Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Straw man. The prominent atheists mentioned don't just discuss fundamentalist religious movements. Hitchens may have cited fundamentalism primarily (but in no way exclusively) when discussing why religion is a negative influence on humanity, but that's only one facet of one argument by one person. Wildly inaccurate to suggest that none of them have addressed mainstream religion or bothered to address theism vs atheism in a respectful tone. Calling Dawkins "intemperate" is worth a laugh, too.

basically the interviews go something like this:

"Do you think that you would win more converts to atheism if you were less dismissive of religious people?"
"I don't feel any need to make converts by not saying what I think. I leave it to them to make their hypocritical, unctuous, pseudo-friendly statements in their hope of keeping people inside the church."

when they are questioned about being intemperate

I would be a complete atheist if I hadn't lived the life I have lived. I have survived countless attempted murders as well as some other very trying situations. I have begged for mercy for specific things to go right in my life, and I can tell you, every single prayer and change I have asked for, has come true. I consider myself 95% atheist as I favor human kind's scientific and logical achievements, but the last 5% will never go away due to what I struggle to explain.

but surely coincidence is not evidence
what about all of the people who pray and get the opposite (or nothing) in return?
 
And yea, I'm in no way qualified to interpret the Bible to a level capable of refuting leading atheists like Dawkins or Hitchins...but people like Benedict XVI are much more knowledgable about theology than I am. Thus like Dawkins is more knowledgable about his arguments on atheist than the average person in this thread...

seems fair to compare the two or discuss the two in relation to the other...
If you think that Benedict XVI can back up his religious beliefs then lol

No theist has ever backed up their religious beliefs.
 
I would be a complete atheist if I hadn't lived the life I have lived. I have survived countless attempted murders as well as some other very trying situations. I have begged for mercy for specific things to go right in my life, and I can tell you, every single prayer and change I have asked for, has come true. I consider myself 95% atheist as I favor human kind's scientific and logical achievements, but the last 5% will never go away due to what I struggle to explain.

Allow me to try.

1. Coincidence.
2. Expectation bias.
3. Prayer mirrored some of your personal convictions (e.g. you asked to have the strength to do something; and did it - but the prayer arose out of the desire to accomplish that thing, and that same desire allowed it to happen).
 
You're a wordy mofo you know that. Can't you just say faith is intrinsic to human nature?

To which I would respond; human nature is heavily flawed, just as it is potentially brilliant. Shouldn't stop us from wanting to better ourselves!
Everyone could work out and eat healthy and treat everyone they encounter with love.

They don't. We have to live with that.

Encourage all you like, and I know you are not exactly one of the more aggressive athiests on the board, but what I am saying to the lot of you is that I don't see why it has to be such an ISSUE, you know? But then I'm pretty passive about my engagement with any sort of asshole out there in the world, and trust me I find religious assholes every bit as annoying as you do.
 
I always have the (kind of) reverse question of why atheists (at least those I've encountered) are always claiming to be purely "scientific/logical." (To the best of my experience/knowledge atheism being the belief that no gods exist, usually coupled with a denial of all spiritual/supernatural possibilities. If there's anything wrong in there, feel free to correct/ignore, as I'm definitely not well versed in religious discussions.)

I mean, if you want to be scientific about things you should be agnostic, far as I can tell, and atheism is just as much of a "faith" as most other things.

You can understand atheism as lack of belief in religion unless stated otherwise.

There are subsets of atheism that go into more detail about this, namely strong atheism ("I assert that gods don't exist") which cannot be proven scientifically and is also technically a faith-based position, and weak atheism ("I have no faith and there is no evidence for any of this any more so than an invisible dragon in my garage") which is the scientifically sound and non-faith-based position.

In effect, though, when someone tells you there's an invisible undetectable dragon in your garage, you say "no there isn't," not "well, any assertion that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence..." unless you're a snooty intellectual ;b.
 
No, I thought your first post was fair, at least as it pertains to the type of person described in the OP. Rather, referring to one of the most well-respected theologians alive today as a "retarded person" kinda makes me throw my hands up and say...why bother? If anything I'm the retarded one for putting up a brief passage from a long and complicated argument. Either way it's a good demonstration of the sort of needless bashing that makes these discussions completely impossible.

it looks like a pretty interesting book to me. i'll try to snag it on interlibrary loans. i just got a copy of a book of essays called the joy of secularism today, believe it or not, which seems to want to address the inherently destructive nature of darwinian atheism in the modern world and seek something more productive to human life, like secular humanism, i suppose.
 
Out of curiosity how many atheists who bash religion have read any theological works by leading theologians? Or have you stuck to wikipedia or just read some Dawkins and got only one side of the debate...

As a non-theist, I generally credit my appreciation of theists, theism, and religious philosophy to my undergrad in Theology. But I don't want to spoil the party for anybody else who answers "yes" to this question, but then doesn't offer any serious answers, or cops-out with some "lul wut theology, ya i read Westboro baptist church website."
 
No, I thought your first post was fair, at least as it pertains to the type of person described in the OP. Rather, referring to one of the most well-respected theologians alive today as a "retarded person" kinda makes me throw my hands up and say...why bother? If anything I'm the retarded one for putting up a brief passage from a long and complicated argument. Either way it's a good demonstration of the sort of needless bashing that makes these discussions completely impossible.

Not familiar with the person, argument as posted was misrepresentative and fallacious, therefore not holding that person in high regard. Bring some Hitchens quotes about the Iraq war in here and I'll call him retarded too, if you want ;b
 
No, I thought your first post was fair, at least as it pertains to the type of person described in the OP. Rather, referring to one of the most well-respected theologians alive today as a "retarded person" kinda makes me throw my hands up and say...why bother? If anything I'm the retarded one for putting up a brief passage from a long and complicated argument. Either way it's a good demonstration of the sort of needless bashing that makes these discussions completely impossible.

Well, people tend to throw around remarks like "retarded" quite easily when they see something that contradicts what they consider as true. It's just the usual Internet-exaggeration thing so you probably should not consider such words really seriously.

Although I guess there's also a possibility that he really means that, hahah.


I would be a complete atheist if I hadn't lived the life I have lived. I have survived countless attempted murders as well as some other very trying situations. I have begged for mercy for specific things to go right in my life, and I can tell you, every single prayer and change I have asked for, has come true. I consider myself 95% atheist as I favor human kind's scientific and logical achievements, but the last 5% will never go away due to what I struggle to explain.

o_O

I'm very curious about this. Care to give me some details? PM maybe? I understand if you don't want to answer, however.
 
it looks like a pretty interesting book to me. i'll try to snag it on interlibrary loans. i just got a copy of a book of essays called the joy of secularism today, believe it or not, which seems to want to address the inherently destructive nature of darwinian atheism in the modern world and seek something more productive to human life, like secular humanism, i suppose.

I'm glad you thought so! I highly recommend it to anyone with interest in the subject.

Not familiar with the person, argument as posted was misrepresentative and fallacious, therefore not holding that person in high regard. Bring some Hitchens quotes about the Iraq war in here and I'll call him retarded too, if you want ;b

ha ha, I doubt that somehow but...fair enough. Obviously a larger passage is the answer! Gimme an hour or two ;)
 
I mean, if you want to be scientific about things you should be agnostic, far as I can tell, and atheism is just as much of a "faith" as most other things.

chart.png


Even Richard Dawkins says he is a 6 out of 7, because we cannot prove there is no God, as unlikely as it can be (Russel's teapot).

Agnostic Theism is not a neutral position, if that is what you were implying.
 
It is a pity that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris express themselves so intemperately, because some of their criticisms are valid. Religious people have indeed committed atrocities and crimes, and the fundamentalist theology the new atheists attack is indeed "unskillful," as the Buddhists would say.
Well, that's putting it mildly.

But they refuse, on principle, to dialogue with theologians who are more representative of mainstream tradition.
Christopher Hitchens debates Rabbi David Wolpe (I personally found this debate refreshing precisely because of how reasonable and non-stupid the other guy is.) Hitchens debated other mainstream thinkers all the fucking time.

Of course, there's a reason the new atheists direct most of their attention to fundamentalist nutjobs: fundamentalists are the ones trying to maintain their footing in American politics and in charge of countries like Saudi Arabia. Reasonable people aren't a threat to anyone.
 
Allow me to try.

1. Coincidence.
2. Expectation bias.
3. Prayer mirrored some of your personal convictions (e.g. you asked to have the strength to do something; and did it - but the prayer arose out of the desire to accomplish that thing, and that same desire allowed it to happen).

So every time my schizophrenic mother tried to kill me to survive it and each time out of about 30, when she threw a knife full force at me to have the handle always nail me, it must absolutely be coincidence. And this is not even close to every instance in my life where I and the people closest to me have triumphed or overcome the odds. Each member of my family has had instances in their lives where it seemed utterly hopeless. Each one of them overcame those odds completely, even my mother who has finally responded to medication and is in great mental health.


A poster above asked about those not so lucky and I'd like to clarify my beliefs a bit.

I don't consider myself Catholic as I was raised. Like I said, I consider myself somewhat traditionally atheist, but I have a very specific faith in which I believe that fortunes are granted on those who I for some reason do not understand receive them. I acknowledge that there are fortunate and unfortunate people in this world, but there are powers at play that science cannot define. You can disagree, that's fine. I'm not here to convince you, but provide testimony about what I believe in.
 
Well, that's putting it mildly.

Christopher Hitchens debates Rabbi David Wolpe (I personally found this debate refreshing precisely because of how reasonable and non-stupid the other guy is.) Hitchens debated other mainstream thinkers all the fucking time.

Of course, there's a reason the new atheists direct most of their attention to fundamentalist nutjobs: fundamentalists are the ones trying to maintain their footing in American politics and in charge of countries like Saudi Arabia. Reasonable people aren't a threat to anyone.

I will be checking out that link, thanks. Was it recorded in 2010? In fairness to Armstrong the book I quoted was published in 2009.
 
Then stop criticizing why people believe if you aren't even willing to read the other side of the debate.

it just doesn't interest me in the slightest
if you cant explain it personally, as in yourself, right now, then you dont even know what you believe in.
 
So every time my schizophrenic mother tried to kill me to survive it and each time out of about 30, when she threw a knife full force at me to have the handle always nail me, it must absolutely be coincidence.

Feel free to present evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, yes.

Getting hit by the handle instead of the blade 30 times (taking your claim at face value) is within the realm of possibility and doesn't defy any physical laws, and given a large enough sample size we'll see a result like that.

Supernatural fortune influencing the outcome because you're special, we have no evidence in favor of whatsoever.

Apply Occam's Razor.


Had you been killed, you wouldn't be here, and wouldn't be making any assertions about your supernatural fortune. To all the people in unfavorable circumstances who didn't come out alive, well, they're dead. To people like you, you might consider it to be a miracle, since as human beings we're self-centered and tend to look for meaning when we come out of improbable events alive.
 
it just doesn't interest me in the slightest
if you cant explain it personally, as in yourself right now, then you dont even know what you believe in.

If you're asking why I believe in God or why I believe every piece of dogmatic teaching from the Catholic Church?

If the first, then it's because against all odd's I was supposed to die as a child even when doctors said there was no hope. I survived and am now perfectly healthy. That's enough to give me faith in a higher power.

As for every teaching of the Church, that could go on forever, if you're interested about specific teachings then PM me.
 
it just doesn't interest me in the slightest
if you cant explain it personally, as in yourself, right now, then you dont even know what you believe in.

It seems like you might have wanted this thread to yourself. Those are called blogs.


Feel free to present evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, yes.

Getting hit by the handle instead of the blade 30 times (taking your claim at face value) is within the realm of possibility and doesn't defy any physical laws, and given a large enough sample size we'll see a result like that.

Supernatural fortune influencing the outcome because you're special, we have no evidence in favor of whatsoever.

Apply Occam's Razor.


Had you been killed, you wouldn't be here, and wouldn't be making any assertions about your supernatural fortune. To all the people in unfavorable circumstances who didn't come out alive, well, they're dead. To people like you, you might consider it to be a miracle, since as human beings we're self-centered and tend to look for meaning when we come out of improbable events alive.

I'm not embellishing and would like to give other examples, but those would be too private. In terms of what you stated, yes I absolutely agree and am even more in favor of it than my own somewhat obscure argument. I find it a bit insulting when people try to push some sort of definitive logic to this world. No matter how robotic some of you try to be, you will never completely know it all, because if what you say is true, that human's are not the center of the universe and are meant to only observe and study the world around us, then we are not meant to understand it completely. Just let us enjoy and entertain ourselves with what we believe in until the day we day, because to me, the biggest secret is that our lives may in fact not matter at all, so why the fuck wouldn't we just do and think what we want?
 
I acknowledge that there are fortunate and unfortunate people in this world, but there are powers at play that science cannot define. You can disagree, that's fine. I'm not here to convince you, but provide testimony about what I believe in.

Why can't science define these things? Genetic predisposition to addiction, mental health issues or socio-economical pressures can all explain how people simply are. Why can't there be a tangible explanation to why things are the way they are?

Also, if you already concluded these things are not explained, why go the extra step and decide they cannot be explained, and abandon curiosity to unexplainable "powers at play"?

I can understand how you can feel this way, but thanks to people wanting to explain and explore the world, your mother can get proper psychiatric help so she can feel better. If we all left it to higher powers, she would have been burned for being a crazy witch.
 
chart.png


Even Richard Dawkins says he is a 6 out of 7, because we cannot prove there is no God, as unlikely as it can be (Russel's teapot).

Agnostic Theism is not a neutral position, if that is what you were implying.

Like I said, I'm rather uninformed on such things, so I was just going by what I've heard second hand of "God(s) exist=Theism", "God(s) do not exist= Atheism", and "God(s) may or may not exist=Agnosticism." So going by your chart I suppose what I'm arguing is that the neutral is between the two lines, and considers each and every unproven possibility to be equally valid until proof is provided otherwise, which is what I'd call the "scientific" stance.

Of course, like I said I'm quite uninformed and have apparently been subject to too many "hard" atheists who claim such things as an absolute, so I actually hadn't heard of people speaking of atheism in anything but absolute terms before.

But again, perhaps that may be a bit too "snooty intellectual" of a distinction too make and I'm not exactly well informed, so I guess I'll just back out now having learned a little about the atheism/agnosticism divide. :)
 
it just doesn't interest me in the slightest
if you cant explain it personally, as in yourself, right now, then you dont even know what you believe in.
This isn't true. He might know what he believes in, but obviously he can't back up his magical beliefs. But then neither can anyone else.
 
So every time my schizophrenic mother tried to kill me to survive it and each time out of about 30, when she threw a knife full force at me to have the handle always nail me, it must absolutely be coincidence. And this is not even close to every instance in my life where I and the people closest to me have triumphed or overcome the odds. Each member of my family has had instances in their lives where it seemed utterly hopeless. Each one of them overcame those odds completely, even my mother who has finally responded to medication and is in great mental health.


A poster above asked about those not so lucky and I'd like to clarify my beliefs a bit.

I don't consider myself Catholic as I was raised. Like I said, I consider myself somewhat traditionally atheist, but I have a very specific faith in which I believe that fortunes are granted on those who I for some reason do not understand receive them. I acknowledge that there are fortunate and unfortunate people in this world, but there are powers at play that science cannot define. You can disagree, that's fine. I'm not here to convince you, but provide testimony about what I believe in.

Of course I disagree with you. But that's beside the point; I'm proferring up explanations that your purported 95% atheistic personality might be able to take up.

And I know, personal experience is a powerful thing, it's not so easily trumped by facts and figures and all that rational crap. But simply take it on board and reflect upon it. In which individual instance of your personal experience is a natural explanation literally impossible?

Coincidence is a powerful explanation - it is easy to be persuaded that there must be some greater force in your life should something drastic like winning the lottery occur to you. But you know for a fact that the system is setup so that someone *will* win the lottery.

Not having a belief in god or greater powers isn't going to change your fortune greatly... but there's always a superstitious part of us that wants to maintain it... *just in case*. I can understand that, even if I don't agree with it.
 
If the first, then it's because against all odd's I was supposed to die as a child even when doctors said there was no hope. I survived and am now perfectly healthy. That's enough to give me faith in a higher power.

you and millions of other people
why is this a reason to believe in a higher power? did they not explain what happened medically and tell you the diagnosis was "miracle" ?
Just sounds like your average delusion of grandeur to me.

People used to think that the sun was a deity before we knew what it really was
Jumping to conclusions (especially logical dead ends like 'god did it') is denying the privilege of education that we have been given in first world countries
 
Had you been killed, you wouldn't be here, and wouldn't be making any assertions about your supernatural fortune. To all the people in unfavorable circumstances who didn't come out alive, well, they're dead. To people like you, you might consider it to be a miracle, since as human beings we're self-centered and tend to look for meaning when we come out of improbable events alive.

I say its time for that big ass fucking cheeseburger I wasn't going to eat for health reasons.
 
Why can't science define these things? Genetic predisposition to addiction, mental health issues or socio-economical pressures can all explain how people simply are. Why can't there be a tangible explanation to why things are the way they are?

Also, if you already concluded these things are not explained, why go the extra step and decide they cannot be explained, and abandon curiosity to unexplainable "powers at play"?

I can understand how you can feel this way, but thanks to people wanting to explain and explore the world, your mother can get proper psychiatric help so she can feel better. If we all left it to higher powers, she would have been burned for being a crazy witch.

I absolutely agree, and that is the reason why I favor the exploration of scientific knowledge more so than anything else. I guess my point is that, in the defense of theists, we should be able to entertain ourselves with the possibility. Science and faith in my opinion, should never separate as they make the perfect combination. And I appreciate Zaptruders response as well as other individuals because if any of you were too argumentative, you'd probably accuse me of backtracking at this point. I tend to slightly shift my opinions and ideals by the minute as I am always trying to find the right answer to something(as silly as that may sound).
 
Referring to my first post? It's a pretty straightforward analysis, and necessarily so. Not trying to convince theists of anything, so there's no reason to coddle.

Just wondering, what scientific analysis have you done to show that those who have particular beliefs, "... lack critical thinking skills and lack understanding methods and standards of rigor for evidence." Alternatively, figuring that you have done no research yourself, what psychological, anthropological, etc., studies can you cite -- that you have thoroughly read and agreed with -- that suggest that religious people "lack critical thinking skills."

Just wondering, because, y'know, we wouldn't want to go against the scientific method and all and pass baseless generalizations.

And, just because I feel like I can't say it enough, I'm not religious, so don't think that I'm just some Papist marauder looking to put Christ in your children's' classrooms.

But, just to not be unfair, I'll offer why I don't share that point of view. I majored in Theology at a Catholic College, and currently I am employed at a Catholic College. One that has serious academic gravitas and is well respected nationally, not just some silly snake handling fly by night operation someplace in the Blue Hills (although, if such a place exists, it may pay better). In this capacity, I have been blessed (in the colloquial sense) to study under, know, graduate with, and (now) work for hundreds of gifted students, who have gone onto become doctors, lawyers, physicists, biologists, teachers, social scientists, theologians, philosophers, authors, and more. And while, of course, many had different belief systems and waivering levels of religiousness, being a Catholic College, a great many were very religious. When I think of, for instance, two of my best friends, who both now have their PhD's in a physical science (one in engineering from a good school, he also has a masters in Catholic Theology, where he wrote his masters thesis on something so mindnumbingly complex, I couldn't keep up with it) another in one of those biologies (admittedly, I am more of a soft-science guy and have trouble remembering one from the othr), both have strong levels of faith belief, but both are also brilliant young scientists. Beyond this, some of my favorite professors, some of the most brilliant people I have ever met, happened to be clergy or personally very devout in religious matters. Did that jade how they taught English Literature, Hellenistic Philosophy, Russian History, music theory, or German (language)? Were they suddenly incapable of analyzing Shakespeare, Plato, Maimonides, Rousseau, Said, or others? If they go to mass on Sunday and receive communion, does that immediately purge themselves of whatever they know of Einstein or Bertrand Russell?

Given my experiences, it didn't, it shouldn't have, and if you think that it does, then that is disgustingly anti-scientific fundamentalism.

(edit: And I wouldn't consider the link up on page 3 or wherever about generally higher IQ by howver many points to be a thorough damnation of religious believers. That an atheistic person may be better educated is no surprise, us idiot theology kids used to joke when people inevitably asked us, "What are you going to do with that, become a priest?" and we'd say, "No, we'll become atheists." But to the point, that study, however accurate to the general levels of education amongst faithful and faithless, does nothing to suggest that one or the other 'lacks critical thinking skills.')
 
So going by your chart I suppose what I'm arguing is that the neutral is between the two lines, and considers each and every unproven possibility to be equally valid until proof is provided otherwise, which is what I'd call the "scientific" stance..

That is exactly what I thought before reading the God Delusion. I also thought "hey, what do I know?", and believed It was the most logical position to take.

But it is really not neutral at all, seeing it gives equal credence to the existance of God and his non existance. Kind of like when you are evaluating any theory, you cannot give equal credibility to two hypothethes on face value. One of the claims is pretty freaking extraordinary, and rightly deserves extraordinary evidence to back it up.
 
you and millions of other people
why is this a reason to believe in a higher power? did they not explain what happened medically and tell you the diagnosis was "miracle" ?
Just sounds like your average delusion of grandeur to me.

People used to think that the sun was a deity before we knew what it really was
Jumping to conclusions (especially logical dead ends like 'god did it') is denying the privilege of education that we have been given in first world countries

The doctor's couldn't explain it, which is why I chalk it up to higher power.
 
Just wondering, what scientific analysis have you done to show that those who have particular beliefs, "... lack critical thinking skills and lack understanding methods and standards of rigor for evidence." Alternatively, figuring that you have done no research yourself, what psychological, anthropological, etc., studies can you cite -- that you have thoroughly read and agreed with -- that suggest that religious people "lack critical thinking skills."

Just wondering, because, y'know, we wouldn't want to go against the scientific method and all and pass baseless generalizations.

And, just because I feel like I can't say it enough, I'm not religious, so don't think that I'm just some Papist marauder looking to put Christ in your children's' classrooms.

But, just to not be unfair, I'll offer why I don't share that point of view. I majored in Theology at a Catholic College, and currently I am employed at a Catholic College. One that has serious academic gravitas and is well respected nationally, not just some silly snake handling fly by night operation someplace in the Blue Hills (although, if such a place exists, it may pay better). In this capacity, I have been blessed (in the colloquial sense) to study under, know, graduate with, and (now) work for hundreds of gifted students, who have gone onto become doctors, lawyers, physicists, biologists, teachers, social scientists, theologians, philosophers, authors, and more. And while, of course, many had different belief systems and waivering levels of religiousness, being a Catholic College, a great many were very religious. When I think of, for instance, two of my best friends, who both now have their PhD's in a physical science (one in engineering from a good school, he also has a masters in Catholic Theology, where he wrote his masters thesis on something so mindnumbingly complex, I couldn't keep up with it) another in one of those biologies (admittedly, I am more of a soft-science guy and have trouble remembering one from the othr), both have strong levels of faith belief, but both are also brilliant young scientists. Beyond this, some of my favorite professors, some of the most brilliant people I have ever met, happened to be clergy or personally very devout in religious matters. Did that jade how they taught English Literature, Hellenistic Philosophy, Russian History, music theory, or German (language)? Were they suddenly incapable of analyzing Shakespeare, Plato, Maimonides, Rousseau, Said, or others? If they go to mass on Sunday and receive communion, does that immediately purge themselves of whatever they know of Einstein or Bertrand Russell?

Given my experiences, it didn't, it shouldn't have, and if you think that it does, then that is disgustingly anti-scientific fundamentalism.

You are gonna get ignored big time, so I'm gonna quote youuuu.
 
What about converts?

There are plenty of religious people who didn't grow up with heavy handed bible thumping parents and came to their decision of their on volition. They were allowed to question and doubt and wonder, and probably have a stronger "faith" than those rigid fundies that were indoctrinated.
 
Just wondering, what scientific analysis have you done to show that those who have particular beliefs, "... lack critical thinking skills and lack understanding methods and standards of rigor for evidence." Alternatively, figuring that you have done no research yourself, what psychological, anthropological, etc., studies can you cite -- that you have thoroughly read and agreed with -- that suggest that religious people "lack critical thinking skills."

