Atheism on the Decline; Paganism on the Rise

[Drogue]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Sure it is. Repeated experiments independently with same results is a proof, but it isn't a gurantee that the theory is correct.

Proof *is* a guarantee that a theory is correct. Experiments provide evidence, but not proof. To prove something is to show that it must be true. That is what proof is, and what distinguishes it from something that is supported, but not necessarily completely correct.

Originally posted by BlackCat
I just wonder why you doesn't demand the same standards for religious statements - that is theory setup, experimental evidence and most important independent confirmation.

Look at it this way, falsification is about throwing evidence at something and seeing if it stands up, and if it doesn't, adapting it. Now, the fact that millions of people still believe something after 2000 years, and a lot of evidence, has been thrown at something, means you can't discount it completely.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Drogue

Proof *is* a guarantee that a theory is correct. Experiments provide evidence, but not proof. To prove something is to show that it must be true. That is what proof is, and what distinguishes it from something that is supported, but not necessarily completely correct.

No, proof is that under current knowledge and with independent testing, current theory are to be considered fact, but not indisputable - quite contrary - it's a part of science that it questions itself.

Look at it this way, falsification is about throwing evidence at something and seeing if it stands up, and if it doesn't, adapting it. Now, the fact that millions of people still believe something after 2000 years, and a lot of evidence, has been thrown at something, means you can't discount it completely.

This is pure BS. Just because millions of people belives something doesn't make it true in any way. If that should be true, then the earth should be flat and the sun circling the earth. Science (including prechristian) has proven that it's the earth whom is circling the sun.

Apolgize my bad english

[Seeker]

"Those are concerned with real spiritual growth and enlightenment."

WTF? Is that code for 'making people feel good about themselves'?

One would think that REAL 'spiritual growth and enlightenment' should at least encounter the idea of veracity somewhere along its mystical acid-trip journey.

My religious rankings:
1. Agnosticism: obviously because it makes the most sense to me, not because it necessarily makes me 'feel better' than forcing myself to beleive in some delusion. Aristotle wanted truth, not happiness.
2. Hinayana Buddhism: The original Buddhism described in the dammapadda, nowadays only in Thailand, and only kinda. Buddhism without all the saints and gods and magic and crap. Basically, it's only problems are: a. Does Nirvana exist? b. Why should anyone want it/does it make you feel good? c. Can anyone actually attain it permanently?
3. The Catholic heresy of Teilhard de Chardin: For feel-good philosphy that kinda makes a little sense, you can't beat it.
4. Epicureanism: Let's just give up on the search for truth and make ourselves happy. Given that most people are psychologically normal, this should involve making others happy too.
5. Vague 'spirituality' pap, Taoist-esque stuff: If you ever felt that Freud just didn't 'get' what he described as the 'oceanic feeling' or feeling of eternity in chapter 1 of Civilization and its Discontents, this is for you.
6. Metaphysical Naturalism: The strict materialism philosphies. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be an emotionally fullfilled non-selfish materialist. This is, IMO, a courageous viewpoint, but it ignores 'the grey areas' of our inaccessible subjective experience of reality.
7. Paganism (including unitarians, they're effectively pagans/universe worshippers IMO): Nature and spirit. Sounds great. Where's the beef?
8. Mainstream religion (includes Mahayana): Wheee....guilt, fear, philosphical cowardice and a heapin' helpin' of inertia! But I suppose it gives people a framework to come together and help others, sometimes. That's about the only thing postive about it.
9. the Bad News Bears: 'nuff said. Cults. Scientology. Calvinist Presuppositionalist Hypercalafragulistic Whatevers like CivNation.

[Elok]

The purpose of religion, so far as I am concerned, is morality. Understanding and codifying natural law and the urge to altruism. Ergo amoral religions, or religions which posit ineffectual morals, are worthless. Ditto for philosophies which talk about what's "good" or "bad" without stopping to tell us why we should care to be either to begin with. Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life. Truth for its own sake is just a stingy God who can't even offer heaven as a compensation, only the smug satisfaction that you are right. That sort of idea-"I'm right, factually, and that vindicates my sufferings"-almost presupposes a sort of God in the form of posterity, assuming that history will remember your sacrifice (which is hardly a given) and that the legacy will be beneficial to you somehow (which is nonsensical, you'll be dead at the time and there's no reason to believe the dead eat accolades in the afterlife). If you wish to establish a religion where good is measured by the number of groupies one attains, that's your business, but it's not "reason."

[Odin]

I don't think God exists because of logical/philosphical reasons, I fully admit it cannot be proven, It just seems LOGICALLY absurd to me.


