Religion and intelligence

[LogGrad98]

I hate when that happens. Unless there are twins in the wagon.

 

[♪alt13]

Who, exactly? I don't like to discuss people and groups in the abstract. Yes, there are lots of religious people who believe things that I think are silly, like that God can perform supernatural miracles. That doesn't mean that it's a part of religion per se, any more than "faith," however you'd like to define it. There are plenty of liberal religious people who don't consider "faith" as you apparently understand it to be a virtue.

faith
fāTH/
noun

1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
-a particular system of faith and worship.
-a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

In this conversation I think it is safe to say that we are talking about faith in the second sense rather than the first which would be the faith I have in my wife. I think it is also safe to say that we are not talking about religion in the sense that "basketball is my religion". So scratch the last line. I'll grant you that we don't necessarily need a God for religion so scratch the first line. That leaves us with: Religion-a particular system of faith or worship, Faith-strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Not only do I think these are fair definitions but as you can see they are not my definitions. If you want to find alternative definitions that may be out there that you think are more appropriate, cool, but don't pretend like I am just making up my own definitions. Please note that I did not search high and low for definitions that would suite my needs. They are exactly what pop up if you search "Faith/Religion definition" on google.

I never said that killing was wrong. Read what I said again. In fact, an oft-quoted Whitehead passage is: "Whether or no it be for the general good, life is robbery. It is at this point that with life morals become acute. The robber requires justification." Of course we're killing things all the time. I was giving it as an example of a non-empirical question, not making an ethical statement.

As for "ethics are an instinct," I don't think I buy that. I have an instinct to have sex with people I find attractive. And you're saying the fact that I don't seek to screw every attractive person I see is... what? A competing instinct? Doesn't seem like quite the same thing. What is the empirical test for deciding which "instincts" are "wrong" and which are "right"? I'm just not seeing how ethics is a "science." It seems to me that it falls much more neatly under the heading of "philosophy."

If we accept that empathy for instance is an emotion and that emotional response is an evolved trait than science can help us to form an appropriate epistemology of human ethical behavior. I have no issue with philosophy or reasonable and rational thinking in fact I would celebrate it. I would not disagree about the usefulness of philosophy in forming ethics but I would argue that if we use religion than we cannot form a sense of coherent human ethics. Religious beliefs are inconsistent and it is the one area of human thought where we still grant people the use of faith as a perfectly acceptable reason to hold the positions that they do. Neither science nor philosophy needs, nor should they accept, the help of religion in forming a code of ethics.

The thing I don't get here is that you're talking about "faith" as if it is some kind of living entity, or at least something separate from the individual beliefs themselves. If I have a belief that evolution is false despite evidence, then that's a dumb belief. According to what you're saying here, what's sustaining belief is not some other sort of competing evidence (e.g. biblical passages, church teaching, etc.), it's this mysterious thing called "faith." Well, if faith is the reason (or to use your word, "cause") for said obstinacy, then you are indeed saying that faith is "stupid obstinacy" -- it is the cause for believing in silly things despite contrary evidence. Read what you've written here and tell me how else I'm supposed to interpret what you're saying.

In the above example I can't help but laugh that you would describe (e.g. biblical passages, church teaching, etc.) as competing evidence against the theory of evolution. Especially since you will not grant that it is someone's faith in their interpretation of it that allows them to begin to conflate it as evidence. There is no rational reason to use biblical passages or church teaching as evidence against or for the theory of evolution. You certainly see that.

As for treating faith as some kind of living entity: Huh? Maybe I should have used the word 'reason' instead of 'cause' but I have a hard time believing that you did not think that that is the way that I meant it.

Besides I am not one that likes to bastardize the word 'reason' by using it in this way

If you're saying that they're all the same thing, but along a continuum of certainty, then fine, we basically agree. I just don't see the difference in kind. Even certainties should be changeable given the proper evidence/experience. But at the same time, not all assumptions/hypotheses/beliefs are subject to empirical testing.


I'm still not seeing how this is different in kind from anyone else. We all think we have some understanding of the universe, and we all think that understanding is somewhat like reality. What's your point? Do you think I have more "faith" in my understanding than you do? And if you think I do, then what exactly is the resulting effect that you're imagining?

