Religion- Oh no not that again

[Rinzler]

I said - more or less - that a belief in something that is not science does no harm, just as a trust in the scientific method as a way of discovery as well is also valid.  Let all men and women believe as they wish so long as it hurts no one.  I placed no bank of truth in one over the other.  As a writer, a historian, and hopefully a good parent - that would make absolutely no sense at all for me.  Throughout human history, lands have been stolen, snatched; war happens to every nation and people - it is the way of empires to rise and fall like the oceans - because we as humans make it so.  To then comment that something is not done 'correctly' ... sadly, but with all due respect - I felt no respect at all in your commentary.  If I recall correctly, humans have used the excuse of 'correctness' to destroy so many cultures and whom knows what else - I tend to count all ancestors as guilty of being ordinary.

Religions, and our various philosophies do so much more than explain how the world works.  If I tried to explain to a child the biology of man according one view, I would end up at the same end result - more questions - the same as I wouldn't get anywhere trying to explain morally why it is not nice to be a jerk, or consider a persons views with cynicism rather than with an open heart and mind ... there would be more questions.

For plenty of people, the adage of civilisation works for them.  So why poke at it because it doesn't fit your world view?  When I see a person that believes fully and completely in their Catholic dogma, or Karmic wheel ... I do not ever mock them, nor would I say - your beliefs are incorrect, or that my way is better.

Telling a person they are wrong is probably how we get in these silly messes in the first place.  The fact that I was rather kind - and took neither side and as well took a moment to wish everyone well and the only thing noted in my post was my correctness or perceived thereof ... truly makes me rather sad ... not offended, but sad.

So then, upon what side do we spread our butter on the bread?  Side up or down?  I like both if I eat it at all.  Truth is the same as beauty - but I like to think that every person has a small piece of the story - which isn't all bad.  Else what exactly is the point to continue to exist?  Surely not for new cars and other such nonsense.  Even villains likely have a purpose, as truly depraved as some can be.

It seems as though it is why blanket statements rules the internet.

Umm...are you sure you're not conflating explanation with speculation here? Sure, people are free to speculate upon whatever basis they wish, be it through empirical reasoning, faith based imperatives, an apparently talking dog, the Church of The Subgenius or paranoid supra-conspiracies such as David Icke's reptile space-alien sex offenders. Whereas - and I don't know, maybe I'm being naive here - an explanation, by definition, needs to be merited by at least an iota of evidence.

Secondly, belief in something that is demonstrably unscientific very often does harm. Forgive me for sailing perilously close to invoking Godwin's Law here, but many millions fewer people would have suffered if the upper echelons of the Nazi regime had not adhered to mystical, pseudoscientific and already discredited beliefs concerning the 'supremacy' of the aryan race and the purported inequities of the Jews. Likewise, many millions fewer would have suffered if Stalin had been not so insistent in his belief concerning dogmatic Marxism and...well, himself. Perhaps, also, eight year old Victoria Climbie might still be alive had her guardians not tortured her and beaten her to death because they believed that she was really satan.

This is, of course, not to say that belief can bestow its fair share of graces. But that's no more to the point than the fact than an alcoholic can sometimes be mellow, cheerful and all round good company when thoroughly soused.

As to 'trusting' in science - well, this is a mistaken concept, in that science is process which seeks to eliminate trust (along with many other things) as a basis for factoring any given speculation or hypothesis. Science is actually more a process of constant challenge - doubt, in effect - through which anything which can presently go unchallenged as regards a speculation leaves a solid explanation. All scientific theories must be potentially falsifiable - and if nothing arrives to falsify the theory, then we are left with the best model of whatever aspect of reality is in question. The problem with any other process, such as belief or faith, is the huge amount of human subjectivity involved. Now this really wouldn't be so bad if it really was the case that any particular 'seeker of the truth' with a mystical bent were happy to leave it with him or herself and bug no-one else about it. But as the tragic examples above illustrate, this is so often not the case. Pity that these people were not prepared to challenge their own beliefs, to scrutinise them coldly and without prior prejudice; pity instead that they placed so much fevered trust in so many stupid ideas because...well, they just seemed to make sense.

Science, it should be noted, also works hard to remove human egotism from the equation. Belief, faith, or whatever, does not - in fact it frequently bolsters it: so important we are, apparently, that a sneaky wank can invoke the fury of an omnipotent creator of the universe; so important I am, because my subjective interpretation of reality places such importance upon myself. True, many amongst thre religious might put forward the speculation that they are in fact made humble by their worship of their supreme creator - and do so whilst being blithely unaware of the egotism inherent in presuming that human humility makes any odds to the universe, and that reality might even be whole lot better if only others could be as humble as they.

And there is nothing wrong with telling someone that they are...well, wrong. It's one of the most important ways we learn and progress. Actually, accepting that we are wrong is paramount. Maybe the suffering would have been less if people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. had been sat down and given a good long talking to about why their ideas were just so plainly erroneous. Not that I would bank on it, with such tyrants being so blinkered by vanity, egotism and plain old simple belief.

Science may not be perfect - there are still too many human foibles involved for that. But it's a much better tool for unearthing the nature of reality than anything else. Much of what it reveals is frightening and ugly, true - and I can see why we might wish to find solace in those untruths which help us get through the night. But science also discloses wonders - from diamond stars to the strange magic of the Quantum sea, to antibiotics, all the way down to painless dentistry (which I have to admit, I like most of all, egotistical Homo sapiens that I am). And within these wonders, we so very often find the means to genuinely defeat, counteract or abide by the fears we discover.

So maybe I was wrong about trusting in science, after all...

[vtboy]

To DeMalachine's eloquent advocacy of the scientific method, I would add only that the models it has given us deprive the natural world of none of its capacity to inspire awe. Understanding that what sparkles in it the night sky are nuclear furnaces, grouped into clusters and galaxies virtually beyond number, has never, for me, tarnished its beauty and majesty. That the stuff and process of creation are conceivable without resort to the inconceivable is itself a source of wonder.

[Sabby]

...wait, there's no awe in the universe for the scientifically minded? You need stories and metaphors to inspire, but changing and understanding life is just a daily grind?

