Personal Importance of Religion

[Durandal]

And this is precisely what I never argue the existance of God with Mr. Wong - I can't possibly produce evidence that he would consider acceptable.

So what are you saying? That atheists' standard of evidence is the problem for theists when debating the existence of god(s)?

[AdmiralKanos]

And this is precisely what I never argue the existance of God with Mr. Wong - I can't possibly produce evidence that he would consider acceptable.

So what are you saying? That atheists' standard of evidence is the problem for theists when debating the existence of god(s)?

I think she's trying to say that religion ultimately just boils down to "I just believe it", and despite Revprez's pathetic attempts to bring science to the same level by falsely claiming that it functions the same way, she knows that it does not.

[Durandal]

And this is precisely what I never argue the existance of God with Mr. Wong - I can't possibly produce evidence that he would consider acceptable.

So what are you saying? That atheists' standard of evidence is the problem for theists when debating the existence of god(s)?

I think she's trying to say that religion ultimately just boils down to "I just believe it", and despite Revprez's pathetic attempts to bring science to the same level by falsely claiming that it functions the same way, she knows that it does not.

Then the question becomes, "What is evidence"? Broomstick might have had some sort of personal religious experience that has influenced her belief in God. Is that subjective evidence, or does all evidence, by definition, have to be empirical to be worth anything?

[General Zod]

I say you're splitting hairs... you say you're defining terms.

Where do agnostics fit into all this?

remind me again how quoting the actual dictionary's definition is splitting hairs. and fuck if i know where agnostics fit.

Does no one have a sense of humor around here? Ah, nevermind, perhaps it was my delivery....

However, just as atheists have many differences, so do folks with religions.. Lumping all people who practice a religion, or have a belief in God, all togehter is as much a gross over-generalization and lumping all atheists together. The rabid, frothing, fanatical religion nutcase is just as much a minority as any obnoxious variety of atheist you care to name.

and i lumped them all together in a single category. . . .where again?

The "religious or faithful" do NOT have a single unifying belief or religion tradition. There are thousands of religions, cults, sects, and belief systems that we know about, and no doubt others than have vanished into history.

and you'll note that i didn't say they did anywhere in the thread.

And just as you can have irrational atheists, you can have rational theists. Not every religion is incompatible with reason and science. Just limiting it to Christianity - not every form of Christianity requires literal belief in the Bible, and to characterize EVERY Christian as a Fundamentalist of that sort is a charicature.

and. . . .nowhere did i say that they were. my only points of this argument was to counter your claims that atheism is somehow a faith.

[AdmiralKanos]

Then the question becomes, "What is evidence"? Broomstick might have had some sort of personal religious experience that has influenced her belief in God. Is that subjective evidence, or does all evidence, by definition, have to be empirical to be worth anything?

All evidence has to be empirical to be worth anything outside your own head. When you're trying to present evidence to another person, experiences that exist only in your dreams or your faiths or your heart are not sharable experiences, hence they are irrelevant unless the other person subscribes to the Appeal to Authority fallacy and considers your experiences to be as valid as those that he can measurably verify himself (such as empirical measurements).

[Kuroneko]

The point is that there are beliefs reasonable people are forced to hold without justification, and those beliefs form the basis for a system with which to justify other propositions.

Induction is unjustified? Why? If you are relying on Hume, then look carefully at his argument. It runs roughly as follows: "(1) To justify induction, we need an argument. (2) This argument can be either deductive or inductive. (3) The principle of induction cannot be deductively proven; deduction is too weak for the task because a multitude of outcomes are logically possible. (4) Inductively justifying induction is unacceptable, because circular aguments beg the question and are therefore fallacious. (5) Probabilistic arguments are a subset of inductive arguments--they rely on the principle of induction, that past experience brings us usable information about the future. (6) Therefore, the principle of induction cannot be justified." It initially presents quite a quandary, but ultimately is not all that convincing.

