My Attitude About Religious People

[David Sklansky]

I have no problem with people who WANT their religious beliefs to be true. I have no problem with people who FERVENTLY HOPE their religious beliefs to be true. I have no problem with people who SOMEHOW FEEL STRONGLY that they are true. I have no problem with people who think life is meaningless and morals are not existent without God. (I may not agree, but I realize the arguments against that are not clear cut.)

My problem is with those who think that their religious beliefs should appear highly reaonable to an objective intelligent observer. Not all religious people believe that. But if their religious beliefs include a belief you need to be a strong believer or you are in trouble, they run into a problem. The adherents of those religions, the ones that require a strong belief, can't admit that objective observers should not find their religion reaonable because that forces them to admit that objective observers will be punished by God. And thay don't want to make that admission.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem is with those who think that their religious beliefs should appear highly reaonable to an objective intelligent observer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Id just settle for reasonable. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Here is the problem David. You are certainly intelligent and objective. What you also are is uninformed, and there is no slight intended, because many people of faith are as equally uninformed of the intellectual backdrop of their religion. I could easily fill a room with books on this subject, written by great minds, people who are unquestioned experts in their field. Here is another problem, which certainly isnt your fault. You can write a sentence on this board expressing some facet of Christianity you find questionable. The answer is rarely simple enough to capture in a few sentences. Few of us have the time or the wherewithal to engage in a lengthy essay in response. We try to capture the essence of the counter-argument as best able but sometimes you are understandably left wanting. Its just a limitation of the medium we are communicating in.

[ QUOTE ]
he adherents of those religions, the ones that require a strong belief, can't admit that objective observers should not find their religion reaonable because that forces them to admit that objective observers will be punished by God. And thay don't want to make that admission.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who has trouble admitting that? NotReady flat out said he believes this to be true and I concurred with BluffTHIS in noting that Catholic doctrine is less clear cut on this aspect.

I would be more than happy to refer you to some books that might at least give you a better understanding of the vast amount of thought that undergirds the Christian religion.

[David Sklansky]

You are a nice person but you are just wrong on both points.

"Here is the problem David. You are certainly intelligent and objective. What you also are is uninformed, and there is no slight intended, because many people of faith are as equally uninformed of the intellectual backdrop of their religion. I could easily fill a room with books on this subject, written by great minds, people who are unquestioned experts in their field. Here is another problem, which certainly isnt your fault. You can write a sentence on this board expressing some facet of Christianity you find questionable. The answer is rarely simple enough to capture in a few sentences."

I don't have to be well informed. Your religion says that Jesus was not simply a mortal man like George Washington and Moses were. My contention is that more than half of all reasonable objective people (or machines or aliens) will come to the conclusion that he probably was just a man. (I could substitute precise tenets of any religion here by the way.) Same goes for the existence of miracles.

" because that forces them to admit that objective observers will be punished by God. And thay don't want to make that admission.

Who has trouble admitting that? NotReady flat out said he believes this to be true"

Now you are just being careless. Not Ready certainly doesn't believe this to be true. Nor does ANYONE I have ever heard of. He says that he can't PROVE his points. He doesn't say that he agrees that an objective observer should find his beliefs farfetched.

[BluffTHIS!]

Your post heading uses the word "attitude" and your post uses the word "problem". But why would you have a problem with religious people who might believe in the way you have a problem with? I realize that you view your role besides being a poker teacher, as also being one in teaching mathematically/rational/scientifically valid approaches to life in general, and thus your absorption with religion. But if those types of religious people who have views that you don't believe to be rational, don't allow that type of irrationality to affect the rest of their lives, then what is the harm? Many people have all sorts of odd notions that are not rational and which may even be evidence of mild pscychological problems. But if they can otherwise function normally and even highly successfully in society, then again why do you care or feel it necessary to point out "the error of their ways"?

Although you do not say so, and I have no particular reason based upon your posts to believe that this is true of you, many people who have "problems" with the religious beliefs of others seem mostly to be worried how those religious beliefs will lead people to act in civil society, i.e. to vote on political matters in a certain way. Thus those types of people (again I'm not saying you are one), have not an altruistic motive in dissuading religious belief, but rather a selfish motive.

[David Sklansky]

My term "have a problem with" was not the best way to put it. As to your "what is the harm" comment, I answered that elsewhere. I believe that with few exceptions, it is neither good for an individual, or for society, that he comes to conclusions regarding the probability of any particuar hypothesis being true, when that conclusion significantly disagrees with what expert evidence evaluators would say regarding that probability.

[BZ_Zorro]

Thanks for the post, you articulated something I'd never put my finger on.

What concerns me about certain religious people is the lack or rationality and reasonableness concerning their own beliefs.

There are many good reasons to believe in a God or higher force, but a reasonable Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc has to accept the objective absurdity of much what passes for religious belief. To do otherwise is a horrible kind of denial/closed mindedness with many consequences, none of them good.

To another poster who said 'what's the harm', pick up a history book and start reading. Or take a visit to Iran or bible belt United States.

[BluffTHIS!]

A probability way of looking at religion cannot be the only valid approach since this is basically the same as a one time shot with the possibility of infinite gain or loss in the hereafter for little/no cost now. No probability assessment, no matter how small a result it might indicate, can lead to mathematical certainty in this matter. We use probability in gambling to determine first of all whether to play a given game (+EV or -EV), and secondly how to calculate how we should act in various hands given factors such as pot odds or player tendencies. In the case of believing or not in religion, we have only one hand. I also would point out, that since you cannot in fact demonstrate that the probability of religious belief being true is 0, that you also can't demonstrate it to be -EV. Thus it would follow logically that as a "gambling game" it occupies the same position that sports betting has: it's +EV because it can't be demonstrated that it's not.

[Triumph36]

Both your post and Sklansky's most recent post demonstrate why these discussions on religion are almost without content.

