Comments on: Q&A, Redux, http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux A Blog of Atheist Thought Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:00:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: JP http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-934 JP Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-934 From Laurel Richardson: Fields of Play - Constructing an Academic Life:<br /> <br /> "In scientific writing, authority has been accomplished through the 'effacement of the speaking and experiencing' scientists (Pratt 1986, 32). Neither 'I' nor 'we' are used. With no apparent narrator, an illusion of objectivity is created. The implied narrator is godlike, an all-knowing voice from afar and above, stripped of all human subjectivity and fallibility. But, in fact, science does have a human narrator, the camouflaged first person, hiding in the bramble of the passive voice. The scientist is not all-knowing. Omniscience is imaginary, possible only in fiction." (p. 18)<br /> <br /> Richardson points out that scientific discourse is not as removed from literature as some would contend; science makes good use of metaphor, for example.<br /> <br /> The author helps me get a better handle on postmoderism. I post the quote because theists often contend that religion explains things science can't. My answer is that science can explain anything, but the explanation is subject to a very human process of peer review (including repeat experiments), and the explanation that something isn't knowledge (perhaps it's tautological) is a valid output of the process.<br /> From Laurel Richardson: Fields of Play – Constructing an Academic Life:

“In scientific writing, authority has been accomplished through the ‘effacement of the speaking and experiencing’ scientists (Pratt 1986, 32). Neither ‘I’ nor ‘we’ are used. With no apparent narrator, an illusion of objectivity is created. The implied narrator is godlike, an all-knowing voice from afar and above, stripped of all human subjectivity and fallibility. But, in fact, science does have a human narrator, the camouflaged first person, hiding in the bramble of the passive voice. The scientist is not all-knowing. Omniscience is imaginary, possible only in fiction.” (p. 18)

Richardson points out that scientific discourse is not as removed from literature as some would contend; science makes good use of metaphor, for example.

The author helps me get a better handle on postmoderism. I post the quote because theists often contend that religion explains things science can’t. My answer is that science can explain anything, but the explanation is subject to a very human process of peer review (including repeat experiments), and the explanation that something isn’t knowledge (perhaps it’s tautological) is a valid output of the process.

]]> By: joelwe http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-936 joelwe Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-936 It seems to me that where atheists go wrong trying to present our point of view to believers is that we tend to resort constantly to scientific and mathamatical proofs that can be difficult for average folk to get. In addition, it gives us the appearance of a bunch of weirdo mad scientists that can't identify with the common folk or who are always puffing out our intellectual chests to prove we are smarter than the rest. I think that most of life (including scientific inquiry) boils down to little more than common sense and I try to confine my arguments accordingly. A good one is as follows:<br /> <br /> If your child came to you and said 'I have an invisible freind that I talk to and he talks back to me and can make magic things happen, would you asume it was true until disproven or would you assume its was false until the child could prove it? Nowadays, people making such claims are prescribed therapy or 'medication' until they say 'I'm talking to God or Jesus or whatever' and then people say something like 'It's so wonderful that you have this faith to rely on'. How does claiming it's God change an hallucination to reality?<br /> <br /> An embodiment of this is Abraham who was the first Jew. The reason he was the first Jew is that he was (according to the story) willing to sacrifice his kid for God. Now, in modern times we have that woman a couple years ago who drove car with the kids in into a lake and drowned them (Smith, I think her name was) . She claimed God wanted her to. Now the first person gets a religion named after him and the second person starts a debate in court on whether she goes to prison or therapy. Am I missing something, maybe it's just me? It seems to me that where atheists go wrong trying to present our point of view to believers is that we tend to resort constantly to scientific and mathamatical proofs that can be difficult for average folk to get. In addition, it gives us the appearance of a bunch of weirdo mad scientists that can’t identify with the common folk or who are always puffing out our intellectual chests to prove we are smarter than the rest. I think that most of life (including scientific inquiry) boils down to little more than common sense and I try to confine my arguments accordingly. A good one is as follows:

If your child came to you and said ‘I have an invisible freind that I talk to and he talks back to me and can make magic things happen, would you asume it was true until disproven or would you assume its was false until the child could prove it? Nowadays, people making such claims are prescribed therapy or ‘medication’ until they say ‘I’m talking to God or Jesus or whatever’ and then people say something like ‘It’s so wonderful that you have this faith to rely on’. How does claiming it’s God change an hallucination to reality?

