Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I agree with what you said here, if that's any clarification. Maybe "too much faith" is the wrong way to put it. How would you describe someone who thinks that hammers only work on one kind of nail?
|
Are you sure that's what you're trying to say? I thought you were trying to describe someone who thinks that hammers can drill screws into wood...
My claim is that people don't think critically of their own beliefs. They asymetrically apply reason to other people's beliefs and not their own. It sounded like your rebuttal is that logic and reason can only do so much and we're forced to be stupid. Before I attack a strawman, let me ask you: what were you trying to say?
Quote:
|
I'm working from the premise that anything, when pursued religiously, can become a religion. If you'd prefer a different term, let me know.
|
The word you're looking for is probably "dogma." Something that is followed blindly. Of course, logic isn't dogma...
Quote:
Do you see anything problematic with making the claim "very few people believe that they are being illogical' and then following it up by lamenting the people whose logic doesn't line up with yours? What makes you so sure that you aren't one of the folks who isn't erroneously presuming to be behaving logically?
That's my point. I agree with you that logic does simply work, and there is nothing religious in how it does its thing. The religious aspect comes in when certain folks co-opt the word "logic" as a means of attempting to justify purely philosophical preferences. To paraphrase atheism as the pinnacle of logic: "Oooh la la, look at me, it's not that I prefer my perspective to be based on scientifically verifiable information, it's that I'm, like, so logical about everything."
The claim is often made in these discussions that atheists are right because they are logical and that religious folk are wrong because they aren't logical. It is also true that ensuing discussions of what logic actually is show a rather wide divide between the people who think its relevant and the people who don't. In any case, if one defines the word "logical" as being "any position which agrees with mine" (which seems to be an implicit belief in the "theism is wrong because it is illogical" perspective) then one is using logic in a religious sense.
|
Honestly, do you see me doing this?
I've already stated that people have used the word "logic" colloquially and that it has a literal meaning that I often refer to as "formal logic." I've already stated that I prefer to use the term "reason" because what people use to rebut religion is not logic in the strictest sense. Does any of this ring a bell? Do you understand to whom you are speaking?
For the record, I haven't co-opted the word "logic." My complaint is that people are not applying due critical analysis. They are willing to use logic and reason on anything except what they want to believe. My atheism is not just a philosophical stance, it's also a practical one. It's not just a "preference," like whether you enjoy chocolate or not. It's a claim that can and should be debated just like any in politics and it's just as important, too...
Quote:
|
And whether you feel oppressed by religious folk is irrelevant to anything I'm talking about. Some folk might call it a straw man.
|
Only the ones that don't understand what strawmen are. For it to be a "strawman," I must claim that what you're saying is that religion is oppressing me and then attack that oppression. Of course, I'm not doing that...
It's an expression of what I dislike about religion. Specifically, the state of religious affairs in the US right now. It's actually a bit of personal hyperbole since I'm not in the US right now but I feel for the American people who have to suffer through that nonesense! ...and I suppose I like to debate on webforums...
Quote:
|
From my understanding, Dawkins quotes religious ideas to discredit them, but in doing so fails to show an adequate understanding of their significance. Whether his general criticisms of theism are correct or not, he kind of shoots himself in the foot by overstating the case.
|
If you're going to hold opinions or make claims about Richard Dawkins, you should probably have actually seen or read his material. Otherwise, you really are just attacking a strawman.
Here's
a thread on one of his Q&As in Lynchburg, no less. My opinions have changed somewhat since I made that thread so don't take them too seriously...
Quote:
|
I think it extends from a common mistake in criticisms of theism, in that it attempts to discredit theism in general by discrediting how it is practiced by certain groups. If one's goal is to discredit theism in general, it seems like it should be of little practical value to discredit a subset of people who practice it.
|
This is simply a conflation of issues and it's perfectly understandable. You can debate theism from strictly a philosophical standpoint or you can debate its practice and effects on our society. The latter is much more interesting, to me, than the former. Indeed, I think, for most people, this is the central issue. Of course, discrediting religion in general will help discredit it in the specific case so that's what often happens. I really do think that what people do because of religion is the important issue...
Quote:
Certainly there are some religious claims which can be verified through scientific means. Science can readily verify that god isn't a visible three foot tall hobgoblin that perches on George Bush's head during press conferences.
There are limitations to what science can say, however, and theism thrives just beyond these limitations. So while it may be right to claim that by making certain claims, some religious statements naturally avail themselves to scientific inquiry, the idea that all religious statements about reality can be subjugated by scientific inquiry isn't itself all that well reflected in reality.
|
Again, it depends on what you mean by "reality." Remember my criteria? Is "Iron Man is a good movie!" a statement of reality?
Quote:
|
It is difficult to devise an experiment to reveal the nature of an omnipotent being who doesn't necessarily want its nature revealed. As far as debunking the central ideas of theism directly, science is useless because as far as the scientific process is concerned, theism doesn't play fair.
|
It's not that theism doesn't play fair, it's that it doesn't seem to play at all!
Quote:
|
And I'm pretty sure that there are some creationists who do believe that their god planted evidence.
|
Trust me, they are fringe creastionists!
Quote:
|
I'm fairly certain that everyone's reality is in some respects a rationalization of what one wants. That being said, your particular interest in the nature of religion is immaterial here; not to be flip, but it isn't relevant to anything I'm talking about.
|
Oh, but you are being flip. My interest is, indeed, relevant since you have chosen to speak about this with... me...