You seem very hung up on this word "faith," which is not a word I use, because I think it carries way too much negative baggage -- something you should understand, since you don't seem able to define "faith" in anything but a negative way. I'm with you there. We all agree that a lot of people believe stupid things and cite "faith" as a reason. But religion does not require such "faith."

And no, I'm not trying to "equate your assumptions about the nature of reality to a religious view." Rather, you are trying to equate religion with "faith," and then becoming annoyed when I say that religion doesn't require faith any more than you do. So can we drop this whole "faith" line, since neither of us thinks it is a positive concept?

I assure you I am not annoyed.

But religion does not require such "faith."

I must put the onerus on you then to supply me with a definition of religion that does not require faith. You are the first person I have ever encountered that made the claim that religion does not require faith. Indeed some charge that atheism is becoming a religion on the basis that many atheists seem to have faith that there is no god. I honestly would agree with them. Buddhism to my understanding of it is a perfect example of faith turning what started as a fairly agnostic philosophy into a religion.

So can we drop this whole "faith" line, since neither of us thinks it is a positive concept?

You are right that I do not think it is a positive concept but for the reasons above I cannot ignore it.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

If we accept that empathy for instance is an emotion and that emotional response is an evolved trait than science can help us to form an appropriate epistemology of human ethical behavior.

First of all, I'm not at all sure that empathy is an "evolved trait." But laying that aside, I say again: what is the empirical test for what actions are right and which are wrong? There is no basis in science for that.

I have no issue with philosophy or reasonable and rational thinking in fact I would celebrate it. I would not disagree about the usefulness of philosophy in forming ethics but I would argue that if we use religion than we cannot form a sense of coherent human ethics. Religious beliefs are inconsistent and it is the one area of human thought where we still grant people the use of faith as a perfectly acceptable reason to hold the positions that they do. Neither science nor philosophy needs, nor should they accept, the help of religion in forming a code of ethics.

Who cares if they're inconsistent? Are you saying that because there are bad and wrong things in religion, we cannot make use of any religious insight? That very much seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I must put the onerus on you then to supply me with a definition of religion that does not require faith. You are the first person I have ever encountered that made the claim that religion does not require faith. Indeed some charge that atheism is becoming a religion on the basis that many atheists seem to have faith that there is no god. I honestly would agree with them. Buddhism to my understanding of it is a perfect example of faith turning what started as a fairly agnostic philosophy into a religion.

If you've been reading my posts, you should already know that I don't regard religious beliefs as different from any other kind of beliefs, except maybe insofar as they are willing to speculate on matters that are not empirically testable. E.g. Panexperientialism is not a testable hypothesis, even though it is objectively right or objectively wrong. But "faith" as you describe it doesn't come into the equation here, because neither panexperientialism nor not-panexperientialism can be regarded as the "default" position. It is something that can be rationally argued but not empirically proven or disproven.

But that is really more of an aside. A religion is not different in kind than any societal/collective with particular beliefs or practices, like a country. Emile Durkheim defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community." A "sacred thing" here could mean the Bill of Rights as much as the Ten Commandments... or even understanding and knowledge:

"Understanding and knowledge also enter into a perspective that is religious in quality. Faith in the continued disclosing of truth through directed cooperative human endeavor is more religious in quality than is any faith in a completed revelation. It is of course now usual to hold that revelation is not completed in the sense of being ended. But religions hold that the essential framework is settled in its significant moral features at least, and that new elements that are offered must be judged by conformity to this framework. Some fixed doctrinal apparatus is necessary for a religion. But faith in the possibilities of continued and rigorous inquiry does not limit access to truth to any channel or scheme of things. It does not first say that truth is universal and then add there is but one road to it. It does not depend for assurance upon subjection to any dogma or item of doctrine. It trusts that the natural interactions between man and his environment will breed more intelligence and generate more knowledge provided the scientific methods that define intelligence in operation are pushed further into the mysteries of the world, being themselves promoted and improved in the operation. There is such a thing as faith in intelligence becoming religious in quality -- a fact that perhaps explains the efforts of some religionists to disparage the possibilities of intelligence as a force. They properly feel such faith to be a dangerous rival."

