Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Leahn

The end of the quote is irrelevant to the point at hand,

Not even remotely irrelevant, especially given the paragraph that precedes the one you quoted, where Lewontin points out things like:

Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them?

He's making a very valid point that many things in science are, in fact, not common sense at face value.

which is to show the irony of atheists pointing at Christians giving what atheists consider 'ridiculous explanations' to justify the beliefs they accept at face value while at the same time gladly agreeing with Lewontin's claim that they ought to accept materialistic explanations at face value regardless of how much they go against common sense, how counter-intuitive they sound, even when they are patently absurd stories, even when they are just-so stories unsubstantiated by evidence because they are a material cause.

Except they are supported by evidence. You seem to be missing that most giant of all points in your rush to quote mine to defend your argument.

It is the pot calling the kettle black.

Scientists accept things that aren't common sense at face value precisely because they have evidence to support them. Fundamentalists, which don't represent all Christians or even a relatively large number of Christians, accept things that aren't common sense at face value in spite of the evidence. Hardly the pot calling the kettle black.

And don't you just sound like a Christian trying to explain a complicated biblical passage by claiming it is being cited out of context?

Again the difference between a fundamentalist and me is that I'm providing evidence that it's being cited out of context. In other words, when I say you're being dishonest by quote-mining, I can provide evidence to support that.

You believe you are countered my point, but your obsession with proving that I have misquoted Mr. Lewontin shows that you haven't even bothered to read what I wrote. Like most Cultural Marxists that I discuss with in a regular basis, of whose Atheists are merely a subset, you don't read, you attack.

Like I said in my previous post, Atheists laugh at Christians for accepting claims with 'ridiculous' explanations at face value, while accepting scientific claims which are, in the words of Mr. Lewontin, not mine, against common sense, counter-intuitive, patently absurd stories, just-so stories unsubstantiated by evidence, at face value. Observe that it was not I who said that many scientific claims are 'patently absurd' and 'unsubstantiated just-so stories', but Mr. Lewontin.

You may claim that scientists say what they say because they have evidence to back it up. You are wrong. Mr. Lewontin is telling you, in all letters, in all sincerity, that scientists will tell you a patently absurd, unsubstantiated story as an explanation for something, in spite of what the evidence points to, because the answer has to be a materialistic one. Regardless whether they have evidence to back it up, or even in spite of evidence contradicting it. Being truthful is not really important, but being a materialistic explanation is. Because they cannot allow a 'divine foot at the door', because they have a commitment to materialism.

And you will believe it.

While laughing at Christians for doing the exact same thing. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

I love it that each time someone posts a thread about religions and religious texts, eventually it devolves into nothing but Christian fundamentalism (depite using the broad term "Christians") VS atheists because it's all many here seems to know about.

We are talking about respectively 1% and 2% of the worldwide population.


People here are talking about 3% of the world population, and often paint them as the only two choices offered to us despite 97% of the world population being neither a Christian fundamentalist, neither an atheist.


That's how short-sighted and polarized these discussions are.


Both these two sides seem to exist only to counter the other one. Remove one of them from the equation and the other one will become much less vehement and certain of his positions.


Christian fundamentalists seem to believe anyone who doesn't read the Bible literally is materialistic and selfish.
Atheists seem to believe anyone who believes in God is an idiot who doesn't know a thing about astrophysics or genetics.


Maybe it's time both sides grow up out of these childish generalizations and decide to escape this sterile contest about who's right and start talking about the things they have in common for a change? Things like ethics and the admiration for the complexity of our universe?

That would be fresh.

a reply to: Leahn

You believe you are countered my point, but your obsession with proving that I have misquoted Mr. Lewontin shows that you haven't even bothered to read what I wrote. Like most Cultural Marxists that I discuss with in a regular basis, of whose Atheists are merely a subset, you don't read, you attack.

I read what you write, and I understand the point you're trying to make, as misguided as it is.