Just wondering, because, y'know, we wouldn't want to go against the scientific method and all and pass baseless generalizations.

And, just because I feel like I can't say it enough, I'm not religious, so don't think that I'm just some Papist marauder looking to put Christ in your children's' classrooms.

But, just to not be unfair, I'll offer why I don't share that point of view. I majored in Theology at a Catholic College, and currently I am employed at a Catholic College. One that has serious academic gravitas and is well respected nationally, not just some silly snake handling fly by night operation someplace in the Blue Hills (although, if such a place exists, it may pay better). In this capacity, I have been blessed (in the colloquial sense) to study under, know, graduate with, and (now) work for hundreds of gifted students, who have gone onto become doctors, lawyers, physicists, biologists, teachers, social scientists, theologians, philosophers, authors, and more. And while, of course, many had different belief systems and waivering levels of religiousness, being a Catholic College, a great many were very religious. When I think of, for instance, two of my best friends, who both now have their PhD's in a physical science (one in engineering from a good school, he also has a masters in Catholic Theology, where he wrote his masters thesis on something so mindnumbingly complex, I couldn't keep up with it) another in one of those biologies (admittedly, I am more of a soft-science guy and have trouble remembering one from the othr), both have strong levels of faith belief, but both are also brilliant young scientists. Beyond this, some of my favorite professors, some of the most brilliant people I have ever met, happened to be clergy or personally very devout in religious matters. Did that jade how they taught English Literature, Hellenistic Philosophy, Russian History, music theory, or German (language)? Were they suddenly incapable of analyzing Shakespeare, Plato, Maimonides, Rousseau, Said, or others? If they go to mass on Sunday and receive communion, does that immediately purge themselves of whatever they know of Einstein or Bertrand Russell?

Given my experiences, it didn't, it shouldn't have, and if you think that it does, then that is disgustingly anti-scientific fundamentalism.

(edit: And I wouldn't consider the link up on page 3 or wherever about generally higher IQ by howver many points to be a thorough damnation of religious believers. That an atheistic person may be better educated is no surprise, us idiot theology kids used to joke when people inevitably asked us, "What are you going to do with that, become a priest?" and we'd say, "No, we'll become atheists." But to the point, that study, however accurate to the general levels of education amongst faithful and faithless, does nothing to suggest that one or the other 'lacks critical thinking skills.')
Wonderful post.
 
Alternatively, figuring that you have done no research yourself, what psychological, anthropological, etc., studies can you cite -- that you have thoroughly read and agreed with -- that suggest that religious people "lack critical thinking skills."

Cognitive dissonance, plain and simple.

Someone can be reeeeally smart and realy critical of 99% of his life but not apply those tools to their religious beliefs. Oddly enough, our brains allow such ridiculous contradictions.

You can be a irrational about one part of your life and still be intelligent and insightful.

Of course it's a jump but when nobody can explain an actual reason then there ya go.

In cases like this I am always curious. Did you see any proof of this? Communications from the doctors who told you were a lost cause? Or did your religious parents omit certain part of the story to fit a greater, spiritual narrative you now hold as fact today?

There is a lot of uncertainty in medecine, and attributing a certain outcome to a higher power does not take away the fact that the outcome had a certain statistical chance of happening. Conversely, if there is no proof taht divine intervention actually healed part of you (scans, x-rays, blood tests), why not chalk it to the the statistic likelyhood of making it out alive?
 
Just wondering, what scientific analysis have you done to show that those who have particular beliefs, "... lack critical thinking skills and lack understanding methods and standards of rigor for evidence." Alternatively, figuring that you have done no research yourself, what psychological, anthropological, etc., studies can you cite -- that you have thoroughly read and agreed with -- that suggest that religious people "lack critical thinking skills."

Just wondering, because, y'know, we wouldn't want to go against the scientific method and all and pass baseless generalizations.

Straw man. That post was in response to the OP, describing people who make claims about empirical evidence for religion, not a descriptor for all religious people.

