In reply to: The phrase "scientific fact" has no technical meaning. I suppose you could argue with TalkOrigins on this. I don't really care that much, as I used the phrase to communicate the idea that beliefs and science are different animals. In reply to: What's not logical is that you have an affirmative opinion about something for which there is no affirmative evidence. The question is not why you've expressed your opinion, but why you hold it. Well, I'm not a Vulcan , so it's permissible for me to hold opinions and views which are not founded in logic. Science is governed by the dictates of logic, but I am not, and your question was answered long ago. As I said in my first post in this thread, "Ultimately we each have to find what we believe, what gives us peace with our place here, and faith is what spans the gap between what we know and what we believe." This does, in fact, address your question. In reply to: > What happens when we die? I don't really know, but I don't think it's nothingness.<Why? Surely not because you "think that such beliefs are important to society". Do you think that makes irrational beliefs rational? Actually it does, but that's not why I believe what I do. My beliefs stem from philosophical views and ideas, primarily the "First Cause" argument. I can't explain them to you beyond that in the way you are looking for, a logical path to a logical conclusion. I stated from the very beginning that this isn't the case. Beliefs require faith. That also was in my first post. In reply to: I appreciate your reading the references, but you didn't have to delve that deeply to get me to admit that the research on the subject is inconclusive... ... The point is that there is no good data to support the contrary belief either. Not so. Your second cite, Paul Heaton's work and statistical analysis of the data provided a lot of good support for the contention that religion reduces crime and other social misbehaviors among its adherents, and his view that religion didn't reduce crime overall within a society neither supported your original contention nor was adequately proven even to himself in his analysis. That's what I learned from delving deeply into the data you provided, and thank you very much for providing it. There was a lot of good stuff there, unlike Mr. Paul's work. In reply to: You claim that nothing separates us from the animals other than religion No, I don't and never did make that claim. In my first post here I said, "right or wrong, religion does separate us from animals." In a later post I said, "Belief in religions is the big division." In my most recent post I said, "I'll stop now though, and concede that there are differences between animals and humans other than religion." At no time did I ever say that religion was the only thing separating us from animals, and I only shot down your earlier examples for the fun of it because they didn't support your claim, even though I agreed that religion wasn't the only difference. I even apologized for doing that! In reply to: but we have no idea what animals believe, or whether or not they have anything that resembles faith. Again, you can stick with your 'open question' position if you like, but logic dictates that in the absense of evidence for a positive claim (animals DO have religious beliefs), there is nothing wrong with assuming the negative. In reply to: I wouldn't use an opinion about [what animals believe] as a foundation for a system of beliefs, one way or the other. Of course not. That would be silly. In reply to: Your implication, of course, is that animals have no system of morals, and religious belief is what gives us ours. I'm telling you that, although it's a popular belief, and a convenient one for the religious, there is no good evidence to back it up. There is some evidence to support it, although I will grant that it isn't enough to convince anyone with a healthy dose of scepticism. Also, animals do have behaviors that resemble morals (dogs for example will generally not attack one of their own who surrenders by rolling on his back), and it is reasonable to assume that humans have some similar behaviors which aren't religion-related, unless you believe that dogs have religion! Once again, I never dismissed the idea that humans have some morals outside of religion. What I said was "without a sense of accountability to a "higher power" we have minimal basis for morality". In reply to: I think we'd agree that those European countries have lower rates of violent crime than the United States. True, but don't make the mistake Mr. Paul did and discount any and all other possible causes of that statistic. In reply to: Is it possible that human culture has evolved in a way that enhances human survival, and that wonton violence and criminality is not conducive to overall survival? That pure selfish is not the best recipe? When you speak of an evolving culture, religion is part of the equation. As such it is certainly a part of the process that enhances human survival. If a culture ever develops completely without religion (I am not currently aware of any) it will need something to fulfill that role, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible for that to happen. In reply to: Do you think that all human behavior stems from religion, or just the virtuous stuff? No and no. In reply to: Lanky - Like I said, I don't have a problem with open questions. SteveA - So, what is wrong with an open question? Sigh... In reply to: The issue is not whether you are willing to publish your views, but why you hold those views. We can't seem to get to the "why", for some reason. The reason is that this post is the first time you have actually asked me "why" I believe what I do. Everything prior was you 'not understanding my problem with open questions'. If you want an answer, you usually have to ask a question. As I said above, my reason 'why' is philosophical, not logical. Humans can have beliefs based on logic, on feelings, on opinions, on philosophies, on faith or on nothing at all. It's one of those basic human rights. In reply to: Lanky75 - Look closely at the above and you should see the difference between what I said and what you are objecting to.SteveA - It seemed pretty clear to me. Good. I knew you'd get it.
