The Problem with Religious Moderation

[mike777]

On that, as Heinlein said, soon enough we will know, so why worry about it?

 

 

 

I love love Heinlein....yet as a human ya I worry....

 

 

Time Enough for Love?

[32519]

Here is a nugget of information that won't mean thing to the torll, despite its last question: in 'nature' the coldest temperature is the level of the background cosmic radiation, left over from the big bang (incidentally the detection of this background radiation had been predicted by the theory of the big bang so its detection was further confirmation of the provisional validity thereof). However, scientists have produced temperatures, in labs, far lower than this. So 'man' has been able to 'go beyond' nature in at least one aspect of reality.

Mike, Mike, Mike!!!!

I'm really worried about you. In what way has this benefitted the top predator in any way? But the worst part of your post? We're back to this stupid BIG BANG theory which is flawed in its very reasoning.

[32519]

You're obviously an irredeemable troll: please return to the village that is missing its idiot, and don't bother me anymore.

MikeH: I am really concerned about you. You are obsessed in your self-denial about the possible existence of a super-natural being. Yet from the type of books which you are so carefully selecting to read, it has to be obvious to all that you are seeking answers about the unknown. Thus far you have expressed virtually no opinion of your own in this thread. Instead you keep regurgitating other people’s theories/arguments which you have gleaned from the books you are reading. The wall which you are cowering behind is already frighteningly high. And you have given it a very convenient name: Atheist/Atheism!

 

At what level is your disappointment gauge already standing after every new book read, and still no progress has been made towards answering your self-denial? This thread has already pointed two flaws in the current consensus. The same goes for this years Nobel Prize awarded. The model has a flaw. And still no break-through after throwing billions at the project?

 

Suppose a worldwide poll was held in which every one of the 7 billion plus inhabitants was forced to participate. The question on the ballot paper is this:

HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT ORIGINATED?

Voters are given the following two choices –

1. It all started with a BIG BANG 14 500 000 000 years ago

2. It came about at the hands of a super-natural being

How do you believe the vote will go? You may easily end up with a situation where the number of spoilt ballot papers outnumbers 1 & 2 combined. How do you think option 1 is going to fare?

 

I got some good news for you. It matters not how high you build your wall, people like myself will become taller so that we can peek over the top and see what you are up to on the other side. I have no idea how many have come before me who have thrown you a life-line to pull you out of the cesspool of self-denial that you find yourself in. The choice is still yours; to eventually sink away altogether or pull yourself out.

 

In my early twenties I was trapped in a very similar situation to the one you are now in. I too rejected outright the possible existence of a super-natural being. I too was carefully selecting the books and newspaper articles which I was reading to back up my self-denial. I too was engaging believers in all sorts of arguments; if there is a God why does he allow all this misery and inequality and diseases and rape and murder and whatever you care to name?

 

