Would The President of C.O.P.E. Please Stand Up?

[phank]

Hi wally,

atheist:
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

So it is not 'without belief', but literally 'without god' or 'denying god', which is a belief.

I think this misses the point. Imagine a world with no supernatural beliefs. There would be no atheists, there COULD be no atheists. But there certainly could be (the very first) inventor and believer of the first gods. And that invention would ipso facto "convert" everyone else into an atheist, even if they didn't realize it.

Indifference is hard in the US. When I was a child, I was obliged to pray in school each day, even though I had no idea what it meant. It's been a long hard fight, still in process, trying to weed religion out of government, which has historically been far from neutral. Testify in court? Where's the bible! Hold a legislative session? Oops, gotta pray first. Buy beer on Sunday? In many places, forbidden for religious reasons. Want anti-abortion licence plates? Most states are glad to give you one. Want pro-choice plates? Sorry, not politically acceptable for religious reasons. And there are battles across the land, mostly failures, trying to get religiously offensive science even mentioned, much less taught. We all watched the Republican primaries, battles over who could stand on the higher stack of bibles. And under Republican administrations, on DAY ONE, inauguration day, they stop support for vaccinations for third world countries that won't outlaw abortion! When Saddam was deposed, the Bush administration yanked everyone who could speak the language, and replaced them with neophytes who opposed abortion - a strictly religious litmus test. And drummed out of the military everyone who could speak Arabic but was suspected of being gay.

I could continue this list for a long time. Resisting this kind of tidal pressure is guaranteed to be seen as exercising a belief - a "belief" that wouldn't even exist without that pressure.

[phank]

You've got a strong conviction of being a gadfly. You think that powerful beliefs require powerful evidence? That's fine: there are plenty of people who reason along the same lines.

Including you? When the topic is, say, less charged, you seem to champion evidence quite effectively.

You think that belief gives you legitimacy when tilting at giants borne of your own misunderstanding? That's not fine. Whether it's science or religion, you'd better understand what you are criticizing before you try and paint everyone else as delusional dunces.

I can understand the science at least somewhat. I admit (and always have) that I do not understand religious faith. I have no clue what it might be like. However, I am generally appalled at some of the side-effects (see post 106) of that belief. And having delusions doesn't render one a dunce.

You're accused of conflating "I don't believe" with "I think you're wrong." Normally, that's not a terrible conflation to make; it's often justified. But you don't go about it with grace or understanding, which makes for big problems. You get schooled on your misunderstandings of Christian thought, its relationship with science and even on general philosophical principles but you still haven't switched off of attack mode when it comes to your views on religion. And until you show a deeper understanding of that which you criticize, there is no point in taking your louder-than-necessary objections seriously.

There have been a lot of posts on this thread. In one of them, I went into some explanation about the difficulty of BOTH understanding and disagreeing, in a context where understanding MEANS agreement. In science, disagreement ultimately is submitted to the arbitration of reality, but religion has no such yardstick. Lacking any objective measure, religion becomes only hand-waving. So I can understand that there's no more reason to take my views on religion any more seriously than we take Jorge's, or anyone else's.

Perhaps, instead of being indifferent, you can try being tactful, gracious and humble. As is evidenced by other theists, atheists, and agnostics alike on this forum, such virtues go a long way.

What, and give up a persona I've worked so hard to construct? Should I say "I humbly find your faith supportable only insofar as it brings you personal comfort"? Maybe so. After all, on natural science threads, I sincerely try to be clear, to answer questions, to look things up and provide links, etc. My object all sublime is to be as patient with a willingness to learn as I am impatient with an unwillingness to learn, at least in the science threads. I can see that I am to religious discussions what Magellan is to science discussions.

—Sam[/QUOTE]

[Jorge]

First of all, Jorge is wrong in that Atheism as a religious position
is not being taught in schools (at least not officially) any more
than Christianity or Islam is being taught.

Jim

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

Just one brief comment related to the above ...