-
Reincarnation
-
If you really want to take that study in support of the position that religion leads to moral behavior, then go ahead. People will read their own beliefs into such things. I would have hoped that you would show a healthy degree of skepticism toward studies and surveys in the social sciences, but I guess I was over-optimistic.The point was that, overall, you cannot show a positive correlation between religious belief and morals, if by morals we're talking about things like crimes. Each time a new study comes out contradicting the previous one, will you discount the ones that don't confirm your beliefs?But even if religion did have a positive correlation with moral behavior, it wouldn't mean that the underlying beliefs were true. Religion would then be nothing more than a form of mind control.In reply to:Again, you can stick with your 'open question' position if you like, but logic dictates that in the absense of evidence for a positive claim (animals DO have religious beliefs), there is nothing wrong with assuming the negative.If there's no evidence, then there's no justification in assuming anything. Otherwise, wouldn't one have to assume that there's no such thing as a soul?I can't think of a reason that it would matter whether a dog had religious beliefs, and ontologically I'll assume that they don't, but if there were a reason to care, I'd have to consider the question as open.In reply to:My beliefs stem from philosophical views and ideas, primarily the "First Cause" argument. I can't explain them to you beyond that in the way you are looking for, a logical path to a logical conclusion. I stated from the very beginning that this isn't the case. Beliefs require faith. That also was in my first post.So we've gone in a complete circle. You believe because you believe. It's not just a lack of logic; it's a lack of rationality. I don't know what would compel a human to believe in some arbitrary thing, other than that it gives a sense of comfort or pleasure. It's a feel-good thing.It's interesting, how people can be manipulated by being encouraged to believe feel-good things, whether it's politics or organized religion (which is another name for politics).Philosophy is a nice way to explore abstract ideas, but except for formal logic, it's batting zero in explaining actual physical phenomena.> I only shot down your earlier examples for the fun of itYup, animals live in condominiums. I wonder if they buy and sell them and attend the board of directors meetings.> There is some evidence to support it, although I will grant that it isn't enough to convince anyone with a healthy dose of skepticism.Unless you're primed to believe that morals stem from religion (why couldn't the converse be equally true?), there is no reason to believe it. While we're on this tack, are individuals with religious beliefs more moral than agnostics or atheists? Would you tend not to hire someone if you found out that he was an atheist?> If a culture ever develops completely without religion (I am not currently aware of any) it will need something to fulfill that role, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible for that to happen.I invite you to visit France. They have a lower crime rate than we do, and a large amount of their crime stems from neighborhoods surrounding Paris and other large cities that are bastions of religious belief.What has fulfilled the role of religion in the more secular parts of Europe and the U.S.?What do you think is the reason that any number of secular places has a lower crime rate than the U.S. at large? I'll bet that the crime rate is lower at the Ivy League universities than it is in Mississippi.In reply to:As I said above, my reason 'why' is philosophical, not logical. Humans can have beliefs based on logic, on feelings, on opinions, on philosophies, on faith or on nothing at all. It's one of those basic human rightsYou have the right to believe that there are pink elephants living under your bed. I have the right to wonder why the heck you do.Don't flatter yourself with talk about philosophy, and trying to give irrationality an intellectual patina. It boils down to emotion, nothing more, nothing less.