[Ironwolf85]

this has been an interisting bit of discussion.
I've made my position clear I hope, I see no reason why logic, reason, with which we are imbued cannot co-exist with the idea that there is a great creator of the universe who cares about his creations.
infact I believe there is such a being and that he loves us.
however I think that more than one embarissing shithead (and I say this for ALL idologies/faiths/dogmas/lifestyles) should realize people view the world diffrently, and the fact we can normally have this kind of discussion without being attacked means mankind has come a long way from anchent days.
we still see stuff like Edison VS Tesla in scientific communities too.

we've all got a bit of Torquimada in us, and we have to learn to tell him to shut the fuck up.
(for those who don't know Torquimada was the leader of the infamious spanish inquisition)

I'll say this which was recently put up by a church in portland "god loves a kind athiest more than a hateful christian."
response from the other christan groups has been really positive.
I agree with that it's rooted in the "good samaratin"

[rick957]

How so?

Oh, crap, I didn't expect anyone to ask for details!  :(  Heh.

The guy in the video presents a complex argument that is based in sound reasoning, and those are the hardest arguments to refute.  I could dissect his well-hidden misstatements, I think, but that would take me far more time and effort than any sensible person puts into these P&R threads, so I'm not going to do that, sorry.  (Actually I already tried to write up a detailed counter-argument but ended up with an explanation so tedious, lengthy, and badly-written that I don't want to show it to anyone.  I'm self-conscious like that sometimes, heh.) 

However, if you are willing to give some details about what you found most convincing in the video, I can tell you whether I found those particular points persuasive or not, and in what way.  'Kay?  Only if you want to, though.

Has to be said, the heart/gut/innermost self is pretty good for sniffing out the truth - it can even find a truth that contradicts another person's truth! 

I feel like my innermost self is telling me that there are giant pink unicorns everywhere outside. -looks outside- But it's the truth for me! It must be real! -goes and cries- Why are you trying to prove that my giant pink unicorns aren't real? :( You just hate giant pink unicorns don't you?

As for the gut:

I'll let Colbert say it for me.

Yuk yuk yuk, very droll, aren't we?  :)  Should I respond seriously to your underlying points, or just enjoy the humor?  Hmm ... Well, let me just ask a question instead:  do either of you believe in or have faith in anything at all, or do you think it's unreasonable or somewhat silly to do so?  There are many thoughtful and wise people who take the latter position, so it's nothing to ashamed of.

You do not find it the least bit suspicious that everyone's innermost self always finds 'the truth' in whatever they are most exposed to?

That's a very good question.  I find almost everything suspicious in one way or another.  :)  More seriously, though, I think it's not unusual for people to adopt the beliefs they are most exposed to, but it's also quite common for them to do the very opposite and adopt beliefs that are in direct conflict with the religious positions they are indoctrinated into as children, for example.  Personally I've gone through at least two big shifts in my religious beliefs, and come to think of it, both were reactions against what I came to see as the misguided views of most of the religious people I was around at the time.

I think it's extremely sensible and understandable to decide that the truth about life is not knowable, either for oneself, or for anyone else in general.  However, personally, as a Christian, I choose not to believe those things.  I choose to believe that the truth about life is knowable by anyone.  Yes, I realize that's a mega-pretentious and even offensive belief for me to hold.  I think the truth about life is offensive.  It offends me, frankly.

... Now this really wouldn't be so bad if it really was the case that any particular 'seeker of the truth' with a mystical bent were happy to leave it with him or herself and bug no-one else about it. But as the tragic examples above illustrate, this is so often not the case. Pity that these people were not prepared to challenge their own beliefs, to scrutinise them coldly and without prior prejudice; pity instead that they placed so much fevered trust in so many stupid ideas because...well, they just seemed to make sense.

Ah, my apologies, DeMalachine; now that I've read your longer post, I gather that you do not consider it wise to have faith or belief in anything outside of science, and you don't think a purely scientific perspective on life involves any sort of faith or belief.  (Not to put words in your mouth, but I got that sense from your post, at least.  I hope I'm not mischaracterizing your position too badly.)  I don't share this view but have respect for it, especially if there's some critical thinking involved in arriving at that perspective, and it sounds to me like that's the case with you.  I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree, as they say.

However I must add that I consider it rude to characterize any person's sincerely-held beliefs as "stupid" or as those of a "wank," because those words suggest that the person is stupid or otherwise inferior.  (Actually IMO I thought that your use of those particular words was the only point at which you breached proper civility towards anyone, for whatever that's worth.  And, personally, I don't much mind being called stupid or a wank, but it's still a bit impolite, you know.)  Last thing --

When I see a person that believes fully and completely in their Catholic dogma, or Karmic wheel ... I do not ever mock them, nor would I say - your beliefs are incorrect, or that my way is better.

Well said.  I just want to point out, though, that in a civilized society, reasonable people can and often do consider other people's beliefs to be incorrect.  I think we agree, however, that that is never an excuse for rude behavior or for feeling a sense of superiority over anyone. 

And there is nothing wrong with telling someone that they are...well, wrong.

Ah, I see now that that point was already made.  We seem to agree about this, and I think it's a very important point indeed.  Thanks for the discussion all around.

[YaoiRolePlay]

And this post got much longer than I intended it to be. >_> Bonus points if you read to the end.

Oh, crap, I didn't expect anyone to ask for details!  :(  Heh.

The guy in the video presents a complex argument that is based in sound reasoning, and those are the hardest arguments to refute.  I could dissect his well-hidden misstatements, I think, but that would take me far more time and effort than any sensible person puts into these P&R threads, so I'm not going to do that, sorry.  (Actually I already tried to write up a detailed counter-argument but ended up with an explanation so tedious, lengthy, and badly-written that I don't want to show it to anyone.  I'm self-conscious like that sometimes, heh.) 

Well-hidden misstatements? I'm just wondering what you mean by that. I didn't see any "well hidden misstatements." I'm just asking for specific instances because I'm trying to understand why you say what you do.

Yuk yuk yuk, very droll, aren't we?  :)  Should I respond seriously to your underlying points, or just enjoy the humor?  Hmm ... Well, let me just ask a question instead:  do either of you believe in or have faith in anything at all, or do you think it's unreasonable or somewhat silly to do so?  There are many thoughtful and wise people who take the latter position, so it's nothing to ashamed of.