Suppose instead of the principle of induction, we make such an argument against some deductive systems--deductive arguments would beg the question, while inductive justification would be too weak. The logic of such a hypothetical argument would be precisely the same as that of Hume's anti-induction argument. What conclusions can we draw from such a scenario? What Hume's argument actually shows is not that induction is unjustified, but that there can be no argument that satisfies a determined skeptic, either one that doubts induction, deduction, or whatever else one fancies to doubt. But that is such a truism that it is difficult to see what possible significance this fact can have. It is possible to doubt anything, to the point of moving even beyond Descartes, to logic behind cogito, ergo sum.

Interestingly, the are different models of science that directly challenge different premises--e.g., explanationism explicitly treats (2) as false, rather than simply taking induction as axiomatic, which would go against (1). On the other hand, in something like coherentism, justification can arise in a nonlinear fashion, which implicitly treats both (4) as false.

Because in order to move from the method of justification to proving the theory you have to show that you're inference is justified on the evidence.

Ah. Well, then, your point is not really about induction, but instead something along the lines of "something is being taken as axiomatic somewhere." However, this fact does not support your goal of equating religious faith and with any scientific concept--as any mathematician would tell you, axioms are to be minimized, and among scientists this is a subset of the principle of parsimony. This alone is enough for there to be a marked difference between the two. (Not that this is where differences end.) If you come back with something banal like "but you treat the principle that axioms should be minimized as an axiom, and if you justify it, you will need to do so with some other axiom", well, I'm I suppose I cannot dispute that. This kind of move, however, is wholly uninteresting--both science and religion are human endeavours, so they necessarily have some things in common, but using this commonality to equate level of justification is outright laughable. If one does not see that a system that takes more for granted is less justified than a system which takes less (an axiom!), then there is absolutely nothing to say but good day.

[brianeyci]

If you come back with something banal like "but you treat the principle that axioms should be minimized as an axiom, and if you justify it, you will need to do so with some other axiom"...

Lol thanks for the insight Kuroneko. I wonder if someone claiming this could use induction to show that you need infinite numbers of axioms to justify one axiom?

If one does not see that a system that takes more for granted is less justified than a system which takes less (an axiom!), then there is absolutely nothing to say but good day.

I can think of lots of things to say if someone claimed this actually. Nothing nice though.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

If one does not see that a system that takes more for granted is less justified than a system which takes less (an axiom!), then there is absolutely nothing to say but good day.

I can think of lots of things to say if someone claimed this actually. Nothing nice though.

As I said in my last post to the gangsta wannabe, he insisted on treating "justified" as a binary on/off condition, so there is no such thing in his mind as "more justified" or "less justified"; only on or off, 0 or 1. The funny thing was that he decried my use of "absolute proof" as a strawman even though that was precisely how he was using the word "justified".

[brianeyci]

As I said in my last post to the gangsta wannabe, he insisted on treating "justified" as a binary on/off condition, so there is no such thing in his mind as "more justified" or "less justified"; only on or off, 0 or 1.

Isn't this a false dilemma fallacy (on his part)? There's obviously conditions of more and less justified, and more justified explainations use the least number of "axioms" or unexplainable unknowns. I don't see how hard that is to understand. Maybe for the uninitiated, but after careful thought you have to come to the same conclusion that Kuroneko stated, "least number of axioms" is in itself an axiom requiring no proof. If you didn't then you would have to accept ridiculous explainations as fact like "ISD causes blah blah" rather than the more elegant explaination with less axioms.

The funny thing was that he decried my use of "absolute proof" as a strawman even though that was precisely how he was using the word "justified".

If he is using words like strawman, why does not not understand false dilemma fallacy. Maybe he only read half of the logical fallacies or something.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

Isn't this a false dilemma fallacy (on his part)?

Of course. As you encounter more and more religious anti-science types, you will find that they rely very heavily upon false dilemma fallacies. Pascal's Wager is only the most well-known of these, but it could be easily said that the false dilemma fallacy is the single most commonly used anti-science rhetorical weapon.