I think religious beliefs emeged as a coping mechanism in a harsh world; as our brains got larger we could understand more, but we paid a price for it in the form of a terror of the unknown, especially death and natural disasters. It has served it's purpose of keeping our ancestors fom going insane, it has been rendered obsolete by the Scientific Revolution. Now science and philosphy should be used to understand our world because they our more logical, religion has transformed from a way to understand our world into a roadblock in the way of understanding the world.

[Whaleboy]

Nope, mathematics can be communicated but is not subject to the scientific method. Similarly with anything based in an artificial construct.

But mathematics is still a model, an abstract construct to be experienced like colour. That it is more "valid" than, shall we say, biology, is merely because it rests on more proven solid assumptions.

Not quite, Popper even stated his texts were about science and the definition, not just it relating to dismissing the verification school. Indeed, he went into far more depth than just falsification, and his words about the scientific method and what it was would necessitate anything that was proven, ie. objectively true, being unscientific.

Umm, that's exactly what I said

Knowledge can be true, and communicable, but not be scientific. Indeed, and thus, not be scientific.

Again not addressing the point categorical/hypothetical. Knowledge, if it is categorical or communicable is subject to scientific method, but subjective knowledge is object to scientific method... iow, the hypothetical. The difference between the description of pink as "red+white" and the actual experience of pink, which one cannot replicate, verify or communicate.

"So long as you harm none," or whatever, is not explained and in fact incompatible with the rest of it.

Not so, Satanism |= solipsism. If Satanism accepts that others exist and act accordingly, any prescriptive view has to account for that, and thus "do as you will as long as you don't harm" becomes a consistent point of equilibrium.

As to "real religion," I'm inclined to think of religious belief in a hierarchical structure of desirability from my POV. "Real" religion consists of the mainstream elements of most major faiths, including the RCC, Buddhism, Hinduism, the large portions of Islam that do not fly planes into buildings, etc. Those are concerned with real spiritual growth and enlightenment. I stick agnosticism and paganism in the next tier down. Agnosticism, in the sense of open-minded indecision or lack of faith, is laudable enough for its honesty and openness. Paganism drugs the spiritual portion of humanity with the style of religion but none of the substance. Lots of junk about scratching yourself with a hazel twig under the full moon, but no moral contemplation, nothing definite or useful. It's useless, but harmless, so I'm inclined to put it just under agnosticism.

You're own point of view with premises only in your own personal preference... some arbitrary idea of "moral progress" for one.

Why spiritual growth and enlightenment? Buddhism does not concern itself with theism nor morality per se, and I could think of a dozen differing concepts of enlightenment to play with here, not least an atheistic one. The substance of religion? Who is to say that the bible, that churches, priests, crucifixes etc, are not junk? One mans junk could be another mans idol. I'll come on to your point about moral contemplation later, but you say useful... why? Is it useless to the people that derive pleasure, understanding, or peace of mind from it? Frankly yours is a ridiculous contention that borders on offensive .

Next I rank atheists. I consider atheism a pigheaded stupidity and a state of spiritual death, counterproductive to positive moral growth

Why is the theory of "there is no god" pigheaded stupidity? Whether people believe or merely concur with it, it's a perfectly logical inference or deduction, respectively. By your logic, we would see atheism being a necessary condition to "immoral" behaviour, whereas history shows that religion is guilty of some of the worst atrocities in human history, atheism or agnosticism is an escape from such dogma and allows people to embrace humanism. Spiritual death? Well what about the Buddhists and others who do not hold theism? Do you need theism (mono/poly/pan) *not* to be pigheadedly stupid?

Now regarding moral progress. Take the Nietzschian view of moral relativism, or a subjectivist view of morality based in human emotion, or just plain nihilism (all of which fit with atheism as an advancement from the concept of absolute morality). They regard moral progress as superficial where it could be argued, and ultimately delusory, morality itself being a falsehood, and yet you would say they exist in a state of spiritual death? How can you make that assertion? What basis?

Many people have a spiritual side, how it manifests itself differs per person. Some may believe in a God(s), others may worship nature, some may fulfill it in humanistic works... some may have a side devoted to themselves and others, but none of them have died a spiritual death.

You have this very black and white view of "moral progress" that seems to me quite naive... you would think we have moved forward, evolved in our sensibilities, since the days of our club-bearing ancestors no?

Satanism is below that, being a dangerous code of intellectualized antisocial behavior in addition to a puerile adolescent rebellion.

Well you've obviously paid no attention whatsoever to any of the arguments present; quite simply stating your conclusions will not make them so, you have to show how you have come to them. A dangerous code of intellectualised antisocial behaviour? Then you would think that "intellectual satanists" (to distinguish from the genuine sociopaths who worship Satan in the Christian sense which is completely different to how Satan is otherwise represented), are also antisocial, puerile adolescent rebels?

The purpose of religion, so far as I am concerned, is morality. Understanding and codifying natural law and the urge to altruism.