Humanity has yet to devise a moral code that does not rely on fear. While religious beliefs may be irrational and cause irrational behaviors, they also oddly enough cause a lot of rational ones if the moral code behind the beliefs are followed.

Even more important than this is the simple fact that people are going to believe in something. While Sklansky argues that 'miracles' have been explained away by science, I don't think that's quite true (not that I believe in miracles, I just don't think science has all the answers). For an example, just look at Brunson's introduction to Super/System. Even if the 'intelligent' deem it as unlikely, I deem the intelligent as unimportant in this discussion; the man with the highest IQ is no God, nor is he a juge of the metaphysical or spiritual. I'd contend that intelligent people violently react against religion's dogmatism and in its place substitute their own smug, self-satisfied dogmatic athiesm.

As for 'what's the harm' and citing fundamentally religious societies, now you're really reaching. This typical athiest viewpoint fails to take into account the good that a religion can do, and fails to see that athiesm on a widespread scale can be just as harmful as religion. The Libertarian dream society of each acting to rationally doled out morality, with no belief in God, is not going to come about.

Some of the world's most beautiful pieces of art and literature have been inspired by belief in a higher power, and I'd take those any day over a rationally well-ordered society where people listen to scientists.

[BZ_Zorro]

Your post is so far off target.

[ QUOTE ]
Humanity has yet to devise a moral code that does not rely on fear.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm guessing you live in a bad neighbourhood? This is just hilarious.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd contend that intelligent people violently react against religion's dogmatism and in its place substitute their own smug, self-satisfied dogmatic athiesm.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are quite correct. Most atheists do.

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think science has all the answers

[/ QUOTE ]
Almost everything that was once explained by miracles or a higher power has since been explained by science. No one claims that the sun is pulled by a Norse God or driven across on chariots or the back of a turtle. No one claims any more that God hung the stars in the sky so there would be light on Earth (wait - I take that back). When someone bleeds to death, it is no longer their divine given life force leaving their body (unless you ask a Jehovah's witness), but rather the loss of blood pressure and oxygen delivery that kills. Thus, we put a tourniquet on, give them oxygen and save their life rather than pray for their soul. Need I go on? How far do you have to go, how far does God have have to shrink into the few remaining unexplained phenomena, until you admit that God never had a hand in the universe to begin with? (He may or may not exist, that is irrelevant to science explaining it all).

[ QUOTE ]
The Libertarian dream society of each acting to rationally doled out morality, with no belief in God, is not going to come about.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's called law, education, and technology. It's happening right now. It wasn't religion that dragged society's sorry ass out of the dark ages and brought about the most advanced state of human rights mankind has ever seen. Quite the opposite in fact.

Are there plenty of nutcases and neurotics who need a moral code and a big daddy to look after them/keep them in line? Sure. For them religion is great. But we should be educating their kids and weening them off it, not force feeding them more of this so it perpetuates.

[ QUOTE ]
As for 'what's the harm' and citing fundamentally religious societies, now you're really reaching. This typical athiest viewpoint fails to take into account the good that a religion can do,

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a pointless discussion. Religion does much good, but it also does much harm, both tangible and intangible, both to societies and individuals. The price is too great for what it does do. And if you claim that religion hasn't done much harm to society and individuals throughout history, then I don't know what to say. Read some history?

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the world's most beautiful pieces of art and literature have been inspired by belief in a higher power, and I'd take those any day over a rationally well-ordered society where people listen to scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]
The term 'false dichotomy' comes to mind.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing you live in a bad neighbourhood? This is just hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding with 'this is just hilarious' is not an argument. Threats and fear are two ways in which societies stay societies. Human threats are fallible, but supernatural threats are not. Athiestic society loses the threat of the supernatural, and perhaps loses the threat of conscience as well.

[ QUOTE ]

Almost everything that was once explained by miracles or a higher power has since been explained by science. No one claims that the sun is pulled by a Norse God or driven across on chariots or the back of a turtle. No one claims any more that God hung the stars in the sky so there would be light on Earth (wait - I take that back). When someone bleeds to death, it is no longer their divine given life force leaving their body (unless you ask a Jehovah's witness), but rather the loss of blood pressure and oxygen delivery that kills. Thus, we put a tourniquet on, give them oxygen and save their life rather than pray for their soul. Need I go on? How far do you have to go, how far does God have have to shrink into the few remaining unexplained phenomena, until you admit that God never had a hand in the universe to begin with? (He may or may not exist, that is irrelevant to science explaining it all).

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see why I said 'almost without content'? You're using rational principles to deny the existence of miracles. This is quite impossible. By definition, miracles are out of reason's realm.

[ QUOTE ]

It's called law, education, and technology. It's happening right now. It wasn't religion that dragged society's sorry ass out of the dark ages and brought about the most advanced state of human rights mankind has ever seen. Quite the opposite in fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't organized religion, but the Enlightenment and Renaissance weren't driven by athiests either. This is a typical stance to take - to attack religious belief through the societal structures erected by it. Would I argue that state-organized religion is bad? Of course. But the moral principles which a religion rests on are ones a society should rest on. Some people need the religion to understand them, others don't.

[ QUOTE ]

This is a pointless discussion. Religion does much good, but it also does much harm, both tangible and intangible, both to societies and individuals. The price is too great for what it does do. And if you claim that religion hasn't done much harm to society and individuals throughout history, then I don't know what to say. Read some history?

[/ QUOTE ]

What about athiesm? It can be easily argued that Stalin and Hitler perpetuated the worst possible slaughter because they and their society were absent of any religious principles. Any kind of state-induced dogma is bad. It's not religion that's the problem, it's dogma.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
For an example, just look at Brunson's introduction to Super/System.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the Super/System chapter on "Rushes" and start following that advice. See how far you get...

