Richard said to Arlen:

You are very rare.
…You would be seen as a highly suspicious character in most religious communities around the world. You think too much. You may have come up with the right answers that would satisfy the religious folks around you, but you shouldn’t have asked the questions in the first place. They’ll keep an eye on you.

Yes, but that 0.01% is the one that will make a difference. It only takes one Darwin, one Ghandi, and one Martin Luther King, Jr. to start a revolution, a movement, a paradigm shift in the way the future generations think. Oh, yeah… come to think of it, one Jesus!

The way I see it, religion is not the problem, imperialism is the problem, and the two have a history of alliance that I would very much like to see abandoned.

I hope so but I’m not going to hold my breath. They seem to be like iron and magnets. It reminds me of the “guns don’t kill people, people do” routine. One makes the other easier. The alliance is on the rise even in this country of supposed “separation of church and state.”

The choice of an individual religion from the myriad options is an intensely personal decision that I can only hope is the result of a concerted examination various beliefs, philosophies, etc. and based on the success of each faith’s standpoint to explain what that individual has observed and address the questions that individual may have. That’s pretty much how it worked for me, anyway.

You are very rare. My guess would be that 99.99% of the people in the world who adhere to any particular religious view do so because they were born into it by family or community. The content of the teaching is not nearly so important to them as is their conforming and obedience to it. Indeed, the kind of careful examination you have practiced is seen as very dangerous by most clerics and adherents in the various religions, even in the West. The kind of “faith” characterized by the unexamined mind is portrayed as a virtue. You would be seen as a highly suspicious character in most religious communities around the world. You think too much. You may have come up with the right answers that would satisfy the religious folks around you, but you shouldn’t have asked the questions in the first place. They’ll keep an eye on you.

or, that some philosophies have been propagated by means of violence and imposition (and in some cases, doggedly defended, no matter to value or truth, as a refusal of submission to such means).

That’s certainly true, historically, and is certainly still true in certain regions, but I’m approaching the argument largely from a “here and now” standpoint. As I’ve said above, it is definitely a bad thing when one religion, ideology, or perspective dominates all others through fear or violence; in these cases the marketplace of ideas breaks down and the consequences are devastating for science, society, and religion.

if i believe someone should be punched in the face, and i punch them in the face, i have proved that they deserve it. you may be relieved to hear it’s a chain of logic that i don’t believe holds much merit.

Eek! My face thanks you for your disbelief!

if it were only decent people such as you appear to be, i would be happy to live in a respectful stand-off; unfortunately there are some people and some views that i will always be moved to challenge, and sometimes aggressively so

It’s certainly important to do so; I only ask that you don’t confuse the destructive, divisive beliefs that held by some specific people as an intractable byproduct of religion in general. The way I see it, religion is not the problem, imperialism is the problem, and the two have a history of alliance that I would very much like to see abandoned.

whilst i can understand deism + pantheism, i still don’t understand why people align themselves with a specific religion

I think that virtually all religions are attempts to explain the influence of and evidence for the divine. The choice of an individual religion from the myriad options is an intensely personal decision that I can only hope is the result of a concerted examination various beliefs, philosophies, etc. and based on the success of each faith’s standpoint to explain what that individual has observed and address the questions that individual may have. That’s pretty much how it worked for me, anyway.

be afraid, be very afraid…! sometimes it just helps knowing that people like you are out there too, ya know?!

Yeah… wow… I’ve considered posting on that thread and illustrating how and why my own philosophy differs from that guy’s, but I really think I’d rather just let that thread die as quickly as humanly possible. I applaud his enthusiasm for his faith, but he seems to have some major issues to work out for himself before he starts preaching to anyone else.

We continue to exist within a marketplace of all sorts of ideas. Over time, some flourish and some fade. For whatever reason, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. have not faded while thousands of other philosophies have. That would seem to suggest (though certainly not prove) that they have more value than other, extinct theologies.

or, that some philosophies have been propagated by means of violence and imposition (and in some cases, doggedly defended, no matter to value or truth, as a refusal of submission to such means).

“asking for proof as to a specific doctrine and it’s relevance falls firmly with the theist to demonstrate if it is to affect my life in the slightest. which it clearly does, politically, socially and other.”

Abstractly, if theists have to prove their point for it to affect your life, and you admit that it does affect your life (politically, socially, etc.), then doesn’t that mean that they have proven it? ; )

lol, but then i could argue that by that tenet, if i believe someone should be punched in the face, and i punch them in the face, i have proved that they deserve it. you may be relieved to hear it’s a chain of logic that i don’t believe holds much merit.

So until some new evidence is discovered, we’re just going to be in this stand-off forever; it would be nice if we weren’t unpleasant to one another in the interim.

if it were only decent people such as you appear to be, i would be happy to live in a respectful stand-off; unfortunatly there are some people and some views that i will always be moved to challenge, and sometimes aggressively so. plus, i love debating – and i’d far rather do it with someone who has a well reasoned + thought out position that they can present intelligently and coherently.

Either way, I’m going to continue calling whatever entity it is “God” for the sake of convenience; if “God” truly is benevolent, I think I’ll be forgiven for mixing up my nomenclature.

fairy nuff, although as i’ve said elsewhere, whilst i can understand deism + pantheism, i still don’t understand why people align themselves with a specific religion?

The opposite is also true: choosing not to believe in God goes hand in hand with believing that God could in no way be responsible for the universe. I think it is fair to say that both are assumptions made with little basis on scientific evidence. I hope one day we’ll know more.

i’d personally go with ‘no way’ on many specific religious versions, but just ‘unlikely’ or ‘irrelevant’ for a god per se. these stances seem a little more in keeping with ‘basis on scientific evidence’, and thus a little less hypocritical than i would otherwise, as you rightly point out, be.

if you would ever like a friendly theist to try to help unravel something seemingly crazy that another theist has said, I’m here for you.

be afraid, be very afraid…! sometimes it just helps knowing that people like you are out there too, ya know?!

so, a scientist that has a modicum of evidence that god exists and a scientist that has a modicum of evidence that god does not exist have both reached a true discovery?

Only one of them will be right, but the one who is will likely know it before he has enough evidence to convince a skeptic.

majority assumption does not equal truth

Of course not, it just means that those in the minority face an uphill battle if they want to convince others of what they believe.

it’s more complicated than christian vs atheist claims, it’s christian vs muslim vs hindu vs buddhist vs sikhi vs jewish vs etc vs atheist claims

Of course it is. I can only speak as a Christian, though, so that’s where most of my arguments will come from. We continue to exist within a marketplace of all sorts of ideas. Over time, some flourish and some fade. For whatever reason, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. have not faded while thousands of other philosophies have. That would seem to suggest (though certainly not prove) that they have more value than other, extinct theologies.

…those claims i have every right to ask for proof for

I think you have every right to ask for proof of any claim. Furthermore, I think you have the right to reject the “proof” supporting any claim. Just remember that your rejection of the evidence, however justified in your mind, does not necessarily negate its validity either in general or for others.

asking for proof as to a specific doctrine and it’s relevance falls firmly with the theist to demonstrate if it is to affect my life in the slightest. which it clearly does, politically, socially and other.

Abstractly, if theists have to prove their point for it to affect your life, and you admit that it does affect your life (politically, socially, etc.), then doesn’t that mean that they have proven it? ; )

Specifically, we can argue about to whom the burden of proof falls or should fall all day, but that would overlook the important fact that the argument is moot from the start. It just doesn’t matter. I clearly don’t have any proof that will convince you; you don’t seem to have any proof that would convince me. So until some new evidence is discovered, we’re just going to be in this stand-off forever; it would be nice if we weren’t unpleasant to one another in the interim.

as soon as this is done from a particular religious viewpoint, it is discussing the nature of god… there is at the least an underlying assumption about the nature of god there.

Okay, sure. That’s probably true.

why a God rather than a multitude of invisible pixies, magic dust, two-headed griffin, etc.? …why a Christian version of God?

I think to ask that question presupposes that God doesn’t exist or that the concept of God is fairly mutable. I have seen no evidence for the existence of pixies or magic dust, but I have seen evidence of God; therefore I am inclined to believe in the latter, but not the former. Maybe God looks like a pixie or a bag of magic dust, I don’t know. Either way, I’m going to continue calling whatever entity it is “God” for the sake of convenience; if “God” truly is benevolent, I think I’ll be forgiven for mixing up my nomenclature.

choosing to understand, relate to and worship a particular god will often go hand in hand with choosing to believe in a certain version of creation myth, or at least an implication of ‘only my god could be responsible for all this’.

The opposite is also true: choosing not to believe in God goes hand in hand with believing that God could in no way be responsible for the universe. I think it is fair to say that both are assumptions made with little basis on scientific evidence. I hope one day we’ll know more.

some other Christians (a majority of American Christians, if you believe the stats) do not give science an equal footing when it comes to the age of the earth and evolution.

I have heard those numbers and they can be pretty frustrating. That’s why I think it is so important that atheists and mainline Christians work together to combat head-in-the-sand thinking. Luckily, we have time on our side; I think a whole lot of folks are uneasy with the idea of carbon-dating, etc. in large part because they just aren’t familiar with it. It is not unreasonable to think that as the old folks die off, those left will be more familiar with the massive leaps science has taken over the last few decades.

although i hope i’m not one of them, being close-minded and fundamentalist is not limited to theists.

That is certainly true, but I wouldn’t accuse you of that.

would you see this as a good model from which to understand religious perspectives?

I’m tempted to say no, but that’s really an avenue of discussion that’s outside my area of expertise. I’ll leave that up to more philosophical minds than my own.

Linda:

What is acknowledged is the belief in the higher power, not the higher power itself. It is only the hope in a higher power that is true for the majority, in my opinion.

I can’t say with certainty that your statement is untrue, but I am skeptical. I just don’t believe that momentum alone is enough to get people out of bed and into church on Sunday morning for more than a few years. I sincerely hope that your perception of the church in this regard has been tainted by your own circumstances.

Who are these mainline Christians? Aren’t they the ones that I described above? I don’t know if they are all that “like-minded.” Am I being too cynical or judgmental?

Again, I sincerely hope that you are being too cynical. My experience would indicate that you are, but I can’t prove that my experience (or yours) is representative.

Maybe the statement should be rephrased to say, “It’s critically important for like-minded people to fight together against the anti-science…etc.”

That version would certainly work as well and be no less true in my mind. I absolutely agree that people of all faiths (including atheism) need to get together on this issue.

Richard Wade:

I think we can agree that the length of the beard on a claim should not be brought up as an argument for or against it.

Agreed.

That phrase “acceptable evidence” is where your and my standards and definitions will probably remain incompatible enough to warrant having to agree to disagree.

Agreed.

You seem to focus on whether evidence indicates truth, and I seem to focus on whether evidence is convincing.

Agreed; that’s a nice way of putting it.

You are implying again that the large number of people sharing belief in a claim is evidence in support of that claim

That was not my intention. I simply believe that when it is the case that lots of people believe a claim (true or not) those who do not believe the claim (rightfully or otherwise) will have a hard time convincing those that do.

I only wish that just as we now agree that the age of a claim should not be presented as an argument pro or con, you could see that the popularity of a claim should also not be presented as an argument pro or con.

That is not an argument that I ever intended to make, I absolutely concede it if I did.

I very much appreciate the conversation that we’ve been having here, and I thank you very much for your time and opinions. I have come to understand you much better, and I am thankful for that as well. If you ever have any more questions about my beliefs or if you would ever like a friendly theist to try to help unravel something seemingly crazy that another theist has said, I’m here for you.

Let’s put one of them to bed. I concede and agree with you that the age of a claim should have nothing to do with it’s apparent validity. The fact that a claim has been made for centuries without acceptable evidence should not make it dismissible, as I was saying earlier, and that fact should also not make give it any more credibility, as you have agreed with ash. So I think we can agree that the length of the beard on a claim should not be brought up as an argument for or against it.

That phrase “acceptable evidence” is where your and my standards and definitions will probably remain incompatible enough to warrant having to agree to disagree.

You are right that the conversation is beginning to go in circles and it seems to circle around and around the question of what is acceptable evidence. The problem is there is no universal standard. One man’s mountain of evidence may be another man’s modicum and vice versa. One man’s evidence may not even be seen as evidence at all by someone else.

The reason that the quality or strength of evidence, (such as is it “extraordinary” or not is important to me is because every claim brings with it a built-in credibility factor, such as my example of claiming I have a dollar in my pocket or a million dollars, or your example of someone claiming that basketball causes cancer. It’s all about how convincing is the evidence compared to the apparent credibility of the claim. All claims are not equally believable/dismissible. My “modicum” of showing you one dollar to support my claim of having a million is probably not convincing even though as you point out, my claim of having a million might still be true. We have slightly different angles on what evidence does. You seem to focus on whether evidence indicates truth, and I seem to focus on whether evidence is convincing. A claim may be true without my knowing it but if the evidence is not convincing compared to the claim’s intrinsic credibility, then I won’t be convinced.

So you understand me exactly right when you say,

I think there is a direct parallel to theism there. I have that modicum of evidence that God exists; I have all that I need to know that it is true. To convince a staunch atheist of that truth, however, I would likely need much, much more evidence.

I thought we were getting to a good stopping point until you said this:

Here is where we start bordering back on that ad populum argument: if no one had any opinions about the existence of God (or the carcinogenic properties of basketball) then it is likely that one wouldn’t need much evidence to convince people one way or the other. However, we live in a world where the existence of a higher power is acknowledged as truth by the vast majority of the population. That being the reality, I think that the atheists, not the Christians face the higher burden of proof.

Wellllll, that isn’t on the border of ad populum, that is right in the middle of the country. You are implying again that the large number of people sharing belief in a claim is evidence in support of that claim, and then you make the astonishing assertion that those in the minority who don’t share that belief must come up with evidence of so great a weight to overcome that so-called “evidence” by popularity. I’m sorry I can never accept that argument and I can’t understand why you continue to try it. It is child’s play to demonstrate the fallacy of argument by popularity. It has been done hundreds of times:

Everybody in the world assumed that Aristotle was right when he said that heavy things fall faster than light things. All it took to prove everyone in the world wrong was for one heretic to drop a wood ball and a lead ball at the same time.

As I pointed out before, you believe in several things that when you count the opinions of the whole world are minority beliefs, such as evolution. You may not have realized it but you are significantly in the minority there and so you are fighting against ad populum. Don’t practice it.

The other thing you should keep in mind when you say that atheists bear a higher burden of proof is that almost no atheists make any claim at all against the existence of God. I don’t make any counter claim, I’m just not convinced of your claim or that of billions of other people. How can I come up with evidence for a claim that I am not making? I sit watching the clouds roll by and folks come to me making claims about God and what he wants me to do. They make the claims so I politely ask for their evidence.

So Arlen let me finish by saying that I completely respect your personal, subjective reasons for your belief. It’s not even that I think my standards for evidence are higher or better; they’re simply different. I only wish that just as we now agree that the age of a claim should not be presented as an argument pro or con, you could see that the popularity of a claim should also not be presented as an argument pro or con.