Everything changed for me in my late twenties when I began having identical recurring nightmares over a period of 18 months or so. Everything in the nightmare was always exactly the same. I would be trying to get out of bed to go to the bathroom, but something which I can only describe as a formless black weight, pinned me down in my bed. So I would start fighting this thing. The fight would continue until I was totally exhausted and no longer had any energy left to fight. The moment I stopped fighting, this formless black weight would start taking shape. The fear that took hold of me at this point is impossible to describe. I found myself calling upon the very God who I had totally rejected as being real, to come and drive this thing away. Always at this point of the nightmare, a light would appear to my right, the formless black weight to the left with myself in the middle. A tug-of-war ensued, and as soon as my plea for help became desperate enough, the light would fill the nightmare and I would wake up, drenched in perspiration. Once awake I would barely even mutter a “Thank You,” before dismissing the whole incident as nothing more than a nightmare. The problem here was this nightmare continued for 18 months, and each time it was identical in every aspect. It slowly began dawning on me that God was reaching out to me. When I realised that, I cut a deal with him in my complete ignorance. I am too embarrassed to share the details of that deal, but it boiled down to: “God, if you will do this for me, I will return to you and your church.” God kept his side of the deal and now I was faced with the dilemma of upholding my side of it. I hadn’t seen the inside of a church for maybe 10 years and was afraid to return alone. So I called my sister and her husband and asked them if I could join them the next Sunday. And so I took a first step. We could have sat anywhere in the church but chose a seat on the extreme left (call it hiding in the shadows if that were in any way possible). Now this church had a crucifix in the front with Jesus hanging on it, his face turned to the right. You already know what’s coming. Every time I looked up at the preacher, it was impossible to avert the crucifix. Every time I looked up, it was as though Jesus hanging on the crucifix was looking straight at me. I left the service desperately trying not to show any emotion. I got through two sermons with my sister and her church before giving up on them. Why? Rookie that I was, I was incredibly uncomfortable with the things that this church does. But I still had my side of the deal to uphold. I felt a prompting to go back to the church I frequented as a youngster. So the following Sunday I found myself with the Presbyterians. The minister’s sermon that Sunday? He presented the parable of the lost son. Again I found myself choking back my emotions as I felt that the entire sermon was for me. Was it just a coincidence? You decide. The following day (Monday) I relocated to a new job in the town where I currently still reside. To spare you too much further agony in reading this, I joined a church here and became quite active in it until the late 1990s. It was when I started doing my own research into the stuff of the Bible, and digging up all sorts of things, that I became more and more disappointed with institutionalised religion. Much of what they do and preach has no Biblical foundation whatsoever. I left institutionalised religion for good at the end to the 1990s.

 

The beauty and simplicity of God’s plan and purpose with us is so mind boggling that even the Jews who brought us this incredible story, rejected it.

 

So I am inviting you to take your first step as well. Start with something that won’t threaten you in any way e.g. make a printout of the link higher up in this thread and watch the Matrix movie again. Invite Vampyr to join you. Her wall is starting to up at a pace that anyone in the construction industry would be envious to match. The two of you can start your search together. Vampyr is going to escape from behind the wall before you? Why is that? Answer: Her wall is not (yet) as high as yours, so she doesn’t have as far to climb to get out.

 

God bless you my brother. Until we meet (and we will meet because God has guaranteed it; how it takes place is our decision). I have started asking my God to remove the scales from your eyes so that you can see him as well.

[gwnn]

mikeh sure doesn't look arrogant/condescending now heh?

[mikeh]

Yeah,, verily, I have seen the light, and I am saved!!! Rejoice!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I finally discovered a use for the 'ignore user' function so this thread's troll is now invisible to me :D

 

Sort of an analogue for the troll's view of reality.

[hrothgar]

 

Everything changed for me in my late twenties when I began having identical recurring nightmares over a period of 18 months or so. Everything in the nightmare was always exactly the same. I would be trying to get out of bed to go to the bathroom, but something which I can only describe as a formless black weight, pinned me down in my bed. So I would start fighting this thing. The fight would continue until I was totally exhausted and no longer had any energy left to fight. The moment I stopped fighting, this formless black weight would start taking shape. The fear that took hold of me at this point is impossible to describe. I found myself calling upon the very God who I had totally rejected as being real, to come and drive this thing away. Always at this point of the nightmare, a light would appear to my right, the formless black weight to the left with myself in the middle. A tug-of-war ensued, and as soon as my plea for help became desperate enough, the light would fill the nightmare and I would wake up, drenched in perspiration.

 

I like the version where you were molested by cultists better...

[Winstonm]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I finally discovered a use for the 'ignore user' function so this thread's troll is now invisible to me :D

 

 

What's the matter Mike, afraid to learn about the bangs and the bees?

[WellSpyder]

I wonder if only two posters really enjoy these debates, one spewing pop science, the other pop religion?

