Comments on: Falsifying the Unfalsifiable http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/ Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:09:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Resuscitating Morality in Public Discourse | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-4960 Resuscitating Morality in Public Discourse | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:38:24 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-4960 [...] be that it has certain limits that ought not to crowd out other modalities of knowing. Mark had an excellent post on this point some time back when we were batting about the existence of [...] [...] be that it has certain limits that ought not to crowd out other modalities of knowing. Mark had an excellent post on this point some time back when we were batting about the existence of [...]

]]> By: Evolution and the Shroud of Turin « Shroud of Turin Blog http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1403 Evolution and the Shroud of Turin « Shroud of Turin Blog Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:06:55 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1403 [...] Thompson at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen recently wrote: Religion is not science, and in attempting to gain acceptance as a science, it allows itself to be [...] [...] Thompson at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen recently wrote: Religion is not science, and in attempting to gain acceptance as a science, it allows itself to be [...]

]]> By: Tim Harris http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1203 Tim Harris Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:11:23 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1203 Oy vey. People who hop evasively between the literal and the metaphorical without even realising what they are doing. In at least one great religion self-awareness is a great virtue, but certainly not here, on this blog, where the thought is like an English pudding: sickly and soggy. Oy vey. People who hop evasively between the literal and the metaphorical without even realising what they are doing. In at least one great religion self-awareness is a great virtue, but certainly not here, on this blog, where the thought is like an English pudding: sickly and soggy.

]]> By: E.D. Kain http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1168 E.D. Kain Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:26:30 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1168 Oy vey. Literalists. Oy vey. Literalists.

]]> By: mutterhals http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1167 mutterhals Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:22:45 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1167 There is no such thing as an evangelical atheist. Nice try. There is no such thing as an evangelical atheist. Nice try.

]]> By: Mark Thompson http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1162 Mark Thompson Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:07:16 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1162 Chris: Fair points. I think part of the issue here is that when one publicizes their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be), they open those beliefs up to evaluation and thus to evaluation of their own capacity for thinking. Beyond that, your points deserve a lengthier more detailed response. Unfortunately, the real world beckons so I don't have time right now to put that response together, which means that response is going to have to join the queue of other items that the real world is currently delaying me from discussing. Chris:
Fair points. I think part of the issue here is that when one publicizes their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be), they open those beliefs up to evaluation and thus to evaluation of their own capacity for thinking. Beyond that, your points deserve a lengthier more detailed response. Unfortunately, the real world beckons so I don’t have time right now to put that response together, which means that response is going to have to join the queue of other items that the real world is currently delaying me from discussing.

]]> By: Jerry http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1161 Jerry Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:03:25 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1161 I think in this case the angrier argument is the more rational one. Here we have people arguing that they should have the political power to severely affect other people's lives -- and in the case of religious resistance to AIDS education and condom use, the power to actually condemn people to death -- solely on the basis of unreasoning, unquestioning faith. What rational response is there to such a power grab, other than "Sod off, you fools"? The problem is not religious values in themselves. The problem is that religious people want to have an exclusive political power that never has to justify itself to rational inquiry. Stem-cell research, the teaching of evolution, disease prevention, etc., have all been restricted by a faction whose sole justification is "We have Faith, therefore our moral judgment is superior to anyone else's." What rational discussion is possible with such people? I'm not sure where you draw the line between church, science and state, because churches always tend toward fundamentalism and totalitarianism. (If you think I'm exaggerating, I ask you to look at the attendance of fundamentalist churches versus liberal ones.) Religion is, in its essence, an elaborate argument from authority. Of course it always comes into conflict with the rational discourse of science, and indeed, the rational discourse of democratic politics. I think in this case the angrier argument is the more rational one. Here we have people arguing that they should have the political power to severely affect other people’s lives — and in the case of religious resistance to AIDS education and condom use, the power to actually condemn people to death — solely on the basis of unreasoning, unquestioning faith. What rational response is there to such a power grab, other than “Sod off, you fools”?

The problem is not religious values in themselves. The problem is that religious people want to have an exclusive political power that never has to justify itself to rational inquiry. Stem-cell research, the teaching of evolution, disease prevention, etc., have all been restricted by a faction whose sole justification is “We have Faith, therefore our moral judgment is superior to anyone else’s.” What rational discussion is possible with such people?

I’m not sure where you draw the line between church, science and state, because churches always tend toward fundamentalism and totalitarianism. (If you think I’m exaggerating, I ask you to look at the attendance of fundamentalist churches versus liberal ones.) Religion is, in its essence, an elaborate argument from authority. Of course it always comes into conflict with the rational discourse of science, and indeed, the rational discourse of democratic politics.

]]> By: E.D. Kain http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1158 E.D. Kain Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:48:54 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1158 Chris, these are all red herrings. You leave out the historical, the human, the fact that the belief in God is not the same <i>sort</i> of belief that a belief in a living Elvis is. Look, science can explain a great deal. Reason can explain a great deal. But when we leave ourselves at the mercy of our own isolated reason, and throw all semblance of tradition or history, or culture to the wind on the basis that they are rooted in things that cannot be explained, we also cast off something inextricably human in the nature of belief, or in our search for the divine, the sacred, whichever. This is not the same as belief in the FSM. Once upon a time, people did believe in Zeus, it's true. And in that historical context, that belief had a great deal of societal value. If someone were to believe in Zeus now it would seem funny because it would deny the historical ties, the deep-rooted cultural ties, and so forth that separates the Christian (or Muslim etc.) God from those ancient gods. This is the problem with modern druids as well. There is actually very little historical data, and absolutely no generational traditions tied to druidism, only the invented druidism of the 19th century which guesses at the original rites and practices. Of course, that's fine with me. Again, faith is faith, no matter how silly it might seem to some. Part of faith is the <i>practice</i> of it, and no matter how implausible one may view God, the traditions, the practices, the prayers associated with celebrating whichever tradition are real, tangible things. They give people sustenance for that other implausible thing: the soul. Chris, these are all red herrings. You leave out the historical, the human, the fact that the belief in God is not the same sort of belief that a belief in a living Elvis is. Look, science can explain a great deal. Reason can explain a great deal. But when we leave ourselves at the mercy of our own isolated reason, and throw all semblance of tradition or history, or culture to the wind on the basis that they are rooted in things that cannot be explained, we also cast off something inextricably human in the nature of belief, or in our search for the divine, the sacred, whichever. This is not the same as belief in the FSM. Once upon a time, people did believe in Zeus, it’s true. And in that historical context, that belief had a great deal of societal value. If someone were to believe in Zeus now it would seem funny because it would deny the historical ties, the deep-rooted cultural ties, and so forth that separates the Christian (or Muslim etc.) God from those ancient gods. This is the problem with modern druids as well. There is actually very little historical data, and absolutely no generational traditions tied to druidism, only the invented druidism of the 19th century which guesses at the original rites and practices.

Of course, that’s fine with me. Again, faith is faith, no matter how silly it might seem to some. Part of faith is the practice of it, and no matter how implausible one may view God, the traditions, the practices, the prayers associated with celebrating whichever tradition are real, tangible things. They give people sustenance for that other implausible thing: the soul.

]]> By: Chris Bell http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1157 Chris Bell Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:40:39 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1157 Mark, I think we agree to a large extent. I don't <i>really</i> 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 <i>even though the evidence is against him</i>, it just seems like trouble brewing.... If you can throw logic away in Case A, why not in Case B? 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?

]]> By: Mark Thompson http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/falsifying-the-unfalsifiable/#comment-1155 Mark Thompson Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:31:08 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=495#comment-1155 Jerry: If you think I am directing the "please, be reasonable" directive solely at angry atheists, then I think you misread the post. While they may be the primary focus of this post, that is because atheism is the focus of this particular dialogue. As for the issue of rational argument vs. angry argument, I simply disagree. In my view, angry arguments are far less likely to persuade those who disagree with you than rational arguments, although they may be more likely to mobilize those who are predisposed to support you. But that is a subject for another day. Jerry: If you think I am directing the “please, be reasonable” directive solely at angry atheists, then I think you misread the post. While they may be the primary focus of this post, that is because atheism is the focus of this particular dialogue.
As for the issue of rational argument vs. angry argument, I simply disagree. In my view, angry arguments are far less likely to persuade those who disagree with you than rational arguments, although they may be more likely to mobilize those who are predisposed to support you. But that is a subject for another day.

]]>