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

[Berkut]

That isn't relevant to the discussion though - the article in question is one written by atheists about the utility of religion from the perspective of atheists. The non-existence of god is assumed.

Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.

Fine.  But then your argument is no better than the fundamentalist christian argument you reject.  You justify your stance on an unproveable assumption and then make judgments about others assuming your first premise is true.

I do not assume my first premise is true at all, at least no more so than I assume all non-evidenced beings don't exist. But that isn't even the point here. I don't make any assumptions about the existence of god than you make (assuming you are in fact an atheist). My reasons for concluding that there are no beings generally described as deities is not an assumption at all. Just because one cannot prove something to be true does not mean that it is an assumption. I lack belief in gods for the same reason I lack belief in all kinds of things, and none of them are "assumptions".

And certainly one can think about the net social utility of religious belief, conclude that it is not positive, and do so without being a "fundamentalist". Indeed, the fundie viewpoint is much more the one that unless someone agrees with you, they must be crazy or wrong or, well, a fundy.

In contrast, I do not think that someone looking at the overall value of religious beliefs, and concluding that they are a net social positive is just like a fundamentalist. I think they are wrong, but I can understand how they reach that conclusion using perfectly reasonable assumptions and arguments.

This is exactly what I dislike about the movement that has been called the "new atheists" of which Dawkins (and apparenty you) are members.

Then your dislike is based on a rather remarkable lack of understanding about the issue. Or a rather odd strawman.

Given that you are surrounded by fundies I suppose you can be excused for taking the mirror image opposite view of them.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

  But your view also ignores the wider diversity of religious thought that has signficiant value whether or not a god exists.

Not at all, my view ignores nothing, it just concludes that the value of "religious thought" is not a net positive, and that the things that ARE valuable about religious thought" are not reliant on religion in any case.

Like I said, as an atheist, I do not have any belief that gods exist. As a humanist, I do not accept that basic idea that a complex system of belief and values based on a foundation that is false can be useful overall. We can go into much more detail about this, but that is hardly necessary to refute your strawman that this has something to do with assumptions and inability to prove whether or not god(s) exist.

Indeed, you are more radical than even Dawkins as even he concedes that everyone should learn about religions if for no other reason than to appreciate their rich literary contribution to society.

I don't even know what this means, since I am pretty sure I haven't said anything about anyone learning about religion. I suspect you are going into your raging personal attack mode though, so perhaps this discussion is about done.

[Tamas]

Of course, since this is all about whether or not Tamas and Viking are just like this largely fictional atheists, why don't we just ask them?

Tamas/Viking, do either of you believe that the state in any way ought to pass laws restricting parents freedom to teach their children religious beliefs as truths?

My critique of both Viking and Tamas isnt that they want to act as thought police but that they think religion has no value because it is not "true".  You might find the last link I gave you in my earlier post which addressed this point of interest.

Oh, religion has its uses, it keeps a certain cohesion to primitive societies. Well, primitive is relative of course, but notice how nationalism has overtaken religion as the main cohesion force after a certain point in development.

So yeah, religion can be useful.

But that does not stop it from being morally wrong. A religion claims such huge things -an omnipotent deity deciding how shit should go down, for starters- that it not only loses all moral value if it is not true, but also it becomes a vile deception of the highest magnitude, if not true.

And to answer Berkut: there is no point in banning stuff like this, so I am against it. Bad example and I have no intention of drawing parallels between the topics at all, but look at anti-Semitism and general Nazism in Hungary. For 50 years it was heavily prosecuted by the communists and when freedom of speech returned we basically picked up almost where we left off in 1945.

[Berkut]

This is a problem I have with Dawkins and the like. I'm judging him only on the show he did over he, 'The Root of All Evil?' But he engaged with one relatively sophisticated Christian thinker - the Bishop of Oxford. As the Bishop pointed out, for example, what's really remarkable about evolution is how quickly most Christian Churches accepted it not the, frankly tiny, number of believers who still don't.

The rest of the time Dawkins was speaking to literalist fundies in Coloradan mega-churches (I can't comment on anything he did with other religions). Which is fine and certainly makes for better TV but is hugely misleading. There's a billion Catholics in the world, around 250 million Orthodox and 80 million or so Anglicans - not to mention the Lutherans and others. But Dawkins, certainly on that show, preferred testing himself against a groupuscule of a church.

It's easy, from any perspective, to make a strong critique of Ted Haggard (I think he was the guy in the show) but far tougher when you're dealing with the Orthodox, Anglican or Catholic perspective. If you're going to argue with someone you need to deal with their strongest points not the periphery of literalists.

I think you are missing his point - he isn't arguing with the Oxford bishop becuase by and large he has nothing to argue with the Oxford bishop about. The problems he has with religion are not with the large majority of perfectly reasonable and largely rational religious people. It isn't the Bishop of Oxford demanding that we teach Creationism in school, for example, so why should Dawkins spend time arguing with him?

Dawkins was on The Daily Show last night when he makes this exact point, in fact. He doesn't have much issue with religion as practiced by the Bishop of Oxford.


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/richard-dawkins


Got to about 1:20 or so.

[Sheilbh]

But his comments go rather beyond saying religious extremism is bad - with which we could all agree. He also says to the Bishop that in a way isn't he just being less honest in his faith which jumps rather ahead of the question - the faith of the overwhelming majority of the Christian world is not and has never been based on a literalist reading.

So if he wants to criticise people who are religious extremists then that's fine and that should be clear. If the criticism is of Christianity then there's a different argument because he's dealing with a more sophisticated opponent.

For what it's worth I wouldn't mind that, I think it'd be an interesting argument.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut it seems to me that you want your cake and it too.  You claim that christianity has no value because it is based on a false premise but then you go on to say that you are not claiming that the premise is false.

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

[Tamas]

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

What is the difference between the two?

[crazy canuck]

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

What is the difference between the two?

One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god. ie, there is no need to conclude it is "true" to come the the conclusion it has value.

[Tamas]

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

What is the difference between the two?

One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god.

But it would require some serious amorality to do so.

[crazy canuck]

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

What is the difference between the two?

One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god.

But it would require some serious amorality to do so.

Yes it is going in circles with you.  It is only amoral if one assumes that the only christian or religious belief you are considering are of the literalist fundy variety.

[Berkut]

Berkut it seems to me that you want your cake and it too.  You claim that christianity has no value because it is based on a false premise but then you go on to say that you are not claiming that the premise is false.

THis is really starting to annoy me. I never said Christianity has no value. If you want to have a discussion, please respond to what I say, I am not going to waste time continually repeating the same thing again and again while you again and again keep saying I say something else.

I said the net social utility of religion is not positive.

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

I don't even think my position is about religion. I would argue that ANY system of thought based on a false premise will inevitably result in adverse outcomes overall, even if there is some short term or narrow utility in it.

I guess I just have "faith" that what is true is better than what is false. Shrug.

It seems a basic enough assumption that I am not even sure what the point of arguing with someone who does not share that viewpoint might be...

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on the correct interpretation of Verbum Dei argument, between CC and Viking, I really recommend the preface of Benedict's 'Jesus of Nazareth' which looks at different historical critical methods of Biblical interpretation their benefits and limitations from the ultra-orthodox perspective of a sitting Pope and former head of the CDF.

[crazy canuck]

THis is really starting to annoy me. I never said Christianity has no value. If you want to have a discussion, please respond to what I say, I am not going to waste time continually repeating the same thing again and again while you again and again keep saying I say something else.

No, but you want to parse out any religious meaning from such things as the Golden Rule because you think the religious meaning is based on something which is false.  Seems to me you are cutting it a bit thin there.

[Berkut]

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

What is the difference between the two?

One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god. ie, there is no need to conclude it is "true" to come the the conclusion it has value.

I think this illuminates a fundamental disagreement that we cannot resolve.

If I have any "fundamentalist" belief it is that the truth is better than deception, and that humans are better off in the long run with more information rather than less. I do not accept the claim that there is utility in being misled, no matter how good it might appear to some.

Since I am an atheist, and reject the claims that various religious groups make about their gods, I do not accept that idea that we can start with something untrue, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started with the truth.

[grumbler]

But that does not stop it from being morally wrong. A religion claims such huge things -an omnipotent deity deciding how shit should go down, for starters- that it not only loses all moral value if it is not true, but also it becomes a vile deception of the highest magnitude, if not true.

What about the vast majority of religions which lack such a deity?  Are they okay?

[Tamas]

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

What is the difference between the two?

One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god.

But it would require some serious amorality to do so.

Yes it is going in circles with you.  It is only amoral if one assumes that the only christian or religious belief you are considering are of the literalist fundy variety.

Uhm no. Even if you have a non-literal approach you are still teaching (well, the ones who teach it do) that there is an omninopent God, his son and the whole guidance things about how to live, plus heaven and the angels and all assorted stuff that comes with the package regardless of how literally you are taking the scriptures.

It is amoral to teach all of that if they are not true. IMHO.

That is of course independent of the objective analysis of Christianity`s contributions, to a degree, but it is 100% related if you want to evaluate the moral contributions.