What can I cite? How about that science doesn't accept anecdotal accounts from religious texts as fact, or circular reasoning e.g. "the bible is divinely inspired, therefore it's accurate, and it's accurate because it's divinely inspired," because that's what assertions about empirical evidence for religion boil down to. We don't have any significant measure of empirical evidence for supernatural religious claims; if we did, they would be part of science. If you want me to find you a fuckin' citation for "religious claims are fundamentally unscientific" to demonstrate that people who run contrary to this don't understand what a faith-based position is and what an empirical position is, then, uhhh, here you go, have fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
 
I'm sure it entirely has to do with that, but it doesn't change anything. Perhaps it's the nature of the internet, or perhaps the nature of the internet is because of that. It doesn't matter -- In my regular, day to day life, I never run into a zealous theist (and I work somewhere that is packed with religious people with strong personal convictions). Yet, in my regular, day to day life, I run into dozens of zealous anti-theists. I don't even want to credit them by calling them atheists, because while most of these anti-theists strive for the finer arts of math or science, they also pass wide-sweeping generalizations and pop-psychology analysis on entire swarths of people they've never met, studied, or interacted with in any important way. And beyond that, the number of people who criticize, say, Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, without having seriously studied Christianity, Judaism, or Islam beyond reading a few choice bible quotes or looking up an article on Wikipedia, astounds me. It's like, they're all calling for religious people around the world to adopt their strict scientific rigors, but would never think to apply the same thing to themselves.

Again, I don't even want to call them atheists, because I think it does a disservice to the fair minded atheist who simply doesn't care what somebody privately believes.

This is the same with my life, going to college I run into a lot of extreme atheists, but never extreme religious people. This could be due to the environment I am in, but it still is amazing to see the hypocrisy going on in these atheist crowds. They will always try to push their beliefs on you, yet can not accept when others argue for their beliefs (or god forbid try to talk to them about their religion.). It is quite sad and paints a bleak picture for atheism from my point of view.

Straw man. That post was in response to the OP, describing people who make claims about empirical evidence for religion, not a descriptor for all religious people.

What can I cite? How about that science doesn't accept anecdotal accounts from religious texts as fact, or circular reasoning e.g. "the bible is divinely inspired, therefore it's accurate, and it's accurate because it's divinely inspired," because that's what assertions about empirical evidence for religion boil down to. We don't have any significant measure of empirical evidence for supernatural religious claims; if we did, they would be part of science. If you want me to find you a fuckin' citation for "religious claims are fundamentally unscientific" to demonstrate that people who run contrary to this don't understand what a faith-based position is and what an empirical position is, then, uhhh, here you go, have fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

Science isn't meant to discredit religion, as a matter of fact science can not discredit the supernatural. It can find arguments for things that were explained as supernatural, but science itself can not prove that god isn't real. Science is not here for that reason.
 
In your opinion, which one is worse?

They're both wiggity wack for different reasons. The former tends to be obnoxious and ignorant, but at least they truly believe their stuff. The latter takes a certain amount of cowardice...if you're going to be rational why not go all the way?
 
The doctor's couldn't explain it, which is why I chalk it up to higher power.
You underestimate the power of the human body, and there is much we do not know about its ingenuity.

This is the same with my life, going to college I run into a lot of extreme atheists, but never extreme religious people. This could be due to the environment I am in, but it still is amazing to see the hypocrisy going on in these atheist crowds. They will always try to push their beliefs on you, yet can not accept when others argue for their beliefs (or god forbid try to talk to them about their religion.). It is quite sad and paints a bleak picture for atheism from my point of view.
As you said, that is largely contingent upon the environment that you are in, since I'm sure there are a notable number of cases where the opposite occurs.
 
I never thought about god because I was never brought up with the idea
when questioned if i believed in god at the age of 12 by fellow students, a few of them harassed me about it until the teacher told them that everyone has their own beliefs

its not something you need to look into to decide if its bullshit or not and this being my strongest memory regarding real life religious dispute, i cannot look back on religion in a positive light.

You don't have to be religious to study theology or theologians. Heck, many of world's most well known atheistic philosophers have degrees in religious studies from Yale, Harvard divinity school, etc. I think you're missing something if you think that, to study religion, theology, or god, you have to have been brought up religious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom