What form of religion isn't harmful?

[Questioninggeller]

In response to reading "musclemans" post about which is the most harmful belief, I thought let's reverse the question in order to "answer" his question. I thought it would be a good thought experiement to see what people consider harm, bad, good, ect.

And so,
What form of religion isn't harmful?

[Man of jade]

Is religon even harmful?
Religon for the most part promotes good values, and it doesnt seem to tear away at society much, if any.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
In response to reading "musclemans" post about which is the most harmful belief, I thought let's reverse the question in order to "answer" his question. I thought it would be a good thought experiement to see what people consider harm, bad, good, ect.

And so,
What form of religion isn't harmful?
"Harmful" is a difficult thing to define.

My wife is Pagan and their primary principle is "If you are harming no one, do what you will". They are very tolerant of all sorts of beliefs, even my atheism. They are also very Earth centric, and care very much for the environment and the future of the human race, so by that token, they are one of the most harmless of religions.

On the other hand, they are susceptible to the most bizarre of "woo woo" thinking and believe all sorts of new-age garbage, including homeopathy, auras and a host of other unsupportable phenomena. As such, they become prey to the most shameless of huxters, so in that sense, their "open-mindedness" has the potential to be very harmful to themselves, especially if they opt to use "herbal" cures instead of seeing a doctor, as many do.

However, it appears that they are mostly harmful to themselves, so I give them high marks for being mostly benign to others.

[stamenflicker]

What form of religion isn't harmful?

Mine.

Flick

[Yahzi]

Questioninggeller
What form of religion isn't harmful?
One that submits itself to reason and empricism. Buddhism, in its most refined form, does this - although they still believe in reincarnation, they are committed to accepting science's verdict on the matter.

Man of jade
Religon for the most part promotes good values, and it doesnt seem to tear away at society much, if any.
A comment that can only be made by a person of complete ignorance, both historical and contemporary.

I'll confine myself to a single issue and a single religion: slavery and Christianity. Do you think slavery is a good value? Do you think that the Civil War was not "tearing away at society much?" Do you realize that the Christian Bible condones slavery? Do you realize the Southern Baptist Convention was created to defend the South's practice of slavery by Biblical means?

A simple look around the world would give one ample reason to suggest that religion is still an oppressive force that fuels wars and terrorism. Do you even read newspapers? Were you off-planet during 9/11? Are the words "Pakistan," "India," and "nuclear weapons" in your vocabulary?

Do the words "Crusade," "Jihad," "Inquisition," ring even a tiny bell in your vaccuous skull?

You are like an idiot in a cave with a sleeping bear who says, "well, he hasn't eaten anyone in the last 5 minutes, so he must just be a nice cuddly pillow."

Your stupidity would be shocking if it weren't so utterly common.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I would say the form of religion that is least harmful, if at all, is the tolerant, non-fundie kind. That really applies more to individuals, I think, than to religions as a whole. There are many Christians I consider perfectly harmless (hell, I live with one) because they're not busy pushing their beliefs on everyone else. On the other hand, there are many Christians I consider quite harmful [Falwell, I'm looking at you]. And I could say the same about nearly any religion.

With apologies to the NRA, Religions aren't harmful to people. People are harmful to people. Often with religion.

[c4ts]

Anything Eastrern, except Islam.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
What form of religion isn't harmful?

That's a trick question like:

What type of gun isn't harmful?

The answer is:

The one no human practices (with).

:p

[c4ts]

Originally posted by dsm


That's a trick question like:

What type of gun isn't harmful?

The answer is:

The one no human practices (with).

:p

Squirt guns aren't harmful. Neither are potato guns.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by dsm


That's a trick question like:

What type of gun isn't harmful?

The answer is:

The one no human practices (with).

:p

no no, if it's cocked, there can still be mechanical failure that leads to the release of the firing pin, sendin lead hurtling...

I give all time highest marks for most harmless to the aboriginal tasmanians. If we discound harm to themselves, because I don't know if they were into tht sort of thing. I'm not really sure how they could hurt anything, as they had no weapons. Heck, they couldn't even start a fire.

Totaly tootheless, Totaly isolated on an island. Totaly unique. South Pacific. totaly wiped out. Moas anyone?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by c4ts


Squirt guns aren't harmful. Neither are potato guns.


Guess you haven't seen my Cyanide filled ' SuperSoaker ', or the comatose victim of an Idaho White, that has been propelled from an 80mm mortar..:cool:

[Man of jade]

*sigh* i meant "present day". Religon, in my opinion, is doing more good than bad, its just the extremists that make the other 98% look bad.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Man of jade
*sigh* i meant "present day". Religon, in my opinion, is doing more good than bad, its just the extremists that make the other 98% look bad.

Well then, the question woudl be "Which Religion most encourages it's followers to be the most destructive or harmful."

Internally, i'd stick with Scientology; the psychological damage from the escapees are literal horror stories.

For external damage, I'm really not sure... was Stalin's regime of a religious nature, or fueled by religious fervor?

[Franko]

What form of religion isn't harmful?

Any dogmatic belief system is ultimately harmful.

Ergo, the only non-harmful belief systems (and a "Religion" is simply a belief system regarding "Metaphysics" (regarding the nature and origin of "reality")) are belief systems which strive to be free of Dogma.

Dogma = a belief based on tradition, revelation, hearsay, or eyewitness testimony, but not on logic or personal (empirical) observation.

----
I'll confine myself to a single issue and a single religion: slavery and Christianity. Do you think slavery is a good value? Do you think that the Civil War was not "tearing away at society much?" Do you realize that the Christian Bible condones slavery? Do you realize the Southern Baptist Convention was created to defend the South's practice of slavery by Biblical means?
----


Oh please. Slavery was around long before Christianity. Some of the founders of the USA enjoyed having slaves.

Here is a strawman: You'd probably say these founders were Christian when talking about their slaves, but you'd probably call them Deists if you were talking about how great they were.

[Penrich]

Originally posted by c4ts


Squirt guns aren't harmful. Neither are potato guns.
Can these toy guns be likened to "toy" religions? The IPU is my favourite (forgive me my Lady, I only jest. May your hooves never be shod), and the Church of the SubGenius.

Of course, a bb (pellet) gun is a toy too, and we all know that you can put your eye out with one of those.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Whodini


Oh please. Slavery was around long before Christianity. Some of the founders of the USA enjoyed having slaves.




Appeal to popularity?


Did Yahzi suggest that slavery was invented by Christians?

It doesn't occur to you that a stand against slavery, might have put Christianity in a better light..

I'm sure Yahzi can add more to this...

[CJW]

What form of religion isn't harmful?

just 2 cents from a lurker...

It would seem to me that any religion that includes spreading its message and conversion is inherently harmful. I believe that Xtianity and Islam both have converting non-beleivers as one of their major missions. I think this polarizes practitioners into an Us vs. Them mentality where the opinions and beliefs of non-beleivers are not respected.

Chris

[Akots]

To a certain degree, Religion is intended to proliferate; if you assume that your faith is a benefit to all mankind (which, ideally, it should be) then you are morally obligated not to deprive others of the benefits.

Of course, this "proliferation" should always take the form of a respectful, open-minded and informative discussion, and a genuine sense of tolerance towards other faiths, and those of no faith. Not pamphlets and brimstone.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Akots
To a certain degree, Religion is intended to proliferate; if you assume that your faith is a benefit to all mankind (which, ideally, it should be) then you are morally obligated not to deprive others of the benefits.

Of course, this "proliferation" should always take the form of a respectful, open-minded and informative discussion, and a genuine sense of tolerance towards other faiths, and those of no faith. Not pamphlets and brimstone.

Of course they need to proliferate.. But not to make the world a better place.
Any respectable religion does not want an informed, educated and well-fed following.
It tends to deplete the coffers.

Christianity (and other religions) has/have a tradition and vested interest in keeping
the poor and ignorant right where they are. This is the bulk of their body count.
As people become more prosperous they tend to move away from religion,
as a significant influence in their life. Because they realize it is their hard work
that brings success. Not, giving what little you have to some Bible Thumper or
person in a silly costume,and praying to an invisible being for things to get better.

[Yahzi]

Man of jade
*sigh* i meant "present day". Religon, in my opinion, is doing more good than bad, its just the extremists that make the other 98% look bad.
Present day fascism isn't doing a lot of harm, either. Mostly because they don't run any countries. Should we nevertheless conclude that fascism is no longer evil? Or should we conclude that fascism was only evil because of a few bad eggs?

So you want to define religion as excluding extremists. Every wicked act performed by religion is to be disregarded, as it's not "true" religion. "True" religion is only that which is not harmful, thus making your claim a tautology, thus making you an idiot.

I can say with a straight face, "slavery is good for people!" because I define slavery as "paying people lots of money and letting them do whatever they want," and good as "not killing them instantly with an axe." Isn't word taffy fun?

Your logical fallacies are so common as to be boring.

Diogenes
I'm sure Yahzi can add more to this...
Not really. I have Whodini on /ignore. I don't debate with $cientologists.

What form of democracy isn't harmful?

Are you still having sex with the neighborhood dogs?

Yahzi,


----
Not really. I have Whodini on /ignore. I don't debate with $cientologists.
----


All the better for me (even though I know you DO read what I post).


Because someone isn't against religion A, doesn't mean they are a member of religion A.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Of course they need to proliferate.. But not to make the world a better place.
Any respectable religion doe not want an informed, educated and well-fed following.
It tends to deplete the coffers.

Christianity (and other religions) has/have a tradition and vested interest in keeping
the poor and ignorant right where they are. This is the bulk of their body count.
As people become more prosperous they tend to move away from religion,
as a significant influence in their life. Because they realize it is their hard work
that brings success. Not, giving what little you have to some Bible Thumper or
person in a silly costume,and praying to an invisible being for things to get better.

Certainly many religious communities have those connotations, and in cases it is well deserved, but I've never experienced that from within my own faith. An informed, educated and well fed following is something my faith is striving for.

But of course, as a fanatic zealot, I'm merely tooting my own horn in an attempt to continue my self delusion... my personal experiences with others of my faith are clearly not valuable testimony.

EDIT: I'd like to add that the idea that ALL religions MUST exist soley to facilitate the exploitation of the masses is about as well thought out as any of franko's comments.

[Man of jade]

Yahzi:
So you want to define religion as excluding extremists. Every wicked act performed by religion is to be disregarded, as it's not "true" religion. "True" religion is only that which is not harmful, thus making your claim a tautology, thus making you an idiot.

I never said i was excluding extremists. If you apply common logic to this statement...
Religon, in my opinion, is doing more good than bad, its just the extremists that make the other 98% look bad.
If it makes the rest of the people look bad, that implies that the extremists were included in the figure. Therefore, the above italicized statement means the same as saying "Extremists, being part of religon, makes the rest of religon look bad." I nevre said only "True Religon" should be regarded.


Stop putting words where I have not, and debate logically. Try using what I say, instead of using a phrase of mine, intrepreting it the wrong way, and then start throwing claims left and right based on that.:cool:

[Nova Land]

I haven't had time to do many posts of a serious nature the last couple of days (though I hope to do some late tonight) but glanced in on this thread. Akots expresses my own feelings well.
Originally posted by Akots

Certainly many religious communities have those connotations, and in cases it is well deserved, but I've never experienced that from within my own faith. An informed, educated and well fed following is something my faith is striving for.
Ditto on that for me. I would also include "open-minded", "questioning", and "intellectually honest", as things my religion encourages me to strive for.

Originally posted by Diogenes


Of course they need to proliferate.. But not to make the world a better place.
Any respectable religion doe not want an informed, educated and well-fed following.
It tends to deplete the coffers.

Christianity (and other religions) has/have a tradition and vested interest in keeping
the poor and ignorant right where they are. This is the bulk of their body count.
As people become more prosperous they tend to move away from religion,
as a significant influence in their life. Because they realize it is their hard work
that brings success. Not, giving what little you have to some Bible Thumper or
person in a silly costume,and praying to an invisible being for things to get better.

Huh. The U.S. is the most prosperous, informed, educated, and well-fed nation of all time. How strange they don't fit your theory about moving away from religion.....

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LukeT


Huh. The U.S. is the most prosperous, informed, educated, and well-fed nation of all time. How strange they don't fit your theory about moving away from religion.....

Good point..

I suppose I could refine it ( my theory) a bit..

I am looking at countries where there is a strong religous influence in the government, and a high level
of poverty, such as Mexico( .. other South American countries), India and the Islamic states..

I believe, in such countries, if the population were to manage to move upward economically and educationally,
the religious factions would face a drastic reduction in their influence.

[Franko]

Diogenes:

I am looking at countries where there is a strong religous influence in the government, and a high level
of poverty, such as Mexico( .. other South American countries), India and the Islamic states..

In other words, he is counting the 'Hits", but not the "Misses".

... with "Logic" like that, I can prove John Edwards really does talk to dead people ...

[Akots]

If these religions truly exist to benefit all mankind, as is often the claim, they would be trying to relieve poverty; not close up shop because of it.

It's important to look at the leaders ofcults... if you took away all their credibility in the eyes of their followers (an dtherefore removed their ability to profit from them), would they move on, and follow a decent lifestyle? Or would they just find another way to scam people?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Akots
If these religions truly exist to benefit all mankind, as is often the claim, they would be trying to relieve poverty; not close up shop because of it.

It's important to look at the leaders ofcults... if you took away all their credibility in the eyes of their followers (an dtherefore removed their ability to profit from them), would they move on, and follow a decent lifestyle? Or would they just find another way to scam people?

Luke T made a good argument against my hastily reached conjecture..

What you say, puts a similar perpective on what I had in mind..

There is no profit in providing savation, only in dangling the hope of it.




added:
EDIT: I'd like to add that the idea that ALL religions MUST exist soley to facilitate the exploitation of the masses is about as well thought out as any of franko's comments.

Wow! You really know how to hurt a guy...


I should qualify my position by saying something like:

" I generally find that .... "

So there you are...:)

I recognise that some(a lot in some ways) good, gets done in the name of religion, but it doesn't do a very good job of
distinguishing itself as an instrument of enlightenment.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Wow! You really know how to hurt a guy...


Deepest apologies... i was far, far too harsh!


I should qualify my position by saying something like:

" I generally find that .... "

So there you are...:)

I recognise that some(a lot in some ways) good, gets done in the name of religion, but it doesn't do a very good job of
distinguishing itself as an instrument of enlightenment.


Sorry i jumped the gun there; Simple misunderstanding. :)

Also, it's important to define who is responsible for a religion's "evil deeds." Having a religion that specifically supports violence or racism shouldn't get any brownie points... the good done in it's name is likely the actions of individual followers. Just as much as a purely good religion can't really be blamed for isolated acts of individual violence.

Actually, that's a tricky one... if a religion is supposed to work towards peace, and it has a history of violent members, who's to blame...?

[Yahzi]

Man of Jade

http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,902269,00.html

Would you characterize this week as "present-day?"

Would you characterize dividing a nation as "tearing at society?"

Would you characterize the Cardinal of Nicaragua and the entire Catholic hierarchy as "extremists?"

Would you characterize forcing a nine year old rape victim to carry her baby to term as "more harm than good?"

How about female circumcision, or destroying historical statues, or publishing the Blood Libel in the state-run paper during Passover?

How about escalating tensions between two nuclear armed nations?

These are not the actions of a few extremists; they are the policys of large groups.

Because the Xian religion is not, at this moment, killing people in the USA, you issue the fatuous opinion that religion does more good than harm. You ignore the religiously inspired violence in North Ireland and the entire Middle-East. You are apparently unaware of suicide bombings in Israel - clearly the work of more than a few extremists, since they've had close to one a day for god knows how long. The Hindu/Islamic troubles of India and Pakistan don't even register on your limpid consciousness, no matter how many temples they burn down or mosques they fire. The role of Xian priests in the Rwanda genocide never even made it to your attention. You ignore the history of Xianity to incite violence, even in this country: I warrant the riots of Philidelphia (where Protestants fired cannon at Catholics) are utterly unknown to you. The Civil war, and its attendant religious views of slavery, pass off your back like water off a duck.


But trust me; I know how you feel. It is ever so difficult to pontificate when some boor drags in facts.

[Yahzi]

The U.S. is the most prosperous, informed, educated, and well-fed nation of all time. How strange they don't fit your theory about moving away from religion.....
I've got a theory about that...

http://members.cox.net/mcplanck/essays/policy.html

[Akots]

By blaming the concept of religion itself for this crime, you remove the burden of guilt from the people that are commiting these acts. By saying Religion causes evil, you are saying that individual humans cannot be held responsible for their actions when whipped into a frenzy.

We could argue for weeks about wether TV causes violence or not.

EDIT: I am most certainly not defending religion here; I am simply accusing humans hiding behind their twisted concept of a vengeful, sadistic god. To see an entire government hiding behind such a delusion makes my stomach turn.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by c4ts


Squirt guns aren't harmful.

Ink? Or maybe h2so4?

Neither are potato guns.

Ever seen a potato go though 3/8 plywood?

On topic, with especial compliments to Yahzi, Religions are not harmful. Fanatical humans of every persuasion often are.

[DanishDynamite]

LukeT:The U.S. is the most prosperous, informed, educated, and well-fed nation of all time. :D

(I might agree with you on the last bit, though).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I've got a theory about that...

http://members.cox.net/mcplanck/essays/policy.html

Thanks Yahzi..

I made a lucky ( intuitive?) guess... I guess.

[dsm]

Originally posted by hammegk

On topic, with especial compliments to Yahzi, Religions are not harmful. Fanatical humans of every persuasion often are.


Exactly the point of my answer to the question.

;)

[Akots]

Originally posted by dsm


Exactly the point of my answer to the question.

;)

I don't know if i'd agree with that... a faith that harms it's followers is inherantly dangerous. Faith should (in the best of all possible worlds) be beneficial, a way of uniting a community, be it a family, town, or country. Simply being frequently used as a scapegoat neither proves or negates it's status as dangerous.

We could easilysay guns are dangerous. Well of COURSE they are! They are designed only to destroy things. It is not designed with any constructive purpose in mind. Saying a gun is dangerous is not the same as saying a gun has no redeeming qualities, and must never be used in defence of one's country.

[Yahzi]

Akots
By blaming the concept of religion itself for this crime, you remove the burden of guilt from the people that are commiting these acts. By saying Religion causes evil, you are saying that individual humans cannot be held responsible for their actions when whipped into a frenzy.
The concept of slavery is itself evil, but that does not excuse slavers from being evil. Indeed, they are evil even when they try to do good - is it possible for a slaver to be good, no matter how hard he trys?

Recognizing that a system inherently leads to evil in no way excuses those who choose to implement the system.


I agree with you about the analysis of my paper. I did not mean to imply that I think religion is good for people; I was just offering a historical analysis of the explanation for why people are still religious in an educated society.

After all, we aren't really certain that the benefits of moderate alcohol use outweight the costs of abuse, or even if there are actually benefits. But that's pretty much how the establishment thinks.

I personally think that alcohol and drugs are less dangerous than religion and false thinking, and I think that the next phase - call it the Scientific - will prove that.

[Man of jade]

Do you know exactly what the situation in northern Ireland was originally started by? It wasnt started by religon, it was started by the british when they handed that land out to officers during a war a hundred or so years ago, irregardless of people trying to farm and live there. They became slaves. While some of the fighting is due to religon, some of it is because of what happened way back when. Much of the fighting in the middle east was started when the US took some land away from some other countries and gave it to a new nation. You cannot simply blame everything on religon, although it DOES hold some of the blame. How many people die from religon every year? 50,000 people die every year in canada alone from smoking, religon when compared to a bad habit kills many more than maybe, 10,000 a year from religon. While I agree that people like Bin Laden should be stopped, he isnt even killing people for religon. He caused 9/11 because he hates the Americans. He did it because he didnt like the way Americans were intervening everywhere in the middle east. While some members of his group may kill for Religon, is it the sole, entire driving force behind every scheming plot they plan?
The case with the girl having an abortion could have been much, much worse. Rather than having the country split over this, there couldve be the largest civil war that country has ever seen, which could possibly involve the U.N. intervening. Rather than simply having the people involved go to jail, they could have been executed on the spot, publicly.
Admit that there are many things that cause more trouble than religon, then i'll be satisfied.
EDIT: If you continue to attempt to insult me, Yahzi, then i will simply leave the thread. If you choose to lower yourself to such a level, im not going to stand near you.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Akots

The concept of slavery is itself evil, but that does not excuse slavers from being evil. Indeed, they are evil even when they try to do good - is it possible for a slaver to be good, no matter how hard he trys?


Good can be achieved in the face of an evil situation, and if being a slaver is completely unavoidable, then it's not really your action... it's imposed on you. If the person were "good", and knew slavery was evil, they would find a new line of work ASAP. That's more of a self-contradition situation.


Recognizing that a system inherently leads to evil in no way excuses those who choose to implement the system.


Indeed. That was my point above. Well... the point i made above the point i made above.


I agree with you about the analysis of my paper. I did not mean to imply that I think religion is good for people; I was just offering a historical analysis of the explanation for why people are still religious in an educated society.


It doesn't seem to me that you imply religion is beneficial; seems the opposite, which admittedly goes against my grain somewhat (when talking about ALL religion, at least).


After all, we aren't really certain that the benefits of moderate alcohol use outweight the costs of abuse, or even if there are actually benefits. But that's pretty much how the establishment thinks.


Established thought is really a popularity vote performed by those able to define laws; The moral high ground is often unpopular indeed.


I personally think that alcohol and drugs are less dangerous than religion and false thinking, and I think that the next phase - call it the Scientific - will prove that.

Alcohol and drugs are less dangerous because the negative outcomes are very readily observable by others... zealous fanatacism is, on the other hand, almost impossible to see within one's self, when it's buried deep... especially in a community where such thoughts are the norm. :(

As for religion being the root of much evil... is it really that implausible that a human being might corrupt or misinterpret religion to his own ends? A religion is only as beneficial as the actions of the people that support it. All of the evil commited in the name of God could be attributed to people.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by dsm


Exactly the point of my answer to the question.

;)

Say what???? You mean one is expected to READ the thread before posting?

Ah, I may get the hang of it yet. ;)

[dsm]

Originally posted by Akots

I don't know if i'd agree with that... a faith that harms it's followers is inherantly dangerous. Faith should (in the best of all possible worlds) be beneficial, a way of uniting a community, be it a family, town, or country. Simply being frequently used as a scapegoat neither proves or negates it's status as dangerous.

We could easilysay guns are dangerous. Well of COURSE they are! They are designed only to destroy things. It is not designed with any constructive purpose in mind. Saying a gun is dangerous is not the same as saying a gun has no redeeming qualities, and must never be used in defence of one's country.


Wait a minute -- you've reversed what I'm saying.


A gun, in and of itself, is not dangerous. It's the way that people "practice with" it that makes it dangerous.
A religion, in and of itself, is not harmful. It's the way that people "practice" it that makes it harmful.


So, the one that is not harmful is the one that is not practiced (with).

[Akots]

This is getting ridiculous... a loaded gun is plenty dangerous. Clearly it is not inherantly evil, but a person who respects guns and handles them with the utmost safety KNOWS they are dangerous.

It's like saying a volcano isn't, in and of itself, a dangerous thing to live by, when you don't know if it's extinct or dormant.

EDIT: I do hope I never said that a religious cannot be harmful... that would be contradicting myself. In the strictest sense of the word, A religion has only one purpose; to be followed and obeyed. if the teachings are destructive, then it encourages destructive behavior.

They are neither inherantly destructive, nor are they automatically beneficial.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by dsm


That's a trick question like:

What type of gun isn't harmful?

The answer is:

The one no human practices (with).

:p

True, but hey I thought this could be a good debate. :)

[Akots]

A broken gun is pretty harmless... that's about it.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Akots
A broken gun is pretty harmless... that's about it.

A loaded gun locked in a safe is pretty harmless. It's the person taking it out of the safe and handling it without care that makes it harmful.

Devil worship is pretty harmless if no one goes to the meetings. It's the interpretation of the people going to the meetings that determine if it will be considered just a harmless lark or something that will lead to anarchy and revolution.

p.s. I picked Devil worship out of a hat as something likely to have a strong impact -- I'm not up on it's tenets.

[Akots]

A locked up gun is safe, I'll certainly agree. I'm simply saying that a gun is designed to harm things. A completely harmless gun is a contradiction in terms; when you need to use a gun, you don't want it to be completely and utterly harmless. Wether a gun is a reckless danger or a calculated danger depends entirely on the user. Certainly a well trained and responsible gun-owner is less of a danger to the public at large.

An unloaded gun and a satanic cult with no members are equally dangerous. Nuclear physics is not completely without harm or risk... it produced the atom bomb; but that doesn't mean nuclear physics itself is dangerous.

I think by danger I mean "capable of causing harm." Of course, with that in mind, just about ANYTHING can be dangerous... my bad.

[Yahzi]

Akots
I think religion has to be inherently evil simply because it is false. Believing in something that isn't true is wrong, and it's a moral wrong if you know it's not true.

Since there is no god (bear with me here, for the sake of argument), religion is false, and therefore cannot help but cause harm.

Secondly, the concept of faith - that you can know something without having knowledge - is in itself a dangerous and harmful philosophy. Whenever we abandon empiricism, we are likely to cause harm.

So it's not just that all existing religions are evil - all possible religions must be evil, because (in the abscence of god) they must all be false. Obviously, if you actually think god(s) exist, then you could postulate a religion that wasn't false, and thus not necessarily evil. And, if you believe that god speaks to people through direct communication, you could render faith a non-false source of knowledge.

But lacking god, it must all be false. And making decisions based on false information cannot help but lead to tragedy.

"Man will commit atrocities as long as he believes in absurdities" - some dead English guy.


Man of jade
The case with the girl having an abortion could have been much, much worse.
Ah, the signal call of the religious loonie. When a tornado smashes your house, kills your family, and breaks your legs, the preacher says, "but it could have been worse: you could have broken your arms! See the wondrous effect of God's great mercy?"

Admit that there are many things that cause more trouble than religon, then i'll be satisfied.
Is there some kind of sale on strawmen at the Xian store? When did I ever imply, suggest, or otherwise hint otherwise? I simply objected to your claim that religion caused more good than harm. How does that in any way suggest that religion is the sole cause of trouble?

I backed up my claim with facts. Your rebuttal - the so-called good religion does - is to point out that the priests are being merciful in not executing people out of hand.

religon when compared to a bad habit kills many more than maybe, 10,000 a year from religon.
Where, pray tell, did you get this number? Because it sure smells like you just pulled it out of your ass.

