Faith in Reason

 
pat2112
 
Avatar
 
 
pat2112
Total Posts:  126
Joined  18-12-2015
 
 
 
02 August 2016 10:29
 

Sam, I wish you would talk to some religious intellectuals, about what the core tenets of belief and the actual religious world views. You overlay your bias against them, and present these things as facts when they are not in fact true.
You talk about the ‘long and short view’ on a particular issue and how nuanced in can be, but present as fact that religions are anathema to reason or incapable of nuance that isn’t ‘dismissive’ of these ‘texts’.
It does not help you understand the truth of faith and religion to discuss it with other atheists.
I can think of 3 people off the top of my head that are your intellectual equal, where you could have a leveled, reasoned conversation about this stuff and the conversation be accurate.
I don’t mind criticism or critical thinking and conversation as long as the truth isn’t being sacrificed in the process.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
02 August 2016 15:55
 
pat2112 - 02 August 2016 10:29 AM

I don’t mind criticism or critical thinking and conversation as long as the truth isn’t being sacrificed in the process.

What do you mean by “truth”.

 
pat2112
 
Avatar
 
 
pat2112
Total Posts:  126
Joined  18-12-2015
 
 
 
24 August 2016 09:20
 
jdrnd - 02 August 2016 03:55 PM
pat2112 - 02 August 2016 10:29 AM

I don’t mind criticism or critical thinking and conversation as long as the truth isn’t being sacrificed in the process.

What do you mean by “truth”.

In context I mean his projections on what religious people may or may not think on a certain topic that is not based in fact, but based perhaps on the observation of people on the fringes.

Sam’s example of having a pill or medication that would automatically collectively raise everybody’s IQ points by 30 with no down side, that religious people would automatically be against it.
First, no such thing has ever existed in history, so there is not a comparative historical thing. And no matter what anybody invents or brings forth, there will always be detractors. They may or may not be religious. They may be black, Korean, short, tall, male, or people with one leg might detract. There is no basis in fact that religious people would be against something that is purely beneficial with no downside. He strawmanning the religious, primarily I imagine, the Christian point of view.
“Oh those dumb Christians would be against something beneficial to society.”

A man who thinks so carefully about so many things, it surprises me he is so sloppy about that.

 
Azirahael
 
Avatar
 
 
Azirahael
Total Posts:  16
Joined  13-06-2017
 
 
 
13 June 2017 20:26
 

“Sam’s example of having a pill or medication that would automatically collectively raise everybody’s IQ points by 30 with no down side, that religious people would automatically be against it. “

Uh, i think you might have missed the point.

The point i took from that, is that religious people would be against it, because the smarter you are (to a degree) the better you are at spotting bullshit.
Like religion.
And on some level religious types know this.
And thus would be against it.

Does that explain things?

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3295
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
14 June 2017 21:01
 
pat2112 - 24 August 2016 09:20 AM

... There is no basis in fact that religious people would be against something that is purely beneficial with no downside. ...

Are you sure that there is no downside to such an intelligence pill? I suspect there would be plenty of downside. At a first cut, a great many people who are happy with their jobs and life situations would become bored and dissatisfied. In a nutshell, change of any sort is always disruptive to someone, and those who risk more than they would gain from change are those who suffer from the downside of that change.

I would expect governments to be generally more resistant to such a pill than religious institutions. I view governments as generally depending upon the apathy, ignorance, and stupidity of those governed. Instant IQ rises might reduce the base stupidity, but that might have the adverse effect of reducing the apathy and ignorance as well, which most governments would see as increasing risk to the government.

Sam does think of religious institutions as self-serving propagandists, and some religious institutions do meet that description fairly well, but it has not been shown that all, or even a majority, do. Those that consider themselves to be similar to governments would, IMO, react in ways that I expect governments to react. Individual religious people who “believe in belief”, i.e., think that belief is beneficial independent of its factual correspondence with empirical reality, would also be wary of such a pill, because it could be expected to bring about more skepticism of beliefs’ assertions concerning empirical reality. IMO, only the ingenuous would expect no repercussions from the pill, only the foolhardy would be unconcerned with repercussions, and only the bravely idealistic would be willing to confront the repercussions in the hope for net gain from the benefits.