For you or anyone to say what you do (above) is to prove that you are
not in touch with reality. I am not saying that the kids are told to
"sit down kids ... today you are going to be taught how to be an Atheist."

Don't be freagin' naive, that is not the way it's done.

The way it's being done is that the only view allowed in the classroom
is the view that Materialism / Atheism espouses (namely, billions of
years, solely via natural, undirected processes, etc.). Any other view
such as Intelligent Design is censored to the point that if any teacher
dares talk about it, that teacher could well be enjoying the ranks of the
EXPELLED -- it has happened many times (documented!). Further
proof? The teachers cannot even discuss faults / shortcomings of
the 'State Religion' (Materialism / Atheism / Evolutionism). As in
the case of Roger DeHart, when he brought materials from SECULAR
sources that mentioned problems in Evolution, he ended up being
EXPELLED from his long-held job.

In case you don't know, that is what is known as ideological indoctrination
and neither the kids nor the parents have any say about it. Well, that needs
to change pronto!

I have scores of documented cases of this so, once again, you are
either woefully out of touch with reality or you are being less far than
than honest. Pick ONE ............

Jorge

[Ansgar Seraph]

Including you? When the topic is, say, less charged, you seem to champion evidence quite effectively.

Yes, absolutely including myself. But I don't limit my pool of evidence to purely empirical criteria when the subject isn't structurally based on empiricism. The scientific method is based on empirical evidence and so empirical data is necessary. Civics, religion, and philosophy all utilize evidence but are not bound by empiricism. It's important to know the scope of the subject in relation to the logical and rational tools that subject can draw from.

I can understand the science at least somewhat. I admit (and always have) that I do not understand religious faith. I have no clue what it might be like. However, I am generally appalled at some of the side-effects (see post 106) of that belief. And having delusions doesn't render one a dunce.

Hey, you and me both. Head on over to the Civics forum sometime: you'll find some people there insisting, as you do, that our civic structure has to be built around empirical evidence of the common good and not any one religion's moral code.

There have been a lot of posts on this thread. In one of them, I went into some explanation about the difficulty of BOTH understanding and disagreeing, in a context where understanding MEANS agreement. In science, disagreement ultimately is submitted to the arbitration of reality, but religion has no such yardstick. Lacking any objective measure, religion becomes only hand-waving. So I can understand that there's no more reason to take my views on religion any more seriously than we take Jorge's, or anyone else's.

See, that just demonstrates an ignorance of theology in general. Summa Theologica, whether you agree with it or not, is far more serious and respectable than Jorge's form of literalism. Confucius' writings and Confucianism are far more serious and respectable than Dawkins and sciencism. You confuse "empirically verifiable" with "objective" and confuse objectivism as being superior to subjectivism. In some cases, it is. But only in matters that are themselves given to completely objective criteria. This rules in science but rules out most everything else. The "yardstick" to be used in philosophy, civics, and religion, then, is a mixture of both objective and subjective, of evidence and reason.

What, and give up a persona I've worked so hard to construct? Should I say "I humbly find your faith supportable only insofar as it brings you personal comfort"? Maybe so. After all, on natural science threads, I sincerely try to be clear, to answer questions, to look things up and provide links, etc. My object all sublime is to be as patient with a willingness to learn as I am impatient with an unwillingness to learn, at least in the science threads. I can see that I am to religious discussions what Magellan is to science discussions.

YES. Please give up that persona. It's lousy and it doesn't suit anyone. But more to the point, if you are tactful, gracious and humble as a general rule even when you're sure that you've got the inside track, you'll almost certainly come to understand that your position isn't nearly as certain as you first thought. We rail against YECs for repeatedly failing to learn this simple lesson — why expect a different attitude for a different kind of brazen ignorance?

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

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

Just one brief comment related to the above ...

Oh, good. Jorge's back. How's about addressing the rest of Post #53 that you didn't have time for earlier, Jorge? Or Post #73? What are the specific science standards that you're opposing?

