Mageth

I'm not real fond of that particular mantra, because it implies that we have some nice universal scale for measuring the extraordinariness of claims, so we can tell what standard of evidence to hold them to. In practice, I've found that claims not consistent with a preexisting world-view are "extraordinary", and claims consistent with it are "not extraordinary", which makes the whole thing useless.

SE was, IMO, not disputing the claim that there are non-christians who dislike gays. He wasn't implying that that was an "extraordinary" claim.

Using my example above, would you treat the following claims the same:

1) A 9000-foot extinct volcano exists in Antarctica.

2) A 9000-fot extinct volcano exists in Antarctica, and inside its crater is a tropical paradise with with dinosaurs thought to be extinct!

Now there may be some credible people with a "worldview" that allows them to accept these two claims equally. From reading your posts, I doubt if you're one of them. If you're like me, you'd be willing to accept someone's word on the first, but would have to see convincing evidence of the second.

And we do have a "universal scale." It's called the scientific method - the best method we've come up with to distinguish truth from myth, bs from fact.

Proving the first claim would require ordinary evidence - a report from a geological survey, or a satellite photograph. If the geological survey reported a tropical crater full of dinosaurs, or what looked like a tropical rainforest inside the crater showed up on the photograph, the scientific method would demand more evidence - extraordinary evidence - before the existence of such a tropical crater with dinosaurs, in the middle of Antarctica, would be accepted as a scientific fact.

Such a place would be extraordinary, outside what we now think "ordinary" in Antarctica (add the dinosaurs, and it's outside what we consider "ordinary" on this present earth.) Such extraordinary claims that are beyond the edge of what science knows about the universe (what is "ordinary" or expected) demand extraordinary evidence.

In the original context, I offered examples of non-Christian people who disliked gays, because I feel that anyone who has *never* met such a person, and is old enough to type coherent English, will probably find the result surprising enough that an example would be useful.

I know such people exist. The problem is, IMO, not so much that individuals dislike homosexuals, but that some organizations, including many religious sects, both christian and non-christian, as well as secular organizations and governments, have "policies" that discriminate against homosexuals.

Many Xian (and other) denominations consider homosexuality to be an "abomination" to god, a "sickness", abnormal behavior, or some such. This serves to both 1) justify and perpetuate dislike/distrust/hatred of homosexuals among individals, and 2) justify and perpetuate discrimination against homosexuals by secular organizations and governments.

Now it may be true that there are some non-religious organizations which have had a similar effect, but I submit that religion has had far more of an impact than such organizations.

seebs

Simple. I believe the word used is totally ambiguous, and that no one actually *KNOWS* what it means. The same words used these days to condemn homosexuals were used against masturbators a while back, or pedophiles. Saint Jerome translated it as "masculorum concubitores", I believe.

I believe that the Bible condemns pagan ritual prostitution and homoerotic activity by straight people. I'm willing to grant that both of those strike me as clearly the sorts of things that would be rejected by a monotheistic religion that wants to associate sex with love.

In the end, Christianity has two commandments: Love God, and love thy neighbor. The rest is subject to debate.

Note also that, even if I grant that homoerotic activity is always "sinful"... that doesn't change a single thing. How can it? Straight sex won't get you into heaven. (It might feel like it briefly, but that's different.) If we're gonna kick gays out of church until they "reform", why not go after the gossips next? How about the people who sometimes undertip because they're having a bad day, even though the service was fine? How about people who are really self-righteous and judging? How about people who wish harm on others, even if they never actually take action? Those are all sin!

Christianity is often portrayed as being all about sin... really, I think that's missing the point. Given the assumed reality of sin, the question is, what should we do... and the answer is, love and trust God, and do our best to make the world livable for the other people we meet.

BTW, the first condemnation of "homosexual activity" in Paul's writings isn't 1Cor6:9, it's Romans 1:26-27. I once wrote 12 distinct interpretations of the Romans passage; I still don't know for sure how it should be taken, or how much of it might be Paul, the Apostle, rather than God's inspiration.

I'll make all the fundies a deal. When we've eliminated deceit and violence from the world, I'll join you in preaching at the gays. Only after *ALL* deceit and violence are gone, even ill-wishing, white lies, and lies of omission.

seebs

Fair enough. I wasn't sure, so I figured I'd offer the evidence. After all, at least one lurker probably didn't know about it.

Now? Yes. A hundred years ago? I would have wanted to see evidence, but I would have been agnostic. Now, I know that we have enough data that we should have seen such a thing if it exists.

