Dr M's points on prayer, eternity, and a few other things

[Keep The Reason]

I am not really persuaded by analogies between the cultural history of mankind and theories about child development. It seems to me the two are different enough for the one not to throw much light on the other. A theory of cultural development or progress is a very tricky thing to construct and I don't think it is helped by vague analogies with individual development.

Well, they are different so it's not about the cultural developments but about our understanding of the environment we inhabit. As you go back in time our understanding of existence becomes more simplistic, and simplistic stories suffice to explain things to us. You really can't judge an analogy you misunderstand.

I would agree that anything a human being experiences is experienced psychologically. I don't have a problem with that at all. However if to experience something psychologically means that all experience must be explained as being a product of mechanistic causes and reducible to to the interplay of physical forces then unless one treads very carefully one ends up upholding a view where there can be no valid basis for any belief since the propositional content of a belief is not physical and a purely physicalist view of psychology will have to hold that no belief is ever held in virtue of its propositional content so that one can never reach the truth by reasoning.

Well you're going a bit wobbly on your facts again. Terms like fundamentalist and evangelical are a bit slippery.

I disagree. I think they are quite specific. One can evangelize one's religion even if they aren't fundamentalist about that religion.

Anyway the great medieval thinkers used the best science available to them and very few believed in a literal six day creation (have you read say Augustine or Gregory or Aquinas on this kind of thing?) And I don't believe in a first cause argument (one of the problems here is that in modern science and philosophy and in medieval science and philosophy cause has a different meaning - Kuhn points this out as being a key point that lead him to his idea of changing paradigms

The "best science" available to them at the time was mere superstition. I don't fault then for their blindness, but I do fault modern people for self-blinding themselves so they are still like those medieval thinkers. That doesn't mean you, personally, but it does mean the greater percentage of all believers. On the same "evidence" (read: none), people today believe these same beliefs even though there is massive evidence that none of it is needed.

I need to develop this. In the last few centuries we have developed a lot of theories, or competing models about how human minds operate. Many of these theories try to explain how what is going on in the part of our minds which is not accessible can influence us. However these insights were developed for use in the context of therapeutic psychology where in a safe environment and over a prolonged period of time people can tease out their underlying motives. Trying to use these techniques in a forum where there is no real interpersonal context and in an accusatory way is unwise and is likely to prove highly infective. It is true that Freud did try to produce theories to account for all religious belief and his theories were rather more subtle than those of most 21st Century atheists. Nevertheless those theories have not generally been held to hold up as valid. Generally, and you can ask the atheistic therapists on this site to confirm this for you, therapists will not use the tools of their trade, the theories and models, as a means of trying to undermine a client's belief system. That does not mean than people's beliefs do not change as a result of their experience in therapy but the traffic is not one way. Scott Peck gives some very interesting accounts of his own experience as a therapist and how many clients who came as believers emerged from therapy as atheists and vice versa and it puzzled him how these opposite effects could arise from the same therapist using the same method with different clients.

Well, we're back to the same problem most theists here don't seem to understand about me. I consider theists to be effectively hopeless in terms of someone like me "changing their belief systems". I neither have a hope to accomplish that, but it's also not what I even care to do. My goal is to expose theistic arguments for others who come along here-- and really, only for the thinnest of groups-- those who are already on the fence. If they are theists like yourself, I will not persuade them, and if they are non-theists like myself, there is no need to sway them. I seek merely only to show that theists have no new arguments, they cannot address the long-held arguments against them, and that they are left with a litany of "special dispensation" arguments (we have to grant the theistic world view an endless litany of exceptions ion order for it to be "valid"). That's really all I am interested in doing here, and it's all I do.

So I think yes, you have a basis for asking but that stems from your own worldview; I think to you belief in God is pathological and so needs this kind of explanation. To me neither belief nor unbelief is in itself pathological, at least not psychologically. It is not clear to me whether you think religious beliefs always stem from these kind of pathological causes or whether you think they only sometimes do. For myself I would say that religious beliefs do sometimes have pathological causes and in such cases they are better abandoned.