Like I said in my previous post, Atheists laugh at Christians for accepting claims with 'ridiculous' explanations at face value, while accepting scientific claims which are, in the words of Mr. Lewontin, not mine, against common sense, counter-intuitive, patently absurd stories, just-so stories unsubstantiated by evidence, at face value. Observe that it was not I who said that many scientific claims are 'patently absurd' and 'unsubstantiated just-so stories', but Mr. Lewontin.

In your rush to be part of some trodden-upon abused majority, you're painting one side of your equation with too narrow a brush and the other side with too broad a brush. It's not just atheists that laugh at people who take a literal interpretation of the Bible, as there are plenty of non-fundamentalist Christians out there who recognize the evidence to support what you like to call "just-so stories" and laugh along with the atheists at Ken Ham and his ilk. Also, your equivocation of "counter-intuitive" with "patently absurd" or "just-so story" is a false one. Lewontin himself, who you seem to agree with otherwise why quote him as a way of trying to make your point, gave an example of how something in science can be counter-intuitive but not at all absurd or just-so.

And you will believe it.

Without evidence? No.

Can you provide an example of a scientist telling a "just-so story" that is "patently absurd" with no evidence to back it up that was believed just because it came from a scientist?

You also seem to ignore that science is iterative. Interpretation of older data can change based on new experiments, new understanding of the observed phenomena. Does science always get it right the first time? No. Is science willing to change if it's gotten something wrong? Yes.

While laughing at Christians for doing the exact same thing. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

It's not the same thing, and I've already explained why. I see this tactic here and elsewhere and find it fascinating... fundamentalists know that there is no objective evidence for their version of events, so they try and bring science down to their level. Fundamentalists try and insist that it's a religion unto itself, like you're doing here in your roundabout kind of way. It's like mean girl petty jealousy from high school... they're insecure so they try and denigrate everyone else around them in an effort to be perceived as an equal or even superior. Sad.

And please note that you keep using "Christians" and "atheists" like they're some kind of monolithic cultures, when they're clearly not. A relatively small percentage of atheists are actively anti-theists, and a relatively small percentage of Christians are fundamentalists.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Leahn
In your rush to be part of some trodden-upon abused majority, you're painting one side of your equation with too narrow a brush and the other side with too broad a brush. It's not just atheists that laugh at people who take a literal interpretation of the Bible, as there are plenty of non-fundamentalist Christians out there who recognize the evidence to support what you like to call "just-so stories" and laugh along with the atheists at Ken Ham and his ilk.

Where did I say in my post that it is just atheists? The point of my post is not that it is just atheists that do it. It was that atheists laugh at Christians doing it while doing the same thing themselves.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Leahn
Also, your equivocation of "counter-intuitive" with "patently absurd" or "just-so story" is a false one. Lewontin himself, who you seem to agree with otherwise why quote him as a way of trying to make your point, gave an example of how something in science can be counter-intuitive but not at all absurd or just-so.

The reason why I put counter-intuitive together with patently absurd and just-so stories is because many explanations given by Christians are counter-intuitive. The original post I replied to called them 'ridiculous'. But as you yourself admit, being counter-intuitive doesn't mean being false. Yet, it is the most used dismissal done by atheists of an explanation that was given by a Christian, that is, that something sounds so ridiculous as to be unworthy of consideration as a valid, and possible true, explanation.

In atheist worldview, things that are counter-intuitive in Science are just things they lack the knowledge to easily grasp, but things that are counter-intuitive in Religion are false because they are counter-intuitive.

It is the point I am making to you over and over and over. Any and all negative stereotypes applies to religious people and their beliefs can be equally applies to atheists and their beliefs. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

originally posted by: iterationzero

And you will believe it.

Without evidence? No.

Can you provide an example of a scientist telling a "just-so story" that is "patently absurd" with no evidence to back it up that was believed just because it came from a scientist?