-
In reply to: If you really want to take that study in support of the position that religion leads to moral behavior, then go ahead. People will read their own beliefs into such things. Did you actually read the study you provided the link to? In reply to: But even if religion did have a positive correlation with moral behavior, it wouldn't mean that the underlying beliefs were true. Religion would then be nothing more than a form of mind control. I already said this, in my first post. Is there a reason you are rephrasing what I said and telling it back to me? In reply to: If there's no evidence, then there's no justification in assuming anything. Otherwise, wouldn't one have to assume that there's no such thing as a soul? Good point, but this goes back to the "First Cause" argument. First Cause points to (not 'proves', but points to) the existence of God, and if there's a God, then we have reason to believe in the existence of a soul. In reply to: So we've gone in a complete circle. You believe because you believe. Not at all. I believe because the First Cause argument convinces me that there's a very real possibility that there is a God. In reply to: Philosophy is a nice way to explore abstract ideas, but except for formal logic, it's batting zero in explaining actual physical phenomena. It's a good thing that "explaining actual physical phenomena" isn't the purpose of philosophy then, isn't it? In reply to: Unless you're primed to believe that morals stem from religion (why couldn't the converse be equally true?), there is no reason to believe it. You really didn't read that study you posted, did you? It shows. In reply to: While we're on this tack, are individuals with religious beliefs more moral than agnostics or atheists? Would you tend not to hire someone if you found out that he was an atheist? Not at all. I'm pretty close to agnostic myself. I don't actually have any employees, but I have family members who own several businesses, and while they don't use religion as a basis for hiring, they have cameras pointed at the cash registers all the time. In reply to: I invite you to visit France. They have a lower crime rate than we do, and a large amount of their crime stems from neighborhoods surrounding Paris and other large cities that are bastions of religious belief. I've been there, more specifically Nice, Paris and Lyon, and multiple times each. I have a French work visa in my passport and I even speak French well enough that Parisians would put up with my accent and converse with me, but I count myself lucky that I wasn't there when they were burning hundreds of cars a day. Perhaps you don't consider such things crimes! That France has a lower crime rate may be due to many causes, but the fact that Nice (less religious) has a higher crime rate than Lyon (more religious than Paris) probably doesn't mean that much to you. It doesn't mean all that much to me either, and I chalk it up to the higher tourist trade in Nice. The causes of crime are complicated, but of the two studies you cited one supports the idea that religion reduces crime among it's adherents, and the other was just plain stupid. Neither of them agreed with your initial statement that "someone did a study and found that irreligious people were slightly less likely to steal that religious people were", so I guess we can consider that one retracted and put to rest. In reply to: What has fulfilled the role of religion in the more secular parts of Europe and the U.S.? Those societies did not develop without religion, but in their current less religious state I imagine laws and the consequences of breaking them have something to do with it. More effective social programs and more socialist policies can have that effect too, as well as reduced access to weapons. Social/peer pressures also have a bearing, since hanging around with law abiding people tends to make someone more law abiding themself. In reply to: I'll bet that the crime rate is lower at the Ivy League universities than it is in Mississippi. Why, did "someone" do another study? In reply to: Don't flatter yourself with talk about philosophy, and trying to give irrationality an intellectual patina. It boils down to emotion, nothing more, nothing less. If that's the bias you choose to live with, be my guest. Other people see it differently. I personally don't need everything proven to me. Some things make sense without proof.
-
For the sake of my clarification, are you speaking about philosphy or science? The conversation here seems to waffle back and forth between the two.>>>"George Washington once said, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion" meaning that without a sense of accountability to a "higher power" we have minimal basis for morality. I have to agree;"This idea seems to run contrary to some of the tenants of critical thought. The major one being that correlation does not equal causation, or more simply "after this, therefore, because of this." This statement seems to relegate ethics and law as being sub-par societal directives and then elevates religion, as fact, without correlating or corroborating evidence, in as far as it has been presented here. Is this being presented as a competing hypothesis or, as by my read, a sociological fact? If by fact, how is it reconciled against its apparent conflict with critical thought as it is applied to the inexact science of sociology?>>>"Good point, but this goes back to the "First Cause" argument. First Cause points to (not 'proves', but points to) the existence of God, and if there's a God, then we have reason to believe in the existence of a soul."I must take issue with this. First Cause points to nothing in science. Modern First Cause theory is a revised Plutonian philosophy. It can point to nothing scientifically. I have no problem with it as a philosophical theory or belief, but it is just that. Not mentioning its many philosophical short comings, while it may compete better than many other cosmological philosophies it can not be used or sited as anything other than a philosophy, as many creationist and intelligent design advocates would like to do and as seems to have been done here. If that wasn't the intent fine, but as I said before, I can't tell when most arguments here are being presented as, or sited as, scientific fact, sociological hypothesis, or philosophical reason.
