Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Berkut]

You cannot prove or disprove lots of things that you accept are in fact not real.

You keep using a term "prove" that doesn't apply to the set of things that people believe are real. I (and you) think lots of things that we cannot prove are false are in fact false.

I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle. That doesn't mean I cannot state with great certainty that there is not, and it certainly does not mean that I cannot say that people who demand that there is such a gorilla and I should formulate my ethical and moral viewpoints around such a claim are wrong, whether they make that claim as a "matter of faith" or not.

Chanting "faith" does not make any claim beyond investigation.

[crazy canuck]

Chanting "faith" does not make any claim beyond investigation.

And chanting unfaith does not make the claim that there is a god amenable to being disproven.  It would be easy to prove that you do not in fact have a gorilla on your testacles no matter what you might wish to call them.

[The Minsky Moment]

I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle.

Sure - you could just weigh your left testicle and establish it is less than 800lb. 
What you couldn't prove is that there is a massless, invisible gorilla of indeterminate volume in your left testicle.

[The Brain]

Gorillas aren't invisible. I think. I hope.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference.  You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false.  I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.

let me restate the berkut argument (or advance a different variant) by going at it backwards.

Would a socio-ethical system based on "noble lie" be acceptable?  I.e. is it proper to promote deliberately  false ideas or propositions in the belief that even though false, it would be beneficial if society believed in them.

Assume the answer to that question is no - the noble lie can not be justified.  Then it follows that any proposed socio-ethical system should not be based on falsehoods.  But it also follows that such systems should not be based on propositions which are (a) not subject to proof AND (b) that are based on unusual or outlandish assumptions that objectively have a poor case for truth unless simply assumed to be (faith), because such systems are very likely to be noble lies at best.

[Berkut]

I cannot prove that there isn't a 800lb invisible gorilla living on my left testicle.

Sure - you could just weigh your left testicle and establish it is less than 800lb. 
What you couldn't prove is that there is a massless, invisible gorilla of indeterminate volume in your left testicle.

It could be a 800lb gorilla with a magic weight belt.

[crazy canuck]

I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference.  You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false.  I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.

let me restate the berkut argument (or advance a different variant) by going at it backwards.

Would a socio-ethical system based on "noble lie" be acceptable?  I.e. is it proper to promote deliberately  false ideas or propositions in the belief that even though false, it would be beneficial if society believed in them.

Assume the answer to that question is no - the noble lie can not be justified.  Then it follows that any proposed socio-ethical system should not be based on falsehoods.  But it also follows that such systems should not be based on propositions which are (a) not subject to proof AND (b) that are based on unusual or outlandish assumptions that objectively have a poor case for truth unless simply assumed to be (faith), because such systems are very likely to be noble lies at best.

I agree that the noble lie cannot be justified.  But if you go as far to say that to be valid a system must be able to prove that it is based on truth or at least not based on a falsehood then you rule out any religious belief as it is necessarily based on faith.  One can never prove that there is a god.

But, importantly, the lack of such prove does not make it a noble lie either.  The noble lie is reprehensible because the proponents of the lie know it they are spreading a falsehood.  That is not an accurate description of religious people who believe that their faith is based on truth just as much as Berkut believes it is based on an unprovable falsehood.


As far as outlandish claims go, I agree with Berkut that the claims of the literalist fundies are indeed outlandish and easily disproved.  The earth was not, as it is claimed, created in thousands of years etc.  But when one considered the metaphorical religious teachings it is impossible to disprove those.  They are teachings in the realm of ethics and philosophy.  And Berkut has already conceded there is no true or false in that realm.

[Berkut]

I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference.  You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false.  I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.

let me restate the berkut argument (or advance a different variant) by going at it backwards.

Would a socio-ethical system based on "noble lie" be acceptable?  I.e. is it proper to promote deliberately  false ideas or propositions in the belief that even though false, it would be beneficial if society believed in them.

Assume the answer to that question is no - the noble lie can not be justified.  Then it follows that any proposed socio-ethical system should not be based on falsehoods.  But it also follows that such systems should not be based on propositions which are (a) not subject to proof AND (b) that are based on unusual or outlandish assumptions that objectively have a poor case for truth unless simply assumed to be (faith), because such systems are very likely to be noble lies at best.

I agree that the noble lie cannot be justified.  But if you go as far to say that to be valid a system must be able to prove that it is based on truth or at least not based on a falsehood then you rule out any religious belief as it is necessarily based on faith.  One can never prove that there is a god.

But, importantly, the lack of such prove does not make it a noble lie either.  The noble lie is reprehensible because the proponents of the lie know it they are spreading a falsehood.  That is not an accurate description of religious people who believe that their faith is based on truth just as much as Berkut believes it is based on an unprovable falsehood.

But are you objecting ot the noble lie becuase it is a lie, or because you believe that it will be, no matter how noble the intentions, a failure at providing whatever good those promoting it intend?

My point is that I don't care whether the proponents of the lie believe it or not - I think if the thing they are promoting is not true (or even simply unprovable and outside the scope of 'truth', which as far as I am concerned is the same as 'false' for all practical purposes) then the effect will be negative in the end.

My objection is not based on whether or not the proponents believe it or not, that is irrelevant to me. If someone truly, honestly, and completely believes that the earth is flat, it matter not one bit to me. They are wrong, and any system of belief they demand that others buy into based on that incorrect belief will be flawed, and in the end harmful, even if it is useful in the short term.

Your objection is based on whether or not the noble lie is moral, regardless of it's practical value. My objection is that the practical value itself will end up, in the long run, to be as much a lie as the lie it is based upon, no matter whether the motives or intentions of those who put it forth.

So when it comes to religion, the fact that the believers really do believe in their god is irrelevant to me from the standpoint of my rejection of their system that relies on said god actually existing. I think he does not exist (and I am very comfortable saying positively that specific gods do not exist, even if I am willing to concede that the generic term is not really provable), and therefore any system of morality or ethics that holds as its foundational truth that he does exist is going to be flawed in the end, and we would be (as humans) better off with a system that does not require acceptance of the foundation.

As far as outlandish claims go, I agree with Berkut that the claims of the literalist fundies are indeed outlandish and easily disproved.  The earth was not, as it is claimed, created in thousands of years etc.  But when one considered the metaphorical religious teachings it is impossible to disprove those.  They are teachings in the realm of ethics and philosophy.  And Berkut has already conceded there is no true or false in that realm.

No argument from me.

Except to note that the non-fundy views on religion tend to result in pretty much positions that then are not nearly as reliant on their god actually existing to be demonstrably useful. That is the basic problem that fundies have with non-fundies in fact - they object to the fact that god tends to become less and less obvious the more abstract your view of him becomes, to the point that you start seeing the jokes about atheist Anglicans and such.

So yes, you can look at Christian philosophy, and the less fundy it is, the more useful and reasonable it seems...but that is largely because in my opinion it does exactly what I am proposing - removing those parts that are most reliant on an existent god to justify the rest. IMO, the way to continue moving forward (and in fact I would contend that western human history since the enlightenment is precisely this happening) is to continue to remove the requirements for an active and existent god from our understanding of human morality and ethics.

There is no question that religion/spirituality has an incredibly entrenched position in human society, and hence the process is long and slow and sometimes even seems to reverse itself. But overall the trend, IMO, is pretty clear. We are in fact moving exactly in the direction I hope that we move in, and more and more of our core western values are founded on less and less a religious basis.

I do not support any real active attempt to push this further other than through continuing education and dialogue. There is no upside to pushing the process faster through overt legislation, and the fundamental principle of liberty trumps any concerns I have about how people ought to instruct their children in any case. Men like Dawkins and Hitchens are invaluable, IMO, in pushing this process forward in the only place that it really matters, the arena of public cultural ideas exchange and debate. I am very content to restricting any actual political position to simply resisting attempts to redress this process via overt legislation like school boards insisting that Creationism be included in educational texts, as an example.

I am, at core, an optimist, and the tide of human history is behind me. I don't think religion will ever go away, but I am confident that it's role in informing our actions, our laws, and our morality will continue to erode over time, and humans will be better for it.

<steps down off of soapbox>

[grumbler]

I dunno man.  I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person.  I do not think that it is amoral to do so.

Santa Claus is to God as Beorn is to Tom Bombadill.

[Neil]

so, thats like almost 700 years after Philo of Alexandria... That just adds a second gripe, the different ways the religion was discussed with laymen and scholars. The two are nothing like each other.

More like 350 . . .It isn't surprising that laymen and scholars  see things differently.  Your average illiterate late antique paganus convert is going to have pretty simplified ideas about religion that indeed are likely to be indistinguishable from magic.

Of course the same could be said for the hard sciences.  The chairman of the physics department probably thinks about science differently from the way that your typical "jaywalker" would - the latter probably viewing the theoretical science as mumbo-jumbo and its applications as essentially magical in nature ("how does my cell phone work? it just does.")

Thats not an analogy that fits.  Cell-phones are completely new and religion has nothing to say about them. However, the technical mumbo jumbo explanation is of course unintelligible for anybody without a good understanding of electronics and radio waves. Religion says "it just does", Science say "it is an electrical apparatus that uses radiowaves to communicate". One is a simplification and the other is just wrong. Just like saying that the noahs ark story is literally true is just wrong while "it is a story meant to elucidate on the nature and will of god" is simplification.

Fuck, you're bad at this.  Focus on the testability of science, not the complexity.

[grumbler]

Another factor to remember when discussing religion is that there are only two types of religions
(1) the millions of religions abandoned as false already, and
(2) the handful of religions that will be abandoned as false, but have't yet suffered that fate.

We know that the fate of a religion is to be abandoned, eventually.  When we assess the social utility of any religion (or religion in general), we should keep that in mind.

[Barrister]

I dunno man.  I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person.  I do not think that it is amoral to do so.

Santa Claus is to God as Beorn is to Tom Bombadill.

I know these words,, but their overall meaning escapes me.

[Barrister]

Another factor to remember when discussing religion is that there are only two types of religions
(1) the millions of religions abandoned as false already, and
(2) the handful of religions that will be abandoned as false, but have't yet suffered that fate.

We know that the fate of a religion is to be abandoned, eventually.  When we assess the social utility of any religion (or religion in general), we should keep that in mind.

Can we really say that though?

The earliest recorded history goes back about 6000 years.

Judaism is probably the oldest continually practiced religion, and it goes back almost 4000 years.  Christianity of course goes back 2000 years, and Islam some 1400 years.  They're really remarkably long-lived institutions in human society.

Hell, doing a quick bit of googling, some suggest that the Hindu faith goes right back the full 6000 years.

[The Brain]

I dunno man.  I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person.  I do not think that it is amoral to do so.

Santa Claus is to God as Beorn is to Tom Bombadill.

What about Benny and Beorn?

[Sophie Scholl]

I keep waiting to read more about people's opinions on the Pope and his actions/words, but all I get is "new" debate over religion.