Nice Cartoon

[Aepervius]

religion (http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h256/Calatar/religion.gif). I am not sure if I should put that in general scepticism, (bad) humour or religion, but it certainly go for the punch in the stomach :).

[TobiasTheViking]

a bit aggresive eh?

[Ossai]

Not when you’re stopped on the street and preached at, or have flyers stuck on your windshield, or you have door-to-door missionaries stop by, or have free bibles handed out at school (they used to do it in class – now they have to wait till the kid steps off school grounds), or…, well there are hundreds of examples, just pick your favorite.

[Cuddles]

Pokey the Penguin!!! :p

May be a bit agressive, but it can be so hard beating ideas into people's heads otherwise.

[SphereGuy]

I'll bet fundies don't get past the title before they condemn it so it's unlikely that any will be swayed by it's content as it won't be read, not that they could be swayed, that is.

[Loon]

See, the thing is that none of these arguments are likely to be new to a religious person reading this. So they've already come up with their own responses or rationalizations or apologies or whatever and will continue believing. At the same time, they're being told that, because they believe these things, they are stupid and wrong and bad and evil and not worthy of respect.

So you now have a situation where the author is (ostensibly) trying to persuade people to agree with him while at the same time calling them utterly worthless for not agreeing with him. So he's established himself as an adversary, or at least as something of an ass, and then said "be like me!"

It might be cathartic to read if you've just been accosted by JWs, Mormons, Joel Osteen and several hundred raving Hare Kirishnas, but it's not going to get anybody to change their minds. It ends up being so much anti-religious masturbation.

Plus, the art sucks.

[StewartP]

I thought it was funny and spot on. But then I'm also certain that cartoon was never intended to target the religious people it is ostensibly attacking. I'm sure its actual target is atheists like me. So we can laugh together and bond a little.

[Yahzi]

Yes, it is aggressive.

It's also true.

The failure to apply simple fairness to one's reasoning is a moral crime.

[juryjone]

Aggressive, yes, not likely to win converts, of course, but I have not heard one argument worded exactly this way, and I liked it:


The idea that a being with immense power exists, but never tampers with the world in a noticable way is an absurdly childish hypothetical scenario. It's "I'm not touching you" on a cosmic scale.


MOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!! God keeps bothering me!

[The Atheist]

It ends up being so much anti-religious masturbation.

Which is 1000% better than religious masturbation..........

Every piece of anti-religious propaganda is good. Clever, funny and hard-hitting ones more so.

Thanks for that, Aepervius, I've used the link myself - much funnier than the Muslim cartoons, and I bet nobody sets fire to any embassies as a result!

[tkingdoll]

I liked it.

And it had the cel-shaded Link from Wind Waker in it.

[gnome]

I didn't like it much... it condemns people for succumbing to human nature, something religion is carefully designed and evolved to do. To call people that don't break out of that mindset "idiots" to me is overly harsh, and doesn't give enough credit to those that succeed in that mental leap. It isn't easy, especially if you were raised to it.

[Nihilanth]

I only have one thing to contribute to this conversation. The comic uses images from the Commander Keen series of video games. Commander Keen is the coolest series of games to ever come out on planet Earth. All of you people, myself included, will never be half as cool as Commander Keen.

...okay, I got one more. I agree; religion is dumb and pathetic. Most people here do. But you're not going to convince anyone by yelling at them. They're not gonna go "Oh, this guy on the internet thinks I'm an idiot for believing in god! I better rectify that immediately!" No, most people believe in religion because it fulfills an emotional need for them. Therefore, facts aren't going to convince them, and neither is yelling those facts through the use of a comic. Even if it IS Commander Keen delivering the message, although I myself would believe anything the little scamp would tell me. Whatever you say, Commander, just let me take the Beans With Bacon Megarocket for a spin around the galaxy first!

...ahem...

As a one-time believer in religion and all things woo, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the best way to convince religious nuts and woo alike is to simply put the facts out there. That's all you really can do. Just be understanding but firm; yes, you understand why they believe in what they believe, but they are still, regrettably, wrong. The changeover from irrationality to rationality has to come from within, as corny as that sounds. All you can do is be patient, and either they'll make the jump themselves...or they'll, eventually, die, in which case you won't really have to put up with them.

[Plasmadog]

The changeover from irrationality to rationality has to come from within, as corny as that sounds. All you can do is be patient, and either they'll make the jump themselves...or they'll, eventually, die, in which case you won't really have to put up with them.

Or, to quote Daniel Rutter:
You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into.

[MetalPig]

Yes, it is aggressive.
It's also true.
Aggressive, yes. True, no.
The cartoon makes assumptions about what, how and why people believe, and it's wrong.
I'm not a believer myself, but a catholic friend of mine could rip this cartoon to shreds in 2.4 seconds.

[Yahzi]

a catholic friend of mine could rip this cartoon to shreds in 2.4 seconds.
Actually, he can't.

What he could do is toss out a mountain of bullflop and try to bury the points the cartoon makes. A mountain, I might add, that has taken 1,700 years to build.

But with logic as your shovel, and a little patience, you can dig through all that manure in a few hours, at most.

And then you're right back to square one.

Given that the questions about religion are so plain and simple, why haven't religious people asked them?

All religious people make a special exemption. They treat their religious belief differently than every thing else they believe (and differently than they treat other's beliefs). That is not the point of the cartoon, just one of the obvious facts. The point of the cartoon is doing so is a moral crime.

While I grant that various people have put various levels of effort into thinking about their beliefs, the fact remains that after all the waffling and misdirection, the same problem lays on the table at the end of every argument.

It is necessary to the enterprise of fooling yourself, and that is what all religion is about.

If your Catholic friend would care to have this demonstrated, I would be happy to debate him. But he won't thank you for it later. :D

[Senor_Pointy]

Even if it IS Commander Keen delivering the message, although I myself would believe anything the little scamp would tell me. Whatever you say, Commander, just let me take the Beans With Bacon Megarocket for a spin around the galaxy first!

Perhaps you'd be interested in this other screenshot I found:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1024544e49cadb646b.jpg


:D :D :D ;)

[Beleth]

I see in that cartoon a lot of the same tactics CTers use.

"I can destroy your entire belief system with a simple question! And I prejudge your answer to be pathetic!"

"There are multiple interpretations, therefore none of them can be right!"

"You're an idiot!"


Actually, now that I think about it, the CTers have better tactics.

If this is the level of discourse that gets applause here, I despair.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of intelligently thought-out, reasonable ways to discredit religion. But the points in this cartoon aren't them.

[Nihilanth]

*In the process of sending Senor Pointy all his money.* YOU FIERY BASTARD!

[Yoink]

I see in that cartoon a lot of the same tactics CTers use.

"I can destroy your entire belief system with a simple question! And I prejudge your answer to be pathetic!"

"There are multiple interpretations, therefore none of them can be right!"

"You're an idiot!"

The difference would seem to be that the CTists put questions that can be answered fully and satisfactorily--they just choose not to listen to the answers. Theists, on the other hand, can only answer these questions in one of two ways, either they give a circular argument: "If you believe in the God described in our sacred books, you'll see quite clearly that the sacred books account for his odd-seeming behavior (e.g. God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform)." Or they mount a reasonably self-consistent "god of the gaps" argument (first cause...strong anthropic principle etc--anything we can't otherwise explain "could" be caused by God) and then quietly ignore the fact that a) there's no evidence FOR such a "God" any more than there is evidence against it, and b) there's no rational way to get from that sort of "God" to any of the loving, caring, angry, and otherwise anthropomorphic Gods of anybody's actual religious belief.

Or perhaps you'd care to demonstrate what devastating replies there are to these questions which I've failed to imagine?

[MetalPig]

What he could do is toss out a mountain of bullflop and try to bury the points the cartoon makes. A mountain, I might add, that has taken 1,700 years to build.
Bullflop to you, truth to my friend (who is a she, by the way).

I did not say she could give an answer to the questions in the cartoon, but she can show that the questions a wrong because they are based on assumptions that are wrong.

Given that the questions about religion are so plain and simple, why haven't religious people asked them?
You are doing the same thing as the cartoon. Your 'why' question is meaningless, because the assumption that they don't ask those questions is wrong.
She does. Constantly.

It is necessary to the enterprise of fooling yourself, and that is what all religion is about.
You are incredibly condescending.

[Yahzi]

You are doing the same thing as the cartoon. Your 'why' question is meaningless, because the assumption that they don't ask those questions is wrong.
She does. Constantly.
So you're suggesting she's just so inept that she can't figure out the answers, even though they are obvious?

And you complain about my condenscension... :D

You are incredibly condescending.
It's not condescending. People fool themselves, all the time. In fact, it is the natural state of human beings to fool themselves. There is strong evidence that if we did not regularly fool ourselves, we would die.

But that doesn't mean all self-delusion is equal. You have to eat to live, but if all you eat is Krispy Kremes, you won't live very long.

[MetalPig]

So you're suggesting she's just so inept that she can't figure out the answers, even though they are obvious?
And you complain about my condenscension... :D
No, I'm not suggesting that. You find the answers that are obvious to you, she finds the answers that are obvious to her.

It's not condescending. People fool themselves, all the time.
If you are saying that believing in God is equally self-fooling as not believing, then I might agree.
If you are saying believers fool themselves and non-believers don't, you're being condescending.

[Paul]

If you are saying that believing in God is equally self-fooling as not believing, then I might agree.Not to step on Yahzi's toes here, but, how can rationally not believing in something for which there is no evidence be as self-fooling as irrational faith in the supernatural?


If you are saying believers fool themselves and non-believers don't, you're being condescending.It is not patronising to suggest that those who believe without evidence may be fooling themselves.

[valis]

Pokey the Penguin!!! :p

May be a bit agressive, but it can be so hard beating ideas into people's heads otherwise.

I would guess that beating people over the head is probably the least efficent way of changing people's minds.

[Meffy]

It's poorly thought out.

[c0rbin]

I agree with Beleth.

There are questions about the Universe that science simply is not equipped to answer. Maybe not yet, maybe never.

To ridicule the solace that some in the world find from religion or spirituality is a loathsome form of bullying reserved for people who need to step on someone else to feel better about themselves.

If a religious person has a problem respectfully disagreeing with your world view based on that religion, then perhaps they merit a statement like: "Perhaps you have a vague awareness that religion is retarded..."

Until then, I would hope that an intelligent person would be capable of reserving judgment.

[MetalPig]

Not to step on Yahzi's toes here, but, how can rationally not believing in something for which there is no evidence be as self-fooling as irrational faith in the supernatural?
Assumption again. For my friend, it is perfectly rational to believe.

And suppose that God exists, who has been fooling himself? The rational unbeliever or the irrational believer?

It is not patronising to suggest that those who believe without evidence may be fooling themselves.
True. But Yahzi didn't say 'may be'.

[tkingdoll]

I would guess that beating people over the head is probably the least efficent way of changing people's minds.

Why is religion so popular then?

[c0rbin]

Why is religion so popular then?

I think that spirituality is a human trait. The idea that something is bigger than us (the individual) is part of what makes us human.

If I were to speculate further, I would say that this idea of a need for something larger trends social creatures towards society. Our intelligence helps us rationalize or describe it to eachother.

[Yoink]

And suppose that God exists, who has been fooling himself? The rational unbeliever or the irrational believer?

Ah yes--begging the question: the necessary first step of all defenses of theism. First "suppose that God exists" and THEN tell my why belief in God is unwarranted! I think I predicted this up above, didn't I?

[tkingdoll]

I think that spirituality is a human trait. The idea that something is bigger than us (the individual) is part of what makes us human.

If I were to speculate further, I would say that this idea of a need for something larger trends social creatures towards society. Our intelligence helps us rationalize or describe it to eachother.

I guess I meant 'why are organised religions able to recruit' - I've certainly encountered beat-em-over-the-head tactics.

[MetalPig]

I think I predicted this up above, didn't I?
I don't know, and I don't care.

eta: And I'm not defending theism. I'm defending theists who are called retarded for no good reason.

[Yoink]

I'm not defending theism. I'm defending theists who are called retarded for no good reason.

I agree entirely that calling anybody "retarded" is rude and uncalled for. But if the language of the cartoon is deliberately provocative and insulting, that doesn't mean that its argument is unsound. You seem to say in the sentences quoted above that theism is indefensible (at least, that you see no defense for it), but that there is no "reason" to call theist belief "retarded." Now, if your objection is solely to the offensive word, I agree. But if you'd still object even if we tidied up our language--say, if you'd object to the claim "theism is fundamentally irrational" or "there is no fundamental difference between a belief in Santa Claus and a belief in God" then I would say you are defending theism and I'd also say that you're wrong.

People tip toe around religious faith because it is so important to people and because we have thousands of years of dazzlingly brilliant theological fancy-footwork trying to rationalize the irrational. But the fundamental arguments for and against a belief in any particular religion are actually childishly simple; those advanced in this cartoon are actually surprisingly telling (I note, again, that no one has advanced a simple refutation, only the claim that "it could easily be done").

Arguments for Theism that start from the position that "belief" and "unbelief" are epistemologically equal starting points and that it is in any sense reasonable to BEGIN by saying "suppose that God exists" or even "suppose that there was an omniscient, omnipotent, loving being" are so transparently invalid they would be laughed out of court immediately if they weren't so hallowed by tradition.

[Yahzi]

No, I'm not suggesting that. You find the answers that are obvious to you, she finds the answers that are obvious to her.
But there are only one set of answers that are "obvious." Just as there are only one set of answers that are "true."

In fact, five minutes with Catholic theology makes it clear that the entire enterprise is designed to obscure the obvious. Just look into the "transubstituition of the host," and the absurdities of "accidental" and "essential" natures.

If you are saying believers fool themselves and non-believers don't, you're being condescending.
I am saying non-believers are not fooling themselves in this matter. They often fool themselves elsewhere, since they are human beings.

However, I am also suggesting that not fooling yourself about important things is a good idea. So yes, I am suggesting that fooling yourself by watching TV, thinking your a godking in the sack, or that you can logically presume cause follows effect (aka Hume), are all superior ways of fooling yourself than religion is. I do make a value judgement on various kinds of self-delusion.

But I don't think that's condescending.

[Yahzi]

Assumption again. For my friend, it is perfectly rational to believe.
This can only be true if she has recieved an severely inadequate education.

For any literate person raised in a first-world nation, religion is irrational.


And suppose that God exists, who has been fooling himself? The rational unbeliever or the irrational believer?
The irrational believer. If there is no evidence for God, then believing you have evidence for God makes you delusional.

If there is evidence for God, then it would be a rationally demonstratable case.

Please note that the actual existance of God is irrelevant. One is declared rational based on how one responds to evidence. One is not declared rational by guessing the right answer. This is why your teacher made you "show your work" in math class.

True. But Yahzi didn't say 'may be'.
Correct. It is a demonstrable fact that they are fooling themselves. The demonstration of this fact lies in showing how their alleged beliefs contradict other, equally fervently held beliefs.

The only way a man can believe both sides of a contradiction is by fooling himself somewhere in the middle.

Which brings us to the point: the theists addresssed in the cartoon are being called retarded for a perfectly good reason. We know this, because it is the same reason you would consider adequate for calling them retarded, if we were discussing any other topic.

[c0rbin]

This can only be true if she has recieved an severely inadequate education.

For any literate person raised in a first-world nation, religion is irrational.



Yikers! There are questions science is not geared to answer. To say that those who are creative enough to speculate on them "recieved an[sic] severely inadequate education" is arrogance.

I think you would do better with a little patience and tolerance. The progress of homo sapiens is not stifled by such conjecture, contrarily it is likely a socializing mechanism like religion (organized spirituality) that helped us out of the bush and into agraria.

ETA: I do not like the first sentence I wrote "There are questions science is not geared to answer." as I do not think it communicates what I mean exactly. Please allow me to restate:

There are questions the answers to which only can be speculated upon for lack of any evidence.

[Yoink]

There are questions the answers to which only can be speculated upon for lack of any evidence.

Well, that's only half-true. That is, there are questions about which we have insufficient evidence--true. In these cases we are free to speculate--true. To say that we can "only speculate" is false, however; we can always search for more evidence--as cosmologists do all the time, for example, when it comes to the big "why is there anything rather than nothing" questions. Religious people--with some honorable exceptions--prefer to cling to ignorance: they don't want pesky old science crowding out their space for "speculation." All gods are, in the end, gods of the gaps: when we run out of knowledge, we substitute "belief."

But there is a vast yawning gulf between this statement: "There is nothing to disprove my speculative postulate that an old man with a big white beard sitting on a cloud made the world" and the notion that believing in that old man with a big white beard is in any sense "rational." (Substitute "glowy ball of energy" "Blue faced woman with seven pairs of arms" "Giant Hoover Vacuum Cleaner" for "Old Man with a Big White Beard" as you see fit).

[Beleth]

The difference would seem to be that the CTists put questions that can be answered fully and satisfactorily--they just choose not to listen to the answers. Theists, on the other hand, can only answer these questions in one of two ways,
Actually, the CTists sometimes do put forth questions which cannot be answered to satisfaction. The current brouhaha about the mushroom cloud of Flight 93 is a great example. All we rational people can say is "I'm no expert, neither are you, and even the experts can't tell from the evidence provided." I don't consider that a very good answer, but I dont seem to have much of a choice.

And it depends on what sort of evidence you are looking for. I have found no other atheist besides myself who has any idea what sort of evidence would convince them that the God of the Bible exists. (Unfortunately, I can't tell you; the scenario requires that only God and I know what the scenario is.) To that woman in the chocolate factory, finding a chocolate glob shaped like the Virgin of Guadalupe was enough evidence, and I defy anyone to convince her otherwise. It wouldn't convince me, but it convinces her.

Maybe God really is just a God of the Gaps. There are still an awful lot of gaps, after all...

[Yoink]

Actually, the CTists sometimes do put forth questions which cannot be answered to satisfaction.

Sorry, I obviously didn't phrase that well. In both cases (CT/GOD) there is a postulate that seems incredibly unlikely (9/11 was a conspiracy; there is a Supreme Being who is something like one of the ones described in one of the many many religions that the world has seen through the millenia). When the CTers ask nonbelievers their "troubling questions" they can be answered fully and satisfactorily to the extent that we can say "you have provided no reason why I should doubt the Official Version." Any aspect of the question that remains unanswered is irrelevant until someone provides an answer that does not fit and cannot fit the OV.

The questions placed in the cartoon, however, cannot be honestly and straightforwardly answered by the Theist without at some point forcing an acknowledgment that the belief the Theist holds is irrational--i.e., that it exceeds any evidence that the believer can provide to support it.

In the case of your private compact with a putative God ("meet this test and I'll believe in you") the belief you promise as the reward for passing the test is clearly not "rational." I don't doubt that different people have different standards of "acceptable evidence," but "I saw Jesus in a chocolate bar" is clearly not "rational" proof of Jesus' existence, let alone of his divinity. Similarly, whatever scenario you imagine (and I'll be really surprised if I'm wrong about this--but if I am I'd love you to disabuse me) constituting "proof" of God's existence would be equally consistent with your having A) gone insane or B) being subject to a cruel prank by powerful, telepathic aliens (the probability of whose existence strikes me as low, but as almost infinitely higher than that of a "god").

[trvlr2]

Good posts, Yoink.

Yes,definitely, "what Yoink said".

[Yoink]

I'm a little disappointed that those who were saying how laughably inadequate the arguments in this cartoon were haven't even bothered showing one of their flaws.

[pounce]

i like the cartoon. i am only sorry i don't really have may people to share it with. it made me chuckle, and addresses a base frustration i have with belief in irrational stupid ****.

[MetalPig]

This can only be true if she has recieved an severely inadequate education.
She's a theology student, so I guess you take that as confirmation.

Please note that the actual existance of God is irrelevant.
I conclude that (not) fooling yourself has nothing to do with being right. I wasn't aware of that.

It is a demonstrable fact that they are fooling themselves. The demonstration of this fact lies in showing how their alleged beliefs contradict other, equally fervently held beliefs.
Are you talking about literal interpretation of the Bible now?

[MetalPig]

I agree entirely that calling anybody "retarded" is rude and uncalled for. But if the language of the cartoon is deliberately provocative and insulting, that doesn't mean that its argument is unsound. You seem to say in the sentences quoted above that theism is indefensible (at least, that you see no defense for it),
No. I'm not defending it because I'm not at theist, and would not be able to do a good job.

I went into defensive mode because you peple are insulting a friend of mine.

but that there is no "reason" to call theist belief "retarded." Now, if your objection is solely to the offensive word, I agree. But if you'd still object even if we tidied up our language--say, if you'd object to the claim "theism is fundamentally irrational"
Is that just tidying up? Is 'fundamentally irrational' really just a nice way of saying 'retarded'?
I don't think so.
But you're right, I don't object to that claim.

But the fundamental arguments for and against a belief in any particular religion are actually childishly simple; those advanced in this cartoon are actually surprisingly telling
I'm sure that the rants of the cartoon are applicable to a number of theists, but certainly not all of them. There are those who think about what they believe, and make adjusments where necessary.

[MetalPig]

I'm a little disappointed that those who were saying how laughably inadequate the arguments in this cartoon were haven't even bothered showing one of their flaws.

Well, there's the questions that are supposed to 'bring down the entire framework' of religion.
"Why is there evil?" Why wouldn't there be? People are capable of evil, so there is.
"Who made God?" I don't know the official response, but 'God is eternal' seems okay.
"Why should I trust you after the Santa Claus thing?" You don't have to. It's perfectly okay to think for yourself.

And the assumptions: "you didn't ask those questions", "or maybe you did and accepted the answers without thinking", "Maybe you were afraid to ask those questions", "your comfortable worldview is more imporrtant than truth". Regarding that last one, truth is no factor in this, as Yahzi claimed. Even if they are right, they're still fooling themselves.
Regarding the other ones: based on nothing and certainly not true for all believers.

"Is a godless world too terrible to contemplate?" No.
"Is [God] really so attractive an idea..." As most theists will tell you, God is love. How would that not be attractive?

"Maybe disinterest is the only real problem" Or maybe not. For my friend it isn't.

"God never tampers with the world in a noticable way." 1. That's what you think, and 2. Would you ever admit it if he did?

[Stellafane]

This can only be true if she has recieved an severely inadequate education.

For any literate person raised in a first-world nation, religion is irrational...

I think you're treading very, very close to arrogance here. I'm a literate person, raised in a first-world nation, who received a secular education right through college. I don't consider religion irrational. Certainly every religion I've ever heard about includes dogma and practices that strike me as irrational. But the overarching concept of religion itself is not necessary irrational in my opinion.

[Yahzi]

Yikers! There are questions science is not geared to answer.
There are also questions geared to be unanswerable.

The two sets are identical.

To say that those who are creative enough to speculate on them "recieved an[sic] severely inadequate education" is arrogance.
By speculating, you mean "make stuff up without checking the facts first."

I sumbit that pretending that a person's raw, uneducated imagination is on the same level as centuries of careful observation, dedication, and hard work by people of often extreme intelligence, is arrogance.

I think you would do better with a little patience and tolerance.
I think I would do better if other people were educated enough to know that their random musings are not equivalent paths to the truth as hard, objective data.

