It’s ridiculous that you have a problem with the word ridiculous.
It's ridiculous that you have a problem with the word ridiculous.It is ridiculous you think I have a problem with the word "ridiculous". I actually love the word and use it a lot. What I have a problem with and think is quite ridiculous is the way some people cannot see beyond the limits of their own mind to see how different people are in how they perceive and experience the world and especially how they attach value judgments to these differences as if their own beliefs were the measure of everyone. Blame it on the way I was raised, but I just wasn't taught to respect that kind of thing and cannot help associating it with ignorance and self-importance. It isn't ridiculous to believe in nature spirits, it is human. It is far too common and widespread (in the sense of many different cultures). Not only that but it definitely makes the world a much more interesting place to live in. Thus calling it ridiculous is no different in my mind from the way some people cannot see any value in things like art, music, games and all the other activities which make life worth living. If they keep their dislike to themselves then I have no problem with it. It is certainly up to every one of us to decide how best to use the time we have. But it seems to me, using any of that time to look down the pursuits of others and to diss them is just a waste. HOWEVER, all of these human activities must certainly be open to criticism to make sure they are not harming anyone. Any of these pursued at the expense to the well being of others is not something I will abide. It is our duty to speak up when any of them cross the line, and religion certainly is one that crosses the line frequently all throughout history including the practices of human sacrifice. Not cool. And no, I personally do not even like dogma which even sounds like human sacrifice such as the western Xtian doctrine of substitutionary atonement. That is another case where I would love to use the word "ridiculous" (in a venue where that would be appropriate of course).
... Just because some people only want to believe in the things they can measure, interrogate and control doesn't mean things which have the ability to avoid and defy them do not exist...Sure things may exist that we cannot yet perceive. And it can be fun to think about them. But to actually decide that certain "supernatural" things actually do exist, just because one wants to believe, or has been indoctrinated to do so, seems dysfunctional to me. If anything can be considered to be "real", then behavior no longer needs to be guided by what we can actually perceive. Psychology has discovered that perception is not independent from belief. It may be fun for ideologues to imagine they know and understand why other people believe the things they do, but to actually insist their imagination of such things dictates reality seems dysfunctional to me. If you replace other people with these movie prop substitutes concocted to serve your own ideology, then your behavior towards people is no longer guided by what can be considered rational... I am not insisting that persons' simple imagination of supernatural things "dictates reality". Not at all. Most of the people who frequent this forum have great imaginations, I would guess. Most enjoy fiction and science fiction and fantasy. It does not dictate their conception of reality. It does not guide their general behavior, in any systematic way. They separate fiction from fantasy. Persons who actually believe in some particular supernatural things, do not separate their particular fiction from what can be directly perceived. In many cases their daily behavior is guided by their fiction. This would be okay, as far as I am concerned, if such belief is benign, in the behavior that it supports. But sometimes it is not benign. Sometimes it is particularly onerous. And since fiction is virtually limitless, and since some people's lives are guided, in great part, by particular fictions that they have decided to believe, we will always have the potential for non-benign behavior, based on their particular believed fictions, to make the world a worse place to be. It would be a much better strategy, for us all, IMO, to separate what we decide to believe, based on what we can actually perceive, from fiction.
Ok, Mitch, I’m sorry if my “gauche" behavior offends you, and that I express some confusion in understanding your comments. And I’ll be sure to avoid decent people from now on. But then if you also “tend to agree that many expressions of a belief in faeries could be considered ridiculous" then I guess I’m in good company.
And while we discuss faeries with a technology that was beyond fiction when I was a child; in the real world, there are a people called the Yazidis, who have lived for centuries in the Nineveh Province of Iraq. They believe in one God, the creator of everything, and that their God has placed the world in the care of seven angels, under the chief angel Melek Taus, known as the Peacock Angel. As the ruler of the world, the Peacock Angel can on his whim, cause good and bad to come to human beings. His behavior, however, caused him to fall from God’s good graces, and it was only when his tears of regret put out the fires of Hell that God reinstated him.
