ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags faith , skepticism

Reply
Old 29th December 2018, 11:35 PM   #361
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, see, I even agree with your last two paragraphs. I just think that heliocentrism -- or rather, mis-representing it as THE problem the RCC had with Bruno or Galileo -- is a bad example. And much as I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about religion, I have a whole plank on the shoulder about rewriting history to make some ideological point, even when that point is against religion.
What the Church was unable to bear was that someone cast doubts on its total power over truth, be a philosopher, a necromancer, a magician or a scientist. Religion clashed with science because science questioned the literal interpretation of the Bible. (...) And the question continues: are religious people able to endure a superior authority than their sacred books? Can science correct what is written? These are the roots of the conflict.
I donít understand how you can agree on this and deny that the sentence against Galileo was a typical clash between religion and science.
If the Holy Office was a religious court, if heliocentrism was a scientific theory and if heliocentrism was forbidden by the Holy Office on the basis that it was contrary to the Bible, there we have the classical conflict religion-science!
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 04:17 AM   #362
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
Oh we have a long history of conflict between science and religion. I even gave the better example of the many worlds hypothesis which the Church had suppressed for half a millennium at that point.

All I'm saying is that heliocentrism wasn't the CAUSE of Galileo's persecution, but rather the other way around. What the Holy See did was basically a thinly veiled ad-hominem circumstantial fallacy (with a sprinkling of appeal to consequence): it went from being ok with Copernicus's work, to, basically, if Galileo defends it, then it must be wrong.

And, sure, it's a problem if it can do that.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 07:59 AM   #363
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Oh we have a long history of conflict between science and religion. I even gave the better example of the many worlds hypothesis which the Church had suppressed for half a millennium at that point.

All I'm saying is that heliocentrism wasn't the CAUSE of Galileo's persecution, but rather the other way around. What the Holy See did was basically a thinly veiled ad-hominem circumstantial fallacy (with a sprinkling of appeal to consequence): it went from being ok with Copernicus's work, to, basically, if Galileo defends it, then it must be wrong.

And, sure, it's a problem if it can do that.
In other words, Galileo is to blame for the Church's persecution of heliocentrism for more than two hundred years. If Galileo had not appeared, heliocentrism wouldn't have got any problem. Don't you realise that this is untenable?
The difference between Galileo and Copernicus is that Galileo said directly that heliocentrism is true and Copernicus do not. Was Galileo guilty for saying the truth is true?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 08:51 AM   #364
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
No, Galileo is "guilty" of being the kind of twit that flamed even people who were initially on his side... until they weren't.

Edit: E.g., Christopher Scheiner actually was confirming that sun spots existed, plus a couple of other observations, so he was mostly in agreement with Galileo. You'd think that would make them, you know, if not allies, at least in agreement? You know, cite each other and such, like modern scientists would do? Wrong. Because Scheiner's discovery date was before Galileo's, it apparently made him Galileo's mortal enemy. (How dare you say you're more awesome than Galileo?!) Galileo snuck personal attacks on Scheiner even in stuff that was flaming someone else entirely. E.g., a lot of the professors at the Colegio Romano were actually quite into Galileo's stuff, and they had confirmed some of his claims. But gods dammit, ONE of them dared have a different opinion than Galileo ONCE (bonus points for actually being more right than Galileo there), and Galileo goes into full flame war mode, including sock puppets and all, against the whole university and its professors. Etc. In an age when we didn't have a proper modern peer-review process, and yes, making an enemy of the Pope could get just about ANYTHING banned as heresy... yeah, not a very good move. A lot of those people could have taken his side -- and in fact, some still did even after being flamed by him -- but Galileo basically made sure that most would end up not being on his side.

As for heliocentrism, AGAIN, Kepler's theory was actually taught in Jesuit universities at the same time as Copernicus was banned. You realize that Kepler's model was equally heliocentric, right?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th December 2018 at 09:03 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 11:49 AM   #365
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
No, Galileo is "guilty" of being the kind of twit that flamed even people who were initially on his side... until they weren't.