While I agree that people like Bin Laden should be stopped, he isnt even killing people for religon.
Rather than accept your claims about Bin Laden's motivations and goals, I think I'll just accept his.

Do you know exactly what the situation in northern Ireland was originally started by?
And why do you think the officers were given other people's land? What was the justification for driving them off their property? Could it be... because they were bloody Catholics?

You acknowledge that religion is partly to cause for the various acts of bloodshed around the world. Tell me - what good do these religions provide to balance that? The mere fact that they don't inflict more bloodshed?

If you continue to attempt to insult me, Yahzi, then i will simply leave the thread
Well, I was going to really let you have it, but then I came up with a question I'd like to see you try and answer.

You wrote off the historical evils of religion by referring to "present-day religion." But isn't Xianity defined by the Bible? And isn't it the same Bible today as existed in the times of the Crusades, Inquisitions, slavery, etc.? So what has changed? How is present-day religion reformed and made peaceful, given that the source of religion (the Bible, the Koran, etc.) remains unchanged?

How is that you read the Bible and object to slavery, when 90 generations of people read the Bible and did not object to slavery? Were they wrong or misinformed? If so, how did you get correctly informed?

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO QUESTIONING GELLER

Soderqvist1: Religion is neither intrinsically harmful nor beneficial, what matters is what you believe? But the Abrahamic fundament, the religion's scripture is dangerous like a gun! Usama Bin Laden is a fundamentalist and for the same reason, he is loyal to the scripture, and because of that; he has only carried out the instruction, and it follows from that, the moderate believers doesn't interpret the scripture literally, and are in general undecidable if they are dangerous, or beneficial, or something between, that can only be decided in individual cases!

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
TO QUESTIONING GELLER

Soderqvist1: Religion is neither intrinsically harmful nor beneficial, what matters is what you believe? But the Abrahamic fundament, the religion's scripture is dangerous like a gun! Usama Bin Laden is a fundamentalist and for the same reason, he is loyal to the scripture, and because of that; he has only carried out the instruction, and it follows from that, the moderate believers doesn't interpret the scripture literally, and are in general undecidable if they are dangerous, or beneficial, or something between, that can only be decided in individual cases!

Religion is quite diverse, both in mechanics and underlying philosophies. I would rather belong to the only religion based on (as far as I can see) logic. The lack of any formal religion.

The way I see it, any religion will have to incorporate things that would, from a purely skeptical standpoint appear irrational, which may be benign, or ultimately deliterious. I have seen no benfit of religion (e.g. community support, comfort, morals) that a purely secular system cannot emulate. Thus, I see no good reason to incorporate religion into my life, or any reason for anybody else to incorporate it inot their lives.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
I'll confine myself to a single issue and a single religion: slavery and Christianity. Do you think slavery is a good value? Do you think that the Civil War was not "tearing away at society much?" Do you realize that the Christian Bible condones slavery? Do you realize the Southern Baptist Convention was created to defend the South's practice of slavery by Biblical means?
----


Oh please. Slavery was around long before Christianity. Some of the founders of the USA enjoyed having slaves.

Here is a strawman: You'd probably say these founders were Christian when talking about their slaves, but you'd probably call them Deists if you were talking about how great they were.

Soderqvist1: The rest of the founders of USA was also Christians, but accepted slavery because it was supported by the inerrant word of god!

What the Bible says about slavery? Click on S for slavery here!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about.htm#top

The Bible for verification!
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Guess you haven't seen my Cyanide filled ' SuperSoaker ', or the comatose victim of an Idaho White, that has been propelled from an 80mm mortar..:cool:

No I haven't. Nor did I know there were potato guns that actually fired potatoes.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by Whodini
Yahzi,


----
Not really. I have Whodini on /ignore. I don't debate with $cientologists.
----


All the better for me (even though I know you DO read what I post).


Because someone isn't against religion A, doesn't mean they are a member of religion A.


Soderqvist1. Either the religion A is so meaningless trivial so it is nothing to bother about, or the religion A's tenets, and doings are compatible with what you believe, because you have not criticized scientology! You have only blamed their critics! Where is your balance between "Yin and Yang" here? ;)

[Nova Land]

A couple years ago, I was visiting a neighbor whose son-in-law had gotten involved with a product called Bio-Choice. Bio-Choice was a nutritional supplement supposed to build one's immunity to just about everything, from the cold and flu to cancer and AIDS. It being flu season, my neighbor had been taking it, felt pretty good, thought it must be a good product, and was considering becoming a dealer himself.

I pointed out a number of dubious and alarming things in the company's propaganda (and after discussing and considering this for several weeks he came to agree the product was bogus and the company harmful).

One of the things I pointed out was that, although on one hand the product implied it could produce all these astonishing effects, on the other the literature claimed it was completely harmless and so one could sell it to friends and encourage them to dose themselves (and to take larger doses) without risk. My argument was that virtually anything that has the potential to have actual significant effects on you is not safe. If this stuff truly were safe to take in the fashion suggested, then the reason was likely because it had no real effects.

Any medical treatment that genuinely works is going to involve risks. The more powerful the medicine, the greater the care that needs to be used in taking it. That's why some medicines requre prescriptions.

Aspirin can relieve pain, which is important if you're in pain but a relatively minor change in the larger picture. You can cause minor harm to yourself by taking an overdose of aspirin, but it's still safe enough to be sold over the counter. Pennicillin, on the other hand, has the potential to make much more significant changes which will be much harder to undo if you take too much (or too little).

Things which can't actually produce significant changes (such as Bio-Choice, homeopathic remedies which are actually just water, etc.) are largely harmless physically. They are potentially harmful as they can be used to separate people from their money, but that's a different kind of harm. To me, it's worth drawing a distinction.

Anything can be used to separate people from their money, so anything is potentially harmful in that respect. To the extent that religion is used as a scam to separate people from their money, I agree it is harmful. This, however, is not inherent in religions.

(It is a common feature in many religions, I agree, but not inherent. The founders of my religion, back in the 1600s, were concerned about this very point, and the term "hireling minister" was one of their strongest terms of derogation. We believe that giving witness to one's religious beliefs is a very important thing to do, a good and vital thing, but not something one should receive money for or make a profit on. We aren't as strident about this today as we were several centuries ago -- if other religions choose to pay people to preach or to lead the congregation, we don't go in and disrupt their services -- but it's still a concern and a principle we try to follow.)

Setting aside, then, the fact that religions can be harmful as a scam to separate people from their money, let me return to the question of whether religious belief can be harmful in itself. And the point I was getting at before digressing about scams is, yes, of course they are potentially harmful. If a religion has any genuine power to be of good in people's lives, then it has power to be harmful in people's lives as well. The same holds true for science.

Magic is harmless, because it doesn't work. Curse me all you want, do whatever spells and incantations you want, and it won't affect my health or wealth a bit. PLease don't shoot me with a gun, however.

Science, to me, is about seeking truthful answers about the physical world -- how and why physical things work. Religion, to me, is about seeking truthful answers about the spiritual world -- how and why moral things work. Both are important areas of knowledge to explore.

However: "A little learning is a dangerous thing." Often a scientific advance, poorly understood, has led to grave harm. Take radium. Last century, radium used to be used for luminous watch dials as well as for a variety of glow-in-the-dark novelties (http://elginwatches.org/help/luminous_dials.html ). As a result, some of the people using these products, and many of the women employed to make them, suffered tragic fates.

Take the science of agriculture. In the last couple centuries, tremendous strides have been made in learning how plants grow and in learning ways to grow things more productively. This led to the dust bowl tragedy described movingly in Grapes of Wrath.

Take trains, planes and cars. Each has brought incredible changes to our world; and each change has been accompanied by many tragedies.

This tells me not that science is evil but that it is powerful. There is a physical world out there, and it is valuable to understand it as it truly is, not as we would like to pretend it is. The better we understand it, the better we are able to live our lives without causing unnecessary harm to ourselves and others.

I believe the same thing about religion. There is a moral realm out there as well as a physical one, and it is valuable to understand it as it truly is, not as we would like to pretend it is.

When religions substitute dogma for inquiry, they can be very harmful. When religion is a genuine search for truth, it is (like science) a worthwhile enterprise.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Well said! :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
Well said! :)


Me too!!:)

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I think religion has to be inherently evil simply because it is false. Believing in something that isn't true is wrong, and it's a moral wrong if you know it's not true.

Since there is no god (bear with me here, for the sake of argument), religion is false, and therefore cannot help but cause harm...

So it's not just that all existing religions are evil - all possible religions must be evil...
You seem to be saying that it is evil to believe something that is false.

Obviously, I feel that the things I believe are true -- otherwise, I wouldn't believe them. And the people around me probably feel the same way about their beliefs.

This works out fine if it turns out we all believe the same things. But let's suppose, just to make things interesting, that some people have different beliefs.

In this hypothetical world where people have different beliefs, I look around and consider these other people. If my beliefs are true, then their's must be false. To believe something false is evil. Therefore these people are evil...

Potentially this belief -- that it is evil to believe something false -- can lead us down dangerous roads. (Indeed, I think that is the road many religions have taken that has led them to do some of their worst actions.)

I prefer to consider that believing in something false is mistaken rather than evil. And we all make mistakes. There's no great shame in that.

There are many things that scientists believed 100 years ago which turned out to be mistaken, just as there are likely things that scientists believe today which will turn out to be mistaken 100 years from now. That doesn't make sdience evil -- it makes it a learning process.

Religion, to me, is also a learning process. It is a search for answers to non-physical questions.

I agree with you it is wrong to believe in things we know to be false. That's what my religion tells me as well. My religion encourages me to continually question what I believe and to continually seek to learn. I do not believe that is evil.
Secondly, the concept of faith - that you can know something without having knowledge - is in itself a dangerous and harmful philosophy. Whenever we abandon empiricism, we are likely to cause harm.
The idea that people should accept something as true simply because it was laid down as dogma in some book or by some leader is disturbing. And the idea that people would accept some fanciful notion as true simply because it tickles their fancy is also disturbing. I agree with you that such faith can be dangerous and harmful.

Many religions do teach people to have this kind of faith. Mine doesn't, and I believe there are others that also don't.

My religion holds that it is important to base our beliefs on what we have directly experienced, not on what has been dictated to us or drilled into us. It also holds that it is important to realize our experiences are limited and our perceptions may be flawed; that we should be careful not to conclude over-much even from our direct experience and should be willing to leave many things as questions we are pondering rather than matters we consider settled.

My religion also leads me to understand the importance of listening to what others say they have experienced, trying to see how it matches (and differs from) what I feel I have experienced, in order better to understand these things and approach a true (or truer) perception.

Faith, for me, is not the idea that I can know something without having knowledge. It is the awareness that we all have different experiences, and that just because someone else has not experienced what I have does not make my experience false.

There are things I tend to believe -- based on my perceptions of what I have experienced, or what I have failed to experience -- but which I know that other people have perceived or have experienced very differently. That's what I consider to be matters of faith. I am always open to the possibility that I am mistaken, but in matters such as these I am especially open to it.

If I have no experience to give me reason to believe something, then I don't. I may entertain the possibility of such things, and consider them interesting speculations, but I would not believe in them without some reason to do so.

I consider that religious. I do not consider that inherently evil.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Akots
I think religion has to be inherently evil simply because it is false. Believing in something that isn't true is wrong, and it's a moral wrong if you know it's not true.

Since there is no god (bear with me here, for the sake of argument), religion is false, and therefore cannot help but cause harm.

Secondly, the concept of faith - that you can know something without having knowledge - is in itself a dangerous and harmful philosophy. Whenever we abandon empiricism, we are likely to cause harm.

So it's not just that all existing religions are evil - all possible religions must be evil, because (in the abscence of god) they must all be false. Obviously, if you actually think god(s) exist, then you could postulate a religion that wasn't false, and thus not necessarily evil. And, if you believe that god speaks to people through direct communication, you could render faith a non-false source of knowledge.

But lacking god, it must all be false. And making decisions based on false information cannot help but lead to tragedy.

"Man will commit atrocities as long as he believes in absurdities" - some dead English guy.


Man of jade

Ah, the signal call of the religious loonie. When a tornado smashes your house, kills your family, and breaks your legs, the preacher says, "but it could have been worse: you could have broken your arms! See the wondrous effect of God's great mercy?"


Is there some kind of sale on strawmen at the Xian store? When did I ever imply, suggest, or otherwise hint otherwise? I simply objected to your claim that religion caused more good than harm. How does that in any way suggest that religion is the sole cause of trouble?

I backed up my claim with facts. Your rebuttal - the so-called good religion does - is to point out that the priests are being merciful in not executing people out of hand.


Where, pray tell, did you get this number? Because it sure smells like you just pulled it out of your ass.


Rather than accept your claims about Bin Laden's motivations and goals, I think I'll just accept his.


And why do you think the officers were given other people's land? What was the justification for driving them off their property? Could it be... because they were bloody Catholics?

You acknowledge that religion is partly to cause for the various acts of bloodshed around the world. Tell me - what good do these religions provide to balance that? The mere fact that they don't inflict more bloodshed?


Well, I was going to really let you have it, but then I came up with a question I'd like to see you try and answer.

You wrote off the historical evils of religion by referring to "present-day religion." But isn't Xianity defined by the Bible? And isn't it the same Bible today as existed in the times of the Crusades, Inquisitions, slavery, etc.? So what has changed? How is present-day religion reformed and made peaceful, given that the source of religion (the Bible, the Koran, etc.) remains unchanged?

How is that you read the Bible and object to slavery, when 90 generations of people read the Bible and did not object to slavery? Were they wrong or misinformed? If so, how did you get correctly informed?

I've been thinking about how to respond to this, but since much of what Nova Land mirrored my own thoguhts, i'll just add my personal viewpoint.

Firstly, if one believes in no god (as opposed to simply not believing in poissible gods), then the concept of religion has a tremendous potential for abuse; but from the atheistic, impartial viewpoint, ANY system requiring unquestioned trust is inherantly risky.

I trust my employer, my government, and my family not to screw me over someday in the unforseeable future. The only evidence I have that they will not? They haven't done it yet, and I can observe no probable cause for that to change. In essence, this is a similar reason for my faith; I strongly believe that the teachings and morals it supports are valid, and I have seen strong evidence that the others of this faith follow them honestly, out of their own free will. I have made my own judgment as to wether this particular instance of religion is harmful, or beneficial; and I've done my best to analyze the harm that does occur; to decide wether it was because of a flaw in the faith, or simply a natural event of life.

In essence, it wasn't proof of God that led me to this faith. I feel much more as though it was observation of the people of this faith that led me to believe in God. If we are His creations, then we are essentially the evidence of his existance, and it leads me to believe that God exists. I do not believe for the rewards, or to avoid punishment, or to save my soul.

Of course, i do not KNOW that God exists; and unlike atomic bombs or the moon, there's not a whole lot of evidence for him going around (and none of it remotely empirical or quantifiable). But I certainly believe it. The quesiton here is, must evidence of God be measurable and repeatable, or extrapolated from what we observe? There's not much measurable evidence for evolution that can be reproduced on demand; we must observe the past. This does not change the vailidity of evolution at all.

Would you say that any form of leadership is inherantly evil? because that's where (most of) the corruption in existing religions comes from.

----
You have only blamed their critics! Where is your balance between "Yin and Yang" here? ;)
----


Are you kiding me Peter?

I've said several times that Scientologists have done bad things, and also that I don't agree with many, many of their claims.

I just don't dwell on those things and ignore the good parts.

[BobM]

(ignoring all the posts that have gone before..)

A better question would be:

In human hands, what isn't harmful?

[dsm]

My how people forget the Randi doctrine of "critical thinking"...

Remember people that "harm" (in this case) is a verb and, therefore, requires an animated thing to perform the harm. Religion (and science) is not harmful in and of itself -- it is the people that interpret it that do the harm (either to themselves or to others). Therefore, we cannot lay the blame for the harm done in the name of religion (or science) on religion (or science) -- we can only lay it on ourselves for not thinking critically (and not teaching others to think critically) about the topics of thought that religion (or science) bring up.

Think about it. :)

[Man of jade]

Yahzi:
As you continue to use slurs and insults, i am leaving the thread. Try to have a conversation without insulting someone, its rahter nice if the person isnt arrogant enough to achieve it.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by dsm
My how people forget the Randi doctrine of "critical thinking"...

Remember people that "harm" (in this case) is a verb and, therefore, requires an animated thing to perform the harm. Religion (and science) is not harmful in and of itself -- it is the people that interpret it that do the harm (either to themselves or to others). Therefore, we cannot lay the blame for the harm done in the name of religion (or science) on religion (or science) -- we can only lay it on ourselves for not thinking critically (and not teaching others to think critically) about the topics of thought that religion (or science) bring up.

Think about it. :)

That's the point of my post! :) In response to tha person who wrote what religion is th emost harmful.
Thanks.

[Yahzi]

Nova Land
Often a scientific advance, poorly understood, has led to grave harm
We agree on this principle - any belief that deviates from reality is likely to cause harm.

There is a moral realm out there as well as a physical one
I kind of disagree here - I think there is only one realm. I think morality is part of the physical realm, in the same sense that mathe
matics are.

When religions substitute dogma for inquiry
I have to ask, how can they not? What possible method of inquiry exists for religion? We know what "scientific inquiry" looks like, and we know how to test it's value (by testing it's correspondance to the real world). But what are the methods of spiritual inquiry? What are the test procedures? How do we demonstrate correspondance to reality?

Religion is harmful precisely because it cannot be a geniune search for the truth. We know what a free, unfettered search for empirical truth looks like: it's called science. Religion is not merely science applied to a different subject - it can't be, because science applies to all material subjects. So religion must either be scientific, or false.

You could postulate a separate, spiritual realm, which is non-material and thus beyond the reach of science, but is an appropriate doman for religion. The problem is, this imaginary realm itself does not exist, thus introducing that pesky falseness again. (We can argue about whether or not it does in fact exist after we settle the question of whether its existance matters.)

Religion generally includes a revelation. It is this revealed knowledge, knowledge that is gained not by empirical deduction (or more precisely induction) but by authority. Wheeet! goes the whistle. You've already compromised your search for the truth by marking out a piece of territory and saying, "but you can't look here." To start with something that is not empirically verifiable, and then to subject everything else to empiricism, is hypocritical.
But if you don't subject things to empirical scrutiny, how can you be searching for the truth? And if you do subject your divine revelation to empirical scrutiny, what then of your religion - since no divine revelation can withstand emprical investigation, by mere nature of it's being divine (re. David Hume and miracles).

Even if you took the simpler position that you were in possession of knowledge that could be empirically verified even though it currently isn't (aka super-science from aliens), the practical concern that remains is that every single piece of so-called revealed knowledge has turned out to be false.

If religion includes the concept of faith, then by your own reasoning it must be harmful - unless you can postulate a mechanism by which faith actually corresponds to the real world. If God were actually whispering in people's ears, telling them to bet on that inside straight, then faith would count as a real source of knowledge, But virtually all sensible religious people acknowledge it doesn't work like that. So how does it work?

You seem to be saying that it is evil to believe something that is false.
We agree on this. Just to clear up confusion, I don't mean to imply moral culpabiliy for ignorance.

Reason requires you to take as true what the evidence shows. Now, you might incomplete or even falsified evidence, and thus believe the wrong thing, but you are clearly not morally culpable for that. Believing in the wrong only becomes morally wrong when you have reason to know it's wrong.

This derives from the idea that the sole moral imperative is ablity. If you are able to do the moral thing, you must. By corollory, if you can't do the right thing, you aren't obligated to. If you have faulty evidence, you can't reach the correct conclusion, so you aren't morally responsible for reaching the wrong conclusion.

My religion also leads me to understand the importance of listening to what others say they have experienced,
Well then, that's the difference between your religion and science. Scientists have learned not to listen to what others say they have experienced, because people are notoriously wrong about what they have experienced. ;)

Acutually, I'm serious. There is a crucial difference between recieving a report of an experience and having the experience yourself. The predicate of all science is that anyone can repeat your experience. The only experiences allowed into the scientific debate are the ones that are public; that anyone can replicate. That is what an experiement is: an replicable experience.

By admitting non-replicable data into your search for truth, I think you have gravely compromised your search. Not just for high metaphysical reasons, but also because people really are often deeply wrong about what they experienced. Elizabeth Loftus et. al. have done considerable work showing that memories are subject to extreme error, to the point of substituting fantasy for reality. Science is protected from this human condition by the double-blind replicable experiement: what is your protection against it?

My religion encourages me to continually question what I believe and to continually seek to learn. I do not believe that is evil.
I don't believe it is evil either. But I also don't believe it is religion. Sooner or later you will either have to a) not ask a question, or b) reject your religion as unsupported by evidence. In my humble experience, no religion can withstand continual scrutiny. (This is not a claim, but simply an opinion).

I consider that religious. I do not consider that inherently evil.
But now that you know that human experience is a wretched reflection of reality, you can no longer ignore this fault in your system. Hence you must drop personal testimony, and now your system is indistinguishable from science - and equally limited. Personal testimony itself (even your own) is inherently flawed, and we already agreed on where flawed evidence will get you. Now that you know it is flawed, how can you justify relying on it?

Dang. I feel like a fundy who has just gone up to an Eskimo and said, "When you were innocent of the Word, you were saved. But now that I've told you about God, you're doomed to hell unless you..." :eek:


Akots
but from the atheistic, impartial viewpoint, ANY system requiring unquestioned trust is inherantly risky
Why from the atheistic viewpoint? Why does postulating a Divine being automatically make unquestioned trust somehow valid? Maybe god is lying to you. All the examples you gave are of faith that is predicated on reason: i.e. "trust" as opposed to "assurance of things not seen." I'm big on trust, but down on faith.

If we are His creations, then we are essentially the evidence of his existance, and it leads me to believe that God exists.
You do realize you have assumed your conclusion, right? Of course God exists if we are his creations. The question is, are we his creations? Why would anybody look at this travesty of accretion and claim it was designed? The evidence of evolution is as certain as the evidence of anything else. Evolution does not require a creater. Hence, Occam's Razor slices it out, and we have no logical reason at all to think that we are God's creations. (Except in the most indirect sense, i.e. god caused the Big Bang and then promptly retired from the universe. I don't think anybody is defending that proposition, though.)

There's not much measurable evidence for evolution that can be reproduced on demand; we must observe the past.
You've been misinformed; there is plenty. A more appropriate subject would be astronomy, which is an almost entirely observation based science. Or economics. ;)

Would you say that any form of leadership is inherantly evil? because that's where (most of) the corruption in existing religions comes from.
No, I wouldn't. I think the fact that evil leaders accomplish evil in the name of the church is a reflection of the weakness of church structure; for example, once you've been taught that the Pope is infallible, it's sort of hard to question him when he tells you to do something immoral. Or the fact that the leader can exort his followers to have faith that it will all somehow work out to the good, despite every appearence.

Keep in mind that I think the vast majority of religious people are religious because they are good, and not the other way around. They want to do good, they are told that the religion will help them do good, and so they sign up. Not being educated in philosophy, they're not to sure about the finer ins and outs of good, so they're willing to trust somebody else's judgement. But religion is constituted in such a way that it can obscure the real world, not illuminate it; and in that darkness much mischief is done.

It's the failure of judgement I decry, not the failure of intentions.



***********************************************

And now to the peanut gallery:

Whodummi
All the better for me (even though I know you DO read what I post).
Only when someone else quotes it.

As for your strawman about slavery, I never implied, suggested, or hinted that slavery was an invention of Xianity. Merely that it was defended by Xianity. What is it with you people and your strawmen? Do they come cheaper by the dozen?


Man of jade
Good riddance. Come back when you have something interesting to say. Note I did not specify insightful, true, or even witty; merely interesting, i.e., above the vaccous canards of the common yokel.


(Edited for formatting)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahzi
....I think there is only one realm. I think morality is part of the physical realm, in the same sense that mathematics are. ...


Would you expand a bit on what you are proposing? I'm not sure that math "is a part of the physical realm". Certainly our perceived physical realm appears to have some connection with math/logic, but what is that connection?

[SimonJohnMorgan]

Been said in 'n' different ways, but had to add my own view...

Anything that dictates a system of beliefs for the only reason of 'because', instead of something that can be rationally justified*, or is self-evident* cannot do anything but harm. Even if all of the resulting actions are good, the fact that someone is dogmatically following them is harmful in itself.

*I know a whole new thread could be started on defining these, but roll with it...

----
Religion is harmful precisely because it cannot be a geniune search for the truth. We know what a free, unfettered search for empirical truth looks like: it's called science.
----


And science is harmful for that precise reason. Atom bomb? Weapons? Pollution? Dangerous chemicals? C'mon now Yahzi, play fair. I guess these evils are part of the 'genuine search for truth' you speak of.


----
And now to the peanut gallery:

Whodummi

Only when someone else quotes it.
----


Yahzi, you are incredibly immature.

So you ignore me, but not when someone else quotes me? Kind of defeats the purpose of ignoring.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Religion is harmful precisely because it cannot be a geniune search for the truth. We know what a free, unfettered search for empirical truth looks like: it's called science.
----

And science is harmful for that precise reason. Atom bomb? Weapons? Pollution? Dangerous chemicals? C'mon now Yahzi, play fair. I guess these evils are part of the 'genuine search for truth' you speak of.

Not harmful, dangerous.

Science produces knowledge. Knowledge is power. Power is a potentially dangerous thing. Still, I will take knowledge over ignorance any day.

For example, I am a very dangerous person because of my knowledge. I know how to make all sorts of explosives. I know how to inflict extreme damage on buildings with a minimal amount of force. I know how to seriously injure, and even kill people, with my bare hands. I know how to use psychological principles to delude and brainwash people. In short, if I wanted to be a terrorist, I could be an extremely dangerous one, as could anybody with my educational background.

Does that make me a harmful person?

Science is a tool, just like any other. Guns don't kill people, people do. The same goes for science. It can be used for great good, or great evil.

And do I even need to add that most religions do not hesitate to use that tool whenever it serves their purposes?

Dr. Stupid

Stimpson,


----
Not harmful, dangerous.
----


That seems like semantics.


Certainly some of the bad aspects of science; dangerous chemicals, weapons, pollution, a-bombs, radiation, missles, tanks, etc. can be dangerous and certainly harmful because they affect people, animals, and the planets resources.

You can say the harmful part comes from knowledge and power, etc., but just like in our Fictional Characters thread, the ultimate cause is Science.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Not harmful, dangerous.
----

That seems like semantics.

Not only is it not just semantics, but I gave a specific example of why it is not. I ask you again, does the fact that I am a dangerous person make me a harmful person?