Now as far as I know the Yazidis are a kind and peaceful people, albeit with unusual religious beliefs. Islamic fundamentalists, however, who have invaded their corner of Iraq, feel that the Yazidis are apostates and Islamic fundamentalists, as directed by their God, Allah, “know" that Allah commands them to banish the Yazidis from their ancestral lands, kill the Yazidis that do not leave or convert to Islam, and to take the pre teen and teenage girls from their families as wives and sex slaves. The word ridiculous in this context is woefully inadequate. What humanity can do to humanity in the name of supernatural religion is indeed, in this case, a horrifying, hideous, attempt at annihilation of a peaceful people that follow their own traditions and beliefs.
I respect the Yazidis people and I do not think that they and their way of life is ridiculous, I do think that their ancient religion is ridiculous, but that is just my opinion to which I am entitled (and for the record I think reality TV shows are also ridiculous). I don’t think that the Yazidis as a people are ridiculous for following their ancient culture, nor do I think that a three year old that hunts for Easter eggs left by the Easter Bunny is ridiculous (although the concept and practice is…). The ridiculous is part and parcel of all human cultures, as is humor. Things that are ridiculous to many or to only a few always have and always will have a place in human society. It is when a culture fails to understand the function and use of “ridiculous" that human life is in danger.
But I don't know why or how we would be sacrificing our humanity if we deleted religion from our collective minds. If no one had blond hair or we all had four toes, we wouldn't lose our humanity, so why would losing the ideas of religion cause any loss in our humanity? Religion is merely a collection of stories and myths - there isn't one positive aspect of religion that can't come out of a religion-free mind. I believe that if a large group of infants were to be raised and educated completely religion-free (not even our religious history was taught), they would have a great religion-free society.Many would respond, if we did away with religion, people would invent new ones. I think I agree. Religion fills a void. The universe around is too huge. Inside of humans there's something that wants to comprehend all of that. But there's too much of 'It' out there. It overwhelms. It takes a true adventurer's heart and spirit to face the universe alone. Most have enough coping with their day to days. Religion provides the easy answers and security blanket against the cold chill of reality. People are social creatures, we need stories and we need each other. Some are better storytellers than others, some know how to provide a Shadow-Plays that connect with people's imaginations, and know how to exploit it. Those story tellers become the religious leaders.
Not a perfect society, but better than our current one.Interesting thought. Let me play devils advocate. How would religion disappearing change people? Or looking at it from a different angle, how would you define the basic flaws that have lead to today's disastrous deadend situation? I can see we're different in this, but only in opinion. There are many atheists out there living completely fulfilled lives with no hint of religion 'tainting' things. Art, literature, love, kindness, charity, awe of life and the universe... every positive that religion is purported to give us is available at a high level without religion. With no religious myths to 'explain' things, there won't be a need to invent them. A child who has the universe explained to them through scientific explanations will never feel a need to make up a being that magically created it from nothing and created life on our planet in a special creation with us as the centerpiece. And there is no other myth from any other religion that has a better chance at being reinvented. And not just current religions, but any supernatural explanation - why would they need to be invented? A rational mind can't entertain thought like that in a serious way, so they won't be. But all this is supposing that religion and it's memory is fully eradicated, rationalism and the scientific method are well taught, and we're starting a society from scratch. Without those prerequisites, religion can always sneak in, even if it's only new agey thought. As for your closing thoughts/questions, I don't see how losing religion will change people. Like I said already, there are tons of people living without religion. That's proof it works (and better than the alternative!) I don't know what "the basic flaws that have lead to today’s disastrous deadend situation" are. We are in nothing like a dead end situation - in fact we've never had it so good. If we can curb the destruction of our planet and improve conditions for the unfortunate, we're in awesome shape (check out some Stephen Pinker for details.) I'd say that since religious/tribal/irrational thinking got us this deep, and rationality has pulled us this far out, things will only improve, unless the religious/tribal/irrational thinking that got us here has a resurgence.