The progress of homo sapiens is not stifled by such conjecture, contrarily it is likely a socializing mechanism like religion (organized spirituality) that helped us out of the bush and into agraria.
This is a controversial topic, but suffice to say I am one of that crowd that, while able to appreciate what religion can offer a primitive society, feel that it has been more of hindrance than an asset for the last few centuries.

There are questions the answers to which only can be speculated upon for lack of any evidence.
I also prefer this formulation, as it makes my response even more appropriate.

Don't get me wrong: I love speculating. I've read probably a million pages of speculation, having devoured more fantasy and science fiction than I can meaningfully describe. Speculation is great. Speculation is fun. Speculation is even necessary.

But confusing it with the search for truth is extremely unhelpful.

If you have a great story to tell, that's great. Tell it. Just don't pretend it's got anything to do with truth. One can extract all sorts of true comments on human nature from Tolkien's books, and those comments are what make his books great. But at no point did Tolkien present those ideas as anything more than a story.*

(* Geek note: I realize that is not strictly true, but I assume the general audience here is not interested in that particular discussion, insomuch as having it requires extreme levels of geekiness. :D )

[Yahzi]

I don't consider religion irrational.
Please forgive me for the presumptiousness of my next comment; but perhaps that is because you haven't considered it.

In my experience, even secular educations are extremely careful never to actually require one to consider religion in light of rational thought. Like how in chemistry class they teach you everything you need to know to mix nitroglycerin, without ever actually mentioning the fact that they have just taught you how to blow things up.

Our society is quite sensitive to religious sensibilities, and it is rare for a professor to say, "Now consider how this fact, which all of you have just accepted as true, impacts your religious beliefs." You will never see that question on a test, and teaching the next test is considerable part of what colleges do.

Certainly every religion I've ever heard about includes dogma and practices that strike me as irrational.
Just consider that for one moment: you have never heard of a religion that is not (in your opinion) irrational, but you think I am treading close to arrogance to suggest that no such religion exists?

Doesn't that strike you as an unnecessarily nuanced position?

Why would you have such a pre-emptively friendly view of a phenomona that in your personal experience is wholly irrational? My answer is: because you are a polite member of our society, and have absorbed the cultural mores of that society.

It should be obvious by now that polite cannot describe me. :D But that's not the same thing as arrogance.

But the overarching concept of religion itself is not necessary irrational in my opinion.
I think it is. To show that we have to first determine what your overarching concept is. Here is mine:

Religion is revealed knowledge; knowledge gained by means other than empirical observation.

I think once you phrase it like that that, it's necessary irrationality becomes obvious.

How would you define religion in a way that does not, at the outset, exceed the bounds of rational inquiry?

[Yahzi]

She's a theology student, so I guess you take that as confirmation.
Theology studies are an exercise in confusion, not clarity. As evidence I offer the fact that there are so many theologies that utterly contradict each other. One presumes that further study brings people closer to the same position; and in science, it does. In theology, it does not.

I conclude that (not) fooling yourself has nothing to do with being right. I wasn't aware of that.
I am unable to understand this comment.

My point was that the rationality of your stance depends on the information you have to work with. Guessing the truth is not rational, nor is "being wrong about O.J. killing Nichole because you didn't know about his evil twin" irrational. Rationality is a judgement we apply to the performance, not a gold-standard of truth.

It is the case that we have found rationality and truth to be so commonly linked as to suggest that they are one and the same; but this suggestion would be unjustifiable, as Hume demonstrate hundreds of years ago. Rationality is not always truth, and although we strongly suspect truth is always rational, we cannot prove it.

But I wouldn't suggest betting against it. :D

Are you talking about literal interpretation of the Bible now?
See that? That's one of the confusions invented by theology. Just what in the heck does the "literal" interpretation of the Bible mean?

The Bible is a book. It is a work of literature. Like all texts, it must be interpreted to be understood. One should read the Bible as one reads any other text, applying the same rules of context and meaning that one applies to any other text.

But theologians are unhappy with the results that produces, and hence invent a special way of reading the Bible: "non-literally." There is no other text in the world that they apply this method to. They cannot describe the rules or systematic procedures of this new method. They cannot explain why this method produces so much disagreement over what the text means. And yet they want to castigate us, the ordinary public, for the temerity to suggest that the Bible should be read like any other work. Going so far as to invent a term that means "read it normally," and then sniffing in refined scholarly distaste when the hoi polloi ask them to perform that plebian task.

And you call me arrogant!

[MetalPig]

Theology studies are an exercise in confusion, not clarity. As evidence I offer the fact that there are so many theologies that utterly contradict each other.
And yet, it is possible to study them.

I am unable to understand this comment.
I thought that you had to be wrong to be albe to fool yourself. Apparently, I was mistaken.

See that? That's one of the confusions invented by theology. Just what in the heck does the "literal" interpretation of the Bible mean?
It probably means what you think it means. Some religions do it, others don't.

I didn't mean to confuse you; I was trying to get a clearer picture of what you said.

[Yahzi]

Well, there's the questions that are supposed to 'bring down the entire framework' of religion.
Your responses to these questions rather demonstrate the point of the cartoon, insomuch as the answers are so self-evident that one does not expect to need to provide them.

"Why is there evil?" Why wouldn't there be? People are capable of evil, so there is.
God doesn't want evil, and God is capable of preventing evil. If the ability and desire of people is capable of producing evil, then why isn't the ability and desire of God capable of producing no evil?

How could you give such a response without recognizing that it is self-defeating? Your entire mechanism for explaining evil applies identically to the prevention of evil; and in virtually every conversation I have ever had, God was presumed to be more powerful than man. You state that that will and power create a certain state of affairs; then you state that infinite will and infinite power cannot create a state of affairs.

Do you see the obvious logical contradiction here? And do you see how someone could understandably feel that you had not seriously considered your answer before issuing it?

"Who made God?" I don't know the official response, but 'God is eternal' seems okay.
Is that response okay for anything else?

The question "Who made God" is in response to the claim, "God made the world." If you think it's fine to assert God was just eternal and not created, then why wouldn't you think it is fine to assert the world is just eternal and not created?

Creating a special exemption for a particular claim is not rational. Worse, it's not fair. It is this sense of unfairness that prompts cartoons like this: the recognition that theologians expect to issue answers that they would not accept. And you are demonstrating that unfairness here, when you accept an answer that we know you would not accept to any other question.

You are also demonstrating your complete unawareness of the argument, since you don't seem to know why the question would even have been asked in the first place.

"Why should I trust you after the Santa Claus thing?" You don't have to. It's perfectly okay to think for yourself.
No, it isn't

Thinking for yourself requires empirical investigation. And as an theologian will tell you, emprical investigation will never lead you to God. For that, you need faith; and for faith, you need to trust what other people tell you. By definition - unless you're defending the practice of inventing your own faith out of whole cloth.

Again your answer is so shallow and inadequate as to be insulting to the person who asked it. Why not just flip them off and call them a booger-head? The two answers have approximately the same amount of substance and relevance, and demonstrate the same level of concern for the legitimacy of the question.

Regarding the other ones: based on nothing and certainly not true for all believers.
They were not based on nothing; certainly I have experienced all of those reasons in my discussions. And they were not presented as true for all beleivers. They were presented as options, and as I understood the text, not necessarily the only set of options. For example, I assure you that one option the author would recognize as possible is "You know it's baloney but you want to keep stealing from people." The fact that he did not specifically list that option does not mean he repudiates it. Rather, it shows that, despite the tone of the cartoon, he actually respects his audience: he assumes they have functioning moral sensibilities, even if they have chosen to suspend them in regards to this topic.

"Is [God] really so attractive an idea..." As most theists will tell you, God is love. How would that not be attractive?
Did you even read the rest of that panel?

How are we not to feel insulted when you respond without even reading the whole panel?

"God never tampers with the world in a noticable way." 1. That's what you think, and 2. Would you ever admit it if he did?
I have come to the conclusion that is impossible to have a conversation with a theist without them insulting your integrity at one point or another. And it's always this one: "you're so closed-minded you wouldn't believe anything you don't like." They often issue this challenge on the same page in which they assert that they believe because of faith, and nothing can ever change their minds.

Have I given you reason to think I would deny plain empirical fact, solely to defend my personal position? Do you think it is fair to assert this of me, without even a shred of evidence?

After having complained that the cartoon is unfair and insulting, your answers to the standard questions it poses are equally unfair and insulting. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose that no theist is ever able to respond to those questions without being insulting? Why do you suppose that atheists should submit to the constant and automatic dismissal of their moral integrity, without ever once responding in kind?

I went into defensive mode because you peple are insulting a friend of mine.
I have some bad news for you: that cartoon is aimed squarely at you.

[Yahzi]

And yet, it is possible to study them.
It is possible to study Lamarckian genetics.

I thought that you had to be wrong to be albe to fool yourself. Apparently, I was mistaken.
I don't think you understand my comments about fooling onself. I certainly don't understand your responses.

If one comes to a conclusion for inadequate reasoning, one is fooling oneself. Regardless of whether that conclusion is true or not.

"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

It probably means what you think it means. Some religions do it, others don't.
Then I don't understand why you brought it up. Are you asserting that religions that do read the Bible literally are more rational?

In any case, if one-line dismissals are all you have to offer to my carefully thought out responses, I predict a short-life span for this conversation.

[Stellafane]

...Just consider that for one moment: you have never heard of a religion that is not (in your opinion) irrational, but you think I am treading close to arrogance to suggest that no such religion exists?

Doesn't that strike you as an unnecessarily nuanced position?

Not really. Every government in the world does irrational things, and has irrational aspects interwoven into it. It doesn't mean the concept of government itself is intrinsically irrational.

Besides, a more careful reading of my words should indicate I didn't say I never heard of a religion that wasn't irrational. I said I never heard of one that didn't include at least some dogma and practices I consider irrational. The difference in my view is not a nuanced one. We are all capable of irrational things from time to time. Doesn't mean we should all be called irrational, does it?

[Yoink]

Metalpig, the fundamental mistake that I think you are making is the one I've been predicting from the beginning. You are starting from the position: "let us suppose that there really is a God: would the observed facts of the universe rule that supposition out?"

The answer to that question is, of course, no. Yes, there could be a God. There could be a God who is very like the Christian one, for example. He could have set the world up for inexplicable reasons as a "testing ground" for souls in which the point at which you die determines your "score" on the test (die before repenting--eternal torment; die afterwards--eternal bliss: it's the biggest episode of Survivor ever! Of course, if you're a predestinationist protestant you think the whole test is "rigged"). Your "why shouldn't there be evil" answer (and the others) makes sense from this perspective.

But if we start (as any fair argument must--something that everyone realizes automatically in every field other than theology) from the position that the absence of proof of a contrary is not proof for, then your answers are absurd. If we imagine ourselves as people who have never heard of the concept of God, trying to rationally explore the proposition that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being who is good and loves his creation, then the presence of evil and misery in the world is a major stumbling block. The observed psychological/anthropological fact that people like to believe in Big-Daddies-in-the-Sky which do not exist (Santa Claus) is not proof against the existence of God, but it provides a nice Occams razor test for all claims as to the real existence of such Big-Daddies. And so forth.

If you don't start from "disprove the existence of God" (an impossible task) but start from "o.k., show us evidence that suggests we ought to believe in God" then the list of even half-way plausible arguments rapidly narrows to variations on the divine watchmaker fallacy: the world needs a Prime Mover.

Interestingly, your misunderstanding of Yahzi's point is a variation on this same petitio principii problem that I'm pointing out. You think that the "rationality" of a belief in God is affected by whether or not there is a God. That's why it seems fair to you say "o.k., but if we suppose that God exists, wouldn't it be reasonable that...": but as Yahzi's terrific quotation from Lincoln shows, unjustified true belief is no more rational than unjustified false belief.

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, people are told that without gods they will turn into willful murdering pedophiles. They are told that people who are atheists are the cause of all the evil in the world. They are told you will be smited unless you do believe in some god/s.

There are so few people that are willing to show themselves as atheists in public, that religious folks have no reason not to believe things that are preached at them.

Thing is, I don't commit crimes, I don't murder, I absolutely condemn pedophiles, yet I'm evil for not having a religion?

I seriously don't get it. I don't know any murderers that don't believe in god, yet they still kill. Do the religious tell themselves that murderers are actually atheists in disguise?

When I went to church to camp as a little one, they told us kids not to even be friends with non-theists. I know adults that say their only wish in the world is to share their faith.

With this stuff so ingrained, I'm too afraid to tell anyone my true feelings. And that cartoon will just be laughed off as the product of ignorance.

Instead, us atheists must somehow show that our faith in ourselves is what will get us through. We stand strong against their accusations, intolerance, and segregation.

I will instead be tolerant. Tolerant of them, their beliefs, and ask only for the same in return.

Do unto others. That cartoon is all wrong. There is a more tactful and admirable way to send the same message.

[Yoink]

Eos of the Eons: I agree that the cartoon is "tactless but largely correct." Just a further comment about the bizarreness of the claim that religion is a source of ethical behaviour:

I have never understood the notion that there is some connection between the claim that God will punish evildoers and "morality" or "ethics." We all agree that ethical behaviour is doing good for its own sake. We all agree that if someone helps a little old lady cross a street because someone has put a gun to their heads and said "help this little old lady or else!" that what they are doing is not a "kind" or "good" act, but simply succumbing to superior force.

How does any part of the normal understanding of God's role in the world have any relationship to any question that we might reasonably call "ethical"? God, in the Christian myth, demands our love at gunpoint. If we fail to jump through certain hoops (even if we are unaware of the existence of those hoops) he will burn us through all eternity. That's a good premise for an opera. It's normal operating procedure for a Mafia don. But in what possible way could it be construed as having some connection with the "good" or with "ethics"?

If God appears to me tomorrow and tells me "do X, Y, Z or burn" I'll do X, Y, and Z, for sure. But I won't have learnt a single new ethical principle, or had any of my current ethical commitments clarified.

[Eos of the Eons]

That's all true Yoink.

I just don't agree with giving the religious fuel for their fire. Instead, I'd rather be the exact person they don't expect, by being myself. If one is interolerant to their intolerance, then you only sink to their level. Be the better person in the face of their misgivings.

[Pup]

With this stuff so ingrained, I'm too afraid to tell anyone my true feelings.

I think that's the key. The cartoon was funny, and was meant to be funny, in the same way that watching an insufferably pompous person getting hit by a pie is funny. Throwing a pie is against society's rules and it's a little bit mean, but deep down inside "we'd" all love to do it, because durn it, he had it coming.

So the cartoon throws a pie right in the face of religious bombast. It comes out and says what "we've" all been thinking, but have been too polite or intimidated to say.

There are those who haven't been thinking it because they do believe in religion, and those who have already come right out and said it, but I don't think they're the main audience the cartoon is aiming for. Pie-in-the-face humor isn't really meant to convince pompous people to be less pompous. It's meant to give the little guy a chance to vicariously turn the tables even if he doesn't have the guts or the mean spirit to do it in real life, and on that level, I think it's funny and it succeeds.

[Eos of the Eons]

I hear ya pup http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/thup.GIF

[Yahzi]

It doesn't mean the concept of government itself is intrinsically irrational.
But the concept of religion is instrinsically irrational.

[Yahzi]

I just don't agree with giving the religious fuel for their fire.
I fully understand the wisdom of that.

However, I maintain that if we never demonstrate ordinary human responses, thiests will never consider us to be ordinary human beings.

[Yahzi]

You are starting from the position: "let us suppose that there really is a God:
I have to agree: if you start from the proposition that God exists, then all of us atheists really do look like crabby, irrational cranks.

:D

[Jorghnassen]

There are also questions geared to be unanswerable.

The two sets are identical.


Really? Let me ask you a question: is slavery right or wrong?

Now, tell me, is science geared to answer this question? Is this question unanswerable?

That cartoon was crummy and unfunny, so my guess is that its only purpose is to flatter the author's ego and to preach to a particularly agressive anti-religious choir. As an atheist I think there are much better ways to proselytize atheism (though I'm not the type to advocate such a thing). As a mean to promote critical thinking (something I am definitely in favor of), this cartoon is a complete failure.

[Stellafane]

But the concept of religion is instrinsically irrational.

So you say. Pardon me, however, if I don't entirely agree. Beyond that, I have little to add; I'm really not qualified to be religion's spokesperson or defender.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm

The site above does what the cartoon does, but a bit more toned down. It's over the top wee bit here and there, but it may accomplish a lot more.

[Walter Wayne]

Most of that comic seems to be an attack on a particular subset of religious people. The more vocal, evangelical christians certainly fit the stereotype he argues against to a degree, but he makes a rather blanket statement. What is obvious from this is that he is rather ignorant of the variety in religious people or even just christians.

When you see how he assumes his questions are answered in a particular way in becomes obvious. If you change those question into statements reflecting the assumption he made the idiocy of the argument becomes apparent.

Every single one of his questions, if answered in the way many of the less evangelical christians would answer it would undermine his argument. He's basically painted a broad group of people based on a subset of them. I think I detect a bit of confirmation bias going in his interactions with the religious.

Walt

[MetalPig]

God doesn't want evil,
Why do you think that?

And do you see how someone could understandably feel that you had not seriously considered your answer before issuing it?
Yes, I see that, and I see that it's based on an assumption that we can't be sure is true.

The question "Who made God" is in response to the claim, "God made the world." If you think it's fine to assert God was just eternal and not created, then why wouldn't you think it is fine to assert the world is just eternal and not created?
There is evidence that shows that the world is not eternal. Such evidence does not exist for God.

You ask "Who made God?" based on the assumption that God needed to be made. How can you be sure of that?
Your reasoning 'nothing else is eternal, so God isn't, either' is a logical fallacy.

You are also demonstrating your complete unawareness of the argument, since you don't seem to know why the question would even have been asked in the first place.
I'm not new to this sort of discussion. In fact, I'm usually on your side.

No, it isn't
Yes it is.

unless you're defending the practice of inventing your own faith out of whole cloth.
In fact, I would prefer that. I don't like organized religion.

Again your answer is so shallow and inadequate as to be insulting to the person who asked it.
Again, no insult is intended. I'm just saying you (or rather, the cartoon) are wrong. Thinking is allowed.
What you seem to hate is that some (most?) theist don't think for themselves. But it is certainly not true that they are not allowed to.

Did you even read the rest of that panel?
Yes I did. And then I pointed out the attractive side of God.

I have come to the conclusion that is impossible to have a conversation with a theist without them insulting your integrity at one point or another. [...] Do you think it is fair to assert this of me, without even a shred of evidence?
I'm not a theist (which you seem to have missed the other times I said it), and a simple yes or no would have sufficed.
Again, no insult was intended, I merely asked a question.
Your answer seems to be "yes, in the case of plain empirical fact".
May I conclude that one-offs will not be interpreted as Gods work, even if they happened to you personally?

Why do you suppose that no theist is ever able to respond to those questions without being insulting?
That is not my experience. I've had very friendly, non-insulting discussions with theists.
So I can't answer your question.

Why do you suppose that atheists should submit to the constant and automatic dismissal of their moral integrity, without ever once responding in kind?
What? What? Are you assuming something again?
I never said we should submit to that, so your question why is meaningless.

I have some bad news for you: that cartoon is aimed squarely at you.
No it's not. I hope you know why.

[MetalPig]

I don't think you understand my comments about fooling onself. I certainly don't understand your responses.
I was trying to say that before our discussion, I wasn't aware of the italicised part of:
If one comes to a conclusion for inadequate reasoning, one is fooling oneself. Regardless of whether that conclusion is true or not.

Then I don't understand why you brought it up.
You said: "...how their alleged beliefs contradict other, equally fervently held beliefs."
I wasn't sure what you meant, so I asked "Are you talking about literal interpretation of the Bible now?"
It was meant as a simple yes/no question, not as an invitation to discuss literal interpretation of the Bible.

[MetalPig]

Your "why shouldn't there be evil" answer (and the others) makes sense from this perspective.
Yes, and it's their perspective. How do you expect them to defend their position from our point of view?

You can't expect them to argue their points starting from something they don't believe is true.

You think that the "rationality" of a belief in God is affected by whether or not there is a God.
No, I was confused by the terminology, I thought 'fooling yourself' implied being wrong.

I'm aware that believing in God requires faith and is irrational. But starting from there, it's possible to have a rational view of the world.

[Cuddles]

I'm aware that believing in God requires faith and is irrational. But starting from there, it's possible to have a rational view of the world.

So you admit that religion is irrational. That was the sole point of this argument. Whatever your view is of the rest of the world, belief in a god is irrational.

Personally I would go further and say that any worldview that uses a god as a reason for any actions is wholly irrational, but that is just my opinion.

[MetalPig]

So you admit that religion is irrational. That was the sole point of this argument.
Belief in God is irrational. I don't think I said that religion is irrational.
For me, 'religion' and 'belief in God' are not the same.
Belief in God is just that.
Religion is 'the rest': a set of rules to live by, the interpretation of His word, churches, the lot.

[Cuddles]

Belief in God is irrational. I don't think I said that religion is irrational.
For me, 'religion' and 'belief in God' are not the same.
Belief in God is just that.
Religion is 'the rest': a set of rules to live by, the interpretation of His word, churches, the lot.

So it's irrational to believe in god, but somehow not irrational to spend huge amounts of time and money building churches devoted to it, interpret the word of something that either doesn't exist or at best is irrational and base your entire system of living on an irrational assumption.

Devoting your whole life to something that you agree is irrational takes irrationality to a whole new level.

[Walter Wayne]

So you admit that religion is irrational. That was the sole point of this argument. Whatever your view is of the rest of the world, belief in a god is irrational.The sole point of the argument? The cartoon states that "your failure to reject religion indicates you are colossally, irredeemably stupid." That is slightly different than irrational.

Second, how can you say belief in a god is irrational, whatever your view of the rest of the world. Not everybody has the same facts at hand that we do. The biology taught at most high-schools glosses over evolution. Students are taught pop-evolution. And science is often taught as a simple hypothesis, test, conclusion methodology without giving the foundations and history that have brought about the actual methodology of science.

Certainly given the knowledge many people have there is little reason to trust science as an investigative tool more than any other.

That said, even in those cases where people have the knowledge that should lead rationally to a rejection of religion, the argument linked in the OP is still a piece of generalization. "You are idiots, and I hate you." Calling them idiots makes me think he has met very few religious people or, more likely, he colours them all based on a few. The "I hate you." coupled with the final "and I refurse to respect people who hold [religious beliefs]" says more about his character, or lack there of, than anything else.

Walt

[MetalPig]

... but somehow not irrational to ...
I didn't say religion is not irrational, either.

There are too many religions, and I know too little about them, to say they are rational or irrational.

[Jorghnassen]

Here's (http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2176) a nice cartoon that questions some of the premises of certain religions in a much more elegant, concise and funny manner.

[Cuddles]

The sole point of the argument? The cartoon states that "your failure to reject religion indicates you are colossally, irredeemably stupid." That is slightly different than irrational.

Second, how can you say belief in a god is irrational, whatever your view of the rest of the world. Not everybody has the same facts at hand that we do. The biology taught at most high-schools glosses over evolution. Students are taught pop-evolution. And science is often taught as a simple hypothesis, test, conclusion methodology without giving the foundations and history that have brought about the actual methodology of science.

Certainly given the knowledge many people have there is little reason to trust science as an investigative tool more than any other.