Yes. Both. It's satire. It's humor with a serious point hidden inside of it. The point is that believing something just because it feels right does not make it right at all. Truth does not "come from within." You have no evidence to back up your feeling and absolutely no reason at all for other people to believe you. I post the Colbert video because Colbert is a master satirist, or at least his writers are. Take a couple of quotes:

Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that's my right.

And what about Iraq? If you think about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rational for war. But doesn't taking Saddam out feel like the right thing? Right here in the gut?

Cause that's where the truth comes from ladies and gentleman, the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your stomach than in your head? Look it up. Now some of you are gonna say "I did look that up and it's wrong." Well mister that's cause you looked it up in a book. Next time try looking it up in your gut. I did. And my gut tells me that's the way our nervous system works.

And this is where the problem comes. Once you allow that truth comes from within, you are opening yourself up to all sorts of things that could easily not be true. You're compromising your own intellectual curiosity by saying that whatever feels right must be right when something may not be so intuitive. If I say that alchemy feels right or astrology feels right, does that make them right? Not at all. That's a dangerous assumption to make, especially when an entire nation makes it.

No, I don't "have faith" in anything, I think that is a silly idea. "Faith" is the idea that you believe something without proof or evidence of it. For an example that is not religious, say I believe that when I lend Bob ten dollars, I have faith that he will return it to me at a later date. I have no reason or evidence to believe that Bob will return that money to me, I just believe it because I feel like Bob is trustworthy. This is a very bad idea, because Bob could be absolutely untrustworthy, he might just run off with my money. This is also the reason why banks don't have faith. You can't take out a loan without good credit. They demand evidence that you will return the money.

As for me, I don't believe anything without evidence. Unless of course it's just a day to day conversation where it doesn't really matter. If someone said I did this with x, I don't really need evidence that that someone did this with x. Now if it was important to me, I might need evidence, but otherwise, it just doesn't matter. To me, belief is a reaction to evidence. I can't just believe something without the evidence. I could pretend like I believed it, but I really couldn't.

Now, it is true that there is a certain deference to authority. That is, people who know what they're talking about. There is a huge system set up in the scientific community that helps this process. When one scientist publishes their results of their experiment, other scientists review those results and run those same experiments over and over to make sure the results are the same. If they are than those results are considered true by the scientific community. As for me, I know there are a lot of people smarter than me. I assume that they know what they're talking about because they have high honors in their field, they have several degrees and have been studying these things for years. I defer to their authority because they know more than me and I trust that they do.

Ah, my apologies, DeMalachine; now that I've read your longer post, I gather that you do not consider it wise to have faith or belief in anything outside of science, and you don't think a purely scientific perspective on life involves any sort of faith or belief.  (Not to put words in your mouth, but I got that sense from your post, at least.  I hope I'm not mischaracterizing your position too badly.)  I don't share this view but have respect for it, especially if there's some critical thinking involved in arriving at that perspective, and it sounds to me like that's the case with you.  I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree, as they say.

I'm not DeMalachine, but I have to say that, no. I can't agree to disagree with you because you haven't presented any reason here for holding a different view. You just say you do hold a different view. In and of itself, that's fine, but you aren't providing reasons for it. There's litterally no reason for DeMalachine to agree to disagree or just not listen to you entirely. In order to agree to disagree there has to be a debate first more than "Oh your idea is different from mine, let's agree to disagree."

[Rinzler]

Quote

    Has to be said, the heart/gut/innermost self is pretty good for sniffing out the truth - it can even find a truth that contradicts another person's truth! 


Quote

    I feel like my innermost self is telling me that there are giant pink unicorns everywhere outside. -looks outside- But it's the truth for me! It must be real! -goes and cries- Why are you trying to prove that my giant pink unicorns aren't real? :( You just hate giant pink unicorns don't you?

    As for the gut:

    I'll let Colbert say it for me.


Yuk yuk yuk, very droll, aren't we?  :)  Should I respond seriously to your underlying points, or just enjoy the humor?  Hmm ... Well, let me just ask a question instead:  do either of you believe in or have faith in anything at all, or do you think it's unreasonable or somewhat silly to do so?  There are many thoughtful and wise people who take the latter position, so it's nothing to ashamed of.

Umm...I'm not following as to why you'd think it something to be ashamed of. But anyways...

I certainly strive to believe in things which have solid evidence behind them. Of course, I'm not too proud to admit that I could be a susceptible to unsupported claims as anyone. Personally, I find attempting to hold faith in something which reality flatly contradicts to meaningless, hollow and futile. However, I accept that such a stance in not unreasonable or silly to others, and if that's what gets them through the day, then good luck to them. I take issue with it only when they try to foist what works subjectively for them upon others - be it science lessons with regard to creationism, attempting to curtail the rights of the LGTB community, knocking on my door to prosetylise when I'm having my morning dump, and so on and so forth.

Quote

    ... Now this really wouldn't be so bad if it really was the case that any particular 'seeker of the truth' with a mystical bent were happy to leave it with him or herself and bug no-one else about it. But as the tragic examples above illustrate, this is so often not the case. Pity that these people were not prepared to challenge their own beliefs, to scrutinise them coldly and without prior prejudice; pity instead that they placed so much fevered trust in so many stupid ideas because...well, they just seemed to make sense.


Ah, my apologies, DeMalachine; now that I've read your longer post, I gather that you do not consider it wise to have faith or belief in anything outside of science, and you don't think a purely scientific perspective on life involves any sort of faith or belief.  (Not to put words in your mouth, but I got that sense from your post, at least.  I hope I'm not mischaracterizing your position too badly.)  I don't share this view but have respect for it, especially if there's some critical thinking involved in arriving at that perspective, and it sounds to me like that's the case with you.  I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree, as they say.

However I must add that I consider it rude to characterize any person's sincerely-held beliefs as "stupid" or as those of a "wank," because those words suggest that the person is stupid or otherwise inferior.  (Actually IMO I thought that your use of those particular words was the only point at which you breached proper civility towards anyone, for whatever that's worth.  And, personally, I don't much mind being called stupid or a wank, but it's still a bit impolite, you know.)