It isn't ridiculous to believe in nature spirits, it is human. It is far too common and widespread (in the sense of many different cultures). Not only that but it definitely makes the world a much more interesting place to live in. Thus calling it ridiculous is no different in my mind from the way some people cannot see any value in things like art, music, games and all the other activities which make life worth living. If they keep their dislike to themselves then I have no problem with it. It is certainly up to every one of us to decide how best to use the time we have. But it seems to me, using any of that time to look down the pursuits of others and to diss them is just a waste. HOWEVER, all of these human activities must certainly be open to criticism to make sure they are not harming anyone. Any of these pursued at the expense to the well being of others is not something I will abide. It is our duty to speak up when any of them cross the line, and religion certainly is one that crosses the line frequently all throughout history including the practices of human sacrifice. Not cool. And no, I personally do not even like dogma which even sounds like human sacrifice such as the western Xtian doctrine of substitutionary atonement. That is another case where I would love to use the word "ridiculous" (in a venue where that would be appropriate of course).It seems to me like you're saying all beliefs are equally valid and that only their impact on the wellbeing of others is how you judge them. (This is a very condensed version of how I interpret your quoted statement and many others you've made.) I know it's impossible to capture every nuance of your beliefs in a small digestible nugget, but can you nail down for me your method of evaluating the beliefs of others? It's so hard to discuss things on here when I'm countering points you never made and not agreeing/disagreeing with ones you did make.
It seems to me like you're saying all beliefs are equally valid and that only their impact on the wellbeing of others is how you judge them. (This is a very condensed version of how I interpret your quoted statement and many others you've made.)Incorrect. I have repeatedly given 3 criterion for the judgement of belief.
I judge beliefs by the following criterion: 1. logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful. 2. Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable. 3. Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in. Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be both healthy and an asset for human civilization. Indeed, I would compare it to the genetic diversity of the human species, which makes us more adaptable.If beliefs satisfy these three criterion, then the only things distinguishing them from each other are completely SUBJECTIVE. And that means there is no reasonable basis for expecting anyone to accept your opinion concerning which of these are better than others. Implicit in the second criterion is the superior epistemological status of anything which is actually required by the objective evidence. But yeah, when it comes to the excuses and special pleading of ideologues that somehow their opinions should be accepted by default then that is nothing but pure trash.
I know it's impossible to capture every nuance of your beliefs in a small digestible nugget, but can you nail down for me your method of evaluating the beliefs of others? It's so hard to discuss things on here when I'm countering points you never made and not agreeing/disagreeing with ones you did make.Since your above comment made me think you didn't see these criterion which I have already discussed many times. Let's leave it at that until you confirm that you got these, after which I am quite willing to explain further if anything is not clear to you.
Sure things may exist that we cannot yet perceive. And it can be fun to think about them. But to actually decide that certain "supernatural" things actually do exist, just because one wants to believe, or has been indoctrinated to do so, seems dysfunctional to me. If anything can be considered to be "real", then behavior no longer needs to be guided by what we can actually perceive.Definitely, but I think that includes what you have decided and imagined about the reasons other people have for their beliefs. You are the one who came up with this explanation that people just decide that certain "supernatural" things do exist, just because they want to believe or have been indoctrinated to do so. But I think that is an ideological projection on other people -- i.e. you imagining you know and understand why other people believe the things they do. Ok, maybe you are talking about yourself, and at one time this is the only reason you believed. Then I quite agree this is very poor reason for belief. But that doesn't mean this applies to everyone else, and assuming this is what I was calling dysfunctional.Psychology has discovered that perception is not independent from belief. It may be fun for ideologues to imagine they know and understand why other people believe the things they do, but to actually insist their imagination of such things dictates reality seems dysfunctional to me. If you replace other people with these movie prop substitutes concocted to serve your own ideology, then your behavior towards people is no longer guided by what can be considered rational...I am not insisting that persons' simple imagination of supernatural things "dictates reality". Not at all. Most of the people who frequent this forum have great imaginations, I would guess. Most enjoy fiction and science fiction and fantasy. It does not dictate their conception of reality. It does not guide their general behavior, in any systematic way. They separate fiction from fantasy. Persons who actually believe in some particular supernatural things, do not separate their particular fiction from what can be directly perceived. In many cases their daily behavior is guided by their fiction. This would be okay, as far as I am concerned, if such belief is benign, in the behavior that it supports. But sometimes it is not benign. Sometimes it is particularly onerous. And since fiction is virtually limitless, and since some people's lives are guided, in great part, by particular fictions that they have decided to believe, we will always have the potential for non-benign behavior, based on their particular believed fictions, to make the world a worse place to be. It would be a much better strategy, for us all, IMO, to separate what we decide to believe, based on what we can actually perceive, from fiction.
But then if you also “tend to agree that many expressions of a belief in faeries could be considered ridiculous" then I guess I’m in good company.Incorrect. Any belief, no matter how rational, can be expressed in ways which are ridiculous. Since my last example (regarding human sacrifice) was from Xtian doctrine, lets take an example from atheism this time. One thing I hear a lot from atheists is that people only believe in God because they were taught to by their parents. THIS is an example of a ridiculous expression of atheist belief. It is not logically coherent with the well known fact that religions begin and convert people all the time. But with a little work perhaps you can clean that up to say that most people most of the time believe what they have been taught to believe. It may work quite so well for dissing the beliefs of others but this, at least, is true.
And while we discuss faeries with a technology that was beyond fiction when I was a child; in the real world, there are a people called the Yazidis, who have lived for centuries in the Nineveh Province of Iraq. They believe in one God, the creator of everything, and that their God has placed the world in the care of seven angels, under the chief angel Melek Taus, known as the Peacock Angel. As the ruler of the world, the Peacock Angel can on his whim, cause good and bad to come to human beings. His behavior, however, caused him to fall from God’s good graces, and it was only when his tears of regret put out the fires of Hell that God reinstated him. Now as far as I know the Yazidis are a kind and peaceful people, albeit with unusual religious beliefs. Islamic fundamentalists, however, who have invaded their corner of Iraq, feel that the Yazidis are apostates and Islamic fundamentalists, as directed by their God, Allah, “know" that Allah commands them to banish the Yazidis from their ancestral lands, kill the Yazidis that do not leave or convert to Islam, and to take the pre teen and teenage girls from their families as wives and sex slaves. The word ridiculous in this context is woefully inadequate. What humanity can do to humanity in the name of supernatural religion is indeed, in this case, a horrifying, hideous, attempt at annihilation of a peaceful people that follow their own traditions and beliefs. I respect the Yazidis people and I do not think that they and their way of life is ridiculous, I do think that their ancient religion is ridiculous, but that is just my opinion to which I am entitled (and for the record I think reality TV shows are also ridiculous). I don’t think that the Yazidis as a people are ridiculous for following their ancient culture, nor do I think that a three year old that hunts for Easter eggs left by the Easter Bunny is ridiculous (although the concept and practice is...). The ridiculous is part and parcel of all human cultures, as is humor. Things that are ridiculous to many or to only a few always have and always will have a place in human society. It is when a culture fails to understand the function and use of “ridiculous" that human life is in danger.If you say a belief in faeries is ridiculous in that context, with all that explanation, then I would not object. But that is a 3 paragraph explanation, after all.
It seems to me like you're saying all beliefs are equally valid and that only their impact on the wellbeing of others is how you judge them. (This is a very condensed version of how I interpret your quoted statement and many others you've made.)Incorrect. I have repeatedly given 3 criterion for the judgement of belief.