-John Dewey, A Common Faith

In this way, we all have "faith"... even if it is only faith in experts who we accept as having greater expertise in an area than we do, whether it's Paul Tillich or Albert Einstein.

We could talk about this forever, and you wouldn't convince me that "religions" are different in kind from any other social group. That they tend to be more rife with stupid obstinacy in the face of evidence is something I may readily accept, but not that they are truly different from people who believe in scientific explanations based on the authority of the explainers without understanding every detail of the evidence -- which is all of us, unless there's someone out there who literally knows everything.

 

[carolinajazz]

So your definition of religion is having faith in XYZ unproveable beliefs and assumptions? First, I'm not crazy about that definition.

HOW would you define faith? Some equate it with blind belief. Influential American essayist and journalist H.*L.*Mencken once called faith “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”
The Bible, in contrast, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God’s Word says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.”—Hebrews 11:1.

At the time of the writing of the Bible book of Hebrews, the Greek term translated “assured expectation” was commonly used. It often appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a guarantee of future possession of something. Therefore, one reference work suggests that Hebrews 11:1 could be translated: “Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.”

The second expression at Hebrews 11:1, translated “evident demonstration,” carries the idea of producing evidence that contradicts that which only appears to be factual. For instance, the sun appears to revolve around the earth—rising in the east, moving through the sky, and setting in the west. However, evidence from astronomy and mathematics reveals that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Once you become familiar with that evidence and accept it as true, you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun—despite what your eyes tell you. Your faith is not blind. On the contrary, it gives you the ability to see things as they really are, not merely as they seem to be.

Much of what passes for faith today is in reality credulity—a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason. Credulity is often built on the shifting sands of emotion and superstition. This is not well-founded faith because it has no reliable basis for belief.

Credulity could cause one to jump to conclusions that may be out of harmony with Bible truth. Accordingly, the Bible warns against unfounded faith: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) The apostle Paul wrote: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1*Thessalonians 5:21) The Bible does not promote credulity. It does encourage faith based on evidence.

Genuine faith requires basic or fundamental knowledge, acquaintance with evidence, as well as heartfelt appreciation of what that evidence indicates.

 

[babe]

Humans commonly make up words and invent meanings.

I consider faith to be a sort of positive attitude towards life, sometimes but not necessarily based on life experience, by which we use knowledge to project beyond that knowledge or experience.

For me, God is the most reasonable and logical way to interpret my experience. It is strong enough to enable me make life plans in even difficult times.

It has little to do with common understanding of others or churches.

Humans will always be adjusting their words and meanings. I just try to understand what others think or mean to say.

Webster compiled his dictionary by going around and just observing people's usages.

 

[babe]

I did not define faith as an essential component of religion. Religious people have done that. They might disagree that things that they have faith in are unprovable but they have yet to provide me with any evidence that they are.



You state that killing is wrong as if it is some universal truth. I kill **** to survive and so do you. I doubt that you believe that killing is wrong period. I would even hazard that you don't believe killing people is always wrong. I do believe that killing another human without due cause is wrong but this is only because I am human. I evolved a sense of empathy. It helped my ancestors survive. Ethics are an instinct. How are they not within the purview of science?



First I did not define(or at least I did not mean to) faith as tied to stupid obstinacy, I said that stupid obstinacy is a common effect of faith. A majority of Americans that declare having a religious faith for instance also do not think evolution happened despite the evidence. Is there really any other cause for their obstinacy other than faith?

As far as defining the difference between assumption/hypothesis/belief I honestly think you're being a little glib. The difference is self evident to most people that use the English language. Although they are all closely related they all imply different levels of certainty. Further each implies a different set of steps to be taken in order to verify them.



Religion can lead to believing in something despite the evidence but not always so. Religion is at least believing despite a lack of evidence. You would like to equate my assumptions about the nature of reality to a religious view but I have no faith in them. In fact they are barely assumptions. Assumptions implies that I have an expectation. I don't. I simply think that maybe I understand enough about the universe that my assumptions might be a somewhat like reality.

This is actually my kind of faith, except I think "evolution" as I think hey hey understands it, is stupid. Yes that's the present "state of the art " with science that I'm saying is, on universal scales, "stupid".