—Sam

[phank]

Yes, absolutely including myself. But I don't limit my pool of evidence to purely empirical criteria when the subject isn't structurally based on empiricism. The scientific method is based on empirical evidence and so empirical data is necessary. Civics, religion, and philosophy all utilize evidence but are not bound by empiricism. It's important to know the scope of the subject in relation to the logical and rational tools that subject can draw from.

I'm not sure how to approach this. Civics, as I learned it, referred ultimately to politics, which is as empirical as it gets. I suppose you could say that the study of the rights and duties of citizens to each other within a polity isn't purely empirical, unless you include things like game theory as empirical. But in any case, my understanding is that the theory here is a proposed explanation of how people behave under given sets of constraints and rewards, why they act that way. I'd also argue that, at least to some extent, religion and philosophy deal with human behavior. Perhaps formal logic does not.

I'm willing to bet that the reason certain political systems fail is because people don't act the way those systems require. All political theories from Marx to Rousseau to Locke start out basically by saying "because human nature is thus and so, THIS system will work best." Very practical.

Hey, you and me both. Head on over to the Civics forum sometime: you'll find some people there insisting, as you do, that our civic structure has to be built around empirical evidence of the common good and not any one religion's moral code.

Are you disputing this? Again, the reason nearly all if not all human societies ever known have some version of the Golden Rule at their core, is because this is what works, and how people think. There's a strong argument that as a gregarious species, this orientation evolved into us (those who didn't follow the golden rule, didn't breed much). The problem with the formulation you give is, the common good and the moral codes of various religions are certainly not mutually exclusive; there's a huge amount of overlap. You can even see religions as operationalizations of the common good, or attempts at it.

And it's a mistake to equate religion with morality. Atheists are probably WAY underrepresented in prisons for a good reason. One certainly need not believe in gods or the supernatural or silly miracles to be a moral person with a firm sense of right and wrong. Conversely, I've seen plenty of religious people who want a community majority decision as to preaching religion in science class when they're in the majority, yet arguing for strict separation of church and state if the community has a majority religion not theirs.

See, that just demonstrates an ignorance of theology in general. Summa Theologica, whether you agree with it or not, is far more serious and respectable than Jorge's form of literalism. Confucius' writings and Confucianism are far more serious and respectable than Dawkins and sciencism.

I wonder if you have read what Dawkins has to say, more than I have read what Confucius wrote.

You confuse "empirically verifiable" with "objective" and confuse objectivism as being superior to subjectivism.

Broad brush there. Objective, to me, means how something really is, irrespective of our perception of it. SOME of that reality can be empirically verified, certainly not all. So I would insist that what is empirically verifiable is a proper subset of what is objectively true. "Objectivism" I'm familiar with only in the Ayn Rand sense, which I regard as simplistic at best. I don't really know what you mean by "subjectivism"; maybe this refers to the distinction between what IS, and how we perceive it? I know that science tries as hard as possible to achieve "intersubjective validity", on the grounds that if people with many different backgrounds, experiences and worldviews all agree, then what's agreed on is probably well formulated and possibly even objectively true. But I know there are also cultures that take mind-altering drugs to deliberately distort their perceptions, and regard these distortions as "superior" in some ways important to them.

In some cases, it is. But only in matters that are themselves given to completely objective criteria. This rules in science but rules out most everything else. The "yardstick" to be used in philosophy, civics, and religion, then, is a mixture of both objective and subjective, of evidence and reason.

When we're dealing with how people interact, and attempting (as most cultures do) to minimize conflict, it's very helpful to understand WHY people behave the way they do, and also helpful that there IS a human nature, which means there's a pattern to those behaviors, which means they can be predicted and managed. And some religions work, much like political dictatorships work, because of the ubiquity of the authoritarian mindset.

YES. Please give up that persona. It's lousy and it doesn't suit anyone. But more to the point, if you are tactful, gracious and humble as a general rule even when you're sure that you've got the inside track, you'll almost certainly come to understand that your position isn't nearly as certain as you first thought.