Only works for certain classes of things. I am unable to even describe a scientific experiment to allow me to determine whether someone really cares about me, or whether killing people is ever morally acceptable. Science is the best tool ever seen for its fields of study - and best ignored outside of them.


In other words, it's extraordinary because it contradicts our existing worldview. Yup.

I don't think these things can be entirely separated. An organization consists of a bunch of individuals; most individuals are, to some extent, driven by organizations. We are a gregarious animal.

Indeed. However, it's not *necessary* to create such discrimination or persecution; that was why I picked China as an example, because I'm pretty sure that's a case where extraordinary evidence would be needed to justify a claim that their goverment's policy was driven by any Christian theology.

It'd be really hard to tell, because the denominations which teach these things do so because their members mostly already believe them. It's very hard to separate those, and I'm not sure how to go about it.

I do agree that certain branches of Christianity have done immense damage to various causes through the ages; in the end, a lot of the theology, rather than telling you which side of an issue you're on, tells you to be active about it. Thus, much of the pro/anti slavery debate consisted entirely of appeals to God's authority... It's a tough call.

Still... in the end, I'm human, so I'm already lumped in with all the worst people in history, so I might as well stick with what I believe to be true and important. And one of those things is sticking up for people who are being harassed.

Mageth

seebs:

I respect your views. If more from "your side" were so enlightened, perhaps we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

In other words, it's extraordinary because it contradicts our existing worldview. Yup.

No - extraordinary because it contradicts current, scientifically determined knowledge of the "ordinary" way things appear to work, independent of one's worldview. Science is independent of worldviews; that's one good reason why it's useful.

You seem to be conflating scientific knowledge/facts with worldview. I don't. Scientific knowledge/facts may affect my worldview, but are not my worldview.

If such a place as the hypothetical tropical crater was shown to exist, our knowledge would change, not necessarily our worldview. Evidence of a tropical crater in Antarctica, or a living dinosaur, would not be ordinary evidence - it would be extraordinary. It's not something we find (or expect to find) very often, if at all - i.e. it's not ordinary. Once this "extraordinary" evidence was accepted, and added to our scientific knowledge, discovering another such crater would be "ordinary," and require "ordinary" evidence.

As said, claims made to things that are extraordinary require extraordinary evidence. This should be obvious, because how could one prove the extraordinary with "ordinary" evidence? Evidence proving a supernatural god would have to be supernatural, and thus extraordinary, evidence, no?

If you insist on using "worldview", then one might say "Claims that are extraworldview require extraworldview evidence." How could evidence that fits within a worldview be proof for something "extraworldview?"

I don't think these things can be entirely separated. An organization consists of a bunch of individuals; most individuals are, to some extent, driven by organizations. We are a gregarious animal.

An organization is much more than the individuals within it. After an organization grows past a certain point, it takes on a life of its own, independent of the individuals, to the point where it is the rare individual that can have a significant effect on the organization.

Look at the catholic church - it's existed for centuries, and has perpetuated antihomosexuality (and other doctrines and or memes) as a matter of "policy" throughout that time. A large part of the reason for its success is the static nature of its organization that allows it to propagate its doctrines and memes to individuals through the centuries. If, 1700 years ago, the catholic church had decided that homosexuality is accceptable, I can assume that the world today would be much more of a hospitable place to homosexuals, due to the church's influence on/indoctrination of individuals, not the other way around.

Now you might say "the Pope is an individual that has significant effect on an organization!" I would answer that that is due to the almost unique nature of the catholic church that puts so much power in one individual's hands. That power can obviously be used for good or bad. In most other areas (e.g. government, and in many churches), we've abandoned such an organizational structure because of the potential for "evil." And that power is endowed on the pope by the church, not taken from the church by the pope.

seebs

But they're the part of the worldview that the hypothetical dinosaurs are in conflict with. At least, for most of us, they would be.

Sure. But defining another "such" crater reveals that, in fact, we build worldview in generalities; once we've accepted such a crater, we would no longer be surprised by another; we assume that it's not a special case, but a fairly generic one.

I don't know what would constitute "proof". My thinking is, I spent a number of years comparing "world with God as explanation" and "world with no God as explanation", and concluded that I could not easily distinguish them. God would not contradict any of my expectations. The volcanic crater would contradict my expectation that most of antarctica will be freezing cold; the dinosaurs in it would contradict my expectation that we'd have explored the whole thing that closely by now, and several others as well. So... None of my theories would be busted by the addition of God, so I left it to a question of "which side do I find the arguments for more compelling".

