mooghead
I am still waiting......
Thread
Posts in chronological order
GratefulFan
Saw this this earlier and haven't had a chance to fully form any thoughts but I thought it interesting as it's a departure of sorts from typical judicial rulings on public worship.
http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/07/kelly-mcparland-quebec-judge-strikes-a-blow-against-the-scourge-of-secular-fundamentalists/
http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/07/kelly-mcparland-quebec-judge-strikes-a-blow-against-the-scourge-of-secular-fundamentalists/
GratefulFan
Another interesting one today. The Post is on a roll. :)
http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/good-without-god-atheist-churches-offer-non-believers-community-and-ritual-without-faith/
http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/good-without-god-atheist-churches-offer-non-believers-community-and-ritual-without-faith/
mooghead
"Atheist churches"
I detest this term. Atheism is not a religion.
I detest this term. Atheism is not a religion.
Day dop
[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]
"Atheist churches"
I detest this term. Atheism is not a religion.[/QUOTE]
There are some atheists that treat it as such though. For example, when I've seen atheists bashing agnostics for not "siding" with them etc. Mind you, that's more of an arsehole thing than an atheist thing.
"Atheist churches"
I detest this term. Atheism is not a religion.[/QUOTE]
There are some atheists that treat it as such though. For example, when I've seen atheists bashing agnostics for not "siding" with them etc. Mind you, that's more of an arsehole thing than an atheist thing.
The Real Wizard
Exactly - that doesn't make it a religion. That makes them arseholes. That said, they still have the upper hand regardless of their methods of putting their point across.
A religion requires doctrine and beliefs. Atheists do not have beliefs. Their worldview is based on the natural world, which is proven to be correct by the scientific method. Putting this on a scale as if it is somehow an equal opposite to untenable beliefs about the unknown makes absolutely no sense. It is people with metaphysical propositions who have the burden of proof. Atheists are right by default until proven otherwise.
90 something percent of major conflict in this world would be solved if people were educated to understand this.
A religion requires doctrine and beliefs. Atheists do not have beliefs. Their worldview is based on the natural world, which is proven to be correct by the scientific method. Putting this on a scale as if it is somehow an equal opposite to untenable beliefs about the unknown makes absolutely no sense. It is people with metaphysical propositions who have the burden of proof. Atheists are right by default until proven otherwise.
90 something percent of major conflict in this world would be solved if people were educated to understand this.
Heavenite
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Exactly - that doesn't make it a religion. That makes them arseholes. That said, they still have the upper hand regardless of their methods of putting their point across.
A religion requires doctrine and beliefs. Atheists do not have beliefs. Their worldview is based on the natural world, which is proven to be correct by the scientific method. Putting this on a scale as if it is somehow an equal opposite to untenable beliefs about the unknown makes absolutely no sense. It is people with metaphysical propositions who have the burden of proof. Atheists are right by default until proven otherwise.
90 something percent of major conflict in this world would be solved if people were educated to understand this.[/QUOTE]
Hi Real Wizard
So you're saying that atheism is akin to nature, in that there is nothing behind those processes. I guess in that respect you are saying nature is what is and nothing more.
I very much agree with that, although a question one also might ask is what is nature and what is it evolving to? I think if we also knew the answer to those questions, and weren't just speculating, we would also know whether life's evolution is solely for the purpose of survival of the species through the process of random selection or whether we have also been on some sort of developmental or even "spiritual" path during this process as well.
Exactly - that doesn't make it a religion. That makes them arseholes. That said, they still have the upper hand regardless of their methods of putting their point across.
A religion requires doctrine and beliefs. Atheists do not have beliefs. Their worldview is based on the natural world, which is proven to be correct by the scientific method. Putting this on a scale as if it is somehow an equal opposite to untenable beliefs about the unknown makes absolutely no sense. It is people with metaphysical propositions who have the burden of proof. Atheists are right by default until proven otherwise.
90 something percent of major conflict in this world would be solved if people were educated to understand this.[/QUOTE]
Hi Real Wizard
So you're saying that atheism is akin to nature, in that there is nothing behind those processes. I guess in that respect you are saying nature is what is and nothing more.
I very much agree with that, although a question one also might ask is what is nature and what is it evolving to? I think if we also knew the answer to those questions, and weren't just speculating, we would also know whether life's evolution is solely for the purpose of survival of the species through the process of random selection or whether we have also been on some sort of developmental or even "spiritual" path during this process as well.
GratefulFan
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Exactly - that doesn't make it a religion. That makes them arseholes. That said, they still have the upper hand regardless of their methods of putting their point across.