Okay...ummm...I think you've either misread my statements here, or I've not made it clear enough in my writing. I referred to such delusions as Nazi-based mysticism and pseudoscience, adherence to dogmatic Marxism and the Stalinist cult of personality, and the fact that Victoria Climbie's guardians thought the child in her care was satan - and characterised all these beliefs as stupid. Not having any evidence to suggest you are anything like a neo-nazi or a totalitarian-inclined communist, I'm guessing the point didn't come across.

Also, I spoke of having a sneaky wank, not of anyone being one.

[rick957]

Well-hidden misstatements? I'm just wondering what you mean by that. I didn't see any "well hidden misstatements." I'm just asking for specific instances because I'm trying to understand why you say what you do.

Okay.  I'll try to make this as brief as possible, but don't time me or anything.  :)

I found the first two minutes of the video entirely reasonable, but then the narrator started making unsupported claims and presenting them as if their validity was self-evident.  He was using rhetorical ploys to get around the difficulty of actually making a convincing argument.  IMO.  Here's one example; the transcription might not be exact but it's close:

"People who tell others to be more open-minded about so-called supernatural concepts often accompany this advice with one or more personal anecdotes they claim can't be explained.  ... Even if your experience can't be explained, that in NO WAY strengthens the case for any supernatural concept.  All it shows is that your experience can't be explained.  Trying to suggest that a lack of explanation is evidence of supernatural powers are at work is actually a contradiction.  In effect, what it's saying is, 'I can't explain something,' therefore 'I can explain it.'  The unexplained is just that -- unexplained."

In my opinion he can't simply throw out first-hand empirical observations of phenomena and other people's interpretations of those events; he needs to give examples and make convincing counter-arguments.  He doesn't bother; instead, he just reasserts his unsupported position.  That's not good argumentation; it's either intellectual laziness or deliberate sophistry or both.

There are good arguments to make in defense of his positions, but I didn't hear him present them.  YMMV.  I could parse things out further or bring up additional examples, but I doubt that doing so would convince you that the guy's argument is phony, especially if you already agree with the conclusions he arrives at. 

The point is that believing something just because it feels right does not make it right at all. Truth does not "come from within."

We definitely agree about both those things; in fact, I strongly agree with those statements.  What I was trying to say before is that at the end of the day, a person has to use his or her own internal faculties to decide whether or not to believe one thing or another.  Like me, you may put more stock in exercising your intellect rather than trusting emotional impulses or intuition, but not everyone does that.  Also I think it's difficult if not impossible to go through life being led exclusively by one's "head" and never by one's "heart" or "gut."  (To give one obvious and major example, I think most people use both their heads and their hearts when it comes to choosing a mate.)

To me, belief is a reaction to evidence. I can't just believe something without the evidence. I could pretend like I believed it, but I really couldn't.

That's a perfectly reasonable position for you or anyone else to take.  My opinion is that everyday life requires everyone to believe or trust all kinds of things with little or no evidence in front of them; deference to authorities is necessary in many areas, as you mentioned.  Furthermore, however, there are important questions in life which none of the authorities have good answers for, or else they have strong disagreements about.  It's up to each individual to figure out what to do or think or believe when faced with those important dilemmas.  For example, you may be satisfied with the current scientific consensus about God (there isn't one) or the human spirit (again, there isn't one) or the afterlife (nada again!), but not everyone is content to leave such matters at that, especially at certain trying points in life, such as when facing a potentially-fatal illness.

I'm not DeMalachine, but I have to say that, no. I can't agree to disagree with you because you haven't presented any reason here for holding a different view. You just say you do hold a different view. In and of itself, that's fine, but you aren't providing reasons for it. There's literally no reason for DeMalachine to agree to disagree or just not listen to you entirely. In order to agree to disagree there has to be a debate first more than "Oh your idea is different from mine, let's agree to disagree."

I can't really give you "reasons" for being a Christian because I firmly believe that strictly-applied reason and logic point away, not towards, Christianity.  There are many Christians, perhaps even the majority of them, who take the opposite view -- that their religion is in good keeping with logic -- and some of those people can make impressive arguments on behalf of Christianity.  I've heard most of those arguments and come down on the non-Christian side of many if not most of them.  In spite of that -- in fact because of that, specifically -- I choose to believe Christianity is true.

If Christianity seems illogical or daft to you, that's because it is both of those things, in my opinion.  If Christianity's claims piss you off personally, frequently, and profoundly, then you and I have that in common.  But for me, those are the best "reasons," the only real "reasons," to be a Christian.  I don't think many other Christians see eye to eye with me on that, not by a long stretch.

There's plenty more I could say about Christianity or about logic vs. religion or emotion vs. religion, and I'm more than willing to do so, but I've already gone on much longer here than most people do.  If you or anyone else wants to ask questions or discuss anything further, just let me know, here or in private.

Umm...I'm not following as to why you'd think it something to be ashamed of. But anyways...

I totally don't, but as you probably realize, there are people out there who look down on others for their personal views or beliefs, sometimes even while claiming not to.

I honestly believe that my perspective is probably pretty close to yours, DeMalachine, or to YaoiRolePlay's -- far moreso than you may expect, considering that I am a Christian (assuming you aren't, that is; sorry if that's a wrong assumption).

Okay...ummm...I think you've either misread my statements here, or I've not made it clear enough in my writing. I referred to such delusions as Nazi-based mysticism and pseudoscience, adherence to dogmatic Marxism and the Stalinist cult of personality, and the fact that Victoria Climbie's guardians thought the child in her care was satan - and characterised all these beliefs as stupid. Not having any evidence to suggest you are anything like a neo-nazi or a totalitarian-inclined communist, I'm guessing the point didn't come across.

Also, I spoke of having a sneaky wank, not of anyone being one.

I see.  You're right, I misread you.  Sorry if I gave offense.

[YaoiRolePlay]

"People who tell others to be more open-minded about so-called supernatural concepts often accompany this advice with one or more personal anecdotes they claim can't be explained.  ... Even if your experience can't be explained, that in NO WAY strengthens the case for any supernatural concept.  All it shows is that your experience can't be explained.  Trying to suggest that a lack of explanation is evidence of supernatural powers are at work is actually a contradiction.  In effect, what it's saying is, 'I can't explain something,' therefore 'I can explain it.'  The unexplained is just that -- unexplained."

