I think we agree to a large extent. I don't really have a problem with ED's beliefs if they don't affect me. I certainly agree that illiberalism and dogmatism is a MUCH bigger problem - and atheism is no vaccine against those vices. I would never try to "force" someone to change their belief, although I am often accused of doing so (or being "rude") just by making an argument.
On the other hand, would you be so quick to take this position if we were talking about witchcraft? Or paganism? Or a living Elvis? Would you have said, "The fact is, I don’t think anyone would disagree that the maintenance of [belief in Zeus] as a purely personal affair is at the very least harmless ..." Errr, maybe so - but wouldn't you worry about the person? Wouldn't you question their ability to (1) believe in Zeus, and (2) be normal in all other respects. Would you hesitate before letting this person babysit for you?
Sam Harris argues that religious moderates act as a shield for fundamentalists because moderates defend "belief" in a harmless context and then are unable to fully denounce fundamentalists. I'm not sure that I buy Sam's argument, but I do view religion as a hole in the dyke. Maybe it's harmless, maybe it will never get any bigger, but I still find it troublesome and would prefer to see it patched. When ED fully admits that he believs things even though the evidence is against him, it just seems like trouble brewing.... If you can throw logic away in Case A, why not in Case B?
2009-02-09 13:59:06
E.D.,
It's more than just "implausible," it actively contradicts much of what we know about how the world works. Sure, the existence of the Universe at all is a surprising fact that needs an explanation - but "believing" in the Universe is very different from believing in a miracle. Working civilization is implausible, but it doesn't violate modern biology. Ask yourself why you don't believe that Mohammed rode a flying horse and then turn that same laser on yourself.
There's a big difference between something that you believe/accept without being able to fully explain and something that you believe despite the evidence against it.
You argue that this is your personal belief - in other words, what do I care if you believe something ridiculous if it doesn't affect anything? I don't think religious beliefs can be walled off that easily. Are you telling me that (1) God Himself begat a child on this Earth, (2) we have a book that records the teachings of this child, and (3) this affects you in no way. Really? It seems to me that at the least this book would deserve to be studied and revered above all other books. (Even though it is an iron-age work of largely nonsense.)
I've concluded that Christianity is built on myths, just like Hinduism, Islam, paganism, etc. Imagine the world from my eyes - the terrible effect that this has on the world. These myths affect my country's education system (evolution), public health (abstinence-only), foreign policy...etc...etc. You're telling me that I shouldn't try to convince other people to change their minds? Good lord, why not!? If my country was pursuing a bad tax policy, you would never tell me not to try and change minds. Yet you've called me a "preacher" and an "evangelist" for having a discussion. I'm not trying to "convert" anyone; I'm just trying to convince you.
Google "Africa and witches" and you will see that there have been numerous murders in Africa over the past year over allegations of witchcraft. These people really believe in sorcery and are willing to kill over it. I think this is wrong, and I expect you do too. But would you ever tell me not to try and convince these people not to believe in witchcraft? Would you call me an "evangelical" for trying?
Maybe I'll have a low success rate, but I would sure want to try. Turning back to atheism, whole countries have largely abandoned their religiousness, and I reject your argument that silence is the best approach.
2009-02-09 05:03:50
E.D.,
Thanks for the straight-forward answer.
Here's another fact that most Christians will admit. If they weren't raised in a Christian household (or converted by Christian friends) they wouldn't be Christian. If you were raised Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish - you would probably find the virgin birth implausible at best.
Yet, knowing that the virgin birth violates everything we know about modern biology, knowing that if you were raised in a different culture you would change your mind, you still assert that this event happened.
Do you not see the problem here?
This is not a discussion about a hypothetical god-like entity. This is a discussion about real events that happened here on earth. On this point, you are willing to throw overboard everthing your reason and experience tells you because your faith requires it.
I used to (try to) do the same thing. Do you feel slightly squeamish about admitting to the virgin birth? That's your conscience telling you that you know it sounds ridiculous. But the conflict between faith and reason requires a choice - and faith is hard to let go.
All the Mormons and Muslims in the world could use the same response you use - "religion requires leaps of faith, no?" - but that would never be convincing to you if a friend was trying to explain the virgin births of Zoroaster, Karna, or Mars.
