Wars between theists and atheists( P.S.)

[kowalskil]

Wars between Theists and Atheists

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless futile conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.

[MG]

If I am not mistaken, you are a theist positing that:

1) debates between theists and atheists should be eliminated
2) debates between theists and atheists are futile

I used to be a theist, and I debated with other theists very contentiously. We created much heat and subsequently my view of the world became illuminated from heat. As I'm sure you well know, heat is the source of light. Because of those debates, I came to realize the absurdity and maliciousness of religion. "Those who can make [one] believe absurdities, can make [one] commit atrocities." Now, as you can see I bluntly disagree that those debates between myself and atheists were futile: I apostatized Islam after reading the entirety of the Quran front and back, then went on to read the Bible, then read the Talmud in a college course and re-read the Quran in a college course. I am still an anti-theist. My life and reasoning has benefited tremendously from those arguments.

Now, your first point is saying that debates should be eliminated. Now, why would you want to do that? Why would you try to hush up communication and contention? Because, it is through contention and argument that man is able to find truth. This (sometimes unpleasant) exchange is the communicative advantage we hold over all other species on this planet, and inventions which have facilitated communication (spoken language, alphabet, written word, printing press, radio, internet) have engendered the greatest leaps of advancements in human history.

You made a statement very early on which reminded me of a debate about metaphysical claims and scientific claims. This is your statement:

Scientists should agree not to deal with spiritual claims, such as existence of God or gods, and theologians should agree not to deal with material claims, such as the age of our planet or the reality of global warming.

Such agreement, between professional scientists and professional theologians, could be the very first step along the path toward peaceful coexistence and mutual respect.

Basically, you're saying you don't have evidence or proof or anything to substantiate your absurd claims. So, instead you want to waive the need for evidence, by saying it's not a scientific claim. Rabbi David Wolpe made a similar fallacious point, and this is how Sam Harris addressed it:

I think this video of that debate demonstrates the fallacy in your statement above:
(please do me the favor of watching all 3 minutes and 44 seconds before continuing on to read my post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcM1r...eature=related

Now, I want to focus specifically on your statement:

"Theologians, on the other hand, rely on authorities (holy books)"

It's interesting to me that you made mention of mathematics, logic, axioms and a separation between mathematics and science. I would contend that physics would probably be hindered if that were true. Regardless, let's go back to the logic: if you know basic logic, then you might have learned of something called:

Begging the Question, or perhaps circular reasoning. Now, you made a claim that Theologians rely on authorities and then stated, holy books = authorities. What makes holy books authorities? The circular reasoning contained in the book? To open your eyes, there is a statement that I saw written on a napkin once stating:

"The Napkin religion is the one true religion, because it says so right here on this napkin."

That circular reasoning is precisely what is contained both in the holy books you label as authorities and on that napkin.

Therefore, labeling holy books as "authorities" to be "relied on" is utter fallacy of the simplest order.

This would be a good time to introduce that I define:

theism = religion, or a relationship between homo sapiens sapiens and "God"
theist = one who believes in a theism
deism = a definition of creator all the way up to all-powerful entity
deist = one who believes in a deism

Since I'm on the subject of language, I'll also ask you to stop using absolute claims like, "no one benefits" if you want to be taken seriously. I benefited from the argument and so have many societies which realized crusades, witch hunts, superstitions, banning research and a plethora of other religious prosecutions and hindrances should be disdained.

Finally, you made the statement:

the aggressive combatants are usually neither professional scientists nor professional theologians.

To which, I respond: "As if it mattered who held which opinion, rather than which opinion was worth holding."

[Dayuhan]

Couldn't help but notice this...

theologians say that the universe was created in six days, as revealed in holy books

I'm not much of a theologian, but I had the impression that the whole "6 days" thing was a feature of only one of the thousands of origin myths circulating in the world. "Some theologians" might have been more accurate.

Debate is of course inevitable when people hold different beliefs. That's not a problem. Debate can escalate to violence when people want to force other people to believe what they believe, an excellent reason for keeping these debates below that level.

I think these guys have it about right:

http://www.venganza.org/

Pastafari!

[G Martin]

Wars between Theists and Atheists

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless futile conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

Not sure what "wars" or conflicts there are between theists and atheists- can you give some examples? I'd say there are mainly wars between groups of peoples and that sometimes religion is used as a tool to further one group's agenda over another's...

As for the logic on your on-line paper- I had some trouble following it. Sounded like there were several false choices, illogical statements, and assumptions stated as facts. I hate to get involved in a discussion on objectivity and universal truth since I don't know anyone who sees things from a different perspective than I do (Earth and human eyes). Mathematicians have supposedly proven many dimensions- but I can only understand and sense three that I'm aware of. How can I thus make any conclusions about objectivity and universal truth??