What if they are always stemming from pathologically causes? Would your recommendation then hold true in all cases?

I think we have agreed that whatever we experience must in some sense be psychological but my question was is it pathological. And if people differ in their needs does that imply that one set of needs must be pathological and the other not. We know exactly where this kind of view of religion can lead; Stalin's psyche wards show us that so do the torture chambers of the inquisition.

But the adoption of reason would allow for neither. And one cannot adopt reason when one predicates ones' entire belief system upon faith-- be it faith in a god, or faith in a state, or faith in an ideology. You would place Stalin in the category of atheist because communism is not theistic; I would say Stalism is every bit a religion as is that of fundamentalist Christianity, it's merely the object of worship which has changed. And adherents to both are pathologically driven to follow it.

Well I usually aim at a particular consequence but this is where my Popperianism comes to the fore because he points out that actions can have unintended consequences so we should always have strong mechanisms for change. But let me explain a little more of what I mean. I believe that the cosmos has a law structure that was created by God, by moving in line with that structure we act in accord with what is. That is how I think science works - that was Bacon's point - we discover laws and submit to them and by submitting we can control. It gets more subtle as me move to higher aspects of the cosmos, to control in the psychological is more complex and the laws are more subtle and we cannot and should not control people in the way we aspire to control things, none the less there are laws we can discover and use. But this is a terribly poor account of the law structure (try googling Herman Dooyeweerd). Now I find the idea that there is a way to follow which fits the way things are is a very old idea. The Greeks call it natural law, the Chinese call it the Tao which heaven and earth follows, Christians call it the way and it has other names. So I see the power behind the cosmos expressed in the law structure of the cosmos which can be discovered in a number of ways and it is this law structure which an expression on earth of the will of God to which I aspire to submit.

I reject the idea there is a "WAY" and rather supplant it with the idea that there are ways, plural.

Yes, I think this is an interesting point. Yes our understand of fear could be very different from the understanding in say humanist psychology. I would say wisdom begins in fear because before we began to know we did not see the dangers, then we saw the dangers and did not act because we were afraid, then we learned to act but we no longer acted in ignorance. I think I can see that process in my work with clients. Of course I would not want to inculcate the fear but reality itself will do that for me. Thank you; that is a new insight I must dwell on.

You're welcome.

Here is where we get into deep water as I said right at the beginning. I think the simplest answer I can give without developing this in too much detail is to say that the distinction you are making between necessity and contingency is one which we find in creation but not in God, at least not in God as he is in himself. If we regards necessity as a type of possibility and we regard all possibilities as possibilities of a particular kind such as say logical possibility and physical possibility then God would be the creator off all these kinds of possibilities hence he would be the creator of all kinds of necessities and all kinds of contingencies. It would follow that in himself he transcends both necessity and contingency. Hence I personally do not regard any of his attributes as being either necessary or contingent but as having a unique status and a unique relation to his being which is not found in any created object. But I would stress that is just a personal view and other answers have been given to this admittedly highly speculative question.

"Unique status" = "Special Dispensation".

I have no qualms with that providing you account for it. But, it is not demonstrable, hence you cannot account for it. And this has been true all along, which brings us full circle back to the theists adopting explanations of the environment in which we inhabit that is no different from that which the younger "versions" of us in our evolution have adopted in our past. And we need to grow beyond that methodology. To maintain it means we are pathologically insisting on our childhood understanding, and not confronting the reality that a matured understanding brings. And make no mistake-- our understanding today as post-toddlers and pre-adolescence is going to suffer greatly when we reach our pubescent and eventual adult stage. We may even discover God.

If we survive that long.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Hi Keep the Reason. Do you know what you have in common with Winnie the Pooh, Rupert the Bear, Jack the Ripper and Attila the Hun?

Well, they are different so it's not about the cultural developments but about our understanding of the environment we inhabit. As you go back in time our understanding of existence becomes more simplistic, and simplistic stories suffice to explain things to us. You really can't judge an analogy you misunderstand.