It works, it works! That is, certainty is not easy for me to project. The more I learn the less certain I become about things. About religion it's easy for me to be certain, because I don't know the formal theology and I don't share the belief in magic.

We rail against YECs for repeatedly failing to learn this simple lesson — why expect a different attitude for a different kind of brazen ignorance?

—Sam

Because, hopefully, projecting that attitude provokes informative responses. How people defend their religious faith tells me a lot about how that faith works with them, how they see it. I really think that if Jim, for example, managed to drop the Christ schtick, he could be entirely happy with Spinoza's god. Jim's god is one of personal comfort and reassurance, the parental image instead of the drill sergeant image or the king image or the policeman image. Jorge, at least from my perspective, seems to worship an evil hypnotist. I'm not sure if polite discussions of science would bring this out.

[phank]

As in
the case of Roger DeHart, when he brought materials from SECULAR
sources that mentioned problems in Evolution, he ended up being
EXPELLED from his long-held job.

I hadn't seen this before, so I looked it up.

Turns out DeHart was a high school biology teacher and a creationist. The "secular source" he used was Of Pands and People, the creationist text from which the infamous "cdesign proponentsists" was taken (from a draft). This text did not point out any "problems with evolution", but it took a bunch of PRATTs and CALLED them "problems with evolution". DeHart was not "expelled", he was determined to be presenting material not part of the mandated curriculum, which is illegal, and reassigned to teach a different subject.

After a year, DeHart quit (he was never fired), and took a job at a private Christian school.

Other than every single detail being wrong, Jorge is right!

[Cerebrum123]

Science works for the same reason atheism works - because there are no gods.

Modern science was HEAVILY influenced by Christianity, and without Christianity, we would not likely have science as we know it today. Also, I'm sure that every Christian here would agree that science works precisely BECAUSE God exists, and upholds His creation in a rational way that is subject to testing.

[Cerebrum123]

One would almost think that 2000 years before science, people would SEE demons in a demon-haunted world.

People have, and they still do. What's your point? I have actually encountered such a being myself, and know many people who have had similar experiences.

[phank]

Modern science was HEAVILY influenced by Christianity, and without Christianity, we would not likely have science as we know it today. Also, I'm sure that every Christian here would agree that science works precisely BECAUSE God exists, and upholds His creation in a rational way that is subject to testing.

You're right, I didn't phrase it well. There are no miracles, and never have been. Miracles would convert atheists, but destroy science. And I even agree that the Christian view of their god as being rational (as opposed to the whimsical, unpredictable gods of other cultures) was a key factor in the rise of the scientific enterprise.

I don't have any problem with Spinoza's god, or Einstein's god, or Gaia. These are simply anthropomorphized projections onto nature itself. But as soon as the Christian god starts pulling rabbits out of hats, then we have a problem. Saying that the Christian God USED to pull rabbits out of hats before it became culturally normal to doubt or to need verification, but now doesn't do it anymore, seems odd but harmless.

[Cerebrum123]

You're right, I didn't phrase it well. There are no miracles, and never have been. Miracles would convert atheists, but destroy science. And I even agree that the Christian view of their god as being rational (as opposed to the whimsical, unpredictable gods of other cultures) was a key factor in the rise of the scientific enterprise.

I don't have any problem with Spinoza's god, or Einstein's god, or Gaia. These are simply anthropomorphized projections onto nature itself. But as soon as the Christian god starts pulling rabbits out of hats, then we have a problem. Saying that the Christian God USED to pull rabbits out of hats before it became culturally normal to doubt or to need verification, but now doesn't do it anymore, seems odd but harmless.

Miracles still happen, but they are not the norm, that's why they are called MIRACLES. I have experienced them myself, and know many people how have as well. One of them was one that couldn't even be explained in ANY way at all, and involved a little girl who was declared dead coming back after her family prayed for her.