Not that evolutionary processes are not real, or that it doesn't happen, just that it's stupid to assume it has only happened here on this planet, that there have been no inputs from othrt times and places which have had a bearing on what we can observe here. That's like saying "God" only made this earth, or only cares about us.

It's also " stupid" in my book to insist the" bible" is infallible or human traditions and beliefs about "God" are a sufficient body of knowledge about "God" to make a final judgement against "God".

My own experience in life making my effort towards "God-affirming"faith has resulted in a rich experience. I would have to say the God I know has born good to me more than I could deserve.

I would suppose any one who sets out on a faith like mine will be treated just as kindly.

I recognize that such experience is not exactly transferable. I see that folks who think to consider it good to regulate such beliefs in society are on the same ground of action as folks who want to use government in other ways to enforce conformity of thought or behavior somehow.

God is an open question for every human born, and will always be. God is a personal quest, not a final answer.
You are as free to pursue that quest as you are free to study evolution in your quest for understanding our place in the cosmos.

I just don't consider it a matter of studying one and to the exclusion of the other.

 

[spycam1]

This thread reach 60 pages yet?

 

[babe]

This thread reach 60 pages yet?

If you think that's an important goal, I think I could get it there in my next comment. . . . .

 

[spycam1]

If you think that's an important goal, I think I could get it there in my next comment. . . . .

It's not the number one thing on my list of important things. Maybe second or third.

 

[♪alt13]

This is actually my kind of faith, except I think "evolution" as I think hey hey understands it, is stupid. Yes that's the present "state of the art " with science that I'm saying is, on universal scales, "stupid".

Not that evolutionary processes are not real, or that it doesn't happen, just that it's stupid to assume it has only happened here on this planet, that there have been no inputs from othrt times and places which have had a bearing on what we can observe here. That's like saying "God" only made this earth, or only cares about us.

It's also " stupid" in my book to insist the" bible" is infallible or human traditions and beliefs about "God" are a sufficient body of knowledge about "God" to make a final judgement against "God".

My own experience in life making my effort towards "God-affirming"faith has resulted in a rich experience. I would have to say the God I know has born good to me more than I could deserve.

I would suppose any one who sets out on a faith like mine will be treated just as kindly.

I recognize that such experience is not exactly transferable. I see that folks who think to consider it good to regulate such beliefs in society are on the same ground of action as folks who want to use government in other ways to enforce conformity of thought or behavior somehow.

God is an open question for every human born, and will always be. God is a personal quest, not a final answer.
You are as free to pursue that quest as you are free to study evolution in your quest for understanding our place in the cosmos.

I just don't consider it a matter of studying one and to the exclusion of the other.

I don't make any assumption that it only happened here on this planet. I have no proof that life has evolved elsewhere but considering the size of the universe it seems probable that it has. There is a difference between saying life exists only on the earth and saying the only place that we know life exists is on the earth.

I would never stop someone from pursuing whatever quest they want but when I think someone is behaving a little Don Quixote I'm gunna say so.

 

[♪alt13]

First please forgive me but I am going to respond to your post slightly out of order.

If you've been reading my posts, you should already know that I don't regard religious beliefs as different from any other kind of beliefs, except maybe insofar as they are willing to speculate on matters that are not empirically testable. E.g. Panexperientialism is not a testable hypothesis, even though it is objectively right or objectively wrong. But "faith" as you describe it doesn't come into the equation here, because neither panexperientialism nor not-panexperientialism can be regarded as the "default" position. It is something that can be rationally argued but not empirically proven or disproven.

Yes I have been reading your posts and I understand that you conflate philosophy and religion in this way. I think what you are doing is is an attempt to rob the English language of its ability to communicate concepts. What you are explaining is philosophy or religion sans faith. In a way what you are doing is denying the existence of religion.