I know it's incredibly unsettling, but try to consider the idea that this event is a myth. In the same way that thousands of people "saw" Mohammed ride a winged horse to heaven; in the same way that the Angel Moroni spoke to Joseph Smith - religious myths can take hold and spread so easily. It's human nature. The stories of the Christian Bible are myths, just like the ones you read in Greek Mythology. They are often based on real events (the Fall of Troy) but they are myths just the same.
At the end of the day, you're response is probably, "I choose to beleive this even though it is implausible, even though someone else could never convince me of a different belief by using the same resoning." And that is why religion is a bad thing. That is why the atheists write their books.
2009-02-09 03:33:57
E.D.,
I'm new to the site, and I don't know much about your religious views personally. However, you seem like a "liberal" Christian based on your smack down of ID and other nonsense.
I was wondering if you could please answer my question above. Do you beleive in the virgin birth? Or was Jesus an regular bloke like you and me who may have had some excellent (human) ideas?
(Mark, please feel free to chime in too.)
In response to the objection that the answer is irrelevant - think about the effect your answer might have on America's mideast policy....
2009-02-08 16:57:22
That should be "even though she had never engaged in sexual intercourse."
2009-02-08 16:55:44
But whereever one chooses to place their trust, the fact is that whether that trust is properly placed is more or less unfalsifiable, and not subject to scientific proof or disproof. For the religious person, there is simply no way to prove through science that god exists or does not exist - as long as there is something in the universe that cannot rationally be explained, there is a basis for trusting in the existence of god. For the atheist, there is likewise simply no way to prove through science that god exists or does not exist - as long as a scientific or rational explanation for anything in the universe is theoretically possible, there is a basis to trust in the ability of reason to explain everything, and no basis to trust in the existence of god.
That's all well and good as long as you are just talking about some non-materialistic "God" residing "out there" somewhere - but that is not religion as practiced.
Let me ask a blunt question. Do you believe that 2,000 years ago a Jewish girl in the middle east gave birth even she had never engaged in sexual intercourse? A large majority of my countrymen do - even though such an event was not recorded at the time and contradicts everything we know about human pregnancy.
You know the people on CNN chanting "death to America"? Take those people, turn the clock back 2,000 years, and then you have the "witnesses" that you are depending on. You take the word of those people over the stark facts of biology?
Religion is about a lot more than whether you can disprove the concept of a philosopher's God....
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Mark,
I think we agree to a large extent. I don't really have a problem with ED's beliefs if they don't affect me. I certainly agree that illiberalism and dogmatism is a MUCH bigger problem - and atheism is no vaccine against those vices. I would never try to "force" someone to change their belief, although I am often accused of doing so (or being "rude") just by making an argument.
On the other hand, would you be so quick to take this position if we were talking about witchcraft? Or paganism? Or a living Elvis? Would you have said, "The fact is, I don’t think anyone would disagree that the maintenance of [belief in Zeus] as a purely personal affair is at the very least harmless ..." Errr, maybe so - but wouldn't you worry about the person? Wouldn't you question their ability to (1) believe in Zeus, and (2) be normal in all other respects. Would you hesitate before letting this person babysit for you?
Sam Harris argues that religious moderates act as a shield for fundamentalists because moderates defend "belief" in a harmless context and then are unable to fully denounce fundamentalists. I'm not sure that I buy Sam's argument, but I do view religion as a hole in the dyke. Maybe it's harmless, maybe it will never get any bigger, but I still find it troublesome and would prefer to see it patched. When ED fully admits that he believs things even though the evidence is against him, it just seems like trouble brewing.... If you can throw logic away in Case A, why not in Case B?
E.D.,
It's more than just "implausible," it actively contradicts much of what we know about how the world works. Sure, the existence of the Universe at all is a surprising fact that needs an explanation - but "believing" in the Universe is very different from believing in a miracle. Working civilization is implausible, but it doesn't violate modern biology. Ask yourself why you don't believe that Mohammed rode a flying horse and then turn that same laser on yourself.
There's a big difference between something that you believe/accept without being able to fully explain and something that you believe despite the evidence against it.
You argue that this is your personal belief - in other words, what do I care if you believe something ridiculous if it doesn't affect anything? I don't think religious beliefs can be walled off that easily. Are you telling me that (1) God Himself begat a child on this Earth, (2) we have a book that records the teachings of this child, and (3) this affects you in no way. Really? It seems to me that at the least this book would deserve to be studied and revered above all other books. (Even though it is an iron-age work of largely nonsense.)
I've concluded that Christianity is built on myths, just like Hinduism, Islam, paganism, etc. Imagine the world from my eyes - the terrible effect that this has on the world. These myths affect my country's education system (evolution), public health (abstinence-only), foreign policy...etc...etc. You're telling me that I shouldn't try to convince other people to change their minds? Good lord, why not!? If my country was pursuing a bad tax policy, you would never tell me not to try and change minds. Yet you've called me a "preacher" and an "evangelist" for having a discussion. I'm not trying to "convert" anyone; I'm just trying to convince you.
Google "Africa and witches" and you will see that there have been numerous murders in Africa over the past year over allegations of witchcraft. These people really believe in sorcery and are willing to kill over it. I think this is wrong, and I expect you do too. But would you ever tell me not to try and convince these people not to believe in witchcraft? Would you call me an "evangelical" for trying?
Maybe I'll have a low success rate, but I would sure want to try. Turning back to atheism, whole countries have largely abandoned their religiousness, and I reject your argument that silence is the best approach.
E.D.,
Thanks for the straight-forward answer.
Here's another fact that most Christians will admit. If they weren't raised in a Christian household (or converted by Christian friends) they wouldn't be Christian. If you were raised Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish - you would probably find the virgin birth implausible at best.
Yet, knowing that the virgin birth violates everything we know about modern biology, knowing that if you were raised in a different culture you would change your mind, you still assert that this event happened.
Do you not see the problem here?
This is not a discussion about a hypothetical god-like entity. This is a discussion about real events that happened here on earth. On this point, you are willing to throw overboard everthing your reason and experience tells you because your faith requires it.
I used to (try to) do the same thing. Do you feel slightly squeamish about admitting to the virgin birth? That's your conscience telling you that you know it sounds ridiculous. But the conflict between faith and reason requires a choice - and faith is hard to let go.
All the Mormons and Muslims in the world could use the same response you use - "religion requires leaps of faith, no?" - but that would never be convincing to you if a friend was trying to explain the virgin births of Zoroaster, Karna, or Mars.
I know it's incredibly unsettling, but try to consider the idea that this event is a myth. In the same way that thousands of people "saw" Mohammed ride a winged horse to heaven; in the same way that the Angel Moroni spoke to Joseph Smith - religious myths can take hold and spread so easily. It's human nature. The stories of the Christian Bible are myths, just like the ones you read in Greek Mythology. They are often based on real events (the Fall of Troy) but they are myths just the same.
At the end of the day, you're response is probably, "I choose to beleive this even though it is implausible, even though someone else could never convince me of a different belief by using the same resoning." And that is why religion is a bad thing. That is why the atheists write their books.
E.D.,
I'm new to the site, and I don't know much about your religious views personally. However, you seem like a "liberal" Christian based on your smack down of ID and other nonsense.
I was wondering if you could please answer my question above. Do you beleive in the virgin birth? Or was Jesus an regular bloke like you and me who may have had some excellent (human) ideas?
(Mark, please feel free to chime in too.)
In response to the objection that the answer is irrelevant - think about the effect your answer might have on America's mideast policy....
That should be "even though she had never engaged in sexual intercourse."
That's all well and good as long as you are just talking about some non-materialistic "God" residing "out there" somewhere - but that is not religion as practiced.
Let me ask a blunt question. Do you believe that 2,000 years ago a Jewish girl in the middle east gave birth even she had never engaged in sexual intercourse? A large majority of my countrymen do - even though such an event was not recorded at the time and contradicts everything we know about human pregnancy.
You know the people on CNN chanting "death to America"? Take those people, turn the clock back 2,000 years, and then you have the "witnesses" that you are depending on. You take the word of those people over the stark facts of biology?
Religion is about a lot more than whether you can disprove the concept of a philosopher's God....