Certainly some of the bad aspects of science; dangerous chemicals, weapons, pollution, a-bombs, radiation, missles, tanks, etc. can be dangerous and certainly harmful because they affect people, animals, and the planets resources.

You are confusing science with technology. Science simply provides knowledge. What people do with that knowledge is up to them. The same knowledge that allows us to make dangerous chemicals also allows us to make things like plastics. The same knowledge that allows us to make explosives also allows us to make things like fuels. The same knowledge that allows us to make atomic bombs also allows us to make lasers, nuclear reactors, x-ray machines, etc.

The knowledge is neither harmful nor beneficial. It is just a tool. Science does not make weapons and poisons. Science just teaches people how to. It is up to those people whether they will use that knowledge in beneficial or harmful ways.

You can say the harmful part comes from knowledge and power, etc., but just like in our Fictional Characters thread, the ultimate cause is Science.

No, the ultimate cause is people. Science is just a tool those people use. Some use it for good, and others use it for evil. A hammer is not harmful. It is simply a dangerous tool.

Dr. Stupid

[Yahzi]

I guess these evils are part of the 'genuine search for truth' you speak of.
In the context of the conversation at the time, "harmful" meant "likely to cause unintended and undesirable effects as a consequence of not corresponding to reality." It is not necessary to devolve into a semantic argument over every possible meaning of harm. Both participants in the conversation had already agreed to the stated above, and presumably any literate reader could follow that.

Edit: Not to say I object to Stimpson's valiant efforts to club some sense into Whodummi's skull; just that I don't think it was necessary.

----
Science does not make weapons and poisons.
----


My bad. I guess all those scientists, with their very specific science knowledge, didn't make the atom bomb.

So we can't blame that on science, but technology and people.

;)

Yahzi,


----
Edit: Not to say I object to Stimpson's valiant efforts to club some sense into Whodummi's skull; just that I don't think it was necessary.
----


No one appreciates the way you approach communication.

Can you please place me back on "ignore"?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Science does not make weapons and poisons.
----

My bad. I guess all those scientists, with their very specific science knowledge, didn't make the atom bomb.

So we can't blame that on science, but technology and people.

Read your own post, Whodini. Scientists made the atom bomb, not science. Scientists are people. So yes, we should blame the atom bomb on people, not on science.

By the way, your anti-science attitude is pretty ironic, seeing as you are posting this stuff on a computer message board. Isn't it kind of hypocritical to blame all everything bad on science, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits that have been made through science?

Did you know that without the knowledge that makes atomic bombs possible, there would be no computers?

Tell me something, Whodini. If an evil Medical Doctor decided to use his knowledge of human physiology to torture people, would you blame that on science too?

Dr. Stupid

----
So yes, we should blame the atom bomb on people, not on science.
----


That is absurd. We should blame it on both, although the people part is obvious and trivial.

The whole process of the science at that time went into making the bomb! Science at that time was the atom bomb. Many years, scientists, programs, and mucho $ went directly towards making the bomb.
(but most did say it was a bomb so war would be prevented, etc., but I see this as nothing more than being PC)


----
By the way, your anti-science attitude is pretty ironic, seeing as you are posting this stuff on a computer message board.
----


I'm not anti-science, but I am pro-pointing out the bad aspects of science.


----
Isn't it kind of hypocritical to blame all everything bad on science, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits that have been made through science?
----


Oh, so I now am anti-science, and I blame 'all everything bad' on science?

Will Dorothy and the Tin Man be joining your lyin' and strawman?


----
Did you know that without the knowledge that makes atomic bombs possible, there would be no computers?
----


Riiiggghhttt.

This is the section where you argue against the strawman you made of me being anti science and blaming everything bad on science.

[Franko]

Yazti:
I think religion has to be inherently evil simply because it is false.

“free will” is False and “free will” is the basis for A-Theism, and only reason people have for pretending there is no God.

Believing in something that isn't true is wrong, and it's a moral wrong if you know it's not true.

I agree completely, thus the moral crisis (contradiction) if you call yourself Atheist.

Since there is no god (bear with me here, for the sake of argument), religion is false, and therefore cannot help but cause harm.

A “Religion” is a set of beliefs regarding the nature and origin of existence (reality). Just because you believe there is no God, does not believe you do not have a set of beliefs regarding the nature and origin of existence. All you have done is conveniently redefine the term “relgion”.

“free willy” is your “God”, A-Theist. And there is no evidence that your God exist. Yet you maintain this False belief, it cannot help but cause harm.

Secondly, the concept of faith - that you can know something without having knowledge - is in itself a dangerous and harmful philosophy. Whenever we abandon empiricism, we are likely to cause harm.

Once again, I agree completely. Unfortunately you have deluded yourself into believing you have not abandoned empiricism, when that is precisely what you have done.

So it's not just that all existing religions are evil - all possible religions must be evil, because (in the abscence of god) they must all be false. Obviously, if you actually think god(s) exist, then you could postulate a religion that wasn't false, and thus not necessarily evil. And, if you believe that god speaks to people through direct communication, you could render faith a non-false source of knowledge.

But lacking god, it must all be false. And making decisions based on false information cannot help but lead to tragedy.

Basing decisions on mysticism (i.e. the notion that things are ultimately magical, and/or supernatural, “random” “stochastic”, “indeterministic”) ALWAYS leads to tragedy.

Like the idea that the present is not based on the past.

… or the notion that people’s actions are not the result of a logical sequence of cause and effect based on a fixed set of logical rules, and instead are the result of “random” forces (i.e. not based on memories or beliefs).

… or like the claim that Universe magically appear out of timeless voids for no reason what-so-ever. (or for no reason possibly comprehensible by “mortal man”)

… or like the claim that Many Worlds (are) Invisible (MWI Theory of QM) that postulates all reality is just a figment of your supernatural imagination.

"Man will commit atrocities as long as he believes in absurdities" - some dead English guy.

Yeah, like the guy who believes that he’s going to cease to exist, so there will be NO ultimate consequences for his actions. Geez! … there is no telling what a whack-job like that might DO, or SAY.

Actions are based on beliefs. Either that, or you are claiming human action is the result of magic.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
Actions are based on beliefs. I'm glad you mentioned that, Franko.

Which of your beliefs lead you to make false statements about what other people have said and done?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

So yes, we should blame the atom bomb on people, not on science.
----

That is absurd. We should blame it on both, although the people part is obvious and trivial.

Ever heard the saying "It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools"? Science is a tool.

The whole process of the science at that time went into making the bomb! Science at that time was the atom bomb. Many years, scientists, programs, and mucho $ went directly towards making the bomb.
(but most did say it was a bomb so war would be prevented, etc., but I see this as nothing more than being PC)

Your political and historical opinions are irrelevant here. The World was at war, and as a result, science was primarily being used towards that end. Go figure.

By the way, your anti-science attitude is pretty ironic, seeing as you are posting this stuff on a computer message board.
----

I'm not anti-science, but I am pro-pointing out the bad aspects of science.

Unfortunately, none of the things you have been pointing out are aspects of science at all. As I said before, science provides knowledge. How that knowledge is used is up to the people who use it. The same knowledge that was used to build the atom bomb has also been used beneficially. The knowledge is neither good nor bad. It is just knowledge.

Isn't it kind of hypocritical to blame all everything bad on science, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits that have been made through science?
----

Oh, so I now am anti-science, and I blame 'all everything bad' on science?

Will Dorothy and the Tin Man be joining your lyin' and strawman?

My, aren't you the clever one. :rolleyes:

Ok, so you don't blame "everything" bad on science. My point still stands. Things you use everyday are based on the same scientific knowledge that allowed those bad things you mentioned to be invented. Atomic bombs and microchips both come from the same "bad science". You can't have one without the other.

Did you know that without the knowledge that makes atomic bombs possible, there would be no computers?
----

Riiiggghhttt.

Are you disagreeing with my statement?

I still don't see how you can argue that a tool is to blame for how people choose to use it.

By the way, I noticed that you didn't answer my question about the Doctor. Would you blame science for that, or not?

Dr. Stupid

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
So yes, we should blame the atom bomb on people, not on science.
That is absurd. We should blame it on both, although the people part is obvious and trivial.What responsibility does the process we call 'science' bear for the use people make of it? For that matter, how can an abstract process be held responsible for anything?

Why do you judge the responsibility of the people who built the bomb to be 'trivial'?
Originally posted by Whodini
The whole process of the science at that time went into making the bomb! Science at that time was the atom bomb.Let me be certain that I understand you clearly. Are you claiming that the only science being done at the time that the atom bomb was designed and built was devoted exclusively to the creation of that weapon?

----
Science is a tool.
----


I agree Stimpy, but to say that that makes it immune to blame is not correct.


----
Your political and historical opinions are irrelevant here. The World was at war, and as a result, science was primarily being used towards that end. Go figure.
----


There is no opinon there. Science at that time was determining the way to make and use bombs.


----
The same knowledge that was used to build the atom bomb has also been used beneficially. The knowledge is neither good nor bad. It is just knowledge.
----


So the knowledge was used to make an a-bomb. Was that good or bad, or was it 'just knowledge'?


----
Ok, so you don't blame "everything" bad on science.
----


Thanks for admitting your error. Also, I'm not anti-science, which was the other strawman you constructed.


----
Atomic bombs and microchips both come from the same "bad science".
----


The difference is is that we aren't knowingly oblierating thousands of people with Imacs.


----
I noticed that you didn't answer my question about the Doctor.
----


Because it was an irrelevant, hypothetical tangent, which you asked after you constructed the two strawmans of me being anti-science, and of me blaming everything bad on science.

----
What responsibility does the process we call 'science' bear for the use people make of it?
----


Without A one couldn't get to B.


----
For that matter, how can an abstract process be held responsible for anything?
----


The same way many atheists hold religion responsible for every evil in the world.


----
Are you claiming that the only science being done at the time that the atom bomb was designed and built was devoted exclusively to the creation of that weapon?
----


Not the only, but the main science done at that time by the United States.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Science is a tool.
----

I agree Stimpy, but to say that that makes it immune to blame is not correct.

What are you going to blame it for? I can blame somebody for their actions, or for their decisions, but science doesn't "do" anything. It doesn't make any decisions.

How is it even meaningful to place blame on a tool?

The same knowledge that was used to build the atom bomb has also been used beneficially. The knowledge is neither good nor bad. It is just knowledge.
----

So the knowledge was used to make an a-bomb. Was that good or bad, or was it 'just knowledge'?

The knowledge was neither good nor bad. It is just knowledge. If you are asking whether or not it was a good thing to make the a-bomb, that is a highly debatable issue, and of no relevance to this discussion.

Atomic bombs and microchips both come from the same "bad science".
----

The difference is is that we aren't knowingly oblierating thousands of people with Imacs.

Notice the "we" in that statement. It is the people who are doing harm, not science. Besides, a computer can be used to hurt people too.

I noticed that you didn't answer my question about the Doctor.
----

Because it was an irrelevant, hypothetical tangent, which you asked after you constructed the two strawmans of me being anti-science, and of me blaming everything bad on science.

It is not a hypothetical tangent at all. It is directly relevant. What is the difference between blaming science for the killings made by weapons, and blaming science for the torture inflicted by a Doctor using his medical knowledge? In both cases, scientific knowledge is being used to cause harm.

For that matter, how can an abstract process be held responsible for anything?
----

The same way many atheists hold religion responsible for every evil in the world.

Now who is making the strawman argument? :rolleyes:

Dr. Stupid

----
What are you going to blame it for? I can blame somebody for their actions, or for their decisions, but science doesn't "do" anything. It doesn't make any decisions.

How is it even meaningful to place blame on a tool?
----


How is it even meaningful to place blame on religion?
It is just a tool...

[Nova Land]

Yahzi:

Hi! There are so many things in your post I'd like to respond to, and my responses are often quite lengthy, so I'm going to break this response into several parts.
Nova Land:

My religion encourages me to continually question what I believe and to continually seek to learn...

Yahzi:

I... don't believe it is religion. Sooner or later you will either have to a) not ask a question, or b) reject your religion as unsupported by evidence. In my humble experience, no religion can withstand continual scrutiny. (This is not a claim, but simply an opinion).
The Religious Society of Friends (also known as Quakers) has been considered to be a religion for about 350 years now. I think there is plenty of empirical evidence that that's what we are.

There are people on this board who make rather presumptuous judgments about what atheists must be like -- e.g., atheists would not return a purse or wallet if they found one on a sidewalk. These judgments are not based on actual experience with atheists, but based instead on philosophical notions of what atheists would have to be like. It sounds to me like you're doing the very same thing.

I will state it again: my religion encourages me to continually question and to be open to new insights. This is a key principle of my religion, and has been for 350 years, so if it were going to lead to a problem I think it should have happened by now.

We have no dogma, no once-and-for-all revealed truth. Our religion is about trying to discern what is true, not about trying to dictate it.

To me, science consists of both a process for discovering truth and a body of knowledge derived from that process. That body of knowledge is constantly growing and evolving, as new discoveries are made and new insights are gained.

My religion is similar. It consists of a process for discovering truth, and a body of knowledge built from that process, which also grows and evolves. (As one person put it, "The spiritual insights of our forebears were intended to be milestones along the journey, not permanent campsites.") If I were to find evidence that something I believe is wrong, I would have no problem rejecting that belief and replacing it with one I now understood to be better.

There are many, many blank areas in our body of knowledge where we simply do not have any answers. We have no particular group insight on a great many questions that other religions deal with, and are not likely to develop insight in those areas any time soon for many of the very reasons you bring up.

And what we agree on are general principles, not rules. Nor do we all express those principles in exactly the same words, or interpret them in exactly the same ways. Our aim is not to enforce conformity -- it is to discern what is true as best we are able, and to live up to that truth as best we are able.

I don't want to go on at too great length here about "my religion" this and "my religion" that. The topic is about whether religion is harmful, and I am not trying to side-track it into one about Quakerism. My intention was to offer my religion as an example that contradicts some of your assertions, not as the example.

I've been wanting for some time to write up a concise summary of some of my beliefs to post in a separate thread, so as to avoid taking up so much space in threads like this. I will try to get around to that soon. In the meantime, my apologies for the length these responses will be.

[Nova Land]

Nova Land:

My religion also leads me to understand the importance of listening to what others say they have experienced...

Yahzi:

Well then, that's the difference between your religion and science. Scientists have learned not to listen to what others say they have experienced, because people are notoriously wrong about what they have experienced.Got to interrupt here to argue with your wording. (In the next paragraph you clarify your point and express it much better. I think we actually are more in agreement than you realize.)

My point about listening to others is, I believe, a good one and one that is in tune with rather than opposed to science.

Science is a communal search for truth. No single person is able to research everything. Plus, as you note, people's perception, recollection of, or description of what they have experienced can be wrong. Therefore it is important not to rely too heavily on any single person's experience or any single account of that experience -- including one's own.

Listening to others describe what they have experienced is a vital part of science. That's what reports in scientific journals are: descriptions of the direct experience of others. What would be the value of reading such reports if the only thing that mattered was our own experience?

I said I listened to what others say, and that seems to disturb you. How much weight I place on what various people say, however, is the key.

Being able to weigh evidence well rather than accepting it all as having equal weight is, to me, an important aspect of science. Not-so-coincidentally, it is also an important part of my religion.

It is not the number of people saying something that counts, because often what a person says carries little or no weight. There are things that lend weight to an account and things that make an account carry negligible weight. The "tests" certain paranormal researchers devise, for example, are often virtually worthless, so their accounts of the test results are worthless as well. I am still interested in hearing or reading such accounts, but I would assign then no weight as evidence.

Because people publishing in peer-reviewed journals tend to be better at establishing good protocols and recording their results accurately and meaningfully than people who don't, these articles usually carry considerable weight while self-published pamphlets carry little. Even so, I would not want to rely on a single study, no matter how good the protocols, how reliable the authors, how accurate the record-keeping. Even if I had done the study myself, I would still want to know about other people's experience.

The point you make -- that people are notoriously wrong about what they have experienced -- is one I strongly agree with. Nothing in the passage of mine that you quote indicates otherwise. I think you may be trying too hard to find areas of disagreement where they don't exist.

Okay, sorry to interrupt. Back to your point, already in progress.
There is a crucial difference between receiving a report of an experience and having the experience yourself. The predicate of all science is that anyone can repeat your experience. Yes, I agree. The value of direct experience, and the importance of others being able to experience the same thing, has from the beginning been central to my religion in attempting to discern what is true and what is not.

As a famous Quaker once said, and some of us are fond of quoting, "You may say, The Bible says this, or, The apostles say that. But what canst thou say?" (In other words, think less about what others have told you, and more about what you know from your own direct experience.)

However, it is not enough simply for an individual to experience (or think they have experienced) something. It is too easy for a person to be mistaken. The history of religion is filled with stories of people who sincerely -- but mistakenly -- believed god had told them to do something horrible.

If something is true, it should leave traces. Sometimes we don't have the technology to detect those traces (we can view things today through modern tools that were undetectable centuries ago) and are unable to discern much. In those cases, science and my religion teach me to suspend judgment -- to keep an open mind and wait, rather than forming a conclusion. But when the means to detect the traces do exist, then it should be possible for almost any person who is willing and able to conduct the tests properly to see those traces. If something is not replicable -- if some are able to see it, but others making the effort are not -- then science and my religion tell me not to accept that evidence yet, and to try to learn why there are different perceptions.

That leaves an awful lot of matters up in the air. For some people, that kind of uncertainly is uncomfortable -- they'd rather have an answer than wait until they had a correct answer. That's one reason I enjoy working puzzles and brain-teasers. It reminds me not to settle for something just to get the puzzle out of the way.

I want to know the answer to a puzzle in order to satisfy my curiosity. What good does settling for a wrong answer do? If I don't have a way of looking up the answer, then I'd rather sleep on it a day, week, month, until it comes to me.

I don't mind uncertainty, and I don't mind waiting patiently, even though I know a lot of things I'm curious about I'll probably never know. That's not for everyone, which may be one reason we're a fairly small religion.
By admitting non-replicable data into your search for truth, I think you have gravely compromised your search. Not just for high metaphysical reasons, but also because people really are often deeply wrong about what they experienced.I strongly agree with your point about not giving weight to non-replicable data.

Or at least I think I do. I dislike your use of the word admitting, which is ambiguous. I think it can be a good thing to listen to and be aware of this data, if only to know that it is data that can not be relied on. What would be bad would be assigning any significant weight to it. I'm not clear which of those two (listening to, or giving credence to) you intend by "admitting".

My religion does encourage me to listen respectfully to a wide range of people, even ones I might be inclined to dismiss, so if by not "admitting" you mean I should not even listen to such people then I strongly disagree.

But my religion also encourages me to weigh carefully -- not to be swayed by rhetoric or appeals to unreason, not to be swayed by personalities, and whenever possible to seek out verifying details, to check a variety of reliable sources, and to think a thing over at leisure rather than in haste. So if by not "admitting" you mean that we should assign little or no weight to weak and unreliable data then I strongly agree.

[Nova Land]

originally posted by Yahzi

We know what a free, unfettered search for empirical truth looks like: it's called science.Science, as generally understood, is a free, unfettered search for empirical truth regarding questions of how things work. The point has often been made: science tells how to build an atom bomb, it does not tell whether it is right to use one and if so when.

If you wish to expand the definition of science to include a free, unfettered search for empirical truth about moral issues and spiritual matters then you have just included my religion as part of science. Because that is the core of my religion: that we should seek out for ourselves what is true (rather than accepting dogma or other people's direction), and that we should use direct experience rather than philosophical notions as the basis for our beliefs.

Religion generally includes a revelation. It is this revealed knowledge, knowledge that is gained not by empirical deduction (or more precisely induction) but by authority.Mine doesn't. That was one of the key reasons for its founding -- a rejection of the idea that there were special revelations that people must accept on faith.

Wheeet! goes the whistle. You've already compromised your search for the truth by marking out a piece of territory and saying, "but you can't look here."And would you please tell me what it is I am forbidden by my religion to inquire into?

I don't fault you for being unfamiliar with my religion. There's no particular reason you should be. However, I do think that in the absence of knowledge you should refrain from making so many assumptions or jumping to so many conclusions.

[Nova Land]

originally posted by Yahzi

I think there is only one realm. I think morality is part of the physical realm, in the same sense that mathematics are.I agree there is only one universe we live in. I find the distinction between physical and non-physical elements to be useful, but if you wish to classify morality and mathematical concepts as "physical" I can try to accomodate my language to that in discussing this with you.

While I think of moral concepts as being non-physical, our experience of them is based on material interactions in the physical world. Love, hate, altruism, selfishness, greed, honesty, property, theft, marriage, etc., are concepts which we do not physically see, hear or touch but which we see reflected in people's actions. Is this what you mean by morality being part of the physical realm?

As long as we agree that there are moral / spiritual elements to reality, and that questions about them are worth exploring, I'll try not to quibble over whether we call morality physical or non-physical.
I have to ask, how can [religions] not [substitute dogma for inquiry]? What possible method of inquiry exists for religion?If morality is part of the physical realm, then it has reality. To the extent that these things are real, they can be explored. Anything which is real leaves some mark on reality.

Our 5 "physical" senses are useful in exploring (what I call physical phenomena, but I'm not sure how you wish to distinguish them). I believe we also have moral senses that help us distinguish moral things. (To accomodate your language, I can call this moral sense an additional physical sense.)

I can tell that certain things -- being truthful, helping others, being creative -- feel "right", and certain things -- deceiving, hurting others, being vengeful or destructive -- feel "wrong". I can't reduce that to a simple set of rules, anymore than I can reduce other aspects of life to simple rules, because life is complex -- "Murder is wrong" is an oversimplification, just as "Winter is cold" is an oversimplification -- but there is a truth underlying both these statements which, with time and thought, we are able to express better.

I believe it genuinely is wrong to rape, to murder, to enslave others. I do not believe these are simply social constructs, any more than I believe the tree outside my window is something I have imagined into being.

I also believe people generally are capable of sensing the difference between right and wrong -- even if imperfectly, and even if we do not always act accordingly. This seems reasonable to me (if morality has reality, it should be detectable) and belief in a moral sense seems justified to me by the evidence -- the evidence of my own experience, and the evidence of my perception of the people around me.

These senses, obviously, are of little use in pursuing questions such as "is there a heaven?" or "is Baptism important?" I have no clue how one would investigate such questions, so I do not attempt to. There are more than enough relgious questions that can be investigated, so I see no point in devoting more than idle musing to the ones I can't.
But what are the methods of spiritual inquiry? What are the test procedures? My life is my laboratory. Each action I take has moral consequences. I consider and observe, as best I can, the consequences of my actions and the consequences of other people's actions. Others do the same. Because each of us only has one life, it is important to be able to share and to learn from other's lives as well as our own.

Difficult? Yes. Slow? Yes. Even so, I look at human history and I do see us making a lot of progress overthe centuries in our understanding of moral and spiritual matters. After all, it has taken us many centuries to understand agriculture, genetics, aviation, electronics, etc. to the point we have now reached; why should understanding "moral science" be different?
How do we demonstrate correspondence to reality?Just as we can judge the value in science as a process by its results, we can judge the value in a spiritual inquiry process by its results.

The development of electric lights, anti-biotics, airplanes, computers, etc. -- things which actually work -- demonstrate that science corresponds to reality, in a way that pre-scientific methods did not.

We should judge spiritual inquiry processes in the same way. If they lead to conclusions about spiritual questions which we then recognize as right, and which help us progress to more advanced questions, then the process has value. If they lead to arbitrary codes which we continue to fight over, and which lead us nowhere, then we consider these more equivalent to astrology or palmistry.

If a religion consistently helps people to come to good moral judgments sooner than society at large, that is an indication that it corresponds to moral reality.

If, in contrast, it often leads people to moral judgments that later can be seen to be poor, such as support of slavery, support of segregation, support of witch-burning, opposition to women's rights, support for oppressive governments, etc., that is an indication it does not correspond to reality.

I feel my religion has a pretty good track record. From our earliest days, we recognized that women were spiritually equal to men -- that marriage should be a partnership of equals, that women should have the same legal rights as men, that women were as qualified to speak on religious and political matters, and to hold offices, as men. From our earliest days, we recognized that accidents of birth do not make some people more worthy of respect than others -- and were imprisoned regularly for refusing to doff hats to nobility, address the upper class by titles of respect, etc., until society at large began to catch up. People have sometimes fallen short (William Penn's children, for example, used the trust and goodwill the previous generation of Quakers had built up with local tribes in order to cheat the tribes badly) but the process has worked fairly consistently.

It may have taken Quakers decades to reach agreement as a society that slave-trading and slave-owning were clearly wrong, but this still put Quakers a century ahead of society at large -- and Quakers accompanied this new consciousness with actions such as starting schools for freed slaves, paying back wages to such slaves, and helping them train for and obtain paid jobs, while society at large dealt with the issue by fighting a war (which ended slavery in name but left many blacks in de facto slavery for another century). If you agree with me that slavery is indeed wrong in an objective sense, then it is worth examining and paying attention to which methods worked in helping slaveholders come to that realization and which ones didn't.

I would say that any spiritual inquiry process which is in harmony with the larger society around it is probably not very valid. All that is doing is confirming the values people already hold. What I want is a religion which consistently takes stands that differ from conventional wisdom of the society around it, and that as society catches up it continues to move forward and out-of-step in new ways. Quakers have generally been out-of-step (as have atheists and humanists, Unitarians, Brethren, Mennonites, and others.) I'd prefer it if Quakers today were out-of-step in more ways, and more strongly out-of-step, but we're out-of-step enough (and on enough of what seem to me the right issues) to provide empirical evidence to me of a correspondence with reality.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

What are you going to blame it for? I can blame somebody for their actions, or for their decisions, but science doesn't "do" anything. It doesn't make any decisions.

How is it even meaningful to place blame on a tool?
----

How is it even meaningful to place blame on religion?
It is just a tool...

That depends on what you mean by "religion".

If you mean "a system of beliefs", then I would agree, you can't "blame" a system of beliefs for anything. At best, you can say that those beliefs are irrational, and that people who hold those beliefs are likely to do bad things, which is, of course, what most people are referring to when they say that religion is harmful. Notice that it is still the people who are doing harm. The religion is simply their reason for doing harm. This is just like saying that racism is harmful. Racist beliefs don't hurt people, but people do hurt other people because of their racist beliefs.

Notice that in this case, your analogy to science doesn't work, because scientific knowledge does not make people more likely to do bad things. At most, it makes them more dangerous should they choose to do bad things. It also makes them more effective if they choose to do good things. In short, it makes them more powerful. How they use that power is up to them.