[BZ_Zorro]

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you equate religion with morality and moral codes. This is nonsense.

Moral codes were developed by men and written into religious books. Both Roman law and current modern law derive from secular philosophy and principles such as equity. Read some of the history and philosophy of law if you don't believe me.

Unlike you, I prefer to believe (and the evidence seems to suggest) that people are fundamentally moral and decent, and require just a little bit of real world guidance to stay in check. Those that act in self interest are controlled by laws. Combined, the law and the state's ability to use force provide all the societal control you need.

[ QUOTE ]
Threats and fear are two ways in which societies stay societies.

[/ QUOTE ] No. A legal system with prescribed rules and punishments are how societies stay societies. Also, the fact that people are basically not anti-social, basically moral, and can intelligently choose how to best meet their needs, is the reason societies stay intact.

[ QUOTE ]
Human threats are fallible, but supernatural threats are not. Athiestic society loses the threat of the supernatural, and perhaps loses the threat of conscience as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Beware the atheist hordes! Seriously, I'll ask you this question: Which would you prefer:

1. A secular society with laws and a penal system based on secular philosophy & ethics which has consequences in the here and now.
2. A religious society with no rule of law whatever but religious moral codes. People are 'judged by God' and not punished for their actions in this life.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see why I said 'almost without content'? You're using rational principles to deny the existence of miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm attempting to show that most things that were once thought to be miracles or God-given have been explained by science (without the need for God). The old explanations now look utterly foolish. If you're open minded, this should tell you something.

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't organized religion, but the Enlightenment and Renaissance weren't driven by athiests either.

[/ QUOTE ]
They were driven by secular thought and secular principles freeing themselves from religious dogma. Society as it stands now results mostly from science and technology as well as the secular philosophies of the Romans and Enlightenment. Religion has only held that back by deliberately and inadvertently destroying education, knowledge and free thought. I would ask you to think about that before responding.

[ QUOTE ]
What about athiesm? It can be easily argued that Stalin and Hitler perpetuated the worst possible slaughter because they and their society were absent of any religious principles. Any kind of state-induced dogma is bad. It's not religion that's the problem, it's dogma.

[/ QUOTE ] You have a valid point. But these slaughters didn't happen because of the absence of religious principles. There were as many religious people in Germany and the other Axis powers as in England or the U.S. None of them stood up. The church was very silent before and during the rise of the Nazi party, and during WWII. You're equating religion and morality, which is false. Morality = morality.

This is all there is in my opinion. It's not comforting and fluffy like religion is. But it's real, and it gives me a greater respect for life, the state of the world, and the people I share it with.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you equate religion with morality and moral codes. This is nonsense.

Moral codes were developed by men and written into religious books. Both Roman law and current modern law derive from secular philosophy and principles such as equity. Read some of the history and philosophy of law if you don't believe me.

Unlike you, I prefer to believe (and the evidence seems to suggest) that people are fundamentally moral and decent, and require just a little bit of real world guidance to stay in check. Those that act in self interest are controlled by laws. Combined, the law and the state's ability to use force provide all the societal control you need.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really true. The first moral codes were developed by the Sumerians and they did appeal to the gods. They were polytheistic, but didn't believe in spiritual worlds like heaven and hell. However, they did develope laws that guided the Sumer-states under their monarch which had mostly secular purposes. When the laws were later codified by Hammurabi (who believed in heaven and hell), he introduced them with a prologue that appeals to the gods. Prayer was a large aspect of laws in those days and they would appeal to the gods to do justice to the sinners they would send them. That is why virtually every punishment was a death sentence.

[ QUOTE ]

Beware the atheist hordes! Seriously, I'll ask you this question: Which would you prefer:

1. A secular society with laws and a penal system based on secular philosophy & ethics which has consequences in the here and now.
2. A religious society with no rule of law whatever but religious moral codes. People are 'judged by God' and not punished for their actions in this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most theists will say that you can have both.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
Moral codes were developed by men and written into religious books. Both Roman law and current modern law derive from secular philosophy and principles such as equity.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really true. The first moral codes were developed by the Sumerians and they did appeal to the gods.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, all laws started with belief in Gods. Every society until the Romans had religion and legal/societal codes tied closely together.

However, that is not the foundation or the ideas underlying Roman or modern law. The old religious based laws were arbitrary, and still are today to some extent in places like Iran. People were executed for trivial things like adultery. Central American cultures had laws but sacrified thousands of enemies to the gods. Most codes tolerated and even encouraged abhorrent things like rape. All these codes did was frown down upon serious crimes like murder and theft, and even then only under certain circumstances. The rule of law was far from absolute and wasn't blind to personal favor. Many of the things the law prohibited depended on the whims of the particular culture and religion.

The foundation of civilised modern law comes from secular principles. Most of its founding principles and more subtle concepts such as equity and much of what is considered criminal come from secular thought and secular philosophy. To claim civilised laws and the morality contained therein come from religion is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
Most theists will say that you can have both.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, but I am attempting to show the relative strength of each.

[[censored]]

You use the term objecive person frequently. It would help in understanding your posts if you defined this more clearly? Is it similar to the "reasonable man" that is found in law? Is an objective person absolutely without the notion of faith in your opinion? Thus if I were to present you someone with a "faith" in god is this person, under your definition, not objective?

Also do you consider "punishment" by God to simply be not recieving the same benefits as someone who has fulfilled whatever requirements are necessary under god to recieve the highest possible rewards. Put simply is not being as well off considered a punishment or does it requirement suffering?