My statement was in answer to the point I quoted "But starting from there, it's possible to have a rational view of the world.". What I meant was that it may be entirely possible to have a rational view of the world, whether you believe in god or not, but that does not change the fact that belief in god is irrational.

That said, even in those cases where people have the knowledge that should lead rationally to a rejection of religion, the argument linked in the OP is still a piece of generalization. "You are idiots, and I hate you." Calling them idiots makes me think he has met very few religious people or, more likely, he colours them all based on a few. The "I hate you." coupled with the final "and I refurse to respect people who hold [religious beliefs]" says more about his character, or lack there of, than anything else.

Walt

I admit that it is a generalisation, but I think it is based on him having met far too many religious people. I am always annoyed by people trying to force their faith on others, or even just refusing to admit that their beliefs are not proven absolute truths. I'm sure their are plenty of people who are happy to believe whatever they like and never bother anyone, and it is a shame that they will be offended by this cartoon. However, they must know that crazy evangelicals exist and should be able to see that it is aimed at this sort of person and not at themselves.

[Cuddles]

I didn't say religion is not irrational, either.

There are too many religions, and I know too little about them, to say they are rational or irrational.

Religion doesn't exist without a belief in some kind of god or higher power. If belief in god is irrational, as you have admitted, then religion must also be irrational. Especially since basing your morality (and often whole life) around an irrational belief can hardly be said to be rational.

For my friend, it is perfectly rational to believe.

Belief in God is irrational.

It's irrational to believe in god, but not irrational for your friend to believe in god? Please bear in mind that no-one here is trying to insult you or your friend, but the fact is humans make irrational descisions and belief in gods is one of them.

[Yahzi]

Really? Let me ask you a question: is slavery right or wrong?
It's wrong.

Now, tell me, is science geared to answer this question?
Yes.

Is this question unanswerable?
No.

Look, there are two positions:

1) Morality is something people make up.

2) Morality is something people discover.

If you choose option 1), then nothing is objectively wrong. As long as an entire society approrves on an act, then by definition it is morally correct. Under this view, the only problem with Nazi morality is that they lost. Choosing this option requires one to assume that human beings are blank slates, which culture can stamp in any shape or form. Since this is a demonstrably false claim about human nature, this option is untenable.

If you choose option 2), then you are asserting that morality is a function of the external world, either a god or a biological expression of game theory mathematics. Once you reject the god option, you are left with making an investigation of biological human nature to uncover what is and is not moral. And what better tool to investigate biology than science?

That cartoon was crummy and unfunny,
Astonishing, isn't it, that a person who just lectured me on absolutism would issue such an absolutist claim. You are willing to tell me that morality cannot be answered objectively, but you put no qualifiers on your apparently objective judgement of a piece of humor.

For the record, the cartoon is in fact funny: it fulfills the structure of a joke, with appropriate timing, unexpectedness, and irony. I realize this an appeal to objective facts, which you have already declared to be useless in forming that gold standard of truth - your opinion.

As an atheist I think there are much better ways to proselytize atheism
That's a good point. Why don't all those freethinkers shut up and think what you tell them too? Why can't people grasp that there is only one acceptable way to think freely, and that is your way?

As a mean to promote critical thinking (something I am definitely in favor of), this cartoon is a complete failure.
For you.

Why are so many people here unable to grasp this basic fact: the rest of the planet is not you. What works for you does not necessarily work for the rest of the planet. While I completely agree that reasonable dialogue is the preferred method of resolving differences, I am also able to understand that not everyone agrees with me. There are people out there who resolve their problems through violence, no matter how nice and reasonable you try to be. Those people can only be dealt with through violence. Similarlily, there are people out there who only respect strong emotions, and cartoons like this show that we are capable of strong emotions. There are a million reasons why it is sometimes necessary to say to people: "By the way, you are failing your moral duty, and I hate you for that."

Nobody is suggesting that all atheists respond like this. No one is suggesting that atheism should only be presented this way. But people are suggesting that it should not, because it cannot be helpful. This claim unduly simplifies the spectrum of human differences.

I've said it before: if you're always nice, eventually people suspect you're trying to sell them something.

[Yahzi]

I didn't say religion is not irrational, either.
So you didn't say it was irrational, but you didn't say it was not irrational?

In other words, you didn't say anything at all.

Welcome to my /ignore list.

[Yoink]

Yes, and it's their perspective. How do you expect them to defend their position from our point of view?

You can't expect them to argue their points starting from something they don't believe is true.

Metalpig, you aren't seriously defending petitio principii as a rational way of proceeding in an argument, are you? If the question at stake is "is there a God" it cannot possibly be "rational" to say "o.k., I believe in God, so I'll begin from the assumption that God exists." That may in fact be what most believers do (in my observation it is in fact what almost all believers do), but that--as an anthropological fact--is no defence of its "rationality."

[Yahzi]

So you say. Pardon me, however, if I don't entirely agree.
I explained why I thought religion was irrational in one sentence. I was hoping for a response in the same level of detail.
Beyond that, I have little to add; I'm really not qualified to be religion's spokesperson or defender.
But you are in fact defending religion. You are asserting that calling it irrational is unjustifiable, even while you refuse to present any reasoning for your position.

You want to tell me I am wrong, but you don't want to argue with me.

In the future, if you want to tell me I am wrong, but are not interested in showing how I am wrong or how I can correct my thinking, you could possibly save yourself some time and not bother. I already know plenty of people think I am wrong. I am only interested in those who can explain how I am wrong.

[Yahzi]

The cartoon states that "your failure to reject religion indicates you are colossally, irredeemably stupid." That is slightly different than irrational.
Yes. The cartoon is a moral claim, not a logical one. The moral consequences of choosing irrationality is that you incur the disapproval of your peers.

At least, that used to be how society worked. Nowdays the consequences are that you get put on TV.

:D

Second, how can you say belief in a god is irrational, whatever your view of the rest of the world.
Right, you have to have an adequate education.

And I agree (as I tried to say to Stella) that even people educated in a Western university have not necessarily been asked these specific questions.

Which is the point of the cartoon: to expose them to a level of emotion that causes them to think, "Why is this guy so mad?" Which might then get their attention long enough for them to think about the issues.

Hopefully they will try to defend themselves from his invective. And then they will discover they cannot.

The point of the cartoon is not to make the case. It is to get their attention.

And sometimes you have to shout to reach some people.

[Aepervius]

Less controversial I think, and far more humoristic :

Sinfest today (http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2006-08-21.gif)

[Yoink]

I'm perpetually surprised by the weird and contradictory notions of "politeness" that get invoked whenever the discussion of religion comes up. It's considered rude to question people's beliefs--they're so profoundly important to them, after all!

But, oddly enough, it's considered to be perfectly acceptable for someone to publicly profess the belief that failure to believe the same things as them will result in eternal torment. It's quite o.k. for someone to tell me that as an atheist I am morally bankrupt, permeated by sin, and doomed to burn in hellfire for all time.

Not just that, it's considered perfectly o.k. for someone who believes in God A to believe that everyone who believes in Gods B thru Z is deluded by a false idol and will burn in hell through all eternity (or whatever punishment God A has seen fit to people unlucky enough not to be born in a community that practices that religion). Don't get me wrong, it's considered impolite to harp on about this in specific and accusatory detail (it's bad form for someone to preach about how the Jews will burn in hellfire for failing to convert to Christianity, for example), but it's quite alright to publicly proclaim beliefs that include these things as their inevitable corollory (who ever got shushed for saying "I believe that Jesus is the sole path to salvation" for example?).

But it's this very aspect of religious belief that makes it, to me, not just "irrational" but harmful. Religious belief usually entails a toxic blend of ethnocentric corollary beliefs: MY God/gods are the best, Your stupid superstitions simply prove what a backward people you are.

Now, of course, it is perfectly possible to believe in God in a wishy-washy non-denominational way: "Oh, Supreme Spirit of Generalized Personal Empowerment please don't allow anyone to harsh anyone else's mellow, Thou Dudeness." History suggests, however, that such beliefs are not satisfying to many people, and that all religions have a tendency to reinforce tribalistic dehumanization of "unbelievers."

So--there are good reasons to criticize religion as not only inadequately supported by the facts, but as actively noxious for general social well-being.

[Jorghnassen]

Look, there are two positions:

1) Morality is something people make up.

2) Morality is something people discover.

If you choose option 1), then nothing is objectively wrong. As long as an entire society approrves on an act, then by definition it is morally correct. Under this view, the only problem with Nazi morality is that they lost. Choosing this option requires one to assume that human beings are blank slates, which culture can stamp in any shape or form. Since this is a demonstrably false claim about human nature, this option is untenable.


Evidence for "demonstrably false claim about human nature"?

If you choose option 2), then you are asserting that morality is a function of the external world, either a god or a biological expression of game theory mathematics. Once you reject the god option, you are left with making an investigation of biological human nature to uncover what is and is not moral. And what better tool to investigate biology than science?


And game theory math exists in some platonic realm of ideas? Morality reduces to biology? Isn't this a tad reductionist, and falling into the realm of scientism?

Astonishing, isn't it, that a person who just lectured me on absolutism would issue such an absolutist claim. You are willing to tell me that morality cannot be answered objectively, but you put no qualifiers on your apparently objective judgement of a piece of humor.

Give you a lecture on absolutism? I was merely pointing out that there are answerable questions such as issues of morals and ethics that science, by itself, is not geared to study (that's more of a philosophy issue, isn't it?). One little counter example to only one of your arguments I find particularly wrong. Now you have taken the expression of my opinion on the cartoon as a general statement on whether everyone should objectively hold the same opinion. Granted, I could have stated it more explicitely, but this isn't an beginner's ESL reading lesson.


For the record, the cartoon is in fact funny: it fulfills the structure of a joke, with appropriate timing, unexpectedness, and irony. I realize this an appeal to objective facts, which you have already declared to be useless in forming that gold standard of truth - your opinion.

Where did I declare "objective facts" to be useless? You are using a strawman argument. It appears that merely disagreeing with you on a minor issue makes you read much beyond what I explicitely write and leads you to make wrong inference on what I actually mean. On the other hand, you seem to have declared your conception of funny, structure of a joke. appropriate timing and unexpectedness to be objective facts. Care to elaborate on any of those notions?

That's a good point. Why don't all those freethinkers shut up and think what you tell them too? Why can't people grasp that there is only one acceptable way to think freely, and that is your way?

Same strawman. It also appears, to me, that you cannot accept that other people have different opinions than yours and, considering yourself an objective and rational person, you blame this divergence on what you perceive as a lack of rationality and objectivity on their part.


For you.

Why are so many people here unable to grasp this basic fact: the rest of the planet is not you. What works for you does not necessarily work for the rest of the planet. While I completely agree that reasonable dialogue is the preferred method of resolving differences, I am also able to understand that not everyone agrees with me. There are people out there who resolve their problems through violence, no matter how nice and reasonable you try to be. Those people can only be dealt with through violence. Similarlily, there are people out there who only respect strong emotions, and cartoons like this show that we are capable of strong emotions. There are a million reasons why it is sometimes necessary to say to people: "By the way, you are failing your moral duty, and I hate you for that."

Nobody is suggesting that all atheists respond like this. No one is suggesting that atheism should only be presented this way. But people are suggesting that it should not, because it cannot be helpful. This claim unduly simplifies the spectrum of human differences.

I've said it before: if you're always nice, eventually people suspect you're trying to sell them something.

Well, let me state my personal opinion explicitely, again, just for you (but feel free to disagree with it). I didn't like that cartoon, I found it unfunny, and I think it would very likely have the opposite of the desired effect (if promoting atheism and critical thinking was the purpose). Granted, it is very hard to sound cruel, yet be funny and lead the audience to question their beliefs (Yvon Deschamps could do it, but he's a freaking comic genius, and I'm not the only one to have that opinion), but I simply cannot pretend this cartoon succeeded in being all of that. Which is why I posted a link to today's Sinfest comic: I think that one actually works.

Disclaimer: Though I did mention some notion of fallacies such as strawmen, I do not claim to have posted this following all proper debating rules. After all, I am a firm believer in this famous theory (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19), and sometimes exhibit such behaviour myself.

[Jorghnassen]

Less controversial I think, and far more humoristic :

Sinfest today (http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2006-08-21.gif)

I beat you to it in the post preceding the last post I posted. (Page 2, post #76).

/I like redundancy and aliterations

[c0rbin]

Yahzi: "By speculating, you mean "make stuff up without checking the facts first.""

Well, as I said, somethings don't have any facts to check. For example: What happens to me after I die?

Yahzi: "I sumbit that pretending that a person's raw, uneducated imagination is on the same level as centuries of careful observation, dedication, and hard work by people of often extreme intelligence, is arrogance."

This is a straw man. I never suggested that speculation on the sea-level temperature at which water freezes should take the place of using a thermometer. I simply suggest that those who wonder or speculate or even willingly subscribe to a school of thought regarding the spiritual side of our species are not worthy of ridicule--that this reaction to religion painted in broad strokes is childish.

[Yoink]

Jorghnassen: for what it's worth, I agree entirely that there are many important questions for which the scientific method (construed in a fairly strict way) does not yield useful answers. I agree that morality is one of those areas. What I'm struggling to see is what this has to do with the question of whether belief in God is rational.

Let's go back to your original question: "is slavery good or bad"? Can you explain to me how belief in God (any God whatsoever) helps clarify this question? Firstly, we know for a matter of historical fact that most religions throughout history have condoned slavery at one point or another (the God of the Old Testament is explicit in his approval of slavery--of both Jews and non-Jews: he just says you should treat your Jewish slaves nicely). Secondly, even if we firmly believe that God will punish us for keeping slaves (or for failing to keep slaves) how does the threat of punishment clarify our moral commitment?

[Yoink]

I simply suggest that those who wonder or speculate or even willingly subscribe to a school of thought regarding the spiritual side of our species are not worthy of ridicule--that this reaction to religion painted in broad strokes is childish.

Wow, how easily you slide from "speculating" to "willingly subscribing"--as if they were simply two steps along the same path. So if I "speculate" that Seventh Day Adventists are inherently evil and that God has called upon me to kill them all, there's nothing irrational about "willingly subscribing" to that belief?

This, by the way, is one of the most hilarious things of all about almost everyone's religious beliefs: they will tell you that all they care about is the word of God, but they will in fact measure the demands that God makes upon them against their own "inherent" moral yardsticks. That is, people who will quote Old Testament scripture against gays are a dime a dozen: they dislike gays, so it's obvious to them that when God says he hates gays He really means it. But when God says that people who wear polyblend clothing should be stoned to death they think "oh, well, he can't really care about that, can he?" and simply ignore it.

I'm not sure why "childish" is such an unfair description of these beliefs--although I suppose it's clearly inaccurate: only too many adults engage in this kind of self-delusion.

[Jorghnassen]

Jorghnassen: for what it's worth, I agree entirely that there are many important questions for which the scientific method (construed in a fairly strict way) does not yield useful answers. I agree that morality is one of those areas. What I'm struggling to see is what this has to do with the question of whether belief in God is rational.


I was merely pointing out that one of Yahzi's argument was flawed using a counterexample. It had nothing to do with the general point of this discussion. The issue of slavery was just a random one I picked, though I considered pointing out that if one decides to take a religious approach to answer it (I'd rather go with secular philosophy but won't dismiss arguments from religious philosophers simply because they are religious), mentioning that in the former case, there are definitely arguments for slavery within the recognized religious "literature", as well as arguments against it.

[Stellafane]

I explained why I thought religion was irrational in one sentence. I was hoping for a response in the same level of detail.

But you are in fact defending religion. You are asserting that calling it irrational is unjustifiable, even while you refuse to present any reasoning for your position.

You want to tell me I am wrong, but you don't want to argue with me.

In the future, if you want to tell me I am wrong, but are not interested in showing how I am wrong or how I can correct my thinking, you could possibly save yourself some time and not bother. I already know plenty of people think I am wrong. I am only interested in those who can explain how I am wrong.

Forget what I said about you treading close to intellectual arrogance -- you're apparently firmly ensconced within its capital city, Conceit.

I didn't say you were wrong, I said I didn't agree with you. There's a difference, and it's not nuanced, to use a word you appear to be somewhat familiar with. But then again, I guess some people conclude that anyone they don't agree with must of course be wrong. (It must be nice to be able to assume your every pronouncement is an unassailable fact. Then again, probably not.)

But I will take one piece of advice from you, and avoid ever bothering to reply to anything else you ever post here again.

[Yoink]

I didn't say you were wrong, I said I didn't agree with you. There's a difference, and it's not nuanced,

Um, this ain't my fight--but I don't see how you say to someone "I disagree with you, but you're not wrong." I can see that you might say "this question is undecidable, therefore we are both left to our best guesses--my best guess differs from yours." But if you say "I disagree with you" you should always, in principle, be able to say "I disagree with you for the following reasons..." And once you enumerate your reasons, they can hardly be anything other than "reasons for concluding that your position is wrong."

Of course, when it comes to religious differences, there is a strong social mechanism that enjoins the "I disagree but you're not wrong" position as the appropriate one to take in matters of difference of belief. "My religion tells me that the only path to salvation is through Jesus: I believe this completely. Of course, you're not wrong to believe that Jesus was a false messiah, one in a long line of whack-job visionaries. We just disagree!" But, again, that's not a rational line of argument--it's an accomodation to a complex social reality.

[juryjone]

Wow, look at all the enmity here. Look at all the “ignores” flying from side to side over a cartoon. That’s right, someone was attempting to be funny, using as Yahzi said, some of the tried and true tricks of the trade (how’s that for alliteration?): structure, timing, unexpectedness. Some of us don’t find it funny – so what? Does that make it any less of a cartoon? I am constantly offended by the unfunniness of Family Circus and Cathy, but I’m not going to argue with someone if they find it funny.

It was harsh – too harsh to be used to convince people of a position. However, a nuanced argument is not something one should expect from a cartoon. If I want “eternal” truths, I won’t be looking at a cartoon (other than Calvin and Hobbes).

I can see both sides of the argument, when it comes to the correct tone to use when making an argument. However, I fall on the side of thinking that religion and rationality are mutually exclusive. Every argument that I’ve had with someone on the subject of religion ends in one of two ways: the other person almost visibly shuts down his/her mind with variations on “Well, that’s what I believe and I’m sorry for you for not believing it”, or variations on the approach outlined earlier: “suppose god exists…”. Neither approach is conducive to rational discussion.

The cartoon shows me that the artist has had considerable exposure to these types of arguments. He lashed out.

But it’s just a cartoon, people.

Can’t we all just get along?

[c0rbin]

Wow, how easily you slide from "speculating" to "willingly subscribing"--as if they were simply two steps along the same path.


Well, they are, for some. Even for those who are educated. I think it is perfectly natural for someone to seek spiritual understanding. I don't think that rationality necessarily plays into that.

And that's no reason, IMO, to call someone retarded or uneducated.


So if I "speculate" that Seventh Day Adventists are inherently evil and that God has called upon me to kill them all, there's nothing irrational about "willingly subscribing" to that belief?


This statement does not follow.


I'm not sure why "childish" is such an unfair description of these beliefs--although I suppose it's clearly inaccurate: only too many adults engage in this kind of self-delusion.

Not all spiritualism demands an auto de fe. In fact, I would suggest that not all spiritualism is spawned by ignorance or self-delusion[sic].

[senorpogo]

This entire thread makes me want to quote my favorite Lebowski line -

"You're not wrong Walter, you're just an @sshole."

[Jorghnassen]

But it’s just a cartoon, people.

Can’t we all just get along?

Hey, at least nobody's out in the streets, protesting and killing people. :D

[Yoink]

Well, they are, for some. Even for those who are educated. I think it is perfectly natural for someone to seek spiritual understanding. I don't think that rationality necessarily plays into that.

And that's no reason, IMO, to call someone retarded or uneducated.



This statement does not follow.



Not all spiritualism demands an auto de fe. In fact, I would suggest that not all spiritualism is spawned by ignorance or self-delusion[sic].

Er...I've said several times already that the cartoon was rude, and that "retarded" was in inappropriate and unfair term.

I agree that the statement didn't follow. That was kinda my point. I don't see how you get from "speculation" to "belief." I also don't see how you get from "spiritual speculation" to "spiritual understanding"--I think that's just cheating on the meaning of "understanding."


Lastly, why "sic"? :confused:

[Yoink]

Hey, at least nobody's out in the streets, protesting and killing people. :D

Yes: we can all agree that that would be a pertinent example of the kind of stupidity that religious belief can lead to...:duck:

[chracatoa]

So as soon as we are out of people to argue with we start fighting with ourselves? :D

From Wikipedia, and according to "The Encyclopedia of Religion",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life."

IMHO I believe that religion is an attempt to answer those big questions - why are we here, why are we self-aware, why do we have to die, etc., answer that perhaps we cannot find in science. Why would it be irrational?

Now, organized religion is another story...

[Yoink]

religion is an attempt to answer those big questions - why are we here, why are we self-aware, why do we have to die, etc., answer that perhaps we cannot find in science. Why would it be irrational?

This would be nice, except that there are no religions that actively "seek" answers to these questions. Religions propose answers, and (typically) impose sanctions upon those who disgree with those answers. Rather than calling this an attempt to "seek answers" it would more true to call it an attempt to forestall further questioning.

This is obviously not true of people who are just, like, y'know, "into spirituality." They "seek answers" in the sense that one week they're willing to entertain beliefs in a North American Indian "Great Spirit," and next week (or even simultaneously), they believe that all of life is merely an illusion and that we should seek to rid ourselves of the suffering caused by this illusion by attaining a state of "nothingness." The fact that these two beliefs are incompatible, that the only "test" we can perform on them is "which one flatters my preexisting beliefs about the world better" or "which one seems to lead me to actions which I would already find laudable without the belief structure," and that there is no rational basis to "choose" between them seems to me to put this "search" outside the scope of any serious "search for answers" to the questions you describe.

[Jorghnassen]

Now, organized religion is another story...

Organized religion is very rational if you're among the organizers. There's lots of money and power involved.

[Yoink]

Organized religion is very rational if you're among the organizers. There's lots of money and power involved.

Fully agreed: it may well be rational to join an organization that promulgates irrational beliefs. If, for example, you aspire to high political office in the United States you would be a fool (perhaps a brave fool) not to openly espouse religious belief--no matter how personally irrational you felt that belief to be.

This is a good example of the kind of social sanctioning of religious "belief" I was referring to in my previous post. It is clearly difficult to advance the "atheist" answer to profound existential questions in public discourse in the United States. When some possible answers are suppressed a priori, you can be pretty sure that "truth seeking" isn't what's going on.

[Beleth]

I'm a little disappointed that those who were saying how laughably inadequate the arguments in this cartoon were haven't even bothered showing one of their flaws.
Very well. I will go frame by frame.