Dr. Stupid

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
How is it even meaningful to place blame on religion?
It is just a tool... You are begging the question, Whodini. Stop hiding and answer: How can you justify your own practice of placing blame on an abstract process, rather than on the people who use that process for certain ends?

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Without A one couldn't get to B.Are you claiming that any tool is ultimately responsible for the use that someone makes of it? Do you advocate putting firearms on trial when they are used to commit murder?
Originally posted by Whodini
The same way many atheists hold religion responsible for every evil in the world.Evasion noted. Answer the question: How can an abstract process be held responsible for anything?
Originally posted by Whodini
Not the only, but the main science done at that time by the United States. You claim that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". On what metrics do you base this claim?

[stamenflicker]

Notice that in this case, your analogy to science doesn't work, because scientific knowledge does not make people more likely to do bad things. At most, it makes them more dangerous should they choose to do bad things. It also makes them more effective if they choose to do good things. In short, it makes them more powerful. How they use that power is up to them.

I think if we learned anything from the Tuskegee experiments and probably a host of others not so popular, is that science can be a motivating factor for committing an evil deed. Beliefs, whether religious, magical, or scientific, can be used for ill by any number of folks. Because life is so condtradictory in itself, no professed ethical hierarchy can escape squeaky clean. There are however some belief constructs which automatically lend themselves to people bent on chaos and destruction--- sometimes, as in the Tuskegee experiments, that destruction is in the professed name of a higher ordered moral opinion.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

How can an abstract process be held responsible for anything?

It's the wrong question. Religion is not an abstract process, though maybe we'd all be better off if it was. People carry out their religious routines in the real world. There is no clear line of demarcation as to when such activity in the real world constitutes "religion" and when it deviates from such. Whodini makes a good point in this regard: The atomic bomb did not make itself; it was made by men with an ideology. So perhaps the question should be, where do we determine the line between ideology and praxis? Or even better, is there such a line at all?

Flick

Stimpson,


----
that people who hold those beliefs are likely to do bad things,
----


Why can you say that about religion but not about science?


----
which is, of course, what most people are referring to when they say that religion is harmful.
----


How do you know what most people are referring to? Perhaps you should apply for the JREF challenge?


----
Notice that in this case, your analogy to science doesn't work, because scientific knowledge does not make people more likely to do bad things.
----


Oh, of course my analogy doesn't work Stimpson, because you don't want it to because you are slightly scientistic and the cognitive dissonance would be too much of a stressor.


Prove that religion makes people more likely to do bad things Stimpson.

Originally posted by Unas
Are you claiming that any tool is ultimately responsible for the use that someone makes of it? Do you advocate putting firearms on trial when they are used to commit murder?
Evasion noted. Answer the question: How can an abstract process be held responsible for anything?
You claim that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". On what metrics do you base this claim?


Unas,

Flooding me with questions won't suddenly vanish my points.

Also, in this post and in others, you'd said that I'm hiding and evading.

If you talk like that, no one will want to play with you.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Flooding me with questions won't suddenly vanish my points.You have not been "flooded" with questions. You have been asked to support your claims with facts.

Failing to support your claims with facts will not convince anyone that you know what you are talking about. Quite the opposite result is likely, in fact, if you continually fail to produce the evidence for your arguments.

Now: You claim that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". On what metrics do you base this claim?

[LucyR]

How does one 'vanish' points? Perhaps he means 'varnish'. No wait, that's even sillier.

[hammegk]

Maybe one needs to understand English? ;)

[LucyR]

I do 'understand' English. That's why Whodini's post made me squirm.

Unas,


You asked:


----
Are you claiming that any tool is ultimately responsible for the use that someone makes of it?

Do you advocate putting firearms on trial when they are used to commit murder?
----


Neither things that I claimed. So you are hardly asking me to support my claims with facts, because I didn't claim the things you are asking about.

The only exception is:

----
You claim that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". On what metrics do you base this claim?
----


Which I will answer.

####
By the end of 1941, British studies had outlined the materials requirements for an atomic bomb and uranium research was going on at about 12 American universities. In 1942 Fermi's team at the University of Chicago created a sustained chain reaction of fission for the first time. Also during 1942, the Manhattan District of the Corps of Engineers was formed to construct three secret "cities" for major portions of atomic bomb development. At Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a nuclear reactor and plant for separating uranium 235 from natural uranium was built. In Hanford, Washington, three reactors were built to extract plutonium (another element with atoms that could be split) from a non-fissionable type of uranium. Finally a lab for the design and construction of the bomb was built at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The cost of these Manhattan Project installations was $2 billion.

J. Robert Oppenheimer was made director of the Los Alamos lab, and in 1943 he gathered about 200 of the best scientists in the field to live and work there.
####


If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it. Seems like you are the one making the extraordinary claim that atom bomb science wasn't the main science done at the time.

Originally posted by LucyR
How does one 'vanish' points? Perhaps he means 'varnish'. No wait, that's even sillier.


Vanish, like make disappear.

Unas asking me questions and saying I'm evading and hiding because I don't answer them instantly or don't answer them period, won't make my points go away.

[stamenflicker]

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a nuclear reactor and plant for separating uranium 235 from natural uranium was built

I can vouch for that... it's 12 miles from my front porch. Be careful with the candles :eek:

Flick

[hammegk]

Originally posted by LucyR
I do 'understand' English. That's why Whodini's post made me squirm.

Oh. You did understand the point. Why did you say you didn't?

Does your religion require such actions? :D

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Originally posted by Unas
Are you claiming that any tool is ultimately responsible for the use that someone makes of it?

Do you advocate putting firearms on trial when they are used to commit murder?Neither things that I claimed. So you are hardly asking me to support my claims with facts, because I didn't claim the things you are asking about.Understood. Then it is logical to ask the following: If you do not assert that any tool is ultimately responsible for the use that someone makes of it, do you therefore consider the tool we call science to be a special case, which can be held responsible for the use someone makes of it? If so, why is science a special case?
Originally posted by Whodini
Originally posted by Unas
You claim that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". On what metrics do you base this claim?
Which I will answer.

####
By the end of 1941, British studies had outlined the materials requirements for an atomic bomb and uranium research was going on at about 12 American universities. In 1942 Fermi's team at the University of Chicago created a sustained chain reaction of fission for the first time. Also during 1942, the Manhattan District of the Corps of Engineers was formed to construct three secret "cities" for major portions of atomic bomb development. At Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a nuclear reactor and plant for separating uranium 235 from natural uranium was built. In Hanford, Washington, three reactors were built to extract plutonium (another element with atoms that could be split) from a non-fissionable type of uranium. Finally a lab for the design and construction of the bomb was built at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The cost of these Manhattan Project installations was $2 billion.

J. Robert Oppenheimer was made director of the Los Alamos lab, and in 1943 he gathered about 200 of the best scientists in the field to live and work there.
####

If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it.
You have presented us with evidence that a great deal of work was being done on the atomic bomb in the mid to late Forties, and I would certainly agree with that assessment.

However, this information in isolation does not support your claim, which was that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". To have arrived at such a conclusion based upon empirical evidence, you must have somehow compared the amount of work being done on the atomic bomb in that time period with the amount of work being done in all other branches of science in the same time period. Did you, in fact, make such a survey?

And, independent of the answer to that query... Assuming for the sake of discussion that your claim is in fact correct, do you somehow blame the process of science itself for the concentrated effort to construct an atomic bomb? If so, please explain how the process itself drove humans to use it for that purpose.
Originally posted by Whodini
Seems like you are the one making the extraordinary claim that atom bomb science wasn't the main science done at the time.Seems like you haven't been paying attention. I have made no such claim. Are all of your conclusions based upon such faulty observations?

[LucyR]

Originally posted by hammegk


Oh. You did understand the point. Why did you say you didn't?

Does your religion require such actions? :D

Well, it was a pathetic attempt to provoke Whodini. However, he insists on remaining polite, although somewhat inarticulate.

Clearly, I'm a poor hand at this 'trolling' business.

Incidentally, little curmudgeon, do you consider yourself a Christian?

Also, is it in your opinion, possible for a conscious human being to be entirely devoid of any religious inclinations?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by LucyR


Incidentally, little curmudgeon, do you consider yourself a Christian?
Er, liitle?

And no I don't, although I will not denigrate persons whose state they are, and within human limits, act so. Ditto for all religious practices who profess "faith" as the basis of their view, and attempt to apply the tenets of the religion in their life.

Also, is it in your opinion, possible for a conscious human being to be entirely devoid of any religious inclinations?
No. Imnsho, the shaman/priest is the oldest profession.
Today some call themselves "scientists" (with all the answers 'that have meaning'). Just have "faith". :eek:

[LucyR]

So does this mean you don't have a problem with atheists as long as they don't poke fun at other religions?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by LucyR
So does this mean you don't have a problem with atheists as long as they don't poke fun at other religions?
They can poke fun at other religions all they want, as long as they recognize that "faith" is as much a part of their worldview as it is of every religion.

Agnostic Scientists are my favorite people. ;)

[LucyR]

Originally posted by hammegk

They can poke fun at other religions all they want, as long as they recognize that "faith" is as much a part of their worldview as it is of every religion.

Agnostic Scientists are my favorite people. ;)

But then what is your definition of a scientist?

[hammegk]

from dictionary.com

sci·en·tist n.
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.



Note that "dogmatic, egotistical, materialist/atheist" is not part of the definition. ;)

[LucyR]

Oh dear, this is like putting your thumb on a drop of mercury.

What then is your definition of science? Please don't say its a discipline practiced by scientists.

In your own words, please.

[hammegk]

What do "my words" have to do with it?

thanks again dictionary.com
sci·ence
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.



That, and remembering that absence of evidence is not 100% evidence of absence.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Stamenflicker,

Notice that in this case, your analogy to science doesn't work, because scientific knowledge does not make people more likely to do bad things. At most, it makes them more dangerous should they choose to do bad things. It also makes them more effective if they choose to do good things. In short, it makes them more powerful. How they use that power is up to them.

I think if we learned anything from the Tuskegee experiments and probably a host of others not so popular, is that science can be a motivating factor for committing an evil deed.

How so? Science simply provides us with knowledge about how things work. It does not in any way provide an incentive for using that knowledge in harmful, or beneficial ways.

Beliefs, whether religious, magical, or scientific, can be used for ill by any number of folks. Because life is so condtradictory in itself, no professed ethical hierarchy can escape squeaky clean. There are however some belief constructs which automatically lend themselves to people bent on chaos and destruction--- sometimes, as in the Tuskegee experiments, that destruction is in the professed name of a higher ordered moral opinion.

What does that have to do with science?

How can an abstract process be held responsible for anything?

It's the wrong question. Religion is not an abstract process, though maybe we'd all be better off if it was. People carry out their religious routines in the real world. There is no clear line of demarcation as to when such activity in the real world constitutes "religion" and when it deviates from such. Whodini makes a good point in this regard: The atomic bomb did not make itself; it was made by men with an ideology. So perhaps the question should be, where do we determine the line between ideology and praxis? Or even better, is there such a line at all?

Your statement seems to be more in line with my position than with Whodini's. Whodini is claiming that science is responsible for the atomic bomb, not the people who made it, or the ideologies they followed.


Whodini,

that people who hold those beliefs are likely to do bad things,

Why can you say that about religion but not about science?

Because science is not a system of beliefs. Furthermore, science does not tell people how to act, or what their values should be. Science doesn't tell us what to do or how to act at all. It just provides us with knowledge.

which is, of course, what most people are referring to when they say that religion is harmful.

How do you know what most people are referring to? Perhaps you should apply for the JREF challenge?

Because I have actually listened to what those people are saying, and to their arguments, rather than simply giving a knee-jerk response anytime anybody says anything bad about religion.

Notice that in this case, your analogy to science doesn't work, because scientific knowledge does not make people more likely to do bad things.

Oh, of course my analogy doesn't work Stimpson, because you don't want it to because you are slightly scientistic and the cognitive dissonance would be too much of a stressor.

That may be. Too bad you don't have any actual rebuttal to my argument, though, and are therefore simply reduced to questioning my motivations. :rolleyes:

Prove that religion makes people more likely to do bad things Stimpson.

Look at the world around you. People do terrible things due to their religion all the time. Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should. How can this possibly not be obvious to you?

Dr. Stupid

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

Look at the world around you. People do terrible things due to their religion all the time. Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should. How can this possibly not be obvious to you?

Dr. Stupid

So true. And what was Stalin's religion? Mao's? Pol Pot's?

I do not agree that "their religious beliefs told them to do so"; they as humans selected the course of action they pursued. As do people who are religious in other ways.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

hammegk,

So true. And what was Stalin's religion? Mao's? Pol Pot's?

As far as I know, neither of those men were religious.

I do not agree that "their religious beliefs told them to do so";

I never said they did. When did ever say, or even imply, that religious beliefs are the only reasons why people do bad things?

they as humans selected the course of action they pursued. As do people who are religious in other ways.

Yes, everybody makes their own choices. That is trivial. The point is that what a person believes clearly influences their decisions. Religious beliefs influence the actions of the people holding those beliefs.

That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.

Dr. Stupid

Stimpson,


----
Because science is not a system of beliefs.
----


Are you Eliza in disguise Stimpson? It is true that science hypotheses can be tested, but think of all the assumptions that go into science. Assumptions = beliefs.

And beliefs don't equate with 'bad'. If you are claiming they do, you need to prove this, because you certainly haven't provided any proof yet.


----
Science doesn't tell us what to do or how to act at all. It just provides us with knowledge.
----


Science can and does provide ways to predict things, and suggests courses of action. This happens all the time in the medical field, among others.

If someone said, hey, look, our science tells us that when flouride was in the water system the children got 11% less cavaties than children in places where there wasn't flouride in the water system. So, based on SCIENCE you use products with flouride in them for you and your children.

There are so many examples.


----
Look at the world around you.
----


This is just as absurd as a believer saying 'God exists! Want proof? Look around you!!!'


----
People do terrible things due to their religion all the time.
----


See, look at the double-standard here folks.

When a religious person does something bad, it is because of their religion. When a science person does something bad, it is not due to their science, of course, since science is just a tool, etc.

You assume, apriori, that belief is bad, then find examples that show belief is bad to reinforce your beliefs. (which is ironic)


----
Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should.
----


Many of these people are doing and have done these terrible things because science guided them to do so.

Atom bomb?
Tuskeegee?

C'mon nah!

Stimpson,


----
As far as I know, neither of those men were religious.
----


Oh but they certainly had beliefs. One could even argue that their beliefs (sorry, LACK of beliefs... :rolleyes: ) bordered on religous.


----
it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence).
----


I should have said logitistic instead of scientistic...


----
Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way,
----


You've just construced a tautology.

Beliefs-->Actions

when you apply the function Irrational() to both sides, you, unsurprisingly, get:

Irrational Beliefs-->Irrational Actions

But this is just something you've constructed Stimpson.

In history there have been MANY MANY MANY examples of rational people doing irrational things.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
hammegk,
As far as I know, neither of those men were religious.

Not in the sense you mean the word. Scary when you think of that isn't it? Do you dispute the body counts involved, which exceed all historical religious (your definition) conflicts by orders of magnitude.

I never said they did. When did ever say, or even imply, that religious beliefs are the only reasons why people do bad things?
Stimpy: "Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should."

The point is that what a person believes clearly influences their decisions. Religious beliefs influence the actions of the people holding those beliefs.
So true, and when you accept that secular humanism/science/usually-atheism is a valid religion we would completely agree.

That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.

Dr. Stupid
Yes, logic is nice. What do you dispute with "Agnosticism is the only Logical stance".

Conversely 100% certainty seems an odd position for any belief. I give you 99.9%; would that be enough? 99.9999999%? Or is 100% all you can accept?

Re god: once you have defined an existent entity you are no longer discussing god. ;) BTW, I do agree that dualism makes no logical sense.

----
Oppenheimer was made director of the Los Alamos lab, and in 1943 he gathered about 200 of the best scientists in the field to live and work there.
----


What part of that are you having trouble parsing?

If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it.

I doubt you, or anyone else, can, which supports my view.


----
To have arrived at such a conclusion based upon empirical evidence, you must have somehow compared the amount of work being done on the atomic bomb in that time period with the amount of work being done in all other branches of science in the same time period. Did you, in fact, make such a survey?
----


Yeah, I made an informal survey, very informal.


----
Seems like you haven't been paying attention. I have made no such claim.
----


I understand that you haven't made the claim. And I still doubt you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it.

I doubt you, or anyone else, can, which supports my view.Nope. You made the claim. It's your responsibility to demonstrate that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". You cannot do that by citing only the work done on the bomb. You have to compare it with other work being done.
Originally posted by Whodini
Yeah, I made an informal survey, very informal.Present the facts that support your claim, then.
Originally posted by Whodini
I understand that you haven't made the claim.Then why did you assert that I had done so?

LucyR,


----
Well, it was a pathetic attempt to provoke Whodini. However, he insists on remaining polite, although somewhat inarticulate.

Clearly, I'm a poor hand at this 'trolling' business.
----


Here are some tips:

1) Make fun of my name. Can you do that now LucyRectum? I thought you could!

2) Invent things that I claim. You know, just like you have that proof of Fermat's Last Theorem using arithmetic.

3) Bring racial issues, religion, and other hot-topics into the post, no matter how removed they are from the original post. For example, just mimic what those stupid black Mormon's do on a daily basis.

4) Claim academic superiority over anyone and anything. My 3 degrees prove that you are a dufus. I am smarter than mother nature.

5) Be exceedingly obtuse. You want my references? You know where to find them. They are over that way. Warmer.

6) Ask a flurry of questions. How did you know that? Where is your peer-reviewed scientific study? Where is the evidence? Can I see it? Where was it published? It wasn't? What is the physical basis for what you claim?

7) Talk down to the person. You can figure out this one all for your little self. Good girl!

8) Talk up to the person. The opposite of 7). You are so so wise LucyR, please teach me to be as rational as you are. May I study at your feet?

9) Witty insults and semi-ad-homs.

and last

10) Listing of logical fallacies, no matter what the content of the post was. Nice ad hom and begging the question there LucyR! Perhaps an apriori assumption and a tu quoblah blah there?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Whodini
LucyR,

......deleting interesting stuff.......


LOL.

C'mon LucyR, get back here & go to it!

Unas,


----
It's your responsibility to demonstrate that the construction of the atomic bomb was "the main science done at that time by the United States". You cannot do that by citing only the work done on the bomb. You have to compare it with other work being done.
----


No kidding, and I have.


----
Present the facts that support your claim, then.
----


Hey, it was such an informal survey that I don't have the results written down any more.

Frankly it isn't worth my time. Manhattan Project during WWII was the science done by the main scientists at the time.

This is such basic knowledge, if you disagree, you find proof of the contrary.


----
Then why did you assert that I had done so?
----


You know I didn't assert that. I said:


####
If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it. Seems like you are the one making the extraordinary claim that atom bomb science wasn't the main science done at the time.
####


That is quite different from me saying:

"You are claiming that...", or "You are making the claim that..."

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
No kidding, and I have.False. You have not presented any comparative data on other scientific work done during the period in question.
Originally posted by Whodini
Hey, it was such an informal survey that I don't have the results written down any more. In short, you cannot provide factual support for your claim.
Originally posted by Whodini
Frankly it isn't worth my time. Evasion noted. It was worth your time to make the claim, but not worth your time to back it up, is that what you are telling us? Then it's not worth anyone else's time to investigate, either. It's just another fact-free assertion from someone who doesn't have the facts to back it up, and such, eminently worthless.
Originally posted by Whodini
Manhattan Project during WWII was the science done by the main scientists at the time.So you say. But you still haven't presented any convincing evidence for your claim. Repetition of a claim is not evidence of that claim.
Originally posted by Whodini
This is such basic knowledge, if you disagree, you find proof of the contrary.No. You are responsible for proving your own assertions. Do so -- or continue to evade.
Originally posted by Whodini
You know I didn't assert that. I said:

####
If you can find a topic in science that was more studied at the time, I'd love to hear it. Seems like you are the one making the extraordinary claim that atom bomb science wasn't the main science done at the time.
####

That is quite different from me saying:

"You are claiming that...", or "You are making the claim that..." You have just quoted yourself stating that I was "making the extraordinary claim that atom bomb science wasn't the main science done at the time". Yet in the same post, you deny having done so. Do you really wonder why your unsupported claims are not being accepted as gospel truth?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Because science is not a system of beliefs.
----

Are you Eliza in disguise Stimpson? It is true that science hypotheses can be tested, but think of all the assumptions that go into science. Assumptions = beliefs.

Science is a logical framework, and as such, it is based on some axioms. Those are assumptions. But science is not a system of belief, any more than mathematics (which is also based on axioms), or any other logical framework. Remember that the set of assumptions that science is based on is itself a testable hypothesis. The belief that those assumption are correct is based on evidence, not faith.

In any event, science can hardly be considered a system of beliefs. Every claim that science makes about the way things are, must be backed up by reliable evidence.

And beliefs don't equate with 'bad'. If you are claiming they do, you need to prove this, because you certainly haven't provided any proof yet.

I am not claiming that. What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad. Beliefs which are backed up by reliable evidence are just fine.

Science doesn't tell us what to do or how to act at all. It just provides us with knowledge.
----

Science can and does provide ways to predict things, and suggests courses of action. This happens all the time in the medical field, among others.

If someone said, hey, look, our science tells us that when flouride was in the water system the children got 11% less cavaties than children in places where there wasn't flouride in the water system. So, based on SCIENCE you use products with flouride in them for you and your children.

That is an example of a person using the knowledge that science has given him to help make a decision. Please note that the decision was made based on values that have nothing to do with science, though. The decision was made based on the fact that people value the health of their children.

Once again, science did not tell people what they should or should not do. It just provided knowledge. How a person chooses to use that knowledge depends on their own values and philosophies. Science does not have any preference either way.

Look at the world around you.
----

This is just as absurd as a believer saying 'God exists! Want proof? Look around you!!!'

No, what is absurd it you actually claiming that people don't do bad things because of their religious beliefs. History, and even the modern World, are loaded with examples of people doing terrible things, because their religious beliefs told them they should. How can you possibly deny this?

Note that I am not claiming that religious beliefs are the only reason people do bad things. Simply that it is a very common one.

People do terrible things due to their religion all the time.
----

See, look at the double-standard here folks.

When a religious person does something bad, it is because of their religion. When a science person does something bad, it is not due to their science, of course, since science is just a tool, etc.

No, what I see is a blatant strawman on your part. Religious people may do bad things for religious reasons, or for nonreligious reasons. Nobody does anything bad because of science, because science does not give any reason to do anything bad (or good). Science is morally neutral. Religion is not.

You assume, apriori, that belief is bad, then find examples that show belief is bad to reinforce your beliefs. (which is ironic)

I have not assumed that beliefs are bad. I have concluded that irrational beliefs are bad.

Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should.
----

Many of these people are doing and have done these terrible things because science guided them to do so.

Atom bomb?
Tuskeegee?

C'mon nah!

Please explain how science could possibly guide anybody to do anything. Science provides knowledge. That is all it does. Science does not provide moral judgments. It does not provide incentives for actions to be taken. All of those things must come from somewhere else. The only role science plays in any decision, is to give the person making the decision knowledge which he can use to determine which course of action best fits with his goals and values. Science does not, and cannot, provide those goals and values.

As far as I know, neither of those men were religious.
----

Oh but they certainly had beliefs. One could even argue that their beliefs (sorry, LACK of beliefs... ) bordered on religous.

I have beliefs too, and I am not religious. What's your point?

Are you claiming that their actions were based on the fact that they didn't believe in God? Any evidence to back up that claim? If not, then what are you suggesting? What does the actions of either of those people have to do with science? As far as I know, neither of them were scientists. I also don't know of any evidence indicating that science in any way motivated anything they did. Is that what you are claiming?

it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence).
----

I should have said logitistic instead of scientistic...

Yep, I have this silly notion that a persons beliefs should be rational. :rolleyes:

Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way,
----

You've just construced a tautology.

Beliefs-->Actions

when you apply the function Irrational() to both sides, you, unsurprisingly, get:

Irrational Beliefs-->Irrational Actions

But this is just something you've constructed Stimpson.

In history there have been MANY MANY MANY examples of rational people doing irrational things.

Like what? Why would a rational person do something irrational? For that matter, if a person behaves irrationally, by what possible abuse of the English language could you possibly claim that he is a rational person?

Or are you claiming that there are "many many many examples" of people who hold no irrational beliefs doing irrational things? Any evidence to back that up?

And even if that is the case, how is it relevant to my argument? I only said that irrational beliefs are likely to cause a person to behave irrationally. I never claimed that such beliefs are the only reason a person might behave irrationally. Clearly things like mental illness, and simple loss of emotional control (losing your temper, depression, etc...) could do this as well. So what?


Hammegk,

As far as I know, neither of those men were religious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not in the sense you mean the word. Scary when you think of that isn't it? Do you dispute the body counts involved, which exceed all historical religious (your definition) conflicts by orders of magnitude.

I don't know whether your numbers are accurate or not, but it is irrelevant. If they were acting on religious beliefs, then that just supports my point. And if they were not, then it doesn't relate to my point at all, because I never claimed that religious beliefs are the only reasons why people do bad things.

I never said they did. When did ever say, or even imply, that religious beliefs are the only reasons why people do bad things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimpy: "Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should."

And??? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "many"? Many people die in car accidents. Does that mean that nobody dies of any other cause?

The point is that what a person believes clearly influences their decisions. Religious beliefs influence the actions of the people holding those beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So true, and when you accept that secular humanism/science/usually-atheism is a valid religion we would completely agree.

Secular Humanism is a belief system, and under some definitions of the term, could even be considered a religion. Science and atheism are not belief systems, and cannot be considered religions at all. In any event, those three things are very different concepts. The fact that you lump them all together says alot about your understanding of them.

That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, logic is nice. What do you dispute with "Agnosticism is the only Logical stance".

What do you mean? I am agnostic. I do not claim that agnosticism is the only logical stance, though. I merely claim that, based on the evidence that I have seen, agnosticism is position that must be logically concluded.

Conversely 100% certainty seems an odd position for any belief. I give you 99.9%; would that be enough? 99.9999999%? Or is 100% all you can accept?

I am not 100% certain about anything. Such certainty could only come about as a result of irrational belief.

Re god: once you have defined an existent entity you are no longer discussing god.

Do you realize that the above is logically equivalent to saying that either God does not exist, or the concept of God is incoherant? That sounds like something a hard atheist would say. Me, I am just a soft (agnostic) atheist.

