Hypothetical Scenario: Just Say No (to the forbidden fruit)

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by peledre, Dec 11, 2010.

  1. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    You may have brought up the issue specifically but it is a recurring issue in these discussions and if I had wanted to respond to you specifically as opposed to the idea in general I would've quoted you. I made no assumptions about your team.
    There are plenty of examples of people defending religion without believing in it. One are where I acknowledge that the analogy falls short is that religion receives extra deference from non-religious or simply less religious people. In such cases the my team analogy falls short but the point that people view attacks on religion as attacks on people stands. Of course as I point out above I was addressing a general idea, not your specific case.
    All you've done here is show you missed the point I made. The point is about the intellectual challenge of theological arguments. It is possible to find entirely fictional ideas, ones that no one disputes are fictional and develop an equally intellectual set of arguments based on the premises created by that fiction. This says nothing about whether or not the bible is fiction or god is a fiction. The analogy serves only to point out that in both cases the arguments, no matter how strong, function independent of whether they are arguing about something real.
    There is plenty about religion that merits ridicule. If someone proposes that god exists then we can get into characteristics of this god and we can indeed make comparisons to leprechauns and such. We can do so while also understanding that that is largely irrelevant to most religious people. That's the other side of the coin I mentioned though, that people who do not propose falsifiable ideas of god often have ideas that add nothing to demonstrable realities.

    If you want to discuss religion as this amorphous idea that does not make claims that are on some level comparable to leprechauns that's fine. There is plenty to discuss there. But to say that some claims of religion are not analogous to that is to ignore the characteristics of those claims and afford them special dispensation because they are labeled "religious".
     
  2. Tribune

    Tribune Member

    Jun 18, 2006
    I don't see how I missed your point. You are arguing that someone could construct fictional ideas which could be similarly reasonable to the religious one. Correct.
    But, on the other hand, you also claim that the valor of truth of the respective ideas is the same as the valor of truth of those religious ideas.
    In other words, you are arguing that the valor of truth of an idea whose creator admits to be a fraud = valor of truth of an idea whose creator/proponents are totally convinced to be true. I am sorry, that is a fallacy. If the proponent of an idea thinks it to be true, that does not automatically makes it true, but the valor of truth of both ideas is not equal.


    Your choice of words and phrase structure is a bit complex, so maybe I am misinterpreting you ?


    But, unfortunately, you are not ridiculing religion, you are throwing the discussion into ridicule, turning what could be a good debate into a piss-taking match (I am talking in general here).
     
  3. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Actually this is exactly what I am not doing and it is key to the analogy.

    The point is that these systems (religion and JRR Tolkien's universe) can both lend themselves to intellectual argument. That religion can produce complex theological arguments and even be considered an academic discipline says nothing about its truth or untruth. You can construct an argument based on religion that requires a very intelligent person to understand it. You can do the same based on the texts of JRR Tolkien.

    In other words the idea that theology is an academic discipline does not make it more or less true. What makes something real or true is evidence and that is a different question, one that the JRR Tolkien analogy does not handle. I'll grant you many people may use it as a "mythology :: mythology" analogy but I was trying to make it clear that the analogy I was calling up was as to the intellectual fortitude of arguments made when you take those ideas as givens.
    I hope I finally made it clear that this analogy isn't about truth value but rather about producing intellectual arguments.
    Again I insist that this is due to a special protection religion is granted, unconsciously, culturally or whatever. If someone ridicules gravity as nonsense you don't get personally upset. The same goes for several ideas. But there are ideas that people attach themselves to so dearly that when attacked they become personally upset. Religion is the best example of that. Instead of being upset that someone compares X description of god to Leprechauns, refute it. It often can't be refuted without moving the goalposts.
     
  4. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    Given that this is a side issue, I'm willing to let you have this point. I grant you that Christianity has a tiny shred more evidence for the existence of Jesus than we do have for the existence of Eru Ilúvatar. But there are still more independent records of Cthulhu...

    To go back to what Ombak said: Christianity has evolved a very complex set of theological dogmas that are mostly consistent with one another and work well within the framework of its belief system. But it all hinges on the accuracy of an ancient book for which there is no evidence in favor of it, but loads of evidence against it.

    The theology of middle earth is also complex and consistent, yet that alone doesn't make it real. Pointing that out isn't an insult, it's simply showing that theology is largely irrelevant when it comes to discussing the existence of god.



    Also, as a response to your general point, while I have had many serious discussions on religion here and elsewhere, there is always a time for ridicule. Ridiculing the ridiculous can be an effective way to get people to remove their mental blockade. And if you try to look at the core Christian beliefs objectively, then it's just as ridiculous as Scientology.

    [​IMG]
    Of course this is an extreme way of putting it, but it's essentially what Christians believe. It's the Christian's job to make that sound plausible if they don't want to be ridiculed, because they're the one making the claim. And it's exactly the process of trying to make this sound plausible where most people who used to be Christian turned atheist, because the more they tried to make sense of this, the more they came across new holes in the story.
    This is why ridicule can be an important element in any discussion.
     
  5. Tribune

    Tribune Member

    Jun 18, 2006
    There is no point splitting hairs, as there was already more talk than it should have been, but that's not how it sounded when you first made the point.

    I would. Not because I give special protection to the idea of gravity, but because I would regard a statement like "Gravity is as real as a leprechaun" as a wind up, particularly if it occurs in the middle of a serious discussion.
    Maybe that's just me, as I don't like trash talk, but I don't see this as having any positive result. Anyway, it's not necessary to drag this back and forth, so have it your way.
     
  6. Ombak

    Ombak Moderator
    Staff Member

    Flamengo
    Apr 19, 1999
    Irvine, CA
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Well leprechauns and gravity don't work but leprechauns and god do, so sticking to leprechauns on the gravity analogy was laziness on my part. Again, it's about the characteristics that these concepts share, not about the importance of them to individuals.

    Leprechauns may not sure characteristics with most peoples' modern idea of god. But they do share characteristics with ancient ideas of gods. Bringing up invisible pink monsters and such is an exercise in demonstrating how religious ideas move the goalposts and can't be pinned down. That such a ridiculous concept as a leprechaun is analogous to some ideas of god should be telling.
     
  7. YankHibee

    YankHibee Member+

    Mar 28, 2005
    indianapolis
    I wish people wrote shorter and more conversational responses to threads like this, it would make it much easier to catch up.
     
  8. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Insult or not, the Sil would make for awesome religion. Of course it's based on a Christian viewpoint, but it's also got all that cool Nordic stuff.
     
  9. Dignan

    Dignan Member+

    Nov 29, 1999
    Granada
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
     
  10. Dignan

    Dignan Member+

    Nov 29, 1999
    Granada
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
     
  11. Dignan

    Dignan Member+

    Nov 29, 1999
    Granada
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
     
  12. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    The problem is that you can't shout "straw-man" and then refuse to give the actual argument. If it's valid (as you claim) it will be taken seriously.

    I usually say in situations like this that I can only disbelieve in what is put in front of me. I can't possibly define everything I don't believe in and why, so it's up to the believer to say what he believes in and why, then we can talk about it.
    I'm sure there are, but they must be a small minority. From personal experience I can tell you that I don't know a single atheist like that.

    First of all, I don't get your reasons for claiming that the stats are wrong.

    Secondly, apart from surveys, what you can do is to look at the official records and then correlate that with the religiosity of the different areas. What you get is that in christian strongholds, divorce rates are highest.

    No, that's not the case. I said that if we accept that beliefs are a result of cultural factors (including my own) then we have one more reason to withhold believe in any specific religion, because culture =/= metaphysical truth.

    Apart from me having some epistemological problems with the words "free" and "truth", I generally agree with your statement. Yes, occasionally there are people who break through the mental barriers put in place by their peers.
     
  13. peledre

    peledre Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Viewing the facts (as opposed to personal anecdotes from both sides, which offer obviously limited information) shows that atheists (in America) are actually more knowledgeable than believers about Christianity (and other religions as well).

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928
     
  14. Dignan

    Dignan Member+

    Nov 29, 1999
    Granada
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sure in the USA. But what about East Germany, Estonia, and the Czech Republic, etc. People there have no religious knowledge whatsoever.

    The stats at this point are more in favor of the atheists in the USA, as many already pointed out, as people are actually having to leave something (in this case a mild theistic Christianity). So certainly many atheists have done some more thinking on the issues.

    I read the survey the used, it was pretty basic, and yes for many "theists" it would be difficult to do well, but for most people of serious faith it would be a peace of cake.

    I think there is a difference between nominal theists and practicing Christians. There is also certainly a difference between serious atheists and nominal atheists.
     
  15. peledre

    peledre Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm fairly convinced that most people are generally pretty stupid, a survey asking questions like "Why is it warmer in the summers and colder in the winters" would probably be answered successfully by under 50% of the US population. We have been quite successful at accumulating knowledge and building on that of others, but most people lack the intellectual curiosity to inquire and think about things that don't affect their daily lives.
     
  16. Dignan

    Dignan Member+

    Nov 29, 1999
    Granada
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
     
  17. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    the quiz itself only has one question that is specific to Christianity, but not Protestant Christianity, Catholic. it is completely reasonable that a Protestant would not know the correct answer to that question.

    it is irrelevant to mainline Christianity to know anything about Joseph Smith's religious affiliation.

    the question about the 10 Commandments should be something Christians know, but if they don't it will not compromise their salvation.

    basically, your point is meaningless because the quiz doesn't measure anything crucial to Christianity, specifically.
     
  18. Dignan

    Dignan Member+

    Nov 29, 1999
    Granada
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Yeah, I mean if we had a quiz of naming ten capital cities for ten states, and atheists scored higher would we deduce that atheists are more patriotic? Better at trivia?

    Maybe they are. But, the quiz was kind of stupid, and I didn't think that it in anyway really measured anything but general knowledge.
     
  19. peledre

    peledre Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This quiz is but one example. In the US, data shows that the more education one has, the less religious they are, this would mesh with data showing atheists have more general and specific knowledge than many religious. Most atheists in this country grew up in a theistic environment and have had heavy exposure to religion.


    On the contrary, the story of Mormonism and Joseph Smith is very relevant to other Chrisitians, it says quite a bit about peoples willingness to believe in spite of contradictory evidence, and how miracles and events that we know did not happen are still passed along as fact, even in this modern age. To me that shows just how easy it is for all this theology to be created out of whole cloth, something other Christians should consider. It's quite telling you consider the idea irrelevant.




    Might have something to do with the fact that "what's crucial to Christianity" isn't a singular answer with clearly defined sides. Most, if not all is open to interpretation. How would one answer, "Is man saved by works or grace alone?"

    Regardless, as I mentioned earlier the reason atheists in this country are more knowledgeable is because, as a group, they have more education and exposure to all religions, not just one specifically. My personal experience is those "true believers" are very hesitant to even study the basics of many world faiths, on the outside chance it might diminish their own.
     
  20. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    you cited the specific quiz. the specific quiz is a horribly flawed example. the point was that atheists know more about Christianity than Christians, but there was one question of 15 that remotely dealt with Christianity.

    the fact that you put forth that quiz as an example shows how desperately you want atheists to be better at "religion" than Christians.

    but as Dignan has said, and i repeat, an enormous percentage of people who identify as Christians are merely church-goers, and rarely go, at that.

    the separate issue of education and faith is a legitimate one, but it hardly means that if you are smart you don't have faith. it means that some people who don't have faith are smarter than some who do.

    let's say that the smartest person in the world believed there is a god and his name is Jesus...would that then mean that everyone who is less smart than he is stupid not to believe as he does? of course not. there are very intelligent people on both sides of this question.
     
  21. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    It's because in summer the sun is hot and in winter it snows. Duh!
     
  22. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    Let me throw in my two cents:

    First of all, Christians (all believers actually, regardless of religion) should in fact be interested to find out everything about every religion, because they could be right. If you accept the premise of a supernatural creator, then you have to examine all claims in detail, otherwise you run the risk of believing the wrong story.

    Saying that other religions are irrelevant to Christians just proves that it's not about pursuing the truth, but about faith that is literally blind and as we all know, blindly believing stuff likely leads to being ripped off one way or another.

    As for intelligence, it's hard to draw a connection there, but I've read a Canadian survey from 20 years ago which showed that atheists make up a much bigger percentage among Mensa members than among the general population.

    What is however firmly established is the connection between education and atheism. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be atheist. Which leaves us with a chicken/egg problem regarding atheism and intelligence.
    Does the atheism hinge on intelligence or on education? Is education a result of intelligence? I don't know and frankly I don't care as I think that the link between education and atheism is actually more relevant. It should tell you something that the more information an individual possesses, the more likely he is to reject religious claims.
     
  23. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    Actually, when I was 16, I spent one trimester at an American High School (and apparently a good one at that) and one of my teachers actually tried to tell us that the earth is closer to the sun during summer because of its elliptical orbit.

    I couldn't believe my ears and tried to correct her, I started out by saying that during the summer on the northern hemisphere the earth is actually further away from the sun than in winter. But before I could get to the actual reason behind the season (pun intended), she already moved on, brushing me off with something like "true, we also have to take the different hemispheres into account."
     
  24. peledre

    peledre Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is simply your opinion, even more useless than the study you denigrate.
     
  25. peledre

    peledre Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The question hinges on whether the education/atheism connection is causal or correlative. It seems fairly clear that it's a causal connection, and it's not a question of being "less smart" or "more smart", simply more education and more information so that one has a better tool set to interpret supernatural claims. Education =/= intelligence, knowing more about the context and history of supernatural claims makes you more knowledgeable, not necessarily more intelligent.
     

Share This Page