I ask because I recall from my youth (when I went to church) the notion that those people who led what we would consider a good life but not within the followings of the church (generally defined as not causing undo suffering to others) were upon death given the opportunity to learn about god and "convert" in what I believe was referred to as a "paradise." I would not consider this punishment as thus I would not agree with this particular point of your opinion.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have to be well informed. Your religion says that Jesus was not simply a mortal man like George Washington and Moses were. My contention is that more than half of all reasonable objective people (or machines or aliens) will come to the conclusion that he probably was just a man. (I could substitute precise tenets of any religion here by the way.) Same goes for the existence of miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just proved my point David. First off, it took you two sentences to make two major contentions. Jesus was a mortal man and miracles dont happen. It would take me a good deal of time to address either one of these assertions properly. And since there is no way I will hit every major point, then you will say what about x y or z, and then the process repeats. And you are completely wrong about not having to be informed. Frankly that someone like you would make such a claim is somewhat shocking. Im not saying the material out there is going to make you completely accept the tenets of Christianity. But it may help you see that is is a reasonable position to hold. At the very least, you would be better able to support your criticisms by being more informed.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you are just being careless. Not Ready certainly doesn't believe this to be true. Nor does ANYONE I have ever heard of. He says that he can't PROVE his points. He doesn't say that he agrees that an objective observer should find his beliefs farfetched.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pretty sure I remember NotReady essentially saying different, but I will go back and look. I do know what BluffTHIS said but you basically brushed him off when he said that the humans dont allow wiggle room but God does. Here is another situation where being uninformed works to your detriment. You are trying to set up some sort of conflict or dichotomy which just doesnt exist. If you had read material on this subject, you might know that.

I'll leave with this passage from G.K. Chesterton:

"The man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their own lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heavenm, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth. Their position is quite reasonable; nay, in a sense, in a sense it is infinitely reasonable, just as a threepenny bit is infinitely circular. But there is such a thing as a mean infinity, a base and slavish eternity. It is amusing to notice that many of the moderns, whether sceptics or mystics, have taken as their sign a certain eastern symbol, which is the very symbol of this ultimate nullity. When they wish to represent eternity, the represent it by a serpent with a tail in his mouth. There is a startling sarcasm in in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal. The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of to-day is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded animal who destroys even himself."

[BZ_Zorro]

Apologies for butting in here.
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus was[n't just] a mortal man

[/ QUOTE ]

You ideas work just fine until you apply them to the claims of other religions /images/graemlins/wink.gif. Then you run face first into what's known as a contradiction.

Hinduism
Buddhism
Paganism
American Indian
Australian Aboriginal
Aztecs and Mayans
Scientology
Chinese Traditional
Spritism
Jinto
Rastafarianism
etc etc

Open your eyes and read other religions. Learn every aspect. Once you understand every religion and all of their bizarre claims, and reject every one as being truth, then come back to Christianity and read the bible all over again (have you even done that yet?)

Then take a look at claims such as :
A man born of virgin(now where have I heard that before),
A man walking on water(hmmm)
A man dying and getting resurrected.

And when you discover there is not single shred of independent historical evidence for even the existence of said character (apart from said religious book), tell yourself it is reasonable and rational thing to believe. Tell yourself it is even more rational and reasonable to believe in these miracles. No contemporary writers spoke of Jesus or a man similar. No Roman records mention him. There are no artifacts. Go figure. As a historical figure, apart from the religious texts, Jesus never existed at all in any way that historians would demand for any other historical figure.

[David Sklansky]

"I also would point out, that since you cannot in fact demonstrate that the probability of religious belief being true is 0, that you also can't demonstrate it to be -EV."

I don't claim it is - EV. As long as the belief comes with the acknowledgewment that what you believe would be deemed an underdog to be true, by an expert evidence evaluator, be it human or non human.

[David Sklansky]

You sound like the guy who rejects my dismissal of his dice betting system though I am "uninformed" of the details. Do you really think that the books you recommend actually have arguments that meet the necessary standards to persuade people that are knowledgeble and can evaluate evidence (Baye's Theorum wise) properly?

[Triumph36]

Why would morality and moral codes come along with religion then?

I have no idea who claimed that it would be a rational and reasonable thing to believe in Jesus Christ's divinity. Don't you understand that you are coming at this problem from precisely the wrong angle, that of rationality and reasonability? It is precisely irrational and precisely human to believe such a thing. Man is not a rational animal, he is an animal with reason.

'People are fundamentally moral and decent.' What? If you're starting from there, we have no discussion. Evidence suggests that? What evidence? I mean, really, you can argue that religion is a negative force, but you've really gone overboard here if you are claiming that man is fundamentally decent and that religion, that by which morality and ethics is prescribed, drives him into evil is ridiculous. Give man the environment to be moral and decent and he will be, most of the time. Most societies have had far too much discord to provide this.

It amazes me how you can claim that all of this is derived from secular principles when John Locke's fundamental first principle rested on the existence of the Christian God. The Framers of the Constitution were religious as well, and founded the nation on ideals rooted in Christianity. There is a definite place for religion in society. Your denial of the necessity of the irrational is in itself irrational - a desire to tear out what is most basic and primary to this society, and what is most basic and primary to most men.

For the record, I'm an agnostic, and on bad days an athiest. I just don't see the necessity of going around and telling people what they should believe, or going around telling them that rational self-interest should be their governing principle.

Also for the record, Jesus's existence is mentioned in Tacitus, though if I recall, Tacitus is seriously skeptical of his divinity.

[fritzwar]

Hi David,
in your first post you say your problem is with religious people who think others should find their views "highly reasonable". But in some of the later discussion you shift focus to the point that (paraphrasing, though perhaps I misunderstand) at least half of the reasonable people will find that, eg, Jesus was just a man, etc...
These are, as you know, very different issues -- I can find your view reasonable, even "highly" reasonable while still thinking it is false.