Actually, although I don't think I have ever participated in these debates, I find them very interesting to read, even though my own views won't be changing any time soon. Sure, this thread has got rather out of hand with posts from one particular source apparently revealing a complete lack of understanding of how science explains the world around us, but putting that contribution to one side there is a lot that I find worth reading.

[gwnn]

(disclaimer: I admit that I have not read every single post in this thread and that the below is possibly distorting facts somewhat and I'm ready to recant/modify the below, but anyway, here goes:)

 

It seems to me the religious moderates or sympathisers thereof in this thread have spent a great deal of time arguing against the points raised by Sam Harris and Mike H. but have done little to counter the never-ending drivel our religious fundamentalist 32519 or to try to make him participate in less pseudoscientific rhetoric and more dialogue with us. I have seen mikeh being regarded as arrogant etc but no one from the religious moderates said anything bad about 32519. This seems to be very reminiscent to what Sam Harris decries. Moderates themselves would never say things like

I got some good news for you. It matters not how high you build your wall, people like myself will become taller so that we can peek over the top and see what you are up to on the other side. I have no idea how many have come before me who have thrown you a life-line to pull you out of the cesspool of self-denial that you find yourself in. The choice is still yours; to eventually sink away altogether or pull yourself out.

because they know how arrogant, threatening and meaningless it sounds. Yet they fail to instruct their fundamentalist brothers on this. They often just sit in the corner and shrug. Uncle Tony is drunk again, what can you do? Tomorrow he will sober up, maybe then we can talk to him. But these Uncle Tonies are fully aware and proud of how drunk they are and they rejoice in how unlikely it is that they will ever sober up. And they definitely miss all the shrugs and embarrassed looks around them and take their relatives' silence as tacit approval.

[Vampyr]

(disclaimer: I admit that I have not read every single post in this thread and that the below is possibly distorting facts somewhat and I'm ready to recant/modify the below, but anyway, here goes:)

 

It seems to me the religious moderates or sympathisers thereof in this thread have spent a great deal of time arguing against the points raised by Sam Harris and Mike H. but have done little to counter the never-ending drivel our religious fundamentalist 32519 or to try to make him participate in less pseudoscientific rhetoric and more dialogue with us. I have seen mikeh being regarded as arrogant etc but no one from the religious moderates said anything bad about 32519. This seems to be very reminiscent to what Sam Harris decries. Moderates themselves would never say things like

because they know how arrogant, threatening and meaningless it sounds. Yet they fail to instruct their fundamentalist brothers on this. They often just sit in the corner and shrug. Uncle Tony is drunk again, what can you do? Tomorrow he will sober up, maybe then we can talk to him. But these Uncle Tonies are fully aware and proud of how drunk they are and they rejoice in how unlikely it is that they will ever sober up. And they definitely miss all the shrugs and embarrassed looks around them and take their relatives' silence as tacit approval.

 

The problem is that fundamentalists form a kind of buffer zone for moderates. As long as the former are there spewing their nonsense, the latter are "safe". If the moderates attack the excesses of the fundies, and even make them see sense, then the moderates will be next in the "line of fire" of nonbelievers and believers who nonetheless do not approve of religion. This may be one reason why Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens directed a great deal of their criticism at moderates. They are a really big part of the problem, although those who have not thought about it much tend to assume otherwise. (By "problem" I mean not just the dangers and threats of fundamentalism, but also other consequences of magical thinking.)

[billw55]

MikeH: ... Thus far you have expressed virtually no opinion of your own in this thread.

 

This one made me laugh. Mikeh always leads the crowd in expressing his opinions in religion threads, and this one is no exception. A question: why is your opinion "your own" while his is "regurgitated"?

 

Suppose a worldwide poll was held in which every one of the 7 billion plus inhabitants was forced to participate. The question on the ballot paper is this:

HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT ORIGINATED?