[Backwards Observer]

I've felt God's presence since I was a kid, this was before going to Sunday School or church. It seemed so integral to existence that I never really thought about it. What became frustrating in later years is the internal debate about what exactly constituted this 'presence'; a spiritual awareness, a mental wish construct, a form of illness...what? The evidence, if you will, always seems so subtle that it could very well be nothing or anything. Puzzling.

The Adversary, on the other hand, revealed itself early...you could actually feel it thick in the air. I don't really have the words to describe it, but it doesn't seem too concerned with names.

Race, Blood and Blades: May 13, Malaysia's Longest Day - w.h. chong, crikey.com - May 28, 2010

[120mm]

If I am not mistaken, you are a theist positing that:

1) debates between theists and atheists should be eliminated
2) debates between theists and atheists are futile

I used to be a theist, and I debated with other theists very contentiously. We created much heat and subsequently my view of the world became illuminated from heat. As I'm sure you well know, heat is the source of light. Because of those debates, I came to realize the absurdity and maliciousness of religion. "Those who can make [one] believe absurdities, can make [one] commit atrocities." Now, as you can see I bluntly disagree that those debates between myself and atheists were futile: I apostatized Islam after reading the entirety of the Quran front and back, then went on to read the Bible, then read the Talmud in a college course and re-read the Quran in a college course. I am still an anti-theist. My life and reasoning has benefited tremendously from those arguments.

Now, your first point is saying that debates should be eliminated. Now, why would you want to do that? Why would you try to hush up communication and contention? Because, it is through contention and argument that man is able to find truth. This (sometimes unpleasant) exchange is the communicative advantage we hold over all other species on this planet, and inventions which have facilitated communication (spoken language, alphabet, written word, printing press, radio, internet) have engendered the greatest leaps of advancements in human history.

You made a statement very early on which reminded me of a debate about metaphysical claims and scientific claims. This is your statement:



Basically, you're saying you don't have evidence or proof or anything to substantiate your absurd claims. So, instead you want to waive the need for evidence, by saying it's not a scientific claim. Rabbi David Wolpe made a similar fallacious point, and this is how Sam Harris addressed it:

I think this video of that debate demonstrates the fallacy in your statement above:
(please do me the favor of watching all 3 minutes and 44 seconds before continuing on to read my post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcM1r...eature=related

Now, I want to focus specifically on your statement:



It's interesting to me that you made mention of mathematics, logic, axioms and a separation between mathematics and science. I would contend that physics would probably be hindered if that were true. Regardless, let's go back to the logic: if you know basic logic, then you might have learned of something called:

Begging the Question, or perhaps circular reasoning. Now, you made a claim that Theologians rely on authorities and then stated, holy books = authorities. What makes holy books authorities? The circular reasoning contained in the book? To open your eyes, there is a statement that I saw written on a napkin once stating:

"The Napkin religion is the one true religion, because it says so right here on this napkin."

That circular reasoning is precisely what is contained both in the holy books you label as authorities and on that napkin.

Therefore, labeling holy books as "authorities" to be "relied on" is utter fallacy of the simplest order.

This would be a good time to introduce that I define:

theism = religion, or a relationship between homo sapiens sapiens and "God"
theist = one who believes in a theism
deism = a definition of creator all the way up to all-powerful entity
deist = one who believes in a deism

Since I'm on the subject of language, I'll also ask you to stop using absolute claims like, "no one benefits" if you want to be taken seriously. I benefited from the argument and so have many societies which realized crusades, witch hunts, superstitions, banning research and a plethora of other religious prosecutions and hindrances should be disdained.

Finally, you made the statement:



To which, I respond: "As if it mattered who held which opinion, rather than which opinion was worth holding."

The question I have for you, is that what makes you think that human logic is the end all, be all? Or that everything that exists requires so-called "proof".

You wouldn't be the first short-sighted egotist to decide they have somehow discovered there is no God.

Personally, as a non-God like creature, I am convinced I am spectacularly unqualified to make informed judgements as to the existence or non-existence of God.

Hubris, anyone?

[M-A Lagrange]

God does exist: it's me!

[jmm99]

where fools fear to tread.

Cheers

Mike

[Tukhachevskii]

...an a/theist I am often reminded of the wise words of an almost forgotten sage (whose name I have,ahem, forgotten)

"Whosoever concieves of God in his head is an atheist".

[Bob's World]

The religion or lack there of between combatants is really a bit of a silly debate.

Certainly religion is a common motivational tool employed by leaders to rally the people, and offers a source of support to those who are in the fight; but the fight itself is typcially about wealth, power or revenge in some combination. Those are the ugly whores of war that lie beneath the pretty makeup of religion.