But that is really more of an aside. A religion is not different in kind than any societal/collective with particular beliefs or practices, like a country. Emile Durkheim defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community." A "sacred thing" here could mean the Bill of Rights as much as the Ten Commandments... or even understanding and knowledge:

I can see that you knew that I would key in on sacred. You have attempted to head me off with the final line. Sacred does carry a blatantly religious connotation which I will agree to ignore. Here sacred is still used in the sense of holding a set of beliefs and practices as sacrosanct or inviolate. The community is united under their faith in these sacrosanct principles. I would agree that yes that is religious. If ,as many Americans do, you have faith in the absolute truths that are espoused in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of rights than yes that is a religious position. If on the other hand you simply agree that, these seem to be a set of parameters for government that will protect you and others from the over reach of government but still provide you with the benefits that a government can provide, than no it is not religious.

In this way, we all have "faith"... even if it is only faith in experts who we accept as having greater expertise in an area than we do, whether it's Paul Tillich or Albert Einstein.

We could talk about this forever, and you wouldn't convince me that "religions" are different in kind from any other social group. That they tend to be more rife with stupid obstinacy in the face of evidence is something I may readily accept, but not that they are truly different from people who believe in scientific explanations based on the authority of the explainers without understanding every detail of the evidence -- which is all of us, unless there's someone out there who literally knows everything.

Again you are conflating concepts but atleast in this case it is one word that is used to convey 2 that are related but not precisely the same. The faith that I have in an expert on a subject of specialty or in my wife is predictive. I may know certain things about this individual that allows me to have a certain level of confidence about the likelihood that they are correct in a matter or, like in the case of my wife, confidence about her future behavior based on her past behavior. This is a different thing than having faith in something for which i haven't evidence or having faith in an absolute truth, etc.

Who cares if they're inconsistent? Are you saying that because there are bad and wrong things in religion, we cannot make use of any religious insight? That very much seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If we are going to pick and choose what is and isn't moral from within a religious doctrine then what is the point. We ourselves are clearly the moral actor. We have inserted our morality into it. Why not just throw the baby out with the bathwater and use our faculties of reason and our tools of observation instead.

First of all, I'm not at all sure that empathy is an "evolved trait." But laying that aside, I say again: what is the empirical test for what actions are right and which are wrong? There is no basis in science for that.

I think that by now you can probably see why I chose to answer this last. I haven't any rational reason to believe in any universal truth and that would include right from wrong. Which means that the way you decided to frame that question is from my perspective absurd. Your asking for an empirical test of something that no one has any evidence for it's actual existence(in a literal sense). I will grant you that right and wrong clearly do exist but the only evidence we have of them is as a concept. So we are stuck with ethics as a human construct.

A much better question would have been: How can science help us to form an appropriate epistemology of human ethics? or ,in other words, How can science help us to define whether or not a set of ethical constructs are reasonably justifiable? (that is after all the claim that I made) To ask whether something is right or wrong you must first show that right or wrong is. Religion and philosophy cannot answer the question what is right or wrong anymore than science can. We can only justify what is right or wrong and yes I do think there are countless examples of how science can help us to do that.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Well, I don't think we can take this too much further. We both agree that blind faith is bad, but you are saying that faith in "absolute truths" is a necessary aspect to religion, while I do not. You think I'm conflating concepts and defining "religion" too broadly, while I think you're defining it too narrowly and refusing to allow that a "religious" person can entertain religious propositions without resorting to blind obstinacy. You think I am "rob[bing] the English language of its ability to communicate concepts"; I think you're refusing to entertain that the rigid boundaries you've set up are a lot more porous and nuanced than you're painting them to be.

I can see that you knew that I would key in on sacred. You have attempted to head me off with the final line. Sacred does carry a blatantly religious connotation which I will agree to ignore. Here sacred is still used in the sense of holding a set of beliefs and practices as sacrosanct or inviolate. The community is united under their faith in these sacrosanct principles. I would agree that yes that is religious. If ,as many Americans do, you have faith in the absolute truths that are espoused in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of rights than yes that is a religious position. If on the other hand you simply agree that, these seem to be a set of parameters for government that will protect you and others from the over reach of government but still provide you with the benefits that a government can provide, than no it is not religious.

Right, yes. Because there is absolutely nothing in between the position of "faith in absolute truths" and "this is just a social contract." Yep, totally binary. No grey area there. There are only totally irrational religious nutballs and thoroughly rational scientific atheists. Go team!