[oxmixmudd]

So we are in an endless circle of repetitive correction. My atheism, at least, says "the default position is that nothing exists until evidence is found that it does." I regard this as a rational default, but I recognize that those who believe without evidence, are going to feel threatened by those who notice there is no evidence.

The evidence (your writings) does not support what you say here. You are very far from simply saying you have no evidence for a God or gods and therefore lacking any contrary evidence chose not to believe in them. You campaign vigorously for the FACT that there is no God or gods, to the extent you declare those that believe in God or gods cognitively impaired. You declare all evidence for God (the historical claims of Christianity, the personal experiences of theists upon which their faith is confirmed) "Making stuff up". You are in fact vigorously opposed to the concept of a God or gods being real, and have no less zeal for that cause that the most ardent of YEC's. If you are not actually pulling my leg and actually believe what you say above characterizes your position, then you are effectively incapable of seeing yourself as you really are.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

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

Just one brief comment related to the above ...

For you or anyone to say what you do (above) is to prove that you are
not in touch with reality. I am not saying that the kids are told to
"sit down kids ... today you are going to be taught how to be an Atheist."

Don't be freagin' naive, that is not the way it's done.

The way it's being done is that the only view allowed in the classroom
is the view that Materialism / Atheism espouses (namely, billions of
years, solely via natural, undirected processes, etc.). Any other view
such as Intelligent Design is censored to the point that if any teacher
dares talk about it, that teacher could well be enjoying the ranks of the
EXPELLED -- it has happened many times (documented!). Further
proof? The teachers cannot even discuss faults / shortcomings of
the 'State Religion' (Materialism / Atheism / Evolutionism). As in
the case of Roger DeHart, when he brought materials from SECULAR
sources that mentioned problems in Evolution, he ended up being
EXPELLED from his long-held job.

In case you don't know, that is what is known as ideological indoctrination
and neither the kids nor the parents have any say about it. Well, that needs
to change pronto!

I have scores of documented cases of this so, once again, you are
either woefully out of touch with reality or you are being less far than
than honest. Pick ONE ............

Jorge

Jorge, what is done in the public schools is to attempt to avoid any religious reference unless the class topic explicitly deals with the subject of religion. As for how this is implemented, you'll get no argument from me that it is in fact absurd. There are people who actively campaign to rid all reference to the cultural roots of our nation or religion from it's public schools - much in line with Phank's view that religion is somehow an indicator of a fundamental cognitive flaw.

That effort exists, but addressing it as you are is equally absurd. Methodological naturalism as it is used in the scientific method is not inherently anti-faith and a necessary component of its success. And so trying to make some grand point based on that assumption is to be defeated from the very beginning. Indeed, trying to address this issue from the YEC POV is to be defeated from day one. Because the YEC POV is purely and simply a very specific religious POV. It has nothing to do with science and requires the rejection of the scientific method and the majority of the physical data in order to be sustained.

Your efforts, in fact, are aiding and abetting the very tendency you oppose. As long as the alternative to the purging of all mention of religion or faith is the insertion of patently absurd views of the natural world based on extreme religious point of view, those that want to eject religion in any form from the public dialogue will have ample ammunition the deploy their desired agenda.

It is, in fact, a true tragedy so much of public policy is decided by the absurdity of the conflict between the most extreme points of view on the subject. We ALL lose because of this. Great works of art are purged from public life. Beautiful choral and instrumental pieces are not performed or played. Great works of fiction are ignored or shunned. All because the rabid atheists and the rabid religionists refuse to allow anything that even remotely hints at the other. Their lawsuits and public rancor have condemned us all to the mush of mediocrity on all levels so as to avoid offense to those too intolerant and small minded to be able to appreciate and rejoice in any point of view that differs from their own!

You people (the phanks and the jorges of the world) really have ruined a lot in this country, in our society. It is truly a shame.


