The Problem with Religious Moderation

[billw55]

After some weeks of work and holiday I came back to bbf and found this thread. I really missed this. :)

So much convidence in ignorance in just one place.... Wonderful.

And in the same thread so many little gems to think about. Surely it is this mixture which makes me love these threads.

For what it's worth, I missed your contributions to this thread also. Welcome back.

[hrothgar]

 

2. Convince me how you managed to separate the theory of evolution entirely from the BBT, allowing it to remain standing all on its own.

 

The easiest way to proceed is to reference Roman Catholic teachings on so called theistic evolution.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

 

The Roman Catholic Church has long held that there is nothing contradictory between religion and evolution.

They believe that God was the first mover, that God created the universe, and directly created the human soul.

However, they also believe that evolution god's tool in shaping the material world.

 

I posit that this distinction shows how the theory of evolution can be treated separately and distinctly from the Big Bang Theory.

[32519]

The easiest way to proceed is to reference Roman Catholic teachings on so called theistic evolution.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

 

The Roman Catholic Church has long held that there is nothing contradictory between religion and evolution.

They believe that God was the first mover, that God created the universe, and directly created the human soul.

However, they also believe that evolution god's tool in shaping the material world.

 

I posit that this distinction shows how the theory of evolution can be treated separately and distinctly from the Big Bang Theory.

I hope you can see the wisdom in this post of yours?

 

Let me ask you this –

1. How much paint is left in your tin?

2. Stated differently (the same question), how small is the corner that you are busy painting yourself into.

 

I’ll answer the top one for you. You have acknowledged that God is real. The creation was at his hands. From then onwards the process of evolution took over. In other words, you yourself are the first among those vehemently defending the BBT that it is absolutely stupid. You have become the first defector to the opposition.

 

I welcome you with open arms my brother. The angels in heaven are now singing and dancing around the throne of God.

 

I say it to you again – welcome home brother!

[kenberg]

The deeply religious have many obnoxious traits. One of them is forgiving me when I have not asked for forgiveness. Similarly they explain that Jesus will save me. And, as here, they explain that God has accepted me, or I have accepted God. Nothing but frustration comes from such interaction. They are deeply insulting, as they intend to be. What to do? Nothing to be done.

 

Codo's post brings the thread back to the OP. Must moderates speak out? I suppose it could be useful, but really the utter hopelessness of this conversation is no doubt a deterrent.

[PassedOut]

I hope you can see the wisdom in this post of yours?

 

Let me ask you this –

1. How much paint is left in your tin?

2. Stated differently (the same question), how small is the corner that you are busy painting yourself into.

 

I’ll answer the top one for you. You have acknowledged that God is real. The creation was at his hands. From then onwards the process of evolution took over. In other words, you yourself are the first among those vehemently defending the BBT that it is absolutely stupid. You have become the first defector to the opposition.

 

I welcome you with open arms my brother. The angels in heaven are now singing and dancing around the throne of God.

 

I say it to you again – welcome home brother!

This is another completely dishonest post. Any religion that produces such dishonesty is, of course, worthless.

[hrothgar]

I hope you can see the wisdom in this post of yours?

 

Let me ask you this –

1. How much paint is left in your tin?

2. Stated differently (the same question), how small is the corner that you are busy painting yourself into.

 

I’ll answer the top one for you. You have acknowledged that God is real. The creation was at his hands. From then onwards the process of evolution took over. In other words, you yourself are the first among those vehemently defending the BBT that it is absolutely stupid. You have become the first defector to the opposition.

 

I welcome you with open arms my brother. The angels in heaven are now singing and dancing around the throne of God.

 

I say it to you again – welcome home brother!

 

 

I trust that you will now live up with your side of the agreement and go away, never to darken our doors again...

[Fluffy]

Silence can mean one of two many things:

 

1) You say such outlandishly stupid things that I cannot see how replying to you can help anyone.

2) You say outlandishly strange things in outlandishly rude fashion but I don't want to carefully refute them because I don't have enough time to explain why beliefs are fundamentally different than yours even though many of the axioms are the same.