Frame 1: No argument presented (NAP).
Frame 2: Ipse dixit fallacy.
Frame 3: Statement of argument. Part 1 of the tried and true "tell then what you will say, then say it, then tell them what you said" method of giving a speech.
Frame 4. Ipse dixit again, and demonstrably false.
Frame 5. The first two questions have been answered countless times by apologists. Two good first steps into this field are Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain, both by C.S. Lewis. The third question is a non sequitur.
Frame 6. NAP.
Frame 7. False Dilemma fallacy. A third option is that the "rationalizations" weren't so "pathetic" after all, and survived heavy contemplation.
Frame 8. Unwarranted assumption.
Frame 9. Unwarranted assumption of the False Dilemma continues.
Frame 10. Analogy based on a previous non sequitur.
Frame 11. Goes with the "Why is there evil" question from Frame 5, q.v. the comments there.
Frame 12. NAP.
Frame 13. Argument from incredulity, False Dilemma.
Frame 14. Moving the goalposts. We're not talking about whether God exists or not; we are talking about whether believing God exists is stupid or not.
Frame 15. Ipse dixit and baseless. Maybe God really does change people's hearts. Just because it hasn't happened to you or me doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Frame 16. Finally, a good argument.
Frame 17. Demonstrably false. Lightning is not just an electrical discharge. There are still lots of unknowns about lightning -- how a bolt starts, for instance. The current hypothesis is that a cosmic ray starts one off, but AFAIK it's still just in the "hypothesis" category.
Frame 18. Misuse of term. There is no "proved" in science. "It would take an idiot" is another ipse dixit fallacy, and is of course the "say it" step.
Frame 19. Another fallacy. Just because there are numerous explanations for something doesn't mean that they are all wrong. There are 64 basketball teams in the NCAA playoffs; does that mean that none of them will win?
Frame 20. Unwarranted assumption.
Frame 21. Ipse dixit again, and irrelevant. Why would anyone care what the cartoonist thinks of them?
Frame 22. See Frame 21. Also the "tell them what you said" step.

[chracatoa]

If, for example, you aspire to high political office in the United States you would be a fool (perhaps a brave fool) not to openly espouse religious belief--no matter how personally irrational you felt that belief to be.

This is true here as well. However, there is a well known and successful politician in my state that is an atheist. Once they asked him if he believed in God. His answer? "I believe in the ethical and moral symbolism of God". It was kind of a cop-out, but he managed to get elected. If he'd said he did not believe in God he would not have made it.

One thing was interesting, though. His opponents did not attack him on this position. On the other hand, he was not running for president...

[Aepervius]

Here's (http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2176) a nice cartoon that questions some of the premises of certain religions in a much more elegant, concise and funny manner.

Ha, you are right I am beaten :). But this is only a battle and not the whole war. i shall now search for an even funnier and elegant cartoon... *goes off googling madly*

[MetalPig]

Originally Posted by MetalPig http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1855382#post1855382)
For my friend, it is perfectly rational to believe.

Originally Posted by MetalPig http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1862556#post1862556)
Belief in God is irrational.
It's irrational to believe in god, but not irrational for your friend to believe in god?
It's a matter of perspective. I think believing in god is irrational, she doesn't.

[MetalPig]

In other words, you didn't say anything at all.
No, but if that's what you want to think that's fine by me.

[MetalPig]

Metalpig, you aren't seriously defending petitio principii as a rational way of proceeding in an argument, are you? If the question at stake is "is there a God" it cannot possibly be "rational" to say "o.k., I believe in God, so I'll begin from the assumption that God exists."
No, not that question.
But when asking them a question like "why does evil exist?", you can't expect them to give you an explanation from an atheist point of view.
They will give you an answer based of what they think is true, and I think that's perfectly okay. And I think their explanation can be rational, even though it's based on an irrational (in my opinion) assumption: the existence of God.

[MetalPig]

It's quite o.k. for someone to tell me that as an atheist I am morally bankrupt, permeated by sin, and doomed to burn in hellfire for all time.
Hmm. What backward part of the world are you in? ;)

[Earthborn]

frame 1: A blatant lie, as we shall see.
frame 2: A claim that something is "blindingly obvious", even though it is not blindingly obvious to the vast majority of people.
frame 3: An insult
frame 4: Does not apply to all religions
frame 5: Does not apply to all religions. Have been answered by all religions it does apply to.
frame 6: No argument stated
frame 7: Unwarranted speculation. May apply only to people religiously raised, not newly converted.
frame 8: Unwarranted speculation. Does not apply to all religions
frame 9: Rhetorical question
frame 10: Statement of belief. The idea that Santa Claus isn't real may not be unpleasant to all, or maybe a significant deterrent to disbelief to others.
frame 11: Does not apply to all religions. The applicability of the argument is reduced further.
frame 12: An argument against religion necessarily being stupid.
frame 13: An argument against religion necessarily being stupid.
frame 14: Rhetorical question, does not disprove 12 and 13 in any way.
frame 15: Does not apply to all religions, only those that assume "a being with immense powers exists". The scenario is dismissed as absurd and childish, without offering a single reason to assume that it is.
frame 16: Does not apply to all religions, especially not to any monotheistic ones the author appears to argue against.
frame 17: Does not add up as evidence against a "big magical man who you can't see."
frame 18: Does not apply to all religions. Mere insults.
frame 19: Does not apply to all religions. Not all religions claim that all other religions are wrong; many assume there is some truth to all religions.
frame 20: Unwarranted speculation.
frame 21: Meaningless phrase.
frame 22: Distinct lack of a funny punchline.

[Cuddles]

Very well. I will go frame by frame.
Frame 4. Ipse dixit again, and demonstrably false.

frame 1: A blatant lie, as we shall see.

Demonstrate it then. People were complaining that other people were saying these arguments had all been answered without bothering to show the answers. Stating that it is "demonstrably false" or "a blatant lie" is not giving an answer unless you show how it is.

Edit - Shouldn't this thread be moved to the philosophy and religion section?

[gnome]

This would be nice, except that there are no religions that actively "seek" answers to these questions. Religions propose answers, and (typically) impose sanctions upon those who disgree with those answers. Rather than calling this an attempt to "seek answers" it would more true to call it an attempt to forestall further questioning.

Oof... Well put.

[Earthborn]

Demonstrate it then.Okay. The first frame says: "this ISN'T another comic about why religion is bad, or why it is wrong." It then goes to great lengths to argue why religion is bad and why it is wrong.

[Paul]

Okay. The first frame says: "this ISN'T another comic about why religion is bad, or why it is wrong." It then goes to great lengths to argue why religion is bad and why it is wrong.The third frame says "this is a direct attack on you, the religious person" and the strip then goes on to say why, in the opinion of the author, religious people are "colossally, irredeemably stupid".

This is one person's opinion and some people seem to think that although they are entitled to express their opinions concerning the strip, the author is not entitled to the same consideration.

In case anyone hasn't noticed the very top of the page says "poorly thought out comix presents".


I expect everyone playing devil's advocate for theists to do the same next time someone posts a chick tract.

[Yoink]

Very well. I will go frame by frame.

Frame 1: No argument presented (NAP).
Frame 2: Ipse dixit fallacy.
Frame 3: Statement of argument. Part 1 of the tried and true "tell then what you will say, then say it, then tell them what you said" method of giving a speech.
Frame 4. Ipse dixit again, and demonstrably false.
Frame 5. The first two questions have been answered countless times by apologists. Two good first steps into this field are Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain, both by C.S. Lewis. The third question is a non sequitur.
Frame 6. NAP.
Frame 7. False Dilemma fallacy. A third option is that the "rationalizations" weren't so "pathetic" after all, and survived heavy contemplation.
Frame 8. Unwarranted assumption.
Frame 9. Unwarranted assumption of the False Dilemma continues.
Frame 10. Analogy based on a previous non sequitur.
Frame 11. Goes with the "Why is there evil" question from Frame 5, q.v. the comments there.
Frame 12. NAP.
Frame 13. Argument from incredulity, False Dilemma.
Frame 14. Moving the goalposts. We're not talking about whether God exists or not; we are talking about whether believing God exists is stupid or not.
Frame 15. Ipse dixit and baseless. Maybe God really does change people's hearts. Just because it hasn't happened to you or me doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Frame 16. Finally, a good argument.
Frame 17. Demonstrably false. Lightning is not just an electrical discharge. There are still lots of unknowns about lightning -- how a bolt starts, for instance. The current hypothesis is that a cosmic ray starts one off, but AFAIK it's still just in the "hypothesis" category.
Frame 18. Misuse of term. There is no "proved" in science. "It would take an idiot" is another ipse dixit fallacy, and is of course the "say it" step.
Frame 19. Another fallacy. Just because there are numerous explanations for something doesn't mean that they are all wrong. There are 64 basketball teams in the NCAA playoffs; does that mean that none of them will win?
Frame 20. Unwarranted assumption.
Frame 21. Ipse dixit again, and irrelevant. Why would anyone care what the cartoonist thinks of them?
Frame 22. See Frame 21. Also the "tell them what you said" step.

Wow. You even refute the frames with no dialogue in them. Smackdown! Except that your point by point rebuttal slightly misses the point. Well, several points.

The first of these is that the cartoon quite explicitly says--at the outset--that it's not going to rehearse the arguments against the existence of God in any detail. So your constant triumphant cry of ipse dixit is a tad hollow. The cartoon is saying "look, we all know what these arguments are--and religious believers are retard poopyheads for failing to be convinced by them." Now, if the sum total of your claim is that this cartoon does not fully and effectively state all arguments against belief in a god or gods in exhaustive detail in its 22 frames, then I concede. I doubt, however, that you thought that anyone seriously entertained that opinion.

If, on the other hand, you read the cartoon (and its defenders) with a modicum of charity, your task will prove a little more complex. The cartoon refers to a number of classic problems for believers. No, it does not spell them out in detail, but to say that "believers do not have adequate answers to these problems" pretty clearly means "to these problems to which the cartoon refers" rather than "to these problems in and only in the form as expressed in this cartoon."

So, if we look at the problem in this way your smackdown looks somewhat less impressive. Let me look at just a couple of examples. You instance C. S. Lewis as a sufficient response to the problem "why is there evil if God loves the world." Does Lewis provide a sufficient response to this question?

If one reads The Problem of Pain one sees, yet again, the dreary old familiar petitio principii that is the hallmark of all theodicies. Lewis starts with a spectacularly weak argument for the existence of God: if the world were really as bleak as atheists would have it be, how could we have conceived of something so perfect as a loving God. It's Descartes's argument, of course, from the Discourse on Method, and after Hume it hardly needs further trashing from me. I trust that nobody here needs me to point out the flaws in the argument?

So, having satisfied himself (on the basis of an already exploded argument) that God does exist, Lewis sets himself the task of rationalizing away the problem of pain. Lewis's task, then, is not to honestly face a world of pain and ask "does it seem reasonable, in the face of this evidence, to posit that the universe is ruled by a loving omnipotent being." No, his task is to say "given that I am convinced in the existence of a loving, omnipotent being, how do I explain away the problem of pain." Unsurprisingly, he succeeds to his own satisfaction by redefining the words "loving," "omnipotent," "happy" and so forth to his own satisfaction.

If this strikes you as a satisfying response to the problem that pain and suffering poses NOT TO THE BELIEVER but to the AS YET UNCONVINCED AGNOSTIC, then you are not judging this argument "rationally." One might note, just for starters, the glaring contradiction between the first and second steps of Lewis's argument. He starts by saying "in this nasty, cold, painful world, how could we imagine a loving, divine, omnipotent being unless he really exists?" then, with spectacular self-blindness he turns around and says "oh, and by the way, the main way this loving, divind, omnipotent being shows his love for us is by inflicting a nasty, cold, painful world upon us." One would laugh, except that so many people get taken in by this nonsense.

I notice, by the way, that you have been following Killtown's Flight 93 thread. I wonder if you'd extend to Killtown the same privileges of circular reasoning that you extend to Lewis? Killtown has "faith" in a supernatural "conspiracy" that brought about the events of 9/11. Arguing from the position of assuming that his "faith" must be right, he demands that others disprove his claims. If they can't disprove them, if he can--like Lewis--find ever more baroque ways of making the observed data "fit" his faith (and there never is a limit to how far you can push special pleading--the conspiracy can always be widened to undermine any counter-evidence), then--he says--he's "proven" his point. You laugh at the Conspiracy Theorist who engages in such special pleading, but you somehow think it's respectable coming from the theologist.

I can't be bothered responding to each individual frame, but here's just a couple more:

Frame 14. Moving the goalposts. We're not talking about whether God exists or not; we are talking about whether believing God exists is stupid or not.
I think you lost sight of the goalposts. We're talking about whether there is insufficient evidence that God exists--thus making people who choose to believe in God "stupid" for believing in something without sufficient evidence. The fact that God's existence "has no major consequences" is actually the heart of the matter. For there to be evidence of God there must be "consequences" to God's existence. The absence of consequences if precisely what makes it irrational for people to believe in God.

Frame 15. Ipse dixit and baseless. Maybe God really does change people's hearts. Just because it hasn't happened to you or me doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And we're back to Killtown-logic again. "Just because I have no evidence to offer, doesn't mean my belief is irrational." Please explain to me how there is any logical difference between "Maybe God really does change people's hearts" and "maybe Mossad really did team up with the FBI and the CIA to orchestrate 911--until we have incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, we'd be irresponsible not to work on the basis that this was the case: after all, the future of the republic is at stake!"

God's observed irrelevance to the world he supposedly created and supposedly loves is an insuperable hurdle to "rational" belief in him. Of course, if you accept circular logic as rational and you say "suppose God exists, why might he ignore us?" then you can come up with endless reasons to explain this problem away. But this is no more rational than continuing to believe in phlogiston. After all, one could endlessly develop "reasons" why our instruments are unable to measure phlogiston. Why phlogiston has properties that make it unobservable by this instrument or that instrument. But the rules of the game seem to state that only in theology is such patently absurd special pleading meant to be taken seriously.

O.K., enough. Probably too much. Let me just end by observing that you say that Frame 16 is "finally a good argument." The cartoon only actually needed one. So I take it that you agree that this cartoon raises problems that the religious believer cannot answer honestly without admitting that belief in a god or gods is irrational. :)

ETA: calling people "retarded poopyheads" is Not Nice and certainly Not Helpful. It allows them to ignore your arguments, misrecognizing their sense of having seized the moral highground as having actually won the argument.

[Thanz]

I find the title of this thread incredibly misleading. The cartoon may accurately described by a number of different words, but "nice" is not one of them.

Second, I am perfectly fine with the idea that belief in God or religion involves something other than strict rationality. So does life. Get over it.

Third, the author of the comic was not really trying to be funny. He was trying to be a jerk, and as someone else said, preaching to a specific athiestic choir (which Yahzi may be the Director of).

[Yoink]

Hmm. What backward part of the world are you in? ;)

America. :duck: :duck: :duck:

[gnome]

This is one person's opinion and some people seem to think that although they are entitled to express their opinions concerning the strip, the author is not entitled to the same consideration.

I don't think anyone said he wasn't entitled to express his opinion.

[Yahzi]

Evidence for "demonstrably false claim about human nature"?
Children.

History.

Anthropology.

Biology.

Common sense.

Even language is constrained by hardware in your head (as Chomsky has pretty conclusively shown). Despite the vast differences in human languages, they are not arbitrary, nor can just any old set of rules constitute a grammer we recognize as valid.

The notion of human beings as blank slates is not only ludicrous, but has caused staggering destruction and suffering, particularly in the last century.

And game theory math exists in some platonic realm of ideas? Morality reduces to biology? Isn't this a tad reductionist, and falling into the realm of scientism?
No's all around.

If you think reducing everything in our world to empirical investigation is scientism, then what you are saying is there are parts of our world that cannot be studyied by studying the world.

How, pray tell, does one study these subjects then?

Give you a lecture on absolutism? I was merely pointing out that there are answerable questions such as issues of morals and ethics that science, by itself, is not geared to study (that's more of a philosophy issue, isn't it?).
And I was pointing out that making up answers without facts is not called "study." Whereas discovering and examinging facts is called "science."

Now you have taken the expression of my opinion on the cartoon as a general statement on whether everyone should objectively hold the same opinion.
It has nothing to do with language, but logic. You seem unaware of the fact that putting philosophy into a magic box which protects it from contamination with the real world is the same as reducing philosophy to fiction.

I understand it is fairly common to describe philosophy as something done in an Ivory Tower by academics in armchairs; but this characterization is not only wrong, it is insulting and dismissive.

Where did I declare "objective facts" to be useless?
Here:
Now, tell me, is science geared to answer this question?
You raised an important concept - slavery - and then proceeded to declare that scientific investigation of the issue (i.e. objective facts) was irrelevant to the discussion of the issue.

Now perhaps you only meant to say it could not fully resolve the issue, while still acknowledging that it could contribute to the discussion. There is a philosophical reason why that position is irrelevant: as Hume argued, you cannot turn induction into deduction by adding anything. In the same sense, if science/facts are inadequate to establish the case, then they are irrelevant, since the deciding factor is not science or fact - and worse, the deciding factor cannot be limited by fact, since we've just declared it to be above fact!

Once you've said, "I'm going to decide this according to some other criteria than objective fact," then all objective facts are irrelevant, since your decision can as easily trump those facts as agree with them.

You are using a strawman argument. It appears that merely disagreeing with you on a minor issue makes you read much beyond what I explicitely write and leads you to make wrong inference on what I actually mean.
I think of it as leaping ahead to the logical consequences of your position, as I outlined above.

On the other hand, you seem to have declared your conception of funny, structure of a joke. appropriate timing and unexpectedness to be objective facts. Care to elaborate on any of those notions?
Humor has a definition. There are people who study this stuff. Go look it up.

I have already explained one self-evident and obvious statement about the factual nature of the world (the biological basis of human nature). The others you are just going to have to research on your own.

It also appears, to me, that you cannot accept that other people have different opinions than yours
When did I ever disagree that other people had different opinions?

What I disagreed with was their logical analysis, for reasons I laid out.

and, considering yourself an objective and rational person, you blame this divergence on what you perceive as a lack of rationality and objectivity on their part.
Are you saying it is impossible to determine if another person is being rational or not?

If so, that rather defeats the entire purpose of discussion, so why are you wasting my time?

On the other hand, perhaps you merely mean to imply that I am unable to do so. In which case, could you point out the errors in my analysis?

I didn't like that cartoon, I found it unfunny, and I think it would very likely have the opposite of the desired effect
Nobody is suggesting you should like it, you can admit it has the structure of a joke without asserting that execution works for you (just as a I can admit Tom Cruise is sexually appealing even though I am not attracted to him), and it will have the exactly intended effect:

It will make some people mad enough that they try to defend their claims (which is more than they are doing now). Also, it will make the author feel better and make some of us laugh. Those were the intended effects.

The effect you desire - the calm, rational discussion of faith and reason - is not the goal of the cartoon. The fact you seem unable to grasp is that not every one will respond to calm, rational discussion.

I am not suggesting that you write cartoons like this, or even like them. What I am suggesting is that you recognize there are many different people out there, with many different needs, and this cartoon applies to some of those people.

There are pompous air-bags who go on national radio and declare atheists to be immoral. They deserve the invective of this cartoon, and delivering it in a cartoon is the nicest, most polite method. It's not like he blew up a church or something.

I think that one actually works.
I like it also, but it's too subtle to reach some people.

I'm just arguing for a different standard: I am arguing for honesty, not politeness. I think that any methods that are dishonest will harm our public image; but I think that the occasional impoliteness is necessary, if for no other reason than that we all occassionaly feel impolite feelings, and if we never express them, the other side is going to know we are decieving them.

When the bully punches you, you gotta punch him back. Afterwards you may be able to have a polite discussion, but certainly not before.

[Yahzi]

Well, as I said, somethings don't have any facts to check. For example: What happens to me after I die?
You cease to exist.

This is a fairly obvious result of recognizing that mind is a function of brain. Once the brain stops, the mind stops. The only way you can ask the question you asked is if you presume the existance of a soul.

So this is not a case of not having facts: it is the case of making up a fact and then asking a question that only makes sense if you presume the fact you made up.

I never suggested that speculation on the sea-level temperature at which water freezes should take the place of using a thermometer. I simply suggest that those who wonder or speculate or even willingly subscribe to a school of thought regarding the spiritual side of our species are not worthy of ridicule--that this reaction to religion painted in broad strokes is childish.
Before we allow speculation on "the spiritual side" of our nature, shouldn't we establish that such a side exists?

By seperating religion from the realm of physics, you have just labeled it fiction. And now you understand the invective of the cartoon: how can grown adults speculate on fiction and pretend it is fact?

[Yahzi]

Forget what I said about you treading close to intellectual arrogance -- you're apparently firmly ensconced within its capital city, Conceit.
It is conceit to ask why I am wrong?

I didn't say you were wrong, I said I didn't agree with you.
So you're saying you're wrong.

Or you're saying nobody is wrong, even though we both did the same problem and got different answers.

But then again, I guess some people conclude that anyone they don't agree with must of course be wrong.
That's not quite what I did. What I did was conclude that if two people disagree, one of them must be wrong.

You seem to object to this principle.

(It must be nice to be able to assume your every pronouncement is an unassailable fact. Then again, probably not.)
This is wholly unfair, given that I just invited you to assail my facts. I said, "If you think I am wrong, show me where." That is not claiming inassability. It is inviting it. Please. Assail my facts.

All I ask is that you do so with logic and evidence, not opinion, feeling, and invective.

Well, actually, I don't care about the invective, as long as there are facts and logic with it.

But I will take one piece of advice from you, and avoid ever bothering to reply to anything else you ever post here again.
One could argue you hadn't actually replied to anything I'd posted yet.

[Paul]

I don't think anyone said he wasn't entitled to express his opinion.You're right, I've been thinking I mis-phrased that.

OK, there's vehement denunciation of the content and argument of the strip, but an equal insistence that the opposed position is correct just because. "You and your opinions are wrong and I am right because I say so."

[Yahzi]

Not all spiritualism demands an auto de fe.
And here we have the entire nub of the disagreement.

I suspect that if we polled each person in this conversation, the ones who find this cartoon unfunny would be in Corbin's camp, and the ones who found it funny would be in mine.

I think the real argument here is not over this specific cartoon, but over the general principle: is religion safe at any speed?

Some of us, terrified by history and personal experience, emphatically shout "NO!" and view the rest of you as dangerously naive.

Others, perhaps less scarred by interactions with beleivers and with a different interpretation of historical fact, say, "Probably," and view the rest of us as dangerously paranoid.

So I really think this is Sam Harris, all over again. The one real issue of debate between atheists: just how dangerous is the beast, and just how many times do we have to stab it with our steely knives before we can stop for a cup of tea?

:)

[Yahzi]

I find the title of this thread incredibly misleading.
That was part of the irony.

:D

Second, I am perfectly fine with the idea that belief in God or religion involves something other than strict rationality. So does life. Get over it.
One of the more trenchant defenses of theism I have ever seen!

I think it's wrong, of course, but at least I feel compelled to explain why it is wrong.

But the people this cartoon makes fun of would never say what Thanz just said. They defend their faith as such a bellwether of reason that other people are to be considered deranged for not sharing it.

This cartoon is not aimed at you, Thanz. If every theist were like you, then cartoons like this would not exist.

He was trying to be a jerk, and as someone else said, preaching to a specific athiestic choir (which Yahzi may be the Director of).
No, that's De_Bunk's position. I'm just assistant coach. :D

It's true, of course: I am arguing for the right and the necessity to be a jerk some of the time. I think it is an inescapable fact of life, and I think this cartoon manages to be a jerk in the most acceptable, polite, amusing, and helpful way possible for jerkiness.