Yes, you will. You have no idea whether there is really evidence or not. Fraud is rampant on peer published papers, the number of retractions have risen tenfold in the last decade, and only about 10% of the scientific papers on fields like medicine were reproducible.

Let's see examples... Global Warming... I remember Dawkins mentioning that the first proteins were assembled in the back of crystals... Junk DNA...

originally posted by: iterationzero
You also seem to ignore that science is iterative. Interpretation of older data can change based on new experiments, new understanding of the observed phenomena. Does science always get it right the first time? No. Is science willing to change if it's gotten something wrong? Yes.

This is not my point. I never made any claims about science, at all. This is a red herring.

originally posted by: iterationzero
It's not the same thing, and I've already explained why. I see this tactic here and elsewhere and find it fascinating... fundamentalists know that there is no objective evidence for their version of events,

What part of Lewontin's quote where he says "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations" did you miss?

Oh for christ sake all of you are ridiculous. Scientists and religious people make mistakes all the the time. Like any human do.

Why do people always have to appeal to authority with such subjective topics as belief in god? It's subjective anyway, no one cares what your favorite intellectual thinks about it.

Unless someone can come with a universal description of god, any opinion about it is moot anyway.

Both sides of the argument are equally irrelevant if it is more about proving the other wrong than understanding his own unique perspective.

There is more to this world than Christian fundamentalism vs atheism.

originally posted by: Develo
Oh for christ sake all of you are ridiculous.

Thanks.

No doubt you have swayed everyone with such a deep and insightful observation.

Scientists and religious people make mistakes all the the time. Like any human do.

True. Yet if you go back to the op it might make something a bit clearer for you. The flood myth (for example) is not a "mistake" as such. That's being very generous. To literally believe in such a thing as portrayed in a certain book, the word "delusion" might even be a bit generous.

One of the points being discussed, is the success of a certain system (science) that is always open to revision and correction. While the other isn't, regardless. Which is not only fanatical, but has given rise to whole fields of pseudo science and pseudo academia.

The position of the op is refreshing on these boards and it is likely similar views would constitute the majority of modern first world Christians. Somehow they get overshadowed by a vocal minority of fundamentalists.

Why do people always have to appeal to authority with such subjective topics as belief in god? It's subjective anyway, no one cares what your favorite intellectual thinks about it.

Citing relevant academic works doesn't necessarily equate to "appeal to authority" (which is generally regarded as a logical fallacy). Nor is giving opinion on such things. Making all encompassing claims such as "nearly all mainstream historians believe jesus existed" without qualifying the terms and citing the relevant poll or study, would be a meaningless "appeal to authority fallacy" (and quite a common one).

Though you're probably right, in that belief in god itself would ultimately be a personal and subjective thing. Though the history of Christianity and modern fundamentalism would seem to indicate that not everyone sees it that way.

Unless someone can come with a universal description of god, any opinion about it is moot anyway.

Then we could accept on authority that such a thing would be correct? That would make it less "moot" for everyone? Perhaps we could then even "appeal" to it in discussion?

There is a very clear description of "god" in the bible, that is in many ways motivating certain discussion in this thread.

Both sides of the argument are equally irrelevant if it is more about proving the other wrong than understanding his own unique perspective.

Not necessarily. To do as you say with biblical literalism would be encouraging a rather fanatical, anti intellectualism when we have more than enough understanding in this day and age to show how ridiculous it is.

There is more to this world than Christian fundamentalism vs atheism.

A very poor argument for your position (strawman). No one is claiming there isn't far more to this world.

How do you feel about the well known battle with religious fundamentalists trying to incorporate religious mythology in science classrooms?

How do you feel of religiously motivated bigotry and intolerance to the gay community?

How do you feel about a modern "superpower" whose leader incorporates advice from America's favourite "invisible friend" in decisions, such as mobilising forces? Then gets a second term in office?