An embodiment of this is Abraham who was the first Jew. The reason he was the first Jew is that he was (according to the story) willing to sacrifice his kid for God. Now, in modern times we have that woman a couple years ago who drove car with the kids in into a lake and drowned them (Smith, I think her name was) . She claimed God wanted her to. Now the first person gets a religion named after him and the second person starts a debate in court on whether she goes to prison or therapy. Am I missing something, maybe it’s just me?

]]> By: Cynic http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-940 Cynic Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-940 The problem with convincing theists isn't so much the intellectual complexity so much as the unwillingness to give their notions up. Few people are willing to do the legwork necessary to understand something they have no interest in (in this case tossing out their preconceived and unquestioned notions) and will act accordingly: in order of the easiest to digest first. Complex arguments are refuted so much as ignored entirely. Simple ones, like the one you descibed, are dismissed under the pretext of "Oh, well that's entirely different" (when it really isn't at all).<br /> <br /> It's easy to dismiss the child's invisible friend because they aren't attached to it and society think's its a sign of trouble. If society thought that of religion, things would be different. But as you say, it doesn't. The problem with convincing theists isn’t so much the intellectual complexity so much as the unwillingness to give their notions up. Few people are willing to do the legwork necessary to understand something they have no interest in (in this case tossing out their preconceived and unquestioned notions) and will act accordingly: in order of the easiest to digest first. Complex arguments are refuted so much as ignored entirely. Simple ones, like the one you descibed, are dismissed under the pretext of “Oh, well that’s entirely different” (when it really isn’t at all).

It’s easy to dismiss the child’s invisible friend because they aren’t attached to it and society think’s its a sign of trouble. If society thought that of religion, things would be different. But as you say, it doesn’t.

]]> By: Funkapotamus http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-943 Funkapotamus Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-943 I agree Cynic. Most theists are not going to ever give up their notions, regardless of the validity of the arguments provided by any of us. I think one of the primary reasons for this is that most theists tend to justify their existence through their beliefs. It's a lot easier to be content with one's lot in life if one feels like it is for a "higher purpose". I agree Cynic. Most theists are not going to ever give up their notions, regardless of the validity of the arguments provided by any of us. I think one of the primary reasons for this is that most theists tend to justify their existence through their beliefs. It’s a lot easier to be content with one’s lot in life if one feels like it is for a “higher purpose”.

]]> By: TPOTA http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-944 TPOTA Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-944 In my experience, the problem with speaking with theists is this: To them, you are not just questioning their beliefs...you are questioning their immortality...and this scares the hell out of them.<br /> <br /> www.passionoftheatheist.com<br /> <br /> <br /> In my experience, the problem with speaking with theists is this: To them, you are not just questioning their beliefs…you are questioning their immortality…and this scares the hell out of them.

