Liquidrage

Seebs,

First, I must comment that it seems you have pulled off a slight of hand here.


This is your 1st reply to the OP.

There are many problems with this reply.

You know your wife personally I'd assume.
Yet the OP was cleary putting forth a scenario in which you do not know the person(s) making the claim.

Secondly, you insist that you do not know of any facts or evidence which contradict your opinions.
What opinions? The OP mentioned the Flood, the Creation, amgonst others.
If you do not know of any evidence contradicting these claims that it is only because you choose
not to know of any evidence which contradict these claims.
If you were reffering to opinions that do not fall in line with the ones stated in the OP, then
there really was no reason for your reply here.

No one doubts that people can have opinions that are not contradicted by evidence.


This debate really is not needed. Its effects on the OP or the replies is nothing but a meaningless
tangent.

It does not matter in any way if "harm" is intrinsic to "murder" or not. Or whether "harm" really is.
It does not matter if morales are objective or subjective.
There's no connection between the nature or morals and being on trial for a crime in which the only
evidence against you in the testimony of the town drunk.

To supply an answer however, "harm" comes from murder because people are free to say it does.
There have been many socities where murder of sorts was not seen as bad or immoral.

The evidence comes from people. People can decide how the world should be.
You're attempt to get someone to try and apply evidence for morality is futile beyond the obvious.
And that is again, that people provide the evidence themselves by choosing what is and is not moral.

What is the reasoning for such a strong conviction?
Because your wife told you there's a god?

AWAKENOW

Honestly, you have to give theists some credit - just a little bit. This scenario presented does not lend itself well to the point you are attempting to make. While we do know of the inherent, obvious fallacies maintained by theists, they, no doubt, would make reasaonable jurors. Maybe a different setting for your point is called for.

seebs

Not intentionally. My first answer was pretty fuzzy, though. I hadn't entirely considered things.

I do not believe in the flood, or in special creation. I believe in God, and am unaware of any evidence contradicting this belief.

The OP's comments were directed at *all theists*. Not just YEC's. Not just people who are convinced that there was a global flood. *all theists*. As such, the observation that theism does not imply a belief contradicted by any particular evidence is fairly topical, IMHO.

By the time we got onto the question of morality, the question was "should people be able to make laws based on their personal beliefs about religion". My answer is "sure", because I see no practical difference between religion and any other completely untestable claim of morality.

If we accept this, then we are obliged to grant that there is nothing wrong with the idea that people whose moral systems are rooted in religion should try to pass laws reflecting those moral systems.

Nope. Because I have had personal and purely subjective experiences which convinced me. Does it matter? You don't have my experiences, you weren't there... It will not persuade you, it does persuade me.

Liquidrage

Actually, I think it is a better point that is being given credit for.

Seebs is a fine example.
He, indirectly, compared his trust of unknown authors of millennia past with that of his wife, a person I assume he knows 1st hand quite well.

A major problem with theism today is that the predominant religions are all based on ancient texts when such events as the sun rising was seen as mystical and the lack of communication and record keeping allowed extraordinary stories to go unchecked.
There is no reason to trust any of these ancient texts beyond gut instinct. Of course many different texts are trusted by many different people for this very reason. It would stand to reason then that people are capable of forming gut instincts on these texts without them being factual since many of these texts are exclusive, they all cannot be factual.

What is left is a non-fundamental religion, which when critical examined bears no resemblance to anything supernatural.
The fiction of Genesis should be enough to discredit the entire Bible as much of the rest of the Bible refers to it as factual.

I did not see the OP as trying to say theists make bad jurors. But instead the point seemed to me to be that typically theists treat their religion differently then they do other matters of life.

Kassiana

It's okay to rant about Christians being evil in this thread. Sure.

Bye, YB. When you are able to talk rationally, I'll be glad to talk with you again. Till then, goodbye.

GunnerJ

OK, back in action.

Granted.

