynn might save it for a rainy day of hot primordial soup, instead of squandering it on that next infernal bottle of what I can only call...cheap wine? :shrug:
In the context for supporting an anti-science fundamentalist agenda, or in some purer sense?
Yes, I thought that was an odd scenario wynn posed. I tried to imagine myself sitting at a restaurant, trying to order from a menu. To me, the act of consciously selecting a religion, in a normal setting, seems absurd. We occasionally hear of someone changing from one church to another, or from one religion to another, but who has ever heard of a person sitting down to analyze all the religions available, with the intent to pick the best one?
The closest case of this I know of, is the story of Barack Obama, whose mother, an anthropologist, exposed him to all of the religions possible, when he was a boy. He later chose a Christian religion. But at least he had an early exposure to their scriptures and tenets. And of course, she was passing on to him the value of this knowledge, and the freedom to choose. Perhaps their experience should be the test case for wynn's proposition.
Other than that, I can't imagine any scenario in which the OP applies to real life.
No, because it's based on evidence. Science produces evidence that reinforces the legitimacy of science.
HectorDecimal
Registered Senior Member
Science is not a religion. Of itself it generates a probably new term we could call theoanaesthetic. By that it states that science doesn't know whether a deity does or doesn't exist anymore than these stupid computers we teach to do something we don't want to repeat a million times. Only people believe in the presence or absence of a deity.
Last edited: