The Mainstream Media and Drinking: How did they agree on this particular lie???

[George Christiansen]

I never said all believers, or non-believers, are one way or another. I said as a whole, on a societal level, religion has adverse effect on the pursuit of knowledge. What exactly is fundamentalist in that statement?

Why do you keep bringing up counterexamples to something I am not saying? Obviously, there are believers who are skeptics and pursue knowledge, just like there are non-believers that are apathetic and blissfully ignorant. I never said otherwise. This is why I am talking about the societal/worldwide level effects, and not individual.

Every time you've raised the question you throw in an example that is both a fundamentalist and minority view as if that is what religious people must believe. Why keep using stupid examples if you are not either trying to create a caricature of religious people or if you do not think that the example is representative of the majority of religious people?

Stop using stupid examples and I'll stop responding to them.

I already answered your question: Religious and Nonreligious are categories that cast too broad a net to be meaningful and in the context of your question reveal a bit of bigotry on your part. You need to address specific beliefs....and even that is not enough to decide.

What is the specific belief in question?
Does a person live their life in line with that belief?
Is there only one way to do so?
What is the consequence of doing so?

Then you can begin to see whether a specific belief has potential to hold back the pursuit of knowledge.

The reality of what holds back knowledge, as far as history shows, is the fact that a new theory threatens the power of those who hold the old one, so if you are looking for a group to demonize, go with power hungry SOBs.

[quikky]

Every time you've raised the question you throw in an example that is both a fundamentalist and minority view as if that is what religious people must believe. Why keep using stupid examples if you are not either trying to create a caricature of religious people or if you do not think that the example is representative of the majority of religious people?

Stop using stupid examples and I'll stop responding to them.

I already answered your question: Religious and Nonreligious are categories that cast too broad a net to be meaningful and in the context of your question reveal a bit of bigotry on your part. You need to address specific beliefs....and even that is not enough to decide.

What is the specific belief in question?
Does a person live their life in line with that belief?
Is there only one way to do so?
What is the consequence of doing so?

Then you can begin to see whether a specific belief has potential to hold back the pursuit of knowledge.

The reality of what holds back knowledge, as far as history shows, is the fact that a new theory threatens the power of those who hold the old one, so if you are looking for a group to demonize, go with power hungry SOBs.

It's getting tiresome to attempt to explain this to you as you still don't get it. If in your mind having countless people around the world pretending to know the unknown and living their lives in accordance to stories in old books has no effect on the pursuit of knowledge, fine by me. If thinking people that accept such old stories as truth are generally less intellectually curious and skeptical than those that do not makes me some kind of fundamentalist, then I am happy to be one.

[paterfamilias]

Nonsense. Both positions have evidence and assumptions involved in their conclusions (whether they're reliable or not is another question) and neither has certainty. You simply have a very narrow definition of what faith is and you put so much of it into your own assumptions that you mistake it for something other than faith.

\

On the subject of quickly skating past our assumptions ... whatever your definition of evidence is.

[guyonabuffalo]

Faith doesn't have to entirely lack evidence. Unless you narrow it to an extreme definition.

Belief should be based on something. That something should be real. Like someone rising from the dead. Is the evidence good? That's up to do to decide for yourself. If the evidence is sound and the historical probablity is high, which it is, then it at the very least validates some acceptance. Whether that takes the form of "The Bible is the inspired word of God and no other truth exists" or it is basic belief in something other worldly, I don't know for absolute sure.

[tertius]

Nonsense. Both positions have evidence and assumptions involved in their conclusions (whether they're reliable or not is another question) and neither has certainty. You simply have a very narrow definition of what faith is and you put so much of it into your own assumptions that you mistake it for something other than faith.

Sure thing, boss.

Nobody has the perspective to state whether or not the universe has meaning without making them a statement of faith.

Which meaning would you be disputing anyway?

I get the whole thing of people looking at how horrible the world is an saying that God' love cannot be the meaning, but even if we ruled that out it's meaning may be that He is a prick and is screwing with us. Certainly looks that way at time. Those are only two possibilities.

If you say so.

You believe, in spite of the fact that your belief in the universe being random contradicts this particular belief, that the current evidence (arguably) pointing to the universe being random means that all further evidence will lead to that same conclusion. That belief requires an act of faith because it is not and cannot be known empirically.

Okie doke.

[DoctorWho]

It's getting tiresome to attempt to explain this to you as you still don't get it. If in your mind having countless people around the world pretending to know the unknown and living their lives in accordance to stories in old books has no effect on the pursuit of knowledge, fine by me. If thinking people that accept such old stories as truth are generally less intellectually curious and skeptical than those that do not makes me some kind of fundamentalist, then I am happy to be one.

Just read a book about the scopes monkey trial. Even 100 years ago the vast majority of religions in the U.S. did not believe that the bible should be interpreted literally.

If you are referring to the people who uncritically and literally believe stories in the bible, then you are punching down at people who deserve pity or at least a little leeway to live their lives in a way that helps them. But a person who contemplates or meditates on the strength to love his neighbor whose actions don't warrant it or otherwise emulate Jesus, even if doubting eternal life, the person deserves some credit.

[quikky]

Just read a book about the scopes monkey trial. Even 100 years ago the vast majority of religions in the U.S. did not believe that the bible should be interpreted literally.

If you are referring to the people who uncritically and literally believe stories in the bible, then you are punching down at people who deserve pity or at least a little leeway to live their lives in a way that helps them. But a person who contemplates or meditates on the strength to love his neighbor whose actions don't warrant it or otherwise emulate Jesus, even if doubting eternal life, the person deserves some credit.

Hey, if someone does good things because of their religious, that's fine in my book (not that book).

I do find the whole not taking the bible literally part interesting. If it's not meant to be taken literally and thus requires interpretation, whose interpretation is correct? I also notice there's a trend with the bad/stupid parts not to be taken literally, but the good/applicable/nice parts to be quoted directly.

For example, what is the interpretation of the part about slaves being obedient to their masters? Unless the bible is talking about some sexual shenanigans, I don't know how to else to interpret that.

[paterfamilias]

But a person who contemplates or meditates on the strength to love his neighbor whose actions don't warrant it or otherwise emulate Jesus, even if doubting eternal life, the person deserves some credit.

The medium core and hardcore Christians in my life would say that such a person is not a Christian. There would be argle-bargle about the illusion of acts-based salvation and how it doesn't exist because it removes Jesus from the equation. To some I've known, a truly good person, an otherwise saint-like person, but who doubts eternal life (which necessarily means doubting that Jesus can provide it) <<<<< child-rapist and murderer who has accepted Jesus as his savior.

[Pluripotent]

I see what you're saying. The universe seems random to us, but there may be an overarching organization or design that we're not aware of. You are saying you have no idea if the universe was created by a god. Even if there is no evidence, it still could have happened, so the nonbeliever can't say god does not exist any more than the believer can say he does exist. Related example. I have no idea if the Earth was ever visited from beings from another planet. Since it's possible it happened, I can't say that the lack of evidence of visitation proves that Earth was never visited. So I'm just as justified in believing in flying saucers and little green men as a Christian is in believing in the divinity of Christ, miracles, angels, etc.

So, instead of providing evidence that the universe is "disinterested" (a rather anthropomorphic phrase), "driven" by random events, and has "no inherent meaning" (and you knew this from a young age!) you would rather insist that I must now accept flying saucers and unicorns? Changing the argument with a straw man example is much easier than admitting that you've substituted one belief system for another, then congratulating yourself for your insight.

[tertius]

So, instead of providing evidence that the universe is "disinterested" (a rather anthropomorphic phrase), "driven" by random events, and has "no inherent meaning" (and you knew this from a young age!) you would rather insist that I must now accept flying saucers and unicorns? Changing the argument with a straw man example is much easier than admitting that you've substituted one belief system for another, then congratulating yourself for your insight.

You even keeping track of what poster you are responding to? Doesn't seem like it.

It's kind of funny that people seem to get so up in arms that someone would put forward a strictly empirical, physical view of the universe. Your argument seems to boil down to "empiricism is a faith-based system exactly like religion".

Anyway:

The universe cannot be interested, physically.
"Interestedness" is a metaphysical, not physical, property.

Similarly, all the evidence that exists points to the current state of the universe being random (path dependent and largely deterministic, but random). Whether or not an electron exists here or there is simply a matter of probability. The very laws of nature themselves may be random, according to certain hypotheses.

And the idea of "inherent meaning" is nonsensical from an empirical standpoint.

If you view the world through a frame that relies on verification thru repeatable, impartial data for the formation of belief (that is, you only believe things which have a high probability of being true, regardless of how you feel about it), then the natural endpoint is a sort of nihilism, unless you have some other metaphysical hook on which to hang your hat.

Which many people do. There are plenty of religious scientists out there.
The vast majority of them have the sense not to mix their metaphysics into their empiricism.

So this lack of inherent meaning and disinterested universe which are so obvious to me don't particularly bother me, because generating meaning and value is part of being human. Sometimes the best part.

Do you understand what I am saying, sir?

The data says the large, cold, indifferent universe has no meaning in-and-of-itself, because, well, it kind of can't. This is an empirical statement.

Doesn't matter all that much, because I am a mostly hairless ape of questionable moral character that is capable of generating meaning. This is a metaphysical statement.

Because of how my brain works, my empirical understanding of the world in part supersedes my metaphysical understanding, rendering me incapable of religious faith, and full of doubt about the subjective nature of my own systems of generating meaning and value.

Which isn't exactly a great time, but it's better than non-existence, I suppose.