You say so far as you are concerned, then you must accept that religion or philosophy means different things to different people. For some it is to come to terms with their mortality, to try to understand where they come from either culturally or historically. Some view it as a social grouping to some altruistic end, others may engage in it for a personal source of wisdom. Crucially, for some it is therapy... philosophy or religion to understand their own existence or pain, and that can lead them in the direction of any theism, or atheism (as in my case) and who the hell are you to say which path is superior?

Ditto for philosophies which talk about what's "good" or "bad" without stopping to tell us why we should care to be either to begin with.

So, nevermind whether or not it is sound, if you don't like the conclusion you can consider it worthless? That's a particularly vile form of intellectual dishonesty .

Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life.

Firstly, morality is false but that statement need not mean there is no path to a happier or more productive life. Secondly I think Kant would have something to say about no atheistic moral truth. I happen to disagree with Kant, but he successful shows that you can have logically valid morality with no god.

Truth for its own sake is just a stingy God who can't even offer heaven as a compensation, only the smug satisfaction that you are right.

Again with the intellectual cowardice; are would consider any philosophy "wrong" unless it served your own purposes, nevermind if it happened to refute the reasoning to that purpose . Wishful thinking

That sort of idea-"I'm right, factually, and that vindicates my sufferings"-almost presupposes a sort of God in the form of posterity, assuming that history will remember your sacrifice (which is hardly a given) and that the legacy will be beneficial to you somehow (which is nonsensical, you'll be dead at the time and there's no reason to believe the dead eat accolades in the afterlife). If you wish to establish a religion where good is measured by the number of groupies one attains, that's your business, but it's not "reason."

Some people want to be remembered, yes it is true. Remembered as the person who "killed God"... well let's work with that for a second.

Does that mean that in their desire to be remembered they presuppose an afterlife? Other than in the memories of those they have touched, no.

Does it presuppose a kind of "God" continuum in which they and their work will continue? No.

Does it require god to act in order to be remembered positively when you die? No, only love.

Does love require god? No.

Odin

[Seeker]

"Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life"

BS

[Whaleboy]

Why can't I be that concise?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok
The purpose of religion, so far as I am concerned, is morality. Understanding and codifying natural law and the urge to altruism. Ergo amoral religions, or religions which posit ineffectual morals, are worthless. Ditto for philosophies which talk about what's "good" or "bad" without stopping to tell us why we should care to be either to begin with. Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life. Truth for its own sake is just a stingy God who can't even offer heaven as a compensation, only the smug satisfaction that you are right. That sort of idea-"I'm right, factually, and that vindicates my sufferings"-almost presupposes a sort of God in the form of posterity, assuming that history will remember your sacrifice (which is hardly a given) and that the legacy will be beneficial to you somehow (which is nonsensical, you'll be dead at the time and there's no reason to believe the dead eat accolades in the afterlife). If you wish to establish a religion where good is measured by the number of groupies one attains, that's your business, but it's not "reason."

The prurpose of religion was primarily to explain the unexplainable (lightning hitting a tree etc), later natural catastropes like flodings and more recently controlling people. In that way you are right in claiming that it is about morality, but it is nonetheless under control of thecurrent regime and what is current acceptable.

Religion can in no way define what kind of morality is acceptable - if it should be so, slavery would still be allowed.

I agree that several kinds of religion partly gives inspriration to general moral and ethic behaviour, but to claim that religion is the only source is redicously. Religion may have made people like the europeans more curious and thereby explore the world, but did they do it to spread peace ? No way, it was convert or die. Nice religion.

I strongly disagree that without a god, then there is no moral. I guess that you thereby also claim no ethics. That isn't true unless you have total anarchy. Todays society may be build upon old religious beliefs, but would it have been that much different if it was based upon other religions ?

[Giancarlo]

"Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life."

That is total crap, considering morality was developed before the existence of one god. Morality also did not rest on religion. So no...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Seeker
Well I guess the issue is, do you believe there can be such things as subjective truths?

If we assume that there is an objective reality, and our sensory input closely approximate our surroundings, the answer is no. "Subjective truths" are just personal interpretations of external events.

Originally posted by Seeker
If I saw, for example, a dragon, or Krishna, or whatever, why should I take the word of a scientific/professional consensus, which is shifting and fluid and is built up in the end of other individuals sense impressions, that it was a hallucination?

That depends on whether you want to find out the facts or use a singular event to support your religious or superstitious views.

Originally posted by Seeker
I've never seen a convincing arguement why a groups observations are better than any one individual at a basic level.

I think the term you are looking for here is "repeated observations." After all, you can draw an infinite number of lines through a single point.

Originally posted by Seeker
People should only deal with, use, and interact with ideas from the empirical arena, but that doesn't me that in the personal, subjective, non-communicable sphere that you have to tell yourself "I am hallucinating. There is no X".