[Yoink]

I am perfectly fine with the idea that belief in God or religion involves something other than strict rationality.

Then your objection is mostly to the tone of the cartoon, and not to its basic claim, right? If all religious people were to say "my belief is an act of blind faith in something that is inherently irrational" they would at least be honestly irrational, which is better than being dishonestly irrational.

Of course, while being barefacedly irrational is better than being self-deludedly irrational, it's still irrational. Commitment to belief in any particular religion still strikes me as not merely "insufficiently supported by evidence" but actually harmful and wrong. To say "well, my forefathers were all Catholic, therefore I will be Catholic" without saying "but if my forefathers were Hindu, I would be Hindu--and being Hindu would mean explicitly repudiating core beliefs of the Catholic faith" is to fail to put one's supposedly "deepest" commitments to any meaningful test. It is to train oneself in ethnocentric doublethink ("our ways" are the "best ways") and to excuse oneself from seriously confronting your ethical commitments ("the God I have irrationally chosen to believe in has told me what is right and what is wrong").

To say "oh, but good Hindus and good Catholics are both good people" or "lots of Christians do put their ethical commitments to extremely rigorous challenges" is perfectly true, but not an answer to my objection. If you don't need to believe in any particular religion to be good, what purpose does religion serve? If you can in fact challenge the ethical claims that the church hands down to you (gays=bad, contraception=murder etc. etc.), then, again, what purpose does the Church serve as a stay for your ethical convictions?

[Thanz]

But the people this cartoon makes fun of would never say what Thanz just said. They defend their faith as such a bellwether of reason that other people are to be considered deranged for not sharing it.

This cartoon is not aimed at you, Thanz. If every theist were like you, then cartoons like this would not exist.
While I appreciate what I think is meant as a compliment, I disagree with your opinion that the cartoon is not aimed at me. In the words of the cartoon, I have failed to reject religion. Therefore, the cartoon calls me colossally, irredeemably stupid. Not surprisingly, I beg to differ with that assessment. But I don't think it can be said that the cartoon is not aimed at me; I think it certainly is, and aimed much more at me than at MetalPig, who I think was just defending his friend.

No, that's De_Bunk's position. I'm just assistant coach. :D I shudder to think of De_Bunk as the Director of anything....

It's true, of course: I am arguing for the right and the necessity to be a jerk some of the time. I think it is an inescapable fact of life, and I think this cartoon manages to be a jerk in the most acceptable, polite, amusing, and helpful way possible for jerkiness.
Come now. There are much more polite and amusing ways to be a jerk.

[Yoink]

strict rationality


Oh, p.s., I meant to ask, what did you mean by "strict rationality"? That is are you postulating some kind of semi-rationality that does in fact offer support for religious belief? Or are you saying "well, if we accept this or that unsupported premise, the rest follows out fairly rationality." That is, "sure, the belief in God is irrational, but once you swallow that camel, it's rational enough to continue to follow the precepts of your religion"?

[Thanz]

Then your objection is mostly to the tone of the cartoon, and not to its basic claim, right? If all religious people were to say "my belief is an act of blind faith in something that is inherently irrational" they would at least be honestly irrational, which is better than being dishonestly irrational.
Both the tone and the absolutism inherent in it. I don't view my belief as being solely blind faith. There are a whole lot of different philosophical attempts to prove the existence of God done by some pretty smart people. While I don't think that any of them succeed in proving God, they do provide food for thought and not just blind faith. So, while I can freely acknowledge my faith as being not strictly rational, I don't think I would characterize it as completely irrational either. More of a hybrid.

Kind of like life, actually. You don't make it through life being 100% rational all of the time. It is impossible. It is even harder (harder than impossible? Impossibler?) to make it through life being completely irrational. By that I mean an attempt to live completely rationally will result in a longer existence than an attempt to live completely irrationally, but both will fail.

Of course, while being barefacedly irrational is better than being self-deludedly irrational, it's still irrational. Commitment to belief in any particular religion still strikes me as not merely "insufficiently supported by evidence" but actually harmful and wrong. To say "well, my forefathers were all Catholic, therefore I will be Catholic" without saying "but if my forefathers were Hindu, I would be Hindu--and being Hindu would mean explicitly repudiating core beliefs of the Catholic faith" is to fail to put one's supposedly "deepest" commitments to any meaningful test.
And if my forefathers were tomatoes, I'd be red and juicy. How can I put my deepest committments to my humanity to any meaningful test if I don't engage in that analysis?

It is to train oneself in ethnocentric doublethink ("our ways" are the "best ways") and to excuse oneself from seriously confronting your ethical commitments ("the God I have irrationally chosen to believe in has told me what is right and what is wrong").
I disagree. I don't see why one must examine hypothetical ancestries when examining one's faith. Is it not adequate to simply examine one's faith and seriously considering one's ethical commitments without this artificial thought experiment?

If you can in fact challenge the ethical claims that the church hands down to you (gays=bad, contraception=murder etc. etc.), then, again, what purpose does the Church serve as a stay for your ethical convictions?
In fact, I would posit that you are required to examine these ethical claims. I went to Catholic schools, and I was taught that it was most important to have your own informed moral conscience. Religion or the Church helpos you inform that moral conscience. But only you can put it into practice. Which is why I believe that gays are not bad and that contraception is not murder (and I don't think either of those are actually accurate descriptions of church positions, by the way).

[Yahzi]

While I appreciate what I think is meant as a compliment, I disagree with your opinion that the cartoon is not aimed at me. In the words of the cartoon, I have failed to reject religion.
The cartoon is not actually aimed at people who have failed to reject religion.

It is aimed at people who have embraced it without asking basic questions.

You have an answer to those basic questions, and you accept what that answer entails.

Come now. There are much more polite and amusing ways to be a jerk.
I thought you just said one can't get through life by being 100% rational?

:D

[Thanz]

The cartoon is not actually aimed at people who have failed to reject religion.
Well, except for the third panel that says:

"Instead, this is a direct attack on you, the religious person. The argument? That your failure to reject religion indicates you are colossally, irredeemably stupid."

So, except for what, you know, he actually says, I totally agree with you. :D

[c0rbin]

I expect everyone playing devil's advocate for theists to do the same next time someone posts a chick tract.

I propose that Chick tracts are not attempting cleverness.

[Yoink]

Is it not adequate to simply examine one's faith and seriously considering one's ethical commitments without this artificial thought experiment?

No, it really isn't. If you refuse to say "what other answers have people come up with to these questions" or to ask "have I any more reason to reject those answers than the ones I inherited, unexamined, from my forefathers" then you're engaged in the same circular logic merry-go-round that I've described ad nauseam already.

There are a whole lot of different philosophical attempts to prove the existence of God done by some pretty smart people. While I don't think that any of them succeed in proving God, they do provide food for thought and not just blind faith. So, while I can freely acknowledge my faith as being not strictly rational, I don't think I would characterize it as completely irrational either. More of a hybrid.

This seems to be back to your "strict rationality" and "rationality-lite" distinction. All I see here is an appeal to authority ("pretty smart people have believed it"--well, yes, but then pretty smart people have been Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, you name it: so that doesn't help), and a misplaced null hypothesis (no one has quite proved God, but then they didn't disprove him either, so the null hypothesis of God's existence stands...). These both look like plain old ordinary irrationality to me.

In fact, I would posit that you are required to examine these ethical claims. I went to Catholic schools, and I was taught that it was most important to have your own informed moral conscience. Religion or the Church helpos you inform that moral conscience. But only you can put it into practice. Which is why I believe that gays are not bad and that contraception is not murder (and I don't think either of those are actually accurate descriptions of church positions, by the way).

Well, to be sure I caricaturized the church's position a trifle. The Pope, however, would disagree strongly with you that it is in any sense o.k. for a catholic in good standing to just "make up his own mind" about the morality of gay sex (I do know about the church's absurd "gay people are fine, it's just what they want to do that earns them the one-way ticket to hell) or contraception.

If the single most exalted and powerful living person in your religion's organization doesn't actually understand what the religion's teachings actually mean, I find it hard to understand what it is that the religion is "teaching" you. If you just accept the things that seem "right" to you regardless, then the religion itself is essentially contentless.

[c0rbin]

You cease to exist.

This is a fairly obvious result of recognizing that mind is a function of brain. Once the brain stops, the mind stops. The only way you can ask the question you asked is if you presume the existance of a soul.



Presuming there isn't a soul, and that we "cease to exist" is just as much speculation as the other way around as neither of us have any evidence of either state.

So, you choose to take a clausian "smarter-than-thou" approach to the subject because it is easy for you to marginalize people interested in spiritualism.



Before we allow speculation on "the spiritual side" of our nature, shouldn't we establish that such a side exists?


Whether you like it or not, spiritualism is a part of humanity. That a non-spiritualist would ridicule a spiritualist is, ironic.


By seperating religion from the realm of physics, you have just labeled it fiction. And now you understand the invective of the cartoon: how can grown adults speculate on fiction and pretend it is fact?

Because there is no evidence otherwise. There is no evidence that God exists and no evidence that he doesn't exist. So why split hairs about it?

[Paul]

I propose that Chick tracts are not attempting cleverness.Perhaps not, but they are proposing a forceful position on religion.

[Thanz]

No, it really isn't. If you refuse to say "what other answers have people come up with to these questions" or to ask "have I any more reason to reject those answers than the ones I inherited, unexamined, from my forefathers" then you're engaged in the same circular logic merry-go-round that I've described ad nauseam already.
There is a difference between examining what answers others have come up with and engaging in a meaningless thought experiment about what if my parents were Hindus. I would agree that it is important to examine what other religions have to say as part of examining your own faith. If that is all you are saying, then we agree.

This seems to be back to your "strict rationality" and "rationality-lite" distinction. All I see here is an appeal to authority ("pretty smart people have believed it"--well, yes, but then pretty smart people have been Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, you name it: so that doesn't help), and a misplaced null hypothesis (no one has quite proved God, but then they didn't disprove him either, so the null hypothesis of God's existence stands...). These both look like plain old ordinary irrationality to me.
It is not an appeal to authority - I am not saying that I like, for example, the watchmaker argument because Aquinas was a pretty bright guy. I am saying that the argument has appeal to me on a rational level.

Well, to be sure I caricaturized the church's position a trifle. The Pope, however, would disagree strongly with you that it is in any sense o.k. for a catholic in good standing to just "make up his own mind" about the morality of gay sex (I do know about the church's absurd "gay people are fine, it's just what they want to do that earns them the one-way ticket to hell) or contraception.

If the single most exalted and powerful living person in your religion's organization doesn't actually understand what the religion's teachings actually mean, I find it hard to understand what it is that the religion is "teaching" you. If you just accept the things that seem "right" to you regardless, then the religion itself is essentially contentless.
Well, the RC Church position on sexual morality and the status of women primarily are why I no longer go to Catholic Church. (Anglicanism! It is like Catholic Lite! All the God, half the guilt!)

But on your more basic point, religion is far more than a collection of rules to say do this and don't do that. That is quite an impoverished view of the religious experience, in my opinion.

[Yoink]

Presuming there isn't a soul, and that we "cease to exist" is just as much speculation as the other way around as neither of us have any evidence of either state.

A lovely example of the theological circular argument. Tell me, do you accept this type of argument in any other sphere of life? "There's no absolutely conclusive evidence for or against the proposition that George Bush is a martian genetically manipulated to look like a human being, so therefore we just have to say that the question is unsettled. Whichever position you take is equally rational"?

There's no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of Bigfoot, the CIA-led assassination of JFK, that the Government is out to get you, that 9/11 was all a gigantic conspiracy--bigger than you can possibly imagine, that George Washington wore a tutu at all times but it was erased from the historical record. So, in your view, is it equally plausible in each case to hold either a pro or anti view about any of these?

In the absence of any evidence for an afterlife, in the presence of overwhelming evidence that people would like to believe in an afterlife and that people have the capacity to make themselves believe in things they would like to believe in, it is clearly irrational to believe in an afterlife.

Note that I do not say that it is irrational to believe in the possibility of an afterlife. We simply have no useful data on that question. But it is only in matters of religion (and "spirituality") that people think that this fact somehow opens the door for any random crap that they want to posit being somehow "just as likely" as its converse.

[Yoink]

It is not an appeal to authority - I am not saying that I like, for example, the watchmaker argument because Aquinas was a pretty bright guy. I am saying that the argument has appeal to me on a rational level.

The first sentence is an appeal to authority. The second sentence is not. The two sentences have no logical relationship to each other. The second sentence suggests that you have not perhaps pursued this question sufficiently far. The "watchmaker argument" was comprehensively and definitively eviscerated by Hume, its occasional revival by enthusiastic theists notwithstanding.

[Almo]

Why is religion so popular then?

Same reason Windows is. It's what people are used to, even though it sucks.

[Thanz]

The second sentence suggests that you have not perhaps pursued this question sufficiently far.
Did you miss the part where I said that I thought no one had proven God?
The "watchmaker argument" was comprehensively and definitively eviscerated by Hume, its occasional revival by enthusiastic theists notwithstanding.
Now who is appealling to authority? :p

[Yoink]

There is a difference between examining what answers others have come up with and engaging in a meaningless thought experiment about what if my parents were Hindus.

Oh, I blipped over this. Let me expand on this "thought experiment" for you. It's a classic that goes way wayyy back, at least, in its root form, to Xenophanes of Colophon. Let us say that you think "well, the God of my fathers is the Christian God, an omnipotent being who loves the world and all the people in it. He makes x, y, z demands on us and tells me that I'll get x punishment if I disobey and y reward if I obey. Now, I don't have much evidence to show that this God is real, but then lots of smart people believe in him, almost everyone I know personally believes in him, and I don't see any disproof of his existence, so it seems fair enough to join in."

But now you start thinking about being born into a Hindu family. "Hang on, though, everything I've instanced in the "pro" side of the ledger for the Christian God would be exactly the same if I'd been born to Hindu parents in India. Now I'd believe in several Gods who made a, b, c, demands on me [some incompatible with the Xtian demands, be it noted], and promises me completely different punishments and rewards. I would still have no proof either for or against this radically incompatible cosmological postulate. So it would be just as "rational" for me as a little Hindu to believe in the postulates of that religion as it now seems to me as a little Catholic to believe in the postulates of this one."

"Worse," you might add, "if I believe in a loving, omnipotent God, how can there be millions upon millions of people in this world to whom he chooses not to reveal either himself, or his demands--those demands upon which rests the happiness of their eternal souls? Or, if the Hindu beliefs are the true ones, how can they have hidden themselves from me and my ancestors? What kind of gods would shun the majority of their creation? [This is a little trickier, in that there are syncretist branches of Hinduism that could happily accomodate Christ--so let it be assumed we're talking about the newer, more fundamentalist, more xenophobic forms of Hinduism espoused by the BJP and the like]."

So, if my "rationality-lite" deposits me in such a cleft-stick, in which I either have to abandon the belief in the justice and loving nature of my god who would abandon my eternal soul to the mere happenstance of the circumstances of where and when I was born, OR I have to accept that both sets of belief are delusions, tell me why it's the "rational" choice to say "Oh no, that Aquinas was a smart guy--so I guess there's something to this Jesus stuff after all"?

[Yoink]

Now who is appealling to authority?

Er, not me. I think you still don't quite get it. I'm saying that Hume's argument is sound, and so far no one has shown a way around it. I'm not saying "that Hume guy was smart, therefore I think I'll side with him."

Do you get it? Saying "Aquinas was smart, therefore I like his Prime Mover argument" is an appeal to authority. Saying "I find Aquinas's Prime Mover argument to be convincing" is simply making clear which form of the argument you were convinced by, and is not an appeal to authority.

[Yoink]

Did you miss the part where I said that I thought no one had proven God?

So you accept that all watchmaker arguments are invalid, but you still think that they somehow lend "quasi-rational" support to a belief in God?

I suspect that we may not be able to find a common meaning for words like "rational" or "logic" or "valid" or "invalid" at this point, so there's probably not much point in pursuing this further.

[Thanz]

Do you get it? Saying "Aquinas was smart, therefore I like his Prime Mover argument" is an appeal to authority. Saying "I find Aquinas's Prime Mover argument to be convincing" is simply making clear which form of the argument you were convinced by, and is not an appeal to authority.
Yes, I get it. Didn't you see the smiley?

First, appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the person appealed to is not an authority. I can appeal to Einstein on the theory of relativity and it won't be fallacious. If I appeal to him on issues of the existence of God, it would be fallacious.

So, as far as authorities go on philiosophical arguments about God, I'd say Aquinas qualifies. As do other philosophers who have done the same thing. the problem is, of course, that they all say different things. So, as you suggest, the most you can say is that you prefer the argument of X over the argument of Y.

Which is why I cannot accept your assertion "the "watchmaker argument" was comprehensively and definitively eviscerated by Hume" as a statement of fact, but rather your opinion. And why I took a lighthearted swing at your appeal to Hume.

I suspect that we may not be able to find a common meaning for words like "rational" or "logic" or "valid" or "invalid" at this point, so there's probably not much point in pursuing this further.
You may be right. I don't think that I see these things in the same black/white framework that your comments indicate you do.

[Yoink]

Which is why I cannot accept your assertion "the "watchmaker argument" was comprehensively and definitively eviscerated by Hume" as a statement of fact, but rather your opinion.

So then, what aspect of Hume's argument do you see a flaw in? Or, alternatively, what aspect of the "watchmaker" argument strikes you as persuasive? (I'm still deeply puzzled by your idea that the argument is "valid" but "doesn't prove the existence of God"; I can't say you're doing anything to disabuse me of the idea that people support their religious beliefs by special pleading, circular argument, and generally slipshod reasoning).

Oh, and bonus: if you accept the watchmaker argument in any way at all, how do you avoid the infinite recursion? If the existence of the universe demands a God to have made the universe, why doesn't the existence of God demand a God-2 to have made God-1? If you answer is "because Gods don't need to be made, by definition" a quick demonstration of your evidence that universes do need to be made would not only help clarify your argument, but would automatically earn you a Ph.D. at any top-ranked Department of Philosophy and/or Physics you care to name.

[Thanz]

So then, what aspect of Hume's argument do you see a flaw in? Or, alternatively, what aspect of the "watchmaker" argument strikes you as persuasive?
To be frank, it has been a long time since undergrad and don't recall Hume's argument. As to question 2, I find the whole argument somewhat persuasive - the idea that something as complex and integrated as the world and the universe doesn't 'just happen' but rather, that it was designed. (and no, I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught in science class). I find it appeals to me rationally as well as emotionally. I think it makes sense. But, in the end, it is a thought experiment and doesn't actually prove anything.

Oh, and bonus: if you accept the watchmaker argument in any way at all, how do you avoid the infinite recursion? If the existence of the universe demands a God to have made the universe, why doesn't the existence of God demand a God-2 to have made God-1? If you answer is "because Gods don't need to be made, by definition" a quick demonstration of your evidence that universes do need to be made would not only help clarify your argument, but would automatically earn you a Ph.D. at any top-ranked Department of Philosophy and/or Physics you care to name.
I don't think I have to solve or avoid any infinite recursion. I don't have to answer who created the watchmaker to show that the watch was created.

[Yoink]

I don't have to answer who created the watchmaker to show that the watch was created.
So you're saying that there are some syllogisms which only apply when you say so:

e.g. "All complexly ordered things must have creators. The universe is complexly ordered. Therefore the universe must have a creator."

That's solid. But "All complexly ordered things must have creators. A universe-creating God is complexly ordered. Therefore God must have a creator." This, we can just ignore.

I was right--we aren't going to find any common ground as to what constitutes "rationality."

ETA: by the way, you miss a crucial step in the watchmaker argument. If you are happy to stop at "the universe must have been created" then all you've got "proof" for (lousy and patently illogical proof, as it happens) is a daemon. Even if one were to accept that universe's were, in general, the sorts of things that demanded "creation" this "one-step" version of the watchmaker argument would only have demonstrated that there was a being of some sort who has the power to make universes. None of the normal attributes of a God would have been logically imputed to him (omniscience, omnipotence, infinite wisdom, goodness etc.). No, all you have is a very very powerful being who could also be a nasty creep who created the world solely for the purpose of observing our suffering.

No, for your watchmaker argument to really get you as far as "God" you need to start that recursive cycle--you need to take it back to a "prime mover" who is utterly perfect. But if you're already engaged in that recursion, the decision to stop it at any point ("Hey look, I got God--time to stop thinkin'") is, again, irrational.

[Thanz]

So you're saying that there are some syllogisms which only apply when you say so:

e.g. "All complexly ordered things must have creators. The universe is complexly ordered. Therefore the universe must have a creator."

That's solid. But "All complex things must have creators. A universe-creating God is complexly ordered. Therefore God must have a creator." This, we can just ignore.

I was right--we aren't going to find any common ground as to what constitutes "rationality."
The problem is in the bolded portion. We don't know anything about the nature of a universe creating God. We have nothing that we can point to in order to say that God would be "complexly ordered". We can point to how the universe is complexly ordered. See the difference?

[gnome]

The part I have a problem with is "All complexly ordered things must have creators." ... I don't see that as obvious at all.

[Yoink]

The problem is in the bolded portion. We don't know anything about the nature of a universe creating God. We have nothing that we can point to in order to say that God would be "complexly ordered". We can point to how the universe is complexly ordered. See the difference?

Well, now we're into Hume's realm. We have no idea if the universe is "complexly ordered" in the sense you mean. We don't have any comparative basis. We don't have any "frame" to decide if universes in general "look like this" or not. If I find a watch, I know that there is a watchmaker because I know that watches are the sorts of things that watchmakers make. With the universe you are simply imputing a quality to it "made-ness" for which you have not a single scrap of evidence.

The idea that a God who loves us, knows us, and cares for us, who understands and cares about our emotions, our motivations, our actions etc. etc. etc. could be "simple" in the way you're suggesting goes against every single bit of our experience. Every other "knowing" being we know of (e.g. human beings) is incredibly complexly ordered, and has had their understanding of the world consciously and unconsciously formed and shaped by years of complex instruction--and yet it seems perfectly "rational" to you to posit a "God" who has these capacities in some sense "simply." And it seems equally fair to you to look at the universe: a vast random scattering of fiery blobs in space, smashing into each other at times in horrific explosions, every single one of which is doomed ultimately to entropic decay--it seems fair to you to look at that and say "wow, this looks like one of those "made" universes--none of the many other universes that I have seen look quite so "made" as this one?

[Yoink]

The part I have a problem with is "All complexly ordered things must have creators." ... I don't see that as obvious at all.

Oh, I agree absolutely that the premises of the syllogism are false: my point was only to show that he was being internally inconsistent.

[Yahzi]

Well, except for the third panel that says:
Curse you and your facts!

:D

Allright, I'll concede he aimed too broadly. I still think jerkiness is justifiable and necessary, I'm just conceding its a little jerkier than I made it out to be.

[Yahzi]

Presuming there isn't a soul, and that we "cease to exist" is just as much speculation as the other way around as neither of us have any evidence of either state.
Are you serious?

To defend your position by asserting that nothing can be known does not work. If we cannot know anything, all positions are not equally right; they are all equally wrong.

To assert that human beings have no evidence as to what happens when you die is just ludicrous. Have you ever seen the process? What did it look like to you? Should I bother to respond seriously to comments this vapid?

