What frustrates you the most about the religious in America?
What frustrates you the most about the religious in America?
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
I’m definitely happier….with eyes (and mind)wide open.
r2d
Regarding your 7, you make a good point. I would also claim “sevenhood” based on past and present theologies. They’re all so parochial and transparently anthropomorphic.
I could regard a deistic entity, if my humanness could fathom it. Whatever its nature, it may be wildly beyond the most recent, scholastic human revelations.
Still, even for this type of entity, there is absolutely no evidence. And yet, as HeatheNZ (and Sagan) point out: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Within this context, absolute certainty has an unsettling comfort to it. It takes intellectual honesty and courage to acknowledge uncertainty.
r2d,
I see from reading your reply that we are indeed talking at cross purposes. You have effectively invalidated options one and seven because they are unattainable and substituted the next best thing. That’s certainly not consistent with the way Dawkins describes it in the god delusion, and it is to that description that I was responding.
According to my understanding (scientific or not) a probability of 100% is certain knowledge, and a probability of 0% is also certain knowledge. I don’t really think you have a case for arguing that Dawkins meant otherwise. I would concede however that people will, without understanding, reach for one extreme or the other. But that’s the point of the exercise: It’s an unjustified reach in either extreme when considered in reflection.
To your modified description, I would accept a seven.
But I think the modification misses an important point; the people do claim certain knowledge in one extreme or the other, and therefore have the obligation to back that claim. Something they have thus been unable to do.
As for my thoughts about a self figment of my imagination; I think not. But I’d happily concede that I cannot be certain that such is not the case, but I’m unaware of any method to objectively prove it. So I guess that’s a six leaning toward seven. (or is it a two leaning to one?)
What bothers me most is the way that the religious diminish human skill and knowledge by crediting god for everything good that happens. If a doctor cures their child, then they credit god. If they are rescued from a rooftop after a hurricane, they thank god, not the person that put their own life in jeopardy to save them. Thank the person that really should be credited, even if it is yourself.
All religions are so tenuous that if just one generation agreed not to pass down the superstitions and propaganda of their religion to their children, the religion would die a natural death. This will never happen because of fear and the lack of confidence that people have in their own religions.
7 and a half
HeatheNZ
I can’t express myself with your eloquence, but here’s my slant:
Religious arrogance has helped create the philosophical stereotype that “certainty” is the mark of wisdom and intelligence.
Atheists and agnostics et al who may still be a bit punch-drunk from early, christian, absolutist brainwashing, must realize that this brand of “certainty’ more often bears the blemish of delusion and credulity.
Phreedm, you seem to think that the fact that we can’t prove with 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist makes him extremely likely to exist. I advise you to look at the “elephant in the trunk of my car” segment here:
http://tinyurl.com/yswb2o
What frustrates me most about religion? Hard call since there are so many.
One our family takes bets on is whether after any accident or natural disaster god is credited for having saved the survivor(s). I wish just once some reporter would ask where they thought god was BEFORE the tornado or whatever hit them square on. I like it too that, often as not, they’ve been spared because god has something they are to do yet or some special plan for the remainder of their lives. BARF!
On Dawkins scale it really doesn’t matter whether I’m a 6 or a 7. If I’m not a 7 I’m so close that if there is a magic man in the sky I’ll be toast. Glad to know the rest of you will be there for company.
GodFree&Glad,
So who’s bringing the marshmellows?
r2d wrote:
“Dawkins statement of probability is using the scientific definition of probability.”
Including the ramifications of modern theoretical physics, I at least fancy I perceive the existential relativism of our human investigative procedures. But even if the scientific definition of probability is not effectively comprehensive, what application would you suggest we use?
Yes, Dawkins analyzes science with science. But even considering our innate human subjectivity and limitations, isn’t science our most reasonable option?
What bothers me the most about religion?
1. I would have to say Christian rock…Christian rock festivals draw tens of thousands of completely sanitized teens…the songs no longer have to mention Jesus or the word savior, or Lord, or “Don’t touch my genitals” in the lyrics like, five hundred times to make it clear that Bible-gropers don’t have much fun in life, but still. Christian rock is an oxymoron.
2. Mormon haircuts that make God cry.
HeatheNZ,
Where did I argue otherwise?
As karen stated, that she is a
6.99999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999 (if proof is required), I also suspect that she may have been willing to continue the repetition if it wasn’t so, well, repetitious. I agree with her to some relatively close approximation of precision. Now, using Dawkins table without any of my personal thoughts injected I still am at the precision that karen expresses. Although I have some concern with adding a one to the last decimal position, what would you have us do with all the nines?
As E.O. Wilson recently expressed in an interview, what theists call heaven he would think of as hell. Something about knowing all the answers and having nothing to explore or wonder about and yet having to live in that state forever.
So whatever the number of nines that may be disregarded, the vanishingly small portion that is left does not leave me with a sense of wishing there was a true god idea because, like E.O. Wilson, I find it less than appealing. Maybe even more of a concern to me is, what is that freaky thingy that would be the christians master forever anyway?
However, as I tried to express earlier, I don’t find the infinitesimal possibility of a supernatural thingy to be in any way more interesting than speculating as to whether dogs are gods or not. There are other things that are equally less likely that I would find more interesting to explore but, why I would do that I do not know.
HeatheNZ and Tuen,
I did not intend to express dissatisfaction with Dawkins or his analysis. I was just trying to express the reason for where I think I fit. Plus trying to understand why and where HeatheNZ was.
I think the scientific definition is fine, it has a good track record of working when applied properly. It has been my experience that christians don’t really understand that scientific probability is bounded by zero possibility and absolute certainty, with absolute certainty being akin to the christians talking face to face with their god idea and everyone else being able to see it happen and verify that it has in fact happened.
