SecularFuture

Please give me until the weekend.
SO - SO BUSY!
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

AmericanHeretic

Good article SecularFuture. In fact, it's excellent.

I agree that the word "of" should be changed to "about" in reference to the Jesus-writings mention. That's a tiny correction, but precision is a good thing I'm sure you'd agree.

Notice here that theist(s) seem to be saying that because you made what they claim is one (tiny) error, the entire essay is called into question! This is exactly how fundamentalists attack science. Interesting indeed is it not? I have seen countless instances where theists attacked the veracity of one tiny scientific claim in hopes that people everywhere will say "oh, look, George the theist proved echidna fingernails could not have naturally evolved, let's join a church now that all of science is totally discredited".

I see you use the term "reasoned faith". I sort of disagree with that wording because we don't really have faith, as atheists. I define faith to generally mean the act of accepting something as true with no evidence to support that something, whatever it may be. Your "reasoned faith" I would call cognitive modeling or logical prediction or both of these because you're using evidence as a starting point and logic and reason from there onward. And yes, I am implying (well, now openly saying) that "reasoned faith" is an oxymoron. Faith does not reason logically, it merely assumes in an evidentiary void. I completely agree with the validity of your predictive concept no matter what name you give it though.

To use that gas station example, we actually have good indication there's going to be gas there for a number of reasons, and we thusly make valid cognitive predictive models that reach this conclusion. I hate to be overly analytical, but it's great fun so I will

We can logically predict that there's going to be gas at SecularFuture's local gas station tomorrow because:

1) The owner wants to make money selling gas.
2) He knows SecularFuture pay him for that gas.
3) SecularFuture got gas there many times before.
4) Reality is consistant (I like that one a lot)

The point of 1 and 2 here is to (slightly humorously) point to a vast bulk of detail level data we possess that bolsters our case for having a valid understanding of the gas station and the enormous context it exists within that we also, equally, know well and can rely on as being actual and thus, we have a enormous solid basis from which to generate our prediction that there's going to be gas there when SecularFuture drives in to fill up. 3 and 4 make the case in and of themselves, but heck, let's do this as thoroughly as we can and say once and for all to all those theists out there, "hey, this is how we know what we know and we dare make predictions too". Then, later, in abject intellectual glee, we can add "told ya so".

Those who despise certainty, we will thusly torment accordingly.

Here is a really great article from a hero of mine, Richard Dawkins, on cognitive modeling and predictive ability as inherently an aspect of sentience. He argues that it is a widespread survival adaptation, very interestingly.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...agination.html

It's from Steven Jay Gould's (another hero of mine) unofficial site, but, he respected a great argument when he read one.

Logic incorporates the use of evidence to support any claim. It is against this notion that the theist must rail. Only when we begin to accept things as true without any evidence can they ever hope to win an exchange with a reasoning atheist.

Based upon our use of evidence, and science (of course), we can and do make valid predictions all the time. Here, we can legitimately step beyond the literally observed, experienced, and eyewitnessed realm of "proven fact" and into the hypothesis-and-test predictive aspect of the scientific method and begin to indicate what we will prove before we actually do prove a given claim.

[by "prove" I mean ...indicate to be the case to an extremely high probability/likelyhood such that to withold acceptance of same as fact would be perverse, but, if counter-evidence is provided, then that case would be disproven. This theoretical door remains open at all times.] <-----disclaimer, in case Socrates shows up and tries to bust me for uttering the word "prove"

SecularFuture

Bathrone
Thank you for the kind words.

So... why do we humans try to hold on to a religious faith in a supernatural god? - Because we are a cowardly people, afraid of chaos and discomfort. It’s a sad story that I hope, one day (with our help), will have a happy ending.

Do you want to join our discussion HERE

I hear ya!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AmericanHeretic
Thank you for the compliments.

It’s kind of sickening, isn’t it?!

Yes we do. Do you KNOW, for a FACT, that the sun is going to come up tomorrow? No. In result, you only have faith that it will rise tomorrow. Why? Because your faith is supported by logic, evidence, and above all - *REASON*. Get it? Religious faith, on the other hand, is nothing like reasoned faith. Religious faith is supported by nothing; another sickening realization.

Richard Dawkins is great!

I also enjoy:
Paul Kurtz
James Randi
Bertrand Russell
[There’s others, but I’ll just name a couple for now.)

Hey! Do you want to learn more about the mind of the religionists? Check out this book! Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought

Thanks for the link, BTW, and for your very articulate response and advice. I’m not done writing yet, so there will be many more articles to chew on.

AmericanHeretic

One thing I love to do is weigh the alternate view and judge by balance and relativity, and thus avoid the problems of Absoluteness.