In my opinion he can't simply throw out first-hand empirical observations of phenomena and other people's interpretations of those events; he needs to give examples and make convincing counter-arguments.  He doesn't bother; instead, he just reasserts his unsupported position.  That's not good argumentation; it's either intellectual laziness or deliberate sophistry or both.

I'm really not sure why you think this argument is not working here. Give examples of what? Counter-arguments of what? I'm not seeing what you're trying to say here.

The argument he is making basically goes like this:

Person A says, I had a supernatural experience.

Person B says, what was that supernatural experience?

Person A says it was x and that it can't be explained by science, meaning it must be supernatural.

This is faulty logic, because by saying

x cannot be explained. Therefore supernatural.

You are saying that

x cannot be explained, therefore I have an explanation for it.

That's like trying to say that x=not x

It simply doesn't work logically. That's all that argument is saying. As for dismissing experience: If you say that your experience cannot be explained, there is literally no reason for someone to believe you. You can easily dismiss it because that person is not backing up their experience with evidence. Really the video makes the argument very clear. Saying that you must accept my experience as supernatural is unrealistic because the someone you are talking to doesn't have access to all of the information needed. There could be any number of explanations for an experience someone might call supernatural. Jumping to the conclusion of "it's supernatural" is exactly what religion does. It forgoes curiosity in favor of an already accepted explanation. Infact, people who believe that ghosts exist are more likely to see ghosts. Why do you think that is?

There are good arguments to make in defense of his positions, but I didn't hear him present them.  YMMV.  I could parse things out further or bring up additional examples, but I doubt that doing so would convince you that the guy's argument is phony, especially if you already agree with the conclusions he arrives at. 

I do agree with his conclusion, but I'm trying to understand why you don't. You're making that very difficult for me. >_> I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

We definitely agree about both those things; in fact, I strongly agree with those statements.  What I was trying to say before is that at the end of the day, a person has to use his or her own internal faculties to decide whether or not to believe one thing or another.  Like me, you may put more stock in exercising your intellect rather than trusting emotional impulses or intuition, but not everyone does that.  Also I think it's difficult if not impossible to go through life being led exclusively by one's "head" and never by one's "heart" or "gut."  (To give one obvious and major example, I think most people use both their heads and their hearts when it comes to choosing a mate.)

Yes, obviously. We make decisions based on our emotions every single day. That's part of what makes us human. That doesn't make any of those decisions valid. And it's even more important not to do that when it comes to what you believe. You can easily be taken in by false ideas because it simply feels right. Just because something feels good doesn't make it true. At all. That was what all that satire was about.

That's a perfectly reasonable position for you or anyone else to take.  My opinion is that everyday life requires everyone to believe or trust all kinds of things with little or no evidence in front of them; deference to authorities is necessary in many areas, as you mentioned.  Furthermore, however, there are important questions in life which none of the authorities have good answers for, or else they have strong disagreements about.  It's up to each individual to figure out what to do or think or believe when faced with those important dilemmas.  For example, you may be satisfied with the current scientific consensus about God (there isn't one) or the human spirit (again, there isn't one) or the afterlife (nada again!), but not everyone is content to leave such matters at that, especially at certain trying points in life, such as when facing a potentially-fatal illness.

Of course authority disagrees, and when that happens it's important to think for yourself. Obviously not everyone wants to believe one way or another, but, quite frankly, reality really doesn't care what you or I or anyone else thinks. Reality is the way it is regardless of what we think. My aim is to line up my beliefs (which again are reactions to evidence) with the way reality works because false beliefs do not help anything.

I can't really give you "reasons" for being a Christian because I firmly believe that strictly-applied reason and logic point away, not towards, Christianity.  There are many Christians, perhaps even the majority of them, who take the opposite view -- that their religion is in good keeping with logic -- and some of those people can make impressive arguments on behalf of Christianity.  I've heard most of those arguments and come down on the non-Christian side of many if not most of them.  In spite of that -- in fact because of that, specifically -- I choose to believe Christianity is true.

If Christianity seems illogical or daft to you, that's because it is both of those things, in my opinion.  If Christianity's claims piss you off personally, frequently, and profoundly, then you and I have that in common.  But for me, those are the best "reasons," the only real "reasons," to be a Christian.  I don't think many other Christians see eye to eye with me on that, not by a long stretch.

So you are saying that logically, Christianity is false. Why chose to believe it than? Because it feels right? It just feels like God is real so I'm gonna believe that he is? None of that is logically sound at all. So you are choosing to revel in your own ignorance? That's what it sounds like you're saying here. It sounds like you know better. You're smarter than that. But you would rather dismiss reality entirely in favor of a belief system you say is not true. That's quite frankly astonishing to me. I can understand people who don't know any better, but you seem like you're smart enough to know what you're talking about.

Believing something is not about comfort. It's not about what feels right. It's about what is real. Otherwise you're just like a child living in a fantasy world. Granted a lot of people are living in the same fantasy world, but that does not make that fantasy world any closer to the real one. A lie believed by a billion people is still a lie.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

 I never understand the argument of something being logical.  Rarely are things in science logical at a first glance, sometimes things in science are not logical at all to our eyes.  Reactions happen that do not make sense or are not anticipated by people in science.  There is no logical explanation for the result that occurred, but the result continues to occur.  Typically this is explained by there being an unseen variable or unaccounted for variable in the experiment or observed event.  A part of the universe masked from the eyes of the observer.  Therefore what does not seem logical actually is logical given other evidence.  Typically what people mistake for logic is the explanation that best suits their paradigm of thought.  Nobody wants to be wrong, so they immediately seek explanations that readily fit into their desired way of thinking. 

People love to proclaim they are living logically, but instead they are really living in a way they believe is logical to their way of thinking.  So in a way, trying to live by what seems logical is following “your gut” many times in an attempt to adjust parts of the world to fit a perception.

[YaoiRolePlay]

You never understand the argument of something being logical? Logic is not a gut instinct, it is forming an argument based on evidence. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we want to believe. When someone says something is logical, they are saying that it is the way reality works. By disregarding logic we disregard the only means of understanding the way the world works. If we say that 1+1 is no longer 2, which is logical, we are opening ourselves up to all sorts of possibilities that would not work in the real world.