Yes. With the understanding that science isn’t always useful when understanding the variability of human behavior. Dawkins explains further that theists are allowed absolute certainty based on faith because that is their measure of certainty. However, that complicates things to my mind because faith has no value of certainty, that is, its absolute value (of certainty) can vary greatly between different individuals but they can all claim absolute certainty.
So, these are direct quotes from the book for categories 6 and 7 (keeping in mind that Dawkins goes on to explain the meanings further):
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
It is worth noting in the next paragraph of the book “(Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang).”
So, although 6 is true for me (although I would express it differently), it leaves me wanting more:
1. It is not simply that I don’t believe the probability is very low, I see no purpose in even considering the probability at all because, it has the same possibility as dogs are gods or, I only exist as a figment of my own imagination or, there are many more.
2. I know how christians view a declaration of 6 and their view isn’t a correct interpretation.
3. God ideas are dangerous and destructive. (God ideas can have positive effects but the negative effects are far greater.)
4. God ideas are inadequate answers to very real human and human caused problems. God ideas stand in the way of finding real answers to real problems.
Granted, my reasoning goes beyond the scope of Dawkins intentions but, hopefully the reasoning helps explain why I feel unsatisfied with accepting category 6. It is more than simply saying the probability of a god idea is very low.
So I don’t fit nice and neatly in category 7 but, There isn’t a category 6.99999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999
666.
I openly admit that Dawkins is more correct, procedurally, than I am, as is anyone else that happily accepts category 6. That fact doesn’t help me get there though.
What frustrates me the most is the mass assumption that religion=good.
To me god and his loud-mouth followers are the epitome of evil because of close-mindedness, lack of critical thinking ability,
and especially the hatred and intolerance most religious people show toward anyone who isn’t their exact same faith- i.e.- “you are going to hell and you NEED god in your life”
I despise peole who tell me what I need especially those who don’t even know me! Take your little cross necklaces and shove ‘em, please.
r2d,
I think we essentially agree although you want a more satisfying way of quantifying your non-belief than is available in a 7 point scale. I’d like to comment on the points you raise:
Such is the nature of a seven point scale. You get to either choose 6 or 7 with seven basically being a trap. It really adds nothing to break to (arbitrary) rules and plead for a 6.9 recurring rather than a six if we agree that this is a scale with only 7 discreet points. Someone earlier wanted to place themselves at 7.5. Again I understand to motive for doing so, but it completely makes a mockery of such a scale (which, although not the poster’s intent, might not be a bad thing).
Agreed, but that’s not the same as claiming “certain knowledge” of the negative case.
Again I agree. But I think it’s important to correct the misunderstanding rather than to exacerbate it by acceding to the theists’ lead.
Arguable, but I’d agree with the statement. I assume you include this to justify the desire to stake a more extreme position than you might otherwise do.
Agreed again. God answers are simplistic, unreliable, open to abuse, and ungrounded.
Tuen,
Howz ’bout an Agnotheist? ™
r2d
Great observations and I know where you’re coming from. It is wise of you to reach beyond this particular scientific application. Thinking beyond the bubble more often leads to both refinement of existing concepts and revelation of new ideas.
Dawkin’s “spectrum of probabilities” allows privilege to only seven choices, whereas the shades of gray in life are more likely to accurately define us. The plasticity of our imagination has always been held hostage to our very own specificity.
Still, and as is, the spectrum serves us well on our quest to define who we are.
Ren writes:
“Howz ’bout an Agnotheist? ™”
not bad Ren….it’s hard isn’t it?
Many have tried naming the concept of an interfaced agnostic and atheist.
Here’a a more playful idea:
Siseven -pronounced(sisee’vin) emphasis on second syllable – a play on the spectrum itself between 6 and 7
I could go on…maybe it is the fact that people in America rely too much on comfort; this is why, in my oppinion, so many people still look to god. How would you fell if you knew there wasn’t a god? If you realized that your life was meaningless in the grand scheme of things? That once you die, that IS the end? It is depressing to think about, and most Americans don’t wish to contemplate this reality.
SNEEZING!
The ‘bless you’ I get every time I sneeze is a frustrating reminder of the persistence of religion and superstition. Some strange person(s) decided when we sneeze, we are highly susceptible to demons, so we need to be blessed to ward them off. Despite any evidence of evil spirits, despite centuries of earth-rounding, universe exploring, disease vanquishing scientific advancements, no one can stop the illogical blessings after sneezes. It makes me feel very pessimistic for the advancement of reason.
I’m a little late on the Dawkins scale discussion, but it seems making this about god puts it in a more political context than is perhaps needed.
Maybe we can all agree that we think invisible beings who influence “reality” are highly unlikely. This takes into account as many gods as you like as well as angels, ghosts, demi-gods, whatever.
Of course the question of “what is reality?” is always valid. We do operate every day on a belief system. We believe the sun will rise, gravity will exist, we will have a body, etc. But these are all assumptions based on what we have experienced (or think we have experienced) previously.
Atheists generally just apply this principle to those invisible beings. I have not yet experienced any influence by invisible beings, so for me they do not yet exist. If at some point a face appears out of a cloud to say good morning, then for me invisible beings will exist (I may at that point be hallucinating or senile, but that doesn’t really matter- perception dictates existence for invisible beings)
It personally just doesn’t matter for us if invisible beings exist and we would like for others to stop making their belief in these beings something that affects our daily lives.
I would love not to feel compelled to comment on religion, but since it affects my rights, my country’s politics and my future, I need to pay attention to religions and the religious.
oops, itchy clicky finger, posted twice.
eek, 3 times, blogmaster delete the extras?