How do you feel about the societal dysfunction that accompanies religion not only in the US (the bible belt being horrendous), but throughout the entire first world? Why is it that the worlds healthiest societies are also the most secular?

Would you like some links to academic studies, or would this be appeal to authority? Why wouldn't academics give opinion on such things? Why wouldn't people be interested in their educated opinions?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you sincerely think you can debate a fundie with reason and make him see where he is wrong, be my guest. I imagine the hostages of jihadists would feel much better knowing they can just make them realize they are deluded. Wait... What is the definition of delusion again?

I don't athink anyone EVER changed his mind thanks to these kind of threads where it's nothing but one side VS the other.

And if you want my stance on Christian fundies, I posted it earlier. It is typically anglo saxon and more political than religious. Like all fumdamentalism. So maybe you guys should be talking politics instead of religion.

If all you guys want is to show biblical literalism is a delusion and remind how you are above this, well it's sterile and childish. It is delusion and by debating a delusional person you only reinforce his beliefs. Maybe you should understand them first instead if you hope to help them.

originally posted by: Develo
I love it that each time someone posts a thread about religions and religious texts, eventually it devolves into nothing but Christian fundamentalism (depite using the broad term "Christians") VS atheists because it's all many here seems to know about.

We are talking about respectively 1% and 2% of the worldwide population.

Got a link for that? Would be interesting to see how they classify such things, where they got the figures from less developed parts of the world etc.

Both these two sides seem to exist only to counter the other one. Remove one of them from the equation and the other one will become much less vehement and certain of his positions.

Perhaps. At least I can see your point, though I think it is more complicated than that.

Christian fundamentalists seem to believe anyone who doesn't read the Bible literally is materialistic and selfish.
Atheists seem to believe anyone who believes in God is an idiot who doesn't know a thing about astrophysics or genetics.

That's untrue. I'm an atheist and I know for a fact that many who hold fervent belief in god can be nice, (otherwise) normal and often very intelligent people.

I also enjoy hearing what people believe and why if it's discussed reasonably and doesn't require literal belief in a certain book. Some of the beliefs seem very intelligent, others even beautiful (even if I don't believe it). I'm also very open to the possibility that there is something, just not the religious gods we have had foisted on us (IMO).

Maybe it's time both sides grow up out of these childish generalizations and decide to escape this sterile contest about who's right and start talking about the things they have in common for a change? Things like ethics and the admiration for the complexity of our universe?

That would be fresh.

It would be fresh.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I also enjoy hearing what people believe and why if it's discussed reasonably and doesn't require literal belief in a certain book. Some of the beliefs seem very intelligent, others even beautiful (even if I don't believe it). I'm also very open to the possibility that there is something, just not the religious gods we have had foisted on us (IMO).

Well, it's not possible in threads like here where everything devolves automatically into a case against literalism.

I'm not a literalist, the overwhelming majority of Christians aren't literalist. It's really a pain in the a** that it is so difficult to have interesting conversations on religion on American boards because eventually the debate is always focused on whether a passage from the bible is literal or not.

There is a Christian spirituality that is rich and interesting, and it requires to lay down the defenses and stop talking about a book for a few minutes, and start talking about people and their life instead.

a reply to: shauny

Organic molecules aren't life.

Here's a little info from Wikipedia

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't believe in the biblical God. I reject the belief that "it" is the creator of the universe, the earth or me. I don't believe that Jesus, if he existed, was "his" son or that Jesus was "God" or "Christ" any more than I am. In that sense, the sense that I believe that I am God/Christ, you are correct, I'm not an atheist.

I'm not a hard core atheist because I have found a way to communicate my definition of "God" so that I can have spiritual conversations, but I don't believe in a God that exists outside of the Universe. I don't believe in a God that doesn't follow the rules of the Universe. I believe the Universe is all that there is, was and all that will be.

I'm one with the Universe. The Universe is God.

If you believe that the universe is a 'type of' God, if you have any belief that there is a god or gods, then you cannot honestly claim to be atheist.