We can not have iron gold for example or a human sun or a one dimensional cube or the color of up. Plenty of things are logically impossible, that is it is not possible for them to exist in the real world. Disregard logic and we can't even understand the real world. It's important to have a grasp on reality here.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I understand a need for there to be a grasp on reality.  I also understand what logic is and what logic is not.  Logic is not immune to bias and perception.  People make their logical arguments based on their own perception of how the world works and refute other claims as illogical that do not make sense to their understanding.  In essence saying “I live logically” is the same as saying, “I live by rules that fit into my perception of what is logical.”  Essentially saying, I live based on how I believe the world works. 

[Rinzler]

I understand a need for there to be a grasp on reality.  I also understand what logic is and what logic is not.  Logic is not immune to bias and perception.  People make their logical arguments based on their own perception of how the world works and refute other claims as illogical that do not make sense to their understanding.  In essence saying “I live logically” is the same as saying, “I live by rules that fit into my perception of what is logical.”  Essentially saying, I live based on how I believe the world works.

A person who wants to make serious argument based upon how the world works would draw his or her logic from how the argument fares against reality. In other words, it has to be, or have been, sufficiently tested against reality to accord with it. And once it accords with it, it is logical by default.

No one would make a serious argument upon what is logical based upon their perception; to do so would be illogical (captain  ) because experiement after experiment has so frequently demonstrated that personal, subjective perception can often be flawed.

Don't forget that science is a process which works hard to remove as much subjective perception as possible from any given idea.

[rick957]

I do agree with his conclusion, but I'm trying to understand why you don't. You're making that very difficult for me. >_> I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Well, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to help you understand my position better; I tried!  :)  You found the video logical; I did not.  So it goes.  I'm not interested in discussing the video further, sorry.

So you are saying that logically, Christianity is false. Why chose to believe it than? Because it feels right? It just feels like God is real so I'm gonna believe that he is? None of that is logically sound at all.

It's not about trusting feelings any more than it is about trusting logic.  As I tried to explain before, my view is that both logic and emotion (feelings) will point any sensible person away from Christianity, but that's not because Christianity is untrue; it's we who are broken, not it.  Our faculties, cognitive or emotional, point us away from the truth rather than towards it.  We deceive ourselves when we imagine otherwise, as all of us initially do.

We can only find the truth by simply choosing to believe it, to believe in Christianity and its claims.  The evidence in front of us will continue not to convince us, but our senses are lying to us when they point us away from Christianity, which is the truth.  We can choose to believe it and trust it instead of trusting ourselves.

... Reality is the way it is regardless of what we think. ...

Believing something is not about comfort. It's not about what feels right. It's about what is real. Otherwise you're just like a child living in a fantasy world. Granted a lot of people are living in the same fantasy world, but that does not make that fantasy world any closer to the real one. A lie believed by a billion people is still a lie.

Well, shit-fire!  I couldn't have said it any better.  :)  Except the actual lie is inside all of us, and it's that lie that the truth of Christianity is opposed to.  All that any of us can do is respond when the truth outside of us confronts us and calls out to us.

I'm a poor advocate for Christianity, far from the best you can find.  Like I said before, I thought the guy in that video was on the right track, which frankly astonished me, because I disagree with many things that other Christians say.  Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just to point in the direction of Jesus, because it's the only direction I think is right.  I trust you can make up your own mind.  Let me know if anybody wants to discuss further, and thanks for reading if you got this far.  :)

[Rinzler]

Well, shit-fire!  I couldn't have said it any better.  :)  Except the actual lie is inside all of us, and it's that lie that the truth of Christianity is opposed to.

This - this - is what gets my back up! I'm sorry, I'm not having a go at you, but this particular doctrine as you see it.

For all the spurious, nebulous, ill-conceived, wholly subjective ideas that for whatever reason compels someone to believe in it - the presumption is then that there is some kind of fault with others for not being prepared to settle for this...stuff.

What, exactly, is this lie which supposedly resides within me?

[vtboy]

We can only find the truth by simply choosing to believe it, to believe in Christianity and its claims.  The evidence in front of us will continue not to convince us, but our senses are lying to us when they point us away from Christianity, which is the truth.  We can choose to believe it and trust it instead of trusting ourselves.

If the believing in a thing is what makes it true, what is not a candidate for the truth? And why is Christianity any more worthy of my belief than pixies?

Belief is a poor candle. People have believed fervently in witches, alchemy, and the geocentric universe.

[YaoiRolePlay]

So we're all supposed to believe it's true because.... it's true. You gave literally no reason for believing it, you just said it's true and that's that. There's literally no reason to think any of it is true, or at least you didn't give any. Are we just supposed to throw out logic all together? Are we just supposed to go live in this fantasy world since we don't live in reality anymore? This really really irks me. Sorry, I don't mean to take pot shots at you, but I've seen this attitude way to many times, and from people who are smart enough to know better. It's like talking to a brick wall. People are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of little inconveniences like evidence or logic or reality. It's why I rarely ever give anyone a chance to explain why they believe things any more because more often than not they'll just say exactly what you're saying. It's true so you have to believe it. Just cause. And that's it.

[Haloriel]

This - this - is what gets my back up! I'm sorry, I'm not having a go at you, but this particular doctrine as you see it.

For all the spurious, nebulous, ill-conceived, wholly subjective ideas that for whatever reason compels someone to believe in it - the presumption is then that there is some kind of fault with others for not being prepared to settle for this...stuff.

What, exactly, is this lie which supposedly resides within me?

This is precisely why I flee from nearly all religious discussions - because there's all this - if you do not follow x = then you are y.  To my personal beliefs, I would say there is absolutely no lie that resides within you as a person based on any doctrine ... religion is something that is a persons private business (I'm firmly on the side of the gov't staying out of it all, which includes the whole marriage argument) - which is probably why the above and I don't mix at all.  Now, if you were an axe murderer I might have to retract that statement.    As that's just not very nice even for the sake of science. 

[Rinzler]

What I'm curious is about how one can accept that logic is completely unnecessary for a certain belief - or is even directly opposed to it - and then through that belief discern what is true (a logical positive) and a lie (as per a falsehood, a logical negative).