I judge beliefs by the following criterion: 1. logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful. 2. Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable. 3. Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in. Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be both healthy and an asset for human civilization. Indeed, I would compare it to the genetic diversity of the human species, which makes us more adaptable.If beliefs satisfy these three criterion, then the only things distinguishing them from each other are completely SUBJECTIVE. And that means there is no reasonable basis for expecting anyone to accept your opinion concerning which of these are better than others. Implicit in the second criterion is the superior epistemological status of anything which is actually required by the objective evidence. But yeah, when it comes to the excuses and special pleading of ideologues that somehow their opinions should be accepted by default then that is nothing but pure trash.
I know it's impossible to capture every nuance of your beliefs in a small digestible nugget, but can you nail down for me your method of evaluating the beliefs of others? It's so hard to discuss things on here when I'm countering points you never made and not agreeing/disagreeing with ones you did make.Since your above comment made me think you didn't see these criterion which I have already discussed many times. Let's leave it at that until you confirm that you got these, after which I am quite willing to explain further if anything is not clear to you. The only issue I have is that all three criterion seem to need the words "self-professed" in front of them. I don't think many atheists look at religion as 1. logically coherent, 2. consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence or 3. compatible with the ideals of a free society. Just because followers of some belief system claim it is any or all of your criteria doesn't make it so. Do you think that religion can be judged to conform to all of your criteria?
It seems to me like you're saying all beliefs are equally valid and that only their impact on the wellbeing of others is how you judge them. (This is a very condensed version of how I interpret your quoted statement and many others you've made.)Incorrect. I have repeatedly given 3 criterion for the judgement of belief.
I judge beliefs by the following criterion: 1. logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful. 2. Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable. 3. Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in. Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be both healthy and an asset for human civilization. Indeed, I would compare it to the genetic diversity of the human species, which makes us more adaptable.If beliefs satisfy these three criterion, then the only things distinguishing them from each other are completely SUBJECTIVE. And that means there is no reasonable basis for expecting anyone to accept your opinion concerning which of these are better than others. Implicit in the second criterion is the superior epistemological status of anything which is actually required by the objective evidence. But yeah, when it comes to the excuses and special pleading of ideologues that somehow their opinions should be accepted by default then that is nothing but pure trash.
I know it's impossible to capture every nuance of your beliefs in a small digestible nugget, but can you nail down for me your method of evaluating the beliefs of others? It's so hard to discuss things on here when I'm countering points you never made and not agreeing/disagreeing with ones you did make.Since your above comment made me think you didn't see these criterion which I have already discussed many times. Let's leave it at that until you confirm that you got these, after which I am quite willing to explain further if anything is not clear to you. The only issue I have is that all three criterion seem to need the words "self-professed" in front of them. I don't think many atheists look at religion as 1. logically coherent, 2. consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence or 3. compatible with the ideals of a free society. Just because followers of some belief system claim it is any or all of your criteria doesn't make it so. Do you think that religion can be judged to conform to all of your criteria? Touche
The only issue I have is that all three criterion seem to need the words "self-professed" in front of them. I don't think many atheists look at religion as 1. logically coherent, 2. consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence or 3. compatible with the ideals of a free society. Just because followers of some belief system claim it is any or all of your criteria doesn't make it so. Do you think that religion can be judged to conform to all of your criteria?What they think and imagine is of no relevance. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate the logical incoherence, the inconsistency with objective evidence and the incompatibility with the ideals of religous freedom and tolerance. Lots of theists also think atheism is logically incoherent, inconsistent with the objective evidence and incompatible with the ideals of a free society. But once again the burden of proof is on them to show this. I have never seen either make their case. All I hear from them is a lot of subjective reasons and unsound arguments. But usually what they are doing is adding their own additional criterion for things to be believable. Here are typical ones: Theists: It has to say that in scripture. Atheists: It has to be supported by the objective evidence. Both are founded on premises which other poeple are not required to accept. There is no reason why non-theists should believe some old book is the measure of truth. There is no reason why non-atheists (or rather non-Naturalists) should believe that the scientific worldview defines the limits of reality. Like I have said before, the support of objective evidence is great. If you have it then adjusting your beliefs accordingly is required for reasonable belief. But I just don't think there is objective evidence sufficient for living any human life. Human life demands that we make choices where there is no objective evidence to tell us what to do. And that is why the belief in 'doojals' simply beggars my mind. So you go ahead and disbelieve in my faeries and I will disbelieve in your 'doojals'. "Touche" is as an acknowledgment of a hit by one's opponent. Apparently Write4U is conceding something to someone. If we are conceding for other people, then I will also concede on behalf of Lausten that Code Monkey has shown his meme test doesn't work.