-
"If by fact, how is it reconciled against its apparent conflict with critical thought as it is applied to the inexact science of sociology?"
What'll really scare you is when you realize that there is no conflict between the two.
-
The argument and conflict are, or at least to me seems to be:>>>>We have religion.>>>>We are ethical.>>>>Therefor, because we have religion we are ethical.That kind of reasoning does not make for good science, or for that matter not even good reasoning. The question fails to consider whether ethics or laws would have any, greater or lessor effect on the ethicality (is that word) of a society. It may, it may not. One thing it is not, is a sociological fact, as far as considering any evidence presented here. As I said before, I can't tell if it's being presented as fact or hypothesis. The thing I see lacking is any external evidence to lend credence to the hypothesis.
-
You're leaving out the obeserved evidence of human nature...something George Washington had a lot of time to observe over his military career. Factor this in and all the peices of the puzzle fit. You can deny such observations, but you'll just end up drawing all the wrong conclusions as a result.
-
That is unqualified, unquantified, anecdotal evidence. Quantify and qualify then it may have merit and be applied to the sociological hypothesis.
-
Not all things can be qualified, quantified, etc, etc. To deny so would be to deny many things both inside and outside our realm of experience as human beings. Such a denial, if one is not careful, can lead the the denial of ones own existance. To think that all meaningful things can be quantified, qualified, etc, etc, by us is arrogance in ourselves as human beings to the extreme...an arrogance that will also lead is to incorrect conclusions. So the question remains...are you going to deny that which is right in front of your face because it remains unquantified to your satisfaction? George Washington didn't seem to feel the need when the evidence for him was so overwhelmingly conclusive. Neither do I.
-
Thor lives in a world of anecdotal evidence. Experimentation? That's for weak people. Whatever his subjective observations of the world tell him (the ones that confirm his preconceived notions) are what's real.He doesn't seem to be impressed with the fact that a lot of common knowledge is wrong.Anyway, George Washington was a slaveholder.
-
In reply to:
For the sake of my clarification, are you speaking about philosphy or science? The conversation here seems to waffle back and forth between the two.
Actually it doesn't. I used the phrase "doesn't translate well into scientific fact" in my first post to specifically exclude science from what I was saying, but for some reason we started to get caught up in that phrase instead of the point, which was, "it's NOT science". The issue is religion and philosophy.
In reply to:
This idea seems to run contrary to some of the tenants of critical thought. The major one being that correlation does not equal causation, or more simply "after this, therefore, because of this."
Where the heck were you when SteveA posted a link to THIS page purportedly containing a study by a Mr. Gregory Paul which attempted to show a positive correlation between religion and homocide? You could have saved me a lot of reading!
The answer to this is in a proper reading of what George Washington said. "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion". He did NOT say that religion is the only source of morality, and neither did I. He in fact DID recognize that correlation doesn't equal causation, something Mr. Paul failed rather miserably to do.
In reply to:
Is this being presented as a competing hypothesis or, as by my read, a sociological fact?
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition..." Does this really seem to you to be a presentation of a sociological fact, or is it instead just a warning to be careful about accepting a certain 'supposed' idea? It seems clear to me that it's the latter.
In reply to:
I must take issue with this. First Cause points to nothing in science.
Huh? Which part of "First Cause points to (not 'proves', but points to) the existence of God, and if there's a God, then we have reason to believe in the existence of a soul" did you mistake for science?
It goes back to your original question. This debate has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion and beliefs. Just look at the thread title. Not a single post I've made here has anything to do with science.
In reply to:
I have no problem with it as a philosophical theory or belief, but it is just that.
That's all it was presented as too. Like all of my posts in this thread, it was science-free.
-
That's all it was presented as too. Like all of my posts in this thread, it was science-free.Since you haven't explained how "First Cause" equals God for us ignorant people, much less in any way justified the idea, shall we say that it was logic-free, or rationality-free?It boils down to this, and it is precisely on-topic for this thread: What causes irrational belief? Science has some ideas on the matter, to which you seem to be refractory. There is something that makes you belive what you do, and the circular "it's a matter of faith" leads nowhere.If you're unwilling to delve into what motivates such ideation, then so be it.
