Religion and Atheism

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ljkeane,

Is it rational to believe only those things for which we have emperical evidence exist are all that can exist?  Isn't that a tad limiting?

[Altherion]

Well maybe we have different experiences on what's happening, but since most "new" atheists are attacking specific claims, usually involving how whatever given holy book is "infallible" or has revealed whatever scientific knowledge before we discovered it ourselves, a scientific perspective seems like the best option. God in a general sense can't be tested, and most atheists acknowledge this. But most religious people make specific claims, and those can be tested.

If they were only contesting the points where science is on relatively solid ground, I would agree with you, but in in fact they do try to go after God directly (examples: The God Deluson by Dawkins or God is Not Great by Hitchens).

Why is that logical? Most people believe their higher power is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. It would have no need of emissaries.

There is a nice quote from Alpha Centauri which, paraphrased for this situation, would be: why would an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being have a need of anything at all? Since we're only interested in the kind of deity that would create our world and only rarely interfere in it directly, I think messengers would make sense.

[Altherion]

Double post.

[ljkeane]

ljkeane,

Is it rational to believe only those things for which we have emperical evidence exist are all that can exist?  Isn't that a tad limiting?

Yes, it's perfectly rational. You might argue it's a 'tad' limiting but it's certainly not manifestly irrational, like, for example, believing in the supernatural.

[Chaircat Meow]

Yes, it's perfectly rational. You might argue it's a 'tad' limiting but it's certainly not manifestly irrational, like, for example, believing in the supernatural.

How can you prove you're not a brain in a tank empirically. Or that the world did not begin five minutes ago?

And can it be proved empirically that nothing that can not be proved empirically is not true?

[All-for-Joffrey]

Yes, it's perfectly rational. You might argue it's a 'tad' limiting but it's certainly not manifestly irrational, like, for example, believing in the supernatural.

What about things like quantum physics? I thought things like quarks were discovered because they were first hypothesized by theoretical physicists and then physicists went out of their way to find them?

[TrueMetis]

That's completely different. They're either pushing their beliefs on other people are using them to enact policies or actions that directly harm other people. So yes, tey should be mocked. The angel thread is harmless.

No because this would be actively harming others based on religious beliefs. Believing in angels does not get other people killed.

Homeopathy isn't religious, just straight crazy bullshit. And I'm not sure I agree entirely it's harmless. I'm worried about people accepting things without evidence becoming overly credulous. Though I suppose you're right, it's not as bad as the examples I've given. More like flat earthers I guess. Since most of those don't try to get schools changed realizing they haven't got a chance of doing it.

Fair enough. I was specifically thinking of Dawkins, Hitchens, Maher, etc. as the faces of "new atheists."

Dawkins is actually one of the people I've seen this claim made against.

 

If they were only contesting the points where science is on relatively solid ground, I would agree with you, but in in fact they do try to go after God directly (examples: The God Deluson by Dawkins or God is Not Great by Hitchens).

 I've never actually gotten a chance to read either of these, so until that happens I'll take your word on it.

There is a nice quote from Alpha Centauri which, paraphrased for this situation, would be: why would an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being have a need of anything at all? Since we're only interested in the kind of deity that would create our world and only rarely interfere in it directly, I think messengers would make sense.

 So it's not logical but the deity does it anyway. Alright I can accept that I guess.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ljkeane,

Wittgenstein rears his head.  I don't believe in the "supernatural".  If God exists God, in my opinion is part of nature.  Just because something is unusual or infrequent doesn't make it "supernatural".  

I don't believe proton decay has been observed yet but we believe it occurs and its occurance, though uncommon, is not supernatural.

 

[All-for-Joffrey]

Homeopathy isn't religious, just straight crazy bullshit. And I'm not sure I agree entirely it's harmless. I'm worried about people accepting things without evidence becoming overly credulous. Though I suppose you're right, it's not as bad as the examples I've given. More like flat earthers I guess. Since most of those don't try to get schools changed realizing they haven't got a chance of doing it.

No. I was lumping homeopathy in the things that deserve to be ridiculed category. I agree that it can be dangerous. I was saying believing in angels is harmless and thus not deserving of mockery.

[Chaircat Meow]

ljkeane,

Wittgenstein rears his head.  I don't believe in the "supernatural".  If God exists God, in my opinion is part of nature.  Just because something is unusual or infrequent doesn't make it "supernatural".  

I don't believe proton decay has been observed yet but we believe it occurs and its occurance, though uncommon, is not supernatural.