Again you are conflating concepts but atleast in this case it is one word that is used to convey 2 that are related but not precisely the same. The faith that I have in an expert on a subject of specialty or in my wife is predictive. I may know certain things about this individual that allows me to have a certain level of confidence about the likelihood that they are correct in a matter or, like in the case of my wife, confidence about her future behavior based on her past behavior. This is a different thing than having faith in something for which i haven't evidence or having faith in an absolute truth, etc.

Again, apparently religious people have no evidence and no reasonable justification for their beliefs -- beliefs which in your mind are always absolute. Tell me, when the Dalai Lama says that "If what you do is good for others, it’ll be good for you too," do you really think that anyone and everyone who defers to his wisdom as a religious leader regards this statement as an "absolute truth"? You don't think that maybe they could just see him as a wise man, and hence that what he has to say about life might be more worthy of consideration than what the average guy on the street has to say? And if they start to live by the above statement, and find their lives improved, then do they not have justification for their trust? And in doing any of this, do their brains need to stop, and do they need to stop entertaining alternate notions? And so trusting the Dalai Lama is different from trusting other "authorities" in other areas how?

I envy your sharply demarcated little reality. It must be so neat and tidy. I find reality rather vague and messy, and highly resistant to simplification into neat little binaries.

If we are going to pick and choose what is and isn't moral from within a religious doctrine then what is the point. We ourselves are clearly the moral actor. We have inserted our morality into it. Why not just throw the baby out with the bathwater and use our faculties of reason and our tools of observation instead.

And here you come right out and say that there's nothing worthwhile in religion at all. Um, okay.

I think that by now you can probably see why I chose to answer this last. I haven't any rational reason to believe in any universal truth and that would include right from wrong. Which means that the way you decided to frame that question is from my perspective absurd. Your asking for an empirical test of something that no one has any evidence for it's actual existence(in a literal sense). I will grant you that right and wrong clearly do exist but the only evidence we have of them is as a concept. So we are stuck with ethics as a human construct.

A much better question would have been: How can science help us to form an appropriate epistemology of human ethics? or ,in other words, How can science help us to define whether or not a set of ethical constructs are reasonably justifiable? (that is after all the claim that I made) To ask whether something is right or wrong you must first show that right or wrong is. Religion and philosophy cannot answer the question what is right or wrong anymore than science can. We can only justify what is right or wrong and yes I do think there are countless examples of how science can help us to do that.

I think you need to define what the heck you mean by "science" here. Science requires empirical evidence and testable hypotheses. So of course I was asking you for an empirical test for something that "doesn't exist." That was the point of asking my non-question: to demonstrate that morality/ethics is not a scientific question. Not everything can be addressed by science. Your question: "How can science help us to define whether or not a set of ethical constructs are reasonably justifiable?" is absurd, because the next question is: " 'reasonably justifiable' based on what?" Seriously, I have no idea what you could mean here, so if there are "countless examples," please provide some. Is a particular set of ethical constructs "reasonably justifiable" because it leads to more left-handed people getting ahead? To more gay people getting laid? To a population increase? To a population decrease? Sure, science can test whether a set of ethical rules will lead to any of these results; i.e. whether it is effective in its stated goals. But science cannot define whether a set of ethics is "reasonably justifiable" without itself posing the goals for ethics -- which is rather distinctly non-scientific.

That is why ethics is philosophical issue, not a scientific one -- because science can only provide data after ethics has already been done. There can be -- and is -- an epistemology of science, but not a science that produces epistemology of any kind. How can bits of empirical knowledge lead to an understanding of what knowledge is? Again, I think that your definition of "science" must be far too broad.

 

[babe]

I don't make any assumption that it only happened here on this planet. I have no proof that life has evolved elsewhere but considering the size of the universe it seems probable that it has. There is a difference between saying life exists only on the earth and saying the only place that we know life exists is on the earth.

I would never stop someone from pursuing whatever quest they want but when I think someone is behaving a little Don Quixote I'm gunna say so.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, a life of a thousand years begins with a day,

The human quest for knowing our beginnings neither began with the bible nor Darwin. . . .nor did it end with either.

A comment or conversation is a beginning in understanding others, not an end.