Seebs, given this statement, I don't really think I can take your claim that religionists are capable of applying critical thinking skills to their beliefs. Not because you don't accept the principle of the burden of proof, but because you don't seem to have any idea what it actually is, or what it is intended to do.

The burden of proof has nothing to do with "convincing" people to change their minds. The burden of proof is a formality that helps to decide "who goes first" when two opposing claims are presented. It suggests that when one person claims that something is, and another claims it isn't, we ought to make the person claiming that it is support his statement first.

It is a nessesary principle that is required for any critical inquiry, whether scientific, or, interestingly given the OP, judiciary. This is why I mentioned it: you claimed that you would "never see a *real* proof either way," presumably on the issue of god's existence. You then claimed that because of this, you lowered your standard of evidence for a religious claim. My question, and that of the OP, is: If you were at a murder trial, and it could not be proven wither way whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, whould you do the same? Would you lower the standard of evidence for the positive claim (i.e., guilt) or would you do the logical thing and default to the negative position (i.e., innocence)?

I'm not trying to argue you into a corner here, I'm just trying to get you to understand the premises of the OP.

Even if we assume that they are different kinds of claims, it is irrelevent to the target audience of the OP: theists who take their beliefs seriously enough to try and base the laws of our society on them. The consequences of changing society to fit a religious belief are just as serious as the outcome of a murder conviction, perhaps moreso because a wrongful guilty verdict predicates an injustice only upon one person, not a whole society. If theists are asking us to change society to fit their religious beliefs (and many do), then regaurdless of whether religious claims are "different" from criminal charges, they are just as serious in their implications, and should be held to at least as high a standard of proof. If this is not what the OP was arguing, it's what it should be.

Fair enough. It should be noted that many religionists don't even have that, all they have are the words of a holy book, and it is to these people that the OP asks its question.

(Shrugs) This may be so. My reply was meant to give a starting point away from the strawman you had constructed. I think it might be more accurate to say that all arguments are, at some point, based on certain axioms which are unquestionable; they are assumed to be true a priori. If a theist holds it as axiomatic that God exists, then there is little to talk about here. But if he simply holds it as axiomatic that a physical universe exists, then the OP becomes relevent.

Again, they are based on certain axioms, such as mutual protection and security is good. Society is based on such axioms, and thus, if you don't hold to such an axiom, you probably don't have much of an interest in society at all. So while these axioms may not have evidence to support them, we can still logically pass laws based on them by mutual agreement: if you don't accept as axiomatic that it is good for people not to constantly fear for their lives, then why would you bother trying to participate in a society based this axiom?

Compare this to religious claims, on which we can't claim universal agreement.

If the term "many" troubles you, you can use any amount you want. I wouldn't have thought that the term "religionist" required an explaination. A religionist os one who holds religious beliefs, and I assume you know what a religion is, yes?

They can definately use logic and aspects of critical thinking to bolster their beliefs, and can even argue with each other about these beleifs. But that's only because they agree on certain opinions, such as the existence of god or the authority of the Bible, which, by and large, they don't apply the same level of reasoning to. (Assuming, that is, that they aren't presups, and simply hold these things as axioms.) You claim to base your religious convictions on personal experience. Fine. How many other religionists have that benefit? And even if they do, why should *I* accpet their personal and unrepeatable experience as factual, and further, why should I consent to laws being based on these beliefs?

I realize that you don't argue for you religious beliefs as a basis for legislation, but many, if not most, theists and religionists do. It is to these people that the OP applies: why should we accpet any standard lower than that which is used in a trial to convict someone to formulate the basis of our society's laws?

seebs

I am aware of how people generally think of it. After a number of years, I concluded that they were wrong.

I know that. It's all bunk. The only burden of proof that actually exists is that, if you want someone to agree with you, you have to convince them. The "burden of proof" as you describe it is a pretty good match for what happens when someone has a new theory, in which no one believes. In the real world, most of us form a number of opinions and beliefs fairly early on, and the only application of "proof" is to persuade us to change our minds.