Edit: E.g., Christopher Scheiner actually was confirming that sun spots existed, plus a couple of other observations, so he was mostly in agreement with Galileo. You'd think that would make them, you know, if not allies, at least in agreement? You know, cite each other and such, like modern scientists would do? Wrong. Because Scheiner's discovery date was before Galileo's, it apparently made him Galileo's mortal enemy. (How dare you say you're more awesome than Galileo?!) Galileo snuck personal attacks on Scheiner even in stuff that was flaming someone else entirely. E.g., a lot of the professors at the Colegio Romano were actually quite into Galileo's stuff, and they had confirmed some of his claims. But gods dammit, ONE of them dared have a different opinion than Galileo ONCE (bonus points for actually being more right than Galileo there), and Galileo goes into full flame war mode, including sock puppets and all, against the whole university and its professors. Etc. In an age when we didn't have a proper modern peer-review process, and yes, making an enemy of the Pope could get just about ANYTHING banned as heresy... yeah, not a very good move. A lot of those people could have taken his side -- and in fact, some still did even after being flamed by him -- but Galileo basically made sure that most would end up not being on his side.

As for heliocentrism, AGAIN, Kepler's theory was actually taught in Jesuit universities at the same time as Copernicus was banned. You realize that Kepler's model was equally heliocentric, right?
What do you want to discuss? Why did Galileo have few friends or why did the Church condemn heliocentrism during two centuries?

How many Jesuits continued to explain heliocentrism after the Church condemned it as heresy? Where? Can you give me the reference? Thank you.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 11:55 AM   #366
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
What do you want to discuss? Why did Galileo have few friends or why did the Church condemn heliocentrism during two centuries?
That the answer to both is, surprisingly, the same
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 03:43 PM   #367
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,048
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As for heliocentrism, AGAIN, Kepler's theory was actually taught in Jesuit universities at the same time as Copernicus was banned. You realize that Kepler's model was equally heliocentric, right?
Kepler wrote "Epitome of Copernican Astronomy", an astronomy book on the heliocentric system published by Kepler in the period 1617 to 1621. According to Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
Epitome of Copernican Astronomy was read by astronomers throughout Europe, and following Kepler's death, it was the main vehicle for spreading Kepler's ideas. In the period 1630 - 1650, this book was the most widely used astronomy textbook, winning many converts to ellipse-based astronomy.
Just a nitpick: While Copernicus's original work was banned in 1616, a revised edition with 9 changes to indicate his heliocentric model to be a theory was available for publishing after 1620. All the calculations and reasoning behind his model was still available to be studied.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 06:46 PM   #368
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
I'd also add that the "just a theory" part, or rather its absence, only bothered anyone when it came from Galileo. When an earlier pope revised the calendar, it didn't bother anyone that to base the real calendar on it, you kinda have to take it as real.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 12:35 AM   #369
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Kepler wrote "Epitome of Copernican Astronomy", an astronomy book on the heliocentric system published by Kepler in the period 1617 to 1621. According to Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
Epitome of Copernican Astronomy was read by astronomers throughout Europe, and following Kepler's death, it was the main vehicle for spreading Kepler's ideas. In the period 1630 - 1650, this book was the most widely used astronomy textbook, winning many converts to ellipse-based astronomy.
Just a nitpick: While Copernicus's original work was banned in 1616, a revised edition with 9 changes to indicate his heliocentric model to be a theory was available for publishing after 1620. All the calculations and reasoning behind his model was still available to be studied.
Where was it read, in Rome? In Toledo? Or in London? Because the Jesuits who defended the mathematical model of Copernicus were forced to abandon it by Brahe after Galileo's condemnation. And that was the modern sector of the Catholic Church.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 12:36 AM   #370
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That the answer to both is, surprisingly, the same
Don't be angry, but I think that's absurd.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 12:43 AM   #371
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'd also add that the "just a theory" part, or rather its absence, only bothered anyone when it came from Galileo. When an earlier pope revised the calendar, it didn't bother anyone that to base the real calendar on it, you kinda have to take it as real.
Of course, but Galileo was still forbidden in Catholic-controlled universities. Of course, the index of banned books lost influence over time. Nobody paid any attention to it in the very Catholic Spain of Generalissimo Franco. Other index were more effective. But the clash between religion and science had already taken place. Which is what we are discussing... Or so I thought.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 01:48 AM   #372
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Don't be angry, but I think that's absurd.
Is it, though? I'm talking about abuse of power in a god-sanctioned dictatorship. Is it that hard to believe that if you annoy those in power, they'd bring you before a kangaroo court on some BS charges? I could give examples from the USSR and such, but surely being from Spain you can find some abuses of power from Franco's time too.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 07:02 AM   #373
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Where was it read, in Rome? In Toledo? Or in London? Because the Jesuits who defended the mathematical model of Copernicus were forced to abandon it by Brahe after Galileo's condemnation. And that was the modern sector of the Catholic Church.
Also, I just can't let this slide. I tried, but I can't.