 

Yea, I think the Christian definition of the supernatural is not anything to do with something being unusual or infrequent.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

He was still involved in one of the nastiest civil wars we've seen in a while. But we do see some "home grown" terrorists who haven't stepped foot outside of their country -- but most of these are directly recruited and propagandized from people in those countries. In the US, we also see far more more acts of violence and terror from people who aren't affiliated with religion period, let alone Islam: Dylan Roof, any average white loser who shoots up a movie theater or school, etc. So blaming religion (in this instance, Islam) for acts of violence and terror is pretty absurd as said violence/terrorism would be happening anyway. Not that understanding people's motivations isn't important but the "it's because Islam" card is overplayed. As Hayyoth helped us discover in the Paris Implications thread, 55% of of the 4% of ISIS supporters in the Middle East support ISIS for some political reason or other while only 13% of them do so for religious reasons. Come to think of it, this discussion is probably more appropriate to have in the Paris implications thread. I merely added the emphasis on Islam comment as an afterthought to my initial post anyway.

AFJ: 

Believe me when I say that I am not a religious reductionist. I believe that religion is a cultural force, and it guides and shapes our actions in conjunction with many, many other cultural forces. I take great issue with people who are essentially religious reductionists and believe that you can just pick out a person (almost always a Muslim who has done something terrible) and reduce every possible reason for action to their religion. But at the same time, there's a flip side to this, and I think that a lot of well-intentioned liberals fall into the opposite trap, which is to completely eliminate the idea of a person's religion being a motivational force in for their lives. In this view, religious motivations, even when they are explicitly and intentionally made, are disregarded as motivating factors and every other possible motivation is trotted out instead - poverty, war, discrimination, lack of cultural assimilation, etc. 

I don't see any reason to reduce people's actions solely to religious motivations, but at the same time, I think it's an equally obvious mistake to try to ignore religious motivations, especially when they are made perfectly explicit. You have to look at the WHOLE set of cultural inputs that contribute to say, terrorist attacks, and especially when there is an explicitly religious motivation provided by the perpetrator for those attacks - that means you HAVE to consider religion as a motivating factor too. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

ljkeane,

Is it rational to believe only those things for which we have emperical evidence exist are all that can exist?  Isn't that a tad limiting?

Too much to address so I'll go with this. No it is no rational Scot. But it's irrational to base major decisions on beliefs that cannot be reliably verified.

 

Also, cut this nonsense out that questioning a religion or religion in general automatically makes you an atheist (not directed at you Scot).

[All-for-Joffrey]

AFJ: 

Believe me when I say that I am not a religious reductionist. I believe that religion is a cultural force, and it guides and shapes our actions in conjunction with many, many other cultural forces. I take great issue with people who are essentially religious reductionists and believe that you can just pick out a person (almost always a Muslim who has done something terrible) and reduce every possible reason for action to their religion. But at the same time, there's a flip side to this, and I think that a lot of well-intentioned liberals fall into the opposite trap, which is to completely eliminate the idea of a person's religion being a motivational force in for their lives. In this view, religious motivations, even when they are explicitly and intentionally made, are disregarded as motivating factors and every other possible motivation is trotted out instead - poverty, war, discrimination, lack of cultural assimilation, etc. 

I don't see any reason to reduce people's actions solely to religious motivations, but at the same time, I think it's an equally obvious mistake to try to ignore religious motivations, especially when they are made perfectly explicit. You have to look at the WHOLE set of cultural inputs that contribute to say, terrorist attacks, and especially when there is an explicitly religious motivation provided by the perpetrator for those attacks - that means you HAVE to consider religion as a motivating factor too. 

Oh I certainly agree with you here. Religion can't be discredited. But at least in the case of ISIS, if you look at the stats from the Doha Institute poll, I think it's fair to say that role of religion in terrorist motivations is often overplayed in relation to the myriad of other causes. And in all fairness, I think a lot of the left's reflexive dismissal of religious motivations in the context of Islamic terrorism comes from the even more prevalent right wing reaction demonizing all of Islam and most Muslims as though it's drastically different from Christianity or Judaism.

ETA: For instance, I don't blame anti-gay laws in countries like Uganda wholly on Christianity. But I wouldn't outright dismiss the role Christianity plays in perpetuating them. I blame them on homophobic impulses that would exist irrespective of religion (in large part because of Victorian values imposed on these countries during colonialism). Granted, American zealots use religion to gin up opposition to gay people in those countries exacerbating the problem, but I don't necessarily see religion as the primary problem here any more than I see religion as the primary problem in Middle Eastern conflicts and their exportation to the west.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I used to be a quite vocal anti-theist. I still hold more or less those views, but I've softened my stances a bit.

I think most religions are detrimental to the progressive values that I believe in, and therefore I would welcome a decrease in religious beliefs worldwide. 

Politically I'm a strong proponent of secularism. I believe this is the common path that religious people and I can both walk. The separation of church and state and protection of religious freedom is equally important to both of us.

I do think it's important to protect the right to criticize religions, or even ridicule them. For example George Carlin's shows were really quite harmless, and I think pointing out the stupidity of certain aspects of the bible or qu'ran is important because it reminds believers that their holy books aren't infallible. Most religious people get this - you have to interpret scripture, form your own opinion etc. Without secular laws in place, fundamentalism is too near at hand.