I'm also a bit surprised that you don't find a need to be informed by professional level work on this issue before reaching your firm conclusion. Some of us (professional philosophers with graduate level training in logic and decision theory) have discussed this broad range of issues with a much greater focus on argumentative rigor and clarity than you'll find on a discussion board. If you think a few simple observations here at this discussion board are sharper than what is going no in our field (I doubt you think that, but I'm not sure) then you're mistaken and could certainly benefit intellectually from engaging the field through some serious reading.

And for what it's worth, most everyone I know who thinks that a lack of belief in their religion will lead to bad consequences for those who don't believe has no problem simultaneously defending the view that their position should be judged "highly reasonable" by an objective observer. Not all standard monotheistic religious people get into this position (many are Universalists about salvation) but those who accept that lack of belief will lead to punishment or damnation or whatever don't shy away from this belief and they don't shy away from conjoining this belief with the belief that objective observers should view their position as "reasonable". Don't believe me? If not, again, I suggest you look to serious work on these issues rather than guessing about what informed well trained people think about them.

[fritzwar]

PS - here's a link to one well done encyclopedia entry on Bayes Theorem by a friend and colleague (and well respected philosopher at U of Michigan). It outlines the basic details plus sketches some central issues in the contemporary philosophical / logical discussion of BT. Perhaps you and others will find it and some of the references contained in it of interest.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/

[FredBoots]

BZ_Zorro,
Your post reminds me of one of my favorite quotes (obviously to be said to a religious person):
"I contend you and I are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you. When you understand why you reject all other religions, you will understand why I reject yours."

[NotReady]

I gotta read more GK.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

them to admit that objective observers


[/ QUOTE ]

As your posts have proved several times, there's no such animal.

[vulturesrow]

First off, why throw a ridiculous challenge such as "study and learn every facet of every possible religion out there." I have a day job you know /images/graemlins/smile.gif That said, some religions I am more familiar with than others. What I do know is that most religions carry some "truths" within them yet havent captured the totality of the message of God. They simply are incomplete, some more grossly than others.

[ QUOTE ]
(have you even done that yet?)

[/ QUOTE ]

You caught me, I've never read the Bible. Guess I need to go do that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Then take a look at claims such as :
A man born of virgin(now where have I heard that before),
A man walking on water(hmmm)
A man dying and getting resurrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you are getting at here? Is it the tired old claim that Christianity is just a recycling of various pagan myths? Or something else?

[ QUOTE ]
And when you discover there is not single shred of independent historical evidence for even the existence of said character (apart from said religious book), tell yourself it is reasonable and rational thing to believe. Tell yourself it is even more rational and reasonable to believe in these miracles. No contemporary writers spoke of Jesus or a man similar. No Roman records mention him. There are no artifacts. Go figure. As a historical figure, apart from the religious texts, Jesus never existed at all in any way that historians would demand for any other historical figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most scholars dont doubt the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. And to toss of the Bible as just some "religious" book with no claim to credibility is ridiculous.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]

Most scholars dont doubt the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. And to toss of the Bible as just some "religious" book with no claim to credibility is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain why...

rj

[David Sklansky]

"And for what it's worth, most everyone I know who thinks that a lack of belief in their religion will lead to bad consequences for those who don't believe has no problem simultaneously defending the view that their position should be judged "highly reasonable" by an objective observer. Not all standard monotheistic religious people get into this position (many are Universalists about salvation) but those who accept that lack of belief will lead to punishment or damnation or whatever don't shy away from this belief and they don't shy away from conjoining this belief with the belief that objective observers should view their position as "reasonable". Don't believe me?"

But I do believe you. Did you miss the meaning of my original post? It was to point out that only a certain subset of religious people do I "have a problem" with. By which I mean I think they are morons or lunatics (in the same way as I think astrologers are). And it is the subset you and I have just defined. (a subset that appears to not include either Catholics or Jews)

[David Sklansky]

"As your posts have proved several times, there's no such animal." Objective observers)

What's that got to do with anything. You define expert objective observer to be someonone who has had to put a price on a billion things, some of which can be checked out later. None are slam dunks. Later on you see how many of the things he called 70% shots turned out to be true. Same with all other percent shots. His results were several standard deviations better than what chance would predict.

An entity like that doesn't exist except in principle. But there probably are people who come close to it. In any case it is my position that anyone who thinks that this theoretical expert objective observer would find the precepts of ANY religion to be more than a 1% chance has a big problem.

[fritzwar]

Perhaps I misunderstood - I thought you asserted that those who accept both:
(1) those who don't accept my religion will be punished by my God
and
(2) objective 3rd parties should accept that my religious beliefs are rational

are in some kind of difficulty.
We agree that many typical monotheists won't endorse (1). But we also know that many do endorse (1): examples, many non-Univeralist Protestants and Catholics will do so. Your claim was about this class of people (those accepting both (1) and (2) wasn't it?) But I don't see any special difficulty for these people - what's the problem? or was something else part of the stipulated belief set and helping to generate whatever the problem is supposed to be?

Of course everyone will agree that some religious people are as bad off intellectually / rationality as astrologers etc... but I don't think all people accepting (1) and (2) have been shown to be in that class. Should I got back and read some earlier post to see what I missed?

Fritz

PS - the "dice system" example was an amusing choice of something we can dismiss a priori given Wong's fairly recent conversion to "dice steering" - I haven't seen his material on this yet, but with Wong endorsing it we at least have to take a peek don't we? (of course I realize you're likely at least somewhat familiar with Wong's material on this and his claims about it)

[David Sklansky]

"PS - the "dice system" example was an amusing choice of something we can dismiss a priori given Wong's fairly recent conversion to "dice steering" - I haven't seen his material on this yet, but with Wong endorsing it we at least have to take a peek don't we?"

I said dice BETTING system. Now will please read slower?