Revprez/Obloquium/GangstaWannabe Moron simply took the classic "no absolute proof, therefore no different from religion" argument and performed a word substitution from "absolute proof" to "justification".

[brianeyci]

"no absolute proof, therefore no different from religion"

This is easily proven by the existence of induction, which is not absolute proof but sufficient proof. The simplest analogy I can think of is the naturals. Take 1 as your starting point. Now 1 + 1 is two. Therefore, all further cases like 3 can be broken down to (1 + 1) + 1 and (1 + 1 + 1) + 1 and the naturals go to infinity. Then we have,

1. Prove the base case
2. Prove n
3. Prove n + 1

You will never, ever be able to have absolute proof that the naturals can go on forever because no matter how high you count there is always count + 1. However, we know they do go on forever by induction.

And there you have it, game over fundies. What a shitcock.

Brian

[Kuroneko]

Oh, he's gone... I did not notice at first. Oops.

This is easily proven by the existence of induction, which is not absolute proof but sufficient proof. The simplest analogy I can think of is the naturals.

Although mathematical induction is still itself an axiom, its application is deductively valid, so the connection between it and the principle of induction found in logic classes is tenuous at best.

[Broomstick]

And this is precisely what I never argue the existance of God with Mr. Wong - I can't possibly produce evidence that he would consider acceptable.

So what are you saying? That atheists' standard of evidence is the problem for theists when debating the existence of god(s)?

I think she's trying to say that religion ultimately just boils down to "I just believe it", and despite Revprez's pathetic attempts to bring science to the same level by falsely claiming that it functions the same way, she knows that it does not.

More or less.

Science depends on being able to test a hypothesis in a meaningful way. Being able to prove whether something true or false is vital (although there may be tests we are not able to run at present due to limitations of technology and resources). Faith does not require proof. They do not operate in the same manner at all, even if at times there are superficial resemblances.

In science, someone may believe very strongly in something, but if new facts or evidence arises that makes that hypothesis or theory false then the scientist must give up that belief and adjust his/her outlook accordingly. A "belief" in science must be backed up by facts and if it can't be it's either (with lack of proof either way) an interesting idea or (if the evidence argues against it) false.

In faith, no evidence is required. Evidence might exist, but the belief need never be tested, can exist quite adequately absent any proof, and if contrary evidence arises it need not be considered or an explanation contrived ("miracle") to enable the belief system to continue.

Then the question becomes, "What is evidence"? Broomstick might have had some sort of personal religious experience that has influenced her belief in God. Is that subjective evidence, or does all evidence, by definition, have to be empirical to be worth anything?

In science, evidence must be empirical.

In religion, subjective evidence is often just as legitimate as the objective variety.

Is subjective evidence worth anything? Well... it depends on the question. If you're talking about what to have for dinner when company comes, for example, it makes sense to prepare a meal based on objective principals such as nutritional soundness, properly hygenic food handling, and serving hot items at a temperature low enough not to cause injury. And these items all have a basis in science, with objective measurements (nutrient components of items, bacterial counts, temperature). However, you also want to prepare items that taste good to your guests, and as the old saying goes, there is no disputing matters of taste. With rare exception - such as whether or not someone perceives cilantro to have a "soap" flavor, which is genetically determined - taste is a subjective experience. I like the taste of honeydew melon, my Other Half claims the smell, let alone the taste, is nauseating. Well, I say the same thing about lima beans. There is no objective reason for our respective preferences, it is based upon purely subjective evidence i.e. our personal perception of the flavors involved. Is that important? Well, if you're planning a dinner party, yeah, it's pretty important. Because dinner party is given not just to satisfy the physical need for food but also (usually) to serve additional emotional and social needs.

And this gets back to those emotional needs that religion serves. Science doesn't offer much comfort to someone grieving for the dead... but religion can. Religion may deal with such aspects as disposal of the corpse which have objective components, but the real value in this case is relieving emotional pain. A funeral is not the time to start discussing the delusional aspects of religion or debate the existance of God, because that doesn't benefit anyone - the pain felt is not physical, it's emotional, that is, subjective and what is needed is subjective relief from the overwhelming aspects of that emotion. An atheist may well deal with such emotion without resorting to religion, but frankly it's cruel to kick that "crutch" out from underneath someone who is leaning on it to remain functional.

On the flip side, religious ecstasy does exist, but again, it's a subjective experience. Does that make it meaningless? Not necessarially, a transcendent experience can have a positive impact on a person, motivating them to improve themselves or others and contribute to society and the world at large. It's still a subjective experience, no matter how real the perception of that experience may be. It's not false joy, even if what triggers that emotion is nonexistant in an objective sense.

Which, again, is why I say religion serves emotional needs, which are by their nature highly subjective and personal. Emotions are real, we can measure their effect on the human body, but they aren't rational, they aren't suited to logic, and frequently they aren't reproducible either in an individual (a lavish sunset may produce intense emotions in me, or none at all, depending on my general mood of the day) or between individuals (for example, a melon salad will produce delight in me and revulsion in other members of my family).

You can measure all sorts of things about food, but there is no objective test to determine, scientifically, whether lima beans or green peas taste "better", as that is purely a subjective determination. Likewise, you can discuss rituals and rules, but there is no objective test of whether one religion is superior to another. That is a subjective determination.

[Captain Cyran]

Out of curiousity Broomstick, what is your religion?

At present: NeoPagan Eclectic Solitaire

(I suppose you will be asking for an explanation of what those words signify next?)

Very good guess. I'm assuming some faith that has started recently seeing as the you used neo. And from the rest I'm assuming it's based very much on personal beliefs more than any texts. (Hence eclectic solitaire) Am I close?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Er, is he banned again? [/trying to catch up]

[Kuja]

Er, is he banned again? [/trying to catch up]

RevPrez? Yep.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Er, is he banned again? [/trying to catch up]

RevPrez? Yep.

And without any quotes worthy enough to replace the one from his previous visit. Darn.

At least we have pictures of him now.

[Darth Wong]

Oh, he's gone... I did not notice at first. Oops.

It didn't take him too long before he started pulling that patented Revprez "I'm done with you" technique for summarily and unilaterally declaring victory in a debate.

Anyway, I suppose it would have been too much to point out to him that the notion of axioms being problematic is in itself an axiom

[Coyote]

And this is precisely what I never argue the existance of God with Mr. Wong - I can't possibly produce evidence that he would consider acceptable..

But that's the thing-- I very distinctly remember one of my first major exchanges on this board, when I "sorta compared" the "belief" in science to a type of religion, using the same ideas about "theory being unproven", etc, and relying on "faith" that a theory "worked".

I ended up getting tag-teamed by Wong and Durandal, which I was puzzled by at the time-- I did not feel that way because of some held religious belief, I felt that way only because I'd never given it much thought before. Ignorance, not agenda.

I realized why the discussion had gotten to that point-- it seemed that I was trying to use the same reasoning to "prove" the existance of God, something that happens a lot when fundy types or others like them come here armed with an agenda.

But hell, no, that's the whole point behind religion. You can't prove the existance of God, that's the whole concept behind faith. You take it on faith with no proof. To seek proof of God is to deny faith. I'm perfectly happy believing in God and admitting that to do so is illogical and not based on evidence.

[Broomstick]

Out of curiousity Broomstick, what is your religion?

At present: NeoPagan Eclectic Solitaire

(I suppose you will be asking for an explanation of what those words signify next?)

Very good guess. I'm assuming some faith that has started recently seeing as the you used neo. And from the rest I'm assuming it's based very much on personal beliefs more than any texts. (Hence eclectic solitaire) Am I close?

Pretty close.