So, you choose to take a clausian "smarter-than-thou" approach to the subject because it is easy for you to marginalize people interested in spiritualism.
I'm not Claus. When you catch me out in an error, I admit it (see my post to Thanz, above; then see the Claus approach in the thread in my sig line).

As for marginalizing people who are interested in spiritualism, it is the same as marginalizing people who are interested in Elvis sightings. If you have no evidence, and no reason, you're just blowing wind. Dressing it up in pretty words doesn't make it better; in fact, it makes it worse.

Whether you like it or not, spiritualism is a part of humanity. That a non-spiritualist would ridicule a spiritualist is, ironic.
Whether you like it or not, rape is a part of humanity. That a non-rapist would ridicule a rapist is, ironic.

See, this is a good test. Before you post an argument, always substitute something absurd for the topic of your argument, and see if it still holds water. Chances are that if your statement doesn't make sense with any other topic, it is a case of special pleading.

Because there is no evidence otherwise. There is no evidence that God exists and no evidence that he doesn't exist.
There is a more evidence against God than there is against practically any other topic of investigation.

First, start with the Standard Model. Then we'll move on from there.

So why split hairs about it?
Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who committed genocide over the burning question of whether God was one who was three or three who was one. Asking an atheist why he "splits hairs" over religion while ignoring the fact that religion splits bodies over it is simply idiotic.

The reason I split hairs over it is because religious people have spent so much time killing people over it, and I am worried that they intend to start doing it again.

Does that sound like adequate justification to you?

[Yahzi]

I don't think I have to solve or avoid any infinite recursion. I don't have to answer who created the watchmaker to show that the watch was created.
But you do, for these two reasons:

1) You cannot reject the uncreated universe as unlikely, while accepting the uncreated god. If an uncreated thing is unlikely, then it is unlikely, regardless of what the thing is. To dismiss the universe for this flaw, while accepting god despite it, is special pleading.

2) Even if we give you a watchmaker - it doesn't do you any good. How do you know that watchmaker still exists? You cannot derive Christianity from the First Cause. In fact, you cannot derive any metaphysical truths from the First Cause, other than that there was a First Cause.

The problem with the the First Cause argument is that it does not lead to any specific religion or even religious claim, and the reason this is a problem is because absolutely no religoius person is satisified with that state of affairs.

Your religious beliefs entail much more than "some unknown agent, acting in an unknown way, was the cause of the universe." Unless you can show how your other beleifs derive from that, the First Cause argument is no more than a red herring.

[MetalPig]

America. :duck: :duck: :duck:

I know... I read NoGodBlog on atheists.org regularly, and the problems you guys face overthere amaze me.

[Thanz]

But you do, for these two reasons:

1) You cannot reject the uncreated universe as unlikely, while accepting the uncreated god. If an uncreated thing is unlikely, then it is unlikely, regardless of what the thing is. To dismiss the universe for this flaw, while accepting god despite it, is special pleading.
I am drawing a distinction between the creator and the created, while you smush them together. As I said above, I don't think that you can smush them. I don't think that you can say that creator and the created must have the same character. You will undoubtedly disagree, as will Yoink. That's fine. I'm not sure where else we can go on this point but to agree to disagree.

2) Even if we give you a watchmaker - it doesn't do you any good. How do you know that watchmaker still exists? You cannot derive Christianity from the First Cause. In fact, you cannot derive any metaphysical truths from the First Cause, other than that there was a First Cause.

The problem with the the First Cause argument is that it does not lead to any specific religion or even religious claim, and the reason this is a problem is because absolutely no religoius person is satisified with that state of affairs.

Your religious beliefs entail much more than "some unknown agent, acting in an unknown way, was the cause of the universe." Unless you can show how your other beleifs derive from that, the First Cause argument is no more than a red herring.
I know all of this. This is where my faith comes in, and I make no pretensions that it is other than that. I am not saying that the first cause argument proves the Christian God, Jesus and all the rest. I am saying that I like this particular argument on a rational level, but I can accept that it does not prove the God I believe in nor do I try and argue that it does. Bidlack, IIRC, believes in some sort of deity or something "out there", without getting more specific. I go a step beyond that, and freely admit that this is quite literally a leap of faith.

Faith is believing in something that you know you cannot prove. I am comfortable with my faith.

Yoink - I know I didn't specifically reply to your post, but I think this post answers yours as well. Let me know if there is something else you want me to address.

[Jorghnassen]

I know I shouldn't bother (http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922), but, what the heck. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19)

Where did I declare "objective facts" to be useless?
Here:
Now, tell me, is science geared to answer this question?

So according to you, asking a question = declaring all objective facts to be useless, on the basis that you believe there exists objective morals and ethics because of... ah yes, Godwin.
And now, I'm too sober to continue with this pointless exercise.

[Yahzi]

So according to you, asking a question = declaring all objective facts to be useless,
Yes, the exercise is pointless, because you don't bother to read my posts.

I clearly laid out why questioning science's ability to answer something is the same thing as questioning empirical facts ability to answer something, since science is merely the systematic study of empirical facts.

Your response is to make fun of my post, without actually addressing the content of it.

If you don't have anything to offer the conversation but your own personal opinion and invective, then don't offer anything at all. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

on the basis that you believe there exists objective morals and ethics because of... ah yes, Godwin.
How handy for you: an internet joke trumps history and the slaughter of millions.

[Yoink]

I am drawing a distinction between the creator and the created, while you smush them together.

Which would be fine, except that you have no rational basis for that distinction. If I were to say "God created peanuts--but of course he didn't create peas" and you were to say "what justification do you have for that claim" it wouldn't be rational for me to say "well, peanuts are God-created type things and peas are not--duh! Isn't it obvious?"

On what basis does the universe look to you like a "created" type of thing? By what process do you deduce that the thing necessary for the creation of a universe would undoubtedly be a "non-created" type of thing?

Having no rational answer to this question (I'm sorry to presume here, but again, if you actually do have such an answer, Harvard has a named chair to offer you) it's not reasonable to just say "well, I likes me the idea of some kind of uncreated universe-creator."

[Yahzi]

I'm not sure where else we can go on this point but to agree to disagree.
Us disagreeing is not the problem. The problem is that you disagree with you.

I am drawing a distinction between the creator and the created, while you smush them together.
But you do not. There is exactly and only one place, one time, and one creator that you make a distinction for. You grant God a special exemption: because the topic is God and the creation of the universe, you suspend all the normal rules you apply to any other topic.

The reason this matters is because you are unhappy when other people commit the same act. When a racist invokes a special exemption to defend his hateful views, you do not accept it as adequate. Similarily for any act you find hateful.

Now you probably want to say that your special exemption does not cause harm. But this is not helpful, for two reasons: a) what you define as harm is itself subject to special exemptions, and b) Christianity has in fact caused plenty of harm. Just consider the traditional witch trial method: toss her in water and if she dies, she was innocent. To the Christians doing this, no harm was caused, or rather, it was the lesser of two harms, since the witch's eternal soul was saved at the cost of her merely mortal body.

So you cannot defend your special exemption because it is harmless, because the entire point of special exemptions is that they can break any rule. You are trying to isolate your unreason in a cage of reason, much like we put up fences around other dangerous behaviours (such as drinking age limits, saftey belts on roller coasters, etc.). The problem is that those other activities are objective behaviours that submit to objective analysis: people like drinking and roller coasters for very specific reasons. Whereas your activity is a denial of reason itself.



I am not saying that the first cause argument proves the Christian God, Jesus and all the rest.
Then it is useless to you, and you shouldn't even bring it up. You like it because it presents the illusion of reasonableness. But this is contrary to the one thing that makes your faith intellectually honest: you admit it is irrational.

Having admitted it is irrational, and hence beyond any possible rational proof, why do you take comfort in (or like) any argument? Having conceeded your faith is merely faith, why do you seem to keep looking for reasonable justification? Why would you care about any argument, one way or the other?

My answer is: because you're human, and because intuitively you want to separate your exemption from the harmful, hateful ones you know others will present. But this is a vain hope: if you are allowed to be irrational, then you must allow others to be irrational as well.

Faith is believing in something that you know you cannot prove. I am comfortable with my faith.
But you are not comfortable with the faith of the terrorists, jihadists, and suicide-bombers. And the only reason you can offer for your dismissal of their faith is that it is irrational.

I understand how Godel's theorem might seem to apply here: God could be one of those truths we can know but cannot formally prove, thus allowing for you to know it is true while still endorsing the formal rules of reason (i.e. identifying harm, etc.) Except that life is not a formal system, and the way you know something without proving it is to observe it, and your faith not only makes up for missing arguements, it makes up for missing observations.

I'm not trying to say you shouldn't have faith: I agree that people have a right to personal preference within some circumscribed sphere (I don't have to justify to anyone why I eat the green M&Ms last.) What I am trying to do is make clear the gigantic gulf between you and the vast majority of believers. The reason I want to make this gulf clear is because you are actually standing on the same side as we atheists.

Once you admit that the expression of faith must be bound by reason, you admit that faith is indistinguishable from personal fiction. This makes you, for all public intents and purposes, an atheist.

On the other hand, the essence of religion is to assert that faith is itself as valuable as reason or evidence. From there it is an inexorable slide to the auto de fa.

I'm not trying to rob you of your faith; I'm trying to point out that you are one of us. And consequently, you should find the cartoon funny, because it is aimed at your enemies as much as ours.


Edit: this is the heart of the secular compromise. We all agreed to treat our personal religious convictions as mere fictions, soley for the sake of getting along. The growing unwillingness to adhere to that compromise is called "fundamentalism." I recognize that Thanz is not a fundamentalist. I submit that Thanz is not the target of the cartoon, because Thanz does reject religion - as public, objective truth.

Also, what Yoink said, in so many fewer words. :)

[Thanz]

Which would be fine, except that you have no rational basis for that distinction. If I were to say "God created peanuts--but of course he didn't create peas" and you were to say "what justification do you have for that claim" it wouldn't be rational for me to say "well, peanuts are God-created type things and peas are not--duh! Isn't it obvious?"

On what basis does the universe look to you like a "created" type of thing? By what process do you deduce that the thing necessary for the creation of a universe would undoubtedly be a "non-created" type of thing?

Having no rational answer to this question (I'm sorry to presume here, but again, if you actually do have such an answer, Harvard has a named chair to offer you) it's not reasonable to just say "well, I likes me the idea of some kind of uncreated universe-creator."
Here is the difference as I see it. I can observe the universe. I can see how well things work together. I can see how intricate the biosphere is on earth, both on a micro and a macro level. And I can say that it looks to me like it was designed. I cannot, however, say anything of the kind about who/what this designer must or should be. I can't say that it would undoubtedly be made by a "non-created" type of thing. And I likewise can't say that it must obviously be created by a "created" type of thing. The essence of the "creator" of this universe, and whether that creator was in fact created, is irrelevant to whether this universe was created. Your analogy of peanuts and peas is not relevant - both can be observed.

[Almo]

My take on it:

Why is there evil?
Well, that’s stupid. Evil exists because of free will, which christians claim exists.

Who made God?
Well, that’s stupid. As you say, he’s eternal, as are the laws of physics (and apparently protons).

Why should I trust you after that Santa Clause thing?
This has an element of truth to it. The difference is that children are taught religion because their parents believe it.

It is true that children sometimes ask uncomfortable questions about religion, which are met with silly answers. I’m an example. In 4th grade, in class at a catholic school, I asked the priest this: “What if the Bible is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated?” His answer was that it would have been found out by now. I inisted: “But that’s what I mean the BIGGEST hoax. As in, we haven’t found out yet!” He really didn’t know what to do with me, and he was on the spot in front of class. I was never happy with the answer given, and I think it may have marked the beginning of my trip away from religion.

Shouldn’t the fact that God’s existance (sic) has no major consequences itself raise a red flag?
This comes from the perspective of a person who doesn’t believe. People who do, often believe god’s presence will matter far in the future, rather than on a day-to-day basis.

paraphrased - (things have been explained that used to require god, since science was still young)
This is true, and appears to be one of the few things this thing says that is reasonable.

Other religions are wrong, you just have a blind eye to your own.
This is true of some, but not all god-believers.

His conlcusion (that you must be dumb to believe) doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As the author is, I am also annoyed at having to pussy-foot around others’ beliefs.

I would refuse to respect someone’s beliefs IF they also refuse to respect mine. Some religious folk I know don’t get up set about me not believing. They may think I’ll come around or whatever, but they don’t bother me about it.

[Thanz]

Us disagreeing is not the problem. The problem is that you disagree with you.
Funny, I don't see myself as disagreeing with myself. Sometimes I may talk to myself, but usually I agree with what I am saying. :)

But you do not. There is exactly and only one place, one time, and one creator that you make a distinction for. You grant God a special exemption: because the topic is God and the creation of the universe, you suspend all the normal rules you apply to any other topic.

The reason this matters is because you are unhappy when other people commit the same act. When a racist invokes a special exemption to defend his hateful views, you do not accept it as adequate. Similarily for any act you find hateful.
First, I don't see the two as remotely similar at all. Second, I don't expect you (or anyone else) to accept my argument or faith: reject away. I don't see a problem with my rejection of a racist's views.

Whereas your activity is a denial of reason itself.
I disagree. Rather than a denial of reason itself, it is an affirmation that there is more to life than reason. Anyone with emotions can tell you this - whether they are religious or not.

Then it is useless to you, and you shouldn't even bring it up. You like it because it presents the illusion of reasonableness. But this is contrary to the one thing that makes your faith intellectually honest: you admit it is irrational.

Having admitted it is irrational, and hence beyond any possible rational proof, why do you take comfort in (or like) any argument? Having conceeded your faith is merely faith, why do you seem to keep looking for reasonable justification? Why would you care about any argument, one way or the other?
You don't go to Catholic schools for 16 years without thinking about these kinds of things a lot. I took philosophy courses as electives in my undergrad as I was interested in these issues. I like this argument (and some others) as they provide something, however flawed, besides blind faith. You may say that as I have agreed that none of them prove God anyway, it is still blind faith. I prefer to think of it as though I have to wear glasses. :)

But you are not comfortable with the faith of the terrorists, jihadists, and suicide-bombers. And the only reason you can offer for your dismissal of their faith is that it is irrational.
Wrong. I am comfortable with their faith - they can believe what they want. I abhor their actions. Just as I abhor the actions of those who purport to do things in the name of my faith that I disagree with - like tossing those "witches" in the river or bombing an abortion clinic or setting a website to say that God hates fags.

Once you admit that the expression of faith must be bound by reason, you admit that faith is indistinguishable from personal fiction. This makes you, for all public intents and purposes, an atheist.
I am not sure where I have admitted that. I have said that faith is something other than reason - I don't know where you get that I say faith must be bound by reason. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "bound by reason".

On the other hand, the essence of religion is to assert that faith is itself as valuable as reason or evidence. From there it is an inexorable slide to the auto de fa.
I am not trying to rank them. I am saying that faith is different than strictly reason, and that it has value.

I'm not trying to rob you of your faith; I'm trying to point out that you are one of us. And consequently, you should find the cartoon funny, because it is aimed at your enemies as much as ours.
I try not to think of it as "us" and "them". And I don't find the cartoon funny as the author is calling me irredeemably stupid. I can laugh at myself as much as the next guy, but that is just not funny. (the other cartoon posted, however, was funny).

I recognize that Thanz is not a fundamentalist.
True. I am not a fundamentalist.
I submit that Thanz is not the target of the cartoon, because Thanz does reject religion - as public, objective truth.
Well, I don't think that I reject religion either. I embrace it. I believe it. I believe that I am right and you are wrong. It is what I believe, but not what I can prove. The cartoonist mocks me for believing it when I cannot prove it.

What I try not to do is to bludgeon people over the head with my beliefs. I do not come here and condemn athiests to hell. I abhor the infamous statement from Bush - which is certainly not aimed at me. I see this cartoon as being of the same character as that statement, and whether it is aimed at me or not it simply isn't funny.

[juryjone]

I realize this quote is from more than 24 hours ago, but I liked it and I want to thank Yoink for it:

If one reads The Problem of Pain one sees, yet again, the dreary old familiar petitio principii that is the hallmark of all theodicies. Lewis starts with a spectacularly weak argument for the existence of God: if the world were really as bleak as atheists would have it be, how could we have conceived of something so perfect as a loving God. It's Descartes's argument, of course, from the Discourse on Method, and after Hume it hardly needs further trashing from me. I trust that nobody here needs me to point out the flaws in the argument?

So, having satisfied himself (on the basis of an already exploded argument) that God does exist, Lewis sets himself the task of rationalizing away the problem of pain. Lewis's task, then, is not to honestly face a world of pain and ask "does it seem reasonable, in the face of this evidence, to posit that the universe is ruled by a loving omnipotent being." No, his task is to say "given that I am convinced in the existence of a loving, omnipotent being, how do I explain away the problem of pain." Unsurprisingly, he succeeds to his own satisfaction by redefining the words "loving," "omnipotent," "happy" and so forth to his own satisfaction.


This (although worded more elegantly than I am capable of) is exactly what I think of when people throw Lewis at me. "I know that you don't believe, but neither did Lewis! Here, read this!" I say, "Yes, I can see where this might be a good argument for you, since you already believe, but it means absolutely nothing to me!"

Also, Thanz, count me in as one who doesn't understand your dismissal of the special pleading fallacy on the "First Cause" issue. I respect that you don't have to have a rational argument to justify your faith - I don't get that "faith bound by reason" comment by Yahzi either - but you seem to be trying to have a rational discussion about it, using words like "argument".

I don't know that I'm being clear, so I'll shut up now.:D

[Yoink]

I can observe the universe. I can see how well things work together.

Yes--like the miracle that my legs are exactly the right length to reach the ground. Ain't that amazin'?

To say that things "work well" you must mean "work well to some particular end." A random mess "works well" at being random. So you can make no claim about the universe "working well" without also imputing to it a teleology.

So what is that teleology? To produce us, marvellous us? How would we know? What evidence could we have? If some of the dinosaurs had arrived at conscious thought (how would we know?) and thought the same thing, do you think it was disproved when a giant meteor slammed into the earth and wiped them out? Or was that all part of the "intricate machinery" of the universe designed to produce us?

But if we're the goal of the universe, and it's all designed to make us happy, why does it suck so much? Why are there earthquakes that kill thousands of innocent people? Why are we still vulnerable to a giant meteoric wrecking ball that could (and eventually, inevitably will) snuff us all out in a giant puff of theological confusion?

Ah, perhaps you say, well, you see, that's all part of the universe's complex plan to make us--oh, I don't know--smarter? More compassionate? More joyful with every moment that we're not dead or dying or some horrible disease? Whatever the rationalization du jour is. But then aren't you really saying that the thing that really convinces you that this universe is just "made for us" is the fact that it doesn't quite function as if it is "made for us"?

And I can say that it looks to me like it was designed. I cannot, however, say anything of the kind about who/what this designer must or should be. I can't say that it would undoubtedly be made by a "non-created" type of thing. And I likewise can't say that it must obviously be created by a "created" type of thing. The essence of the "creator" of this universe, and whether that creator was in fact created, is irrelevant to whether this universe was created. Your analogy of peanuts and peas is not relevant - both can be observed.

Again, you seem to want to pick and choose when being ignorant of something means that you're getting a hint of a possibly noumenal answer. If you want the argument from design to mean anything at all--if it has any force at all--then you are saying "I can recognize things that look designed (from experience, first principles etc.) and I know that designed things typically have designers." Well, that's fine: but you also know a great deal about designers too. Why are you suddenly enabled to say "oh, well, my normal course of reasoning from experience applies in the step from "designed thing" to "designer" but suddenly it has no relevance at all when it comes to reasoning about the nature of the "designer."

Even if we were to accept that you could demonstrate that the universe had a designer (we find a giant autograph, for example), we would in no way have found even a tiny first step towards a valid inference that there was such a thing in the universe as a God. The argument gets you as far as a "demonic alien"--it doesn't get you any further. So even if you still want to run with it as something that "doesn't work but still kinda has some tendential merit" or whatever formulation seems to work for you, it is still entirely irrelevant to the question of the existence of anything remotely like the Christian (or, indeed any other religion's) god.

[Jorghnassen]

Yes, the exercise is pointless, because you don't bother to read my posts.


Faulty reasoning again. I did read your posts, I merely don't bother to reply in general (at least we both agree on the pointlessness).

How handy for you: an internet joke trumps history and the slaughter of millions.

Appeal to emotion. How is that objective?

[Walter Wayne]

Which is the point of the cartoon: to expose them to a level of emotion that causes them to think, "Why is this guy so mad?" Which might then get their attention long enough for them to think about the issues.

Hopefully they will try to defend themselves from his invective. And then they will discover they cannot.

The point of the cartoon is not to make the case. It is to get their attention.

And sometimes you have to shout to reach some people.
I think you assume too much about what the author's point is. I think your assumptions are unwarranted based on the content. If the point of the comic is "not to make the case", then why does he say "The argument? That your failure to reject religion indicates you are colossally and irredeemably stupid". That seems like he is stated the case he is aiming to argue.

I admit that it is a generalisation, but I think it is based on him having met far too many religious people. I am always annoyed by people trying to force their faith on others, or even just refusing to admit that their beliefs are not proven absolute truths. I'm sure their are plenty of people who are happy to believe whatever they like and never bother anyone, and it is a shame that they will be offended by this cartoon. However, they must know that crazy evangelicals exist and should be able to see that it is aimed at this sort of person and not at themselves.
Generalisations are usually the result of dealing with too few of the people, or not dealing with them in an open manner. If he dealt with many, honestly, he would appreciate the range of character in these people. And I think you are making an assumption when you state that "it is aimed at this sort of person and not themselves. The title "An open letter to religious people: ..." and the third frame, "Intstead, this is a direct attack on you, the religious person." And then we get to the last frame "I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and I refuse to respect people who hold them."

Not one qualifying statement in all of that. It is in fact a generalisation, and assuming he is aiming at a subset of religious people is a biased appraisal of the content.

Walt

[Beleth]

Demonstrate it then. People were complaining that other people were saying these arguments had all been answered without bothering to show the answers. Stating that it is "demonstrably false" or "a blatant lie" is not giving an answer unless you show how it is.
To show that a belief system can be brought down by a curious child asking an innocent question, one needs to have the belief system be brought down by a curious child asking an innocent question.

This has not happened to Christianity.

QED.

[Beleth]

Wow. You even refute the frames with no dialogue in them. Smackdown!
You mean Frame 6, where I acknowledge that no argument was presented by saying that no argument was presented?

Sorry, if you are not going to read my posts, I see no reason to read further into yours.

[Yoink]

You mean Frame 6, where I acknowledge that no argument was presented by saying that no argument was presented?

Sorry, if you are not going to read my posts, I see no reason to read further into yours.

Beleth, this was a little joke. All it did was jokingly refer to the extraordinary (and laudable) thoroughness of your post. It's pretty hard for me to see how it could have offended you, but seeing as it did I unequivocally withdraw the statement. Beleth did not refute the panels that had no dialogue in them.

BELETH DID NOT REFUTE THE PANELS THAT HAD NO DIALOGUE IN THEM, EVERYBODY!!!

All better now?

So now, why isn't Lewis's argument circular?

ETA: By the way, I think it is pretty shabby argumentative behaviour to look at a post where I engaged at length and quite seriously with your arguments to then hunt desperately to find a tiny moment of flippancy and declare on the basis of a self-evidently silly comment that I "didn't read your post." But, you know, whatever floats your boat.

[Yahzi]

My take on it:
And your take is exactly what the cartoon objects to - flippant, shallow answers to serious questions.

From your responses it is clear you haven't got a clue what the issues are, and haven't spent two minutes thinking about them. But you're willing to call him stupid for asking those questions, even while you toss out answers that are breathtaking in their ignorance and incoherence.

Elsewhere in this thread I have explained this. I would look for a link but I have no expectation that you are interested in becoming educated on the questions you dismiss as stupid.

I will say this: protons are not apparently eternal. No one who understand atomic decay would ever describe them as such. Your presentation of facts does not stand up to scrutiny.

[Yahzi]

Appeal to emotion. How is that objective?
From the irrelevancy of your reply, it is obvious that you read my posts with no other objective than to find something to complain, criticize, or nit-pick.

Why is it so hard to get people to talk about the subject? Why is it so hard for you to remember what the topic of this discussion is?

The answer is because you don't have an argument against my position. So instead, you snipe at the edges, hoping to create the illusion of principled debate.

It's not bad enough that you do this; you admit it:
I did read your posts, I merely don't bother to reply in general
Then why do you reply? Just to find fault, without any attempt, intention, or even desire of advancing the discussion?

[Yahzi]

The cartoonist mocks me for believing it when I cannot prove it.
There is a serious disconnect here: you assert people's right to believe without proof, but not their right to act on those beliefs.

What does it mean to believe something if it does not influence your actions?

If what you are saying is that you are comfortable with terrorists play-acting a fantasy wherein God demands they blow up people, as long as the terrorists never confuse their play-acting with the real world, then it is disingenous to say you are comfortable with their faith.

This is what I mean by "bound by reason:" even while you assert complete freedom for belief, you want to constrain action by the rules of reasonability.

The reason I cannot agree with you on complete freedom of belief is because I consider belief to be an important component of action. I cannot join you in divorcing the two; I cannot imagine people who truly believe but do not act as if they truly believe. I suspect the terrorists are as perplexed by this distinction as I am. ;)

I realize that I am now arguing against the secular compromise: the idea that we can all beleive anything, as long as in the public sector we behave as if we only believe reasonable things. I do not think the secular compromise can withstand true faith; I think it is only viable for people who already understand there is something wrong with not being able to prove your case.

In other words, the secular compromise only works for people who are play-acting. And as nice as you are, you are not play-acting: your assault on our secular system creeps through:

(The second reason that I disagree is that unconstrained freedom of belief in the irrational implies the right to stop believing in the constraint on actions; since, after all, the basis of that restraint is merely reasonable).

Second, I don't expect you (or anyone else) to accept my argument or faith: reject away
On what grounds? Because I don't like your faith? How can I limit myself to principled rejections when the principle is not liking it?

I don't see a problem with my rejection of a racist's views.
On what grounds? Because you don't like their views? How can you limit yourself to fair or principled rejections when the standard is not liking something?

Isn't the rejection of views a public act, not merely a private one?

With the best of intentions, you are crippling our ability to create justice, harmony, and truth.

Rather than a denial of reason itself, it is an affirmation that there is more to life than reason. Anyone with emotions can tell you this - whether they are religious or not.
There's nothing unreasonable about emotions. Indeed, you expect people's emotions to be reasonable - if your brother gets mad at you, you expect it to be for a reason.

I agree that formal logic is inadequate to estalish truth (ala Hume). However, that does not apply here. The only truths we are entitled to believe without logical support are the ones we observe - and you cannot observe the facts that support your belief.

The distinction you make between observed and unobserved - the idea that because you have never seen God, you can therefore ascribe whatever absurd qualities you want to God - is a denial of reason. Not seeing God is a reason to ascribe nothing to him, not permission to ascribe anything to him.

I like this argument (and some others) as they provide something, however flawed, besides blind faith. You may say that as I have agreed that none of them prove God anyway, it is still blind faith. I prefer to think of it as though I have to wear glasses. :)
This is unacceptable. You cannot publicly defend your faith by claiming it is blind, while privately supporting it with arguments you know are inadequate. You are fooling yourself if you do this. How are you to stop yourself from fooling yourself into an action?

If you are going to have blind faith, you have to have blind faith. If you are going to be comforted by reasons and arguments, then you have to be comforted by real reasons and arguments. Anything less is a violation of intellectual integrity.

I think this is why we are seeing a surge of fundamentalism, now that science can truly knock against the pillars of faith. Thanks to success of science and education, it is now more difficult for people to look the other way; it is harder for them to pretend they are play-acting. Because all along they were not: all along they were sure of their faith, and merely indulging the scientists. Now that is not such an easy position to hold, because science has robbed them of the comforting arguments they used to believe. And the retreat to the comfort of those arguments is a retreat from science.

The problem, Thanz, is that you are too well educated. You are too intellectually honest, and too intellectually capable. A different person, with less understanding of reason and logic and how the world works, could still cling to the tatters of faith, just as a child can cling to an old teddy bear. But you are not a child; you are an adult. You know the teddy bear is just a piece of cloth.

I still have all my teddy bears from when I was a child. They have great sentimental value to me, having been invested with many emotions. I cannot bear to get rid of them, certainly not to just toss them in the dumpster. So they sit, in boxes in my closet, and every time I move houses I am reminded of them.

But at the same time, I cannot take comfort in them like I used to.


(Now, of course, I expect a barrage from the peanut gallery for having described faith as childish. I hope you, at least, can understand that I am not trying to be dismissive or insulting, but illustrative.)

[Yahzi]

I think you assume too much about what the author's point is.
No doubt I am projecting my own visions onto the canvas.

But isn't that what art is for?

:D

I concede my arguments might be more about what the cartoon could be, while others are arguing what the cartoon is.

But I think it's a pretty reasonable interpretation: The author, angry and bitter over constant dismissal by theists, launched a broadside to get their attention. I don't think anyone can legimately read this cartoon and not see the author's lamentation: that people will not live up to the high ideals he wants to ascribe to them.

[Thanz]

There is a serious disconnect here: you assert people's right to believe without proof, but not their right to act on those beliefs.
If this is a disconnect, it is one that is codified and recognized in most of the legal systems of the western world. Both your country and mine have constitutional protections for freedom of expression, religion and thought. And each country has laws prohibiting various actions. So, while someone may truly believe that they have to assault the parliament buildings in Ottawa and behead Stephen Harper, that action is restricted. The belief, however, is not restricted.

So, I don't see any disconnect in allowing someone to have whatever faith or beliefs they have, and still deplore some of the actions that are a result of those beliefs.

Or, to put it another way, you can believe whatever you want without consequences. You cannot act however you want without consequences.

I will come back to the rest of your post, but I am curious as to why you think my position on this is so untenable.

[Yoink]

If this is a disconnect, it is one that is codified and recognized in most of the legal systems of the western world. Both your country and mine have constitutional protections for freedom of expression, religion and thought. And each country has laws prohibiting various actions. So, while someone may truly believe that they have to assault the parliament buildings in Ottawa and behead Stephen Harper, that action is restricted. The belief, however, is not restricted.

So, I don't see any disconnect in allowing someone to have whatever faith or beliefs they have, and still deplore some of the actions that are a result of those beliefs.

Or, to put it another way, you can believe whatever you want without consequences. You cannot act however you want without consequences.

I will come back to the rest of your post, but I am curious as to why you think my position on this is so untenable.

I can't speak for Yahzi, but from my perspective I think that the problem is not "why are these acts illegal" but "on what basis could you say that these acts are unjustified or wrong."

[J. Arthur Hastur]

You have to fool yourself before anyone else can fool you.

[Yahzi]

If this is a disconnect, it is one that is codified and recognized in most of the legal systems of the western world.
When the Founding Fathers wrote "Freedom of belief" into the Constituition, they did not mean what we take it to mean.

They assumed that belief would be restricted to rational interpretations. They would have bounced a Breatharian out on their ear without hesitation.

As products of the Enlightenment, the wholesale rejection of reason never occurred to them. As products of a previous age, it was in fact reasonable for them to differ on religion, even to the point of actually believing it.

The situation has changed. The last rational defense of religion evaporated once we proved that mind is linked to brain. Once belief could no longer be defended as rational, its defenders could no longer use rational boundries as their goalposts.

My contention is that this wonderful compromise is no longer tenable.

So, I don't see any disconnect in allowing someone to have whatever faith or beliefs they have, and still deplore some of the actions that are a result of those beliefs.
The disconnect is obvious in the newspapers. The system is failing. The fundies and the atheists grow louder, at the expense of the middle.

Moral Decline of the West (http://members.cox.net/mcplanck/essays/moral.html)

[Walter Wayne]

When the Founding Fathers wrote "Freedom of belief" into the Constituition, they did not mean what we take it to mean.I'd be interested in seeing evidence of the intent of the founding fathers. I had read excerpts of some of their writing, but nothing that implied this.

Walt

[Yahzi]

I'd be interested in seeing evidence of the intent of the founding fathers. I had read excerpts of some of their writing, but nothing that implied this.
The founding fathers wrote in a pre-Godel, pre-Heisenberg era. If you will look at how important those two's contribution to current philosophy is, you will see what I mean.

The current fashion of degrading science as merely a "social narrative" depends on those ideas. This is not a concept the FF could have even imagined. They took the supremacy of empirical investigation as a gold standard, and assumed everyone else did too.

It was a less cynical time.

[Walter Wayne]

The founding fathers wrote in a pre-Godel, pre-Heisenberg era. If you will look at how important those two's contribution to current philosophy is, you will see what I mean.

The current fashion of degrading science as merely a "social narrative" depends on those ideas. This is not a concept the FF could have even imagined. They took the supremacy of empirical investigation as a gold standard, and assumed everyone else did too.

It was a less cynical time.They did write prior to those contributions, but that doesn't me that people didn't degrade science in those days for other reasons. So I don't see why they would have any more using to discourage idiots prior Godel or Heisenberg. It isn't like people got stupider when Heisenberg published.

It is hardly evidence that they intended the amendments in a way other than what most people believe. I would really like evidence taht they believed everyone else also "took supremacy of empirical investigation as a gold standard."

Walt

[delphi_ote]

I only have one thing to contribute to this conversation. The comic uses images from the Commander Keen series of video games. Commander Keen is the coolest series of games to ever come out on planet Earth. All of you people, myself included, will never be half as cool as Commander Keen.
Oh yea? What about Captain Cosmic?!

[Yahzi]

They did write prior to those contributions, but that doesn't me that people didn't degrade science in those days for other reasons.
Do you have any of those other reasons at hand?

If you agree that the primary criticism of empiricism (and by empiricism I mean the weakest version that says reality is consistent and we can learn from it by observing it) stems from Heisenberg and Godel, then when I point out that those theories could not have been primary in the FF's criticism of science, that should settle the argument.

Otherwise you're asking me to prove a negative. "Prove there weren't any other reasons they may have meant exactly what Karl Popper meant a hundred years later even though nothing they wrote or was written in their time ever suggested this." Why not ask me to prove that Plato did not use calculus, but just didn't bother to write it down?

In the FF's day, at the peak of the Enlightenment, the only criticism of empiricism was Hume; and he himself had already undercut his own assault on reason by the end of his life. The absurdity of a world that changes because you measured it was still safely in the future; that deductive logic really was crippled in the search for the truth was only suggested by Hume, not proven by Godel.

So I don't see why they would have any more using to discourage idiots prior Godel or Heisenberg.
There's this thing. It's called "history." It's the study of how societies change over time. Turns out, things - like mores, values, trends, and fashions - are not constants, but can be different from era to era.

Two hundred years ago, the power of reason was unquestioned. The power of technology to master the clock-work universe was taken for granted. People looked up to scientists. Kant thought he could prove God by reason alone. Jules Verne invented science fiction - the idea that the future would be better than the past. Ben Franklin was a national hero. Kids wanted to be him - more importantly, the leadership of our nation listened to him.

Faith and reason were still on the same side. Jefferson, Paine, and dozens of others attest to this.

Hume had pointed to the bug-bear chained in the shadows, but it took Heisenberg to unshackle it. And it took a hundred years for people to decide they were less afraid of the beast than of Darwin.

It is hardly evidence that they intended the amendments in a way other than what most people believe.
Perhaps you meant "how a reasonable person would interpret their text." But doing this in the absence of an understanding of what theories and ideas were available to them at the time is untenable.

I would really like evidence taht they believed everyone else also "took supremacy of empirical investigation as a gold standard."
The Enlightenment (http://www.teacheroz.com/Enlightenment.htm)

[Yoink]

Yahzi,

I keep seeing Karl Popper instanced on this board as a "postmodernist" who reduces all of science to relativistic nonsense. This strikes me as such a completely weird and backwards reading of Popper I have to ask: what is it in Popper's theory of falsifiability (his main contribution to the philosophy of science) that you, and others, see as so dangerous?

[delphi_ote]

It isn't like people got stupider when Heisenberg published.
Yes it is. Heisenberg increased the amount of information of which they were ignorant.

[Walter Wayne]

Do you have any of those other reasons at hand?

If you agree that the primary criticism of empiricism (and by empiricism I mean the weakest version that says reality is consistent and we can learn from it by observing it) stems from Heisenberg and Godel, then when I point out that those theories could not have been primary in the FF's criticism of science, that should settle the argument.The primary criticism of empiricism isn't from people who even know who Godel is, and most of them don't even know Heisenberg. Those that use his name are just as likely to site some one-off disproven paper showing "power of prayer" than they are to site "well science says you can't know anything".
Otherwise you're asking me to prove a negative. "Prove there weren't any other reasons they may have meant exactly what Karl Popper meant a hundred years later even though nothing they wrote or was written in their time ever suggested this." Why not ask me to prove that Plato did not use calculus, but just didn't bother to write it down?

In the FF's day, at the peak of the Enlightenment, the only criticism of empiricism was Hume; and he himself had already undercut his own assault on reason by the end of his life. The absurdity of a world that changes because you measured it was still safely in the future; that deductive logic really was crippled in the search for the truth was only suggested by Hume, not proven by Godel.Why are you bringing up these names at all. Many people today and then weren't educated well enough to even know the names. Do you think the FFs framed the constitution based on knowledge of a small number of educated people?

How come to that "[t]hey assumed that belief would be restricted to rational interpretations," is beyond me. Ben Franklin himself dealt with the likes of Mesmer, and for a long period saw religion in a more utilitarian light than as some sort of search for truth.

Yes, scientists were held as authorities, but Franklin still griped about dogma. The FFs may have hoped for a better future, but they were aware of the time they were in.

[Walter Wayne]

Yes it is. Heisenberg increased the amount of information of which they were ignorant.People of ignorant of it before that two. :p

[Yahzi]

This strikes me as such a completely weird and backwards reading of Popper I have to ask: what is it in Popper's theory of falsifiability (his main contribution to the philosophy of science) that you, and others, see as so dangerous?
The short answer is that Popper said more than that; and if you are still unconvinced, just substitute Feyerabend or Kuhn. I meant to refer to a class of philosophers, not really just a specific philosopher.

The long answer (I forgot who originally posted this link): http://www.geocities.com/Krishna_kunchith/dcs/popper/popper.html

The simple and sufficient proof of Popper's levity is this: that he is always saying `daring' things that he does not mean. For example he says, and says, as we have seen, with all possible emphasis, that there is no good reason to believe any scientific theory. But he is not in earnest. He does not really believe that there is no good reason to believe that his blood circulates, or that the earth rotates and revolves, or that his desk is an assemblage of molecules---or a thousand other scientific theories which could as easily be mentioned. Confront him with members of the Stationary Blood Society, who are in earnest when they say that there is no good reason to believe that the blood circulates, and Popper would find the difference manifest enough between real irrationalism, and his own `parlor-pink' version of it. Indeed, even as things are, Popper every now and then notices, to his alarm, that what Hume called `the rabble without doors' shows some tendency to agree with him, that there is no good reason to believe any scientific theory: at these points, the reader of Popper is about to receive another lay-sermon on the deplorable growth of irrationalism, relativism, etc. In other words, Popper's daring irrationalist sallies are meant to be tried, like a baron under Magna Carta, only by a jury of his peers, and for the same reason: the other people might not understand.

[Yoink]

The short answer is that Popper said more than that; and if you are still unconvinced, just substitute Feyerabend or Kuhn. I meant to refer to a class of philosophers, not really just a specific philosopher.

The long answer (I forgot who originally posted this link): http://www.geocities.com/Krishna_kunchith/dcs/popper/popper.html

Well, this probably belongs in another thread altogether, but I will say as a short answer that to lump Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend together is simply to have misread all three. I will also say that in the quotation you append it is hard for me to see what the writer is getting so worked up about. He seems to be simultaneously accusing Popper of relativism, and then chastizing Popper for the fact that he denounces relativism. It might have behoved the writer to think just a little longer about whether he'd really understood Popper when he encountered such a glaringly absurd contradiction as that.

No skeptic worthy of the name thinks that any scientific claim is finally "settled." There is no claim of any kind that a true skeptic will not entertain or accept plausible new evidence in favor of--that is all the Popper is saying. To suggest that this throws us into a relativistic chaos in which spooks and goblins are just as believable as bosons and gluons is absurd.

[Yahzi]

The primary criticism of empiricism isn't from people who even know who Godel is, and most of them don't even know Heisenberg.
You are asserting that philosophy is an academic exercise, with no impact or bearing on common discourse.

Do you think the FFs framed the constitution based on knowledge of a small number of educated people?
I am unable to interpret this question. The answer is so obviously "yes" that I cannot understand what you are getting at. A handful of men, with considerable educations in Enlightenment thought, drafted the Constituition. We even know their names.

How come to that "[t]hey assumed that belief would be restricted to rational interpretations," is beyond me. Ben Franklin himself dealt with the likes of Mesmer, and for a long period saw religion in a more utilitarian light than as some sort of search for truth.
You just made my point. Franklin dealt with Mesmer in terms of reasonableness. The position that Thanz advances, that belief need not be constrained by reasonableness (only harm), was rejected by Franklin.

Yes, scientists were held as authorities, but Franklin still griped about dogma. The FFs may have hoped for a better future, but they were aware of the time they were in.
I am unable to apply these comments to our conversation.

My point was that the Enlightenment thought of FF's time was uncontaminated by the kind of academically-supported public assault on scientific thought we see today. They did not need to consider the problems I advanced to Thanz, because those problems had not been broached yet. Their response to be would have been a simple, "We reject those harmful ideas because they are unreasonable, while we embrace our faith because it is still reasonable for us to do so." My entire point was that they were able to do that, because of what they did and did not know; and that Thanz, being better educated than all of them, can no longer resort to their defense.

Perhaps you would like to respond to this point, as I can no longer follow the thread of our previous conversation.

[Yahzi]

It might have behoved the writer to think just a little longer about whether he'd really understood Popper when he encountered such a glaringly absurd contradiction as that.
You might want to read the entire article before you reach a judgement.

Just a thought. ;)

There is no claim of any kind that a true skeptic will not entertain or accept plausible new evidence in favor of--that is all the Popper is saying.
To be fair, I have not read Popper directly, but am relying on other reports. Stove presents some pretty strong arguments for his view. If you can make it through his entire article, I would be interested in hearing if you still think he mischaracterized the entirety of Popper's work.

[Ossai]

Walter Wayne
Do you think the FFs framed the constitution based on knowledge of a small number of educated people? That is in fact, exactly what they did.

[Yoink]

You might want to read the entire article before you reach a judgement.

Just a thought. ;)


To be fair, I have not read Popper directly, but am relying on other reports. Stove presents some pretty strong arguments for his view. If you can make it through his entire article, I would be interested in hearing if you still think he mischaracterized the entirety of Popper's work.

Yahzi, I followed your link and began reading the work, but I have to say that it seems prima facie to be, well, silly. What he's objecting to is the rhetoric that these writers use rather than to their logic ("Popper has always made a certain amount of use of quotation-marks for neutralizing success-words"--and other such whining nonsense).

Stove appears to be a Johnsonian positivist ("I refute it thus"--kicking the stone). That's cute and all, but hardly something to be celebrated by a skeptic. He wants to make the claim that scientific theories are not only "disconfirmed" by negative findings but "confirmed" by positive ones. No doubt if he'd been writing in the mid nineteenth century he would have thundered that Newtonian physics was "confirmed" by over a century of testing, and that only an addle-brained nincompoop who believed in fairies would ever believe that it might be "disconfirmed." What a nasty Popperian surprise he'd have been in for...

It is true, by the way, that a Popperian (or, indeed, a Kuhnian) has to believe that there are no "unchallengeable" scientific truths. Consequently, it is true that a Popperian has to hold that it is always possible that large swathes of what we currently hold to be our best scientific explanation of the world might require radical revision. From a certain (rather abstract) position, this can be seen as calling into question the progressive nature of science (if it all might get swept away, then mightn't it all just be the elaboration of a series of false leads). But this requires closing one's eyes to the actual nature of scientific inquiry (i.e., the fact that even if an underlying theoretical framework changes radically, the empirical work done in service of the old framework still has relevance for the new) and is built upon a rather superstitious notion of what "progress" in the sciences means anyway.

Above all, Stove seems to me to misunderstand the difference between "theory" and "observation" and how radically differently those aspects of the scientific process are treated by Popper. He seems shocked by the claim that all theories are necessarily vulnerable to refutation, and seems to assume from this that Popper is claiming that it is just as likely to be true that water freezes at 20 degrees celcius as at 0 degrees.

[Walter Wayne]

You are asserting that philosophy is an academic exercise, with no impact or bearing on common discourse.
Only if Godel and Heisenberg the sum total of philosophy. Are you asserting that?
I am unable to interpret this question. The answer is so obviously "yes" that I cannot understand what you are getting at. A handful of men, with considerable educations in Enlightenment thought, drafted the Constituition. We even know their names.

...
The difficulty in interpreting lies in my poor post. I paid for posting late at night, and there is a sentence there that doesn't say what I intended.

When I stated "Do you think the FFs framed the constitution based on knowledge of a small number of educated people?" what I intend to say was:

Do you think the founding fathers framed the constitution for a small number of educated people? The founding fathers framed the constitution and bill of rights with all people in mind. From the educated, to the idiots, to the educated idiots, the citizens of the United States of America had certain inalienable rights.

As such it is odd to think that founding fathers thought only "reasonable" religions should be bound by the various statements made with respect to it.

Walt

[Yahzi]

Yahzi, I followed your link and began reading the work, but I have to say that it seems prima facie to be, well, silly.What he's objecting to is the rhetoric that these writers use rather than to their logic
Keep reading. He has plenty of logic in there.

Stove appears to be a Johnsonian positivist ("I refute it thus"--kicking the stone).
Indeed he is, and so am I, although I've never heard it called that. I usually refer to it as "empiricism" or even just "not-delusionalism."

That's cute and all, but hardly something to be celebrated by a skeptic.
I hesitate to ask what you think a skeptic is.

To me, what makes one a skeptic is slavish adherence to observed reality.