Ever read flatland?

This is mostly true - and yet, look at what happened with Christianity and slavery, or with interracial marriages. Individuals were able to change, and the whole organization eventually changed.

Actually, this is a bit unclear; John Boswell argues persuasively that this issue was under debate for the first millennium or so. He may be wrong, but his arguments are good enough that I don't feel it's an open and shut case.

In fact, there is substantial evidence that the early Church, by and large, didn't make a big deal of homosexuality - while some individual people did, the opinion was probably not universal. For instance, an early commentator on Paul's text in Romans pointed out that Paul denied the idolators any excuse by making it explict that they turned *from* the opposite sex to their own. That implies that, had they never been interested in the opposite sex, it would be a different thing entirely!

As I understand the doctrine, that power is given to the Pope essentially by God... I don't know. It is an interesting case.

Nonetheless, once again, I am compelled to point out that, while most of the Catholics I know are skeptical about, say, ordaining gays as priests, they are all quite clear on the assertion that gays should be as welcome in the Church as anyone else. So... the "sinners not welcome" thing is not a Catholic invention. I suspect it's comparatively recent.

Pitshade

Too serious for this forum...

seebs

Not to be picky, but...

I was almost certainly preaching back there. Doesn't "theists preaching" imply "RRP"?

Secular Elation

I believe that people feel the fairly normal vague revulsion at "sex that I wouldn't like", and start looking for excuses.

Are you saying those millions of anti-homosexual Christians are not "true Christians?" Do you believe that your god would punish those who are anti-homosexual who use Christian teachings to support their positions?

Certainly, the few hundred million Chinese who are mostly atheists and who think homosexuals are horribly damaged

Atheists, are they? They may not be Christian, but they're not largely atheist. It was my understanding that the major religion there is Shintaoism, Buddhism, whatever it is.

About your qualms with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," the existence of a god is an existential subject. Your counter-example about morals is a social subject, without any concrete necessity on evidence.

seebs

No... I'm saying I think they're wrong. I believe I have been wrong about things in the past, and I will be wrong about things in the future, and I still believe I'm Christian. I suspect that most of those people are good Christians, who happen to be mistaken. It is our nature to do stuff like this; we always reinterpret the world in terms of our expectations of it. That's another sin... and guess what, *SINS ARE FORGIVEN*. So, we're allowed to be wrong. We are also expected to strive constantly to discover and correct our errors... but we'll never get them all, so being smug and self-righteous about it is a really bad idea.

I don't know about "punishing". I'm not convinced that "punishment" is a correct description of any part of Christian theology about God, but that's a separate question.

Buddhism is a form of atheism; after all, as everyone is so fond of reminding me, atheism is just the lack of belief in God.

The *VAST* majority of Chinese are completely uninterested by western concepts of spirituality, so far as I can tell, except for some vague "burning incense for the dead", which is never allowed to interfere with practical stuff like the triumphs of Communism With Chinese Improvements, or Marxist-Lenninist-Mao Zedong Thought.

And, so far as I can tell, better than 80% of the country thinks that homosexuality is a horrible perversion caused by impurities in other cultures.

Disclaimer: This information is now about 15 years out of date, and was mostly based on Shanghai. However, it was certainly the official party line, and the Chinese people I talked to had *AMAZINGLY* weird attitudes about sex, which suggested to me an underlying lack of real education about what's involved in human sexuality.

I don't see God's existance or nonexistance as having any concrete necessity for evidence; I think it's just a question of which theory you like best, or which best explains your own experiences. You will note the corollary here; I don't see any grounds for condemning atheists in this, because they are, in general, making a reasonable and rational decision about how to interpret the data they have.

Mageth

I don't have time to respond to your entire post right now, seebs - gotta go home and spend some time with my family. But it's a pleasure talking with you. It's helped me think out some things.

Interesting point about homosexuality and the catholic church. Perhaps antihomosexuality (damn long word, that) is not a great example. But there are, I'm sure, other examples of memes that have been propagated by the church (and other organizations) that illustrate the independent nature of the "organization."

You replied to SE:

Buddhism is a form of atheism; after all, as everyone is so fond of reminding me, atheism is just the lack of belief in God.

Absolutely not. Some Buddhists, but not all, are atheists; many if not most believe in some form of "god". Some sects of Buddhism incorporate atheism; some do not.

Further atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Buddhism is a belief system whose adherents may be atheists, but it incorporates a lot more than atheism. Atheists may practice Buddhism. But Buddhism is not a form of atheism.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>