Surely developments in our understanding of our environment are cultural developments. If the analogy is a very simple one and the correspondence you are seeing is that a child has a simple understanding and an earlier culture has a simple understanding therefore the way a child moves from a simple to a complex understanding must be in some way similar to the way the human race as a whole moves from a simple to a more complex understanding then I hope you can see why I think the analogy is flawed without me having to spell it out. However just in case you don't see the problems at once let me ask why do you think that all things that are simple must be simple in the same way? Why do you think the journey from simplicity to complexity must always take the same form? But behind all this I think there is an idea in your mind that when people in primitive cultures told stories they were trying to do science or provide scientific explanations but somehow failed and got myths and religions instead. Now I simply do not think that is a remotely plausible account of the origin of religion.
I had said

Terms like fundamentalist and evangelical are a bit slippery.

You replied:

I disagree. I think they are quite specific. One can evangelize one's religion even if they aren't fundamentalist about that religion.

Well not all those who evangelize are evangelicals - historically, even after the Reformation Roman Catholicism was a missionary religion for centuries before Protestantism turned in that direction, the Orthodox Church is not evangelical but over the centuries evangelised the whole of Russia and its satellites. There are distinctively evangelical features other than a focus on conversion such as a particular view of the role of the cross and an emphasis on scripture. And it is at this point that evangelicalism and fundamentalism overlap. The term fundamentalism derives from a series of pamphlets called 'The Fundamentals' published by conservative Protestants early in the twentieth century. These identify the penal substitution theory of atonement and the innerancy of scripture as fundamental to the faith along with the bodily resurrection, the virgin birth and the reality of Christ's miracles. However at this stage no one was identifying a literal interpretation of Genesis as part of fundamentalism. Indeed some of the writers of 'The Fundamentals' were convinced evolutionists. For example Benjamin Warfield who has been called the founder of fundamentalism (by James Barr who wrote some of the most important books on the subject) describes himself as a Darwinian of the purest water. Later in the twentieth century fundamentalism takes on a different meaning which can be best characterised as an understanding of the Bible which sees it as a source of scientific information. This approach to scripture has some forerunners in early times, for example I think it is fair to see Isaac Newton as a proto-fundamentalist but it was not the majority view among evangelicals. Later still the term fundamentalist was extended to refer to movements in other religions and so it then came to denote a particular kind of cultural conservatism. So these words can have many meanings and one has to try to indicate how they are being used.

The "best science" available to them at the time was mere superstition. I don't fault then for their blindness, but I do fault modern people for self-blinding themselves so they are still like those medieval thinkers. That doesn't mean you, personally, but it does mean the greater percentage of all believers. On the same "evidence" (read: none), people today believe these same beliefs even though there is massive evidence that none of it is needed.

I am astonished that you think medieval science was mere superstition. This seems remarkably arrogant and remarkably ignorant. Do you really regard Ptolemaic astronomy as superstition? And do you really think it had no supporting evidence? At what point would you say science ceased to be superstition? I am not asking for a date so much as an identification of the feature that marks the end of superstition and the beginning of science proper.

Well, we're back to the same problem most theists here don't seem to understand about me. I consider theists to be effectively hopeless in terms of someone like me "changing their belief systems". I neither have a hope to accomplish that, but it's also not what I even care to do. My goal is to expose theistic arguments for others who come along here-- and really, only for the thinnest of groups-- those who are already on the fence. If they are theists like yourself, I will not persuade them, and if they are non-theists like myself, there is no need to sway them. I seek merely only to show that theists have no new arguments, they cannot address the long-held arguments against them, and that they are left with a litany of "special dispensation" arguments (we have to grant the theistic world view an endless litany of exceptions ion order for it to be "valid"). That's really all I am interested in doing here, and it's all I do.

On the no new arguments theme do you seriously claim that the arguments of say Cornelius Van Til or Alvin Plantinga are the same as those of say Augustine and Aquinas? Are you sure you have understood the arguments?