[SheetWise]

Of course there are objective observers. We're all objective. We've all got our own unique system of framing our rules and ethics and license. So there's a whole lot of lines you'll be crossing when you bring that stuff out in public. But as I understand it -- if you stand inside that roped off area over by the people with the blank look in their eyes -- and don't stray outside the lines during daylight -- there's a pretty good living can be made over there.

SheetWise

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with people who WANT their religious beliefs to be true. I have no problem with people who FERVENTLY HOPE their religious beliefs to be true. I have no problem with people who SOMEHOW FEEL STRONGLY that they are true. I have no problem with people who think life is meaningless and morals are not existent without God. (I may not agree, but I realize the arguments against that are not clear cut.)

My problem is with those who think that their religious beliefs should appear highly reaonable to an objective intelligent observer. Not all religious people believe that. But if their religious beliefs include a belief you need to be a strong believer or you are in trouble, they run into a problem. The adherents of those religions, the ones that require a strong belief, can't admit that objective observers should not find their religion reaonable because that forces them to admit that objective observers will be punished by God. And thay don't want to make that admission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon closer inspection, one can perceive that the subjective-objective dichotomy is really non-existent. We are never in any "objective" position. We cannot escape our own necessary subjectivity.

Thus there are no valid zero context ("objective") claims.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What's that got to do with anything


[/ QUOTE ]

Everything.

[ QUOTE ]

An entity like that doesn't exist except in principle. But there probably are people who come close to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is with a million miles.

[ QUOTE ]

his theoretical expert objective observer would find the precepts of ANY religion to be more than a 1% chance has a big problem


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't talk about a theoretical objectivist with any content unless you are objective. How can someone who is biased give content to a theoretical unbiased observer?

[David Sklansky]

"Upon closer inspection, one can perceive that the subjective-objective dichotomy is really non-existent. We are never in any "objective" position. We cannot escape our own necessary subjectivity.

Thus there are no valid zero context ("objective") claims."

This is all such silliness. It wouldn't be if intelligent observers who were trying to be objective, claimed that a particular religion's beliefs were 40% to be correct. But since they would put the number far below that, it is not necessary to prove complete objectivity. It is only necessary to show that their probability assessments in the past were fairly accurate.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also would point out, that since you cannot in fact demonstrate that the probability of religious belief being true is 0, that you also can't demonstrate it to be -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't claim it is - EV. As long as the belief comes with the acknowledgewment that what you believe would be deemed an underdog to be true, by an expert evidence evaluator, be it human or non human.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my perspective and belief, that of faith, I would not deem my beliefs an underdog. I am however perfectly willing to acknowledge that unbelieving expert evidence evaluators would and do deem such belief to be an underdog to be true. Having made that acknowledgement, do you still feel a need to dissuade me from my religious belief? Or do you feel my acknowledgement does not go far enough in that I do not myself deem my belief to be an underdog to be true?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most scholars dont doubt the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. And to toss of the Bible as just some "religious" book with no claim to credibility is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain why...

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

PITTM,

I will try to make this succinct as I am not up to writing a detailed post at this point. First off, there are very few scholars who believe the "Jesus-Myth Theory". There have been stabs at it but noticeably most of them didnt have sort of meaningful scholastic credentials.

Now it is related to the Bible question. To make a long explanation short, the two main reasons that we can use the Bible as a credible historical reference (and pleae note at this point I am referring strictly to the New Testament, the Gospels in particular) is twofold. One is textual accuracy, meaning the orginal text has changed very little in translataion over the years and we know them to be accurate because we have an extraordinary amount of orignial copies, some more complete then others. In fact the number of them shames any other similarly aged document. We are continually making new discoveries that affirm events as they are told in the Gospels. Also many of the original documents came into being a very short time (historically speaking) in relation to the time which the recorded events took place, which gives more credence to their claims. Finally, there are some, though not many, documents from those times that verify the existence of the man Jesus. Hope this clarifies a bit and please dont hesitate to ask more questions.

[David Sklansky]

"From my perspective and belief, that of faith, I would not deem my beliefs an underdog. I am however perfectly willing to acknowledge that unbelieving expert evidence evaluators would and do deem such belief to be an underdog to be true. Having made that acknowledgement, do you still feel a need to dissuade me from my religious belief? Or do you feel my acknowledgement does not go far enough in that I do not myself deem my belief to be an underdog to be true?"

Now we are getting somewhere. First of all your acknowledgment, along with your belief that God won't punish non miscreants who have legitimate reasons to not believe, means I am not contemptous of you. As to your second question, I would probably try to persuade you to change your opinion of the odds, simply because it would be good for you. But not necessarily. You could conceivably have had a personal experience that should make your probabilty assesment above 50%. But it would have to be an experience that if it happened to the objective observer, he would feel the same way. Given that experience, you would have a right to believe even as you didn't blame the objective observer for feeling differently without that experience.

There are people out there who claim to have become believers after a miraculous experience. Fine. I'm skeptical but I wasn't there. But how DARE such people think that others should believe and worse yet be PUNISHED if they don't believe, when they didn't believe either until the miracle befell them?

[bholdr]

There is a debate in this thread about what constitutes a "reasionable objective obersrver (ROO)" and weather or not such an observer is possible. When i was studying ontology, a common convention for such arguments was to use "an alien from another planet- one that never had religious beliefs because they just never happened to think about it" So, this observer is completly open minded about religion, etc, because it never occured to them to think about it- though his perspective comes from logic and reason and he knows nothing of 'faith', he's perfectly willing to consider it. It'a a useful 'character' for such debates.


for example: The alien (I'll call him 'gary') is asked about the potential for the resurrection and the divinity of christ, his response would be "all men die, and only one (ignoring lazurus) came back to life? that doesn't seem probable"

but when gary is asked if he's willing to explicitly state that logically there must be no god, he'd say "well.. your conception of this being kind of puts him outside the realm of logic, so his existance or non-existance will remain forever unprovable- so there may well be a 'god', but i still don't think it's probable"

so, what would gary say about the various earthling religions? some he would dismiss as very likely to be simply ancient myths that have been perpetuated through the years and don't make any sense (hinduism, taoism) others he would find to be embellishments of real events (i tend to put christianity in this category- i accept that a person named jesus lived and was a religious teacher), and others would range from unlikely to very possible to astronomicly improbable...