Oh, I "get it" completely, and like I said, agree with you fully here. What I do want to argue though (and I mean that in the lofty philosophical sense of the word argue) is against the use of the word faith. Faith, in my estimation, is a word only the believer should use.

Do we know....anything? The word "know" implies an Absolute, but we rationalists should accept it as we really mean it, akin to my disclaimer at the bottom of my last post. "Know" means to possess information with a finite and not Absolute degree of reliability, quality, and surety. As in I am 99.999999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Instead of faith that it will rise, I have a measured, finite degree of certainty that it will, a certainty so high that it is pragmatically almost as good as if it were Absolute Certainty, however, like all gods, Absolute Certainty is a myth and we should never lay claim to it.
Relatively speaking, let's now weigh the alternate view, if we have 99.999999% surety about tomorrow's sunrise, what degree of certainty does the believer have in his or her faith? (I love this part here) They have 0.0000001% chance that there could possibly, theoretically be a god. The only reason they have that slim shot is due to the very fact we do not operate with Absolutes! We have to leave room for the hypothetical, at the very least.
In the end, the point I arrive at is that we have very high but finite trusthworthyness in our knowledge, strong certainty, staunch facts, and on the other side, they have an almost-but-not-quite pure factually void faith supported only by the most slim (hypothetical) degree of chance that there can possibly be. The odds of any god(s) existing are identical to the odds that Elvis was abducted by a UFO, or, literally, any made up story you, I, or anyone cares to create. The hypotheticality of the plausibly unknown, I grant them that, but no more than that.
I say we do "know" the sun will rise tomorrow, defining "know" as 99.99999% certainty. I do not say we Absolutely Know it though. And if we accept these near polar opposites in this non Absolute sense, then, we can finally say the delicious words we all want to say, but lack that 100% Absoluteness to do so with:

There is no god.

Though you may (quite correctly) disagree with me here technically, my end result is pretty tasty is it not?

Then there is religion. A major reason I argue these points is that believers so often rally to the cause of eroding our 99.999999% certainty factor. Look at how they (dishonestly) try to erode the certainty of evolution and the Big Bang. Calling anything "just a theory" is a terribly lame gambit, one I love to tear down, and do so without mercy, for it is bias-born deliberate twisting and deserves no better than what I give it.
Religion must attack certainty. Any high degree of it we achieve erodes their plausibility window into which they lay their unsupported claims of god. In another thread here, the very word "fact" is denied. My case in point exactly.
Faith is the act of accepting a 0.000001% chance of being correct over accepting a 99.999999% chance a given thing is a certain way. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Yep, there's a 99.999999% chance of it, will God make it rise tomorrow, and make it known that it was he who did so? Nope, there's a 0.000001% chance of that happening.
The religionist claims Absolutes. We should not. Absolutes are myths and they rightfully lay claim to them with their much beloved faith. Of course, you know how to tell if you have an Absolute don't you? You "know" by faith. Well, actually, they do, we don't.
So, anyways, that is why I argue against the term "faith" and for solid, but relative definitions of the terms we who use reason should employ.

Pretty much makes about 99.999999% sense doesn't it.

The AntiChris

Nice post.

Chris

doodad

Yeah, me too. If old J.C. did a little writing it oughta sell. Science fiction maybe?

doodad

"We are a cowardly people, afraid of chaos and discomfort." That could be, but what other people are there? Is religion the cause of our cowardice or a crutch for it? Let's put the blame where it lies, it there is any to be placed. Human beings have some emotional weaknesses an I don't see you proposing anything that will fix them. Maybe a little genetic engineering or a partial lobotomy is on order for these hopeless basket cases? Can we have a quantity discount for your services?


Why is it sickening to think that religious faith is supported by nothing? If having faith produces benefits, such as peace of mind, then that is sufficient support for having the faith. Religion is a mind game, and there's plenty about the mind that doesn't make sense, so the two were in a sense made for each other. Faith can be viewed as a psychological tool, as a salve for the emotions. It helps many to make sense out of nonsense or to displace their frustration or grief off on someone who is untouchable. It's acceptable to blame God for the untimely death of a loved one, but is it acceptable to blame a fellow human for a death that was merely a matter of fate? Try kickiing the dog and
hope it doesn't tear you a new one. Poor Rover, he really has it coming doesn't he?

Clinical psychologists can see the value of rationalization or displacement when there is no other remedy. Granted, neither of these defense mechanisms really fix anything, but that's not their purpose. The purpose is to ease mental trauma to a point that it's bearable, to a point that the sufferer can still function in society and not be a jibbering idiot. Religion can and does serve this need.

AmericanHeretic

originally posted by Doodad

Are you saying that if I argue against religion, I am morally obligated to replace it? All right then, I have an answer for your question.