This is precisely why I flee from nearly all religious discussions - because there's all this - if you do not follow x = then you are y.  To my personal beliefs, I would say there is absolutely no lie that resides within you as a person based on any doctrine ... religion is something that is a persons private business (I'm firmly on the side of the gov't staying out of it all, which includes the whole marriage argument) - which is probably why the above and I don't mix at all.  Now, if you were an axe murderer I might have to retract that statement.    As that's just not very nice even for the sake of science. 

I really ought to avoid religious discussions here, cos I used to be a bit of a norty boy on the old Richard Dawkins board. I think...I came perilously close with my earlier post.

I do miss that forum a bit. I'm not going over to Pharyngula, though. Jesus - they are brutal, even to each other. That's where the really scary atheists are...

[MasterMischief]

We can only find the truth by simply choosing to believe it, to believe in Christianity and its claims.  The evidence in front of us will continue not to convince us, but our senses are lying to us when they point us away from Christianity, which is the truth.  We can choose to believe it and trust it instead of trusting ourselves.

So, essentially, your argument is, "Are you going to believe me or your own eyes?"

Why Christianity?  Everyone other religion in the world could make the same exact claim.  If you try to prove them wrong, it is just your own flawed logicality that is clouding the truth.

[Ironwolf85]

aaaaand rick 957 please take a bow, sorry man but that argument is going to get picked to peices. especally when you claim that our senses lie to us and drive us away from god.

I think you meant somthing like "negitive drives (Eating too much, living to breed, desiring more of everything) keep one's eyes on the ground instead of looking for the truth"

still "believe me and not your own eyes, hands, and heart" is a poor argument to make to an educated man, and would hold back his attempts to understand life, love, and truth. not to mention burdening you with having to dictate his thoughts for him, which is not goin g to happen no matter how much some peopole may wish it was so.

[rick957]

This - this - is what gets my back up! I'm sorry, I'm not having a go at you, but this particular doctrine as you see it.

For all the spurious, nebulous, ill-conceived, wholly subjective ideas that for whatever reason compels someone to believe in it - the presumption is then that there is some kind of fault with others for not being prepared to settle for this...stuff.

What, exactly, is this lie which supposedly resides within me?

I'm glad to try to explain my understanding of Christianity further, but as I said before, you may get far more helpful religious insights from other people, Christian or non-. 

Also, I'm not having a go at you either but I do think that if Christianity's claims rankle you, then you're on exactly the right track, not the wrong one -- you're getting a clear picture of things.  Other Christians may not see it that way.

So anyway, here's the thumbnail sketch, as concise as I can manage it.  (Probably nothing you haven't heard in a million other places, but since you asked.)

Christianity claims that there is a perfect and all-powerful God who made people and everything else in the universe.  People were literally made to be with him [sorry, he's male in a sense, won't go into that here though] -- but then certain people disobeyed one of his rules.  From that point on, people became imperfect, so they couldn't be with God anymore -- couldn't fulfill their very purpose for being -- because the perfect God cannot be with imperfect people.  (I guess you could say that's his choice, if he's all-powerful, and that seems like an unfair and unkind choice.  I would sorta agree with you.)

So, to answer your question, that's the "lie" I was referring to, the whole problem with all human life:  we were made for a specific purpose, but then we made a mistake and became broken and unable to fulfill that purpose.  In my opinion (and the opinion of certain other Christians), that fundamental flaw within each of us causes all kinds of fucked-up problems, and in particular, it blinds us to the truth about life, about God, about our purpose in life.

We look around and see a too-often-unfair world, and the best evidence of our senses and faculties (science, logic) tells us that there is no God, and we can only trust in ourselves or in each other, and our purpose in life is whatever we choose it to be (if we're lucky enough to be able to choose).

Christianity says those are all lies.  The world is fair, not unfair, despite the undeniable, overwhelming evidence of our senses that tells us otherwise.  There is a God with whom we were meant to be, and that's our purpose, our only purpose, really.

Then you get to Jesus, who provided a specific way for people to get rid of their imperfection and therefore be able to fulfill their original purpose and be with the perfect God again.

I see that I've run on too long already and left out a handful of key points.  I'm hesitant to keep talking about all this only because most of it is the same Christian teaching that almost everyone has heard a million times, and I really don't want to convince anyone of anything -- I'm not out to proselytize, although I do believe Christianity to be the truth, and the only one in fact.

On the other hand, I don't want to bore anyone any more than I already have (... nor is it my intention to piss people off, but on the other hand, I think the only reasonable response to certain parts of Christianity is to get pissed off.  For example, saying that one religion is true and others are false ought to piss people off.  It does me.  It offends me, upsets me even.  But I believe it anyway, because I think it's true).

Anyway ... if you want the rest of the thumbnail -- actually there isn't too much more, but there's a bit more -- if you want the rest, just ask again here, or PM me, and I can tell you what I know and believe, and you can take it for what it's worth.  My apologies to anyone whom I've already angered with anything here.

Oh wait, there's other questions.  (I see I've really stepped in it now!  Geez.  I know there are other Christians out there, so anybody who wants to take over the explanations is welcome to, because you can probably do it better than me and less offensively.)

If the believing in a thing is what makes it true, what is not a candidate for the truth? 

Sorry if this answer displeases you, but it's my honest response.  Believing in Christianity does not make it true.  It's just true, whether you or I believe in it.

And why is Christianity any more worthy of my belief than pixies?

Hey, I got nothing against pixies!  :)  More seriously, though -- I will not try to tell you, as some other Christians might, that Christianity will necessarily make anyone feel good or have a successful, prosperous life.  It does, however, allow anyone who believes it to fulfill their whole purpose for existing. 

Also ... (Okay, I hope you actually read the stuff above before reading this, and sorry this is taking so long, but I'm a bit tired and this isn't easy stuff to talk about.)  Believing in Jesus and what he did for the sake of humanity allows people to literally be with God, immediately in spirit, and eventually in the so-called, rather-poorly-named "afterlife," which goes on forever.  Nobody ever really dies, Christian or not -- our bodies change, but we keep going.  Sounds crazy, I know.

So we're all supposed to believe it's true because.... it's true. You gave literally no reason for believing it, you just said it's true and that's that. There's literally no reason to think any of it is true, or at least you didn't give any. Are we just supposed to throw out logic all together?

Not exactly, but you're close, in my opinion.  Other Christians will defend the "logic" of their beliefs in very complicated and detailed ways, but I don't want to do that, because I don't agree with most of those arguments.  I consider Christianity to be opposed to human logic, and that's really the reason I choose to believe it, however contradictory that sounds.

