[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-28, 11:13, said:

The religious anti-science movement in the US really scares me.

The irony is that they are missing out appreciating the beauty and wonder of the universe, which, if created by their god, is so much more impressive than one in which stuff was just put there.

It scares me too. The even greater irony is that they consider themselves patriotic, and yet they are seriously harming the country by suppressing science. I shudder when I think of all the bright young southerners who could have been fine scientists, but were taught from infancy to fear and disregard it.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2014-March-03, 07:31, said:

It scares me too. The even greater irony is that they consider themselves patriotic, and yet they are seriously harming the country by suppressing science. I shudder when I think of all the bright young southerners who could have been fine scientists, but were taught from infancy to fear and disregard it.

Oxymoron

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2014-March-03, 07:42, said:

Oxymoron

Says you!

One of my great friends from Atlanta (a bridge player of course) has a young adult daughter, already an accomplished physicist, who spent a full year working with the LHC.

[mikeh]

Scarabin, on 2014-February-27, 00:28, said:

I think there is a wide gulf between moderates and fanatics. Imo moderates are capable of rational thought, fanatics are not. Thus I expect moderates to be capable of changing their beliefs and to be tolerant of others' beliefs.

I think you continue to miss the point.

A fanatic surrenders completely to the irrational, to the point that in a recent television documentary a minister said, with all sincerity, that if the bible said that 2+2 = 5, he would start by believing it and then would perform whatever rationalizations would be required to accommodate the appearance of the world with that revealed truth.

The religious moderate would, I assume, laugh at that, and rationalize the bible, presumably arguing that the biblical arithmetic was allegorical.

The rational person would also laugh at it and conclude that this statement was some evidence of the irrationality of the religious belief embodied in the bible: note I say 'some evidence', not 'proof'.

The religious moderate, confronted as any religious moderate who has read the bible has been with a multitude of demonstrably false or extraordinarily improbable statements, including some that are contradicted elsewhere in the same bible, preserves a belief in the ultimate validity of the core fantasies of the religion by finding excuses and performing either mental gymnastics or by simply denying the existence of the evidence.

The rational secularist sees all of the improbabilities and contradictions and concludes that it is all a crock, being an amalgam of myths, legends, stories and so on from many traditions, manipulated, selected, translated (numerous times) by people with an agenda that includes the obtaining and expansion of power over the credulous.

The difference between the religious fanatic and the religious moderate is thus merely one of degree....the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. The difference between the rational secularist and all religious believers, of all degrees of fanaticism or moderation, is truly qualitative. The one founds his world view on superstition, the other on evidence.

The moderate may and indeed will use evidence-based thinking in many aspects of his life, but at the core of his world view the superstition remains, and threatens to influence every decision he makes.

Moreover, since the idiocies within the bible are so readily apparent, and yet so few religious moderates become atheists, it is plain to see that the religious moderate will not, in fact, change his beliefs based on evidence...at least, not very often. Were it otherwise, religious moderates would be a tiny minority. Instead, they can pretend to be 'liberal' and 'open-minded' while still living their lives based on superstition and fantasy as their core values and beliefs.

That's one reason why religious moderation is not an admirable trait.

[Vampyr]

mikeh, on 2014-March-03, 18:54, said:

I think you continue to miss the point.

...

Moreover, since the idiocies within the bible are so readily apparent, and yet so few religious moderates become atheists, it is plain to see that the religious moderate will not, in fact, change his beliefs based on evidence...at least, not very often.

I think that a lot of people in these threads have held the mistaken view that a religious "moderate" has some willingness to chance his or her views on religion. In a way they are probably less likely to change than fanatics, since they are already used to rationalising, compromising, and deciding which parts of the Bible or whatever holy book they use are "true" and which are allegories.

For example, when someone says that they don't believe that their god made the world literally in six days but that he set the wheels in motion, what can you do? You can say it's wildly unlikely, and they will say it's faith.

End of.

PS And in fact there are websites and organisations for ex-Mormons, ex-quiverfulls, but there is no eg ex-Presbyterian movement that I know of.

[32519]

mikeh, on 2014-March-03, 18:54, said:

I think you continue to miss the point.

A fanatic surrenders completely to the irrational, to the point that in a recent television documentary a minister said, with all sincerity, that if the bible said that 2+2 = 5, he would start by believing it and then would perform whatever rationalizations would be required to accommodate the appearance of the world with that revealed truth.

The religious moderate would, I assume, laugh at that, and rationalize the bible, presumably arguing that the biblical arithmetic was allegorical.

The rational person would also laugh at it and conclude that this statement was some evidence of the irrationality of the religious belief embodied in the bible: note I say 'some evidence', not 'proof'.

The religious moderate, confronted as any religious moderate who has read the bible has been with a multitude of demonstrably false or extraordinarily improbable statements, including some that are contradicted elsewhere in the same bible, preserves a belief in the ultimate validity of the core fantasies of the religion by finding excuses and performing either mental gymnastics or by simply denying the existence of the evidence.

The rational secularist sees all of the improbabilities and contradictions and concludes that it is all a crock, being an amalgam of myths, legends, stories and so on from many traditions, manipulated, selected, translated (numerous times) by people with an agenda that includes the obtaining and expansion of power over the credulous.

The difference between the religious fanatic and the religious moderate is thus merely one of degree....the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. The difference between the rational secularist and all religious believers, of all degrees of fanaticism or moderation, is truly qualitative. The one founds his world view on superstition, the other on evidence.

The moderate may and indeed will use evidence-based thinking in many aspects of his life, but at the core of his world view the superstition remains, and threatens to influence every decision he makes.

Moreover, since the idiocies within the bible are so readily apparent, and yet so few religious moderates become atheists, it is plain to see that the religious moderate will not, in fact, change his beliefs based on evidence...at least, not very often. Were it otherwise, religious moderates would be a tiny minority. Instead, they can pretend to be 'liberal' and 'open-minded' while still living their lives based on superstition and fantasy as their core values and beliefs.

That's one reason why religious moderation is not an admirable trait.

I'd like to hear what the Jews have to say about this. Ultimately it's your Elohim that is being ridiculed here. Every other god of every other religion is false.

[mike777]

"The irreconcilable contradiction between Plato's God and Aristotle's Prime Mover."

If one was to rephrase the question as to the problem of too much rational secularism.

The perils of too much Plato can lead to Hegel which Popper says can lead to turning totalitarian theory into practice.

otoh too much rational secularism ends in narrow-minded sterility in which everything is reduced to rote formulae and individual creativity is stamped out; a complacent behaviorist calculus begins to govern social and political relationships.

[Scarabin]

mikeh, on 2014-March-03, 18:54, said:

I think you continue to miss the point.

A fanatic surrenders completely to the irrational, to the point that in a recent television documentary a minister said, with all sincerity, that if the bible said that 2+2 = 5, he would start by believing it and then would perform whatever rationalizations would be required to accommodate the appearance of the world with that revealed truth.

The religious moderate would, I assume, laugh at that, and rationalize the bible, presumably arguing that the biblical arithmetic was allegorical.

The rational person would also laugh at it and conclude that this statement was some evidence of the irrationality of the religious belief embodied in the bible: note I say 'some evidence', not 'proof'.

The religious moderate, confronted as any religious moderate who has read the bible has been with a multitude of demonstrably false or extraordinarily improbable statements, including some that are contradicted elsewhere in the same bible, preserves a belief in the ultimate validity of the core fantasies of the religion by finding excuses and performing either mental gymnastics or by simply denying the existence of the evidence.

The rational secularist sees all of the improbabilities and contradictions and concludes that it is all a crock, being an amalgam of myths, legends, stories and so on from many traditions, manipulated, selected, translated (numerous times) by people with an agenda that includes the obtaining and expansion of power over the credulous.

The difference between the religious fanatic and the religious moderate is thus merely one of degree....the difference is quantitative, not qualitative. The difference between the rational secularist and all religious believers, of all degrees of fanaticism or moderation, is truly qualitative. The one founds his world view on superstition, the other on evidence.

The moderate may and indeed will use evidence-based thinking in many aspects of his life, but at the core of his world view the superstition remains, and threatens to influence every decision he makes.

Moreover, since the idiocies within the bible are so readily apparent, and yet so few religious moderates become atheists, it is plain to see that the religious moderate will not, in fact, change his beliefs based on evidence...at least, not very often. Were it otherwise, religious moderates would be a tiny minority. Instead, they can pretend to be 'liberal' and 'open-minded' while still living their lives based on superstition and fantasy as their core values and beliefs.

That's one reason why religious moderation is not an admirable trait.

I am not sure what point you think I am missing since, to me, you seem to be putting forward opinions and assumptions as facts.

In my life I have met many people I would consider moderate, and the religious and secular moderates seemed to have much in common, especially a reasonable outlook on life. I note that you do not approve of religious moderation, but I personally admire moderation whether religious or secular.

I suspect we are starting from different definitions of moderation. But does it really matter?