Tycho Brahe died in 1601. So I'm REALLY interested in learning exactly how an undead Brahe managed to argue with anyone after 1616. You'd think the Inquisition would start to suspect necromancy if you're engaging in debates after being dead for 15 years. Kinda hard to disguise being a corpse after 15 years, if nothing else
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 12:48 PM   #374
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Also, I just can't let this slide. I tried, but I can't.

Tycho Brahe died in 1601. So I'm REALLY interested in learning exactly how an undead Brahe managed to argue with anyone after 1616. You'd think the Inquisition would start to suspect necromancy if you're engaging in debates after being dead for 15 years. Kinda hard to disguise being a corpse after 15 years, if nothing else
Brahe's theory, of curse.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 08:51 PM   #375
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Just to interrupt this squabble a moment, I find it interesting and irritating, the way the religious talk about TRUTH so much. It's as if they think by saying it loud and assertively, they will drum out any opposition.

On the outskirts of Melbourne there is a small church my brother used to belong to. The church was named the TLC ........ so "Tender Loving Care" I naively deduced. Wrong! TRUTH and LEARNING CENTRE!
Hi Thor 2. Maybe we can squeeze back some real-estate in this thread

I think a lot of that language comes from the new testament verse where Jesus is credited as having said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me". This is often used to back up claims of truth, and exclusive insights thereabouts.

It bears mentioning though that the religious hardly have exclusive claim to this language/behaviour. How many espoused political views contain the words "in my humble opinion" for example? Not too many I've heard. And in the "Religious, are you mad" thread, there have been authoritative pronouncements regarding the sanity of whole cultures :/
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 10:01 PM   #376
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
Yeah, he did, although it's not a very original claim. Zoroastrianism had a big hardon about Truth long before Jesus.

Edit: and presenting religious nonsense as THE truth is even older. E.g., the Buddha's "4 noble truths." Oh-la-la, it must be not just truths, but NOBLE truths, because they say so themselves.

That said, it's one of those claims that don't make sense even semantically, because it needs one to reify one of the terms in that equality. It's like saying "my cat is the dreaming". What does it even mean?

And if you want to drag that other thread in, it's been a long standing observation of mine that there seems to be an equivalent of Gresham's law for religions. To wit, Gresham's law states that "bad money drives out good". Having read Mircea Eliade and generally looked a bit into several religions, it seems to me like the more stupid or crazy religions drive out the less stupid and crazy ones.

Or rather, that the madder the notions the people must believe, the more uncomfortable the cognitive dissonance, and the more they'll fight to push the madness upon others.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 3rd January 2019 at 10:09 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 11:53 PM   #377
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
Hi Thor 2. Maybe we can squeeze back some real-estate in this thread

I think a lot of that language comes from the new testament verse where Jesus is credited as having said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me". This is often used to back up claims of truth, and exclusive insights thereabouts.

It bears mentioning though that the religious hardly have exclusive claim to this language/behaviour. How many espoused political views contain the words "in my humble opinion" for example? Not too many I've heard. And in the "Religious, are you mad" thread, there have been authoritative pronouncements regarding the sanity of whole cultures :/
Many people think they have the truth about some things. Not many people think they have the absolute truth about everything. Even those people think they have the truth for some reasons. Not many people think that these reasons cannot be discused.