If I understand you correctly you are saying that by presenting a rather thin argument that theistic beliefs must be based on pathological unconscious motivations you are hoping to persuade those who are undecided that there are no valid grounds for belief in God. I can see that this would be a good way of inculcating some kind of mindless prejudice in those who are ill informed about therapeutic psychology but I can't see it really convincing anyone that any case made for theistic belief must be invalid. I'd be quite concerned if it did convince anyone.
Concerning religious beliefs you asked:

What if they are always stemming from pathologically causes? Would your recommendation then hold true in all cases?

As I have indicated I think all people hold religious beliefs so if I held that all religious beliefs were pathological I would be holding that all people hold a certain type of belief on grounds that are pathological. That would leave me with the problem of where I got my idea of non-pathological or normative religious belief if it could never in fact exist. So this really raises the question what do we mean by religious belief?

But the adoption of reason would allow for neither. And one cannot adopt reason when one predicates ones' entire belief system upon faith-- be it faith in a god, or faith in a state, or faith in an ideology. You would place Stalin in the category of atheist because communism is not theistic; I would say Stalism is every bit a religion as is that of fundamentalist Christianity, it's merely the object of worship which has changed. And adherents to both are pathologically driven to follow it.

Am I right in thinking that you see worship as a defining feature of religious belief? A feature which you can identify in people even though they would deny that they are worshipping. And would you say that anyone who claims to hold a religious belief but does not worship is mistaken about their own belief which is in fact non-religious?

I reject the idea there is a "WAY" and rather supplant it with the idea that there are ways, plural.

Yes if you like. It seems a merely semantic distinction

I had suggested that the relationship between God and his attributes has a unique status which is not the same as the relationship between any things within creation. To which you responded:

"Unique status" = "Special Dispensation".

However it seems to me that there can be no a priori reason for saying that whatever exists must correspond to some type already known to us. Such a claim would preclude discovery rather than encourage it. And I did make it clear that I held this to be highly speculative.

I have no qualms with that providing you account for it. But, it is not demonstrable, hence you cannot account for it. And this has been true all along, which brings us full circle back to the theists adopting explanations of the environment in which we inhabit that is no different from that which the younger "versions" of us in our evolution have adopted in our past. And we need to grow beyond that methodology. To maintain it means we are pathologically insisting on our childhood understanding, and not confronting the reality that a matured understanding brings. And make no mistake-- our understanding today as post-toddlers and pre-adolescence is going to suffer greatly when we reach our pubescent and eventual adult stage. We may even discover God.

If we survive that long.

Well there are ways of accounting for something other than empirical demonstration. We both believe in the validity of argument and I have tried to argue a case for the view I hold. But I hold it tentatively and am open to persuasion. I actually don't believe we have grown beyond the need for stories as a method and I am not sure you do. I do think we have learned or are learning not to confuse those stories with scientific theories. I think a clearer understanding of the nature of religious belief can help with that. So I would like to ask what you think religion is?

[mitchellmckain]

Matthew 6:24-33, 10:29-31

Obviously by "told us quite clearly" I am refering to Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of God and thus who read the Bible to see what God has to say to them.

What I do not mean is that there is any objective evidence whatsoever that God exists and obviously that means that there can be no objective evidence that He has told anyone anything. But regardless, I think there is no doubt at all that a rather enormous number of people all throughout history certainly have said that they do know that God exists and that it was "quite clear" to them at least that He has told them things. Although this proves nothing objectively, it is rather natural for them to use these words ("told us quite clearly"), and you can scoff till you are blue in the face and it will not change this one little bit.

[Keep The Reason]

Matthew 6:24-33, 10:29-31

Obviously by "told us quite clearly" I am refering to Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of God and thus who read the Bible to see what God has to say to them.

Ah, so you mean "I read it in a book" and you haven't actually been told anything. Just seeking clarity here.

What I do not mean is that there is any objective evidence whatsoever that God exists and obviously that mean that there can be no objective evidence that He has told anyone anything. But regardless, I think there is no doubt at all that a rather enormous number of people all throughout history certainly have said that they do know that God exist and that it was "quite clear" to them at least that He has told them things

Lots of people beleve their horoscope has some special meaning but it doesn't. The "many people believe" argument isn't even an argument. It's a poll which gives us no truth knowledge other than "many people believe X."

