The Problem with Religious Moderation

[Vampyr]

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 think that the results would surprise you, at least in countries with a high level of literacy and education. Most moderate Christians and Jews believe that the 7-day creation thing is not a literal account of events.

[Vampyr]

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 think that the results would surprise you, at least in countries with a high level of literacy and education. Most moderate Christians and Jews believe that the 7-day creation thing is not a literal account of events.

[billw55]

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.

 

It has? Maybe you can refresh me. What do you consider the flaws of big bang theory?

 

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?

 

All scientific measurements and calculations have error. Reporting error accurately is essential to good science. The time elapsed since the big bang has been calculated by several different methods (each with some margin for error), and you can easily look up these methods and results. If you think there is a problem with the measurements or calculations, can you be more specific?

 

So we have already shed off 800 000 000 years?

 

Yes, or if you prefer, 5.5% from 14.5 billion years. That is not a large error for this type of calculation. While I do not know the source of the 14.5 billion figure, I do know that the "current best" value has been improved several times over the decades since the theory was introduced.

 

From wikipedia: "The best measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years". That is ± 37 million years, or less than 1%. I consider that very accurate at this magnitude.

 

You have not proposed an alternative age. How old do *you* think the universe is? Based on what? What is the margin of error in your belief?

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?

 

The LHC has yielded some significant results, but I do think the cost is too high. Imagine how many worthwhile projects in other sciences could be funded for this amount. I think humanity would get greater benefit from a more diverse research investment.

 

But still: why is the starting point flawed?

[Trinidad]

Perhaps we have used the wrong style to convince everybody.

 

Perhaps we should write something like:

 

The Scientists gathered and presented the Unified Theory to the world. And the world saw the Unified Theory and the world saw that it was good.

And the Scientists separated the quarks, that form the neutrons and the protons, from the gluons, photons, bosons and gravitons. They presented their work to the world and the world saw their work and the world saw that it was good.

And the Scientists were working harder and found: "We need a Higgs boson! It must be somewhere, but we haven't found it yet. For without the Higgs boson all particles would be without mass and proceed at the speed of light.". And the world did not see the Higgs boson, yet the world saw that this was bad.

The Scientists gathered and said: "We may be able to find the Higgs boson, but it will cost the world $9 000 000 000. And there shall not be any absolute certainty that it can be found for Science does not work with absolute certainties.".

And the world said: "That is an awful lot of money, but we have so much confidence in Science, given the glorious things it has achieved in the past, that we will give to the Scientists what should be rightfully Theirs." And the world saw that it was good.

And that is how it unfolded. The Engineers gathered in Geneva to start the construction of the Large Hadron Collider. In the tenth year the construction was completed. And the Scientists gathered in Geneva and They saw the Large Hadron Collider and They saw that it was good.

The Scientists performed Their experiments and gathered Their data, and behold, in the fifth year, the Higgs boson was confirmed.

And scientists all over the world applauded their Colleagues for this glorious event.

And the world said: "Hallelujah! Praise Englert, Praise Higgs, for they have predicted the future for us!". And the world gathered in Stockholm on the tenth day of December (in commemoration of the death of Alfred Nobel) to award Them the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2013. And the world saw Englert and the world saw Higgs and the world saw that They were good.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

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.

Mikeh was debating people other than 32519 in this thread, for example nige1, billw5, onoway, etc. You may want to call the participants of this thread as a "hoard of atheists" but that is a gross misrepresentation. I would say it is much closer to 50-50 in terms of pro-religious moderation vs. anti-religious moderation. And there are clearly more people who confronted mikeh and Vampyr than those who confronted 32519. If you doubt any of this, you are welcome to re-read the thread.

[c_corgi]

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.

 

I didn't think you were advocating violence, but I did think terms like "line of fire" implied a hostility (not necessarily on your part) towards religious moderates. There are too many examples throughout history of a hostile attitude between two groups degenerating into violence, often when it furthers political causes. It is better to avoid the hostile attitude if possible.

 

For what its worth I agree that, for instance, we should not have an established church forming part of our constitution. However, there are many aspects of our constitution that I don't approve of and disestablishment would not be high on my list of priorities.

 

I doubt if many people want to be told their beliefs are harmful to society: it sounds like rather a PITA. In the case of religious moderates, it seems unfair to do so. I don't know exactly what people consider a religious moderate to be, but I would think that "Someone who doesn't think better or worse of other people because they agree or disagree with their own beliefs" would be a pre-requisite. To me, like (I think) you, the ideas of religious faith seem far fetched, but when society starts blaming its ills on religious moderates it is going too far. If a society has a problem with religious fundamentalists, that society probably should be more concerned with setting its own house in order than with looking for scapegoats.

[Vampyr]

I didn't think you were advocating violence, but I did think terms like "line of fire" implied a hostility (not necessarily on your part) towards religious moderates. There are too many examples throughout history of a hostile attitude between two groups degenerating into violence, often when it furthers political causes. It is better to avoid the hostile attitude if possible.

I didn't mean to sound hostile to religious moderates, but I do think that their beliefs are harmful; mainly because even moderates want their religious beliefs to form part of public life, public education, etc. And often they, by their silence (as noted in this thread, but of course this thread is only words) condone horrible acts of violence by fundamentalists.

[mikeh]

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.

 

Sorry to be so predictable.

 

I readily admit to having strong convictions, and am always happy to be challenged on them. I really do like learning where I am in error, since then I have increased my understanding of the topic. However, to this day, having read everything that all the religious moderates have written, it still seems to me that all believers believe because they choose to believe and not because they have any rational basis for satisfying themselves that their core beliefs are grounded in reality.

 

I and others have, many times, posted arguments based on historical fact, as best as we can determine historical fact. For example, the current state of the art in terms of biblical history shows very clearly that many of the stories in the OT are adaptations of similar stories from older religions. Other stories are inconsistent with archeological evidence: there is zero evidence of the presence of any significant number of Jews in Egypt for any length of time, as one example.

 

Getting to the NT, the gospels appear to have been written at least 2 or 3 generations after the events said to be described. Moreover, both the gospels that ended up as the NT and those that were, hundreds of years later, rejected, contain many contradictions, and even where there is broad agreement, some of the stories can also be traced to similar stories in other, earlier, religions.

 

None of the religious believers who post here EVER, and I mean EVER debate these issues.

 

At most we get the argument that many parts of the bible are not supposed to be taken literally.

 

This begs the question: why should ANY if it be taken literally?

 

Why doesn't any moderate discuss how it is that in the Christian Church, what has happened is that from time to time it becomes impossible for any but the fanatics like the troll to maintain that a certain story, previously held to be factual is actually true. So that part becomes allegorical or metaphorical.

 

With the advance of fact-based knowledge, the parts of the bible that are now said, by moderates, to be true have shrunk. In no other area of human interest would we find such an incredible adaptive mechanism in play. In any other area, after formerly key aspects of doctrine are found to be incompatible with reality, the doctrine would be discarded in its entirety.

 

However, in religion, the belief meme is so strong, and so pervasive, that the victim has no trouble rationalizing away the pesky contradictions between evidence and the holy teachings.

 

To the point that the victim of the meme doesn't even appear to recognize what is going on. It would be funny if it were not for the fact that religion is a very powerful force in society and that it is all too often, nowadays and historically, used to create hatred, fear, anger, discrimination and so on. These emotions would undoubtedly still be prevalent without religion, of course: tribalism/nationalism are just as bad and, not coincidentally, often go hand in hand, hence the old saying about 'god and country'

 

I sometimes regret that I come across as arrogant, but on other occasions I can't help but suspect that by calling me arrogant, the critic can justify to himself or herself a refusal to engage with me on the merits of the points I make.

 

After all, if I am just being my usual arrogant self, why stoop to paying attention to the content of my posts? Just call me arrogant, ignore the issues, and continue feeling good about oneself.

[Fluffy]

I sometimes regret that I come across as arrogant, but on other occasions I can't help but suspect that by calling me arrogant, the critic can justify to himself or herself a refusal to engage with me on the merits of the points I make.

Not sure about others, but in my case is the natural reaction to you calling ignorant whoever disagrees with you. We have had enough debates about our views anyway and mines haven't evolved much so there is little point on reproducing them.

[kenberg]

[/size]

Not sure about others, but in my case is the natural reaction to you calling ignorant whoever disagrees with you. We have had enough debates about our views anyway and mines haven't evolved much so there is little point on reproducing them.

 

If anyone told me that he had changed from believer to non-believer or from non-believer to to believer as a result of reading the postings on bbf I would be even more skeptical of that than I am of virgin birth. For me, dealing with religious threats of punishment in hell was a matter of emotional survival..I did it as best I could as a fourteen year old and that's that. I really can't see why anyone puts up with that sort of browbeating, but to each his own. Anyway, it's been sixty years now, I think that's long enough to say that I won't be changing my mind. I don't expect my religious friends will be changing theirs either, at least not on the basis of some wc posting of mine or of anyone.

[32519]

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?

I know that the Jews reject your point 1 but don't have the detail. Can you fill me in on the detail?

[32519]

How many theories are we dealing with? I know of -

1. The BIG BANG Theory

2. The Theory of Evolution

 

What are the others?

[Scarabin]

Fwiw I view religious and sceptical moderation as approximately equivalent: hopefully moderates' beliefs are not set in stone. Having said that I see Mikeh's posts as rational and hence more likely to attract replies. I must confess I do not see much point in responding to 32519's posts.

[squealydan]

How many theories are we dealing with? I know of -

1. The BIG BANG Theory

2. The Theory of Evolution

 

What are the others?

 

If the question is

 

"What scientific theories have been demonstrated via continuous testing and evaluation to be the most likely explanations for the world around us, but which I will choose to disbelieve because it's easier to say "God did it" than to actually attempt to understand the science",

 

then I guess you'll have to tell us.

[32519]

How many theories are we dealing with? I know of -

1. The BIG BANG Theory

2. The Theory of Evolution

 

What are the others?