A religion requires doctrine and beliefs. Atheists do not have beliefs. Their worldview is based on the natural world, which is proven to be correct by the scientific method. Putting this on a scale as if it is somehow an equal opposite to untenable beliefs about the unknown makes absolutely no sense. It is people with metaphysical propositions who have the burden of proof. Atheists are right by default until proven otherwise.
90 something percent of major conflict in this world would be solved if people were educated to understand this.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, sometimes reading this thread is like hanging out with Alice, in Wonderland, on Wacky Wednesdays, after popping 3 hits of acid. Utterly surreal. I should just stay off this thread because I have felt myself not always quite hitting the right tone, and I almost did stay off tonight, but, man, how do you reconcile statements like "Atheists are right by default until proven otherwise" and "religious people [all x billions of them apparently - added by me] wander off with a handful of water content to never see an ocean again" (or whatever), with multiple previous intimations that the stupid lays in insisting one way is the only way, one view the only view, and attributing that stupid to people who practice faith(!). The scientific method (which itself requires assumptions about the nature of reality derived from metaphysical philosophy by the way) is just one application in the vast sphere of reason. There have been explicit and implicit comments from the beginning here that the embrace of reason and science is the strength of atheists and the assumed diminishment of those same things the weakness of theists. That is incredibly narrow thinking that does not even bother to wonder how reason and the advancement of science might figure in the history and practice of theism. And while there's lots of good stuff on this thread from everybody, where there has been weird rigidity, fundamentalism, failure to respond to requests for reason to be openly evaluated, requests for evidence for statements ignored, wild generalizations drawn from specific examples along with transparent strawman and other general offenses against formal and informal reasoning, it's pretty much all come from the atheist position! It must be a fashionable belief indeed that doesn't even bother to phone in it's own standards.
For 800 years, since Thomas Aquinas, Catholic theology has emphasized both faith and reason, and produced substantial philosophy on their relationship. In recent history John Paul II argued that faith without reason leads to superstition (and reason without faith to nihilism and relativism). Regardless of whether one finds the full position to be intellectually supportable they should know that anybody whose circumstances and specific exposures to Catholicism allowed a just and healthy transmission of fundamental principles of the faith in this area was offered tools that inspire reason, searching, curiosity and wonder. In fact, along with a sense of grace and gratitude reflected through my perception of the world, those things are probably the biggest remnants of my own early and extended immersion in Catholic teachings. That was not a universal experience I know, but the theology was and is there.
A man named Lawrence Principe is a Humanities professor at Johns Hopkins whose area of expertise is the history of science. He is an award winning academic who was honored for significant contributions to the history of science by the California Institute of Technology. With what words might you instinctively fill in the blanks in this following quote from him?
"it is clear from the historical record that _________ has been probably the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history, that many contributors to the Scientific Revolution were ____________ , and that several ____________ and perspectives were key influences upon the rise of modern science."
While you're pondering that, Anglican Priest and physicist John Polkingome invites us to consider that "There is a popular caricature which sees the scientist as ever open to the correcting power of new discovery and, in consequence, achieving the reward of real knowledge, whilst the religious believer condemns himself to intellectual imprisonment within the limits of an opinion held on a priori grounds, to which he will cling whatever facts there might be to the contrary. The one is the man of reason; the other blocks the road of honest inquiry with a barrier labelled “incontestable revelation.” If that were really so, those of us who are both scientists and religious believers . . . would be living schizophrenically, believing the impossible on Sundays and only opening our minds again on Monday mornings."
Certainly an outstanding candidate for an irrational belief.
I'm done now. For interest, the blanks in the Principe quote are "the Catholic church", "themselves catholic" and "Catholic institutions". More of interest in the preambles and lists of Catholic scientists and Catholic cleric-scientists on Wikipedia if there is any interest to look it up.
Heavenite
Just on that point Grateful Fan, in one of M Scott Peck's books he writes that he has observed in his work four stages of development in the views of people on matters religious/spiritual or otherwise. In Stage One, an individual has no concept of any of this stuff and cheats and lies and operates purely from a perspective of self interest. In Stage Two, the invididual takes on a "Mickey Mouse" view of the religious/spiritual issues. God made the world in seven days as described in The Bible and so on. Stage Three is characterised by aetheism. Recognising the clash of a literal interpretation of Genesis and other such stories with scientific evidence leads the individual to completely reject any sort of spiritual aspect to life. The fourth stage is characterised by both an acceptance of science and also some sort of spiritual view of life, which may incorporate some sort of theism.
Peck says that certain crises in a person's life are resolved by moving to the next stage of this model, so for example, a basic stage one person might take on certain religious rules that incorporate some sort of consideration for others when before there was nothing. Although he also says reversion to a previous stage can occur and some people can even be characterised as operating in all four stages at once. So there seems to be a predisposition for people to believe in a god of some sort but its not all one way. Doesn't mean its true either I guess.
Peck says that certain crises in a person's life are resolved by moving to the next stage of this model, so for example, a basic stage one person might take on certain religious rules that incorporate some sort of consideration for others when before there was nothing. Although he also says reversion to a previous stage can occur and some people can even be characterised as operating in all four stages at once. So there seems to be a predisposition for people to believe in a god of some sort but its not all one way. Doesn't mean its true either I guess.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
The scientific method (which itself requires assumptions about the nature of reality derived from metaphysical philosophy by the way) is just one application in the vast sphere of reason.[/QUOTE]
Throwing the epistemology card, eh? Cool. But it still doesn't somehow diminish the scientific method and give credence to faith. If we welcome this gray area on matters of truth, then matters of faith are even grayer since they are even further from any kind of truth to begin with.
Faith simply accepts a proposition without scrutiny. Faith cannot seek empirical evidence. As soon as scrutiny is possible, we then enter the realm of science and critical thought.
Faith has no place in the world of peer-reviewed science. It is a personal choice and is a part of many a scientist's existence, but it plays no tangible part in the process of advancing our understanding of the world.
In the case of the Higgs Boson, one could argue that they accepted the position on faith, but it was mathematics that led to the hypothesis, not a bunch of guys wishing it would be true. It required decades of work and the world's largest and most expensive particle accelerator to confirm it. This should not somehow be a reason to credit faith. Faith had nothing to do with it. Human ingenuity is the sole reason for this great triumph.
The scientific method (which itself requires assumptions about the nature of reality derived from metaphysical philosophy by the way) is just one application in the vast sphere of reason.[/QUOTE]
Throwing the epistemology card, eh? Cool. But it still doesn't somehow diminish the scientific method and give credence to faith. If we welcome this gray area on matters of truth, then matters of faith are even grayer since they are even further from any kind of truth to begin with.
Faith simply accepts a proposition without scrutiny. Faith cannot seek empirical evidence. As soon as scrutiny is possible, we then enter the realm of science and critical thought.
Faith has no place in the world of peer-reviewed science. It is a personal choice and is a part of many a scientist's existence, but it plays no tangible part in the process of advancing our understanding of the world.
In the case of the Higgs Boson, one could argue that they accepted the position on faith, but it was mathematics that led to the hypothesis, not a bunch of guys wishing it would be true. It required decades of work and the world's largest and most expensive particle accelerator to confirm it. This should not somehow be a reason to credit faith. Faith had nothing to do with it. Human ingenuity is the sole reason for this great triumph.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
In recent history John Paul II argued that faith without reason leads to superstition (and reason without faith to nihilism and relativism).[/QUOTE]
It is indeed a wonderful quote. Much food for thought, but I ultimately disagree with most of it. Faith can certainly be an addition to reason if one wishes, but it is not compulsory. Having faith in something doesn't make it any more or less true - using testable measures to eliminate all other options is what makes a proposition true. So to assert that doing otherwise is by nature nihilistic is ludicrous. But to label it is relativistic is of course correct.
If anything, epistemology by its nature is nihilistic. The scientific method leads to empirical truth, and epistemology then says, "actually, it may not be."
[QUOTE]"it is clear from the historical record that _________ has been probably the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history, that many contributors to the Scientific Revolution were ____________ , and that several ____________ and perspectives were key influences upon the rise of modern science."
[/QUOTE]
And I'm also well aware that the answer is "the church." Historically that is true, but certainly not of the past few centuries. The church has very largely stood in the way of progress since the enlightenment.
In recent history John Paul II argued that faith without reason leads to superstition (and reason without faith to nihilism and relativism).[/QUOTE]
It is indeed a wonderful quote. Much food for thought, but I ultimately disagree with most of it. Faith can certainly be an addition to reason if one wishes, but it is not compulsory. Having faith in something doesn't make it any more or less true - using testable measures to eliminate all other options is what makes a proposition true. So to assert that doing otherwise is by nature nihilistic is ludicrous. But to label it is relativistic is of course correct.
If anything, epistemology by its nature is nihilistic. The scientific method leads to empirical truth, and epistemology then says, "actually, it may not be."
[QUOTE]"it is clear from the historical record that _________ has been probably the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history, that many contributors to the Scientific Revolution were ____________ , and that several ____________ and perspectives were key influences upon the rise of modern science."
