Kevin's Watch

What I don't get about theists is why any modern person--who has access to 1000s of years of progress in human knowledge--would choose to cling to the most primitive superstitions of the most ignorant humans of our distant past. You're believing things that ancient goat herders wrote down to amuse themselves. Why? Why would you take their word for anything? You wouldn't take their word for how to treat disease or predicting the weather or even basic hygiene, so why would you take their word on something infinitely larger? You might as well accept their belief in a flat earth or geocentric solar system.

Belief in god is a superfluous layer of belief that adds absolutely nothing to our experience of this universe. It explains nothing. There's not a single "spiritual" experience that a theist can have that an atheist can't also have ... except for the additional (superfluous) belief that the experience involves something supernatural. But time after time, this extra/unneeded layer of belief has been shown to be flat-out false. Thunder is not the anger of the gods. Orbits of distant planets do not influence our lives. Mental illness is not caused by demons. Over and over again, the tendency to attribute supernatural causes to our experiences has been shown to be an irrational expectation for how reality works. Every time we think that's the explanation, science and reason has shown that it's false. How many times must this lesson be demonstrated before people will actually realize its import? Nature is not supernatural. The idea is not only a contradiction, but demonstrably false.

Belief in supernatural could be excused for people who didn't know better. How the heck were ancient people supposed to know that lighting was electricity, rather than god's wrath? We can overlook their childish naivete because they didn't know better. But we do know better! We know the countless ways this urge to attribute supernatural causes has misled us, leading us farther away from reality, imposing a layer of nonsense between us and the world which closed off knowledge of it. The same exact tendency to believe in fairies and hustomtes and magical spells is alive and well in every church and mosque. It's the same irrational urge. There is no difference. That's why people bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's not to mock your beliefs ... it's to shock you into the realization that your deepest held belief is identical in form to the most nonsensical things we can imagine. There's literally no way to tell the difference between them.

Superstition has no internal error correcting mechanism. [The only thing that corrects erroneous superstitions is reason/science.] Let's assume for a moment that supernatural is real, and everyone agrees you can't prove it, so you must have faith. So how do you know which superstition to believe, if none of them can be proven? Many of them can certainly be disproven. History has taught us over and over how our superstitions were wrong. So given the obvious fact that superstition can be wrong, how would you ever know you believed the right one? Why would faith ever be an adequate answer, given all the bullshit people have faith in? Faith isn't an answer, but an excuse. It's the corner we paint ourselves into when we can no longer justify our beliefs. You might as well say, "Just because," or "I don't feel like debating anymore." Faith in god is identical (in its validity) to faith in astrology or voodoo. This is not mocking or insult. This is simply a fact. There is literally no discernible difference between ANY faith because there's no criteria by which to distinguish false faiths from (allegedly) true faiths. All superstition is interchangeable. It's all equally irrational.

And that's the rational criteria for discarding all of them. Because they are interchangeable, it makes absolutely no difference which one you believe ... or even if you don't believe them at all. Supernatural is utterly superfluous, because we already have a reality. We already have Nature. The idea that this isn't enough, that there needs to be more before we can accept it as it is, is life-denying, world-denying, inauthentic illusion. You might as well believe in a super-supernatural. And then a super-super-supernatural. An unending hierarchy of ad hoc realities. Sure, they're fun to think about, but so are many fantasies. Is the world supported by turtles all the way down, or gods all the way up? In either direction, you're leaving behind reality.

The fallacy of the 'flying spaghetti monster argument' is that the believer would point to 'life the Universe and everything' as the proof of God's existence and say to the nay-sayer, 'here's my proof that God exists, now where's yours that he doesn't' [and the nay-sayer, if he had any nous, would enroll the believer on a crash course in cosmology and fundamental physics].

I think it essentially moves from generation to generation because it is handed down, and given to people by those who have the most substatial impact on their development as children. Most parents in certain parts of the world feel strongly enough about their religion that they will teach it to their children, and even to the children of others.

The children of others part is what bothers me most though - there is no religion of any kind in our house, as neither I nor my wife have any interest in religion at all, but our 5 year old daughter keeps coming home and talking about the central characters in the christian religion. I think it is arrogant that adults feel that they need to 'educate' other people's children with their personal beliefs - our daughter is five, and we're happy for her to make whatever choices about religion she wants to make when she's an adult, but some people feel they have a right to subvert our beliefs.

That's an interesting side to it. I grew up in an areligious family, where people have church weddings and christenings because that's what's done, but otherwise aren't even slightly religious. I'm pretty sure all of my religious education came from public, government-funded school, which seems iffy now. We did nativities, Christingle, all sorts of things for Easter, it was very Christian. Which is surprising for such a secular country. I think we even had prayers read during assemblies, which as far as I know is illegal in US schools?

Despite the presence of religion like that, is was never something that seemed real, to me. It was just stories, like Santa Claus.

I'm Murrin wrote:That's an interesting side to it. I grew up in an areligious family, where people have church weddings and christenings because that's what's done, but otherwise aren't even slightly religious. I'm pretty sure all of my religious education came from public, government-funded school, which seems iffy now. We did nativities, Christingle, all sorts of things for Easter, it was very Christian. Which is surprising for such a secular country. I think we even had prayers read during assemblies, which as far as I know is illegal in US schools?

Despite the presence of religion like that, is was never something that seemed real, to me. It was just stories, like Santa Claus.

Can you percieve it as a possibility Murrin, that extremity of experience [say similar to that of the trenches which wrought the change in C S Lewis] could effect a change of oppinion in you on this?

Similar to my experiences, but school in the UK are very different now I believe. I think the religious aspect of schools was mostly because the law at the time (law that had been written a long time before) made various religious aspects of public schools compulsory. I didn't ever get the feeling that it was done by pious believers though, as there was little in the way of religion outside of those aspects of it.

Like you, there was no religion in my house and what I heard didn't sound like it had any relevance in my life.

@Peter: I usually try to stop that argument at an earlier point - the reason generally given for the existence of a creator is the complexity of the Universe and all in it, and that to me begs that question - if the complexity of the Universe is such that it requires a creator, then that creator must be more complex than the Universe and thus there is even more need for a creator of the creator...ad infinitum.

For the record:

I was baptised Protestant.

I was confirmed Roman Catholic.

I became an Agnostic in college.

I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy after law school.

I've never "not" believed in God. But my beliefs have evolved over time. The reason I'm firmly on the side of the "Leap of Faith" is the dark path that "Objective" believe in faith can lead to. If I "KNOW" my faith is correct why shouldn't I attempt to force it upon others?

[off-topic side-track; SerScott, is it possible in a line or two to explain to me what caused the 'schism' that resulted in the parting of the ways between Orthodox and Roman traditions. I thought it was to do with views pertaining to the nature of the trinity, but a RC lady at work thought not.]

SerScot wrote: If I "KNOW" my faith is correct why shouldn't I attempt to force it upon others?

So 'knowing' that you are right, without asking for anything in the way of proof of your belief is enough to justify forcing those beliefs upon children?

peter wrote:The fallacy of the 'flying spaghetti monster argument' is that the believer would point to 'life the Universe and everything' as the proof of God's existence and say to the nay-sayer, 'here's my proof that God exists, now where's yours that he doesn't' [and the nay-sayer, if he had any nous, would enroll the believer on a crash course in cosmology and fundamental physics].

If the FSM argument is a fallacy, then so is the god argument. That's the point. Because you can have faith in anything, and no one can challenge it (as long as it's a concept sufficiently removed from reality to be nonfalsifiable), then God and FSM are interchangeable. The argument is a reductio ad absurdum. That's not a fallacy.

SS: no one KNOWS that his faith is correct. One merely has faith that his faith is correct. (And then faith that his faith in his faith is correct, and so on.) Faith is not knowledge. If you had knowledge, you wouldn't need faith.

People can be wrong. Every person who believes in his religion thinks he's absolutely right. The people in the Bible who stoned homosexuals "KNEW" that this was right. So they forced their beliefs upon homosexuals, in the most obdurate form of force they had readily available (i.e. rocks).

You shouldn't force your beliefs upon others because force is wrong.

SerScot wrote:For the record:

I was baptised Protestant.

I was confirmed Roman Catholic.

I became an Agnostic in college.

I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy after law school.

I've never "not" believed in God. But my beliefs have evolved over time. The reason I'm firmly on the side of the "Leap of Faith" is the dark path that "Objective" believe in faith can lead to. If I "KNOW" my faith is correct why shouldn't I attempt to force it upon others?

Why should forcing it on others be the conclusion? If you know you're right, but you don't think believing otherwise matters, ultimately, so long as it isn't causing harm, then you have no reason to force it on others.

I'm Murrin wrote:Why should forcing it on others be the conclusion? If you know you're right, but you don't think believing otherwise matters, ultimately, so long as it isn't causing harm, then you have no reason to force it on others.

The problem with religion is that it is not self-perpetuating - there is nothing in nature that makes the tenets of a particular religion an obvious choice. In order to perpetuate religions believers have to brainwash the next generation or their religion would die.

Murrin,

It doesn't have to go there but if you "know" your faith is the one true faith that it is the only path to salvation aren't you being a bit of an ass if you don't share it with everyone?

That is a change from my ealier position but I maintain that the certainty of "knowing" is dangerous in a religious context. I much prefer my soft faith where I can say I believe what I believe and if you choose to believe with me, welcome, without the obligation to force my faith upon others that may arrise when someone is certain of the correctness of their particular path.

SerScot wrote:It doesn't have to go there but if you "know" your faith is the one true faith that it is the only path to salvation aren't you being a bit of an ass if you don't share it with everyone?

But you're excusing yourself from any questioning of the correctness of your opinion. It's quite easy to justify almost anything by simply taking a position based on what you were told by someone else and then closing your mind to the possibility that it might be wrong.

Take what you said earlier and replace that scenario with another where people thought that they had a moral superiority and had something to gain from it in the future:

"if you "know" that slave trading is the one true business venture that it is the only path to making a fortune aren't you being a bit of an ass if you don't share it with everyone"

Why is your closed system any more right than theirs? At one time no one thought that there were any issues with slave trading and judging a person to be inferior because of the color of their skin. After all, the bible condones slavery and the children of Israel own slaves, so if your own religious holy book says it's OK, I assume you have no objection to slavery?

peter wrote:

I'm Murrin wrote:That's an interesting side to it. I grew up in an areligious family, where people have church weddings and christenings because that's what's done, but otherwise aren't even slightly religious. I'm pretty sure all of my religious education came from public, government-funded school, which seems iffy now. We did nativities, Christingle, all sorts of things for Easter, it was very Christian. Which is surprising for such a secular country. I think we even had prayers read during assemblies, which as far as I know is illegal in US schools?

Despite the presence of religion like that, is was never something that seemed real, to me. It was just stories, like Santa Claus.

Can you percieve it as a possibility Murrin, that extremity of experience [say similar to that of the trenches which wrought the change in C S Lewis] could effect a change of oppinion in you on this?

I don't think I knew any other non-believer till after High School. There may have been some, but they sure didn't say it out loud.

Literally surrounded by believers and churches...there were 3 closer to my home than Russia is to Sarah Palin's house, and I think we had a church for about every 50 people.
But I don't ever remember believing, though I remember some times wishing I did and/or trying to.

I make it a rule [pre-dates my military experience, but that experience just strengthened the rule] to be highly distrustful of anyone whose faith is related to war, or the death of a loved one. [not distrustful of the person, as if they're liars or thieves...just unreliable as justifier/source/narrator/explainer of "god" or "faith."]