I find your discussion with Athiestpreacher very interesting.

 

[♪alt13]

Well, I don't think we can take this too much further. We both agree that blind faith is bad, but you are saying that faith in "absolute truths" is a necessary aspect to religion, while I do not. You think I'm conflating concepts and defining "religion" too broadly, while I think you're defining it too narrowly and refusing to allow that a "religious" person can entertain religious propositions without resorting to blind obstinacy. You think I am "rob[bing] the English language of its ability to communicate concepts"; I think you're refusing to entertain that the rigid boundaries you've set up are a lot more porous and nuanced than you're painting them to be.


Right, yes. Because there is absolutely nothing in between the position of "faith in absolute truths" and "this is just a social contract." Yep, totally binary. No grey area there. There are only totally irrational religious nutballs and thoroughly rational scientific atheists. Go team!


Again, apparently religious people have no evidence and no reasonable justification for their beliefs -- beliefs which in your mind are always absolute. Tell me, when the Dalai Lama says that "If what you do is good for others, it’ll be good for you too," do you really think that anyone and everyone who defers to his wisdom as a religious leader regards this statement as an "absolute truth"? You don't think that maybe they could just see him as a wise man, and hence that what he has to say about life might be more worthy of consideration than what the average guy on the street has to say? And if they start to live by the above statement, and find their lives improved, then do they not have justification for their trust? And in doing any of this, do their brains need to stop, and do they need to stop entertaining alternate notions? And so trusting the Dalai Lama is different from trusting other "authorities" in other areas how?

I envy your sharply demarcated little reality. It must be so neat and tidy. I find reality rather vague and messy, and highly resistant to simplification into neat little binaries.


And here you come right out and say that there's nothing worthwhile in religion at all. Um, okay.


I think you need to define what the heck you mean by "science" here. Science requires empirical evidence and testable hypotheses. So of course I was asking you for an empirical test for something that "doesn't exist." That was the point of asking my non-question: to demonstrate that morality/ethics is not a scientific question. Not everything can be addressed by science. Your question: "How can science help us to define whether or not a set of ethical constructs are reasonably justifiable?" is absurd, because the next question is: " 'reasonably justifiable' based on what?" Seriously, I have no idea what you could mean here, so if there are "countless examples," please provide some. Is a particular set of ethical constructs "reasonably justifiable" because it leads to more left-handed people getting ahead? To more gay people getting laid? To a population increase? To a population decrease? Sure, science can test whether a set of ethical rules will lead to any of these results; i.e. whether it is effective in its stated goals. But science cannot define whether a set of ethics is "reasonably justifiable" without itself posing the goals for ethics -- which is rather distinctly non-scientific.

That is why ethics is philosophical issue, not a scientific one -- because science can only provide data after ethics has already been done. There can be -- and is -- an epistemology of science, but not a science that produces epistemology of any kind. How can bits of empirical knowledge lead to an understanding of what knowledge is? Again, I think that your definition of "science" must be far too broad.

Fair enough, but before I quit I feel that I must clarify. Of course I recognize that religious people can be rational and that non-religious people can be irrational. I only think that people's religious beliefs are irrational. I am not arguing that they are the sole cause of irrationality. Of course I recognize that there is a spectrum of religious belief. I am only arguing that the further along someone is on that spectrum(the scope of religious beliefs someone has and the strength of their faith in them) the more likely they are to act or think irrationally.

 

[♪alt13]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, a life of a thousand years begins with a day,

The human quest for knowing our beginnings neither began with the bible nor Darwin. . . .nor did it end with either.

A comment or conversation is a beginning in understanding others, not an end.

I find your discussion with Athiestpreacher very interesting.

All things must come to an end. Speaking of a thousand miles I'd like to hear more about your ideas for "greening the desert".

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Fair enough, but before I quit I feel that I must clarify. Of course I recognize that religious people can be rational and that non-religious people can be irrational. I only think that people's religious beliefs are irrational. I am not arguing that they are the sole cause of irrationality. Of course I recognize that there is a spectrum of religious belief. I am only arguing that the further along someone is on that spectrum(the scope of religious beliefs someone has and the strength of their faith in them) the more likely they are to act or think irrationally.