Voters are given the following two choices –

1. It all started with a BIG BANG 14 500 000 000 years ago

2. It came about at the hands of a super-natural being

How do you believe the vote will go? You may easily end up with a situation where the number of spoilt ballot papers outnumbers 1 & 2 combined. How do you think option 1 is going to fare?

 

Truth is not a popularity contest. Majority vote is irrelevant. Interestingly, even if you limit yourself to surveying religious believers, you will find very large numbers of "votes" for differing propositions. For example:

 

1. jesus christ is the son of god and savior.

2. he is not.

 

Globally, you will find point 1 to be in the minority. Does this sway your opinion?

 

In my early twenties I was trapped in a very similar situation to the one you are now in. I too rejected outright the possible existence of a super-natural being. I too was carefully selecting the books and newspaper articles which I was reading to back up my self-denial. I too was engaging believers in all sorts of arguments; if there is a God why does he allow all this misery and inequality and diseases and rape and murder and whatever you care to name?

 

An interesting question. What is your answer?

 

So I am inviting you to take your first step as well. Start with something that won't threaten you in any way e.g. make a printout of the link higher up in this thread and watch the Matrix movie again. Invite Vampyr to join you.

 

OK, Pink Floyd and The Matrix. Got it.

[kenberg]

Yet they fail to instruct their fundamentalist brothers on this. They often just sit in the corner and shrug. Uncle Tony is drunk again, what can you do? Tomorrow he will sober up, maybe then we can talk to him. But these Uncle Tonies are fully aware and proud of how drunk they are and they rejoice in how unlikely it is that they will ever sober up. And they definitely miss all the shrugs and embarrassed looks around them and take their relatives' silence as tacit approval.

 

By coincidence, I had an experience last night relevant to this comment. We had dinner with a coupe whom we have known for many years. They are younger than we are, maybe 50 or so, and I have always understood that they take their religion seriously. The wife had in fact considered becoming perhaps a lay minister, or something of that nature, but she found that she had to state that she belived without question things that she in fact found less than certain, in some cases far less than certain. One thing led to another, and she has now moved to a church that is far less insistent on the acceptance of specific theological assertions.

 

Recently, while shopping, she ran across someone from her previous church and they fell into a discussion of this change of view. It did not go well at all. As they parted, the other woman said something about the different fates that would await them at the time of the rapture. Something was mentioned about the sign of the beast.

 

The point here is that our friend felt that further conversation would be totally pointless. Very frustrating, very unpleasant, and totally pointless. I doubt she would want to repeat this experience with her former church colleague or with anyone of a similar persuasion.

 

I don't think it is right to hold my friend responsible in any way as an enabler of this other woman's views. I mentioned many posts back that I have no expectation that 32519 will be changing his views as a result of anything I say.

 

Actions and beliefs are related, but I am not so sure that they are as strongly related as some seem to think. There are people who have very generous beliefs except for when it comes to acting on those beliefs, and there are some who sound like real jerks but are there to lend a hand when it is needed. It seems to me we should just pay more attention to what people do, and let them build whatever theoretical structures they might wish. Me, I am content with a very minimal philosophical foundation.

[gwnn]

Changing someone's mind should never be the primary goal of any discussion, especially not about religion. Informing the other party on your opinion as politely, clearly, and firmly is a much better goal, both in terms of ease and productivity. Even if the other party refuses to listen to or understand your point of view or opinion, they will nevertheless be forced to accept that there *are* other points of view out there and plenty of people who disagree with them.