BTW, I do agree that dualism makes no logical sense.

Congratulations. What does this have to do with the current discussion?

Dr. Stupid

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Whodini
LucyR,


----
Well, it was a pathetic attempt to provoke Whodini. However, he insists on remaining polite, although somewhat inarticulate.

Clearly, I'm a poor hand at this 'trolling' business.
----


Here are some tips:

1) Make fun of my name. Can you do that now LucyRectum? I thought you could!

2) Invent things that I claim. You know, just like you have that proof of Fermat's Last Theorem using arithmetic.

3) Bring racial issues, religion, and other hot-topics into the post, no matter how removed they are from the original post. For example, just mimic what those stupid black Mormon's do on a daily basis.

4) Claim academic superiority over anyone and anything. My 3 degrees prove that you are a dufus. I am smarter than mother nature.

5) Be exceedingly obtuse. You want my references? You know where to find them. They are over that way. Warmer.

6) Ask a flurry of questions. How did you know that? Where is your peer-reviewed scientific study? Where is the evidence? Can I see it? Where was it published? It wasn't? What is the physical basis for what you claim?

7) Talk down to the person. You can figure out this one all for your little self. Good girl!

8) Talk up to the person. The opposite of 7). You are so so wise LucyR, please teach me to be as rational as you are. May I study at your feet?

9) Witty insults and semi-ad-homs.

and last

10) Listing of logical fallacies, no matter what the content of the post was. Nice ad hom and begging the question there LucyR! Perhaps an apriori assumption and a tu quoblah blah there?

Whodini, you flatter me, you really, really do! Besides I only have two degrees.

Seriously, I apologize if I've irritated you. My remarks were intended as nothing more than a gentle tease.

[stamenflicker]

How so? Science simply provides us with knowledge about how things work. It does not in any way provide an incentive for using that knowledge in harmful, or beneficial ways.

My point with the Tuskegee experiments was to demonstrate that it is sometimes the pursuit of knowledge that is in itself harmful. I'm sure there are many other examples. I just read tonight about the big AIDS / HIV test being done. How ethical is it to have a control group that gets a placebo AIDS vaccine? Especially if it proves to work.

What does that have to do with science?

It regards the limits to the pursuit of knowledge... how far are we willing to go to "know?" Infecting a sample population?

Your statement seems to be more in line with my position than with Whodini's. Whodini is claiming that science is responsible for the atomic bomb, not the people who made it, or the ideologies they followed.

I think my earlier post may address this. I'm not convinced we can easily separate people from their ideologies. I think it can be done, but we are hardly in a position to draw the lines. With the A-Bomb the lines are hazy at best. With the Tuskegee experiments they are not.

Flick

[LucyR]

Originally posted by hammegk

LOL.

C'mon LucyR, get back here & go to it!

Deleting interesting stuff? Me?! I wouldn't know how.

By the way, what does LOL mean?

Unas,


----
False. You have not presented any comparative data on other scientific work done during the period in question.
----


LOL. Unas, you are asking for something like a list of all the types of sciences done at that time in the US, and then somehow a list of numbers, which will show the amount of time spent on each science?

Here is a fact:

"During the war, the Manhattan Project employed approximately 200,000 people and expended some $2.2 billion. New production facilities, towns, and research laboratories were set up at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington; and Los Alamos, New Mexico. Scores of contractors across the nation contributed to an effort that was unprecedented in size, scope, and sense of urgency. The results were the plutonium implosion bombs tested at the Trinity shot near Alamogordo, New Mexico, in July 1945 and used at Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945, and the uranium gun bomb dropped three days earlier on Hiroshima, Japan. "

You can moan all you want that I haven't presented any proof, etc. These are all facts in the public domain.

I haven't heard of any other sciences in that time get any more press. If I am wrong, please, find a counter-example. Else, you are the one making an extraordinary claim, not I.


----
Evasion noted.
----


Annoying comeback noted (for the 5th time).


----
It was worth your time to make the claim, but not worth your time to back it up, is that what you are telling us? Then it's not worth anyone else's time to investigate, either.
----


Your lest sentence doesn't follow. It is convenient for you though- that means you get to be lazy and not follow it up. Prove me wrong big girl- find a counter example that will shut me up.

Your evasion noted.

Stimpson,


----
Science is a logical framework,
----


You can call it whatever fancy title you like, but science is not on par with mathematics as far as axioms and being belief-free, etc.

Science has nothing like a+b=b+a.


----
In any event, science can hardly be considered a system of beliefs. Every claim that science makes about the way things are, must be backed up by reliable evidence.
----


What are some of the ways people have estimated the Hubble Constant?


----
I am not claiming that. What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad.
----


Can you prove that?
A response more than just 'it is obvious', PLEASE.


----
Nobody does anything bad because of science, because science does not give any reason to do anything bad (or good). Science is morally neutral. Religion is not.
----


Absurd! Some peoples' entire worldviews are based on science!


----
I have concluded that irrational beliefs are bad.
----


That is a great opinion. Have any proof? I have a lot of irrational beliefs (no comments, please...! :) ) that don't cause any harm whatsoever to me or to anyone else.


----
Please explain how science could possibly guide anybody to do anything.
----


It guided parents to have their kids use flouride.
It guides people to recycle.
It guides people to get their cars checked at a DEQ.
It guides people to get physicals and dental checkups every year.
It guides weapons theory, design, producing, and delivery, like it did for abombs.


----
Yep, I have this silly notion that a persons beliefs should be rational. :rolleyes:
----


No, you have a silly notion that irrational beliefs are bad, but you haven't proven jack.

Originally posted by LucyR

Whodini, you flatter me, you really, really do! Besides I only have two degrees.
Seriously, I apologize if I've irritated you. My remarks were intended as nothing more than a gentle tease.


LucyR,

I'm not insulted or irritated in the slightest! I'm just playing around too. :)

-Whodini

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

The point is that what a person believes clearly influences their decisions. Religious beliefs influence the actions of the people holding those beliefs.So far, so good. I strongly agree with you that religious belief, throughout history, has influenced actions.

I also would strongly agree

(a) that religious people have often done harmful things; and
(b) that often the reason given for doing harmful things has been religious belief.

This seems obvious.

It is your next point, however, that I have some trouble with:
That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.
You speak of behavior which is "to the detriment of yourself, society, and others." Actions which cause unnecessarily harm is pretty much how I define immoral behavior, so I'm using "harmful" "to the detriment of others", and "immoral" pretty much interchangeably in the context of this thread.

If I've mistaken your point, I apologize. In reviewing my post before submitting it, and reading your words more closely, I see you may be talking about detriment in a different sense here -- that irrationality tends to lead to less-optimal results than rationality, rather than that irrationality tends to lead to harmful results. The latter is the point I am trying to address.

As a person who is personally quite fond of rationality, and who wishes more people were rationalists, I would like to agree with your point. It sounds reasonable that irrationality leads to harm. However, the fact it sounds reasonable does not mean it is true. Many things which sound reasonable turn out, on investigation, not to be so. Reality is often counter-intuitive. That's why it's important to investigate even the obvious, and to base even obvious conclusions on evidence rather than notions.

(1) What is the relationship between irrational belief and immoral behavior?

I'm inclined to believe it is rational for me to behave morally and irrational to behave immorally. For me, personally, then, irrationality and immorality are largely synonymous.

That, however, does not let me conclude it is rational for others to behave morally, or irrational for them to behave immorally.

I believe it is immoral for me to insult people, for example, and I believe insulting people is generally irrational behavior as well. But is it always irrational for everyone?

Xouper made a good point in a different thread some time back that it is irrational to insult people if you are trying to communicate with the person you are insulting but not if your actual interest is in communicating to others who are listening to the exchange.

In a rational world, insults would be of little value because those listening to an exchange would give less weight to the words of people who use insults (as well as various other irrational rhetorical devices) to make their case. We live, however, in a world filled with people who often respond well to irrational (but lively) speeches and respond poorly to rational (but unspiced) ones. If a person's goal is to sway people to one's side, then the use of immoral rhetorical devices could be seen as rational.

George W Bush, for example, made many appeals to unreason during his presidential campaign (as did Al Gore). His superior skill at doing so may be one reason he is president today. I look at many political races, and too often the candidate better at dishonesty and manipulation is the one who wins.

Rational behavior is more likely to help us achieve our aims than irrational behavior. But unless our aims are moral, then rational behavior is not necessarily moral behavior.

(2) If rationality is not the same as morality, and irrationality is not the same as immorality, then (a) are people who are inclined to irrational beliefs more prone to immoral behavior than people inclined to rational beliefs? And (b) are people who are inclined to rational beliefs more inclined to moral behavior than people who are inclined to irrational beliefs?

[The 2 parts of that question are not necessarily the same. Certain actions may seem clearly immoral, in an active sense. Is simply refraining from doing these actions moral, or simply not immoral? Likewise, certain actions may seem clearly moral, in an active sense. Is simply refraining from doing these actions immoral, or simply not moral?]

It seems to me that what is called for here is some empirical evidence. Are people who hold irrational beliefs (belief in astrology, for example) more prone, less prone, or equally prone to participate in or support immoral actions (training soldiers in the methods of torture, for instance)?

It should be possible to conduct research of this sort, but I am not familiar with studies that actually have researched it. And since there are a wide variety of types of irrational beliefs, and a wide variety of types of immorality, I'd want to see a large number of studies, investigating this question in a wide variety of ways, before drawing conclusions.

It's quite possible that irrational beliefs unrelated to moral questions (such as belief in homeopathy) lead to different behavior than irrational beliefs related to moral questions(such as belief in guardian angels[/b]). Not only would it be interesting to know if people with a propensity to believe in guardian angels are more prone to cooperate with a Hitler than people who don't, it would be interesting to know if a belief in angels makes one more prone to such behavior than, say, a belief in leprechauns. I would be fascinated to see the results of such research, but I don't believe it has been done to any significant extent yet.

I'd also like to see research into the other side of the question. Are people with irrational beliefs more, less, or equally prone to moral behavior? This gets tricky, as agreeing on what's moral may be harder than agreeing on what's immoral. Mother Theresa, for example, is an example of someone I believe to have been prone to irrational beliefs; she's often used as an example of someone doing very moral things, but I'm not sure I would agree that her actions were moral. (Likewise, groups that I consider to be engaged in moral works are often criticized as being immoral by social conservatives.)

That means doing research that can help resolve this question may be difficult. That, however, does not justify reaching conclusions before such empirical evidence is available.

Another thing complicating such research is the high ratio of irrational belief to rational belief in the world at large. My impression is that, throughout history, there has been a much larger number of people inclined to irrational belief than to rational belief. If so, the prevalence of people inclined to irrational belief among those engaged in immoral behavior might lead people to suspect a link that didn't exist. Likewise, the prevalence of people prone to irrational belief among those engaged in moral works might lead people to suspect a link there which also didn't exist. We need actual studies rather than anecdotal evidence to see whether there is an actual link or simply the appearance of one.

I'd like to emphasize that I am not arguing that the idea irrational beliefs lead to immoral actions is wrong. I think it likely is right -- although in what ways and to what extent I do not know. What I am saying is that I do not think adequate research has been done yet to show that this is what actually happens in real life, and until it is done we should be wary of drawing conclusions.

[Yahzi]

Nova Land
I have a great deal of respect for the Society of Friends. In the future, when you see me trashing religions, please remember to include the "except for Quakers and some Buddhists" clause that I never bother to explicitly state, because they are so rarely members of my audience.

I agree that the Quakers have a great track record of actually believing their beliefs, and thus annoying the heck out of the rest of the Xians. It is the only Xian faith I have ever been exposed to that actually considered hypocrisy to be a moral failing.

However, as much as I respect them, they still fail the ultimate test. You asked what divine revelation was unquestionable in your religion, and I think I have the answer: you presuppose the idea that religious experiences are not all merely hallucinations. What is sacred and unquestionable in your faith is that religious experiences - at least some of them - are real.

If this is not true, please let me know.

I think you understand science well enough to see that science does not have that weakness. Scientists don't so much believe in a material, consistent, objective world as accept it. Every angle of attack is met by the same wall, the same results. The religious experience, however, only produces religioiusity when approached from a certain angle - the angle which presupposes the reality of spiritual experiences.

I also think you understand how small a minority Quakers are. If they represented the typical religion, then I would have a lot of apologizing to do. But sadly, they do not.

Are people who hold irrational beliefs (belief in astrology, for example) more prone, less prone, or equally prone to participate in or support immoral actions
The argument is that holding a belief not correlated to reality is in itself more prone to cause unnecessary suffering (i.e. immoral action). You've already agreed to this, so defending the pious fraud is kind of a waste of time. Sure, a religious theory can be so close to reality that it cause very little harm very rarely, or could accidentally cause more good than bad; but a theory that was closer to reality would cause less. And now, thanks to science, we have that theory.

Your argument would have been inassailable 50 years ago. Alas, science marches on, and the final gap (where does consciousness come from?) is being answered (Win and the dualists nonwithstanding). You can still make the pragmatic argument that Quakerism is the best approximation that we can hope to achieve any time soon, given the scientific illiteracy of the peasantry. I would even agree to that argument - by all means, please convert all the Xians to Quakers! But it is merely a pragmatic argument, and thus has no place in this philosophical tower.

To make your moral superiority argument work, you would have to show that Quakers were responsible for all the moral advances. If it is possible to derive moral truths without Quaker beliefs, then Quakerism is not a superior (meaning more correlative to reality) moral theory, but simply an equivalent one. Again, pragmatism, while we are discussing idealistic positions.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Flick,

How so? Science simply provides us with knowledge about how things work. It does not in any way provide an incentive for using that knowledge in harmful, or beneficial ways.

My point with the Tuskegee experiments was to demonstrate that it is sometimes the pursuit of knowledge that is in itself harmful.

Well of course the pursuit of knowledge can sometimes be harmful, as can any human endeavor that is not done responsibly. That is what we have ethics for.

I'm sure there are many other examples. I just read tonight about the big AIDS / HIV test being done. How ethical is it to have a control group that gets a placebo AIDS vaccine? Especially if it proves to work.

Those are ethical issues, not scientific ones. Science doesn't tell us what experiments we should and shouldn't do. All it does is inform us of what types of experiments could potentially yield knowledge, and how to extract the knowledge from the results of those experiments. It is up to people to decide (based on ethics, morality, and personal responsibility), which experiments should and should not be done.

It seems to me that you are mixing up science (a method) with scientists (people). Obviously scientists can be harmful, as can anybody.

What does that have to do with science?

It regards the limits to the pursuit of knowledge... how far are we willing to go to "know?" Infecting a sample population?

Once again, that is an ethical question, not a scientific one. It depends on how much we value knowledge, compared to how much we value other things. Science does not address values one way or the other.

Your statement seems to be more in line with my position than with Whodini's. Whodini is claiming that science is responsible for the atomic bomb, not the people who made it, or the ideologies they followed.

I think my earlier post may address this. I'm not convinced we can easily separate people from their ideologies. I think it can be done, but we are hardly in a position to draw the lines. With the A-Bomb the lines are hazy at best. With the Tuskegee experiments they are not.

I would agree that it is difficult to separate people from their ideologies. The point is that science is not an ideology.


Whodini,

Science is a logical framework,

You can call it whatever fancy title you like, but science is not on par with mathematics as far as axioms and being belief-free, etc.

"logical framework" is not a fancy title. It is a term which has a very specific meaning in formal logic. As for science being belief-free, it is. You do not need to believe any of the axioms of science in order to use it. Of course, any conclusion you draw from the scientific method is only valid if the axioms of science are valid. That is how logical frameworks work. The point is that my belief that the axioms of science are correct is not necessary in order for science to work. Science is not based on, or in any way dependant on, beliefs.

Science has nothing like a+b=b+a.

You are wrong at a very deep level here. Science is actually very much like a mathematical framework.

In any event, science can hardly be considered a system of beliefs. Every claim that science makes about the way things are, must be backed up by reliable evidence.

What are some of the ways people have estimated the Hubble Constant?

What am I, Mr. Astronomy? Go read a damn book!

I am not claiming that. What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad.

Can you prove that?
A response more than just 'it is obvious', PLEASE.

What do you mean "prove"? Saying that something is bad is a judgement call. If you want me to explain why I make that judgement, fine. I say that holding irrational beliefs is bad, because such beliefs are likely to cause you to behave in an irrational way, which can be very harmful to both yourself, and others.

Nobody does anything bad because of science, because science does not give any reason to do anything bad (or good). Science is morally neutral. Religion is not.

Absurd! Some peoples' entire worldviews are based on science!

Only people with absolutely no values, morals, or ethics. I have never met such a person. My morals, ethics, and values, are based on Humanism, not science. I only use science as a tool to determine how best to comply with those values.

I have concluded that irrational beliefs are bad.

That is a great opinion. Have any proof? I have a lot of irrational beliefs (no comments, please...! ) that don't cause any harm whatsoever to me or to anyone else.

See above.

Please explain how science could possibly guide anybody to do anything.

It guided parents to have their kids use flouride.

Wrong. The fact that they value their children's health did.

It guides people to recycle.

No, the fact that they value the environment does.

It guides people to get their cars checked at a DEQ.

Ditto.

It guides people to get physicals and dental checkups every year.

No, the fact that they value their health does.

It guides weapons theory, design, producing, and delivery, like it did for abombs.

No, the fact that people value such weapons does.

All of the above are examples of people using the knowledge science gives them to forward their values. If they had different values, their use of that knowledge would have been different.


Nova,

It is your next point, however, that I have some trouble with:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why it is irresponsible, to hold beliefs without a logical reason (reliable supporting evidence). Your beliefs affect your decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are likely to behave in an irrational way, to the detriment of yourself, others, and society as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You speak of behavior which is "to the detriment of yourself, society, and others." Actions which cause unnecessarily harm is pretty much how I define immoral behavior, so I'm using "harmful" "to the detriment of others", and "immoral" pretty much interchangeably in the context of this thread.

Me too.

If I've mistaken your point, I apologize. In reviewing my post before submitting it, and reading your words more closely, I see you may be talking about detriment in a different sense here -- that irrationality tends to lead to less-optimal results than rationality, rather than that irrationality tends to lead to harmful results. The latter is the point I am trying to address.

Nope, that is exactly what I am saying. Irrational beliefs can, and often do, lead to harmful results.

As a person who is personally quite fond of rationality, and who wishes more people were rationalists, I would like to agree with your point. It sounds reasonable that irrationality leads to harm. However, the fact it sounds reasonable does not mean it is true. Many things which sound reasonable turn out, on investigation, not to be so. Reality is often counter-intuitive. That's why it's important to investigate even the obvious, and to base even obvious conclusions on evidence rather than notions.

(1) What is the relationship between irrational belief and immoral behavior?

For one thing, what a person considers "moral" depends on his beliefs. We both equate "immoral" with "harmful", but a person with irrational beliefs may consider things which are beneficial (like contraception) to be immoral, and things which are harmful (like killing non-believers) to be moral.

I'm inclined to believe it is rational for me to behave morally and irrational to behave immorally. For me, personally, then, irrationality and immorality are largely synonymous.

That, however, does not let me conclude it is rational for others to behave morally, or irrational for them to behave immorally.

Of course not. A person may behave immorally for rational reasons. Or vice-versa.

I believe it is immoral for me to insult people, for example, and I believe insulting people is generally irrational behavior as well. But is it always irrational for everyone?

Not at all. Insulting a person, like any action, is only irrational if it is not likely to produce the outcome that you want. If you think that insulting somebody will elicit a response that you want, then the insult is rational, even though it may very well not be moral.

Xouper made a good point in a different thread some time back that it is irrational to insult people if you are trying to communicate with the person you are insulting but not if your actual interest is in communicating to others who are listening to the exchange.

Exactly my point. If your goal is communication, then insults are not productive. But your goal may not be communication. For example, I don't think that Franko's behavior on this board is irrational at all. I think that his goal in posting all the insults he does, is to elicit exactly the types of responses that he is getting.

Of course, the beliefs he is presenting (and claiming to hold) are quite irrational.

Rational behavior is more likely to help us achieve our aims than irrational behavior. But unless our aims are moral, then rational behavior is not necessarily moral behavior.

Even if your aims are not moral, rational behavior will be more productive that irrational behavior. An irrational person who believes he is doing good can be very dangerous. A rational person who is actively trying to do evil is far more dangerous.

(2) If rationality is not the same as morality, and irrationality is not the same as immorality, then (a) are people who are inclined to irrational beliefs more prone to immoral behavior than people inclined to rational beliefs?

Not necessarily. The difference is that a moral person with irrational beliefs is much more likely to cause harm even though he is trying to do the right thing. If you are an immoral person, then you are likely to cause harm in either case.

And (b) are people who are inclined to rational beliefs more inclined to moral behavior than people who are inclined to irrational beliefs?

No. Some of the most despicable people I have ever met were very rational people. As an example, about six years ago I knew a conman. He was the most cold and calculating person I ever met. Everything he did was carefully considered, based on the results he wanted to achieve. He was a very rational person, but also very immoral. He is also one of the most dangerous people I have ever met.

[The 2 parts of that question are not necessarily the same. Certain actions may seem clearly immoral, in an active sense. Is simply refraining from doing these actions moral, or simply not immoral? Likewise, certain actions may seem clearly moral, in an active sense. Is simply refraining from doing these actions immoral, or simply not moral?]

I would say that behaving in a way that is inconsistent with your values, is immoral.

It seems to me that what is called for here is some empirical evidence. Are people who hold irrational beliefs (belief in astrology, for example) more prone, less prone, or equally prone to participate in or support immoral actions (training soldiers in the methods of torture, for instance)?

Well, probably not anything as blatant as your example, but consider this: Most Catholics I know are very moral people, but almost all of them support immoral behavior (meaning behavior that is contrary to the values they hold), because their irrational beliefs tell them that this behavior is actually moral. The contraception issue I mentioned above is just one example.

It's quite possible that irrational beliefs unrelated to moral questions (such as belief in homeopathy) lead to different behavior than irrational beliefs related to moral questions(such as belief in guardian angels[/b]).

I disagree. Belief in Homeopathy leads to a lot of immoral behavior. People ho give their sick children homeopathic remedies, instead of real medical care, are causing harm to their children. They think they are doing the right thing, but they are really causing harm. That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

I'd like to emphasize that I am not arguing that the idea irrational beliefs lead to immoral actions is wrong. I think it likely is right -- although in what ways and to what extent I do not know. What I am saying is that I do not think adequate research has been done yet to show that this is what actually happens in real life, and until it is done we should be wary of drawing conclusions.

I think that their is plenty of evidence for the conclusions I have drawn. The examples I cited are just a few of many.

Dr. Stupid

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Unas, you are asking for something like a list of all the types of sciences done at that time in the US, and then somehow a list of numbers, which will show the amount of time spent on each science?If you are going to make a claim that the work on the atomic bomb was the "main science" being done -- i.e. that there was more work being done on the bomb than on anything else -- then you must compare the work on the bomb to other work. You simply cannot make such a claim regarding relative magnitudes without doing such comparisons. You have not shown any evidence that you have done any comparisons. You have done nothing more than make a bald, unsupported claim, and expect everyone to agree with you Because! You! Said! So!

Try again. This time, bring real evidence.
Originally posted by Whodini
You can moan all you want that I haven't presented any proof, etc. These are all facts in the public domain.Yes, they are facts. They are not proof of your claim -- for the simple reason that, alone, the amount of work done on the bomb does not tell us if that amount of work exceeded that done on any other scientific endeavor.
Originally posted by Whodini
I haven't heard of any other sciences in that time get any more press. Your self-admitted ignorance isn't proof of your claim.
Originally posted by Whodini
If I am wrong, please, find a counter-example.No. Proving your claims is your responsibility. That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently.
Originally posted by Whodini
Else, you are the one making an extraordinary claim, not I.I haven't made a claim. I have pointed out that your claim is not supported by any proof - thus far.
Originally posted by Whodini
Annoying comeback noted (for the 5th time).If you keep evading, I will keep pointing out your evasion. Don't like it? Stop evading.
Originally posted by Whodini
It is convenient for you though- that means you get to be lazy and not follow it up.I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims. You are responsible for backing them up. That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently.
Originally posted by Whodini
Prove me wrong big girl- find a counter example that will shut me up.I am not interested in shutting you up. Is that what you think these forums are about?

I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims. You are responsible for backing them up. That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently.
Originally posted by Whodini
Your evasion noted. Your dishonesty noted. I have evaded nothing.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by Whodini
Stimpson,


----
Because science is not a system of beliefs.
----


Are you Eliza in disguise Stimpson? It is true that science hypotheses can be tested, but think of all the assumptions that go into science. Assumptions = beliefs.

And beliefs don't equate with 'bad'. If you are claiming they do, you need to prove this, because you certainly haven't provided any proof yet.


----
Science doesn't tell us what to do or how to act at all. It just provides us with knowledge.
----


Science can and does provide ways to predict things, and suggests courses of action. This happens all the time in the medical field, among others.

If someone said, hey, look, our science tells us that when flouride was in the water system the children got 11% less cavaties than children in places where there wasn't flouride in the water system. So, based on SCIENCE you use products with flouride in them for you and your children.

There are so many examples.


----
Look at the world around you.
----


This is just as absurd as a believer saying 'God exists! Want proof? Look around you!!!'


----
People do terrible things due to their religion all the time.
----


See, look at the double-standard here folks.

When a religious person does something bad, it is because of their religion. When a science person does something bad, it is not due to their science, of course, since science is just a tool, etc.

You assume, apriori, that belief is bad, then find examples that show belief is bad to reinforce your beliefs. (which is ironic)


----
Many of these people are doing these terrible things because their religious beliefs tell them they should.
----


Many of these people are doing and have done these terrible things because science guided them to do so.

Atom bomb?
Tuskeegee?

C'mon nah!

Soderqvist1: The origin to the war between Israel and Palestine stems from their scriptures! But, why the atom bombs in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were dropt, cannot be found in the atom bomb formula, and for the same reason, science cannot be found guilty there, but a reasonable assumption about the soldiers instigation was their patriotism, and hence; to beat the enemy, and save America!
Some ideology; religious or political can instigate to violence, and misuse of science as a mean to their ends!


The Bible, 2 Chronicles, chapter 15
13: That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

The Koran
IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, we will give him a handsome reward.”

"3.85": And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

5.51": O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

"4.56": (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

"4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

"4.74": Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.

"8.12": When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

"9.5": So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. Then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

English Religious Resources by university of Virginia!
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relig.browse.html


Soderqvist1: Buddhists are in general peaceful because these things cannot be found in their scriptures, as far as I know!