And likewise in closing, I would ask you to consider that though there are many examples of irrational religious beliefs, there are also religious beliefs that are simply non-rational, i.e. not based on or subject to reason. E.g. panexperientialism versus non-panexperientialism can't be demonstrated definitively either through reason or empirical testing, and neither position can be the "default." Belief in either amounts to an outlook on life, a guiding metaphor, one in which reason can have nothing to say.

I always defer to reason and empirical evidence when either or both are applicable, but sometimes neither is.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

That is what amazes me. Not mere belief in a god. But belief in the exclusivity of truth in one religion while rejecting others for correct and rational reasons. If one can see the folly in the logic of other faiths, how can they not apply that same tools to evaluate their own beliefs?

Among the many things that led me to leave the LDS faith and, ultimately, my lose my belief in God was the realization that I was applying different standards of evidence/reason/logic/proof to my religious beliefs than I applied to other beliefs or ideas. Once I made the conscious decision to apply the same standards to myself as I did to others, I quickly determined that LDS beliefs did not, and could not, satisfy these standards.

I have noted a pervasive (though not necessarily universal) tendency among believers to privilege their own religious beliefs where it comes to applying different standards of veracity to them. I've yet to hear what I consider a valid rationale as to why a particular religious belief merits this privileged status. This is true, however, not only for religious beliefs but also for political and other beliefs. Nor I have I noted that capacity for critical self-reflection (in which one reflects critically on one's own ideas, beliefs, perceptions, etc.) is a common trait among religious believers. But again, this is not unique to religion.

Given what we know about the limits of human cognition, the certainty with which people assert knowledge about what are really unknowable and unprovable things, is pretty amazing.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'm aware of survey data demonstrating an inverse correlation between education and religiosity. I'm not sure this equates to 'smart people are areligious and less smart people are religious.' In fact, I'm very hesitant to draw this conclusion, except to note that general trend support the notion that education and tendency toward religious belief are not unrelated.

Personally in my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, I know many very intelligent people who ardent believers, so at the very least, high intelligence and religious belief are by no means mutually exclusive. (By religious belief here, I am referring to adherence to some kind of religious belief system as codified by a particular organized religion or sect.)

There is a great deal of writing and research on why presumably smart people believe in 'strange' things. Here's a link to an article describing some of this research: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/why-smart-people-are-stupid. A quick Google search will uncover much information on this topic.

One source I recommend is Michael Shermer's "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things." (Shermer is one of my favorite authors.) In a nutshell, smart people are very good at explaining/rationalizing beliefs arrived at by unsound means. There is a good deal of research to support this conclusion. I looked for a summary of one study I'm aware of that looked precisely at this, but I couldn't find it in the brief time I allowed to the search. To my mind, one of the best forums to see this phenomenon at work is among the LDS apologists--very smart people who have developed quite sophisticated, at times, methods to explain away problems with LDS history and beliefs (and at times quite silly methods). I would bet that few of these apologists would be willing to apply the same reasoning to explain beliefs they disagree with and would find efforts by others to do so lacking.

Thus looking to verify one's own beliefs by appealing to authority in the guise of a very smart person is probably not a sound way to proceed. Smart people can and do believe in all sorts of sh**.

 

[babe]

Every end is a new beginning

so I get it when we fryour brains on one little argument and simply wear out and walk away from it.

Hey hey and AP might not think they resolved their issue, but they proved mine.

The natural intelligence and power to choose that exists in us means we can believe what we want to believe no matter who is trying to enforce conformity or compliance or what methods they employ.

Totalitarians whether economic fascists or religious ideologues will fail to achieve their Utopias however well-planned they may be.

Freedom is the reality.

 

[Qman]

so I get it when we fryour brains on one little argument and simply wear out and walk away from it.

Hey hey and AP might not think they resolved their issue, but they proved mine.

The natural intelligence and power to choose that exists in us means we can believe what we want to believe no matter who is trying to enforce conformity or compliance or what methods they employ.

Totalitarians whether economic fascists or religious ideologues will fail to achieve their Utopias however well-planned they may be.

Freedom is the reality.

In my religion the power to choose is called agency and the only path a world order is through voluntary choice.