[DVC]

BUF(Bias Up Front) - I'm a committed Christian and believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.


That said, one question:

Just because you can't prove something does that mean it's not true?

[M-A Lagrange]

I personnaly think that Bob is right.

The problematic of religion in war in mainly a political question and has very little to see with what combattants do or not.
Looking at war laws (1907) and humanitarian laws (1949), they all tend to be secular with a "religious" base as they tend to bring moral and good behaviour in war. (Early laws or code of conduct from ancient India and Mesopotamian in particular.) But the fact that you believe or not does not really matter in their application nowadays except at individual/personal level.

[marct]

Interesting points, folks. I tend to agree with Bob with one reservation: it is much easier to stir up emotions if the "sides" have different religions (and I'm using that in the Geertzian definition which, BTW, includes Atheism as a "religion"). Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is that religions, as a class of social groups, tend to apply deductive logic based on untestable assumptions which are circularly justified (love the napkin example !). Since the assumptions are not testable, what tests are run are inherently biased in two main areas:

1. they are tests of "purity" (i.e. the application of deductive logic) of thought or practice based on the system itself with only limited contacts with objective "reality".
2. they are tests of "personal experience" which are biased because the interpretive framework for validating and understanding that experience is produced by the same, untestable system. NB: it is a categorical error to confuse an interpretation / explanation with an experience or, in other words, the validity of having the experience does not validate the interpretive framework (it merely does not disprove it).

One point I would like to pick up on is this:

Just because you can't prove something does that mean it's not true?

Well, being a scientist in the older, Baconian sense, I would argue that you can never prove anything, only disprove things. This, IMHO, is especially so when it comes to dealing with anything that is not part of the "material world" (I'm using that term in the sense of that part of reality that does not [appear] to be able to exercise any form of free will). "Proving" something is another form of "purity test" (cf point 1 above).

Not being able to "prove" something is a whole different kettle of fish, in that it begs the question of whether or not I can disprove that something and, if so, how? If I can't disprove it, then it is beyond the current reach of science, either because I don't have the right tools to set up tests or my explanatory mechanism can't generate hypotheses that are testable.

One point I will make is that it is, actually, very easy to disprove many religious claims of exclusivity where those claims tie in to replicable experiences. This sub-set of claims, however, is what justifies power, status and the general ordering of social reality that Bob points towards.

Cheers,

Marc

[J Wolfsberger]

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless futile conflicts between theists and atheists.

Absolutely nothing, but I think the question isn't posed clearly enough.

True atheists have no faith or belief in the existence of any supreme being, a distinctly different principle than a faith that there is no supreme being. They don't waste any time debating the issue. They have recognized from the start that there is no way to debate any issue when the terms of debate have been placed above and beyond any realm of proof or reason.

Likewise, "theists," people who experience true faith, agree completely that their faith is a personal experience above and beyond any realm of proof or reason, and therefore can not be offered as proof of anything to anybody.

The truly faithful and the truly atheist don't engage in this "conflict" because both "sides" view it is a meaningless, pointless waste of time.

The conflict you are referring to is between two different faith groups seeking to validate their beliefs through conversion of others to their point of view. Trying to debate the issue is involving oneself in a religious war.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

from theological discussions as they, like many political discussions, tend to evoke emotions rather than logic, and I cannot make my argument near as erudite as Marc's nor as to the point as Bob's (I believe religion is in part about wealth, power, and control in some combination, an esoteric form of politics if you will), I would have to say that DVC's argument is a common one among the theologically minded. They fail to consider that the “Just because you can't prove something does that mean it's not true?” applies to a whole spectrum of issues like (not to be sarcastic, but perhaps a bit cheeky) unicorns, leprechauns, Zeus, Thor, UFOs, etc...

The napkin is a great example of “Just because you write something down does that mean it is true?”

Those who enjoy the writings of JRR Tolkien will best relate to the following.

While Tolkien is famous for his fictional Middle Earth and his works The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, he also wrote considerably on the history of Middle Earth. One of his books, entitled the Silmarillion, begins like this:

“There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made...”

One can see the influence of Genesis and other creation myths in this.

My point being, I would not be surprised that in several hundred years there is a “religion” based on the Silmarillion.

[marct]

My point being, I would not be surprised that in several hundred years there is a “religion” based on the Silmarillion.

Why wait? I know of two religions today that are based on science fiction books .

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Tolkien will no doubt roll in his grave, metaphorically of course.

Perhaps I should tear a page from L. Ron's play book and start my own faith based institution, Ilúvatarianism, as we get a tax break for that sort of stuff here in the former English colonies.