The universe is so massive and vast that our number systems have difficulty in quantifying it. You, on the other hand are an individual, a solitary speck, lost amidst the vastness. You will pass away and the universe will neither notice nor care.

To attribute godliness to something that is rather mechanical is poor reasoning and an indicator that you have not given sufficient consideration to your stated beliefs. It is not, as phrased in the title of this thread, "logical thinking" and therefore serves as a shining example for this thread. Demonstrating that one does not have to have a religion at all to hold to illogical conclusions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jjkenobi

There are sane, mathematical models that predict that alien life almost assuredly exists in the cosmos. No such models exist for god. So it really isn't comparable. Alien life is just making an assumption that the rules on earth for life to arrive probably apply elsewhere (or may even be looser) then using statistical analysis to make a very good educated guess.

That being said, you are also correct in the lacking evidence part for alien existence. So that must always be taken into consideration as well. So we cannot say definitively that they exist, but we can have a pretty good idea that they do through deductive logic. In fact, using further deductive logic, we can say that it is MORE illogical that life DOESN'T exist in the cosmos given what we know about statistics.

Frank Tippler in his book "The Physics of Immortality" produces sane mathematical models that prove the existence of a God that is notably like the Christian definition.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: stutteringp0et

Half the Ten Commandments are about obeying and worshiping god unquestioningly. Sure the ones about adultery, murder and stealing are great, but do you think the first commandment is necessary (worship only the one god)?

Ten Commandments
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
10. Thou shalt not covet

We can pretty much strike commandments 1-4 off the list since they are unimportant, and then it would a much better list.

In your opinion.

If there is no God, then there are no absolutes and the human character, being what it is, will redefine terms until the codified laws are meaningless. We can see this process in all human societies.

By having an absolute standard (such as God), the Law does not 'water down' so easily.

originally posted by: Develo

Well, it's not possible in threads like here where everything devolves automatically into a case against literalism.

I'm not a literalist, the overwhelming majority of Christians aren't literalist. It's really a pain in the a** that it is so difficult to have interesting conversations on religion on American boards because eventually the debate is always focused on whether a passage from the bible is literal or not.

There is a Christian spirituality that is rich and interesting, and it requires to lay down the defenses and stop talking about a book for a few minutes, and start talking about people and their life instead.

I can understand your plight and sympathise with it.

Though to simply let fundamentalism go uncontested isn't the way to go IMO. If you think this board is bad, stay away from the "origins and creationism" section! For many of "us guys" as you put it (which is really a far more diverse bunch than that would imply) it isn't about changing the mind of a fundamentalist, as much as countering the bs. Obviously many different people will read such threads and to let the nonsense claims fly without being contested could have some believing it. The notion of biblical based explanations finding it's way into science textbooks could be on the minds of some also. There are some very educated and knowledgeable people who do this quite well.

Atheists in general might understand the fundamentalist position (or at least tried to) far more than you might believe. There are many who will have come from just such a background. I know others will have studied all sorts of beliefs and doctrines, even with an open mind. The greatest (philosophical) explanation for religion I can ever remember hearing was actually from a leader of a Christian brain washing cult who was otherwise delusional to the point of insanity. I have studied such things for a long time and known many different people from all sorts of groups.

It's a great topic (belief) when it doesn't impose itself on other areas. Such as pretending to be science, or treating mythology is genuine history. There is obviously far more to our existence than we are capable of understanding, or even imagining, at the moment.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
it isn't about changing the mind of a fundamentalist, as much as countering the bs.

Everyone but fundamentalists know it's BS and that the earth is older than 6000 years. So when you say "countering the BS" what you really mean is "countering the foundamentalist BS".

Basically you are arguing with deluded people. Nothing else.


If you want these BS out of American textbooks, then it's a political fight, not something done on a place like here.

originally posted by: Develo

If you want these BS out of American textbooks, then it's a political fight, not something done on a place like here.