Reason.

Why is it sickening to think that religious faith is supported by nothing? Because the "benefits" you cite come at the expense of others. The "mind game" of religion has no place whatsoever being taught alongside science, as religionists currently, and loudly proclaim it should be. This "salve for emotions" is anti-gay, and thus mere open sexual bigotry, it is intolerant and morally devalues anyone unlike the believers. That's ethnocentrism, and hardly good for anyone, and if it is, well, too bad, nobody's mere feelings are so important as to deserve such catering to at the expense of the rest of us.
In no way does religious mythology make sense out of anything, it acts to prevent the required reasoning that in fact does make sense out of reality, and perhaps most importantly of all, religion calls for moral absolutism and thus erodes and even attacks the proper call to reason ethics for yourself. Look at the immorality, violence, intolerance, torture, murder, anti-science activities, sexism, and even advocacy of slavery found in the Bible and among it's adherents throughout history.

Are these people really served by mythologically based feelings that they are God's special kids, like Jerry's kids or some such simile? Is it really moral to falsely give lesser intellects (I think that's what you're implying here) a body of myth that makes them feel superior to everyone else, and that makes them think everyone else will go to Hell and be incinerated eternally because more sentient beings actually think for themselves? And then, this very platform is used to run for political office and provide support to the dominant political paradigms of our nation?

I think not.

Instead, let's let them believe in Santa. Then at least they will be good during autumn as they look forward to the holiday.

SecularFuture

AmericanHeretic,
What does the word “faith” mean?

Among the definitions listed in my Unabridged Webster’s Dictionary:
• anything believed
• complete trust, confidence, or reliance

I believe that the “sun will rise” tomorrow morning. I do not know this, therefore I have to rely on faith; I do not know, but I do believe. Unlike religious faith, my kind of faith is backed by reason and evidence. I have seen the sun rise before, therefore there is a basis for my belief / faith in the sun.

Another example would be in the context of a relationship. Initially, you do not know if the relationship will be a success, but you still engage because of a reasoned faith in the person of interest. The connection felt between you and the “mate” provides the reason behind your faith.

People who hold to a belief in a supernatural deity do so through religious faith, a blind belief in something that is without evidence or reason.

Conclusion:
There are two different kinds of faith:

Reasoned Faith:
• A notion based on a sustained experience supported by naturalistic evidence

Religious Faith:
• A notion based on a brief "divine" experience that is without naturalistic evidence

No, therefore….

FACT:All of us believe, or have faith, in something, whether it be through a reasoned faith, or a blind religious faith.

However, you still don’t know, so you have to rely on faith. However, as I said before, your faith is different from the faith of a theist. You have reason for your beliefs, and the theist does not.

Not necessarily. No one knows if there is a god or not; there could be a god. However, when one considers our first - pre-scientific - interpretations of the world (practically each concept was devoid of any logic or critical thought), one starts to realize that the god concepts most likely derived from our need for meaning, understanding, and order. In other words, by researching our past, we begin to see how man could have created the god concepts through an overactive imagination. We used to believe in rain gods, and human sacrifice, for Darwin’s sake! Anyhow, my point is that there could be a god, but the evidences show that there most likely is not one. In conclusion: The theist has, for the moment, about a 0.5 chance of being right, and the more we learn about our universe, the smaller that number will shrink.

Good point!

100% is knowing. 99.99999% is not knowing, and it relies on .00001% faith.

Until the theist is able to prove their assumption, this is the only logical conclusion.

Oh! Definitely!

You can’t say “yep”! You do not know that for a fact!

SecularFuture

doodad
- Secularists who are not afraid to deny the existence of an unfounded god concept, and have the courage to realize that our universe is without meaning or order.

Its both!

The Coward Side:
Instead of being an adult and taking responsibility for one self, many rely on an unfounded god concept for guidance. They are afraid to guide, or rely on themselves!

The Crutch:
Whenever one is feeling pain, or confusion, many turn to the unfounded god concept for support. They are too weak to support themselves!

Most theistic religion makes people WEAK!

True, but theistic religion isn’t helping any, now is it? If people were to take their faith from the unfounded god concept, and put their faith into themselves, we would have a lot more confident people today; that is the first step.

Because, having a religious faith in god is no different than having a religious faith in invisible flying goats from mars. Religious faith, by definition, is a blind acceptance of something without evidence or reason, and to believe that a belief in something without evidence or reason is a healthy practice us just… silly!

There are more realistic and rational ways to achieve peace of mind. We should not make a habit out of relying on mythological – magical – concepts.

Exactly! A mind game! Think about that for a moment. You brought it up.

However, it shouldn’t.