The difference is whether you want to verify there really is X or you are satisfied with convincing your own self.

Originally posted by Seeker
Thus we can say, for example, 'the literal God of the Bible is bunk', because the bible makes many empirical claims that are demonstrably false...but we CANNOT say to the believer who claims to 'feel God in his heart' (or equivalent statement) that he is wrong, incorrect, because we cannot enter his subjective experience of reality.

If you were to make a statement that is only true for yourself, what is the point? When somebody tells you that he feels a god, it is highly unlikely that he is relying a subjective experience to you. Rather, he is trying to convince you there is a god in the objective reality by conveying his story. This is called "Argument from Religious Experience."

Originally posted by Seeker
So that, in a nutshell, is why all religious debate is ultimately futile.

Not so, as the purpose of religious debate is to establish whether there is objectively a deity. Thus, subjective experience is useless.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I also don't believe religion needs to be. Unlike science, religion doesn't have the requirement to be proven.

So, why did we get all these Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, etc., etc. from a whole host of Church thinkers such as St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas?

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you don't like those rules then don't play, but don't pretend you inablility to prove or disprove religion should shake someones faith.

Ooo, that sounds bitter. Did we strike a nerve?

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't expect my faith to dislodge someones blind allegiance to their scientist clergy.

It appears that you don't understand science, afterall.

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am pretty sure all of the do, except for the current ones in the process of being proven wrong.

First thing first. As it has been pointed out repeatedly before, you don't prove anything in science, either right or wrong. That's just logic and maths.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Care to mention a theory that has not been discarded or modified since inception, or is not subject to the same in the future.

The greatest strength of modern science is it is self-correcting. So your statement is either meaningless, fallacious, or both.

Originally posted by Patroklos
They are after all only theories. Or do you have faith that the ones you believe are infallible?

I don't recall science has ever made the proclamation that any of the theories are infallible. This can't be said about religions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drogue
Knowledge can be true, and communicable, but not be scientific. Indeed, and thus, not be scientific.

I don't think I can agree with Popper on that point. Just because something is objectively true doesn't mean it is not scientific. Fasification applies only to theories, not facts, yet nobody denies that any science field is founded on a large collection of facts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Without a God, there is no moral truth, and the chief value of truth in any case is that it is conducive to a happier or more productive life.

I think this can be best countered by what was said by Jack the Bodiless:

If I were to prove to you that God does not exist, which atrocity would you commit first, and why?

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Drogue

Proof *is* a guarantee that a theory is correct. Experiments provide evidence, but not proof. To prove something is to show that it must be true. That is what proof is, and what distinguishes it from something that is supported, but not necessarily completely correct.

Not quite, you're looking at something that corresponds with a model, using empirical observation to induce the accuracy of that model.

Originally posted by Drogue
Look at it this way, falsification is about throwing evidence at something and seeing if it stands up, and if it doesn't, adapting it. Now, the fact that millions of people still believe something after 2000 years, and a lot of evidence, has been thrown at something, means you can't discount it completely.

You cannot use the general acceptance of something to argue that it is true... you might have said the same about anti-semitism in the early 20th Century whereas we both know that the reasons for the longevity of that, and the concept of God, is more to do with sociology and the exploitation of peoples' fears. The bible provides a pre-fab religion complete with morality and a selection of churches which naturally gives it a false sense of gravitas.

Originally posted by Drogue

No, nothing is provable by science. It can just be shown to be increasingly unlikely to be false, as it stands up to more evidence.

Not quite. (Ignore relativity here, you can use it in place later but I want to avoid complexity for the minute) If I drop a coin at just under 10 metres above the earth, it will take one second to hit the earth. Now there is a very slight chance that the coin will bounce off at or above escape velocity and leave the Earth's gravitational influence but that is an infinitesimally small possibility. The reason is causal.

All you are doing with Newtonian mechanics or any scientific theory is modelling the causal influence over given phenomena; in other words mapping the premises for an event such that if you do it perfectly you can model it perfectly. That can't happen because you'd need to be aware of every particle in the universe, it's position and velocity. That's ruled out by uncertainty principle and common sense. However it still remains in the remit of scientific method to account for more and more influences to determine exactly what will happen, say in my example, the wind, air pressure, local grav. acceleration etc. There is a probability then that the coin won't behave exactly like Newtonian mechanics predicts it should, which accounts for gravitational acceleration and height in this case because there are other premises it leaves out. This does not render scientific method a matter of probability, it merely describes the series of assumptions that underlie each experiment.

A scientific proof, it is true as previously discussed, is not absolute and infallible; a valid theory (i.e. sound logic and valid assumptions, which is what distinguishs the model from pure logic) falls to the same issues of perception and subjectivity that you or I have when accepting the existence of the outside physical world.