3) After hearing the absolute truth you can only nod or applaud.

4) The user is in your ignore list.

........

 

 

 

Note that 4 is compatible with the other 3 :P, well that means it could be avoided?

[mikeh]

 

Codo's post brings the thread back to the OP. Must moderates speak out? I suppose it could be useful, but really the utter hopelessness of this conversation is no doubt a deterrent.

Firstly, I doubt that being 'deeply religious' has much to do with the troll. While I am not trained in psychiatry, I do deal with psychiatrists frequently....and have read large parts of DSM-IV-TR, now being replaced by DSM-V, which I will shortly have to start reading, and have had a number of cases in which mental illness of one form or another played a central role.

 

So, bearing in mind that we have limited actual information and that I have even more limited abilities in this area, it remains my opinion that the troll is mentally ill, and that that mental illness accounts for his behaviours. Religion is so prevalent in most societies that it should be no surprise that his mental illness manifests itself as a form of religious obsession, but I suspect that that is pure happenstance. He could equally well have become convinced that he is being controlled by satellite or microwaves, as two beliefs I have encountered in my cases.

 

However, this thread started with a more mundane question, and while it has been hijacked to a large degree (I point no fingers, since I was one of the main hijackers), the underlying issue remains and it is here that I find the response of the moderates to be interesting.

 

Mycroft made some thoughtful posts early on, but otherwise I can't recall any moderate attempting to distance moderates from fundamentalists on any sort of principled basis.

 

Indeed, what is remarkable, as was pointed out by gwnn, is that the response of most moderates was to attack the character of the more outspoken atheists, especially me.

 

Such attacks don't trouble me, but they do puzzle me since they come from people who strike me as decent, well-intentioned. While I can't pretend to be able to read my posts other than as I intended them, which is clearly not always how others read them, I see my posts as, to a large degree, containing factual statements or logical arguments in addition to any aspersions I may cast, advertently or otherwise.

 

Not once have I seen a response that tackles my arguments or factual assertions. Lots of posts contain attacks on my character. When I first pointed that out, the only response was from fluffy who again simply attacked my character, and essentially seemed to me to say that he wouldn't address my arguments because he didn't like the way I wrote.

 

Why is it that no moderate believer, at least none who posts here, is prepared to refute the statements of fact I have made, or the arguments that I say flow from them?

 

I'd be unable to draw any inference from a complete lack of response or criticism, since that could well mean that no moderates were reading what I said, or that what I said was such utter nonsense that no response was needed. However, that is clearly not the situation.

 

An old and still prevalent but deeply unconvincing mode of debate requires that when one can't win on the merits, one reverts to ad hominem attacks. It still forms the backbone of politics, at least in NA, where the average voter is largely ignorant of the real issues and unable to discuss them intelligibly, but it is regrettable that it appears to be the main, and maybe the only, answer available to the moderates here, when dealing with the non-believers.

[Trinidad]

I hope you can see the wisdom in this post of yours?

 

[some other stuff]

Hrothgar was good for his side of the deal. It's time to keep your promise.

 

Rik

[billw55]

Why is it that no moderate believer, at least none who posts here, is prepared to refute the statements of fact I have made, or the arguments that I say flow from them?

I suspect it is because most moderate believers accept that belief comes solely from faith, and not from observable evidence.

[gwnn]

3) After hearing the absolute truth you can only nod or applaud.

4) The user is in your ignore list.

........

 

 

 

Note that 4 is compatible with the other 3 :P, well that means it could be avoided?

4 is perfectly compatible with 1 (by induction). Applause is also not silence.

[Winstonm]

More than dishonest, the posts are irrational even within the concepts of fundamental Xism. I suspect hoaxing. Even the deeply religious have some kind of logic underpinning the belief - that logic is built on the assumption (as MikeH has repeatedly pointed out so well) that any gaps in our knowledge should be filled with a supernatural causative force. Even Lukewarm built his argument around the tautology that if there is a god, there is a god, which is basically the logic that underpins gap-filling.