http://www.passionoftheatheist.com

]]> By: JustinW http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-945 JustinW Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-945 I hope that Tim will continue to post on this new thread because it won't be nearly as fun without someone playing devil's advocate (or god's advocate in this case). I don't want to put words into his mouth, but in the original thread he made the following arguments:<br /> <br /> 1) Since we cannot prove that god does not exist, there's a chance god does exist.<br /> <br /> 2) Since there might be elements of the universe which we cannot percieve with our senses or understand with our brains, we cannot rely on science alone because it is bounded by the limits of human observation and reasoning.<br /> <br /> 3) Atheists require faith in humanity's ability to percieve all that exists in order to disbelieve in god, thus they have a positive belief that is no more valid than the blind faith of theists.<br /> <br /> Tim,<br /> <br /> If I've misstated your case in any way, please correct me. If I've got it right, however, your arguments seem a bit incompatable with your own beliefs.<br /> <br /> 1) Since no one can prove otherwise, you're correct that there's a chance that god exists, but why should anyone believe that the chance is anything but infinitely small? You act like god's existance is almost a certainty, even though it's no more likely than any other supernatural claim that can't be disproved.<br /> <br /> 2) If we cannot percieve god, why do you live by Christian rules? You conceded that religions are the creation of man, yet you continue to defend the Bible, and assert that god wants us to live moral lives. How can you know how god wants us to live if it's impossible for anyone, the authors of the Bible included, to percieve even his existance, let alone his will? If I believed that god created me imperfect and would send me to hell for defying his will by living righteously, would my belief be any less valid than yours?<br /> <br /> 3) Let's say you're correct and we can't perceive all that exists (a claim which you might consider quite likely since it can't be disproved). Any assertions we would make about the things we can't perceive would be nothing more than irrelevant guesses. What you need to understand about atheists is that we value consistancy. No single statement about things that can't be observed is any more valid than another. We view the default truthfulness of all such statements to be false because to view them all as true would be ridiculous. More important though, is that we believe it's best to think rationally about the things which we <i>can</i> perceive rather than letting superstitious nonsense cloud our judgement. The reason we consider our worldview more valid than yours is because it judges supernatural claims consistantly, not because of our opinions about the limits of human perception.<br /> <br /> You stated that all you want is for us to admit there's a possibility that god is real, and I admitted it. All I want is for you to admit that your belief in god is irrational and that you only believe because you want to. Will you admit it? I hope that Tim will continue to post on this new thread because it won’t be nearly as fun without someone playing devil’s advocate (or god’s advocate in this case). I don’t want to put words into his mouth, but in the original thread he made the following arguments:

1) Since we cannot prove that god does not exist, there’s a chance god does exist.

2) Since there might be elements of the universe which we cannot percieve with our senses or understand with our brains, we cannot rely on science alone because it is bounded by the limits of human observation and reasoning.

3) Atheists require faith in humanity’s ability to percieve all that exists in order to disbelieve in god, thus they have a positive belief that is no more valid than the blind faith of theists.

Tim,

If I’ve misstated your case in any way, please correct me. If I’ve got it right, however, your arguments seem a bit incompatable with your own beliefs.

1) Since no one can prove otherwise, you’re correct that there’s a chance that god exists, but why should anyone believe that the chance is anything but infinitely small? You act like god’s existance is almost a certainty, even though it’s no more likely than any other supernatural claim that can’t be disproved.

2) If we cannot percieve god, why do you live by Christian rules? You conceded that religions are the creation of man, yet you continue to defend the Bible, and assert that god wants us to live moral lives. How can you know how god wants us to live if it’s impossible for anyone, the authors of the Bible included, to percieve even his existance, let alone his will? If I believed that god created me imperfect and would send me to hell for defying his will by living righteously, would my belief be any less valid than yours?

3) Let’s say you’re correct and we can’t perceive all that exists (a claim which you might consider quite likely since it can’t be disproved). Any assertions we would make about the things we can’t perceive would be nothing more than irrelevant guesses. What you need to understand about atheists is that we value consistancy. No single statement about things that can’t be observed is any more valid than another. We view the default truthfulness of all such statements to be false because to view them all as true would be ridiculous. More important though, is that we believe it’s best to think rationally about the things which we can perceive rather than letting superstitious nonsense cloud our judgement. The reason we consider our worldview more valid than yours is because it judges supernatural claims consistantly, not because of our opinions about the limits of human perception.

You stated that all you want is for us to admit there’s a possibility that god is real, and I admitted it. All I want is for you to admit that your belief in god is irrational and that you only believe because you want to. Will you admit it?

]]> By: maddogstu http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-948 maddogstu Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-948 You could argue that given a tiny percentage possibility of the existence of God (.001%) that this should be enough to convince a logical person that they should believe and possibly live forever. This is assuming that the God in question (if you're lucky enough to pick the right one) requires that you believe... assuming 20 different religions where you have to believe to make it into heaven.<br /> .00001 * (1/20) = 0.0000005<br /> or <br /> your odds are 1 in 2 million.<br /> <br /> You could argue that given a tiny percentage possibility of the existence of God (.001%) that this should be enough to convince a logical person that they should believe and possibly live forever. This is assuming that the God in question (if you’re lucky enough to pick the right one) requires that you believe… assuming 20 different religions where you have to believe to make it into heaven.
.00001 * (1/20) = 0.0000005
or
your odds are 1 in 2 million.