I dunno if this helps at all or not, but it might be usefull to talk in terms of the same ROO, whichever side of the debate you're coming from, and gary serves this purpose well...

[David Sklansky]

Gary is fine with me.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

a common convention for such arguments was to use "an alien from another planet- one that never had religious beliefs because they just never happened to think about it"


[/ QUOTE ]

All claims of ROO, in whatever form, is nothing more than the attempt to set up an abstract standard independent of God by which we judge God. The attempt alone is evidence of bias because such a standard can only exist if God doesn't. Actually, it can't exist if God doesn't exist either, but for a different reason.

[BluffTHIS!]

Just so that we are clear, you will remember that I also believe that God imprints in each person's soul a minimal moral code, the natural law, by which a sincere doubter who does not repent of his actions will nonethless be judged. First degree murder would be an example. And that, although believers are held to an even higher standard, they also have the benefit of extra "interference", what we call grace, to help live up to that standard.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion does much good, but it also does much harm

[/ QUOTE ]

I compare Religion to Parents.

Religion has helped us through our childhood, keeping away our fears, protecting us amidst the horrors of the world, comforting us in times of need, and feeeding us with hope. And I believe that the parentage served a most useful purpose, despite the occasional beatings.

We should be outgrowing Religion and be ready to leave home right about this time.

We have killed our parents (although we did not really mean to) and we now must face the world, which we have rendered empty of comfort and meaning.

However, not all of us are at the same level of consciousness. There are billions of people who insist that our parents are still alive and well. For them, the stink from the living room is merely myrna.

[fritzwar]

fair enough, you did indeed say "dice betting system" and that's different.

-- but my remark about dice was a joke after all. the rest of that post was not.

[Cooker]

This is a frequent arguement to the usefulness of religion, that it is the only way to establish a moral code. I believe that the morals that appear in most successful societies are probably caused by a sort of natural selection, and therefore, develop in a more biological way. Clearly, one could see the advantages a society that forbids murder amongst its own members would have over a society that doesn't forbid it. Also, our laws are constantly evolving to adjust to our sense of fairness. If our laws become too out of wack with what is advantageous, perhaps our country will go the way of the dodo and for similar reasons, failure to compete.

[CallYNotRaise06]

[ QUOTE ]
But how DARE such people think that others should believe and worse yet be PUNISHED if they don't believe, when they didn't believe either until the miracle befell them?

[/ QUOTE ]

AGREED 100% thats what annoys me the most about bible thumpers.

[runner4life7]

I believe my religion(Christianity) to be true, but it is a belief and based off of faith, faith being believing in something that cannot be proven.

Not to sound overdone, but look at how amazingly complex the world is and the beauty of math and physics and chemistry, it just seems to perfect to all be pure chance to me.

That is what makes some form of a God easy for me to understand.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe my religion(Christianity) to be true, but it is a belief and based off of faith, faith being believing in something that cannot be proven.

Not to sound overdone, but look at how amazingly complex the world is and the beauty of math and physics and chemistry, it just seems to perfect to all be pure chance to me.

That is what makes some form of a God easy for me to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes but it is not perfect or beautiful it is only the way it is. You have simply developed adjectives to describe how it is. unless you have knowledge of heaven or someother state of existance than if you think about, you have nothing to compare this existance to. therefore it cannot possibly be anything else but what you have chosen to decribe it as.

I don't think the look how great everything is, is a very strong arguement to base the belief of god on.

it is far better I think to simply base it on nothing at all but hope and then act accordingly.

thus I say I hope there is a god and a afterlife and I will make decisions accordingly.

[oreogod]

Ive always thought religion/God is a crutch for a lot of ppl that need that comfort (I also find a lot of irresponsible ppl I know to be religious, they cant take responsibility for their own life, but always proclaim its what god intends, etc --- just an observation, maybe an ignorant one), and for others it's a way of going through the motions to assure themselves of their "cookie" (heaven) when they die.

Dont know if this will be out of line with the thread, if it is, its late and Im tired.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Ive always thought religion/God is a crutch for a lot of ppl that need that comfort (I also find a lot of irresponsible ppl I know to be religious, they cant take responsibility for their own life, but always proclaim its what god intends, etc --- just an observation, maybe an ignorant one), and for others it's a way of going through the motions to assure themselves of their "cookie" (heaven) when they die.

Dont know if this will be out of line with the thread, if it is, its late and Im tired.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't any belief in morality or law of any kind just the same crutch under only a different name?

how is I behave on way based on wanting to please god different from I believe another way based on wanting a pleasing society any different?

unless there are laws of science which dictate how man is to behave then I don't see how religion can be consider any more of a crutch than any say the constitution.

there is no scientific law that says all men are created equal and born with certain rights. clearly they are not. so how exactly is a person who uses the constitution to make decisions any more crutchless than the person who uses the bible?

isn't the only crutchless man the one who does whatever he wants when he wants with only consideration for himself?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe my religion(Christianity) to be true, but it is a belief and based off of faith, faith being believing in something that cannot be proven.

Not to sound overdone, but look at how amazingly complex the world is and the beauty of math and physics and chemistry, it just seems to perfect to all be pure chance to me.

That is what makes some form of a God easy for me to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always wondered how believing in God solves this problem. Isn't it equally mysterious His origin?