The gospels says that Jesus "is the Truth". He has the absolute truth about everything. They say that you cannot dispute Jesus' reasons because he never said any reason. He only sets orders that you have to obey by the force of faith.

These are the foundations of the conflict between religion and reason (science). These are the dangers of religion.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 12:28 PM   #378
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Many people think they have the truth about some things. Not many people think they have the absolute truth about everything. Even those people think they have the truth for some reasons. Not many people think that these reasons cannot be discused.

The gospels says that Jesus "is the Truth". He has the absolute truth about everything. They say that you cannot dispute Jesus' reasons because he never said any reason. He only sets orders that you have to obey by the force of faith.

These are the foundations of the conflict between religion and reason (science). These are the dangers of religion.
I'm with you for the most part there David Mo, though I think the implied "reason" is wrapped up in the claim of Christ being God incarnate. Not sure exactly what you mean by "force of faith", but I agree, claims of absolute truth are one of the main dangers of religion.
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:22 PM   #379
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
I dunno about David, but MY problem with using that is that it's circular. Jesus is X because he says so himself. Technically what Jesus does there is a whole lot of ipse dixit fallacies, but those whose reason why the bible is true is that the bible says so are just doing circular reasoning. Ultimately it boils down to just asserting that the bible is true without any other support, which is to say it's just some handwaving to mask that it's an ipse dixit itself, rather than anything even vaguely resembling reason.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:25 PM   #380
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,677
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
Hi Thor 2. Maybe we can squeeze back some real-estate in this thread

I think a lot of that language comes from the new testament verse where Jesus is credited as having said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me". This is often used to back up claims of truth, and exclusive insights thereabouts.

It bears mentioning though that the religious hardly have exclusive claim to this language/behaviour. How many espoused political views contain the words "in my humble opinion" for example? Not too many I've heard. And in the "Religious, are you mad" thread, there have been authoritative pronouncements regarding the sanity of whole cultures :/

Yes I can see the Biblical justification for making claims of truth, but I think the loud and repeated statements betrays a lack of belief in that truth. If you look at the words mouthed by the clergy at funerals for example - "In sure and certain hope ........." you will see what I mean. If someone is sure and certain they shouldn't feel compelled to make such a claim.

Sure some do make authoritative statements outside a religious context although I try not to do this myself. Possibly I may do at times and please pull me up if I do.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 11:04 PM   #381
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I dunno about David, but MY problem with using that is that it's circular. Jesus is X because he says so himself. Technically what Jesus does there is a whole lot of ipse dixit fallacies, but those whose reason why the bible is true is that the bible says so are just doing circular reasoning. Ultimately it boils down to just asserting that the bible is true without any other support, which is to say it's just some handwaving to mask that it's an ipse dixit itself, rather than anything even vaguely resembling reason.
Hi Hans. Yes, that's a very reasonable point/objection. I agree that faith and belief are choices, not logical conclusions. I think that's (at least in part) why many people of faith point primarily to feelings and experiences, rather than scripture or dogma as the basis of their faith, though they frequently revert to the latter to defend it.
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 11:17 PM   #382
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes I can see the Biblical justification for making claims of truth, but I think the loud and repeated statements betrays a lack of belief in that truth. If you look at the words mouthed by the clergy at funerals for example - "In sure and certain hope ........." you will see what I mean. If someone is sure and certain they shouldn't feel compelled to make such a claim.

Sure some do make authoritative statements outside a religious context although I try not to do this myself. Possibly I may do at times and please pull me up if I do.
I agree with you here Thor 2. I think there is a reasonable expectation of traditional words of comfort at a funeral, but I understand your point and I think it's a good one. I also think things like hate and anger and aggression towards people who believe differently are signs of a shaky foundation.

It's pretty hard to avoid asserting oneself overly authoritatively from time to time, especially on an on-line forum. I'll watch you for it if you'll do the same for me
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:17 AM   #383
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,294
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
I also think things like hate and anger and aggression towards people who believe differently are signs of a shaky foundation.
Yet religions that have applied their hate and anger and aggression towards people who believe differently (or don't have a belief) have survived on that "shaky foundation" for millennia .
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.

Last edited by ynot; 5th January 2019 at 12:33 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:43 AM   #384
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
I'm with you for the most part there David Mo, though I think the implied "reason" is wrapped up in the claim of Christ being God incarnate. Not sure exactly what you mean by "force of faith", but I agree, claims of absolute truth are one of the main dangers of religion.
God's existence is either undemonstrable or contradictory. God's concept is abstruse. Nobody knows what is saying when he says that God is so and so. In reality, God's concept is only and undue extrapolation of natural properties of things.

Therefore, when you put the screws on a believer he inevitably ends replying that you lacks some kind of extra perception, you are unable of some superior comprehension or you cannot see with espiritual eyes... This is to say, you have not faith. Apparently, faith is an ability to grasp undoubted certainties that are only accessible to those who have faith. Naturally, faith does not serve to solve problems of physics or common sense. It only serves to solve heavenly problems or to communicate with God without needing to a telephone. Of course, like almost everything in religion, it's indefinable.

This happen with the most refined thinkers, reputed religious filosophers, etc. I just read the latest book by "the world's most famous atheist" -this is said in the cover--, Antony Flew. By the way, it is very bad.

Last edited by David Mo; 5th January 2019 at 12:51 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:33 PM   #385
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,677
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
God's existence is either undemonstrable or contradictory. God's concept is abstruse. Nobody knows what is saying when he says that God is so and so. In reality, God's concept is only and undue extrapolation of natural properties of things.

Therefore, when you put the screws on a believer he inevitably ends replying that you lacks some kind of extra perception, you are unable of some superior comprehension or you cannot see with espiritual eyes... This is to say, you have not faith. Apparently, faith is an ability to grasp undoubted certainties that are only accessible to those who have faith. Naturally, faith does not serve to solve problems of physics or common sense. It only serves to solve heavenly problems or to communicate with God without needing to a telephone. Of course, like almost everything in religion, it's indefinable.

This happen with the most refined thinkers, reputed religious filosophers, etc. I just read the latest book by "the world's most famous atheist" -this is said in the cover--, Antony Flew. By the way, it is very bad.

Yes I have come upon this myself often.

When I make the observation that some biblical story makes no sense to me I am told you need faith to understand it.

- How do you get faith?
- By accepting the Bible as truth.

But of course you can't do that if it makes no sense to you as a non believer. As good a catch 22 as I have ever come across.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 08:43 PM   #386
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Yeah, he did, although it's not a very original claim. Zoroastrianism had a big hardon about Truth long before Jesus.

Edit: and presenting religious nonsense as THE truth is even older. E.g., the Buddha's "4 noble truths." Oh-la-la, it must be not just truths, but NOBLE truths, because they say so themselves.

That said, it's one of those claims that don't make sense even semantically, because it needs one to reify one of the terms in that equality. It's like saying "my cat is the dreaming". What does it even mean?

And if you want to drag that other thread in, it's been a long standing observation of mine that there seems to be an equivalent of Gresham's law for religions. To wit, Gresham's law states that "bad money drives out good". Having read Mircea Eliade and generally looked a bit into several religions, it seems to me like the more stupid or crazy religions drive out the less stupid and crazy ones.

Or rather, that the madder the notions the people must believe, the more uncomfortable the cognitive dissonance, and the more they'll fight to push the madness upon others.
Agreed that truth is a hard concept in theism in general, as are clear definitions of terms (all of which come back to an idea of God, who/which is also impossible to define in non-abstract terms).