[Trinidad]

For me the difference between fanatics and moderates is in tolerance. Fanatics don't tolerate other views. Moderates do tolerate other views or lifestyles, even if they think they are horrible for themselves.

I think religious moderates are mistaken. But they are not sitting in my way. They don't do anybody any harm, and, as far as I am concerned, they can believe whatever they want to believe. In return for not sitting in my way, I will not get in their way. Religious moderates keep their religion for themselves: They will not work on Sundays and they will not have an abortion. But they don't tell anybody else what they can and can't do. So, that is fine with me, no matter how wrong I think they are.

Religious fanatics, on the other hand, are mistaken and sitting in my way, or doing harm. They don't allow me to do my shopping on Sunday. They don't allow me to decide over my life and death decisions. In short, they don't allow me to dismiss their believe system and adopt my own and live by that.

If people want to believe that the world was created in 6 days, that is fine with me, no matter how silly I think it is, as long as they allow me to do what I want on the seventh day. Moderates do, fanatics don't.

Rik

[kenberg]

Sometimes it helps to vary the question a little. I suggest:

"All men are created equal."

Jefferson regarded this as self-evident. Really? That fanatic! My point is that we all live our lives on a basis of faith. Jesus said that we should "Do onto others as we we would have them do onto us" . As I recall, he siad that this sums up all the laws of the prophets. It's been sixty some years so my memory may not be precise as to just how he put it. Jefferson said that "All men are created equal". Are these not both a matter of faith? Or, in both cases, we can scrap faith and just say that we accept this as a way of life, faith or not. Lincoln said that the country is "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". He did not claim it was self-evident, only that this is the way that we have chosen.

As has been noted, "moderate" probably means different things to different people. And all humans, or all of them I have met, fall short of their ideals. But it seems ot me that we all live our lives on the basis of faith.

It has been suggested that a substantial part of moderation is that the moderate is open to the possibility that his views are not correct. I agree with this. Let's see where this leads. Are we open to the possibility that men are not all men are created equal? Yes I know that Jefferson meant all white males, or maybe even all white male landowners, but we have advanced a bit since then. I think.

And Vamp, I'm an ex-Presbyterian. A movement of one, I guess.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2014-March-04, 06:56, said:

It has been suggested that a substantial part of moderation is that the moderate is open to the possibility that his views are not correct. I agree with this.

I do not think that this is generally true of people who believe in religion.

Quote

And Vamp, I'm an ex-Presbyterian. A movement of one, I guess.

I dare say the recovery is less traumatic than for, say, an ex-quiverfull!

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-04, 07:02, said:

I do not think that this is generally true of people who believe in religion.
I dare say the recovery is less traumatic than for, say, an ex-quiverfull!

Probably so but some trauma was involved. My minister was very inclined to threaten damnation for taking the wrong path. I found an isolated spot and shouted obscenities at god for a while. Sort of thinking that if I am going to be struck by lightning, maybe we could just get it over with. When nothing happened I figured I was home free. That was some sixty years ago and so far so good, but I suppose it will not be too long before I get another opportunity to see if I was right..

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2014-March-04, 08:12, said:

That was some sixty years ago and so far so good, but I suppose it will not be too long before I get another opportunity to see if I was right..

I hope that this will still take a while.

But when it happens, and if you were wrong, make sure that you get internet!

Rik

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-04, 09:03, said:

I hope that this will still take a while.

But when it happens, and if you were wrong, make sure that you get internet!

Rik

I'll let you know!

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on 2014-March-04, 06:56, said:

Jesus said that we should "Do onto others as we we would have them do onto us" . As I recall, he siad that this sums up all the laws of the prophets

Actually, this is attributed to Rabbi Hillel. Quoting from a site on the internet (and you know, if it is on the internet, it is fact):

Judaism has an oral tradition as well that is more than two thousand years old; these are interpretations, commentaries on the Torah. In one book, the Babylonian Talmud, is this story: A non-Jew demanded that Rabbi Hillel and another rabbi explain Judaism while standing on one leg. The other rabbi chased the man away with a ruler for his impertinence. Rabbi Hillel, the greater scholar, replied with a brief answer, perhaps in part directed at his colleague, "What is hateful to you, do it not unto others—this is the entire Law of Moses, and the rest is commentary."

This story is how it was related to me, and I found several sites that relate the same story.