Jim

[phank]

Miracles still happen, but they are not the norm, that's why they are called MIRACLES. I have experienced them myself, and know many people how have as well. One of them was one that couldn't even be explained in ANY way at all, and involved a little girl who was declared dead coming back after her family prayed for her.

I wasn't sure how much I should go into this, and I'm still not sure. My reading is that the enterprise of science over the last few centuries has had an enormous influence on First World cultures. It's the norm now I think, with some exceptions, that "miracles" are regarded as scientifically explainable. And further, that there IS a scientific explanation for phenomena not understood, in terms of natural forces and principles. In much of the third world, in contrast, the ancient attribution of everything from bad weather to the ordinary slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are attributed to gods, or to the ancestors, or to magic spells, or any of a wide variety of superstition. The concept of a scientific explanation is in many places not known, and even when clearly obvious (crops the bugs won't eat), attributed to magical mechanisms. Cargo cult science.

But as you demonstrate, even in the First World there are people who, lacking an explanation, claim that there CAN BE NONE, and therefore it's a miracle. Carl Sagan wrote about experiments in intercessory prayer, which consistently found that praying for the sick doesn't help. THINKING people are praying for someone does help a bit if you're sick, and praying for others helps YOU feel better about yourself even if it's no help to the targets. And then one study found that praying DID help. Immediately, religious sites and organizations everywhere gleefully accepted this, and changed their tune from "insufficient data" to "God listens". But oops, turned out there were methodological flaws with that study. The researchers corrected the errors, replicated the study, and the influence of prayer vanished. But did the Believers then revert to "insuifficient data"? No, that flawed study is still considered the Real Scientific Authority - and the religious sites do not choose to mention the correction.

So I would say that miracles are still alleged, and probably always will be. But in the First World today, except among a religious minority, they are not the default, not taken for granted, not assumed instead of a scientific explanation. Science has been too successful for such a norm to survive. And the point I was trying to make was that 2000 years before the advent of science, superstitious "explanations" were ALL that were available, they were taken for granted, and accepted without skepticism. And eyewitnesses then were probably very much like today - they don't see the gorilla, they see what they EXPECT to see. If you expect miracles, you see them. Science has changed First World expectations in this respect, but I think it's important not to read ancient fables through modern eyes.

[phank]

The evidence (your writings) does not support what you say here. You are very far from simply saying you have no evidence for a God or gods and therefore lacking any contrary evidence chose not to believe in them. You campaign vigorously for the FACT that there is no God or gods, to the extent you declare those that believe in God or gods cognitively impaired.

No, I'm saying I find their "evidence" thumpingly uncompelling.

You declare all evidence for God (the historical claims of Christianity,

Please. This bears no resemblance to any evidence for any gods. It's pretty good evidence of historical claims. You may choose to believe any claims that suit you. But claims are not evidence.

the personal experiences of theists upon which their faith is confirmed) "Making stuff up".

And I have repeatedly said that I do not doubt the sincerity of these people, or the strength of their convictions of their personal experiences. If we could agree that "God" is a kind of personal experience, 100% subjective, then I'd have no problem. But "supporting" a belief by applying belief-induced interpretations to believ-selected materials to reify a subjective experience says nothing about anything external to the believer.

You are in fact vigorously opposed to the concept of a God or gods being real,

"Real" is an ambiguous word in this case. Your experience of your God is unquestionably real.

and have no less zeal for that cause that the most ardent of YEC's. If you are not actually pulling my leg and actually believe what you say above characterizes your position, then you are effectively incapable of seeing yourself as you really are.

It's those glasses again. There is no objective, external evidence for any gods. There is plenty of evidence for imaginary gods sincerely and devoutly believed in.

And sometimes it puzzles me that you can look at the pantheon of Hindu gods, with a provenance at least as solid as that for your own god, and a history at least as long and detailed, and simply IGNORE all of the same "evidence" you find so utterly persuasive in the case of YOUR selected god. Do you think Hindus are stupid, or deluded, or misguided, or wrong? You can't BOTH be right. So this gets ignored, every time. How very convenient.