-
In reply to: The argument and conflict are, or at least to me seems to be:>>>>We have religion.>>>>We are ethical.>>>>Therefor, because we have religion we are ethical.That kind of reasoning does not make for good science, or for that matter not even good reasoning. You are correct, that is poor reasoning. The challenge for you then is to actually find any of that in any post here. In reply to: The question fails to consider whether ethics or laws would have any, greater or lessor effect on the ethicality (is that word) of a society. I guess you missed where I said in [European society's] current less religious state I imagine laws and the consequences of breaking them have something to do with it. More effective social programs and more socialist policies can have that effect too, as well as reduced access to weapons. Social/peer pressures also have a bearing, since hanging around with law abiding people tends to make someone more law abiding themself. Dude, how are you missing all of this good stuff?
-
If you look around the world, and you see how difficult it is to find a cause-and-effect for crime rate, or morality however you define it, with anything, you may be less likely to jump to pat conclusions on what motivates human behavior. It's a complex puzzle.And then there's how you measure "morality". In the fairly religious South, slavery was a widely-accepted institution, and was often justified by biblical passages. After slavery ended, many church-going Christians happily treated some of their fellow citizens like sub-humans, based on skin color. I'd rather be a black man in contemporary Holland than 1950's Texas.The point is that morality can't easily be tied to any human institution, and certainly not religion. It's OK to say, "We don't know", rather than hold an opinion for the sake of...what? Holding an opinion?The same goes for "First Cause". I'm not sure why you think "We don't know" makes less sense than making up an idea and then actually believing it to be truth...or to have anything to do with truth.
-
In reply to: Since you haven't explained how "First Cause" equals God for us ignorant people, much less in any way justified the idea, shall we say that it was logic-free, or rationality-free? "Us ignorant people", "Logic-free", "rationality-free". Wow, you are working rather hard to be insulting, aren't you? First Cause is a philosophical position Steve, and it is both rational and logical. The one thing it's not is scientific. If you want to learn about it simply to declare it wrong be my guest, but don't expect me to participate. On the other hand, you can continue to declare it wrong in ignorance of what it says, and I still have no problem with letting you have the last word on the topic. In either case, I think I've said my piece.
-
As I've alluded to earlier, does the First Cause require a cause? If the answer is God, then what caused God? Doesn't God just add a useless step? Or does the introduction of that oldest of pat answers, God, allow us to just stop thinking about complicated questions?The first premise of the First Cause (depending on which flavor of First Cause we're talking about) is not necessarily correct. How do you know that the universe hasn't been oscillating between a singularity and a big thing forever?But once again, if you insist on God as an answer, then what caused Him? And if the First Cause is attributed to supernatural effect, how does that imply "God", much less "soul"? Those leaps of logic are irrational, no matter how you paint that pig.When you distill epistemology to its essence, it's nothing but mental masturbation. It does nothing to explain physical phenomena as you try to force it to, and to base an actual belief about physical phenomena, based on such "logic", including the introduction of the supernatural....is really hard to understand.
-
Some people just can't stand the fact that there are others who believe in God, or at least in the possibility of God.Why?If they're so convinced they're right, why the overwhelming need to convince others of it, to the point of belittling them, when they refuse to think as they do?What are they afraid of?
-
In reply to: Some people just can't stand the fact that there are others who believe in God, or at least in the possibility of God. Some people can't stand the fact that there are others who believe in a different god, and these people have started wars over it for thousands of years.Why?If they're so convinced they're right, why the overwhelming need to convince others of it, to the point of belittling them or killing them, when they refuse to think as they do?What are they afraid of?If somebody doesn't believe in any god or faith, they aren't gonna hurt someone who does.
-
"If somebody doesn't believe in any god or faith, they aren't gonna hurt someone who does."
Wrong. Big time. -
In reply to:If they're so convinced they're right, why the overwhelming need to convince others of it, to the point of belittling them, when they refuse to think as they do?What are they afraid of? JUDGEMENT DAYYY!! As they should be