The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate the logical incoherence, the inconsistency with objective evidence and the incompatibility with the ideals of religous freedom and tolerance. Lots of theists also think atheism is logically incoherent, inconsistent with the objective evidence and incompatible with the ideals of a free society. But once again the burden of proof is on them to show this. I have never seen either make their case.1. Logical coherence: Start with the creation myths in the Bible. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have differing accounts. 2. Consistent with objective (scientific) evidence: the creation myths, The flood myth, Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead... 3. Compatible with the ideas of a free society: numerous examples of god-ordained Genocide in the Bible, numerous examples of god giving instructions on how to treat slaves, and several Bible passages, even in the New Testament, of Yahweh and Jesus commanding people to kill those nonbelievers. Not to mention nonvirgins getting stoned to death, disobedient children meeting the same fate, ad nauseam. Sure, there are Bible passages commanding kindness, compassion, helpfulness, etc, but that brings us back to the logical coherence bit.
... There is no reason why non-atheists (or rather non-Naturalists) should believe that the scientific worldview defines the limits of reality...But the scientific worldview does not define the limits of reality. It gives us a good idea of what we can believe (for now) that is based on the perceptible evidence (that we have now). A scientist that claims they know the limits of all reality, if such a scientist exists, should be dismissed. But without a scientific worldview, we are left with the relative chaos of believing in anything (no matter how absurd) that anyone can imagine and can convince themselves or others is something to be believed.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.
Aristotle
Read more at Aristotle - It is the mark of an educated mind to be...
Okay, let’s take a look at these all important 3 criteria
I judge beliefs by the following criterion:
- logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful.
- Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable.
- Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in.
Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be
I haven’t noticed you doing #1. I don’t know of a religion or supernatural belief that fits it either.
#2 is some sort of Yoda sentence structure, but I think I understand it. You don’t need to say “scientific”, “evidence” is good enough. “Supernatural” is for all intents and purposes defined by a lack of evidence.
In number 3, you introduce the subjective “I want”. We are painfully aware of people who want a very strange world and are willing to kill for it. I’m sure that’s not you, but there is a very long spectrum of what people want, so that tells us nothing really.
I haven’t mentioned it to you, but I’m quite supportive of pluralism. It’s fine, as long as your beliefs don’t impose on the general will and interfere with things like children getting an education, or women having equal rights, or access to clean air and water. See, I actually listed “ideals of a free society”, so you would understand. I could go on, but this isn’t a very coherent conversation. It’s more fun to pretend like I’m better than you and watch you get mad about it.