I don't think it's necessary. In fact, it follows from the likely assumptions in *those circumstances*. If you accept my model that the only burden of proof is the burden to convince people who do not agree with you, you find that it provides the "desired" results in those cases - no one starts out accepting your theory, or believing that a given person has committed murder. Rather, they start out not having any opinion at all, and if you want them to find the defendant guilty of murder, you must convince them that he did.

Throughout the trial, the opinions of the jurors may waver; at any given point, both sides are trying to persuade the jurors that their view is the correct one.

In the judiciary case, we have an additional requirement: It is not enough to think that someone is guilty, you must use an exceptionally high standard of certainty.

I would follow the rules of the court, which say "innocent until proven guilty", and specify a high standard of proof. In other times and places, where an accusation was generally accepted unless disproven, I would follow those rules. In a civil case, I would decide based on the preponderance of evidence - which is like "lowering the standard of proof" in most cases.

The "logical" thing is to make the best decision you can.

I think the difference here is that I see the neutral position, not as "innocent", but as "I have no idea."

To put it numerically (I'm not sure this makes sense, but I'm trying to get at something tricky):

I don't see "innocence" as a guilt of 0. I see it as a guilt of -1. The American legal system says you're not guilty unless we're *sure* you're guilty - call it a standard of "guilt .9 or higher".

Thus, if I'm about 40% confident that you're guilty, I *believe* you're guilty, but I vote for innocence as a juror, because my belief does not pass the test imposed by the legal system.

In a *civil* case, if I'm about 40% certain that the accused is at fault, then I should probably find for the plaintiff.

I *think* I probably do. If I do, they are premises with which I disagree.

And if non-theists who have philosophical beliefs about right and wrong wish to see them enshrined in law, they should have the same standards - only obviously they don't, because no one has any evidence at all for any moral proposition, *unless* it's the theists - and even speaking as one, I freely admit that the evidence would be unlikely to stand up in a court of law.

The problem here is that claims about what the goals *should be* are untestable; we have to decide those the same way we always have, reasoned discourse and strong emotion. Once we have agreed (however tentatively) on goals, we can then proceed to use much more accurate techniques to *pursue* those goals.

I've never met anyone who sincerely believed and did not claim to have experiences that supported this belief.

Hmm. That's a good point. The question is, which of our moral beliefs are axiomatic, and which are conclusions? In my moral system, all moral claims are conclusions - but I freely admit that I have about 5% confidence at most in the reliability of the process in question; I am well aware that scans of brain activity reveal that we make moral decisions emotionally, then justify them retroactively.

For me, anyway, God is axiomatic. I maintain both mental models; the God model seems to me to be a better one. I don't believe in "proof" on that issue.

Perhaps because you wish to "correct" the "flaws" in this society, just as someone who *does* accept that axiom might try to bring it into a society that *didn't* accept it.

Essentially, for any practical purpose, religion is indistinguishable from other moral or philosophical axioms; all the proofs in the world don't change your mind as much as your emotional experience of the world does.

I don't think we can claim universal agreement on moral claims in general. We can claim rough consensus.

It's got the same problem as "evolutionist", to my ears. "Religious people" seems more correct. A "religionist" sounds like someone who uses religion, and only religion, as the sole tool for every job.

"presups"?

Anyway, every religious person I know attributes it to personal experience.

As to why you should consent to laws being based on those beliefs: Same reason you consent to laws being based on anyone's moral beliefs. Society needs a working consensus. If the majority of people in a society believe that 12-year-olds can't meaningfully consent to have sex, the laws will reflect it, and it doesn't matter whether their belief is religious, scientific, or anything.

Let's turn it around: Why should I accept having laws based on the fact that you *haven't* had such an experience? Because you're a citizen too, and have a right to representation and recognition by our social consensus.