[runner4life7]

I made my post too simple. Ill try not to overdo it because I do realize how corny this sounds. I'm not astronomer but just looking at how earth is so different and diverse compared to every other planet, how incredibly smart we are compared to every animal. Even the thought of language and communication. How the eye works or the brain for that matter. Just sitting there and thinking about what i can control. The ability the think and then my fingers push the right keys on my keyboard...most of the time. It just seems to much for me, there has to be something that made this and the planets and everything had to come from somewhere.

It seems illogical to think that there always was a universe and thats just how it is and then say that religion is impossible/improbable.

I am tired so if this doesnt make sense thats why...night

[runner4life7]

Yes it doesnt help pick a god or religion or anything like that, it just makes me think that there has to be "something". But in no way solves this mystery.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I made my post too simple. Ill try not to overdo it because I do realize how corny this sounds. I'm not astronomer but just looking at how earth is so different and diverse compared to every other planet, how incredibly smart we are compared to every animal. Even the thought of language and communication. How the eye works or the brain for that matter. Just sitting there and thinking about what i can control. The ability the think and then my fingers push the right keys on my keyboard...most of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

how else should it be? my calculator rarely fails to display a 2, when I press the 2 button yet I don't consider man a god for inventing something that works.

sometimes my calculator fails but also sometimes people are born retarded and everything has not worked out so beautiful and perfect.

again I am not saying to not believe in god but that to try and base this on something is not logical and easily defeated.

there is no way for us to determine what is perfect and amazing because we have nothing to judge it against.

instead it is enough to simply base it on hope.

[runner4life7]

I also shouldnt have used the word perfect
a) because it is far from it for reasons you've listed as well as many others
b) i also agree its all relative and there is nothing to base this off of being that its all we know.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I also shouldnt have used the word perfect
a) because it is far from it for reasons you've listed as well as many others
b) i also agree its all relative and there is nothing to base this off of being that its all we know.

[/ QUOTE ]

would you agree that a belief in god is really a hope of god? I'm not sure there is even a difference to be honest with you. but that when people say I believe there is a god, they are really saying I hope there is a god.

[runner4life7]

I suppose thats fair because I can't "know" so strongly hope is ok to say i think.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose thats fair because I can't "know" so strongly hope is ok to say i think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think this is a much stronger position to take.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I made my post too simple. Ill try not to overdo it because I do realize how corny this sounds. I'm not astronomer but just looking at how earth is so different and diverse compared to every other planet, how incredibly smart we are compared to every animal. Even the thought of language and communication. How the eye works or the brain for that matter. Just sitting there and thinking about what i can control. The ability the think and then my fingers push the right keys on my keyboard...most of the time. It just seems to much for me, there has to be something that made this and the planets and everything had to come from somewhere.

It seems illogical to think that there always was a universe and thats just how it is and then say that religion is impossible/improbable.

I am tired so if this doesnt make sense thats why...night

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, those things are amazing. One of my unelaborated points is that believing in a God doesn't explain them. It doesn't make me feel like I understand their complexity any deeper.

[mslif]

[ QUOTE ]
You have simply developed adjectives to describe how it is. unless you have knowledge of heaven or someother state of existance than if you think about, you have nothing to compare this existance to. therefore it cannot possibly be anything else but what you have chosen to decribe it as.

I don't think the look how great everything is, is a very strong arguement to base the belief of god on.

it is far better I think to simply base it on nothing at all but hope and then act accordingly.

thus I say I hope there is a god and a afterlife and I will make decisions accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me, and I apologize in advance if I am worng, that you are trying to rationalize everything. Religion and faith cannot be rationalized or explain with logic. It is not what you see but what you feel, what you instinct tells you. I believe it is more in you than it is around you. As we struggle through our lives, it is comforting to know that there is a better place out there, whatever it might be.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have simply developed adjectives to describe how it is. unless you have knowledge of heaven or someother state of existance than if you think about, you have nothing to compare this existance to. therefore it cannot possibly be anything else but what you have chosen to decribe it as.

I don't think the look how great everything is, is a very strong arguement to base the belief of god on.

it is far better I think to simply base it on nothing at all but hope and then act accordingly.

thus I say I hope there is a god and a afterlife and I will make decisions accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me, and I apologize in advance if I am worng, that you are trying to rationalize everything. Religion and faith cannot be rationalized or explain with logic. It is not what you see but what you feel, what you instinct tells you. I believe it is more in you than it is around you. As we struggle through our lives, it is comforting to know that there is a better place out there, whatever it might be.

[/ QUOTE ]


What I am saying is it is irrational for a person who has a hope that god exists to invent reasons like "look how amazing everything is" when clearly this can be easily dismissed yet the person's hope that god exists remains. therefore, obviously this "belief" was not founded on that reason at all. But as I have said a hope that he does exist.


The religious person when asked his thoughts on god should reply "I hope that god and a afterlife exists so I will act accordingly" and when asked to the reasons why she should reply, as you stated "because it brings me happiness."

Doing so sheds the religious person of the burden of having to A) develope reasons like "the amazing universe" and B) have them then subject to an objective review. When it should be clear that religion cannot meet any such review.

There is no requirement within any religious text that the tenants of worshipping God be founded on objective evidence nor is there any requirement that it need be accepted by the objective man. Therefore it is irrational for the religious person to feel the need to attempt to do so.

If she feels the need to describe something it should instead be why having a hope in god has brought her comfort and happiness in her life as well the potential afterlife benefits.

[malorum]

If objective observer, means someone who makes magisterial use of our necessarily flawed fallen logic, then sure God can punish him. This is a first commandment violation. It sets logic up as a false god.
Nimrod tried to use bricks and mortar to get to heaven, when he built that tower of Bable.
Similar Guilty of idolatory (and of using the wrong tools) are Both the christian who uses pseudo scientific arguments to try to prove Gods existence and the 'ojective observer' who thinks his 'objectivity' can tell him something about the likelyhood of, or nature of God