Stimpson,


----
As for science being belief-free, it is.
----


Yeah, you keep repeating that, but haven't demonstrated that.


----
Science is not based on, or in any way dependant on, beliefs.
----


See?


----
You are wrong at a very deep level here. Science is actually very much like a mathematical framework.
----


Fine, show me something in science like a+b=b+a.


----
What am I, Mr. Astronomy? Go read a damn book!
----


You'll discover that Hubbles Constant has been estimated with MANY univerifiable assumptions thrown in. They might be reasonable assumptions, but they are assumptions, beliefs.


----
What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad.

What do you mean "prove"? Saying that something is bad is a judgement call.
----


So I claim something and have to prove it and submit my proof to you, but you don't have to prove any of your claims nor submit them to me?


----
Wrong. The fact that they value their children's health did.
----


LOL. The fact that science determined that flouride help is what guided the parents to make the decision that it is a good idea to use flouride.

Unas,


----
You simply cannot make such a claim regarding relative magnitudes without doing such comparisons.
----


Of course I can! Who are you, the forum police? If I snap my fingers will you wake up from your hypnosis session?

If I have no reason to conclude that other sciences were done more at that time, then I have a PERFECTLY RATIONAL reason to conclude that, until I get further evidence, that atomic bomb research was done the most at that time.


----
I am not interested in shutting you up.
----


C'mon Unas... find a counter example and stick it to me.

Yes, it is my claim, that I understand. What you don't understand is that I am challenging you to find a counter example.

It should be easy, right Ken?

Peter,


----
The origin to the war between Israel and Palestine stems from their scriptures!
----


How come you say it stems from their scriptures and not from politics?


----
But, why the atom bombs in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were dropt, cannot be found in the atom bomb formula,
----


Absurd conditions. You are saying that for me to be right, that the reasons the bombs were dropped have to be found in the formula? hahahaha, get real.


----
science cannot be found guilty there,
----


Of course not....
:rolleyes:

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Originally posted by Unas
You simply cannot make such a claim regarding relative magnitudes without doing such comparisons.Of course I can!Allow me to rephrase. You can make the claim, of course -- but you cannot support it without making the comparisons.
Originally posted by Whodini
If I have no reason to conclude that other sciences were done more at that time, then I have a PERFECTLY RATIONAL reason to conclude that, until I get further evidence, that atomic bomb research was done the most at that time.You are essentially admitting that your claim is based on your own ignorance of the overall state of science at the time.
Originally posted by Whodini
What you don't understand is that I am challenging you to find a counter example. What you don't understand -- or wish to ignore -- is that you made the claim, and you are therefore responsible for supporting it with evidence.

[Unas]

Franko continues his unending campaign of lies...
Originally posted by Franko
Now explain to me why you believe you have magic “free will” powers?I have never stated any belief in 'magic “free will” powers'. Explain to me why you have chosen to lie -- again.
Originally posted by Franko
Why do you CLAIM that there is no evidence for “God”?I have never claimed that there is no evidence for 'God'. Explain to me why you have chosen to lie -- again.

[Franko]

Unas:
I have never stated any belief in 'magic “free will” powers'.

I have never claimed that there is no evidence for 'God'.

Well the A-Theists aren’t gonna to stay friends with you for long with that kind of talk.

No wonder you are forced to “hide” your identity. Frankoly, I find that as absurd as arguing with yourself (or arguing with a figment of your imagination).

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
Well the A-Theists aren’t gonna to stay friends with you for long with that kind of talk.Why don't you simply admit that you lied, apologize, and we can go on to have a pleasant debate? Are you really so wedded to the tactic of lying that you cannot conceive of conducting an honest discussion?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

As for science being belief-free, it is.
----

Yeah, you keep repeating that, but haven't demonstrated that.

I explained exactly why it is belief free. If you have a problem with my explanation, then address it. Don't just pretend I didn't provide one.

Of course, if you disagree, you could simply tell me what you think it is necessary for somebody to believe, in order for them to apply the scientific method.

You are wrong at a very deep level here. Science is actually very much like a mathematical framework.
----

Fine, show me something in science like a+b=b+a.

The naivety of that question just proves at what a fundamental level you are wrong at. Are you not aware that mathematics is based on axioms, just like science? What you have stated above (a+b=b+a) is one of the axioms of arithmetic. Do you believe it is true? Or do you understand formal logic well enough to realize that statements derived from the axioms of arithmetic are only valid if the above axiom is assumed to be true?

Didn't you say you had a degree in mathematics? Or am I thinking of somebody else?

What am I, Mr. Astronomy? Go read a damn book!
----

You'll discover that Hubbles Constant has been estimated with MANY univerifiable assumptions thrown in. They might be reasonable assumptions, but they are assumptions, beliefs.

Are you aware that there is a difference between an assumption and a belief? I don't have to believe something is true, in order to draw logical conclusions from the assumption that it is true. All that means is that I acknowledge that the validity of the conclusion is dependent on the validity of the assumption. That is done all the time in science. You make assumptions, draw conclusions from those assumptions, and then test those conclusions. You decide whether or not to believe the assumptions only after reliable evidence has been produced, through testing.

There are many aspects of modern cosmological theories that have not yet been empirically demonstrated to be accurate, or false. That doesn't mean scientists believe them as a matter of faith. On the contrary, it means that we don't believe them at all. We admit that we don't know yet.

What I am claiming is that irrational beliefs are bad. Beliefs which you have no logical reason for believing are bad.

What do you mean "prove"? Saying that something is bad is a judgement call.
----

So I claim something and have to prove it and submit my proof to you, but you don't have to prove any of your claims nor submit them to me?

Which claim are you talking about? The claim that science is harmful is not a judgement call, it is an objective claim that is demonstrably false. As I already pointed out, science is neither beneficial nor harmful, by the very nature of what it is.

Wrong. The fact that they value their children's health did.
----

LOL. The fact that science determined that flouride help is what guided the parents to make the decision that it is a good idea to use flouride.

You are completely missing the point. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, because I know you aren't this stupid. As I already stated, all science did was give them knowledge. How a person chooses to use that knowledge depends on his values. The knowledge is neutral.

Once again, if you disagree, then explain why. How can knowledge be considered to be beneficial or harmful, when any piece of knowledge can be used for either beneficial or harmful purposes? That is like saying that my foot is harmful, since I could use it to beat somebody to death.

Dr. Stupid

Unass,


----
you cannot support it without making the comparisons.
----


And I did make the comparisons. I just didn't do a scientific peer-reviewed double blind placebo controlled study and didn't save the results so a fool called Unas could pick it over.


----
that you made the claim, and you are therefore responsible for supporting it with evidence.
----


So you won't take up my challenge Ken? Figures.

Stimpson,


----
The naivety of that question just proves at what a fundamental level you are wrong at. Are you not aware that mathematics is based on axioms, just like science?
----


Yes, that is what you keep on repeating. So prove it already.


----
Didn't you say you had a degree in mathematics?
----


Yes, I do. Almost two.


----
You are completely missing the point. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, because I know you aren't this stupid. As I already stated, all science did was give them knowledge. How a person chooses to use that knowledge depends on his values. The knowledge is neutral.
----


Then religious knowledge is neutral. How a person decides to use religious information depends on his or her values.

You cannot have it both ways Stimpson.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
And I did make the comparisons.Then share the data you used.
Originally posted by Whodini
So you won't take up my challenge Ken?So you cannot support your claim with evidence? Figures...

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
Unas, how are Your lies actually my lies?Stop lying, Franko. You have yet to document a single lie that I have posted. I have documented several of yours. Your lies are your lies, Franko. You have again demonstrated that you lack the maturity to take responsibility for your own words.

[Franko]

Unas: (severely delusional, retarded, brainwashed A-Theist)
You simply cannot make such a claim … You have not shown any evidence … nothing more than make a bald, unsupported claim … expect everyone to agree with … Because! You! Said! So! … This time, bring real evidence … not proof of your claim … Your self-admitted ignorance isn't proof of your claim … Proving your claims is your responsibility … hard concept for you to grasp, apparently … I haven't made a claim … your claim is not supported by any proof … you keep evading … I will keep pointing out your evasion … Don't like it? Stop evading … I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims … You are responsible for backing them up ... That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently ... I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims ... You are responsible for backing them up ... That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently ... Your dishonesty noted

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Now explain to me why you believe you have magic “free will” powers? Why do you CLAIM that there is no evidence for “God”? Isn’t Fatalism the evidence for “God”?

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

Aren’t you more self-aware (conscious) than your CAR? So how can TLOP be less conscious than YOU? TLOP controls YOU, by definition that makes Her MORE self-aware (conscious) than YOU are.

If you are saying this is incorrect, then explain how you believe it works?

I'm not responsible for proving or disproving your claims ... You are responsible for backing them up ... That's a hard concept for you to grasp, apparently ... Your dishonesty noted

[Franko]

Unas: (cowardly sock-puppy)
Why don't you simply admit that you lied, apologize, and we can go on to have a pleasant debate? Are you really so wedded to the tactic of lying that you cannot conceive of conducting an honest discussion?

Unas, how are Your lies actually my lies? I don’t understand, could you explain it too me, or must I simply take you word for it???

(take my word for it! creedo of the Mystics)

Originally posted by Unas
Then share the data you used.
So you cannot support your claim with evidence? Figures...


I never said I kept any records. If I did this research years ago, what, you think I kept records? How was I supposed to know that you'd come along and badger me for them?

Ken, you'll have to do better.

I noticed YOU evaded my challenge of finding a science that was more done at the time. You can't, and it is destroying any point you may have had.

I'm done arm wrestling Thai Bo. You're shooting Blanks here.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
I never said I kept any records.Then your claim remains unsupported. That's all -- it's not been proven true and not been proven false. It's unsupported.

[Franko]

thaifoodkenny?

he was the first name that came up on my algorithm, but we assumed he was simply to stupid to even attempt it.

[Unas]

You're back to deleting your posts and reposting them. You do this to pretend that no one ever responded to them. It's just another example of your dishonesty.

You're a lying coward, Franko. You apparently lack the capability to be anything more.

[Franko]

... Although you have a point Whodini, with every post he is definitely getting stupider.

[Unas]

Here are three of your many lies, Franko:

You stated that Joshua claimed he was "magical". He made no such statement.

You stated that I told you that you were "crazy". I made no such statement.

You stated that Soubrette tried to censor the thread "A website for Franko". She made no such attempt.

Now, delete and repost your earlier evasions. Prove to us again that you are a lying coward.

[Akots]

Unfortunalte,y Franko has the power toredefine the things you say...

1) Franko believes non-logical activity is impossible, therefore "magical."
2) Franko sees all argument against him as supporting non-logical, free-will-based activity.
3) Atheists believe in magic.

He doesn't think you believe in magic any more than you do. He's likely just takingarguments to the extreme, assuming their inherant flaws will then become more noticable.

Unfortunately, he also happens to have an attention span and willingness to understand that enobles most goldfish...

[Unas]

Originally posted by Akots
Unfortunalte,y Franko has the power to redefine the things you say...Wrong. He is simply lying about what others have said.
Originally posted by Akots
He doesn't think you believe in magic any more than you do.Agreed. Of course, that means that Franko is deliberately lying.

[Franko]

Why do you Keep bringing up the same nonsense over and over while hiding your own views? Obviously you must be very embarrassed about the things you believe Kenny.


You stated that Joshua claimed he was "magical". He made no such statement.

“Josh” asked why the progenitor Solipsist was magical. I asked him why he thought he might be magical?

You stated that I told you that you were "crazy". I made no such statement.

I don’t exist, so you can believe whatever you want about me.

You stated that Soubrette tried to censor the thread "A website for Franko". She made no such attempt.

When Soubrette is asking that a thread be moved to a less accessed portion of the forum that is a form of censorship. I spelled ALL of this out in a very detailed post already.

Now, delete and repost your earlier evasions. Prove to us again that you are a lying coward.

No the lying coward is the guy posting as an insane sock-puppet who refuses to explain why he believes that the Universe is magic, and who disagree with everything I say, except he can’t (won’t) explain why.

You are having a very public mental breakdown. Not the first time I have seen this sort of A-Theist implosion … If you are not careful, it will end very badly for you …

(Akots, I like the company you keep ... says lots about you)

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
“Josh” asked why the progenitor Solipsist was magical. I asked him why he thought he might be magical?You are, once again, being far less than honest. You stated, in the following reply to Joshua (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=359591#post359591), that he "[keeps] claiming [he is] magical". I will reproduce the specific text here, in the expectation that you will delete the post to erase the evidence of your lie:
Originally posted by Franko
You know … that is what your other sock puppet said, but I still don’t understand why you believe you appeared magically? I already told you, Time doesn’t exist unless you do. Time denotes a perceivable change, and what is a perceivable change without a “perceiver”?

No there was nothing supernatural about your creation. At least, nothing that “I” can see. Why do you keep claiming you are magical?There's your lie, Franko. Run away from it -- again...
Originally posted by Franko
I don’t exist, so you can believe whatever you want about me. Evasion noted. Your statement was a deliberate lie. You are afraid to address that point -- yet again.
Originally posted by Franko
When Soubrette is asking that a thread be moved to a less accessed portion of the forum that is a form of censorship.Another deliberate lie. Relocating a thread is in no way 'censorship'. It is still available for anyone to read and post to.

Keep lying, Franko. It is, after all, the only tactic you have...

[Unas]

Originally posted by Franko
All of those points have been addressed and addressed repeatedly... You're still lying, Franko. See my earlier post for documentation of your lies (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=362256#post362256) -- and then run away again.

[Franko]

Unas: (Timewaster)
You stated that Joshua claimed he was "magical". He made no such statement.

Franko:
“Josh” asked why the progenitor Solipsist was magical. I asked him why he thought he might be magical?


Franko:
You know … that is what your other sock puppet said, but I still don’t understand why you believe you appeared magically? I already told you, Time doesn’t exist unless you do. Time denotes a perceivable change, and what is a perceivable change without a “perceiver”?

No there was nothing supernatural about your creation. At least, nothing that “I” can see. Why do you keep claiming you are magical?

All of those points have been addressed and addressed repeatedly, yet you just keep bringing them up again and again, over and over. Why do you avoid the Meatier Substantive Issues?

Why are you unable to cite the SPECIFIC POINT that you disagree with regarding Me or Logical Deism, and SPECIFIC REASON for disagreeing?

Why your repeated demonstrations of such intellectual dishonesty, cowardice, double standards, and hypocrisy? Surely you must realize what a huge embarrassment you are causing the other A-Theists here? Some of them have even had the ballz to tell you to your face.

Do you honestly believe that your continued nonsense is making me look bad? ... keep thinking that A-Theist.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

The naivety of that question just proves at what a fundamental level you are wrong at. Are you not aware that mathematics is based on axioms, just like science?
----

Yes, that is what you keep on repeating. So prove it already.

What is it that you want me to prove? That science is based on axioms? Or that mathematics, and indeed all logical frameworks, are based on axioms?

Didn't you say you had a degree in mathematics?
----

Yes, I do. Almost two.

Then can I safely assume that you knew that what you posted was one of the axioms of arithmetic? If so, then why did you ask for something similar in science? Certainly you are not going to pretend that I haven't explained what the axioms of science are, to you before?

Then religious knowledge is neutral. How a person decides to use religious information depends on his or her values.

You cannot have it both ways Stimpson.

Now you're beginning to get it. Religious knowledge is neutral. The problem is that it is unreliable. Consider the parents who use scientific knowledge to improve the health of their children. They value the health of their children, and as a result, they do what will serve those values. Now consider a Christian Scientist. They also value the health of their children. They use their religious "knowledge" to serve those values, and in doing so harm their child.

In both cases, the parents used the knowledge they had to try to accomplish their goal. The difference is that scientific knowledge is reliable, and religious "knowledge" is not.

So what aspect of religion is harmful? It is not the knowledge (if you can even call it that). It is the fact that the religious person irrationally believes the knowledge is valid.

As I said before, irrational beliefs are harmful, and religious beliefs are irrational. Science does not involve irrational beliefs. That is the difference, and that is why religion is harmful, but science is not.

Dr. Stupid

[Franko]

Stimpson:
What is it that you want me to prove? That science is based on axioms? Or that mathematics, and indeed all logical frameworks, are based on axioms?

An “axiom” is a self-evident (obviously apparent) Truth.

Why don’t you explain how: Solipsism is False is axiomatic?

Or perhaps you will explain how the statement: No God exist: became an Axiom of pseudo-Materialism?

Certainly you are not going to pretend that I haven't explained what the axioms of science are, to you before?

You told ME that one of the principle axioms of “Science” was the assumption that Solipsism is FALSE.

1) How did assumptions become “axioms” so easily?
2) Is axiomatic to a Christian that “God” exist? (why not?)
3) Please explain how Solipsism being FALSE is an axiomatic conclusion?

Stimpson:
Now you're beginning to get it. Religious knowledge is neutral. The problem is that it is unreliable.

Please define the term “religious knowledge”? Apparently you don’t comprehend the difference between knowledge and dogma.

What makes a Religion a Religion, and why do you feel that My beliefs (or a Christian’s beliefs) are Religious yet yours are not? Isn’t this simple hypocrisy on your part?

Stimpson:
Consider the parents who use scientific knowledge to improve the health of their children. They value the health of their children, and as a result, they do what will serve those values. Now consider a Christian Scientist. They also value the health of their children. They use their religious "knowledge" to serve those values, and in doing so harm their child.

Consider the parents who use religious knowledge to improve the Destiny of their children. They value the existence of their children, and they value their immortal Souls, and as a result, they do what will serve those values, they teach their children that there are consequences for their actions. Now consider a A-Theist Pseudo-Materialist. They also value the existence of their children. They use their A-Theistic religious "knowledge" to serve those values, and in doing so they teach their children that there are NO ultimate consequences for their actions and harm their child

Stimpson:
In both cases, the parents used the knowledge they had to try to accomplish their goal. The difference is that scientific knowledge is reliable, and religious "knowledge" is not.

No, the TRUTH is reliable, FALSITY is what causes the problems. But since you are unwilling to explain why you believe your religion is “better” than all the rest I doubt you have the perception to see it.

Stimpson:
So what aspect of religion is harmful? It is not the knowledge (if you can even call it that). It is the fact that the religious person irrationally believes the knowledge is valid.

Yeah, like a nitwit who calls himself a scientist and believes that he has magical powers which he cannot explain or prove.

Stimpson:
As I said before, irrational beliefs are harmful, and religious beliefs are irrational. Science does not involve irrational beliefs. That is the difference, and that is why religion is harmful, but science is not.

You are in denial A-Theist. You nothing but a religious fanatic who has deluded himself.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I have a great deal of respect for the Society of Friends. In the future, when you see me trashing religions, please remember to include the "except for Quakers and some Buddhists" clause that I never bother to explicitly state, because they are so rarely members of my audience.Thank you. But I'm not really trying to ask for special exemption.

I have no problem with pointing out the problems with the beliefs and actions of various religions (including my own) and do this a good deal myself. (Trashing is a stronger word than I'd use, but that's probably a semantic difference.]

People of various religions, including my own, have done many harmful things throughout history, often out of a belief they were doing what they were supposed to.

Where I disagree with you is on the point of whether religious belief inherently leads to harmful behaviors. This, I think, is not established. The existence of counter-examples -- Quakers and Buddhists among them -- indicates that while religious belief can lead to harmful actions it does not always or necessarily lead to such. Religion can (and often has been) a source of harm , but I think it can and (should be) a good thing instead.

It took several millennia before people's efforts to come up with answers to questions about the universe we live in came up with a good process (science) for answering such questions. Modern science -- the idea of relying on empirical evidence rather than philosophical notions -- has only been around formally for a few hundred years. The ways in which people attempted to answer questions about physics prior to that were just as primitive as the ways in which people currently attempt to answer questions about spiritual matters.

What I see as being the problem with religions is that too often they are about inventing answers and about trying to coerce belief in those answers, when they should be about finding a way to discern correct answers. This is not an inherent flaw in religion itself, it is a mistaken choice that religions have made.

Whether one considers the search for answers on moral/spiritual questions to be a separate discipline from science (as I do), or consider it to be a branch of science (as you seem to), seems to me a semantic question. The important thing is that such a search for answers is an important thing to engage in. Just because we want to throw out baptismal water, let's not throw out the baby.
[Quakers] still fail the ultimate test. You asked what divine revelation was unquestionable in your religion, and I think I have the answer: you presuppose the idea that religious experiences are not all merely hallucinations. What is sacred and unquestionable in your faith is that religious experiences - at least some of them - are real.
I "presuppose" that is is possible for religious experiences to be genuine and not hallucinations. You seem to "presuppose" that it is impossible. Before we go too much farther with that I think we need to be clearer on what we mean by "religious experiences", as I suspect you and I are reading very different meanings into those words.

I believe there is "that of god in everyone" -- something good, decent, and reasonable in everyone, regardless of how much or little they choose to act on it. And I experience what I consider to be evidence of that frequently -- in people's actions, people's words, works of art they have produced. Those are what I consider religious experiences, and I consider them quite real.

Some belief similar to that (although others might put it very differently -- we have no agreed wording) is, indeed, expected of someone calling themself a Quaker. Likewise, a person calling themself an atheist could be expected to have a disbelief in the existence of god. My belief in god is no more unquestionable or sacred than an atheist's disbelief. I am as free to question my beliefs, to joke about them, and to change my mind if evidence convinces me to believe otherwise, as an atheist is.

And whether I held Quaker beliefs or not, I would still be welcome to attend Quaker meetings -- meetings for worship and meetings for business. Many people (in some meetings, most people) who are active participants in Quaker meetings are not sure they are Quakers -- or are sure they are not, but still enjoy attending. I have known a number of Jews who enjoyed attending Quaker meetings, while remaining Jewish. (A rabbi was once quoted as saying, "Some of my best Jews are Friends.")

The point is for people to be true to what they know to be true, not to conform to what someone else tells them is true. If what you feel you know to be true is that there is no god, that is fine with me. I believe what I believe because it's what the evidence leads me to believe is true, not because it is sacred or unquestionable.
I also think you understand how small a minority Quakers are. If they represented the typical religion, then I would have a lot of apologizing to do. But sadly, they do not.I don't think numbers matter here. My point is that religion does not have to be harmful. If there are examples of non-harmful religious beliefs, then it is their existence that matters, not how many people hold them.

If such non-harmful beliefs are not possible, then you are correct to attack religion itself. Otherwise, it is specific aspects of specific religions that should be the concern.
...Sure, a religious theory can be so close to reality that it cause very little harm very rarely, or could accidentally cause more good than bad; but a theory that was closer to reality would cause less. And now, thanks to science, we have that theory.Sorry, I don't follow that. Could you elaborate on what you mean by a scientific theory which tells us when it is and is not permissible to drop atomic bombs on people, when it is and is not permissible to torture prisoners who have information one desires, when it is and is not permissible to take from some people and give to others?
Your argument would have been inassailable 50 years ago. Alas, science marches on, and the final gap (where does consciousness come from?) is being answeredFinal gap? You've lost me. There are many -- probably an infinite number -- of additional questions to be answered, and which I welcome scientific answers on.

I have faith that science will continue to find answers, and I wish I could continue to live long enough to learn many more than my lifespan will permit. I don't understand how increased understanding of the nature of consciousness is anything other than welcome news.
... by all means, please convert all the Xians to Quakers!I'm not really interested in converting people (Xians or atheists) into Quakers (which is why I feel awkward spending so much time explaining Quaker beliefs here in order to make my point.)

Actually, Quakerism was not originally intended to be a separate religion. It has become one, and it "speaks to my condition", but for many people it is not what they feel comfortable with.

My interest here is more negative than positive, by which I mean I am more interested in criticizing religious practices I believe to be harmful than in promoting the ones I personally feel at home with. When people try to coerce schoolchildren to recite prayers, or swear oaths to god, or claim to hold certain religious beliefs in order to take part in groups such as the Boy Scouts, I feel it is important to speak out against that. But I have no need or desire to try to convince others to worship in the way I do.
To make your moral superiority argument work, you would have to show that Quakers were responsible for all the moral advances.
That's not what I'm trying to argue, or what I believe.
If it is possible to derive moral truths without Quaker beliefs, then Quakerism is not a superior (meaning more correlative to reality) moral theory, but simply an equivalent one.Certain processes for discerning answers lead to better results and certain processes lead to worse results. Saying one process is better than another process is not the same as asserting it is the best.

What I'm saying is: (a) it is important to seek out answers to moral / spiritual questions; (b) there are various possible processes we can use to attempt to do this; (c) some of these processes may work better than others as far as obtaining good answers to the questions; and (d) we can judge which processes are better or worse by comparing the answers they have come up with to questions we feel we know the answers to.

Slavery is one example. A process of moral inquiry that led to early recognition that slavery is wrong is better in answering that question than one which came to later recognition, and much better than one that led to approval of slavery.

What I'm suggesting is an empirical test. Compile a list of significant moral questions you feel are largely settled, and look at the track records of various inquiry processes in attempting to answer those questions.

Any process that regularly comes up with bad answers should get a poor rating -- on that basis, fundamentalism seems extremely flawed to me, as it has consistently led people to be on the wrong side of issues.

I think Quakerism scores comparatively well. That does not mean it is the best process, or even an adequate one -- those are separate questions calling for additional tests.

I am not familiar with a branch of science that inquires into moral questions. If you are familiar with one, please identify it so we can see what its track record has been in coming up with moral answers. You mention "pragmatism", but that's a little vague; could you be more specific?

Stimpson,


----
In both cases, the parents used the knowledge they had to try to accomplish their goal. The difference is that scientific knowledge is reliable, and religious "knowledge" is not.
----


Religious knowledge certainly can be reliable.

Scientific knowledge isn't always reliable.


----
Science does not involve irrational beliefs.
----


Science involves people. Some people have irrational beliefs. Therefore, science can involve irrational beliefs.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Whodini

Science involves people. Some people have irrational beliefs. Therefore, science can involve irrational beliefs.

That's when it stops being science....

[Franko]

Diogenes: (A-Theist)
That's when it stops being science....

When it stops being Logical (i.e. comprehensible) is when it stops being Science.

When it stops being Logical is when it becomes Dogma ... Mysticism ... take my word for it ... it's too complicated for You to understand ... acausal ... Quantum mechanical uncertainty ... random ... magic ....

Originally posted by Diogenes


That's when it stops being science....


LOL.

So it is science, but until peoples' irrational beliefs get in there, then it is not science.