Because the standards for trials are entirely rooted in questions of physical reality, which is testable, and the standards for laws inevitably come down to a priori beliefs about morality. We know what we want; in the majority of cases, we all agree.

Your problem isn't with the religious basis of laws; it's with the religious basis of *laws you disagree with*. Or at least, that's my reading. I don't see a lot of people campaigning for the repeal of laws against murder, even though it's fairly likely that the "basis" of those laws was people who grew up steeped in Judeo-Christian ethics and wanted to codify "thou shalt not kill". But it's a *GOOD LAW*. No matter where it came from.

Consider, if you will, the tables turned. Why should people accept a law allowing people to kill babies, when it's based entirely on unsupported personal beliefs and lack of faith?

FWIW, I'm pro-life morally, pro-choice legally. I believe it is almost certainly immoral to abort babies except in cases of serious medical risk to the mother... but I believe society can survive anyway, so I would rather see it made as a personal moral decision than a law.

ybnormal

Maybe so, but why do you NOT sound pissed off about this too?

I always enjoy such gifts from one who not only makes my point, but inadvertently answers the thread's question, Can we trust Theists as jurors?

See, if the xians who've been financing, fostering and hiding these publicly-known rapes of their own children, had instead been getting pissed off at their fellow-xian rapists, hush-money lawyers and pedophile deniers, I'd have much less reason to sound pissed off about it myself.

What you so glaringly miss with your instinctive protectionist mind-set is that folks like me would have little to sound pissed off about, if these xian organizations and their full xian membership, had called the police instead of calling lawyers and contributors to fund the hush money needed to silence the children and their fine xian parents.

IOW, xians, or these theists, have conspired to keep this recurring illegal activity from ever reaching a jury in the first place. So, if xian theists are capable of doing that, why doubt their now questionable integrity, were they ever on a jury in this particular case?

Can you answer that?

The fact that you can so comfortably find fault with people who only talk about this outrage, certainly makes you appear to be in bed with the accused and the conspirators who silence innocent abuse victims.

I find it telling that you'd go off on my perceived bitterness without caring to know if I had been abused myself, by the same people you tend to support by denigrating any outrage against them.

I find it telling to even wonder, how differently you react to the outrage of child molesting cover-ups in general.

But I find it most telling, when folks defend these sick xians and their sick organizations, by actually coming to a nonxian forum, to belittle and silence the very people who are outraged about this shameful xian activity, which has continued with full public knowledge for decades. This is actually quite funny when put in its proper perspective. And I am simultaneously judged a xian sinner while being told by xians, that I am a bad person. Christianity and its lackeys represent probably the biggest pot-kettle-black syndrome in the history of mankind.

Yes, I think your post may have single handedly answered the topic's question. By directing your outrage at the outrageous facts, you have shown a clear bias in my own little courtroom.

Amie

Sabine Grant

Hello everyone... I think there is a nuance in the OP I would like to explore.

As a juror and a theist, I would have to rely not on my religion but the facts presented to me by both parties ( defense and accusation). My vote would result in weighing in the balance of finding the accusee guilty or innocent. But it will also imply consequences on the accusee thru my vote. My own religious practice does and should not bear lifelong consequences on another human being.Whereas my vote may lead to a guilty verdict opening the door to a death penalty sentence from the judge.

Consequences are different. I can abide to my faith as a christian and never impose consequences on another human being which could result in confinement or death.

I certainly hope to never be called to jury duty. Mostly because I am against the death penalty. I would much prefer to let the guilty go free than have a potential of partaking in a guilty verdict which could lead to death. For that reason, I hope to never be called. I hold my faith dear but I prefer to not use it as a tool to control other people's lives. As a juror I would become a tool to control the outcome of someone else's life.

That is the nuance in the comparaison in the OP.

I also agree that the stereotyping of theists or atheists becomes annoying as it distracts from the intent of the OP.