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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 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.