[Trinidad]

Mycroft made some thoughtful posts early on, but otherwise I can't recall any moderate attempting to distance moderates from fundamentalists on any sort of principled basis.

Because fundamentalists are standing at the front line to assure the freedom of religion for the moderates. Religious people, whether moderate or fundamentalist, fear that their relgious freedom will be limited. And, to be honest, they have good reasons for their fear:

- Female circumscission is outlawed in most countries, male circumscission is under fire.

- Ritual butchering is prohibited in many countries.

- Sunday openings are spreading like wildfire, meaning that they will not be able to enjoy the Sunday Rest.

- In the Netherlands, civil servants must wed gays, even if their belief goes against homosexuality, otherwise give up your right to wed people.

- Cursing used to be forbidden, but now falls under freedom of speech.

- ...

 

Why is it that no moderate believer, at least none who posts here, is prepared to refute the statements of fact I have made, or the arguments that I say flow from them?

Because their believes are.. errr... a matter of belief. Facts may change believes, but arguments and reasoning usually don't.

 

They are not interested in being convinced by you (or me, or anybody else). They are happy with the choices they have made in their lives. And -though I have made a different choice- I am happy for them, as long as they respect the choices I have made. And moderates do that.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

This may not be a valid argument but I can't help but thinking that total derision by society of a belief eventually destroys that belief: one no longer sees moderate or fundamental followers of Zeus or Poseidon.

 

Which brings up another Harris point that I have found interesting from a psychological aspect: believers have the ability to see the irrationality in competing beliefs but are blind to the irrationality of their own beliefs - what's up with that?

[mikeh]

I suspect it is because most moderate believers accept that belief comes solely from faith, and not from observable evidence.

I accept this. Where I have trouble is understanding how they rationalize:

 

1) clinging to belief in the face of contradictory evidence

2) the fact that the doctrines in which they believe are now very different from the doctrines that their church advocated 100 years ago, which in turn are very different from those advocated by their church or, for recent sects, the forerunners of their church, 1000 years ago, 1800 years ago, and so on.

 

It is that latter question that, it seems to me, virtually all religious believers ignore. Perhaps the closest 'response' to this question comes from the Mormons, who very disingenuously announce divine revelations every time a core belief is ruled illegal by the SCOTUS. Hence polygamy is no longer mainstream doctrine, and blacks are no longer mud people and so on.

 

Do the moderates say that those who created and expanded the Christian faith in the early centuries got key parts of doctrine wrong? If so, what gives the moderates the ability to assert that? If they say that the early Christians got it wrong, why do they think that they, 2,000 years removed, are better able to get it right?

 

Arguing that details don't matter would be as disingenuous as the Mormon approach, since the history of Christianity could easily be written in terms of who was killing whom over what detail of doctrine.

 

The argument that 'belief' trumps evidence is the argument that the best approach to living is to stop thinking and start believing.

 

That is clearly a very successful meme, in terms of how many people seem to ascribe to it, but I just don't understand it. Even if I were to believe in some form of supernatural being with an interest in humans, I would expect that I would see my ability to reason as something I was intended to use. So why not use it?

[billw55]

I accept this. Where I have trouble is understanding how they rationalize:

 

1) clinging to belief in the face of contradictory evidence

2) the fact that the doctrines in which they believe are now very different from the doctrines that their church advocated 100 years ago, which in turn are very different from those advocated by their church or, for recent sects, the forerunners of their church, 1000 years ago, 1800 years ago, and so on.

 

It is that latter question that, it seems to me, virtually all religious believers ignore. Perhaps the closest 'response' to this question comes from the Mormons, who very disingenuously announce divine revelations every time a core belief is ruled illegal by the SCOTUS. Hence polygamy is no longer mainstream doctrine, and blacks are no longer mud people and so on.

I consider the ability to revise and improve doctrine to be a positive characteristic. If the Mormons (or whoever) recognize that aspects of their existing doctrine are harmful or outright wrong, and change those aspects, isn't that a good thing both for their membership and society at large? Aren't we all better off with a Mormon Church that is not institutionally racist? Religions even revise doctrine to stay consistent with scientific findings, e.g. Catholicism and the big bang/evolution.

 

We recognize self-correction as a strength of science. It is only fair to give religion the same courtesy.

[mikeh]

I consider the ability to revise and improve doctrine to be a positive characteristic. If the Mormons (or whoever) recognize that aspects of their existing doctrine are harmful or outright wrong, and change those aspects, isn't that a good thing both for their membership and society at large? Aren't we all better off with a Mormon Church that is not institutionally racist? Religions even revise doctrine to stay consistent with scientific findings, e.g. Catholicism and the big bang/evolution.

 

We recognize self-correction as a strength of science. It is only fair to give religion the same courtesy.

Not quite.

 

Science is self-correcting (subject to human frailties) because it tests the existing theory against reality, and whenever reality generates evidence that contradicts the existing theory, the interest of the investigators is engaged...if the evidence is sufficiently robust, the existing theory is rejected or modified, usually in favour of a theory that accounts for all then known evidence.

 

However, as with the Standard Model, it has always been understood that this model represents merely the best ideas at the moment, and that it is incomplete and may be wrong on some fundamental level that we cannot yet imagine, just as Newton's models were very accurate within the measurement tolerances of his day, but were fundamentally different from the space-time model we now use.

 

This is nothing at all to do with the 'corrections' made by religions.

 

Religions are based on 'revealed knowledge'.

 

The 'knowledge' comes not from humans (of course it does, but religion denies this) but from a supernatural and inerrant and constant entity.

 

Revealed knowledge is absolute. It has to be accepted without debate.

 

It is NOT susceptible to analysis and argument: it is the revealed word of god.

 

Of course, it has to be modified as the species learns of facts that are inconveniently other than the revealed knowledge states, since a religion that becomes patently absurd is a religion that is on its way out as a cultural force. Religions are nothing if not self-propagating memes.

 

This modification can be performed by new revelations, suggesting that god changes its mind, or by arguing that earlier generations of humans misunderstood the nature and meaning of the revelations. This is the Mycroft approach: matters previously believed to be literally true are now allegorical.

 

Thus religions never sweep away their core beliefs even when the universe demonstrates that those core beliefs are false.

 

Religion survives for two reasons, beyond its effectiveness as a meme.

 

Lack of education. The vast majority of humans have no or little or a false understanding of the way the universe 'is', as understood by the latest research and ideas. Even in the West, the quality of education on these matters is woeful until one gets into university, and even then the vast majority of students get no exposure to physics, astrophysics, biology and the other sciences that explore these issues from an evidence-based perspective.

 

Gaps in knowledge. Religion offers what is superficially a 'complete answer'. Of course, on the most cursory of critical examination, it merely regresses the basic questions one level 'up', but religion requires of its believers that they stop thinking at that point: that 'god did it' is itself a sufficient, meaningful answer and many questions beyond that are answered by some version of 'we're not meant to understand god...god is ineffable. Science, on the other hand, currently says: we know a lot, and we are always learning, but there are many important things we cannot yet explain. Some scientists go further and say: there may well be some important things that we, as humans, may never be capable of learning.

 

These admissions of the limits of knowledge leave people yearning for answers, and an honest atheist, whether scientist or not, admits that he or she doesn't have 'all the answers'. Given that we are mortal, and that we are irrational animals aware of that mortality, it is no wonder that so many of us find comfort in irrationality.

 

It seems likely that we, as a species, are a long way away from any theory that does 'explain' what happened at the moment of the BB or, and the term may have no meaning, 'before' the BB. We have only just realized that dark matter and dark energy may be far more important components of the universe, in terms of quantity, than the matter of which stars, planets, and we are made, and we haven't the faintest idea of what these two things are or even of how to perform experiments to find out. Thus the god of the gaps has a long and successful life expectancy.

[gwnn]

It is perfectly fair but you kinda look stupid (as an institution) to say something like

 

"The infinitely powerful, unchanging, perfectly just God told us that Native Americans are cursed by Him because they slaughtered my Chosen People and we should hold them in no respect."

 

And then a few years later they say

"The infinitely powerful, unchanging, perfectly just God told us that we should be cool with Native Americans. They are nice people and they were not really cursed by Him. It was just a kinda funny prank to paint their skin red."

 

Do you see the problem with this?

[billw55]

It is perfectly fair but you kinda look stupid (as an institution) to say something like

 

"The infinitely powerful, unchanging, perfectly just God told us that Native Americans are cursed by Him because they slaughtered my Chosen People and we should hold them in no respect."

 

And then a few years later they say

"The infinitely powerful, unchanging, perfectly just God told us that we should be cool with Native Americans. They are nice people and they were not really cursed by Him. It was just a kinda funny prank to paint their skin red."

 

Do you see the problem with this?

Yes, I see the problem. And while I understand that the claim of updated instruction from God is only a surrogate for human decisions (whether of conviction or convenience), I also recognize that the end result is that they have done something good, made an improvement in their doctrine. Would you prefer that the old doctrine was maintained? I think not - but expecting them to simply abandon their belief in the divine is asking too much. So I think you should cut religion a break when they do the right thing, even if they tie themselves in logic knots to accomplish it.

[32519]

On 19 October 2013 in this thread

Page 16 hrothgar posted:

I trust that you will now live up with your side of the agreement and go away, never to darken our doors again...

That thread is now locked, so I need to reply here:

I fail to understand why you want me to go away now that we are working on the same side. The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few, so pray to the Lord of the harvest to compel more workers into his harvest.

 

I don’t know how many scientists are lurking in the background, following this thread, but they can see the maths unfolding here –

1. 1 has become 2

2. 2 will become 4

3. 4 will become 8

4. Until eventually we are all on the same side

 

On 19 October 2013 in this thread

Page 16 Trinidad posted:

Hrothgar was good for his side of the deal. It's time to keep your promise.

That thread is now locked, so I need to reply here:

When Richard crossed over to side with your opposition, the original agreement was automatically cancelled. The agreement which I made with Richard I make with all of you, individually or collectively. Convince me how you separate the theory of Evolution from the BBT and still keep the theory of Evolution standing. Convince me and I go. Change sides then we begin working together. The agreement gets cancelled and I stay.

Here is a suggestion: Start a private conversation on your name where I have no access to what is being discussed. Invite those to join the private conversation who have a proven track record for developing all these theories, and collectively prepare your answer; strategise, plot and scheme until all the members of the private conversion are in agreement as to what you are going to post in this thread. Then choose your fall guy to make the post, or you can post it collectively. The choice is yours. If you manage to convince me, I go.

 

Deal or no deal?

 

Allow me to make a prediction. When you see it happening, know that you read it in this post first.

 

The Prediction: In the very near future an almighty fight is going to break out amongst you guys, the evolutionists bashing the physicists over the head with, “You fools, look what you have gone and done with your stupid BBT. Over a period stretching longer than 100 years we have “perfected” the Theory of Evolution. Now you guys have gone and destroyed all our hard work.

Guess what? The fight is going to get worse when the physicists start turning on each other in search of a scape goat. When their ship starts sinking, like rats they are going to be jumping off in all directions. The ship? You guessed it, the LHC. Those doggedly fighting on when all others have fled are going to resurrect the LHC. The Large Hadron Collider will get a new name, the LARGER Hadron Collider as they keep on building “bigger” and “better.” These will be but the beginning of birth-pangs for the physicists. Why? One by one they will be changing sides, and as they do, they are going to be bringing along with themselves all sorts of these unproven theories of yours. And they are going to start appearing in all sorts of magazines and newspaper articles or whatever. Physics as we currently know it is going to come crashing down, lying in ruins alongside your precious theory of evolution. Why? Every household divided against itself cannot stand. If evolutionists are casting out physicists and physicists are casting out evolutionists, how can your household stand?

 

For the fight to start, a catalyst is needed. What could that catalyst be? It’s a no-brainer. There are plenty of lurkers who keep on coming back to this thread to see what’s going on here. At the time this post was made the number of views stood at 3620. Watch that number as it steadily rises. Amongst those lurkers, there are believers. They are going to start making printouts of this entire thread and start publishing the contents in their church bulletins. The headlines in big bold print? “The physicists have destroyed the theory of evolution!” And the news will keep spreading. For more than 100 years the evolutionists have been ramming the Theory of Evolution down our throats. Now its our turn to start ramming the flaw in the BBT down your throats. At the point where you start gagging, you too will change sides.

 

You read it here first!

[hrothgar]

 

 

 

That thread is now locked, so I need to reply here:

When Richard crossed over to side with your opposition, the original agreement was automatically cancelled. The agreement which I made with Richard I make with all of you, individually or collectively.

 

Thank you very much, but I don't need you to speak for me.

Nor, do you get to unilaterally cancel your commitments.

 

I expect you to honor your agreement and leave the forums.

 

Are you a man of your word or not?

 

You claim to be a good Christian...

Do you think that you're doing any service to your religion by demonstrating that you can not be trusted?

 

How are you representing yourself? How are you representing your god?

[32519]

Thank you very much, but I don't need you to speak for me.

Nor, do you get to unilaterally cancel your commitments.

 

I expect you to honor your agreement and leave the forums.

 

Are you a man of your word or not?

 

You claim to be a good Christian...

Do you think that you're doing any service to your religion by demonstrating that you can not be trusted?

 

How are you representing yourself? How are you representing your god?

My request to you was this: convince me how you separate the theory of evolution from the BBT and still keep the theory of evolution standing. What you have gone and done is this –

1. You have separated the evolution theory from the BBT. But in order to keep it standing you have tied it to God. By doing that, not only have you acknowledged that God is real and that he exists, you have also acknowledged that he is the creator of the universe. Put differently, you have now changed sides. You and I are now working side by side, so there is no need for me to leave.

2. Alternatively, you have separated the theory of evolution from the BBT but are searching all around youself for something to tie it to. Until you tell me what you are tying it to, you have not met my request, so there is no need for me to leave.

[hrothgar]

 

1. You have separated the evolution theory from the BBT. But in order to keep it standing you have tied it to God. By doing that, not only have you acknowledged that God is real and that he exists, you have also acknowledged that he is the creator of the universe. Put differently, you have now changed sides. You and I are now working side by side, so there is no need for me to leave.

 

 

That is not for you to decide.

 

The terms that you agreed to were fairly specific and do not include any riders about "tying my argument to the existence of God" or some such.

For convenience, I am going to restate what you you agreed to right here.

 

From what I can tell, I need to accomplish two distinct things.

 

1. Provide sufficient supporting evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (This shouldn't be too difficult). You've already admitted that this theory seems plausible.

 

2. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution does not depend on the big bang theory.

 

Are we in agreement about the specifics?

 

All that I needed to do was to demonstrate that the two points are separable.

 

You might regret not thinking things through better before before you signed on, but that neither here nor there.

 

I lived up to my side of the bargain. (I still have your post taped to my fridge)

Please demonstrate that you are good to your word.

[Trinidad]

Guys,

 

The mods thought that it was a good idea to lock the "The Problem with Religious Moderation" thread. They must have had a reason, and it is fair to guess that it had to do with the exchanges between 32519 on one side and several posters on the other side.

 

We can think what we want about their decision to lock that thread (I personally enjoyed the thread), but we do need to respect it. That means that we should stop right here and not contaminate an other thread.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

Amongst those lurkers, there are believers. They are going to start making printouts of this entire thread and start publishing the contents in their church bulletins. The headlines in big bold print? “The physicists have destroyed the theory of evolution!”

 

Who knows who will be next? No one is safe. I am working to get mathematicians to form an alliance with chemists to fend off these aggressive physicists. I can tell you as a fact that there are 539 card carrying physicists in the National Science Foundation. Why has no action been taken? We must protect our nation.