What is more likely is that it still IS science, and you just don't want to admit that irrational beliefs are in science.

So re-define away. :)

[Yahzi]

Nova Land
Those are what I consider religious experiences, and I consider them quite real.
So human beings functioning in the social environment they evolved to function in is a religious experience?

By that definition, secular humanist athiests routinely engage in religous behaviour.

Shades of Franko. :( I'm going to assume you didn't mean to redefine ordinary existance as religious experience.

Where I disagree with you is on the point of whether religious belief inherently leads to harmful behaviors. This, I think, is not established.
It was established when you agreed that false beliefs are harmful simply because they aren't true. Religion is false; ergo, it leads to harmful behaviours.

For this not to be the case, some religion has to be true. In which case athiesm (and all the other religions) are false and therefore harmful.

I believe what I believe because it's what the evidence leads me to believe is true, not because it is sacred or unquestionable.
But the evidence quite clearly indicates there is no god, at least above the quantum level. Maybe there is nothing below quarks - maybe they are held together by divine will. But I am certain that the god so many pray to is not merely quark glue. Even if we discover god somewhere underneath, religion is still false - because no religion postulates a god that irrelevant to the macro world. (This is what I mean about the gaps being to small to hide god).

What evidence do you have that contradicts all those years of atomic physics?

Compile a list of significant moral questions you feel are largely settled, and look at the track records of various inquiry processes in attempting to answer those questions.
I beleive that most historians of ethics would agree that the Enlightment is responsible for all of the ethical progress we call the modern world. This is a process that started with Descartes deciding to "throw out everything I knew, and start afresh." It is the scientific method, where the final arbiter is correspondence to reality. Even those philosophers who were religious only made progress by applying the methods of the Enlightnment. (Not to ignore the original Greek source, but that's pre-modern.)

Relgion, by incorporating non-empirical baggage, cannot help but lag behind simply philosophical inquiry. The only way religion could be better is if its unwarranted assumptions accidentally turned out to be closer to the truth than current understanding. While this would provide some practical benefit, it is of no use to the advancement of ethics, just as knowing the speed of light was unimportant compared to the task of figuring out that light has a limit, and how to find it. To make progress, you have to show the math. Just being told the answer doesn't help.

I am not familiar with a branch of science that inquires into moral questions.
It's called sociobiology. It's too new to have a track record (and what little record it has is unbelievably miserable. I mean downright wretched). Nonetheless, it is clear that morality is a product of biology: theory of mind plus social existance.

The fundamental insight is that human beings are not blank slates, but in fact biological machines with all that entails. Morality is not an edict from on high, but lessons learned and evolved from millions of years. Morality is shaped by our biological needs and abilities. Our moral faculties, like our language faculties, are biological constructs that can be excised by surgery.

I don't think you believe that the little bit of god in everyone can be removed by a surgical procedure. Do you? If you say yes, you are materialist (and hence not religious), if you say no, you are a supernaturalist (and hence wrong).

(a) it is important to seek out answers to moral / spiritual questions; (b) there are various possible processes we can use to attempt to do this; (c) some of these processes may work better than others as far as obtaining good answers to the questions; and (d) we can judge which processes are better or worse by comparing the answers they have come up with to questions we feel we know the answers to.
a) moral yes; spiritual, no, because there is no spirit.
c) we already agreed that the ones that work better are going to be the ones that are most closely correlated with reality
d) I would have said we judge them by comparing how closely they correlate to reality. But it's pretty close to the same thing: we know slavery is bad, because we tried with and without it, and the without it lead to healthier, happier people.

The key point is c). We have already agreed that correspondence to reality is the crucial factor.


Ultimately, it matters whether or not God exists. If He does, then athiesm is not just a viewpoint; it is a false and dangerous doctrine that should be expunged for the common good. If He does not, then it is religion that is false and dangerous. It's really that simple: it all boils down to whether or not God is real.

And I have 300 years of reason and evidence to show that God is not true. What do you have to show that He is?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

In both cases, the parents used the knowledge they had to try to accomplish their goal. The difference is that scientific knowledge is reliable, and religious "knowledge" is not.
----

Religious knowledge certainly can be reliable.

How? Any examples? More to the point, any examples of reliable religious knowledge that is not also scientific knowledge?

Scientific knowledge isn't always reliable.

How so? What do you mean by "always reliable"? Remember that "reliable" and "infallible" are not the same thing. Something is not reliable when it is right, and unreliable when it is wrong. It is reliable if it is usually right, and has a mechanism for determining when it is wrong.

Science does not involve irrational beliefs.
----

Science involves people. Some people have irrational beliefs. Therefore, science can involve irrational beliefs.

Science involves people. Some people have fat asses. Therefore, science can involve fat asses.

Next logical fallacy? :rolleyes:

Dr. Stupid

Stimpson,


----
How? Any examples? More to the point, any examples of reliable religious knowledge that is not also scientific knowledge?
----


Religion deals with wisdom, ethics, and living in reverence.


----
Science involves people. Some people have fat asses. Therefore, science can involve fat asses.
-----


That's fine, but 'fat asses' are not an integral part of science like beliefs are.

Next poor analogy?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

How? Any examples? More to the point, any examples of reliable religious knowledge that is not also scientific knowledge?
----

Religion deals with wisdom, ethics, and living in reverence.

How does this answer my question? Once again, can you give an example of religious knowledge that is reliable? The term "reliable" is not even applicable to things like wisdom, ethics, and reverence.

Science involves people. Some people have fat asses. Therefore, science can involve fat asses.
-----

That's fine, but 'fat asses' are not an integral part of science like beliefs are.

Beliefs are not an integral part of science either. They are not a part of science at all. You have not explained how a scientist's irrational beliefs are any more a part of science than his fat ass is.

Dr. Stupid

[Franko]

Stimpson:
How? Any examples? More to the point, any examples of reliable religious knowledge that is not also scientific knowledge?

Fatalism, and the notion that YOU are ultimately responsible for your actions (and that there is meaning to existence).

[Franko]

What form of religion isn't harmful?

Any dogmatic belief system is ultimately harmful.

Ergo, the only non-harmful belief systems (and a "Religion" is simply a belief system regarding "Metaphysics" (regarding the nature and origin of "reality")) are belief systems which strive to be free of Dogma.

Dogma = a belief based on tradition, revelation, hearsay, or eyewitness testimony, but not on logic or personal (empirical) observation.

[Nova Land]

Yahzi, Hi! Just time for a quick response so I'll try to keep this brief (Yay!). I'll come back later to re-read and see if there's more in your post I should respond to.
Originally posted by Yahzi

So human beings functioning in the social environment they evolved to function in is a religious experience?

By that definition, secular humanist athiests routinely engage in religous behaviour..You find that surprising? To me it seems rather obvious that religious experience, if it is real, is evidenced in the things of everyday life.

Just as the main way I can experience the physical reality of the abstract concepts love, hate, revenge, forgiveness, property, marriage (to list a few) is through ways these concepts are expressed through people's actions and interactions, so the main way I can experience god is through such actions and interactions.

And the actions of secular humanist atheists can be as inspiring to me, as filled with religious significance to me, as the actions of anyone else. Why would that not be so? Perhaps you are mis-hearing me. I did not say they were engaged in religious activities; I said that my experience of seeing or hearing them was a religious experience.
It was established when you agreed that false beliefs are harmful simply because they aren't true. Religion is false; ergo, it leads to harmful behaviours.
That religion is false is your assumption, not mine. Many particular religious beliefs throughout history have been false. That does not mean all religious beliefs are false, or that religion itself is false.

Particular religions are imperfect, some more so than others. So is almost anything.
For this not to be the case, some religion has to be true. In which case athiesm (and all the other religions) are false and therefore harmful.
Well, athiesm is false; the word is atheism.

So your belief in athiesm is harmful -- just not significantly so. I sincerely doubt that your belief that it is spelled athiesm rather than atheism has much effect on whether you are likely to try to exterminate another race. In the grand scheme of things, I would call your mistaken belief largely harmless. (Of course, if you know that the correct spelling is atheism but still persist in spelling it athiesm, that would make you a hypocrite, and then of course you might be likely to go out and exterminate other races...)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Silly, wasn't that? To me, that's the same kind of argument you are making.

Your argument is notional rather than empirical. You are arguing in grand terms and absolutes. Either a thing is true or it's false, harmful or harmless. If something is not perfectly true, you seem to be saying, then it is perfectly harmful. I think reality is more complex. Certainly the one I live in is.

Science is a continuing process. At any given point in time, what it gives us are not necessarily the correct answers, simply the best answers we are capable of reaching at that time from the evidence we have obtained. The longer we continue, the more our understanding of the answers improves. At any given moment in history, a good many of the answers we have reached are wrong -- either because they are incomplete, or because we've missed an important factor. History if filled with cases of the answers arrived at by science being significantly modified at later dates.

I hope any rational person would agree that many of the answers that make up the current body of things we accept as scientifically true will later be modified. To believe differently would be to treat our current thinking as dogma -- and the substitution of dogma for inquiry, rather than religion per se, is one of the things I think leads to the harm. (You did not dispute that point when I made it previously.)

So science, in the process of leading us toward the good understnading, often leads us to false or at least incomplete understandings on the way. Does that make it harmful? Not necessarily, no. Imperfect, yes, but nothing is perfect.

Every person is mistaken about some things. Every philosophy contains some flaws. Perfection is worth striving towards, and some things are clearly less flawed than others, but i don't believe absolute perfection exists. (Draw me a perfect circle and I'll admit otherwise.)

You are demanding perfection of religion, and condemning it as totally worthless when it doesn't meet that standard. Unless you hold other things to that same standard, that seems irrational.
But the evidence quite clearly indicates there is no god, at least above the quantum level.If that's where the evidence leads you, fine. The evidence leads me elsewhere.

Now: according to your theory, one of us must therefore be harmful. I reach no such conclusion. I think we both, in our lives, do things that are harmful and things that are helpful.
What evidence do you have that contradicts all those years of atomic physics?What belief do I have that contradicts all those years of atomic physics?

Please: name me a particular belief of mine, and name me a particular rule of physics, and explain why you believe they are contradictory, and I will try to answer your question. Without specifics such as those, I am baffled by what you mean.
I beleive that most historians of ethics would agree that the Enlightment is responsible for all of the ethical progress we call the modern world.
Fine. Name the Enlightenmentists who first came out against slavery, so we can compare dates with people of varying religions. Also give the date (approximate is fine) by which time virtually all people considering themselves Enlightenmentists were in substantial agreement that slavery was wrong. This will let us judge not only how quickly Enlightenmentism leads individual Enlightenmentists to spot a truth, but also how long it takes other Enlightenmentists to be able to accept it as true once it has been pointed out.

Continue doing this for a number of moral questions (as I suggested previously) which have been wrestled with since the Enlightenment and which are now largely settled. Then we can make an empirical comparison and evaluate Enlightenmentism for ourselves, not simply take the word of historians.

Or are you saying that the Enlightenment led to an awareness that slavery was wrong by acting through the agency of people such as, oh, Quakers and Unitarians and other religious folk? Because if so, that sounds suspiciously like the religious folks who reconcile evolution with belief in God by saying that God is responsible for creation and did it through evolution...
To make progress, you have to show the math. Just being told the answer doesn't help.I very strongly agree!
It's called sociobiology. It's too new to have a track record (and what little record it has is unbelievably miserable. I mean downright wretched).Ah. So you're saying that, by an empirical comparison Quakerism (and possibly other religions) comes out better than sociobilogy. But you still choose to assert, not only in the absence of empirical evidence to support your claim but in direct contradiction of the empirical evidence, that sociobiology is better.

And your reason for doing this, as best I can follow, is because you believe that science must always be superior to religion, so if sociobiology is labelled a branch of science then it must be better.
Nonetheless, it is clear that morality is a product of biology: theory of mind plus social existance.Would you accept as refutation: "Obviously this is not so." (Does a clearly trump an obviously, or is it the other way around? I always forget.)
I don't think you believe that the little bit of god in everyone can be removed by a surgical procedure. Do you?No, I don't. I believe you can remove a great deal of our reasoning and emotional faculties, severely damaging both intelligence and moral functioning. That was clear even before recent advances in mapping out the brain, but the new developments are additional confirmation. But no, I do not believe that everything that is good and special can ever be removed from any living thing. I have never encountered anything which had absolutely no redeeming features. That's why I don't believe in the existence of a literal devil; I find such a notion of complete absence of good inconceivable. To you, apparently, it's not.

If you show me a person or creature with no spark of decency, I'll accept your point and change my beliefs. I've been in jails and prisons, and other odd places, and never met such a being yet.
Ultimately, it matters whether or not God exists. If He does, then athiesm is not just a viewpoint; it is a false and dangerous doctrine that should be expunged for the common good.Nonsense!

I have to stop here; this "brief" response is taking longer than intended and I should have been outside working two hours ago. Leigh Hunt (http://www.wockyjivvy.com/poetry/acclaim/lh-aboub.html) makes the point I'd like to, so I'll link to that.

Stimpson,


----
Once again, can you give an example of religious knowledge that is reliable? The term "reliable" is not even applicable to things like wisdom, ethics, and reverence.
----


You're asking a dog to meow.


----
Beliefs are not an integral part of science either. They are not a part of science at all.
----


Right. Keep repeating it, and it will be true.


Modern science is based upon several underlying assumptions:

1. The world is real. The physical universe exists, whether we can sense it or not. In other words, it is not just our imagination.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and understand the physical universe. In other words, such understanding is possible.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain the natural world; non-natural processes are unnecessary.

4. Nature operates the same way everywhere in the universe, and at all times, except where we have contrary evidence.

5. Science must follow certain rules, such as:

--a. Scientific explanations must be based on careful observations and the testing of hypotheses.

--b. It must be possible to disprove a hypothesis.

--c. Scientific solutions cannot be based merely upon personal opinion, belief, or judgment.

--d. Scientific explanations cannot include supernatural forces (these can never be disproved).

--e. The "best" hypothesis, out of the choices, must be one which best fits several explicit criteria.

--f. Once data is collected through repeated observation and experimentation and conclusions are reached these results must be published and review by other scientists around the world.

--g. The results of any study must be replicated by other scientists and similar results must be found before much validity is give to the findings.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Once again, can you give an example of religious knowledge that is reliable? The term "reliable" is not even applicable to things like wisdom, ethics, and reverence.
----

You're asking a dog to meow.

No, I am asking you to produce a dog that can meow. You are the one who claimed it could, by claiming the following:

Religious knowledge certainly can be reliable.

I don't think there is any such thing as religious knowledge, hence my prior qualification of "if you can even call it knowledge". The stuff that religion tells people is true is not knowledge, it is fantasy.

You, however, claimed that not only is there religious knowledge, but that it can be reliable. But when asked for an example of reliable religious knowledge, you seem to be claiming that no such thing exists, which was exactly my point!

Beliefs are not an integral part of science either. They are not a part of science at all.
----

Right. Keep repeating it, and it will be true.

I have already explained why it is true. Either address my arguments, or admit that you cannot.

Modern science is based upon several underlying assumptions:

Well, I don't completely agree with your description of science. In particular, many of the items you listed are not assumptions of science, but rather standards and practices of the scientific community. But it is close enough for the current discussion.

The key word here is assumptions.

An assumption is not necessarily a belief. A person does not have to believe any of those assumptions are true, in order to apply the scientific method. All he has to do is acknowledge that the validity of any results the scientific method produces, is directly dependant on the validity of those assumptions.

I would think that as a mathematician, you would be familiar with this concept. It is basically the same principle as an indirect proof. You assume something is true, and then falsify it by finding a contradiction. The only difference is that in science, repeated consistent failure to falsify the hypothesis constitutes supporting evidence for it. When sufficient supporting evidence is accumulated, it is only rational to believe that the assumption was, in fact, a valid one.

This applies not only to scientific theories in general, but also to the very axioms of science. If science didn't work, that would prove that at least one of its axioms are false. The consistent success of the scientific method constitutes a very good reason to believe that the axioms of science are valid. Once again, that in no way implies that one must believe they are true in order for science to work. Science, unlike religion, works whether you believe in it or not.

Dr. Stupid

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Ultimately, it matters whether or not God exists. If He does, then athiesm is not just a viewpoint; it is a false and dangerous doctrine that should be expunged for the common good. If He does not, then it is religion that is false and dangerous. It's really that simple: it all boils down to whether or not God is real.
Came in to take a break because the cat was being a pest (and because this passage of yours really itched and I wanted to scratch it).

I'm not sure if you're serious, and think / hope you're mainly joking with this argument. It's the kind of argument I hear on religious radio (from the other side of the fence from you) and the kind of belief which leads to intolerant actions.

I sometimes copy posts into WordPad so I can write responses off-line and not tie up the phone so long. I did that with one of your posts that I responded to in pieces, and here's a paragraph that I think got left out. (If I did already post this paragraph, apologies. But I think it bears repeating.)

I find, for example, that the moral judgments of atheists are not that different from those of theists. I do not see atheists running out and murdering people, robbing people when their backs are turned, celebrating atrocities, etc. This indicates to me it is not belief in god or belief in heaven or belief in holy books which make people behave morally. These things certainly play roles in people's behaviors, for good and ill, just as people's tastes in music and art differ from culture to culture (and within cultures). But just as people's reactions to art and music confirm to me that sight and hearing are real senses and not simply illusions, so people's reactions to different kinds of behavior confirm to me that moral sense is real and not simply an illusion.

It seems to me relatively unimportant whether a person believes in god or not. I also don't especially care whether someone believes their sense of what is right and wrong derives from god. What matters more to me is how well they listen to (and respond to) their sense of what is right and wrong.

Ironically, I think atheists are often better at that than theists. Theistic dogma gets in the way, and drowns out the voice saying no. Agnostics and atheists often have less dogma, and are more able to listen to that quiet voice within that says certain things are wrong. I don't care what they call it, or even if they are aware they are listening to it, so long as they do listen to it. (That's a metaphorical voice, not a literal one, by the way.)

I would much rather live among people who may be mistaken in their beliefs about god's existence or non-existence, but who understand that tormenting or killing people for believing differently is wrong, than among people who are correct in their belief about god's existence or non-existence but don't understand that oppressing or killing others is wrong.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Franko


Any dogmatic belief system is ultimately harmful.

Ergo, the only non-harmful belief systems ... are belief systems which strive to be free of Dogma.

Dogma = a belief based on tradition, revelation, hearsay, or eyewitness testimony, but not on logic or personal (empirical) observation.
I largely agree with you on this, but with 2 large exceptions.

1. While I agree that dogma leads to harmful actions, I don't think dogma is the only thing that can do this. Therefore just because a system was free of dogma would not necessarily make it non-harmful. Rejecting dogma is a step in the right direction, but it may not be the only step needed.

2. I would define dogma differently. Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that one holds unquestioningly. It is quite possible to hold dogmatically a belief which one has derived from logic or from personal (empirical) observation.

A person, for example, might see something which they believe is a flying saucer. The belief is derived from a personal observation. But if the person holds onto this belief in the face of significant contrary evidence, they are holding on to it dogmatically.

(It is also quite possible to be dogmatic in asserting that Bigfoot is imaginary, that homeopathy is bunk, etc. Just because a person is correct in a belief does not mean they can't be dogmatic in that belief as well.)

Stimpson,

You are correct, I am not.

My bad.

[Yahzi]

Nova Land
I said that my experience of seeing or hearing them was a religious experience.
If mere social interaction is religious expierence, then you have proved your religion true by definition.

I hope any rational person would agree that many of the answers that make up the current body of things we accept as scientifically true will later be modified
This is not true, at least in the sense you mean it. Yes, we will discover that Einstein was wrong, in that light does have mass. No, we will never overturn the theory of relativity.

Modified is not open-ended. As Asimov said, we found out the world was not round, but rather pear-shaped, and we reserve the right to change it in the future; but we will never find out that the world is square.

There are lots of things to be discovered, but none of them will undo Newton. None of the undiscovered flea-sized hiding spots will have room for an elephant.

You are demanding perfection of religion, and condemning it as totally worthless when it doesn't meet that standard
I stated several times that this was a discussion about ideal situations. I am not condemning it as totally worthless; I am asserting that its worth has a finite limit, which has been exceeded by other methods.

The evidence leads me elsewhere.
What evidence? Please don't say your religious expierences. Surely you understand you cannot redefine social interaction, ignore biology and evolution, and then proclaim that the cashier saying, "Have a good day," is evidence of God.

What belief do I have that contradicts all those years of atomic physics?
How about you come out and tell me what you believe. You claim to be religious; fine, tell me what your religious beliefs are. Tell me how you differ from a simple materialist.

But no, I do not believe that everything that is good and special can ever be removed from any living thing
This is clearly an irrational viewpoint. You have assigned attributes to an object that are not part of the object (we know this because nothing we remove from the object can remove those attributes).

Apparently this is how you differ from a materialist. You think living things are automatically good and special. Well, special is a purely subjective word. Good has an objective sense (as in good from the human perspective), in which case I would say that Dr. X's pontine tumor is a living thing that has absoultely no good whatsoever.

Without an objective reference, your religious views are mere opinions.

So you're saying that, by an empirical comparison Quakerism (and possibly other religions) comes out better than sociobilogy
No, I specifically said sociobiolgy can't be compared because it doesn't have a viable track record.

It is clear that morality is a product of biology: theory of mind plus social existance. This is the scientific fact we have uncovered, just as it is clear that we evolved from other animals. I can't explain it any better than that. There are books.

Do you have an alternate source of morality? Social convention has already been rejected - we know that morality is not merely an arbitrary social construct (even language is not an arbitrary social construct). So what other source do you propose?

Nonsense!
Not at all. If a belief is false, it is automatically harmful. You already agreed to this. If atheism is false, then it is automatically harmful.

Whether it is harmful in a pragmatic sense, or whether the cure of eradicating it would be worse than the disease, is unimportant for this discussion. We already agreed that being false is harmful, and thus, if you can replace it with a theory that is less false, you will do less harm.

Agnostics and atheists often have less dogma, and are more able to listen to that quiet voice within that says certain things are wrong.
The entire point of dogma is to silence that voice.

I would much rather live among people who may be mistaken in their beliefs about god's existence or non-existence, but who understand that
I would rather live among people who are mistaken about god, but who understand that dynamite is not a toy. How are the two related? We are discussing the narrow issue of God, not public behaviour at large. Many Greeks were atheistic, but I still prefer to live here. Hamburgers, chocolate, machinery... so? These collateral issues have nothing to do with whether or not it is good to believe in something that isn't true.

[neutrino_cannon]

This is not true, at least in the sense you mean it. Yes, we will discover that Einstein was wrong, in that light does have mass. No, we will never overturn the theory of relativity.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that? I thought it was that light has momentum, but no mass (hence solar sails).

If your religion can be proved true beyond a doubt by everyday experiences, than it is a very unobtrusive religion.

[Franko]

Hey Nova!

Nova Land:
I largely agree with you on this, but with 2 large exceptions.

1. While I agree that dogma leads to harmful actions, I don't think dogma is the only thing that can do this. Therefore just because a system was free of dogma would not necessarily make it non-harmful. Rejecting dogma is a step in the right direction, but it may not be the only step needed.

Other than holding a False belief, what else causes “harmful action”?

As far as I know False beliefs are the root cause of ALL harmful action.

2. I would define dogma differently. Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that one holds unquestioningly. It is quite possible to hold dogmatically a belief which one has derived from logic or from personal (empirical) observation.

As far as I know Dogma refers to a set of beliefs taken primarily on the Authority of Another. Dogma is not based on Logic, at least not by my usage of the term.

Dogma = a belief based on tradition, revelation, hearsay, or eyewitness testimony, but not on logic or personal (empirical) observation.

I try to be systematic with my use of language here.

But I understand what you are saying, I have heard the term used in that way before myself.

A person, for example, might see something which they believe is a flying saucer. The belief is derived from a personal observation. But if the person holds onto this belief in the face of significant contrary evidence, they are holding on to it dogmatically.

Well, I would say that You know you saw something. I don’t think there is anything dogmatic about that. My question would be … what made them think it was a “flying saucer”? My guess would be that someone else put that bug in their head. But if I heard you make the above statement, I would comprehend what you meant.

(It is also quite possible to be dogmatic in asserting that Bigfoot is imaginary, that homeopathy is bunk, etc. Just because a person is correct in a belief does not mean they can't be dogmatic in that belief as well.)

I agree, but once again, I define dogma as a belief that a person is holding based primarily on the belief that a superior intellect (an “Authority”) also holds that same belief. That is what puts the “Dog” in “Dogma” for me.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Whodini
Stimpson,

You are correct, I am not.

My bad.

I'll be darned. Does this mean you are now a 100% certain materialist/atheist? :D

[Nova Land]

[originally posted by Franko

...I define dogma as a belief that a person is holding based primarily on the belief that a superior intellect (an “Authority”) also holds that same belief.That's a reasonable definition.

As I understand the word's origins, it traces back to beliefs taught by the early Catholic Church, which were known as dogma. Since Church teachings were unquestionable, dogma came to mean both "these teachings laid down by Authority" (your definition) and "these things which are not to be questioned, because they're right, dammit!" (my definition).

Other than holding a False belief, what else causes “harmful action”?

As far as I know False beliefs are the root cause of ALL harmful action.
It sounds reasonable that all harmful action can be traced to false beliefs. However, dogmatic belief is not the only kind of false belief. There are many reasons people can be mistaken.

Prior to the advent of modern science (and the idea of empiricism), a major way philosophers attempted to find answers was through pure logic and "reasoning from essences".. They would consider the "essential natures" of the things they were pondering about, and see where deductions based on these natures led them.

Whether one defines dogma as you do (a set of beliefs laid down by Authority) or as I do (beliefs that a person holds obstinately, refusing even to consider the possibility of being wrong), the problem wasn't so much that these people were dogmatic as that their problem-soving process was inadequate. There are many problems that cannot be solved by pure reason -- one needs to go out, become familiar with the thing being investigated, and see if what reason says must be so actually is so.

[Nova Land]

originally posted by Yahzi

I think religion has to be inherently evil simply because it is false.
...
So it's not just that all existing religions are evil - all possible religions must be evil
You seem to be equating people who are (in your judgment) mistaken with people who are (in your judgment) evil. And the way you know they are mistaken is that they disagree with you -- since you are right, they must therefore be wrong.

This reasoning, and this kind of demonizing of those one disagrees with, has been done by many groups throughout history. It is commonly done today by conservative christians, but I also used to hear it too often from Joe McCarthy-type anti-communists and others.