From MikeH's silence, is it safe to say that these are the only two theories that we are dealing with here?

[billw55]

I know that the Jews reject your point 1 but don't have the detail. Can you fill me in on the detail?

I am neither Jewish nor do I practice Judaism. So no, I don't have the detail. I do know that in general, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus (to name just a few) do not consider Christ to be a divine savior. I don't think the details of Jews not accepting Christ is relevant to my point though.

 

How many theories are we dealing with? I know of -

1. The BIG BANG Theory

2. The Theory of Evolution

 

What are the others?

From MikeH's silence, is it safe to say that these are the only two theories that we are dealing with here?

For the sake of argument, yes, let's limit our discussion to just those two. What is your point?

 

One more thing. I have been very patient in answering your questions about science in some length. If this is to be considered a conversation, you must answer some of my questions as well. You can find them in blue text in posts #190 and #207 [edit: now 261 and 278, after thread merging] of this thread. I think they are simple and reasonable questions which you should have answers for. I do want to hear what you think about these things, but honestly it is hard to figure out what your points are when you skip between topics and make mostly nebulous non-statements that provide no information.

 

Don't be shy, I wont bite. Just tell me what you really think about what I have asked you.

[kenberg]

Silemce often arises when further conversation seems pointless. Going over topics that have been gone over repeatedly with no change in position, no new ideas, and random hopping from subtopic to subtopic gets us nowhere.

 

I have mentioned that I have no expectation of changing your views. You have presented many question to us, let me ask you one. Do you accept that there is no possibility that you will be changing my views?

 

We simply see the world very differently. So differently that nothing you have said prompts a response from me along the lines of "Oh, that's a new view, I will have to give that some thought".

 

The OP referred to religious moderation. My guess, I confess it is a guess, is that religious moderates are closer to my world view than they are to yours.

[ArtK78]

MikeH has put 32519 on his ignore list. So he doesn't see 32519's posts anymore. That would explain his silence in response to the posts.

 

Or, it could just be exhaustion.

 

Unless I am mistaken, only Christians (and some offshoots, like Mormanism) accept Jesus as savior. All the other religions do not. And, while Christianity is a very significant religion, it is followed by a minority of the world's population.

[32519]

How many theories are we dealing with? I know of -

1. The BIG BANG Theory

2. The Theory of Evolution

 

What are the others?

From MikeH's silence, is it safe to say that these are the only two theories that we are dealing with here?

For the sake of argument, yes, let's limit our discussion to just those two. What is your point?

Can anyone spot the problem here? And I am not referring to the word “Theory.” That of itself is already a very thorny issue for the MikeH’s of the world. I am referring to the much bigger glaring issue at stake here?

 

You be the first one to answer.

[WellSpyder]

How many theories are we dealing with? I know of -

1. The BIG BANG Theory

2. The Theory of Evolution

 

What are the others?

 

Can anyone spot the problem here? And I am not referring to the word “Theory.” That of itself is already a very thorny issue for the MikeH’s of the world. I am referring to the much bigger glaring issue at stake here?

 

You be the first one to answer.

I think the problem here is that no-one else really knows what you mean by "dealing with", so cannot answer your question. If you tell us where you are trying to get to with this then we may be able to help or hinder you getting there!

[billw55]

Can anyone spot the problem here? And I am not referring to the word "Theory." That of itself is already a very thorny issue for the MikeH's of the world. I am referring to the much bigger glaring issue at stake here?

 

You be the first one to answer.

I grow weary of vague hints and non-answers.

 

I have made several attempts to communicate with you in simple, honest, understandable statements and questions. I have received only fog in return. Therefore, with regret, I now sign off. Good luck.

[Trinidad]

For the sake of argument, yes, let's limit our discussion to just those two. What is your point?

Can anyone spot the problem here? And I am not referring to the word “Theory.” That of itself is already a very thorny issue for the MikeH’s of the world. I am referring to the much bigger glaring issue at stake here?

 

You be the first one to answer.

I think Bill asked you a clear question. If you don't want to answer him, that is fine. But in that case you should simply write that you don't want to answer his question.

 

You could even say that you only want to ask questions and you do not intend to answer any questions.

 

But to answer every question with a counterquestion is simply impolite. And that doesn't have anything to do with religion or science.

 

Rik

 

P.S. The answers to your questions are: 1) No. 2) That is not a question.

[Vampyr]

Can anyone spot the problem here? And I am not referring to the word “Theory.” That of itself is already a very thorny issue for the MikeH’s of the world. I am referring to the much bigger glaring issue at stake here?

 

Please do not continue to pretend to misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context. Do you have a problem with the theories of, for example, gravity and electromagnetism? Or the many other theories that describe reality as we know it?

 

I don't think that anyone knows what the big glaring issue is. Why don't you tell us?

[kenberg]

 

I don't think that anyone knows what the big glaring issue is. Why don't you tell us?

 

Or not. It's ok either way.

[jeffford76]

MikeH has put 32519 on his ignore list. So he doesn't see 32519's posts anymore.

 

You mean there are people who have not?