I think I understand your Gresham's law idea, and have seen that too from time to time, though not as a rule, and again, not exclusively in religious contexts. (Of course, since religion is a human construct, it is inevitable that any behaviour that manifests in a religious context will also manifest in a non-religious context right?)
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 08:55 PM   #387
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Yet religions that have applied their hate and anger and aggression towards people who believe differently (or don't have a belief) have survived on that "shaky foundation" for millennia .
Ouch! Low blow. As I've mentioned, I've been fortunate to experience more of a Gal. 5:22 "foundation" and my hope that religion and faith have a positive role to play in society lies in that direction.
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 09:10 PM   #388
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
God's existence is either undemonstrable or contradictory. God's concept is abstruse. Nobody knows what is saying when he says that God is so and so. In reality, God's concept is only and undue extrapolation of natural properties of things.

Therefore, when you put the screws on a believer he inevitably ends replying that you lacks some kind of extra perception, you are unable of some superior comprehension or you cannot see with espiritual eyes... This is to say, you have not faith. Apparently, faith is an ability to grasp undoubted certainties that are only accessible to those who have faith. Naturally, faith does not serve to solve problems of physics or common sense. It only serves to solve heavenly problems or to communicate with God without needing to a telephone. Of course, like almost everything in religion, it's indefinable.

This happen with the most refined thinkers, reputed religious filosophers, etc. I just read the latest book by "the world's most famous atheist" -this is said in the cover--, Antony Flew. By the way, it is very bad.
I think you're quite right that believers are trying to explain and describe things they don't understand and that this is inherent in the idea of faith. I get unnerved myself when people present their faith as being totally figured out and clear (or worse, try to (mis)use scientific terminology when discussing it). For some, this is simply repeating learned religious phrases, but I think many people also have what they perceive to be religious experiences and/or epiphanies and, not surprisingly, use the religious context of those experiences to try to understand and describe/explain them. This creates a situation where someone who has never had such an experience (not to mention a natural skeptic) will almost certainly be unsatisfied with any description/explanation, which leads to frustration on both sides and (unhelpful) phrases like "well I guess I have faith and you don't". :/

Last edited by attempt5001; 5th January 2019 at 09:12 PM. Reason: clarity
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 12:27 AM   #389
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
I think you're quite right that believers are trying to explain and describe things they don't understand and that this is inherent in the idea of faith. I get unnerved myself when people present their faith as being totally figured out and clear (or worse, try to (mis)use scientific terminology when discussing it). For some, this is simply repeating learned religious phrases, but I think many people also have what they perceive to be religious experiences and/or epiphanies and, not surprisingly, use the religious context of those experiences to try to understand and describe/explain them. This creates a situation where someone who has never had such an experience (not to mention a natural skeptic) will almost certainly be unsatisfied with any description/explanation, which leads to frustration on both sides and (unhelpful) phrases like "well I guess I have faith and you don't". :/
We've all had got confusing experiences at one time or another. For example, around the moments before or after deep sleep. The Greeks turned them into Asclepian messages. Asclepius is not in fashion today. Therefore he doesn't send messages no more. Or nobody listens to them.

What is called faith is a variant of Asclepius' messages. It reaches some people through the TV screen. They even have conversations with the Virgin and the Saints. Dostoevsky had mystical experiences after epileptic attacks. Others, more cautious, say it is a transcendent experience.

The absurd thing is to name it and turn it into something out of the head. And even more, to dress up it in the clothes of our desires and fears. And even more, to claim superiority because others do not have that "transcendent" experience.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 08:27 AM   #390
8enotto
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 399
Some of the Christian based cults in Mexico kind of require you can pray yourself into a frenzy of sorts and talk in tongues. I have witnessed this. Those who failed this basic test are of doubtful faith...

You prepare income statements monthly and tithe accordingly because any perceived dishonesty has consequences. They group was small and self policing.

I was encouraged to join in the fun if it mattered to me to keep my job as the shop owner knew the way to glory. He had a mission to save me from a hollow existence that would lead to doom.

Being that his poor pay and constant preaching got in the way of my plans we parted ways and his old "converted" helper returned.

Both of us are happier now and still friends. Even if he knows his soul is superior to mine as Jesus has promised him glory to come.

You can't make this crap up. Or at least we shouldn't but in human history we do. Many times over. I just kind of wrote it off as he needs more salvation than others as his past isn"t very pretty from papers he left in his desk...
He feels greater need to fix past errors as his netted him jailtime when younger. Those who never see the extremes have less to adjust for.

