Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

I don't think anyone wants to put god "under a microscope" - just to have some rational arguments for its existence!

Well, many people would say: "Most humans have always felt the need to connect to the divine since historical records began!" but then you would say "Yes but where IS God? Let me SEE!" - which really, is the microscope argument...

Yes - regarding the latter part of Harris's paragraph, that is only what theologians have been saying for centures. Crude ideas of an avenging super-being are helpful to no-one. I used to have a large poster with the quote from a modern philosopher: "If an almighty super-being told me to bow down and worship him or I would be blasted to hell, I hope I would have the courage to say: 'Go ahead and blast'." Most theologians would agree with Harris there.

Yes. Agree on science, or at least scientists, knowing its flaws. Mostly. Though I'd offer up 14 yo kids probably don't. And Kuhn identified some of the ways scientists protect their certainty in the face of evidence to the contrary. Guess I'd hazard a guess that most theologians know religion's flaws also in ways that 'believers on the street' might not.

Still a humanist atheist agnostic though.

ah writing fast and distracted. You think I am making a straw man summary of SH. I am not, as explained below.

theology well aware of its flaws. Flaws in translations, in human motives, abuse of authority, etc. To pretend religion is one homogenous set of beliefs with no dissent or questioning is nonsense.

Olympede, you may well be right about theologians knowing of many practical flaws. But that's very rarely how religion is presented. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"The problem with saying that "faith" somehow makes one exempt from rational discourse..."

does it?
"... is that it ultimately boils down to just simple special pleading."

is it? why?
" In any case, people of "faith" seem to want to attempt rational discourse with atheists about their faith anyway - wanting to have their cake and eat it."

i don't understand why i can't have faith and enter into a discussion with you

" I could say, "that's fine, but it means you are now no longer allowed to argue with me." That would sound a little arrogant, but seriously, what other way is there of staying sane? "

still not understanding why someone who has faith has to be automatically stuck off your debating list.

"It's not like a political or socio-economic argument where there are heated views on both sides but evidence offered by both. It's like a debate where one side just shrugs and says "you don't understand unless you Believe.""

no becuase faith doesn't require evidence and cannot be proven, however if you were having a debate with someone and they did indeed say that...well it wouldn't be much of a debate would it!

i think you mentioned exactly the right word. arrogence. and this whole post stinks of it.

it's not much of a debate if you expect to always be right.

the lack of respect for others viewpoints is astounding. and i find in general on this thread intolerance of people with faith astounding. the language used is hateful and inciteful.

there is no respect here - no respect for the views of another person. So weigh up your lofty position where people of faith are not worth bothering with, gods of your own universes and fate. arrogence indeed. i would rather have faith in pixies ( and the other inflamatory euphamisms used here) than be the disrespectful arrogent person who is disrespectful of another persons view to the extent that they are not even worth debating with.

The puzzling idea that a God might concern himself with gay marriage is just one of many examples which Harris uses in the overall context of the argument quoted by me. As the briefest of reads makes clear. Reduced by Olympe to "god hates gays." Extracting a specific example and using it to denigrate the general, out of context, is a common diversionary rhetorical technique.

custardo - not striking anyone off my debating list. It's just that, a lot of the time, the "debating" offered by the religious would not pass muster in a sixth-form debating society. If the default, unmoving position is "my faith cannot be proven (right or wrong)" then there's not much point in having an argument about it. Which makes me wonder why people even bother.

What proof would satisfy you UQD?

What are the criteria for having faith in some things and not others? If you are a supporter of the Labour party and not the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats, I'd expect you to offer some key points from their manifesto in support of this. They may be contentious points, but they at least justify your standpoint.

What makes a belief in the Christian god any more valid than a belief in the Celestial Teapot or David Icke's lizards, when there is equal (equally little) evidence for both?

(Are people starting to see why I left here in the first place? )

No "proof", that's not the point. We've had that debate ad nauseam. The point is not thnat there isn't proof - there isn't even any evidence.

The irritating thing is that, in the absence of proof, people choose a default position of belief in one of several hundred things they could possibly believe in. Several thousand, even. Surely, in the absence of proof, the sensible default position is unbelief until proven otherwise.

It's impossible to prove the absence of something, but it should be possible to show evidence of its presence.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't disappear."

But why on earth should rational people be expected to make a distinction between different types of non-existent beings (ie it's OK to laugh at people who believe in pixies and poltergeists but you can't laugh at MY imaginary friend, waaah!)
No one has ever mad a good case for privileging their own superstition over other people's different ones.
This isn't to say that people aren't welcome to tell themselves that the latest bout of trapped wind is a message from a Higher Power or any other old bollocks, it's just that people who are not interested or don't agree shouldn't be obliged to inconvenience themselves or be harmed just to cater to superstitious special pleading.
ANd to point out that superstitious individuals are being precious, tiresome little twats in insisting on some aspect of their superstition being privileged or catered to despite the annoyance or inconvenience it causes others is not to denigrate everyone else who adheres to the same particular myth system.

What makes a belief in the Christian god any more valid than a belief in the Celestial Teapot or David Icke's lizards, when there is equal (equally little) evidence for both?

Well as said before, millions of humans experience the need to commune with the divine. As far as I'm aware, none have felt the need to commune with the teapot and few with the lizards. You can't pathologise what is normal.

it's OK to laugh at people who believe in pixies and poltergeists but you can't laugh at MY imaginary friend, waaah!

I don't really laugh at anyone's belief, to be honest. I might feel somewhat sorry for someone who believes in fairies. Why would I laugh at them? I actually had a cranial osteopath who told me she left food out for the fairies in her garden... I did stop going TBH.

i didn't know you had left. why did you leave?

my point ...abou your point... seemed to be that you were saying that the faith lot just aren't worthy - again with the 6th form analogy - really backs up this assertion.

the only reason i can think of that you wouldn't want to enter into a discussion - is because you want to 'win' which isn't really the point of a discussion

i can see why people don't believe in god or gods or teapots. i understand your POV, i see your reckoning, so why you can't teleological theory, whist retaining your own POV is in itself an immature standpoint.

morningpaper - you see, the way you saw that cranial osteopath's belief in fairies is, for good or ill, the way some people see religion.

What is "the divine" though? It is meaningless for someone who doesn't already have the concept. This is what I meant by the internal logic thing with the Escher painting above. If there is no "divine" in my world, you may as well be saying "the fairies" or "aliens".

MP: but actually lots of human beings have no interest in imaginary beings. Many have put up with being told that there are imaginary beings who must be obeyed and placated, because the alternative to going along with the superstitious stuff might involve being killed. To a lot of people these the idea of 'higher powers' is vaguely something they have been told about in childhood, which holds little or no interest for them and they are not bothered enough to argue about it, which I think is an excellent thing - better that superstition just die out gradually without the need for violence after all. While some people do kind of wander around looking for 'something', the main purposes of religions are and have always been a method of social control and a way of getting extra privileges for the people who made up the 'priest/shamam' class.

Ah. But we can and do pathologize what is normal, don't we? All the time. Sex, for example. And while I don't agree with UQD's style of approach, he is still asking some good questions.

A different way of putting it might be that millions of people also experience the need to commune with the rational scientific world view. Which involves invoking religious relativism. Can we take some less controversial examples, instead of teapots and lizards? Such as actual NRM's, such as Scientology or Moonies etc.?

UQD: Absolutely. Just as someone who has never loved anyone would look at you blankly if you told them you loved your wife and it was THIS AMAZING THING, I can't make you feel that the world has a spiritual dimension when those words don't resonate with you! I don't think that you are a twat though, for not seeing it, just because it's so bloody obvious to me ...

In terms of the coherence of the internal structure of theistic thought, you are still free to go ahead and criticise of course, regardless of whether or not you believe in any sort of divinity!

custardo - it's not immature at all to demand evidence to back up claims. That's the most sensible way of debating. As I said above, I just cannot see why belief should be the default.

oh you misunderstand me, its not the part about demanding evidence that i find immature.

excellent post MP

well said Lenin