[gwnn]

That's nice and all but actually there are plenty of things in the Bible that appear to have little to do with 'do unto other as you would have them do unto you.' Just in the New Testament and just from Jesus, you see him destroy a fig tree when it didn't have fruit out of season, destroying a herd of pigs of someone else, tell a young man that his dead father should be buried by the other dead, telling his disciples that it's better (or at least not clearly worse) to buy expensive oil for Jesus' feet than to give money to the poor, ....... It bothers me how many people, not only fanatics, not only moderates, but also non-religious people seem to think that Jesus, as described by the Bible, was a great moral teacher (according to most religious people: sinless even) and basically he was advocating the Golden Rule. If you actually read what he supposedly did, it's quite a mixed bag.

[kenberg]

My Sunday School teacher must have skipped those parts.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2014-March-04, 06:56, said:

Sometimes it helps to vary the question a little. I suggest:

"All men are created equal."

Jefferson regarded this as self-evident. Really? That fanatic!

This was a man who owned slaves

This was a man who fathered children by his slaves, children who were then bastards, and mixed race bastards at a time when being either posed serious problems in terms of ability to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I know many americans view their founding fathers and Christ as essentially morally equivalent, but the reality is that Jefferson and the others were creatures of their times. They espoused some views that were seen as radical, and rightly so, but they also espoused many views that would be abhorrent to us today.

Their attitudes towards women (chattels) and blacks (chattels) and so on are utterly inconsistent with 'All men are created equal' until you remember that they were sloganeering and, in any event, speaking only of white men. Negroes, Orientals, Native Americans, and women need not apply.

History sucks when it comes to hero-worship.

[kenberg]

OK. I intended to illustrate my view that we all, to some extent, live on faith. I suggested as a non-religious example the statement that "All men are create equal" and, as a religious example, the Golden Rule.

This has brought responses that Jesus was a plagiarist, Jesus destroys fig trees, and Jefferson owned slaves. I wasn't aware of the plagiarism, although actually I was sort of aware that the Golden Rule is a feature of many religions. The part about the fig trees is new to me. I did know Jefferson owned, and for that matter probably (I am not up on the exact status of the claim) had children with one of them.

So, again, the point I was trying, apparently completely without success, to make is this. We accept "All men are created equal". Is this not a matter of faith, or does someone claim that this statement has been rigorously defined and proved? Yes, yes, yes, we do not always live up to "All men are created equal" just as the Christian does not always love his neighbor.

I regard much of my life to be based on faith. I long ago gave up a belief in any god, it seemed most unlikely to be true. That's very different from saying that I think that all of my fundamental views are carefully thought out concepts that will surely withstand the most rigorous examination. Even more, I have no wish to be so rational

Logic and rationality are great tools for achieving goals. I think that they are of lesser use in choosing our goals.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2014-March-04, 18:04, said:

OK. I intended to illustrate my view that we all, to some extent, live on faith. I suggested as a non-religious example the statement that "All men are create equal" and, as a religious example, the Golden Rule.

This has brought responses that Jesus was a plagiarist, Jesus destroys fig trees, and Jefferson owned slaves. I wasn't aware of the plagiarism, although actually I was sort of aware that the Golden Rule is a feature of many religions. The part about the fig trees is new to me. I did know Jefferson owned, and for that matter probably (I am not up on the exact status of the claim) had children with one of them.

So, again, the point I was trying, apparently completely without success, to make is this. We accept "All men are created equal". Is this not a matter of faith, or does someone claim that this statement has been rigorously defined and proved? Yes, yes, yes, we do not always live up to "All men are created equal" just as the Christian does not always love his neighbor.

I regard much of my life to be based on faith. I long ago gave up a belief in any god, it seemed most unlikely to be true. That's very different from saying that I think that all of my fundamental views are carefully thought out concepts that will surely withstand the most rigorous examination. Even more, I have no wish to be so rational

Logic and rationality are great tools for achieving goals. I think that they are of lesser use in choosing our goals.

I don't agree that we are all created equal and indeed, I think the saying is capable of leading to enormous societal harm. Anyone with any shred of awareness knows full well that we are born with a huge range of differences, whether they be intrinsic (genetic factors, birth defects) or cultural (wealthy parents, born in a slum in Mumbai) and so on. There is neither innate equality nor theoretical/real equality of opportunity.

Any world view that purports to deny these realties, based on faith, enables the fortunate to claim that they deserve their good fortune and that the unfortunate are getting only what they deserve. After all, we were all created equal.


I don't think for one moment that you meant it that way, but it seems to me to be the sort of thing that libertarians say and that many wealthy people believe. We 'should' be given as much equality of opportunity as is possible to create but no society, arguably least of all the US (out of a western countries) even pretends to do so other than in sound bites and meaningless lies.