[Winstonm]

(disclaimer: I admit that I have not read every single post in this thread and that the below is possibly distorting facts somewhat and I'm ready to recant/modify the below, but anyway, here goes:)

 

It seems to me the religious moderates or sympathisers thereof in this thread have spent a great deal of time arguing against the points raised by Sam Harris and Mike H. but have done little to counter the never-ending drivel our religious fundamentalist 32519 or to try to make him participate in less pseudoscientific rhetoric and more dialogue with us. I have seen mikeh being regarded as arrogant etc but no one from the religious moderates said anything bad about 32519. This seems to be very reminiscent to what Sam Harris decries. Moderates themselves would never say things like

because they know how arrogant, threatening and meaningless it sounds. Yet they fail to instruct their fundamentalist brothers on this. They often just sit in the corner and shrug. Uncle Tony is drunk again, what can you do? Tomorrow he will sober up, maybe then we can talk to him. But these Uncle Tonies are fully aware and proud of how drunk they are and they rejoice in how unlikely it is that they will ever sober up. And they definitely miss all the shrugs and embarrassed looks around them and take their relatives' silence as tacit approval.

 

IMO the basic problem is similar to the one Ken points out with his anecdote in that the fundamentalist views everyone who disagrees as "the enemy". It really does no good for a moderate to challenge a fundamentalist because the fundamentalist knows "the truth". In my limited experience, the only real change I have seen occur is after a length of time a believer may rethink that position because of repeatedly being challenged to find an explanation for the inconsistencies within the belief.

[gwnn]

The post hrothgar was referring to is this, BTW, for curious souls:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/57409-bbf-religious-matrix/page__st__300__p__696708#entry696708

[Trinidad]

Changing someone's mind should never be the primary goal of any discussion, especially not about religion.

I don't agree. In many discussions my primary goal is to change my own mind. Without this, it usually is not worth the trouble having the discussion in the first place.

 

Rik

[billw55]

In my limited experience, the only real change I have seen occur is after a length of time a believer may rethink that position because of repeatedly being challenged to find an explanation for the inconsistencies within the belief.

I think the change happens most often when the ideal becomes the practical; when an issue hits the individual personally. Ken's friend was ok with her former church for a long time, until she wanted to become an elder/deacon/etc. Then they came to her personally with a very specific demand. It was this personal experience that drove her change. There are simpler cases, for example religions that believe in faith healing only - no doctors. How many mothers have their epiphany when their own child gets ill and needs a doctor - but not before?

[gwnn]

I don't agree. In many discussions my primary goal is to change my own mind. Without this, it usually is not worth the trouble having the discussion in the first place.

 

Rik

Very good counterexample. And now that I reread my post I can think of other counterexamples as well. :) Still, in kenberg's example I definitely disagree with the reasoning "Clearly, I cannot change her mind." => "I will stop talking to her and walk away." Now, I'm not saying that is all kenberg's friend (KF) did and it is all but certain that kenberg's friend's fundamentalist friend (KFFF) did not think that KF is convinced by her (KFFF). In that case, KF's job is very much done: she made it clear that she disagrees with KFFF and hopefully KFFF also has some idea about KF's reasons of disagreeing.

 

But is it a coincidence that 32519 only names mikeh and Vampyr as people who disagree with him and people who he needs to convince? I think not. awm may be right that his group 2 is closer to group 3 on a logical level, but in many of these discussions they are much, much closer to group 1 if you count the points they bring for/against the other two groups (1 and 3).

[Vampyr]

I finally discovered a use for the 'ignore user' function so this thread's troll is now invisible to me :D

 

But now you will miss updates on the Secret Bridge Olympics.

[c_corgi]

The problem is that fundamentalists form a kind of buffer zone for moderates. As long as the former are there spewing their nonsense, the latter are "safe". If the moderates attack the excesses of the fundies, and even make them see sense, then the moderates will be next in the "line of fire" of nonbelievers and believers who nonetheless do not approve of religion. This may be one reason why Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens directed a great deal of their criticism at moderates. They are a really big part of the problem, although those who have not thought about it much tend to assume otherwise. (By "problem" I mean not just the dangers and threats of fundamentalism, but also other consequences of magical thinking.)

 

If moderates need a buffer zone to protect them from attacks by non-believers, that is indeed a problem. Many of the problems associated with religion derive from attacking or being attacked by those with different beliefs. It is unfortunate if non-religious people are going to fall into this trap as well.