They can't. Cultural Marxism is about fighting against the narrative to bring the civilization down. They can't do what you are saying for them to do because then they would become the narrative.

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: Develo

If you want these BS out of American textbooks, then it's a political fight, not something done on a place like here.

They can't. Cultural Marxism is about fighting against the narrative to bring the civilization down. They can't do what you are saying for them to do because then they would become the narrative.

"Cultural marxism" is about destroying Christian values (also it's an unproven conspiracy theory but that's another problem).

Christian fundamentalism has nothing to do with Christian values.


You are not a better Christian for believing the world is 6000 years old or that the story of the ark is real.

Actually, what makes a good Christian is how you live, while fundies always obsess about what to believe. So fundies are misguided Christians.


If it was possible to get rid of Christian fundamentalism, most Christians would support this. Just like the majority of moderate Muslims would be happy to get rid of the jihadists who are doing things in the name of Islam while they don't approve it.


It has nothing to do with cultural marxism, and everything with an out of control radical branch of Christianity that separated itself from the Church less than 200 years ago as a fearful reaction to a world entering the modern era.


Refusing modernity, science and secularism doesn't make you a better Christian, it doesn't make you more spiritual. It only isolate you more from society, and thus give you less opportunities to truly live your life as a Christian; not against the world but with the world.

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
it isn't about changing the mind of a fundamentalist, as much as countering the bs.

Everyone but fundamentalists know it's BS and that the earth is older than 6000 years. So when you say "countering the BS" what you really mean is "countering the foundamentalist BS".

Basically you are arguing with deluded people. Nothing else.


If you want these BS out of American textbooks, then it's a political fight, not something done on a place like here.

people are not just that cut and dry. i'm really fundie about somethings and not even remotely fundie about others. i think you'll find this is true about everybody.

a reply to: undo

Of course it's a simplification and a generalization, like the one I made about atheists, for the sake of showing where the problems come from.

Whether you are fundamentalist about the whole Bible or part of it, it doesn't change the following facts:

- Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism have never been part of the Christian tradition
- It is a modern, protestant and anglo-saxon invention
- It is merely a political reaction to modernism and secularism
- It emphasizes more on a dogmatic approach rather than the necessity of the interpretation


Fundamentalism requires people to accept a few "facts" as unquestionable. As such, fundamentalism is a delusion, and the people who follow it will display all signs of a deluded person when discussing their beliefs, such as circular reasoning, logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance.


All fundamentalisms are bad. We can see where they lead to in all religions. Promoting them is not desirable for society.

They are not part of the tradition, and they are not necessary to live life according to religious principles.

They have zero advantages for individuals and society, only drawbacks. They only exist as the result of a fear of the future, of a knee jerk reaction to the inescapable passage of time.


Fear is the worse adviser. Nostalgia is denial.


The "moral and spiritual golden age" most fundamentalists just want to return back to never existed. It's an illusion.


There is nothing new under the sun, remove all the gadgets and social norms and laws and technologies and deep down people are still exactly the same as 2000 years ago, with the same doubts, the same fears, the same flaws. Fundamentalism cannot fix that, modernization will not make things worse so modernization is not an enemy to morality and spirituality. It's only a tool and like all tool we have to use it correctly.



Fundamentalism is similar to refusing that your grandma is dead and keeping carrying her body all around the house so you can be with her forever even if she's stinking the whole place and starting to fall apart. It's not healthy. When one of your beliefs has been proven wrong you need the courage to accept that old belief is dead so you can move on and leave more space for new things.
Or you start accepting like most normal people it was mostly symbolic and that what counts isn't the veracity of the text, but the teaching hidden inside.

a reply to: Develo

i always approach ancient history, regardless of where it derives from, as potentially true in every way, both a mix of metaphor and literal translation, and likely historical. if you don't like it, that's your problem.

Or you start accepting like most normal people

" normal is just a setting on your dryer "