While I definitely support the right to mock religions, I personally think such attacks should be made with style and wit, and in the right forum. Bringing it up in the terrorism thread? Fine. Doing it in the Christian thread? Douchy.

[TerraPrime]

Hitchens et al. do not speak for atheists as much as they are promoters of atheism. The two are the same. I am not going to feel embarrassed by any of them any time they make a faux pas. I didn't elect them to be atheism's representative. Perhaps there are truly embarrassing moments in that video linked. If so, what's the relevance? That some people famed for their atheism can be dicks and bombastic? Well, ok. Duly noted. 

I'd rather watch the Stephen Fry's debate with the Catholics as he enumerated why religion overall does more harm than good (it's on youtube, you can google it).

 

On the larger issue, I think there's a place and time to question certain aspects of a person's faith. For instance, I think there are legitimate reasons to ask a Catholic person how s/he squares the sexism in their chosen religion with their support for feminism, much like one can question why someone who's pro-life might support capital punishment. There are aspects of a religious belief that stand in contradiction with some common elements of modern beliefs. We should be able to discuss and argue and critique those, in the right forum. Often, though, it verges into the realm of counter-proselytization where the discussion becomes a browbeating against the religious person for being religious, when the focus ought to remain on the aspects of their religious belief that can be legitimately examined. By that, I mean it's not okay to question people "who do you have faith in the supernatural" (as a point of critique, and not a point of genuine curiosity), but it should be okay to ask "why did you choose this particular faith to believe in" or "how does your faith interact with the rest of the world."

[ljkeane]

How can you prove you're not a brain in a tank empirically.

I can't prove that I'm not a brain in a tank empirically. Of course there's absolutely no reason to believe I am a brain in a tank and I can't prove it empirically either so believing I'm a brain in a tank would be pretty irrational.

What about things like quantum physics? I thought things like quarks were discovered because they were first hypothesized by theoretical physicists and then physicists went out of their way to find them?

Well, yes, you can theorise something then find the evidence. That's kind of the point.

Still I don't think having direct empirical evidence is the only sound basis for 'believing' something is true. I was just answering Scot's question that, yes, that would in fact be a perfectly rational position to hold. On the other hand, I do think believing in something because you have 'faith' in whatever religion is clearly irrational, yes. 

 I don't believe in the "supernatural".  If God exists God, in my opinion is part of nature.  Just because something is unusual or infrequent doesn't make it "supernatural".  

Good for you Scot. You're really just deliberately missing the point here though.

 

[Chaircat Meow]

Hitchens et al. do not speak for atheists as much as they are promoters of atheism. The two are the same. I am not going to feel embarrassed by any of them any time they make a faux pas. I didn't elect them to be atheism's representative. Perhaps there are truly embarrassing moments in that video linked. If so, what's the relevance? That some people famed for their atheism can be dicks and bombastic? Well, ok. Duly noted. 

I'd rather watch the Stephen Fry's debate with the Catholics as he enumerated why religion overall does more harm than good (it's on youtube, you can google it).

 

On the larger issue, I think there's a place and time to question certain aspects of a person's faith. For instance, I think there are legitimate reasons to ask a Catholic person how s/he squares the sexism in their chosen religion with their support for feminism, much like one can question why someone who's pro-life might support capital punishment. There are aspects of a religious belief that stand in contradiction with some common elements of modern beliefs. We should be able to discuss and argue and critique those, in the right forum. Often, though, it verges into the realm of counter-proselytization where the discussion becomes a browbeating against the religious person for being religious, when the focus ought to remain on the aspects of their religious belief that can be legitimately examined. By that, I mean it's not okay to question people "who do you have faith in the supernatural" (as a point of critique, and not a point of genuine curiosity), but it should be okay to ask "why did you choose this particular faith to believe in" or "how does your faith interact with the rest of the world."

Probably the point being made: that the New Atheists were a philosophical embarrassment.

[Altherion]

What about things like quantum physics? I thought things like quarks were discovered because they were first hypothesized by theoretical physicists and then physicists went out of their way to find them?

That is correct. Sometimes empirical observation drives theorists and sometimes theoretical predictions drive the crafting of experiments to observe something that has been predicted, but not observed yet. There was half a century between the theoretical proposal of a Higgs boson and its experimental discovery.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ljkeane,

Proton decay has never been observed, is it rational to believe in proton decay?  Physicists who advocate string theory tell us their "strings" cannot be observed they are at the plank length, are they irrational to offer this hypothesis?

[ljkeane]

ljkeane,

Proton decay has never been observed, is it rational to believe in proton decay?  Physicists who advocate string theory tell us their "strings" cannot be observed they are at the plank length, are they irrational to offer this hypothesis?

 I really don't know enough about physics to judge how rational or irrational their beliefs are Scot. However, yes, I do think people can use inductive reasoning to come to a belief about whether something is probably true.

That's not really what people are doing with religion though is it?