The only issue I have is that all three criterion seem to need the words "self-professed" in front of them. I don't think many atheists look at religion as 1. logically coherent, 2. consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence or 3. compatible with the ideals of a free society. Just because followers of some belief system claim it is any or all of your criteria doesn't make it so. Do you think that religion can be judged to conform to all of your criteria?What they think and imagine is of no relevance. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate the logical incoherence, the inconsistency with objective evidence and the incompatibility with the ideals of religous freedom and tolerance. Lots of theists also think atheism is logically incoherent, inconsistent with the objective evidence and incompatible with the ideals of a free society. But once again the burden of proof is on them to show this. I have never seen either make their case. All I hear from them is a lot of subjective reasons and unsound arguments. But usually what they are doing is adding their own additional criterion for things to be believable. Here are typical ones: Theists: It has to say that in scripture. Atheists: It has to be supported by the objective evidence. Both are founded on premises which other poeple are not required to accept. There is no reason why non-theists should believe some old book is the measure of truth. There is no reason why non-atheists (or rather non-Naturalists) should believe that the scientific worldview defines the limits of reality. Like I have said before, the support of objective evidence is great. If you have it then adjusting your beliefs accordingly is required for reasonable belief. But I just don't think there is objective evidence sufficient for living any human life. Human life demands that we make choices where there is no objective evidence to tell us what to do. And that is why the belief in 'doojals' simply beggars my mind. So you go ahead and disbelieve in my faeries and I will disbelieve in your 'doojals'. "Touche" is as an acknowledgment of a hit by one's opponent. Apparently Write4U is conceding something to someone. If we are conceding for other people, then I will also concede on behalf of Lausten that Code Monkey has shown his meme test doesn't work.I'm sorry, but you are one bizarre dude. You seem to understand some things yet completely miss the boat on others. It's hard to communicate with you when concepts that are almost tautologically true to me are where you find fault. It has been shown millions of times (look on the interweb for examples) how religion doesn't meet any of your criteria. You yourself claim to not be religious and you claim to reject their dogmatic thinking. But then you start to ramble on, saying things that, to me, demonstrate that you don't know as much as you think you do about logic and burden of proof and the scientific method. Maybe you were in a hurry and didn't write down your thoughts in such a way as to allow me to understand you correctly. I'm totally guilty of that on a regular basis, so if it looks like your message got lost between your fingertips and my brain, please try to rephrase it or use an example.
... There is no reason why non-atheists (or rather non-Naturalists) should believe that the scientific worldview defines the limits of reality...But the scientific worldview does not define the limits of reality. It gives us a good idea of what we can believe (for now) that is based on the perceptible evidence (that we have now). A scientist that claims they know the limits of all reality, if such a scientist exists, should be dismissed. But without a scientific worldview, we are left with the relative chaos of believing in anything (no matter how absurd) that anyone can imagine and can convince themselves or others is something to be believed.Yes. The scientific worldview is the only way to look around and make sense and learn about what we see. I The only way you can live with both on your life is to water down religion to a feel-good god-is-love concept. Basically a NOMA thing. But science can't limit a worldview since it's a method of investigation rather than a limit on what you can believe. It may APPEAR to limit your worldview, but really it's stopping you from believing false things that aren't there or aren't true. I'd call science a 'World View Strengthener' instead of a limiter.
Well Mitch, I don’t have much more to add to this discussion. I looked up your book and from what I saw on the “read this sample" it is one weird science fiction story, which is not unusual in this day and age. But it did give me a vague idea of where your mind and opinions are.
So in terms of your criterion for “judging" beliefs only a few questions remain.
1/ Who determines the “logical coherence" of a belief? Who decides if the belief is logical or not logical and with what must the belief cohere. I supposed everyone is at liberty to determine for themselves if their beliefs are logically coherent. Well that sounds like the status quo in our present culture.
2/ Who decides if the belief is consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence? Perhaps an advanced degree in a scientific discipline would be a requirement for judging? If so, what if all scientists don’t agree that the belief is constant with the evidence? Well that sounds like the status quo in our present culture.
3/ Who decides if the belief is compatible with the ideals of a free society? Who decides if the belief is moral (and what is and what is not moral differs greatly among societies and individuals), or does that criterion only apply to the society in which you wish to live? Well that sounds like the status quo in our present culture.
So I’m sorry Mitch, but as an individual my opinion is that your criteria for a belief to be meaningful is really only meaningful to you, and perhaps a few others as well, and as long as the freedom exists for all individuals to live by their own criteria for how and why beliefs are meaningful, your contributions are noted, but not necessarily valued.
An excellent summation.
That’s an unusually strong consensus from this forum, on the problems with Mitch’s 3 points. Hopefully he is off reading a book somewhere.