Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

What if God cares in understandable ways, but not about morality? For instance, he might be the stereotypical mad scientist, so obsessed with results that he gives no fucks about morality (and, arguably, would be right to give no fucks about it on the scale of humanity since it'd be an order of magnitude or ten more extreme than humans caring about the morality of testing antibiotics on bacteria). So, God, but not a god of humanity. That's probably apathy, but it's a form of apathy that loves creating universes.

So... you believe it because you already believe it, and you already believe it because you already believed it?  I can't argue with circular logic I suppose.

No, you already believe it for reasons that you might admit aren't entirely logical (you were raised to believe it, for instance). Nevertheless, why should you change beliefs that have been working out just fine and aren't actually causing any ethical or practical problems? Remember, I'm talking about a hypothetical religion which does not A) claim precedence over scientific observation and B) does not correlate with bigotry. Not about, for instance, Catholicism - I'm perfectly aware that most real examples of religion would require so much modification to fit this hypothetical description that they would be an entirely new sect.

There is a reason the most important principle of scepticism is to ask yourself, "why do I believe what I believe?"

Applying scepticism other ideas - even just in the sense of demanding positive proof - without applying the same principle to your own beliefs is just arrogance and wilful ignorance. You should be able to make as strong a case for what you believe as you would demand from someone else to accept a similar ideas validity.

This is doubly true of when a belief informs the way you live your life and interact with others. If a set of actions are dictated by a belief then it's hard to examine those actions in an independent critical light. If you can't or won't examine that underlying belief then trying to change those actions (as with trying to reduce religious homophobia) is pretty hard going.

Not everyone is a skeptic, and I don't agree that everyone should be. I'm not arguing about skepticism, however - or, if I am, it's that one should be more skeptical of the new than the status quo. If you'll note, science works like this in practice - variation from expectations attracts much greater attention (and, possibly, ridicule) than adherence to the status quo, and I don't think this is just a flaw in the ability of humans to apply rationality rationally. Changing a belief demands a higher degree of evidence than maintaining a belief, regardless of the circumstances under which that belief is arrived at in the first place.

For the last time, I've said repeatedly that when a belief is causing moral or practical problems, it's perfectly reasonable to challenge it because you have a reason against it. This is not the case when people argue against the rationality of the concept of deities or other supernatural entities in principle, which all boil down to a lack of reasons to believe, rather than a reason to lack belief. Occam's Razor is a useful philosophical tool, not an all-encompassing natural law.

[palsch]

Not everyone is a skeptic, and I don't agree that everyone should be. I'm not arguing about skepticism, however - or, if I am, it's that one should be more skeptical of the new than the status quo. If you'll note, science works like this in practice - variation from expectations attracts much greater attention (and, possibly, ridicule) than adherence to the status quo, and I don't think this is just a flaw in the ability of humans to apply rationality rationally. Changing a belief demands a higher degree of evidence than maintaining a belief, regardless of the circumstances under which that belief is arrived at in the first place.

Actually science, in principle and largely in practice, works as I described.

You can ask why a current belief is held as valid in science and come up with an answer every time. That forms the minimum hurdle a new idea has to overcome to be accepted. The problems come when people outside fail or refuse to actually look at the original answer, the original reasons the status quo is the status quo.

And yes, there have been historical cases where the answers haven't been good, although relatively few in the last fifty years or so.

As for people being sceptical, I haven't ever seen an actual case against scepticism other than people not liking others rejecting their unsupported ideas (even as they maintain the right to reject other's ideas on the same grounds).

[Frumple]

The softer skepticism, anyway. The primary issue with skepticism is that, well, it's internally inconsistent, iirc. It does -- well requires, anyway, exactly what you mention, that you reject others' unsupported ideas while maintaining that your own shouldn't be rejected. Certain axioms are held inviolate even while possessing the same sort of lack of justification skepticism targets, and usually about the only "reason" for it is that it'd be batshit crazy to not hold them (i.e. a functioning, by any particular standard, human can not hold them to be false) or they make some other part of the system make sense (speculative science does something similar, I do believe), and neither of those are held to be sufficient justification in a number of other situations. You have to special case certain things in order for skepticism to work, and that's an issue. An issue that's usually -- and somewhat easily -- dismissed (and I generally would recommend exactly that, because the only actual solution that I know of to skeptic'ing yourself into uselessness is faith, i.e. unjustifiable axioms.), but that doesn't actually make the issue go away, heh.

Or, to put it another way, skepticism requires that you are skeptical of the unsupported axioms of skepticism, and most skeptics just... aren't. I mean, I can't blame them, because some of those axioms are stuff like existence and crap, but it's still true of the project of skepticism. Basically, it beats itself, which is somewhat of an issue. Most (quite easily arguably all) people just accept somewhat inconsistently applied skeptical methodology and go on with whatever they're doing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

- God acted for utterly incomprehensible or nonsensical reasons (lovecraftian god)

Oh, I didn't think of it earlier, but in the Mythos the universe was created by Azathoth, the Daemon Sultan, the Nuclear Chaos, the Blind Idiot God. Azathoth is pretty much mindless but is the most powerful entity in existence, and its creation of the universe was an accident that it probably doesn't have any opinion on, but if it does it would be regret.

[palsch]

Or, to put it another way, skepticism requires that you are skeptical of the unsupported axioms of skepticism, and most skeptics just... aren't. I mean, I can't blame them, because some of those axioms are stuff like existence and crap, but it's still true of the project of skepticism. Basically, it beats itself, which is somewhat of an issue. Most (quite easily arguably all) people just accept somewhat inconsistently applied skeptical methodology and go on with whatever they're doing.

The thing is, those axioms don't have to be held as tenants of faith to be a functioning sceptic. I'm not sure they even count as axioms.

Let's say that I want to predict something using science. Unfortunately we don't have sufficient understanding to form a definitive model of the system. So I construct a speculative model, based on my current limited understanding of the situation, and make predictions based on that. I then act on those predictions.

Nothing there is inconsistent with scepticism. It doesn't demand certainty and doesn't guarantee accuracy. You can make sceptical assessments based on limited information or assumptions. It does demand that always be willing to acknowledge those assumptions and challenge them to the extent you are able. A lot of the time the defences may not be entirely rigorous (the primary defence of inductive reasoning is using inductive reasoning itself yet arguably all science is inductive at root) but they tend to hold up well on a human, practical level.


I'd also just like to note I'm talking about what I'd call lifestyle or rational scepticism - the application of critical rationalism and/or empiricism to day-to-day life and personal beliefs - and most others would call scientific scepticism (which I see that as a more narrow subset of general sceptical thought) rather than philosophical scepticism, which broadly challenges the validity of knowledge, either within a field or as an entirety. The two are far from incompatible in practice (at least with subsets of philosophical scepticism that require you are agnostic towards knowledge, only accepting any truth as a weighted possibility while rejecting the possibility of certainty; a position I actually think can be a useful way to look at the world) but you can be sceptical on a practical level while accepting other philosophies of knowledge. Michael Shermer does a good job of separating the two ideas, although most of that essay is targeted at scepticism in practice rather than a philosophical justification.

And I probably need to add the American spelling to my dictionary if I'm going to keep writing about this. I know a few sceptic groups that always identify as skeptics even here in the UK, but right now can't remember which spelling is used for which concepts and groups...

[Frumple]

Yeah, that was the divide I was talking about, more or less. Day-to-day skepticism is pretty viable (and an incredible analytic tool, regardless), but I'd sorta' parallel it to (beneficial) lay worship. The skeptical equivalent of fundamentalism being th'one you identified as the harder philosophical skepticism. Further away you get from that kind of hardcore request for justification of knowledge claims, th'more you're basically capitulating to usability, as I see it. Accepting less rigorous justification for something that works. Sorta' how a lot of the more batshit insane religious stuff functionally moderates itself out over time so the majority population can stomach it, heh. S'mostly, just making sure to point out that there's different sorts of skepticism and the really thorough stuff isn't quite as unassailable.

I would kinda' good-naturedly poke at the "tend to hold up well on a human, practical level," though. Agree with what you're getting at entirely (and it was the majority of my point!), but that kind of reasoning is basically an appeal to popularity more than justification. Putting it in line with something more faith based, a lot of the softer non-skeptical stuff holds up pretty well under the same level of consideration Skepticism's got an overall better track record in most cases, o'course, but that's more or less saying that it works because when we use it, it works, which is a leeetle circular, heh. The good kind of circular, though.

[palsch]

Yeah, that was the divide I was talking about, more or less. Day-to-day skepticism is pretty viable (and an incredible analytic tool, regardless), but I'd sorta' parallel it to (beneficial) lay worship. The skeptical equivalent of fundamentalism being th'one you identified as the harder philosophical skepticism.

I don't agree with either side of that analogy.

Comparing philosophical scepticism to fundamentalism doesn't do either side much credit. There are branches within scepticism that do closely match fundamentalism, but they aren't comparable catagories.

Philosophical scepticism would be more akin to abstract theology. It is a doctrine for exploring the territory (knowledge for scepticism, the varied concepts of God and the divine for theology), not for dictating how you live. It may inform beliefs closer to real life and change your perspective on other ideas, but it doesn't in itself tell you much of anything about how you should act. Even people who are strongly philosophical sceptics are unlikely to live their lives by it's teachings or even find such teachings that inform their lives.

The comparison of rational scepticism to lay worship is stronger, in the sense that they directly inform your day-to-day life, but the fundamental difference is that scepticism can and should be turned on itself. While lay religion may come with such a doctrine, it is only occasional and far from a guaranteed part of religion.

I wouldn't mention that, but the idea that scepticism is doctrinal in the same manner as much religion comes up a lot and is a really nasty false equivalence. It's reflex to push back hard.

Further away you get from that kind of hardcore request for justification of knowledge claims, th'more you're basically capitulating to usability, as I see it.

Thing is, I don't see that at all. Mostly because I don't think that hardcore requests for justification are what it's about.

Again, scepticism doesn't demand that you have certainty before accepting a belief. Hell, the more hardcore versions dictate that you can never have certainty, and frankly they have a strong point there. It's more about ensuring that beliefs are reasonable and being willing to challenge them.

It's possible to hold a belief while acknowledging it's possible it is wrong. This is practically a requirement for scepticism. It's why the fundamental question isn't, "why is this true," it's, "why do I believe what I believe?" Understanding your reasons for belief helps reveal how reliable that belief is, as well as what other assumptions it rests on.

In this sense anything less than strict philosophical rigour isn't a concession to usability but simply an acceptance of a different level of certainty. An idea that has a complete and valid philosophical/logical chain of reasoning might be as certain as the branch of logic or philosophy the chain is built in. A belief that is based on something some guy said in the pub is as certain as your trust in the guy and your immediate assessment of that information given prior knowledge. It doesn't require you test it before thinking it's true, but does mean you try to understand the reason you believe it to be true and maybe consider it needs more testing or evidence before you take any actions based on it.

When I spoke of human, practical level, this is what I meant. It gives us a level of certainty that people are able to act on. The thing is, this isn't just an appeal to popularity. It's also a reasonably objective statement of that level of certainty (at least from where I'm sitting). We can trust inductive reasoning strongly enough to commit decades of work to building inductive chains of logic, solely on the entirely inductive reasoning that such arbitray reasoning (AKA, science) happens to give good results (eg, technology).


Of course, some stuff is lost to practicality in practice. It's not like certainty levels are quantified or formal, and usually the language of certainty is entirely reasonable to use. But then usually the discussions between sceptics and others take place in territory where there such language is well justified, especially from a sociological point of view. If you are having an argument over the validity of some harmful quack medical practice then you probably want to make as definitive a statement as you can, even if that's a (slightly) exaggerated position from a less definitive position held based on statistical evidence and Bayesian inference.

As an example, I'd say that I disbelieve the Christian God. Not that I don't believe, but actively disbelieve. I base this on my reading of the logical arguments for and against such a deity. Now, none of these are truly definitive arguments. There is no golden bullet that shows that (at least subsets of even that narrow definition of) God doesn't exist. There is the possibility of being wrong. But my reading of the arguments gives me strong enough reason for me to hold that positive belief and act as though it were definite.

[Reudh]

I reckon:

There isn't a god.
If he/she/it appears and I have incontrivertable proof that he/she/it exists and isn't just a figment of my deranged mind, then I'd gladly pay him/her/it attention.

Till then though, I remain atheist.

[Leafsnail]

No, you already believe it for reasons that you might admit aren't entirely logical (you were raised to believe it, for instance).

If you know your beliefs don't make sense but you aren't prepared to change them then there's nothing more I can do.  The discussion ends if one side refuses to concede or defend their own position at all.

Nevertheless, why should you change beliefs that have been working out just fine and aren't actually causing any ethical or practical problems? Remember, I'm talking about a hypothetical religion which does not A) claim precedence over scientific observation and B) does not correlate with bigotry. Not about, for instance, Catholicism - I'm perfectly aware that most real examples of religion would require so much modification to fit this hypothetical description that they would be an entirely new sect.

I'll still have a go at this question, although I think the validity of the basis of your belief is irrelevant to the consequences.

My problem is that it provides cover for those with the bigoted or anti-scientific beliefs.  They can claim that, well, there are many thousands of other people who share this evidenceless basis with us, why are you singling us out just because we're anti-homosexuality?  And I don't think there's actually a valid answer to that question.  If there were fewer people holding religious beliefs then the bigots and stuff would be a lot more isolated, and find it harder to maintain the legitimacy that being part of a huge group lends them.

[Bauglir]

Actually science, in principle and largely in practice, works as I described.

You can ask why a current belief is held as valid in science and come up with an answer every time. That forms the minimum hurdle a new idea has to overcome to be accepted. The problems come when people outside fail or refuse to actually look at the original answer, the original reasons the status quo is the status quo.

This actually doesn't disagree with what I'm arguing. The status quo always exists for a reason. It might not be a very good one; I agree "I was raised to believe this" isn't a particularly sound logical basis for anything, but is still a basis. There's a hurdle, even if a very small one, that must be overcome in order to justify changing that belief.

No, you already believe it for reasons that you might admit aren't entirely logical (you were raised to believe it, for instance).

If you know your beliefs don't make sense but you aren't prepared to change them then there's nothing more I can do.  The discussion ends if one side refuses to concede or defend their own position at all.

I didn't say they don't make sense. I said your reasons for believing them in the first place might not be entirely logical. These are two very, very different statements. The concept of a deity can be entirely coherent and sensible, even if there's no particularly logical reason to hold that concept as a description of reality in the first place.

I'll still have a go at this question, although I think the validity of the basis of your belief is irrelevant to the consequences.

My problem is that it provides cover for those with the bigoted or anti-scientific beliefs.  They can claim that, well, there are many thousands of other people who share this evidenceless basis with us, why are you singling us out just because we're anti-homosexuality?  And I don't think there's actually a valid answer to that question.  If there were fewer people holding religious beliefs then the bigots and stuff would be a lot more isolated, and find it harder to maintain the legitimacy that being part of a huge group lends them.

I'm singling them out because they're anti-homosexuality. If you can't come up with an argument against persecuting people on the basis of sexual orientation that isn't "You don't have a religious directive to oppose homosexuality", I think you need to reexamine your own position and decide why you hold that belief. Criticize bigots for their bigotry, not for a belief that is, at best, tangentially related.

[Leafsnail]

I didn't say they don't make sense. I said your reasons for believing them in the first place might not be entirely logical. These are two very, very different statements. The concept of a deity can be entirely coherent and sensible, even if there's no particularly logical reason to hold that concept as a description of reality in the first place.

I meant as in the reason for holding your beliefs making no sense.  I maintain that if someone acknowledges they're holding their belief just because they're already holding their belief and doesn't do anything about it then they are not actually participating in a discussion.

I'm singling them out because they're anti-homosexuality. If you can't come up with an argument against persecuting people on the basis of sexual orientation that isn't "You don't have a religious directive to oppose homosexuality", I think you need to reexamine your own position and decide why you hold that belief. Criticize bigots for their bigotry, not for a belief that is, at best, tangentially related.

That's not what I meant at all.  I can come up with plenty of reasons why bigotry causes harm (and these could well be necessary if the person brings up other arguments in favour of their position), but they're all completely useless against someone who believes that a holy book is true, that the holy book defines what is "good" and that the holy book supports bigotry - you'd just be talking past them rather than actually engaging their argument.  In order to attack their position I'd need to either show that their holy book is not in favour of bigotry, which isn't necessarily true considering most of them were written in a time when bigotry was the norm, or I'd need to attack their basis for believing in the first place.

And attacking the basis is difficult when that exact basis is so normalised and defended in wider society.  So I believe that'd qualify as a reason why someone might want to break out of the circular "I believe because I believe" - to help change the atmosphere so that bigots can be better challenged for their views.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "tangentially related".  Surely the reason why you believe something (or even the thing you use to justify something) is directly related.

[i2amroy]

I didn't say they don't make sense. I said your reasons for believing them in the first place might not be entirely logical. These are two very, very different statements. The concept of a deity can be entirely coherent and sensible, even if there's no particularly logical reason to hold that concept as a description of reality in the first place.

I meant as in the reason for holding your beliefs making no sense.  I maintain that if someone acknowledges they're holding their belief just because they're already holding their belief and doesn't do anything about it then they are not actually participating in a discussion.

I think that the main reason why people hold a religion rather then switching to atheism is not their belief in this deity or that one, but rather their agreement with the lifestyle that is handed down by the religion. So while there is no logical reason why one should hold onto their beliefs in a deity or a particular religion, by remaining part of any given religion a person can be part of a group of people that hold the same world-view as them. So it's not the fact that they stay christians or whatever because ether necessarily believe in their associated god, it's because by remaining a part of that group they are guaranteed to be in a group of people that try to follow their given lifestyle (of helping others for example).

Even looking at religious texts, (take the bible for example because I'm not as familiar with the others, a little hard to get a copy of the Quran here, and a lot of the Judaic stuff you have to be a member before you're even allowed to look at) the majority of the messages aren't "believe in me or else", they are instead rules or lessons to live by like "don't murder" and "don't steal". Even the more fanatical messages tend to go "believe in me so your sins will be forgiven" or "only those who believe in me can be forgiven (of their sins)". The sins (or breaking of the rules of a given religion) are the focus of the message, not the belief itself.

Therefore it's not that people are holding onto a religion because they believe in the same deity, it's rather that by doing so they guarantee that they are part of a group with the same definition of "sin" (thus ensuring that they don't end up with a group that thinks murder isn't a "sin" for example), and by extension, similar morality and views of good and evil as they do. In fact that is probably the reason why there aren't more converts to atheism then there are now. While religions often have a bevy of rules like "don't kill" or "don't drink alcohol", atheism has defined itself solely as "those who do not believe in a god" and has no accompanying rules or regulations. Which would you rather join, a group of people that you know are all good (or at least trying to be) or a group of people that could just as easily be rapists as they could be saints? I don't know about you, but I'll take the group that is all good almost every time.

[Graknorke]

Those lessons about christianity tend to be the more popular ones that people will tell non-religious people though. In the Bible there's a lot of things that are a whole less nice. There was Lot's wife who got killed for daring to have any empathy for the thousands(?) of people dying in Sodom. That homosexuals should be stoned to death without forgiveness, and subsequently I would assume being sent to hell (if they were stoned to death, they hardly would be able to repent for their sins and be forgiven, else they wouldn't be stoned to death). That you should give into those trying to oppress those weaker than them by withholding knowledge by fear of punishment (Adam & Eve. No forgiveness there either).
The moral lessons don't even apply too well, because in many places God actively promotes killing of nonbelievers, then kidnapping and raping their women. Moses and the slaves presumably took food with them, because they didn't all starve to death. That would be breaking the work contract and so stealing. And then when God isn't actively telling people to fight against each other, he's sitting back and letting them do it, but then also intervening some of the time.

And those are only the more popular bits. I think that in one part of the bible it encourages slavery as being the right thing, then lays out rules on prices costs, how long a slave should be kept for etc. But I don't remember it too good.
Long story short; the Bible actually teaches a lot of lessons that aren't what people say it's about.

[EveryZig]

...a group of people that could just as easily be rapists as they could be saints?

Maaaybe not the best example. (Not going to name names, but I am not talking about an athletic program here...)

Still, I agree with your general point that religion has established itself as a/the source morality, and that this is is a large part of what keeps religion afloat.
I would argue that religion isn't actually much of a source of morality for a number of reasons, but that has no impact on the effects of the general public thinking it is.

[lemon10]

So, I have been thinking about it, and have come to the conclusion that the existence of a omniscient being would mean that every possible universe (AKA an infinite amount) would exist perfectly simulated in its head.

That means that if the Christian god really exists, and he is truly omniscient, then our universe would be just one in an infinite amount of universes, all existing in his head (I also think that the differentiation between real and simulated is essentially meaningless, especially when time and computational resources don't exist in the simulating area).
Not only this, but time (in the simulated areas) would also be an illusion, because everything would exist simultaneously (I would imagine it kind of like a 4th dimensional universe in his head existing as a single shape or something (assuming that we only have three space dimensions, we probably have more)).