[32519]

Changing someone's mind should never be the primary goal of any discussion, especially not about religion. Informing the other party on your opinion as politely, clearly, and firmly is a much better goal, both in terms of ease and productivity. Even if the other party refuses to listen to or understand your point of view or opinion, they will nevertheless be forced to accept that there *are* other points of view out there and plenty of people who disagree with them.

Your argument is very conveniently biased towards anti-religion. Why not try and share your views with MikeH and similar thinkers on the absolute absurdity of the BIG BANG theory and all its flaws. This thread has already pointed out some. I am waiting for the day when an enlightened free-thinking scientist starts looking into the numbers of how they got to the 14 500 000 000 figure in the first place and points out all sorts of errors in the calculation. What are you going to label him/her?

 

These are not especially difficult questions, all have well established scientific answers. Per my own best understanding:

“I believe the current best estimate is about 13.7 billion years. Not a huge difference comparatively, but it can't hurt to be as accurate as possible.”

So we have already shed off 800 000 000 years?

 

This thing won the 2013 Nobel Prize? Here is an extract from the article on Wikipedia, "one of the great engineering milestones of mankind." Have a look at what they say on “Cost.” What’s the point of this thing in the first place when the starting point is flawed?

[gwnn]

Your argument is very conveniently biased towards anti-religion.

You are quoting a paragraph of my post that does not even mention religion. Read the paragraph before responding to it.

Why not try and share your views with MikeH and similar thinkers on the absolute absurdity of the BIG BANG theory and all its flaws. This thread has already pointed out some.

Because I do not see the Big Bang theory as absurd and I know of no major flaws that it has. I definitely saw no flaws pointed out "by this thread," only some vacuous questions raised by you.

I am waiting for the day when an enlightened free-thinking scientist starts looking into the numbers of how they got to the 14 500 000 000 figure in the first place and points out all sorts of errors in the calculation. What are you going to label him/her?

I am not sure what you mean by "free-thinking scientist" but I'm afraid you are talking about a kind who are usually ignorant and mathematically illiterate. You can grade any contenders with the crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Trinidad]

Have a look at what they say on “Cost.” What’s the point of this thing [Large Hadron Collider] in the first place when the starting point is flawed?

Perhaps the fact that it was allowed to cost this much shows just how confident scientists were about their theory and how much confidence the world had in these scientists when they gave them the money?

 

Would it be possible that your starting point is flawed?

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

If moderates need a buffer zone to protect them from attacks by non-believers, that is indeed a problem. Many of the problems associated with religion derive from attacking or being attacked by those with different beliefs. It is unfortunate if non-religious people are going to fall into this trap as well.

 

I didn't mean "attack" as any kind of violence. I meant questions about their beliefs and eventual lack of special treatment in society.

 

Religious moderates do not want to be told how harmful to society their magical thinking is, so they would rather people focused on the excesses of their fanatic brethren. And in fact the fanatics make the moderates seem, to many, to be reasonable.

 

I have found that, in general, a lunatic fringe tends to make the relatively saner branches of a movement seem mainstream.

[Fluffy]

It seems to me the religious moderates or sympathisers thereof in this thread have spent a great deal of time arguing against the points raised by Sam Harris and Mike H. but have done little to counter the never-ending drivel our religious fundamentalist 32519 or to try to make him participate in less pseudoscientific rhetoric and more dialogue with us.

Were there anyone else on the believers side besides the troll?, I haven't payed much attention. It seemed like the usual thing here, a hoard of of atheist trying to put down an impenetrable wall of beliefs. And the usual stuff from Mikeh.

 

To be honest I almost upvoted a post from mikeh quoting the troll, but anyway when you are heavily outnumbered there is little sense on wasting energies against the opposition of your opposition. and for the most part I ignore the trolls.