[cleve]

How do you define/explain this "certainty of absolutes"? What tangible indicators are you focusing on that tell you that you have arrived there/in that area? What elements does your range of values consist of, and how are the variables expressed/indicated? Could you give some examples of what you consider to be "good critical thinking"? Any websites you can recommend on the subject?
(For myself, I would believe in an excellent form of "good critical thinking" - if such a thing existed this side of the sun. From my own experiences, I haven't found even "good critical thinking" to have been used very successful/effective, because it is merely a tool - which is only as good as its user. Many good tools have been destroyed by users as a result of poor attitudes and workmanship. My personal preference would be to see critical thinking used to its ultimate level of effectiveness; but critcal thinking seems to show weakness when it isn't respected properly or put to use correctly. In sum, I just hate to see critical thinking get misued so much in the "throw-away" world that we live in today.)
If critical thinking has lost its flavor - like salt - why shouldn't it be trampled over with men's feet? After being misused, how can critical thinking be "recycled" and "reused" more effectively?

[Keep The Reason]

How do you define/explain this "certainty of absolutes"?

Who has offered the idea of "certainty of absolutes"? You're quoting, so whom are you quoting?

What tangible indicators are you focusing on that tell you that you have arrived there/in that area?

"Arrived" where? Knowledge is an ever growing and dynamic paradigm; you never "arrive there" -- you can categorize certain beliefs as no longer tenable (like, Santa Claus as the cause of gifts appearing under a pine tree on December 25th is to be categorized as "mythology", but if one day an elf in a red suit with a reindeer-propulsion sleigh is discovered going from house to house dropping off gifts and what not, you'd have to reevaluate the categorization of the tale as mythology), but as more data becomes available, you reassess your body of knowledge. This process never ends (until you crap out, but then other people continue it).

What elements does your range of values consist of, and how are the variables expressed/indicated? Could you give some examples of what you consider to be "good critical thinking"? Any websites you can recommend on the subject?

You'll need to define what you mean by "elements" regarding values. I thought you'd be perfectly able to google search "good critical thinking skills" yourself, but I took the few moments necessary to offer you the Critical Thinking Community Website which offers this well written definition of what constitutes "good critical thinking":

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.

Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.

(For myself, I would believe in an excellent form of "good critical thinking" - if such a thing existed this side of the sun. From my own experiences, I haven't found even "good critical thinking" to have been used very successful/effective, because it is merely a tool - which is only as good as its user. Many good tools have been destroyed by users as a result of poor attitudes and workmanship. My personal preference would be to see critical thinking used to its ultimate level of effectiveness; but critcal thinking seems to show weakness when it isn't respected properly or put to use correctly. In sum, I just hate to see critical thinking get misued so much in the "throw-away" world that we live in today.)

Your personal desires notwithstanding, anything can be misused; however, I do not see any inherent weakness in adopting critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is a discipline, like science; one can come to faulty conclusions of course, but "not using it correctly" by definition requires you to abandon it, and mean you are not actually adopting the discipline. for instance, to use the use of science as an analogy, if I leave out a key component step in the scientific method, I am, by definition, no longer using the scientific method.

If critical thinking has lost its flavor - like salt - why shouldn't it be trampled over with men's feet? After being misused, how can critical thinking be "recycled" and "reused" more effectively?

What "flavor" are you referring to? Critical thinking is a discipline-- you used it to type out your sentences in your reply, though a very simple level of it. So what are you talking about when you ask if it should be trampled over with men's feet? Let's take a look at what that sentence might look like if you wrote it after having trampled upon critical thinking and dismissed its effectiveness:

;roeugtj43p9thu5p9thq409rifp39irkg[5r9yiq3958tm[32879ruudwkfrjgrefjne

[cleve]

Keep the Reason,
Sorry for screwing up the post. Here's another try at it:

"Lots of people beleve their horoscope has some special meaning but it doesn't. The "many people believe" argument isn't even an argument. It's a poll which gives us no truth knowledge other than "many people believe X."