I can see value for humans in faith...especially if it is done Ser's way.
Just like there is value for humans in love...
But it has the same dangers, too...in relations between people for one thing. Both can lead to conflicts, force, violence, etc..
They also have a different kind of shortcoming.
Neither one can ever explain the reality we live in.
Thing is: does anyone expect, or require love to explain the behavior of an electron [or even its existence?].
Of course not.
So, don't demand that faith/god do something it is unsuited for.
Don't make fact claims based on faith...and if you DO make such claims, you DO have to show it. Because YOU have changed domains.
You don't have to "prove" to anyone that you are in love [not even your loved one, unless you feel the need for recognition/reciprocation].
But if you say "Love makes the world go round," you do have to show it---and people who disagree with you aren't suddenly transformed into people waging a "War on Love."
And they surely aren't incapable of experiencing love.

double deleted.

SerScot wrote:It doesn't have to go there but if you "know" your faith is the one true faith that it is the only path to salvation aren't you being a bit of an ass if you don't share it with everyone?

Isn't that how every religious war begins? ISIS is just as sure their faith is the "one true faith." And they're beheading anyone who disagrees.

Maybe they're right. Maybe they are the only ones on the planet with a direct access to God's will, and God told them to behead people who disagree. It wouldn't be the first, or even the 50th time that god allegedly told his follows to commit violence against those who don't believe. Just look at the Bible. It's pretty much standard practice in the Old Testament.

This is the problem with beliefs that can't be proven wrong. No one can prove that ISIS doesn't have a direct access to God's will. So how do you argue with that? Well, you reject irrational dogmatism of all kinds, by acknowledging that no single person or group has a monopoly on the truth. And you recognize that no irrational belief system can be reconciled with reality. Science and faith go together like swords and the necks of infidels. One chops off the other. This is not a reconciliation. People are fooling themselves to think that faith has any place in the modern world. It's barbarism, whether you're wielding the sword or not. It's doing violence to reality, and robbing people of their humanity.

Zarathustra wrote: This is the problem with beliefs that can't be proven wrong. No one can prove that ISIS doesn't have a direct access to God's will. So how do you argue with that?

Satanic rebellion

Peter,

peter wrote:[off-topic side-track; SerScott, is it possible in a line or two to explain to me what caused the 'schism' that resulted in the parting of the ways between Orthodox and Roman traditions. I thought it was to do with views pertaining to the nature of the trinity, but a RC lady at work thought not.]

It is political in that the Orthodox East refuses to acknowledge the Pope as anything but the "first among Equals" and not the supreme head of the Christian Church.

It is theological in that Roman Catholics add the "philioque" to the Nicean creed. We Orthodox claim that is a change not accepted by a full church council and as such a divergance from the "Orthodox" tradition.

Michael,

michaelm wrote:

SerScot wrote:It doesn't have to go there but if you "know" your faith is the one true faith that it is the only path to salvation aren't you being a bit of an ass if you don't share it with everyone?

But you're excusing yourself from any questioning of the correctness of your opinion. It's quite easy to justify almost anything by simply taking a position based on what you were told by someone else and then closing your mind to the possibility that it might be wrong.

Take what you said earlier and replace that scenario with another where people thought that they had a moral superiority and had something to gain from it in the future:

"if you "know" that slave trading is the one true business venture that it is the only path to making a fortune aren't you being a bit of an ass if you don't share it with everyone"

Why is your closed system any more right than theirs? At one time no one thought that there were any issues with slave trading and judging a person to be inferior because of the color of their skin. After all, the bible condones slavery and the children of Israel own slaves, so if your own religious holy book says it's OK, I assume you have no objection to slavery?

Because I refuse to say I "know" the one true path. I refuse to impose my faith on anyone else. My faith is mine and not for me to demand other's believe as I do.

What makes you think I don't question. I'm always questioning. I'm simply not assuming there is proof to support my faith.