Last edited by 8enotto; 6th January 2019 at 08:48 AM.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 02:44 PM   #391
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,677
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Some of the Christian based cults in Mexico kind of require you can pray yourself into a frenzy of sorts and talk in tongues. I have witnessed this. Those who failed this basic test are of doubtful faith...

You prepare income statements monthly and tithe accordingly because any perceived dishonesty has consequences. They group was small and self policing.

I was encouraged to join in the fun if it mattered to me to keep my job as the shop owner knew the way to glory. He had a mission to save me from a hollow existence that would lead to doom.

Being that his poor pay and constant preaching got in the way of my plans we parted ways and his old "converted" helper returned.

Both of us are happier now and still friends. Even if he knows his soul is superior to mine as Jesus has promised him glory to come.

You can't make this crap up. Or at least we shouldn't but in human history we do. Many times over. I just kind of wrote it off as he needs more salvation than others as his past isn"t very pretty from papers he left in his desk...
He feels greater need to fix past errors as his netted him jailtime when younger. Those who never see the extremes have less to adjust for.

I posted a comment on this subject on the "Religious? Are you mad?" thread.

Your'e right, you just couldn't make this stuff up.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 05:32 PM   #392
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,855
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Some of the Christian based cults in Mexico kind of require you can pray yourself into a frenzy of sorts and talk in tongues. I have witnessed this. Those who failed this basic test are of doubtful faith...
That's not an extreme cult behaviour. I witnessed and participated in this sort of thing in my suburban Canberra church in the 90s. Why does everyone think this is weird?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 08:59 PM   #393
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,294
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That's not an extreme cult behaviour. I witnessed and participated in this sort of thing in my suburban Canberra church in the 90s. Why does everyone think this is weird?
Perhaps that you don't think it is weird reflects how much this form of weird has been normalised in your brain.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.

Last edited by ynot; 6th January 2019 at 09:14 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 09:24 PM   #394
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,855
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Perhaps that you don't think it is weird reflects how much this form of weird has been normalised in your brain.
Yeah, probably. I'm constantly in a state of doesn't everyone realise that this is a thing?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 09:53 PM   #395
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,294
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yeah, probably. I'm constantly in a state of doesn't everyone realise that this is a thing?
In what way does being "a thing" stop it from being "a weird thing"?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 11:06 PM   #396
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,855
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
In what way does being "a thing" stop it from being "a weird thing"?
It doesn't. It's just that we have a different definition of "weird". For me, speaking in tongues and prophecying and all that is completely normal. It is weird to me that people don't understand that this is what goes on.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 11:17 PM   #397
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,955
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Dostoevsky had mystical experiences after epileptic attacks.
Just as a minor correction, which doesn't affect your larger point, but actually in epilepsy the "aura" moment always comes BEFORE the actual epilepsy attack. It's in fact the seizure on the way to the actual attack.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 11:38 PM   #398
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,851
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Just as a minor correction, which doesn't affect your larger point, but actually in epilepsy the "aura" moment always comes BEFORE the actual epilepsy attack. It's in fact the seizure on the way to the actual attack.
However, Dostoevsky places the state of blessedness at the end. At least in "Memories of the Dead House". This man was original even in that.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 11:47 PM   #399
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,294
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It doesn't. It's just that we have a different definition of "weird". For me, speaking in tongues and prophecying and all that is completely normal. It is weird to me that people don't understand that this is what goes on.
No, we are applying "weird" to different things.

People do understand what goes on (at least to a reasonable degree) and think that what goes on is weird. It's weird that you think they don't understand.

Here's ten weird religious practices. These practices are probably completely normal to those that practice them, are they completely normal to you, or are they weird?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.

Last edited by ynot; 7th January 2019 at 12:36 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2019, 12:27 AM   #400
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,677
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It doesn't. It's just that we have a different definition of "weird". For me, speaking in tongues and prophecying and all that is completely normal. It is weird to me that people don't understand that this is what goes on.
Oh, yes, OK ........
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.