We do use texts from a variety of sources -- it's just that none of them has the status of infallibility. When you start with the premise that other religions aren't wrong, they're just a different approach, it makes it easier to read, study, and even on occassion borrow the writings of others. Although borrowing can be problematic and is a source of controversy in the Pagan community - some folks do not want their stuff used outside of their own rites and geting HIGHLY pissed off at those who "steal" from them. Others could care less.

Most of us eclectics who have been in the NeoPagan camp for awhile do seriously study other, more formalized belief systems. Some are incompatible with solitary worship or syncretism, others are much more open to that sort of thing. And eclectic may be someone who has studied and been initiated in several systems, or someone who mostly uses one system but might have one or two influences/dieties from another belief system, or (sigh) yes, someone who just can't make up their minds. We're a pretty motley crew in an already extremely diverse and scattered group.

The "Solitaire" means I prefer to worship in private - although I most certainly have and will continue to participate in public rituals from time to time. It's more a preference than a mandate.

[Rye]

No no no, faith is an irrational epistemology, based on the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. you can't go from irrational epistemology to that which is defined by rationality and equate them to being the same thing.

The acceptance of reason does not ultimately rest on an act of faith. Reason is about integating and understanding the information from the senses, whereas faith is, as already said, the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. It exists by contradistinction to reason, and requires that the faculties of reason already be defined before it can revolt against it, and, as such, cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason.

Indeed, you have to preaccept the rules of reason before you can make the claim that it is based on faith, in order for your argument to be reasonable, it requires the very thing you're arguing against and simultaneously using to be established before you attempt to relogate it to the term that is defined as its antithesis.

Which is nonsensical, it's a stolen concept fallacy.

Look, as I said, I am not interested in partaking in an argument about these matters. I already stated that in my view religion satisfies emotional needs that reason does not. If you don't have those needs, bully for you.

Where was I attacking you for your emotional fulfillment and embracement of religion? I wasn't. I was objecting to you saying that atheists have faith in reason like people have faith in religion. They're not the same because they're not based in the same schools of thought. What is rational vs what is emotional (as you yourself have stated repeatedly).

Unless you weren't using that definition of faith, and were instead using the "confident trust in an idea, person or thing" which would be equivocating the use of faith, since you have to ask what that confident trust is based on. Reason, or faith?

You want an argument, do you? Go elsewhere. Yes, "confident trust in an idea, person, or thing", you got it on the first try. And either reason or faith can bring you to such trust, or a combination of both.

Not disagreeing, I'm just saying the two aren't really comparable, and you equivocated by talking about religious faith and then atheistic "faith" in reason.

Since I have no belief in Enoch, the seraphim, or even heaven as it is usually conceived I have to agree with you - but I agree with your statement for reasons completely different than the reasons you agree with that statement.

The initial questions were about RELIGION, that is, a system of beliefs - the very thing you stated exists: "The belief in christanity, for example" Religion does exist. The existance of God is debatable (pointlessly so, until either evidence of existance or evidence of absence is produced), the existance of religion is not.

I suspect this is about whether it's ok to lie or be irrational for the greater good or benign purposes. Believing in fictional characters is ok if it's not hurting anyone, sure, I suppose. But I can't consider it more than delusion, sorry.

Nor does it make it intrinsically bad.

True. They can be evaluated for goodness or badness individually with the results they garner in the [reasonable] real world.

The OP was NOT a question about GOD, it was a question about RELIGION. Why is RELIGION important to me, not whether or not God (etc.) exists.

I understand it, I was mainly objecting to the idea that reason is as much faith as religion. It was never intended to be an attack on the better aspects of religion, nor necessarily any delusion that has good effects. As you can see if you read my earlier post, I never said believing in superman or spiderman is intrinsically bad, especially not if it has good results in the real world.

Now, is anyone here still unclear on the distinction I'm making between God(etc.) and religion?

No. I don't think I ever was. Are you still unclear on why I called attention to the referral of use of reason equating to religious faith, and why I disagreed with it?