]]> By: anadrol http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-955 anadrol Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-955 How about looking at it the other way, who's to say that if a god exists he's going to accept people who blindly believe in him without one piece of supporting information. Maybe not believing is the path to a better afterlife (slim possibility that this exists also). Who really knows, if no one can understand god all the religions could have got it wrong. I'm here and now, from what I can observe chances are my gut instinct is right. How about looking at it the other way, who’s to say that if a god exists he’s going to accept people who blindly believe in him without one piece of supporting information. Maybe not believing is the path to a better afterlife (slim possibility that this exists also). Who really knows, if no one can understand god all the religions could have got it wrong. I’m here and now, from what I can observe chances are my gut instinct is right.

]]> By: jshanewhit http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-956 jshanewhit Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-956 Those are just the odds for picking the right god if one exists. What are the chances that humans have a magical soul? It this unlikely god does exist and you do have a magical soul then what are the chances that he has a place for you to hang out(heaven). What are the chances that all this is true and that this god doesn't put everyone in his magic soul depository regardless of belief or species. That is if you assume that the universe has other life. The chances are high on this at least.<br /> <br /> jshanewhit<br /> <br /> Those are just the odds for picking the right god if one exists. What are the chances that humans have a magical soul? It this unlikely god does exist and you do have a magical soul then what are the chances that he has a place for you to hang out(heaven). What are the chances that all this is true and that this god doesn’t put everyone in his magic soul depository regardless of belief or species. That is if you assume that the universe has other life. The chances are high on this at least.

jshanewhit

]]> By: Tim http://atheists.org/blog/2005/07/12/qand_a_redux/comment-page-1#comment-957 Tim Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-957 JustinW,<br /> <br /> Yes, I'm going to continue with discussions here, but I'm going to go off and do a little research so I can offer more substance to some of the topics. In particular, I've found a great source for theories concerning the origin of the universe.<br /> <br /> You have restated the essence of my three arguments accurately. Now I'll address your responses:<br /> <br /> 1. I don't think the word "chance" is relevant to my point in this regard. I'm not talking about probability (yet), simply possibilities.<br /> <br /> 2. My point is that we are unable to perceive God with our five bodily senses. I am not suggesting that it's impossible to perceive God by other means. For if God exists and God created us, then we as humans also have a spiritual dimension. The writers of the scriptures were indeed men, but the author was God. The Bible is the Word of God and the intention is for believers to know God through learning scripture properly from a qualified believer-priest. <br /> <br /> 3. I can't agree with the point you are trying to make with regard to consistency. It doesn't follow that just because people want to ponder the existence of God (or other phenomenon we can only theorize about) that we then must resort to wild guesses! It is not hard at all to take a rational approach to seeking answers to the existence of God, whether or not we have souls, where we will go when we die, etc..<br /> <br /> Therefor, I do not agree at all that it must be "irrational" to hold the beliefs I do. I haven't called Atheists' beliefs "irrational." I'm sure I'm just like you and most everyone else here as well: we hold the beliefs we do because we want to! JustinW,

Yes, I’m going to continue with discussions here, but I’m going to go off and do a little research so I can offer more substance to some of the topics. In particular, I’ve found a great source for theories concerning the origin of the universe.

You have restated the essence of my three arguments accurately. Now I’ll address your responses:

1. I don’t think the word “chance” is relevant to my point in this regard. I’m not talking about probability (yet), simply possibilities.

2. My point is that we are unable to perceive God with our five bodily senses. I am not suggesting that it’s impossible to perceive God by other means. For if God exists and God created us, then we as humans also have a spiritual dimension. The writers of the scriptures were indeed men, but the author was God. The Bible is the Word of God and the intention is for believers to know God through learning scripture properly from a qualified believer-priest.

3. I can’t agree with the point you are trying to make with regard to consistency. It doesn’t follow that just because people want to ponder the existence of God (or other phenomenon we can only theorize about) that we then must resort to wild guesses! It is not hard at all to take a rational approach to seeking answers to the existence of God, whether or not we have souls, where we will go when we die, etc..

Therefor, I do not agree at all that it must be “irrational” to hold the beliefs I do. I haven’t called Atheists’ beliefs “irrational.” I’m sure I’m just like you and most everyone else here as well: we hold the beliefs we do because we want to!

]]>