[Deus Ex]

If I am not mistaken, you are a theist positing that:

1) debates between theists and atheists should be eliminated
2) debates between theists and atheists are futile

I used to be a theist, and I debated with other theists very contentiously. We created much heat and subsequently my view of the world became illuminated from heat. As I'm sure you well know, heat is the source of light. Because of those debates, I came to realize the absurdity and maliciousness of religion. "Those who can make [one] believe absurdities, can make [one] commit atrocities." Now, as you can see I bluntly disagree that those debates between myself and atheists were futile: I apostatized Islam after reading the entirety of the Quran front and back, then went on to read the Bible, then read the Talmud in a college course and re-read the Quran in a college course. I am still an anti-theist. My life and reasoning has benefited tremendously from those arguments.

Now, your first point is saying that debates should be eliminated. Now, why would you want to do that? Why would you try to hush up communication and contention? Because, it is through contention and argument that man is able to find truth. This (sometimes unpleasant) exchange is the communicative advantage we hold over all other species on this planet, and inventions which have facilitated communication (spoken language, alphabet, written word, printing press, radio, internet) have engendered the greatest leaps of advancements in human history.

You made a statement very early on which reminded me of a debate about metaphysical claims and scientific claims. This is your statement:



Basically, you're saying you don't have evidence or proof or anything to substantiate your absurd claims. So, instead you want to waive the need for evidence, by saying it's not a scientific claim. Rabbi David Wolpe made a similar fallacious point, and this is how Sam Harris addressed it:

I think this video of that debate demonstrates the fallacy in your statement above:
(please do me the favor of watching all 3 minutes and 44 seconds before continuing on to read my post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcM1r...eature=related

Now, I want to focus specifically on your statement:



It's interesting to me that you made mention of mathematics, logic, axioms and a separation between mathematics and science. I would contend that physics would probably be hindered if that were true. Regardless, let's go back to the logic: if you know basic logic, then you might have learned of something called:

Begging the Question, or perhaps circular reasoning. Now, you made a claim that Theologians rely on authorities and then stated, holy books = authorities. What makes holy books authorities? The circular reasoning contained in the book? To open your eyes, there is a statement that I saw written on a napkin once stating:

"The Napkin religion is the one true religion, because it says so right here on this napkin."

That circular reasoning is precisely what is contained both in the holy books you label as authorities and on that napkin.

Therefore, labeling holy books as "authorities" to be "relied on" is utter fallacy of the simplest order.

This would be a good time to introduce that I define:

theism = religion, or a relationship between homo sapiens sapiens and "God"
theist = one who believes in a theism
deism = a definition of creator all the way up to all-powerful entity
deist = one who believes in a deism

Since I'm on the subject of language, I'll also ask you to stop using absolute claims like, "no one benefits" if you want to be taken seriously. I benefited from the argument and so have many societies which realized crusades, witch hunts, superstitions, banning research and a plethora of other religious prosecutions and hindrances should be disdained.

Finally, you made the statement:



To which, I respond: "As if it mattered who held which opinion, rather than which opinion was worth holding."

I agree with all that is written above. Furthermore, I think debates on religion are healthy, both for the individual and for society. The Constitution allows and guarantees us the right to continue such debates, even if they descend into the nitty-gritty and offend people.

120mm said:

"The question I have for you, is that what makes you think that human logic is the end all, be all? Or that everything that exists requires so-called "proof".

You wouldn't be the first short-sighted egotist to decide they have somehow discovered there is no God.

Personally, as a non-God like creature, I am convinced I am spectacularly unqualified to make informed judgements as to the existence or non-existence of God.

Hubris, anyone?"

Come, now. That is a terrible argument. If we scarcely have the capability to understand a god enough to say he/it most likely doesn't exist (as you posit), then it would be the absolute height of hubris to assume we could understand the nature of god in any way (not that you are positing that, necessarily). Strange that Christians, Muslims, etc. all claim to know nearly every facet of god's dictations, i.e., his opinions on sex, marriage, adultery, prayer, yet the very question of "does he exist?" is beyond our reasoning?

I look at it this way, until I see proof for god's existence (and there is none whatsoever in terms of empirical data), or a way to settle the which-religion-is-the-true-one debate, I will not believe in god. I do not claim god doesn't exist with absolute certainty, but using basic logic, I can claim that he is very likely to not exist given what we, as humans, understand about the universe.

[Rex Brynen]

Personally, I'm a Pastafarian.
Unless this discussion somehow relates to pirates, beer, or strippers, I'm afraid it lies entirely outside of my theological frame of reference.

[Dayuhan]

Personally, I'm a Pastafarian.
Unless this discussion somehow relates to pirates, beer, or strippers, I'm afraid it lies entirely outside of my theological frame of reference.

Ramen!

That makes two of us on this thread so far. Next, the world...