[/QUOTE]
And I'm also well aware that the answer is "the church." Historically that is true, but certainly not of the past few centuries. The church has very largely stood in the way of progress since the enlightenment.
Donna13
"In the case of the Higgs Boson, one could argue that they accepted the position on faith, but it was mathematics that led to the hypothesis, not a bunch of guys wishing it would be true."
I don't understand this sentence.
I don't understand this sentence.
Donna13
I think wishing and faith are not the same thing. Faith is knowing or believing, and there is quite a lot of that sort of thing going on in science all the time. Scientists wake up with hunches and sometimes are able to lucky guess their way into a hypothesis. But even if an experiment seems to prove a hypothesis, it is not always something that can withstand further testing or further developments in knowledge. So, for a scientist to close his/her mind to alternative possibilities, or answers, or an experiment that could disprove the hypothesis, then that (the closed mind), is not following the scientific method.
As Brian May (Queen reference in all arguments here - ha) has stated (I don't have the exact quote, but he answered the question - did he believe in God - in his RT interview), nobody has disproved that God exists, therefore the question (scientific or otherwise) is still there. Also, I think, definition would be part of developing any hypothesis, and as humans, maybe we cannot even get to that point. I think Brian also mentioned our limited perspective.
As Brian May (Queen reference in all arguments here - ha) has stated (I don't have the exact quote, but he answered the question - did he believe in God - in his RT interview), nobody has disproved that God exists, therefore the question (scientific or otherwise) is still there. Also, I think, definition would be part of developing any hypothesis, and as humans, maybe we cannot even get to that point. I think Brian also mentioned our limited perspective.
mooghead
Th onus of proof is on the believers.. I tune into this thread, which I started, for a laugh....
Never fails to let me down..
I am still waiting..
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Debating/ShiftingtheBurdenofProof.png
Never fails to let me down..
I am still waiting..
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Debating/ShiftingtheBurdenofProof.png
Holly2003
The following comments aren't mine. In fact, they're from an Amazon book review. Gave me pause for thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's suppose that in the future (if not now) the bots in a computer game become conscious. Some bots think their world (computer game environment) is designed and a creation of some intelligence, others do not (let's call them atheists).
The atheists assert that it is the onus of those who believe their world is designed to provide evidence for this. Apparently the fact that the game world follows rules does not provide any evidence for a designer whatsoever. But the atheists never explain why.
Furthermore they think that any designer is some entity within their computer game environment. Any designer must equate effectively to some pixels, for if the designer does not then he is invisible and therefore does not exist. Moreover he has no effect in the game environment since their world operates according to rules (physical laws). So what could any possible designer do?? He is superfluous.
The bots who believe in a designer disagree and quarrel about the name and personality of the designer (programmer). One lot says I don't believe in Tom, Dick and Harry. The designer is called Dave and he has this type of personality. Another lot says I don't believe in Tom, Dick and Dave. The designer is called Harry and he has this type of personality. Another lots say I don't believe in Dick, Dave and Harry. The designer is called Tom and he has this type of personality. Blah blah blah.
And then of course we have the atheist bots! They don't believe that their reality (game environment) has any designer at all. It just popped into being all by itself. However they try to make out their position is very similar to the theist bots by saying they don't believe in either Tom, Dick, Harry or Dave, and it's just believing in one less designer than anyone else!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's suppose that in the future (if not now) the bots in a computer game become conscious. Some bots think their world (computer game environment) is designed and a creation of some intelligence, others do not (let's call them atheists).
The atheists assert that it is the onus of those who believe their world is designed to provide evidence for this. Apparently the fact that the game world follows rules does not provide any evidence for a designer whatsoever. But the atheists never explain why.
Furthermore they think that any designer is some entity within their computer game environment. Any designer must equate effectively to some pixels, for if the designer does not then he is invisible and therefore does not exist. Moreover he has no effect in the game environment since their world operates according to rules (physical laws). So what could any possible designer do?? He is superfluous.
The bots who believe in a designer disagree and quarrel about the name and personality of the designer (programmer). One lot says I don't believe in Tom, Dick and Harry. The designer is called Dave and he has this type of personality. Another lot says I don't believe in Tom, Dick and Dave. The designer is called Harry and he has this type of personality. Another lots say I don't believe in Dick, Dave and Harry. The designer is called Tom and he has this type of personality. Blah blah blah.
And then of course we have the atheist bots! They don't believe that their reality (game environment) has any designer at all. It just popped into being all by itself. However they try to make out their position is very similar to the theist bots by saying they don't believe in either Tom, Dick, Harry or Dave, and it's just believing in one less designer than anyone else!