Are we just supposed to go live in this fantasy world since we don't live in reality anymore? This really really irks me. Sorry, I don't mean to take pot shots at you, but I've seen this attitude way to many times, and from people who are smart enough to know better. It's like talking to a brick wall. People are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of little inconveniences like evidence or logic or reality. It's why I rarely ever give anyone a chance to explain why they believe things any more because more often than not they'll just say exactly what you're saying. It's true so you have to believe it. Just cause. And that's it.

First off, I'm sorry to have irked you; that's really not my intention, but at the same time, as I said above, if some of these ideas piss you off, then I think you're actually getting the point.  I'm not saying you're "supposed to" do anything or that you "have to believe" anything.  People are going to believe what they believe, I suppose, and most other people's beliefs are probably less controversial than mine, maybe.  However, I'm suggesting exactly the opposite of what you said there -- Christianity says that it is reality, and our initial impression otherwise is the actual fantasy, the actual lie.

Oh poo.  Should I reply more?  I guess I'll try and assume that anybody who doesn't want to read all this will skip it or skim it anyway, right?

What I'm curious is about how one can accept that logic is completely unnecessary for a certain belief - or is even directly opposed to it - and then through that belief discern what is true (a logical positive) and a lie (as per a falsehood, a logical negative).

See, um, it doesn't make sense.  That's what I'm saying.  I agree with you, I'm afraid.

So, essentially, your argument is, "Are you going to believe me or your own eyes?"

Well, almost.  First of all, I'm not doing a good job of representing Christianity, so if anybody wants to start believing anything, please look into Christianity and then believe it, not me.  Secondly, perhaps the argument will sound a bit more palatable if I add that Christianity gives a person total freedom and allows them to fulfill their whole purpose in life.  But if that pisses you off or anything, sorry.    I'm trying to be nice even though I'm saying some not-nice things that I believe are true.

Why Christianity?  Everyone other religion in the world could make the same exact claim.  If you try to prove them wrong, it is just your own flawed logicality that is clouding the truth.

Because it's the truth and they're not.  Some other religions do claim to be exclusively true, but not all.  I wouldn't try to prove anyone else's religion was wrong.  Sorry these answers aren't nicer but I'm trying to be honest with you.

Sorry Ironwolf, I'm gonna stop here and post this in the hopes that one or two people might read the whole thing.  (I respect your viewpoints as I understand them, but I do mean the things I'm saying, and I don't share some of your views.)

[MasterMischief]

Because it's the truth and they're not.

...but then the narrator started making unsupported claims and presenting them as if their validity was self-evident.

No one would ever do that!

[Haloriel]

What I'm curious is about how one can accept that logic is completely unnecessary for a certain belief - or is even directly opposed to it - and then through that belief discern what is true (a logical positive) and a lie (as per a falsehood, a logical negative).

I really ought to avoid religious discussions here, cos I used to be a bit of a norty boy on the old Richard Dawkins board. I think...I came perilously close with my earlier post.

I do miss that forum a bit. I'm not going over to Pharyngula, though. Jesus - they are brutal, even to each other. That's where the really scary atheists are...

It might surprise you - but I think logic is a requirement to have a 'belief' or what ever you want to call it, in anything.  I enjoy history.  For me, if its not at least a historically possible thing - then I'm probably going to just smile and nod and go my way.  I'd be very confused at anyone whom believed in anything based solely on faith.  I'm also going to choose to leave the X-tian debate alone.  It's not at all my cup of tea - but I've no issue with those that choose it ... but the very idea that a person can claim their way is the only way just ... floors me.

There is just so much arrogance in that world view in my opinion - perhaps that could just be my experience - that I just can't mesh with it, and plenty of people of all walks of life think that way, sad enough.     

[YaoiRolePlay]

None of the claims of Christianity piss me off at all. I've heard them way to many times and believed them for so long (not anymore though), I know them backwards and forwards. I want to make that abundantly clear. I don't want that confused with what actually irks me. It's the fact that people are saying that all of it is true without even bothering to question or think for themselves is what irks me. As I said before, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've heard people say this way to many times. You are not the first person who has said this.

If we throw out logic, as you say you have to do to believe what Christianity says, than we have absolutely no way of understanding reality. Take 1+1=2. We throw that out, we can have all sorts of logical impossibilities, like a human sun, a 1 dimensional cube, and so on. As I've said before, numerous times, we will lose our grip on reality. We retreat into ourselves and live in a fantasy world. You are smart. You really are. You should know better than that. It's true because it's true should not work for you. That's like me writing a book and than at the end of the book saying that everything in the book is absolutely true. And you should believe it's true because it is.

Sorry, but saying "It's true! It's really really true!" is not going to make it true. It's like trying to talk to a child who believes in Santa Claus. I remember when I was a kid watching the movie live action Peter Pan with Jeremy Sumpter. In it, he has a line when Tinker Bell dies. He says "I do believe in fairies! I do! I do! I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!" Now if that was real, which it obviously isn't, nothing would have happened. This reminds me of what you are saying here. If you wish really hard, it doesn't make things real. Reality just doesn't work that way. Reality just doesn't care what we think. It is the way it is regardless of what anyone thinks.

It might surprise you - but I think logic is a requirement to have a 'belief' or what ever you want to call it, in anything.  I enjoy history.  For me, if its not at least a historically possible thing - then I'm probably going to just smile and nod and go my way.  I'd be very confused at anyone whom believed in anything based solely on faith.  I'm also going to choose to leave the X-tian debate alone.  It's not at all my cup of tea - but I've no issue with those that choose it ... but the very idea that a person can claim their way is the only way just ... floors me.

There is just so much arrogance in that world view in my opinion - perhaps that could just be my experience - that I just can't mesh with it, and plenty of people of all walks of life think that way, sad enough.     

1. Logic is a requirement for any belief. As I've said several times throughout this thread. Belief is a reaction to evidence. You can't just believe something without the evidence to back it up.

2. I'm open to any and all ideas. I do not deign to claim that I know everything, because I definitely don't. However, I don't just accept anything. I require everything go through a logical filter, otherwise you can let in an awful lot of false ideas.