While historically many groups have indulged in this tactic, I can't think of a sngle one that history vindicates in using it. In every case I can think of, this belief led to harmful actions. It is, by emprical observation, a harmful belief, especially because it too often leads to the following:
If [God exists], then atheism is not just a viewpoint; it is a false and dangerous doctrine that should be expunged for the common good. If He does not, then it is religion that is false and dangerous.
The idea that -those who disagree with us are therefore in some way a menace and we need to do something about them- has been the cause of many wars and much strife. Societies in which this belief is dominant tend to be oppressive and to commit many harmful actions. Historically, this has been a harmful belief.

In contrast, the belief that -people should be free to believe as they will- is a helpful belief. Societies in which many people hold this belief seem to be significantly less oppressive than societies dominated by the previous belief.

An even more helpful belief is that -people should be free to believe as they will, and the presence of a diversity of opinions is a good thing rather than a threat-. I do not know of nations where this belief is prevalent yet, but I have seen the effect in small group situations and find it far preferable to ones where your belief is common. Not only is being part of groups which welcome diversity more comfortable, but such groups seem able to work together better and to reach better decisions together.

You say that rational thinking leads you to believe that those who disagree with you are dangerous and evil, and that their beliefs should be expunged. The more people who believe as you do, the more intolerant society becomes. Your allegedly"rational" belief system has led you to a harmful belief.

My religion leads to the third belief. (I should point out, however, that often we fall short, and are merely tolerant of diversity, rather than genuinely welcoming of it).

Therefore we have an example where a (particular) religious belief system leads to a helpful belief and a (particular) non-religious belief system leads to a harmful one.

This shows that some allegedly rational belief systems can be more harmful than religious ones -- your particular one, for example.

Whether your particular belief system leads to other harmful beliefs and practices, I do not know. But we now have a specific example of a harmful belief your belief system leads to, and all we have in contrast is your assertion that, logically, my religion must lead to some harmful belief.

I would be very interested to hear which, if any, other people share your apparent belief that only True Belief should exist; anything which disagrees with the True Way should be expunged. (I would say such a belief is both harmful and irrational.)

I still hope you are joking rather than serious in expressing the idea that religious intolerance is somehow a rational and desirable belief.

[Yahzi]

Nova Land
we need to do something about them
When, where, how did I ever say that we needed to do something about them?

You have abandoned the original, narrow argument of whether or not a false belief is necessarily harmful because it is false, and gone off on all sorts of things like pragmatic social policy.

I have several times pointed out the idealistic nature of this argument, to apparently no avail. We are not yet at the stage of deciding public policy: we are still trying to determine the philosophical basis.

You have already conceded that false beliefs are harmful because they are false. Never mind the amount of harm; that's not the issue. The next question is, if a religoius belief is false, then it must be harmful. You don't seem ready to sign off on this.

Finally, we ask, what is the morally responsible thing to do once you realize your belief is false? And the answer is, you stop believing in it. I am not at this time prepared to send the Gestapo to your house to make sure you do: but I would like you to concede that it's your moral duty to do so.

the belief that -people should be free to believe as they will-
This is true for reasons that have nothing to do with the current discussion. For example, Goedel's Thereom makes it clear that we are never going to have formal proof of everything that is true, and thus, people must have the freedom to believe what cannot be proved for the simple reason that they might be right. But this is utterly unrelated to our discussion; I only mention it so that you can stop worrying about my poltical intentions.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Yahzi

When, where, how did I ever say that we needed to do something about them?
you said (and I've quoted it repeatedly, to let you clarify what you meant in case it did not mean what it sounds like):
it is a false and dangerous doctrine that should be expunged for the common good
How do you propose to expunge these beliefs without doing anything to the people who hold them?

You have said repeatedly that people holding beliefs you consider to be false must therefore be evil. You say that these beliefs need to be expunged. How would you feel if a right-wing televangelist were saying that? Would you say to yourself, Wow! He's making a lot of sense! Or would you say to yourself, as I say to myself, That sounds a little scary. I certainly hope people like that don't get control of the government?

I don't consider it evil for people to have beliefs that differ from mine; but you say that you do. You believe your beliefs to be correct; therefore you believe people whose beliefs contradict yours to be incorrect. You believe incorrect beliefs are, by definition, evil, and you believe this evil should be expunged. Since things don't "expunge" themselves, that certainly sounds like you would approve of some action to expunge these beliefs. And since beliefs are held by people, in certainly sounds like whatever action you take needs to affect these people in some way.

So my restatement of your beliefs -- "we need to do something about them" -- sounds like a reasonable reading of your words to me.

If this is not what you intend to say by your words, please clarify what it is you do mean by them. I'm quite willing to accept that you do not mean by them what they sound like to me.
You have abandoned the original, narrow argument of whether or not a false belief is necessarily harmful because it is false, and gone off on all sorts of things like pragmatic social policy.
The question was whether religious beliefs are always harmful. You seem to want to discuss the word "harm" in the abstract; I want to see what actual harm such beliefs are supposed to cause before drawing a conclusion.

If a belief leads to the beating of gays, the torture of heretics, discrimination against people because of their sex or race, etc., then that belief is socially harmful. If a belief leads to opposing such practices, it is socially helpful.

If a belief leads a person to feel depressed or suicidal, or to take actions that damage their physical or mental well-being, that belief is personally harmful. If in contrast a belief leads to the person being happy, well-adjusted, in good physical and emotional health, then the belief is personally helpful.

If you feel exploring actual harmful beliefs as opposed to theoretical ones is off-topic, however, I'll be glad to start a new thread on that when time permits.
You have already conceded that false beliefs are harmful because they are false. Never mind the amount of harm; that's not the issue.I think that's too simplistic. We need to be much clearer on what we mean by harm before reaching sweeping conclusions.

For example, a correct belief on how to make a bomb is less harmful than a false one if it is desirable for you to be able to build and detonate one. But what if you are morally wrong in your desire to explode that bomb. In that case, a false belief on how to construct a bomb would be harmful to you as far as achieving your goal, but would be less harmful to society at large. You appear not to be taking the morality of goals into mind, and are simply investigating whether false belief is harmful in attaining goals.

I think the question of who is harmed, in what way, and how much, is very relevant to the issue. I believe that, in real life as opposed to philosophical abstractions, people often wind up doing the right things for the wrong reasons. So in addition to the question of whether religious beliefs are always false, which I disagree with you on, there is the question of whether false beliefs are always harmful, which is meaningless until we are clear on what is meant by harmful.

(If we are able to agree on a meaningful definition of harm, and it does turn out to be true that false beliefs are always harmful, then the contra-positive should also be true: beliefs that do not lead to harm must therefore be true. In other words, if people holding a certain belief are in better physical and emotional health, take part in fewer socially harmful activities, and take part in more socially helpful activities, than people holding a competing belief, then the first belief must be more true than the second one.

Frankly, that sounds silly to me -- I would not accept that as proof for the existence of god if I were an atheist. One can reach all sorts of silly conclusions if one relies too heavily on abstract reasoning and refuses to look at how that reasoning actually applies to the real world.)
...what is the morally responsible thing to do once you realize your belief is false? And the answer is, you stop believing in it. I am not at this time prepared to send the Gestapo to your house to make sure you do: but I would like you to concede that it's your moral duty to do so.If I discover evidence that I am wrong, I change my beliefs. I agree, that is a good thing to do. (In fact, it is one of my religious beliefs. Does that make it harmful?)

On the other hand, if I discover evidence that your beliefs are wrong, I am under no moral obligation to force you to change your mind. You have a right to be wrong.

I don't believe in perfection. While I try to be careful in my judgments, to reject what is false and accept what is true, I am well aware that everyone makes errors -- both in perception and judgment. I am sure there are many things I currently believe that are not fully correct, and I will do my best during the course of my life to improve my thinking. I do not ever expect to be fully correct, nor do I ever expect to meet anybody else who is fully correct, no matter how long I live.

So the fact that other people may be incorrect in some of their beliefs is not disturbing to me, it's part of life. I'm more concerned with harmful beliefs (such as a belief that blacks are inferior) than with incorrect ones (such as that the civil rights movement began with Martin Luther King).

I think any dogmatically held belief is potentially harmful. The reason for that is that when people hold a belief dogmatically they are willing to act on it even when they know in their hearts that the actions it leads them to are morally wrong.

Many religions are dogmatic; I would agree these are likely harmful, and the historical record seems to validate that conclusion. That's why I dont subscribe to those religions.

Many non-religious belief systems are also dogmatic; these also seem likely to be harmful, and again history seems to validate this conclusion. That's why I don't subscribe to those belief systems either.

Not all religions are dogmatic; therefore, I am comfortable belonging to one. If you show me my religious belief is harmful, I will re-think that. I am still waiting to see evidence from you of that point.

From what I can see, some religions lead to beliefs and actions that are more beneficial than the beliefs and actions of society at large. That doesn't necessarily mean harmless, but it does mean better than average.

If you will put forward the particular belief system you believe to be best, we can then compare it with particular religious belief systems to see which is less harmful or more harmful. In a previous post you named sociobiology as the system you believed to be the best, but you then admitted (a) it is too new to have a track record, and (b) the record it does have is "unbelievably miserable", "absolutely wretched." That sounds like, currently, a harmful belief system to subscribe to.

I'd be glad to see a comparison with atheism. Atheism has a pretty good track record too, by which I mean that historically people who are atheists seem to have been more likely to perceive social injustices and act to remedy them than society at large. Therefore, the belief that there is no god may or may not be mistaken, but it does not seem socially harmful; quite the contrary. My impression is also that atheists have generally been reasonably well-adjusted people, so it would appear atheism is not a personally harmful either.

This is hard to know, however, since atheists have not generally been as willing to self-identify as theists; it is therefore harder to know how many atheists there actually were in society at any given time, how well-adjusted personally they were, how likely they were to take part in socially harmful actions and how likely they were to take part in socially helpful ones.

Without that knowledge, it's hard to know whether atheists were indeed less likely to hold socially harmful beliefs such as racism. It's also hard to know how personally well-adjusted they were. It may simply be that those who were strong and self-confident enough to come out publicly as atheists, despite the dim view much of society took of atheism, were the best representatives of atheism and not typical of the average atheist.

I'm inclined to believe atheism is not a harmful belief, but that's based on my limited personal experience and my reading of history. I feel much more confident in asserting that my own religious belief does not seem harmful, to me personally or to society around me. I am always open to evidence that I am wrong.

[Yahzi]

Let's try to get back to basics:

1. Is a belief harmful simply because it is false? (Yes or no)

2. Assuming 1 is Yes, then is a religious belief harmful simply because it is false? (Yes or no)

3. Assuming 2 is Yes, then is a religion harmful if it is based on false beliefs? (Yes or no)

4. Assuming 3 is Yes, then, given that religion is false, is it true that religion is harmful?

You seem to agree with 1, and then stop agreeing somewhere before 4.

I'm not saying that religion has produced nothing but evil. I'm saying that the good it produced was accidental, or external. Lots of good people are religious, and it seems unlikely that any instititution could prevent them from doing some good. However, instititutions can help or hinder the doing of good, and the false beliefs of religion must necessarily have hindered the good its adherents have done.

Sometimes those unsupported but true beliefs have helped people do good, but this accidental effect (however pragmatically desireable) has no place in our discussion.

'I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

[Yahzi]

If this is not what you intend to say by your words, please clarify what it is you do mean by them
What I intended was that, in an ideal world, every person would recongize that false beliefs were harmful, and would thus expunge their false beliefs.

As far as social action goes, I have no desire to control what others believe. However, I do wish that false beliefs were not admitted into debates on public policy. Just as a politician would be ridiculed and lose his power if he publicly made decisions based on astrology, so should the political process exclude (whether by law or convention) people who attempt to make false or even merely unreasonable ideas a basis for public policy.

Originally posted by hammegk


I'll be darned. Does this mean you are now a 100% certain materialist/atheist? :D


Definitely not, probably about 60% or 65% though.

[Franko]

Yatzi,

I hear you bad-mouthing “Religion” on a constant basis, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen you precisely define the term? How can you be so adamantly against something when you seem unable to specify precisely what it is You are so vehemently against?

1. Is a belief harmful simply because it is false? (Yes or no)

2. Assuming 1 is Yes, then is a religious belief harmful simply because it is false? (Yes or no)

What difference does it make? ALL false beliefs are harmful regardless of what type of label you ascribe to those beliefs.

Are you Honestly trying to say that a False “Scientific belief” is NOT harmful?

How about a false “Logical Belief”? Why are False “religious beliefs” more harmful than other False beliefs? That seems to be what you are implying.

3. Assuming 2 is Yes, then is a religion harmful if it is based on false beliefs? (Yes or no)

4. Assuming 3 is Yes, then, given that religion is false, is it true that religion is harmful?

“given that religion is false”? Where the hell do you come up with this nonsense?

Just because Your religion is False doesn’t mean that ALL religions are False.

Religion = a set (or system) of beliefs regarding the nature and origin of Existence (Reality/the Universe).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Let's try to get back to basics:

1. Is a belief harmful simply because it is false? (Yes or no)

2. Assuming 1 is Yes, then is a religious belief harmful simply because it is false? (Yes or no)

3. Assuming 2 is Yes, then is a religion harmful if it is based on false beliefs? (Yes or no)

4. Assuming 3 is Yes, then, given that religion is false, is it true that religion is harmful?

You seem to agree with 1, and then stop agreeing somewhere before 4.

I'm not saying that religion has produced nothing but evil. I'm saying that the good it produced was accidental, or external. Lots of good people are religious, and it seems unlikely that any instititution could prevent them from doing some good. However, instititutions can help or hinder the doing of good, and the false beliefs of religion must necessarily have hindered the good its adherents have done.

Sometimes those unsupported but true beliefs have helped people do good, but this accidental effect (however pragmatically desireable) has no place in our discussion.

'I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln

Perhaps another way to say some of this this, would be:


"Any good that can be done in the name of religion, can be done without it.."


Not trying to put words in your mouth Yahzi, just saying your words gave me a few of my own.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Yahzi

As far as social action goes, I have no desire to control what others believe. However, I do wish that false beliefs were not admitted into debates on public policy. Just as a politician would be ridiculed and lose his power if he publicly made decisions based on astrology, so should the political process exclude (whether by law or convention) people who attempt to make false or even merely unreasonable ideas a basis for public policy.
Thank you for clarifying your belief.

You say that you did not mean to say you would restrict people from holding false beliefs, you would simply restrict them from expressing these publicly, and you are willing to do this by convention or by law.

You seem to be saying you believe in freedom of thought but not freedom of speech. People should be allowed to think "false ideas" but not to express them publicly, since that might influence other people to think "falsely" as well.

You say you are willing to exclude "false" ideas by either convention or law. Let's suppose people keep on expressing these ideas anyway. Do the laws you are willing to use have any penalties? Are you proposing to put people who express wrong ideas into jail, to fine us, or simply to black-list us and prevent us from holding jobs until we repent our incorrect thoughts?

Laws against blasphemy, laws against sedition -- those were previous attempts at laws against "false" ideas. You seem to share the view I often hear expressed on christian radio, that freedom of speech is only meant to protect good speech, and that restriction on bad speech (speech that promotes false doctrines) is therefore a good idea.

The belief that ideas which disagree with our own are "evil" (your description) and need to be "excluded" (your word) from the political process is a socially harmful belief. It's one you share with many religions, past and present, which illustrates that while it is possible to derive harmful beliefs through religion it is also quite possible to derive them without religion.

I believe it is important to protect all speech, even that with which I disagree, and that the free expression of ideas (even mistaken ones) is a good thing. These are religiously-derived beliefs for me.

I am aware that these beliefs can be derived non-religously as well, and that many non-religious people share this view of free speech with me. The fact that it can be derived non-religiously as well as religiously, however, is beside the point.

My point is this. Yahzi has not yet pointed out any belief of mine which is harmful, either to me personally or to society around me. I have pointed out at least one belief of his which is harmful. The assertion Yahzi made was that all religions are harmful. So far, by comparison, my religion leads me to a socially helpful belief and his belief system leads him to a socially harmful one.

If someone were to cling to the assertion that religious belief must by definition be harmful, and that the only good way to ascertain moral truth is through a non-religious belief system, even though they are unable to come up with a non-religious system which delivers better results than religious ones, that would appear to be a dogmatic belief in the evil of religion.

Some religious beliefs (such as a belief that false doctrines should be suppressed by force of law) are harmful. The question, however, is whether all religions are harmful. The fact that some religions have led to harmful actions is not sufficient evidence to conclude that all religions led to harmful actions, any more than the fact that a particular atheistic belief system led to harmful actions would be sufficient to conclude that all atheistic belief systems lead to harmful actions.

I am inclined to believe it is dogmatism rather than religion per se which leads to much of the harm religion is associated with. If that is so, then a non-dogmatic religion would be less harmful than a dogmatic non-religious belief system.

The topic under discussion is whether all religion is harmful, but a parallel topic could easily be, is all lack-of-religion harmful? I would say no to both questions. From my empirical observations of the world I live in, it appears to me that atheists as well as theists are capable of reaching good moral judgments based on their belief systems. That is more compelling evidence to me than arguments based entirely on abstract reasoning about what religion (or atheism) theoretically would have to lead to.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Diogenes

"Any good that can be done in the name of religion, can be done without it.."
That sounds reasonable. Likewise, any harm that can be done in the name of religion can be done without it.

(Yahzi has just provided a good example. One of the harmful things religions have done is attempt to suppress views that disagreed with theirs. As Yahzi illustrates, one does not need to be religious to desire to do this.)

Since the question is not whether all religions are helpful, but rather whether all religions are harmful, I'd say the latter formulation (that any harm done by religion can be done by lack of religion as well) is more to the point. That would indicate it is not religion, or lack of religion, that causes harm, but something else.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Let's try to get back to basics:

1. Is a belief harmful simply because it is false? (Yes or no)

2. Assuming 1 is Yes, then is a religious belief harmful simply because it is false? (Yes or no)

3. Assuming 2 is Yes, then is a religion harmful if it is based on false beliefs? (Yes or no)

4. Assuming 3 is Yes, then, given that religion is false, is it true that religion is harmful?

You seem to agree with 1, and then stop agreeing somewhere before 4.No, actually I'm still waiting to be convinced of # 1. You've claimed I already agreed with you on this, but looking through what I've written I don't see that anywhere.

Here is the passage that you may have misread:
You seem to be saying that it is evil to believe something that is false...

I prefer to consider that believing in something false is mistaken rather than evil. And we all make mistakes. There's no great shame in that.
...
I agree with you it is wrong to believe in things we know to be false. That's what my religion tells me as well. My religion encourages me to continually question what I believe and to continually seek to learn.
What I agreed with it that it is wrong to believe in erroneous things that one knows to be erroneous. That is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical.

However, I did not agree it is morally wrong to be mistaken.

Is it harmful to be mistaken? In an ideal world, it should be. But is it? That's a question worth exploring, not simply assuming the answer to. You seem to have reached your answer purely by philosophical reasoning, without checking to see if that matches what happens in the real world.

For example, Columbus was mistaken in his belief that the world is small. Isabella's advisers were correct in their belief the world is large. Because Columbus was wrong, and was able to convince Isabella he might be right, he was able to get the funding that led to the discover of the Americas.

If you're a European who profited by that discovery, or a descendant of a European colonist, you might consider that a case where mistaken belief was helpful. If you were one of the people who got put onto reservations, or a descendant of such a person, you might consider that mistake to have been harmful.

Let's take another example. Let's suppose someone has a mistaken belief that a water moccasin that is 20 feet away is actually a king snake. Given that, which is more harmful: a mistaken belief that king snakes are poisonous, or a correct belief that king snakes are harmless?

Now you might argue that it would be better to be correct in both beliefs, and you'd be right. But that wasn't the question. I asked about a particular belief, in isolation. You are asserting that, regardless of any other false beliefs a person may have, we and they are always better off if they correct individual false beliefs. That does not appear to be true.

The presence of additional mistaken beliefs can affect whether or not a particular mistaken belief is harmful. Under some circumstances, it might be less harmful for a person to hold a mistaken belief than to hold a correct one.

That's one reason I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about the fact that people around me may be mistaken in some of their beliefs. I'm more concerned with seeing that my own beliefs, mistaken or not, do not lead to harmful actions.

I can live with being mistaken. I'm sure that I'm mistaken about many things -- as I'm sure you are mistaken about many things, and everyone else is too. That's part of life.

Committing harmful acts because of one's beliefs is something else. That is something I would prefer to avoid, as much as possible. Not every mistaken belief leads to harmful acts, and not every correct belief leads to good acts.

Your mistaken belief that atheism is spelled athiesm, for instance, seems harmless.

I notice, however, that even though this error has been pointed out you have not changed your behavior. Are you continuing in a false belief despite it having been pointed out? According to you, that is morally wrong. I had previously agreed with you on that point. But I don't think you are necessarily immoral simply because you continue misspelling a word -- so even that point, which I thought seemed clear, now seems fuzzy. I can think of various other reasons besides immorality why you would continue misspelling a word.

You know yourself better than I do. Do you indeed believe you are evil for persisting in misspelling atheism? Should people who misspell words even after it is pointed out be excluded from debates on public policy? Or should we tolerate a person despite an obvious error in their belief and permit them to participate fully in the public dialogue, in the thought that other parts of their belief may be valuable and worth hearing?

I go with the latter, based on my religious beliefs. Where do your beliefs lead you on this?

[Nova Land]

RING! RING! RING! RI--

"Y'hello, this is the White House, President Bush speaking."

"Mr. President, this is the head of the CIA, and I have important information for you. You know that JREF web site we monitor? Well, a user named Yahzi has just shown conclusively that all false belief is harmful. You realize, of course, what this means as far as preventing terrorism at home goes."

"Omigod! You mean, if terrorists have any false beliefs about the security measures we're taking, it's harmful?"

"Precisely!"

"And unless Saddam Hussein has completely correct information about our military preparations for invading Iraq, and precise information about all our defense capabilities, that could be devastating too!"

" You catch on quickly, sir. That seems the inescapable conclusion of Yahzi's logic. All false beliefs are harmful and need to be expunged. It does not matter who holds the belief, what their other beliefs are, or even what is meant by harm. It is, by definition, harmful for someone to hold a false belief, so it follows logically that is less harmful if people do not hold a false belief."

"All right, this calls for decisive action. I'm immediately calling for an end to all CIA disinformation campaigns. I had no idea that, by deliberately planting false information with our nation's enemies, we were actually putting ourselves at much greater risk. And as soon as I get off the phone with you, I'll arrange for the Pentagon to put together white papers on all of our secret military capabilities and strategies, so we can get this information out to the public as soon as possible. Thank you for alerting me to this. I need to call the secret service immediately!"

(hangs up -- CLICK) (dials secret service) RING! RING! RING! RIN--

"Hello, this is --"

"No time for chit-chat, this is urgent! You know that assassination plot against me and Cheney you were concerned about?"

"Oh, there's no need to worry about that. We have Cheney at present at an undisclosed location, and have given out information that would lead terrorists to think he's actually somewhere completely different..."

"Migod, man, were you insane! How could you have jeopardized the nation's security so badly? I want you to call a press conference immediately and make public precisely where Cheney is being held. Make sure you also make public the precise details of the security arrangements that are being taken to protect him -- how many guards there are, their patrol schedules, what radio frequencies they're using, any passwords, etc. If the terrorists have false beliefs about where Cheney is staying or how he's being protected, there's no telling what harm could happen!"

"Uh -- yes, sir!"

"Oh, and make sure all the details of my own security precautions are made public as well, as soon as possible! The sooner I can get that information out there so people don't have any false beliefs about it, the safer from harm I should be."

------------------
Thought I'd toss in a little humor before taking off for the weekend. It's sun-up now; as soon as it warms up a little I'll be biking over to visit friends about 25 miles away, to prune their apple and pear trees for them. I'll get home sometime Monday afternoon or evening, so won't be able to respond before then.

[Yahzi]

you would simply restrict them from expressing these publicly
I did not say that.

I said they should not be allowed into public debate. That means they should not be credited with weight or significance when debating public policy. There are a number of things that are not supposed to be in public debate: for instance, rumours about other people's sexual behaviour are generally considered inappropriate when discussing federal monetary policy. These rumour are protected by free speech, but that's not the same at all, and you know it.

Your persistant attempts to paint me as a Gestapo are becoming tiresome. It is also detracting from the issue at hand.

However, I did not agree it is morally wrong to be mistaken.
I already made it clear that I did not either.

What I agreed with it that it is wrong to believe in erroneous things that one knows to be erroneous
How is this not identical to my #1?

Is it harmful to be mistaken? In an ideal world, it should be. But is it? That's a question worth exploring, not simply assuming the answer to. You seem to have reached your answer purely by philosophical reasoning, without checking to see if that matches what happens in the real world.
This is logic worthy of a Jesuit. First you agree that knowingly being wrong is bad, then you argue that being wrong while remaining ignorant might be good. On top of that, you accuse me of pure philosophical reasoning, when it's you trying to make the argument that sometimes it's good to be wrong.

1. How does adding ignorance to something ever make it better?

2. The notion that false information might be better for us than true information is deeply contrary to the normally understood meanings of "false," "true," and "better."

3. The very idea of "checking to see if that matches what happens in the real world" is the empirical verification procedure you are arguing against!

The presence of additional mistaken beliefs can affect whether or not a particular mistaken belief is harmful.
This is true. It is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The question is whether a particular, isolated, singular belief is rendered unbelievable by mere virtue of being false.

Do you indeed believe you are evil for persisting in misspelling atheism?
I don't believe that atheism is spelled "athiesm." If you look closely, you will probably notice that I spell belief as "beleif" relatively often. A consistent typographical reversal of i and e does not signify a false belief: it merely signfies a bad typist.

But, in any case, if I actually believed it was spelled that way, then yes, I would be wrong, I would be morally in error for persisting in my false belief after haveing been made aware of the truth, and my position on how to spell atheism would have no place in a debate in public policy. Note in particular the last clause. Note that it does not exclude my views from public debate, except in the very narrow area where I am empirically unsupported.

One of the harmful things religions have done is attempt to suppress views that disagreed with theirs.
1. I have not advocated suppression, unless you think that calling for individuals to live up to their own moral duties is suppression.

2. Arguing that certain kinds of speech are not appropriate in certain kinds of settings is not an assault on free speech, but rather a defense of certain kinds of settings. Nobody thinks that you should be allowed to present biology lectures at an astronomy convention.

3. I have not been arguing against views that disagree with mine. I have been arguing against views that are false. Rather a bit of difference there, don't you think?