He wants to make the claim that scientific theories are not only "disconfirmed" by negative findings but "confirmed" by positive ones.
No, he makes the claim that knowledge is possible. If you assert that nothing can ever be confirmed, then you are asserting that nothing can ever be known.

He does not equate inductive logic with deductive logic. He argues that requiring everything to be deductively proven is silly, since almost none of our knowledge of the world is deductive, and yet the fact that we have knowledge of the world is inescapable.

The pomos argue, with varying degrees of seriousness, that we do not have knowledge of the world, because we cannot deduce the world. This is the absurdity of their writings (and incidentally, their rejection of Godel). Whether Popper is in that class or not depends on what he wrote.

No doubt if he'd been writing in the mid nineteenth century he would have thundered that Newtonian physics was "confirmed" by over a century of testing, and that only an addle-brained nincompoop who believed in fairies would ever believe that it might be "disconfirmed." What a nasty Popperian surprise he'd have been in for...
He characterizes the failure of Newtonian physics as the reason postmodernism arose. Really, it seems pointless to discuss the article if you aren't going to read it, and inconsistent to address your partial reading of the article when your original complaint was that somebody had committed a partial reading.

But this requires closing one's eyes to the actual nature of scientific inquiry (i.e., the fact that even if an underlying theoretical framework changes radically, the empirical work done in service of the old framework still has relevance for the new) and is built upon a rather superstitious notion of what "progress" in the sciences means anyway.
In other words, Newton is still true. On the scale that he worked, his laws still hold.

We both agree on that (and so did Stove). You don't need to explain it to me. Our discussion is over Popper, and whether Popper is in Khun's camp or science's camp.

Above all, Stove seems to me to misunderstand the difference between "theory" and "observation"
I did not get that impression at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Yahzi]

Only if Godel and Heisenberg the sum total of philosophy. Are you asserting that?
I am asserting that Godel and Heisenberg are the primary basis of anti-empiricist philosophical critique today. That is precisly what I asserted in the beginning.

You are asserting that, absent the primary critiques of today, science and reason were held in exactly the same contempt during the previous 200 years.

My understanding of the euphoria of the first half of the Age of Enlightenment, and its failure to encounter any real philosophical opposition other than Hume until the modern day, is (I believe) a commonly accepted position, and not ordinarily considered problematic.

Your argument that common people's beliefs and thoughts are untainted by the work of philosophers is not, in my opinion, an unproblematic claim.

Do you think the founding fathers framed the constitution for a small number of educated people?
That rather does change the meaning of the sentence.

However, the answer is still yes: and the proof is the bicameral legislature - the Senate's few numbers and long terms are designed to give a small number of educated people more power than the popular voice of the House. They were products of the Enlightenment, yes, but they were also aristocrats, republicans, and pragmatically aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their fellow citizens.

The founding fathers framed the constitution and bill of rights with all people in mind. From the educated, to the idiots, to the educated idiots, the citizens of the United States of America had certain inalienable rights.
Only white people who owned land could vote in the government originally created by our FFs.

No women. No blacks. Slavery was still legal.

The American experience is a work in progress: it was not born perfect and unchanging in the summer of 1776.

As such it is odd to think that founding fathers thought only "reasonable" religions should be bound by the various statements made with respect to it.
To be precise: they thought only the religions held by white male property owners should be protected. And they assumed that their fellow landowners would be men of education and reason.

[Yoink]

Keep reading. He has plenty of logic in there.

You may be right, but what I read was too silly to make me bother reading the rest. I have read Popper and I know he's wrong about Popper. Given that I know that his conclusions are wrong and that what I've sampled of his argumentation is foolish, I'm happy to conclude that there are better uses of my time.

Indeed he is, and so am I, although I've never heard it called that. I usually refer to it as "empiricism" or even just "not-delusionalism."
Yeah, you may want to be careful about what you mean by "empiricism." You like the Johnsonian "I know the stone isn't merely a product of my imagination because I can kick it." But would you be happy with "I know that the stone isn't made of energy because I can kick it"? Being an empiricist doesn't necessitate refusing to believe that the world is more complex than it appears to be.

I hesitate to ask what you think a skeptic is.
Someone who is willing to put any and all beliefs to rigorous rational testing--even if the results may be uncomfortable or counterintuitive. What's yours? If it is "someone who believes that appearances must always be trusted, regardless" then I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

To me, what makes one a skeptic is slavish adherence to observed reality.
I think you may need a new dictionary.

No, he makes the claim that knowledge is possible. If you assert that nothing can ever be confirmed, then you are asserting that nothing can ever be known.
I'm happy to say "knowledge is possible"--but then perhaps you wouldn't be happy with my definition of knowledge. You seem to be saying that "true, fully justified and absolutely certain belief" is possible. If you are saying that, then I'm no longer on board. If you are saying that it is impossible that--for example--the whole world we see is merely a "Matrix" style projection in our minds as we float in an alien's bathtub somewhere then A) you're not a skeptic and B) you are claiming to knowledge you cannot possibly prove.

If, for you, what a skeptic believes in is "my beliefs are unassailable even in the absence of proof" then, again, I think you may want to buy that new dictionary.

However, where we may find common ground is the belief that the mere "possibility" that we are in "the Matrix" or that there is a God, or that there are fairies in the bottom of my garden, is utterly without consequence or value. Pragmatically we do in fact have reliable knowledge about the world, and we are fools to build our actions on anything but that knowledge.

Given that the most scrupulous follower of BOTH Kuhn and Popper would agree with that last statement, however, and given that neither of them would condone any belief which is untested or untestable, I'm not sure what your, or Stove's, beef is with them.

Certainly it is true that many a pomo wannabe has misunderstood Kuhn and misused him. That's hardly Kuhn's fault. But given that Popper has been seen as radically "uncool" in the humanities since the early 1960s, and given that it is particularly the Kuhn enthusiasts who denounce Popper as a proto-fascist empiricist, it seems particularly wrong-headed and, well, weird that he gets held up by people on this site as a proponent of "postmodernist" relativism.

The pomos argue, with varying degrees of seriousness, that we do not have knowledge of the world, because we cannot deduce the world.
If you can find me a respected postmodernist theorist who actually advances this argument, I'll be surprised. Postmodernism is largely concerned with inherent uncertainties in language and meaning: it doesn't actually make many sweeping epistemological claims (although some of its more enthusiastic accolytes do confuse the linguistic claims for epistemological claims--but radical pyrrhonism has been an enthusiasm for would-be rebellious youth since time immemorial--it's hardly a product of postmodernism).

This is the absurdity of their writings (and incidentally, their rejection of Godel). Whether Popper is in that class or not depends on what he wrote.
Funny that you reject Popper (who the pomos loathe) and embrace Godel (who they absolutely love!). They pretty much all misunderstand both of them, but Godel gets cited everywhere as having proven that no system of knowledge can ever be complete etc. etc. etc.


He characterizes the failure of Newtonian physics as the reason postmodernism arose.
Then he's pretty ignorant of intellectual history. Plus, you're really not refuting my point. Popper says that no theory can ever be regarded as definitive--it must always remain open to further testing. Stove objects to this. He wants there to be definitive theories. Newtonian physics proves Popper's point: what scientific theory had more credibility, more prestige, throughout the C18th and C19th than Newton's?

In other words, Newton is still true. On the scale that he worked, his laws still hold.
No, that's wrong. "On the scale that he worked" was on the scale of the movement of celestial bodies. In fact Newtonian physics cannot adequately account for the movements of celestial bodies. QED.

Our discussion is over Popper, and whether Popper is in Khun's camp or science's camp.
How is Kuhn not in science's camp, again? Explain to me how a rigorously Kuhnian scientist would go astray. What "non-scientific" thing would s/he do that would lead to a bad result?

[Walter Wayne]

Your argument that common people's beliefs and thoughts are untainted by the work of philosophers is not, in my opinion, an unproblematic claim.That isn't my argument.


That rather does change the meaning of the sentence.

However, the answer is still yes: and the proof is the bicameral legislature - the Senate's few numbers and long terms are designed to give a small number of educated people more power than the popular voice of the House. They were products of the Enlightenment, yes, but they were also aristocrats, republicans, and pragmatically aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their fellow citizens.

Only white people who owned land could vote in the government originally created by our FFs.Did the amendments to do with religion only apply to that group?

To be precise: they thought only the religions held by white male property owners should be protected. And they assumed that their fellow landowners would be men of education and reason.Given that the text states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," I would need other evidence that they only wanted this to apply to such a select group.

Again, you are arguing about what the founding fathers thought. The documents are available, as are some of their correspondence. If you wish to offer some evidence, point to these.

Walt

[Yahzi]

You may be right, but what I read was too silly to make me bother reading the rest. I have read Popper and I know he's wrong about Popper. Given that I know that his conclusions are wrong and that what I've sampled of his argumentation is foolish, I'm happy to conclude that there are better uses of my time.
How do you know he is wrong about Popper, if you don't know what he says?

Being an empiricist doesn't necessitate refusing to believe that the world is more complex than it appears to be.
WTF?

Someone who is willing to put any and all beliefs to rigorous rational testing...

I think you may need a new dictionary.

You read "slavish adherence to observed reality," and don't consider that the same as "rigorous rational testing?"

Either a) you can't read, or b) you think that theory trumps observed fact. Which makes you a woo.

There are two kinds of people: those that think the world is derived from truth, and those that think that truth is derived from the world.

Where you got this idea that observations cannot reveal layers of complexity is beyond me. It did not come from my writings.

You seem to be saying that "true, fully justified and absolutely certain belief" is possible.
Where did I ever imply "absolutely certain?"

If you read Stove's text as poorly as you read mine, I can see why you find him ludicrous.

However, where we may find common ground is the belief that the mere "possibility" that we are in "the Matrix" or that there is a God, or that there are fairies in the bottom of my garden, is utterly without consequence or value.
I love it when people turn the binary of truth into a trinary: suddenly there's true, false, and useless. Then, in the next breath, they explain why useless is that same as false. Then they return to castigating you for asserting that useless is the same as false.

Given that the most scrupulous follower of BOTH Kuhn and Popper would agree with that last statement,
Given the inaccuracy with which you have read my posts, I do not feel confident that your assessement of Kuhn and Popper is accurate.

If you can find me a respected postmodernist theorist who actually advances this argument, I'll be surprised.
No, you'll stop reading after the first page and tell me how stupid I am.

No, that's wrong. "On the scale that he worked" was on the scale of the movement of celestial bodies. In fact Newtonian physics cannot adequately account for the movements of celestial bodies. QED.
See, here is your equivocation again: making fun of me for thinking that Newtonian physics were "adequate." Yet if I point out that they got us to the moon, you will say, "of course they have pragmatic value!"

You want to say that because Newton could not account for the planets orbits to within a few feet, he was wrong and inadequate. Then, when anyone points out that all knowledge is necessarily limited to some degree, you scoff at them for not being "pragmatic."

How is Kuhn not in science's camp, again? Explain to me how a rigorously Kuhnian scientist would go astray. What "non-scientific" thing would s/he do that would lead to a bad result?
If I did, what would stop you from dismissing my arguments unread, since you already know I am wrong about Popper?

Why are you asking me for arguments in the same post you've announced you won't even examine arguments that reach conclusions you don't like?

Given that the text states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," I would need other evidence that they only wanted this to apply to such a select group.
Do I need to supply evidence that they had not considered the problems of illegal wire-tapping? Or will you grant historical context in that issue, because it doesn't mean losing the argument?

Again, you are arguing about what the founding fathers thought. The documents are available, as are some of their correspondence. If you wish to offer some evidence, point to these.
You want me to research text for you to read?

After telling me you won't read the first text I gave you, because it was "obviously wrong?"

[Yoink]

How do you know he is wrong about Popper, if you don't know what he says?

He asserts his conclusions at the outset. They are wrong. I'm not interested in seeing the particular path he uses to arrive at his false conclusions.

WTF?
I was talking about the limitations of the "I refute it thus" argument. You had said that you liked that argument. Now you have moved your goalposts.

You read "slavish adherence to observed reality," and don't consider that the same as "rigorous rational testing?"
Again, this was in the context of a discussion of the "I refute it thus" claim. If you are now agreeing that "rigorous rational testing" can never be said to have arrived at a finishing point then we are in agreement. With Popper. If, on the other hand, you still see merit in kicking stones to prove that they're "real" (and suggest that this solves all possible doubts about the matter) then you're a crude realist.

If you had read my post more carefully you will see that I was not trying to reject empiricism, I was saying that we need to be careful what we mean by empiricism.

Either a) you can't read, or b) you think that theory trumps observed fact. Which makes you a woo.

Again, my conversation was in the context of an example of an empiricist claim ("I refute it thus") being regarded as sufficient to bring all further experimentation to an end. You will, if you recall, arguing that we can have "real knowledge" of the world that remains forever unshaken. I was arguing for what I think is a more adequate understanding of actual "empiricism" in which you accept that there is never a final stopping point for scientific exploration. I do not think theory trumps observed fact. Neither does Popper. Neither, although it can seem so to a careless reader, does Kuhn.

The ironic thing in all this is that Johnson's "I refute it thus" is a perfect example of a belief that theory "trumps observed fact." He has a theory about the simple nature of the world, and damned if he's going to let any pesky further examination call it into question.

There are two kinds of people: those that think the world is derived from truth, and those that think that truth is derived from the world.

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who do not.

Where you got this idea that observations cannot reveal layers of complexity is beyond me. It did not come from my writings.
Again, you seem to have forgotten the context of the discussion. Remember Johnson? Remember "I refute it thus!"? This is a claim that there can be a "definitive observation"--a final observation that closes the question for all time. This is what I refute. You appeared to be championing that position and regarding anyone who questioned it as a "postmodernist" nutjob. My whole point was precisely that a true empiricist should believe that "observations do reveal layers of complexity."

Where did I ever imply "absolutely certain?"
Throughout the entire discussion. If you accept that none of our knowledge of the world is, in fact, absolutely certain, then you're on my side along with Popper. And Stove thinks you're an evil woo.

If you read Stove's text as poorly as you read mine, I can see why you find him ludicrous.
You told me you hadn't read Popper, so I understand why you are mistaken about his argument. Stove begins by stating his conclusions about Popper, and they are wrong.

I love it when people turn the binary of truth into a trinary: suddenly there's true, false, and useless. Then, in the next breath, they explain why useless is that same as false. Then they return to castigating you for asserting that useless is the same as false.
This doesn't begin to describe what I was doing. There is "analytically true," "pragmatically true," "false," and "unknowable." I know the kind of argument you think I was making, but you have simply misread what I claimed. All I am saying is that a true empiricist (like Popper) accepts that it is always possible that further observation and experiment may necessitate abandoning a belief that had been held to be true. A Johnsonian prefers to believe that there are some "truths" which are unshakeable. This is known as preferring theory to observation.

Given the inaccuracy with which you have read my posts, I do not feel confident that your assessement of Kuhn and Popper is accurate.
That's fine. I see a lot of bluster here about me misreading you, but no actual example of myhaving done so.

No, you'll stop reading after the first page and tell me how stupid I am.
O.K. And I'm sure that in no way means "I tried to find one and couldn't."

See, here is your equivocation again: making fun of me for thinking that Newtonian physics were "adequate." Yet if I point out that they got us to the moon, you will say, "of course they have pragmatic value!"
No, I'll say that's entirely beside the point. Stove wants to castigate Popper as a relativist because Popper says that there can never be a point where we say that an overarching theoretical framework is "proven." All we can ever say, says Popper, is that it has great explanatory power, and has not yet been disproven. Newton's theory is a great example. For two centuries it reins supreme in Western science as the canonical example of the human mind's triumphant unveiling of the structure of the universe. Then Einstein comes along and shows that it is at best partial and, at worst, incorrect. This doesn't mean that we might as well go back to Ptolemny (which would be the relativist position). It simply means that we would have been wrong to ever say that "Newtonian Physics has been proven to be a correct account of the structure of the universe."

The fact that it works for many things is pathetically irrelevant to the philosophical argument at hand. Popper would say that Newton was clearly giving a better account than Ptolemny precisely because more things work according to Newton's account than according to Ptolemny's. Kuhn would say the same. What you're trying to say I confess I can't quite tell: "well, if we scale back Newton's claims in a way that Newton himself would not have endorsed then they still work, so really Newton's account hasn't been falsified"--is that it?

You want to say that because Newton could not account for the planets orbits to within a few feet, he was wrong and inadequate. Then, when anyone points out that all knowledge is necessarily limited to some degree, you scoff at them for not being "pragmatic."

Um...you've lost the thread. I'm the one who is saying (along with Popper) than "all knowledge is necessarily limited to some degree." You were the one arguing that there was real, indisputable knowledge and that people who didn't agree with that were woos. Also, how you could think that someone who claimed that "knowledge is necessarily limited" would be scoffed at for not being pragmatic simply baffles me. At this point I think you're just throwing words at the screen.

You're also being, frankly, silly. Surely you don't believe that an empiricist sees a theory being tested and says "oh, the predictions of the theory are off by a few feet and this other theory gets it right on the nose: oh well, there's obviously no way to pick between them because after all, all knowledge is necessarily limited to some degree"?

Are you trying to suggest that perhaps we really do live in a purely Newtonian universe after all? If you're not, then what is your point?

If I did, what would stop you from dismissing my arguments unread, since you already know I am wrong about Popper?
Um, you said you hadn't read Popper, so I don't think you're either "right" or "wrong" about him--just misinformed. Or are you Stove and that was all a lie?

I've clearly read all your arguments--and responded to them.

Why are you asking me for arguments in the same post you've announced you won't even examine arguments that reach conclusions you don't like?
They're not "conclusions I don't like," they're "conclusions I know to be wrong." Not only that, but I made a start on his argument and found that he began by making ludicrous errors. Surely you will agree that it is legitimate to say "this guy is arguing for an untenable position, and he is using bad arguments to get there--I don't think I'll bother reading further." I see that this leaves me in a position where I cannot claim to have "refuted" Stove, and I do not make that claim. All I claim is that his conclusions about Popper are wrong (from my own reading of Popper), and that your arguments about empiricism and postmodernism tend to dance around rather unstably.

The rest of this seems to be aimed at someone else. I'm not sure if you got me mixed up with the other guy, or just wanted to save on posts.

ETA: By the way, I'm right in taking from your comments here that you have read neither Kuhn nor Popper, right? And yet you have no discomfort whatsoever in slagging them off as evil woos. You know, if you bothered to read them, you might find that you're in for a big surprise.

[Yoink]

By the way, Yahzi, even though you don't appear to have read Kuhn, I think it is a pity that you ducked my question about what non-scientific thing a "Kuhnian" scientist would do. It would help clarify what it is you think you're arguing against.

[Yahzi]

He asserts his conclusions at the outset. They are wrong. I'm not interested in seeing the particular path he uses to arrive at his false conclusions.
So, anyone who disagrees with you - for any reason - is wrong. You don't even need to see the reasons. Indeed, you don't even need to know what the person is saying.

know, if you bothered to read them, you might find that you're in for a big surprise.
Can I ask you to do me a favor? Look up the word "irony" in the dictionary. You might be surprised.

[Yahzi]

Double post.

Silly internet.

[Yoink]

So, anyone who disagrees with you - for any reason - is wrong. You don't even need to see the reasons. Indeed, you don't even need to know what the person is saying.


Can I ask you to do me a favor? Look up the word "irony" in the dictionary. You might be surprised.

Yahzi, you're just grumpy and saying silly things now. I say that one specific claim is wrong, and that I happen to know that it is wrong, and you somehow pretend to take from this the claim that "anyone who disagrees with me is wrong"? Really?

If you saw an essay that began by saying "the following essay will establish that Queen Elizabeth the First invented the steam engine and built an extensive railway network from London to Yugoslavia" would you go so far as to read the first page, even? If you did read the first page and found that the arguments it was making were as silly as its conclusions, would you feel honor bound to see it through to the end? If you then said "well, I didn't bother with that because it's conclusions are wrong and what I sampled of its argument is silly" would this mean that you think "anyone who disagrees with you is wrong"? Really?

Now, stop whining about the fact that I didn't think Stove was right and tell me what mistake you think a scientist would make if s/he were a devoted Popperian, or Kuhnian? If you don't have an answer to that question, stop ignorantly slagging them off in this forum.

ETA: oh, I looked up irony in the dictionary. It gave a great example: "Irony is when somebody who insists strongly that there are statements about the world that are simply "right" or "wrong" then goes into a pouting fit when somebody else says "I didn't need to read the article you recommended because it's conclusions were simply wrong." Uber-irony is when that person suggests that you can't possibly know if the conclusions are "right" or "wrong" without pursuing all possible arguments to their conclusion."

[Yahzi]

Yahzi, you're just grumpy and saying silly things now.
I'm not the one saying silly things.

Let us recap:

Yahzi: Stove says Popper was as anti-rational as Kuhn.

Yoink: That's not true, Popper is very rational. Even though I asked you to specifically state where Popper makes irrational claims, I'm not going to read the evidence you presented because I know it has to be wrong. By the way, Kuhn isn't anti-scientific, either. But you are.

What, exactly, am I supposed to be arguing here?

If you saw an essay that began by saying "the following essay will establish that Queen Elizabeth the First invented the steam engine and built an extensive railway network from London to Yugoslavia" would you go so far as to read the first page, even?
D.C. Stove was a respected philosopher. You have just dismissed his entire argument as so trivial that it does not require inspection, and compared it to delusional fantasy.

Let's just call a spade a spade, shall we? You made some silly remark, I pointed you to an article, and you discovered that the article was too hard to read. So you stopped reading it, and started lecturing me on post-modernism.

Now, stop whining about the fact that I didn't think Stove was right and tell me what mistake you think a scientist would make if s/he were a devoted Popperian, or Kuhnian? If you don't have an answer to that question, stop ignorantly slagging them off in this forum.
Your first complaint was that I lumped Popper and Kuhn together. Now you are lumping them together, asserting that they are both defended by the same logic.

Do you have any goalpost other than "Yahzi is wrong?"

ETA: oh, I looked up irony in the dictionary.
Then you understand how you are committing it?

It gave a great example: "Irony is when somebody who insists strongly that there are statements about the world that are simply "right" or "wrong"
Are you suggesting statements about the world cannot be classified as right or wrong?

This is the levity Stove complained of: people who say things this stupid, when it is obvious that they don't mean them, because the next words out of their mouth are "you are wrong."

then goes into a pouting fit when somebody else says "I didn't need to read the article you recommended because it's conclusions were simply wrong."
Do you not understand what the process of reason is?

If you already know, as an act of unshakable faith, that Stove is wrong, without even having examined his reasons, then what room is left for rational discourse?

Uber-irony is when that person suggests that you can't possibly know if the conclusions are "right" or "wrong" without pursuing all possible arguments to their conclusion."
Now you need to look up "strawman" in the dictionary.

At no point did I suggest "all possible arguments." I referred to a book written by a competent, accredited, respected philosopher, writing about his area of expertise, and quoting primary sources for his evidence.

The fact that the article was too difficult for you to follow does not constitute an argument.

[DJ Hexadecibel]

Ha! I LOVED the Commander Keen games! Their music especially. Speaking of which, check out these two hot remixes from OverClocked Remix. Hmm, that screenshot looks familiar, too, ;)

http://www.ocremix.org/game/commanderkeen4/
"I'm not feeling too good about this one...."