Why won't you allow horoscopes to have some special meaning to some people? It must have some sort of special meaning to some people, because they are willing to pay money to have their horoscopes read.
If you think that the "many people believe" argument isn't even an argument, then why are we arguing as to its validity as an argument? Is it an arguable argument, or isn't it? Where do you make the distinctions?
When you state that there is no truth knowledge even though people believe X, if you think that there is no truth knowledge in gray areas - based on what people do or don't think or believe - we are in trouble.

If you continue to deny what is possible/probable - ultimately reasonable - you cannot attain all truth. This is the end result of your kind of thinking - it becomes merely black & white. Why don't you think that gray areas carry any truth in them?

[Keep The Reason]

Keep the Reason,
Sorry for screwing up the post. Here's another try at it:

"Lots of people beleve their horoscope has some special meaning but it doesn't. The "many people believe" argument isn't even an argument. It's a poll which gives us no truth knowledge other than "many people believe X."

Why won't you allow horoscopes to have some special meaning to some people? It must have some sort of special meaning to some people, because they are willing to pay money to have their horoscopes read.

If you think that the "many people believe" argument isn't even an argument, then why are we arguing as to its validity as an argument? Is it an arguable argument, or isn't it? Where do you make the distinctions?
When you state that there is no truth knowledge even though people believe X, if you think that there is no truth knowledge in gray areas - based on what people do or don't think or believe - we are in trouble.

Because mitchell used the argument, and it sucks as an argument.

I make the distinction on premises that claim to have predictive value actually having predictive value. My "distinctions" reside not on some arbitrary line I come up with, but taking the ideology's claim at face value and seeing if the facts fit its claims.

For instance, horoscopes and astrology claim to make sound predictions for people's lives based on "where the stars and planets are". I take that premise and see if it holds any water. If it doesn't (and it doesn't), then I discard it as nonsense. How many people still hold it dear is meaningless to me; it's like saying "Well a lot of people hold Zeus dear" would be particularly meaningless to you. I recognize they do hold astrology dear, but so what? They're still wrong, aren't they (the answer is "yes, they are wrong")?

Here's another example: Christianity claims that belief in Jesus will be your salvation from sin. I look to see if that premise adheres to the facts.

Well, there is no evidence of heaven, hell, god, sin, messiahs, the need for messiahs, salvation, or need for faith in any of those premises; they are, like astrology, rooted in mere assertion without any facts to back them up. Therefore, I discard the premise as nonsense. Granted, we'd all agree that if only one person held such a view we'd be comfortable describing that one person as "insane", but since there is "sanity" in numbers, and there's a lot of people that believe the previous premise, Christianity gets a "pass". That doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

If you continue to deny what is possible/probable - ultimately reasonable - you cannot attain all truth. This is the end result of your kind of thinking - it becomes merely black & white. Why don't you think that gray areas carry any truth in them?

Well, the assertion of a supernatural realm is outside of the rational by definition so I consider the claim unreasonable. It also has the distinct failing of asserting a mysterious realm we cannot know as some kind of "solution" to various mysteries of a realm we can know. not only is that irrational as an approach, it's idiotic no less. The rest of your response is a misinterpretation of my position and thus merely a straw man. I don't consider gray areas devoid of truth, and I highly value the "what is possible?" scenario. Hell, scientists do it every day.

It's just after ten thousand years of endless drivel and the same dreary chin music from theists, the assertions of theism have left the building. They are nonsensical, irrational, and at best an idiotic approach to try to explain the rational natural realm. You act as if your theism is some new and exciting assertion; it's not. It's been around a long long time and in all that time hasn't moved an inch closer to truth. In fact, it's only grounded in gray areas. The real problem here is your side of the fence wouldn't have a black or a white if its life depended on it (and it does, which is why we can conclude without any black or white, it's dead).

[cleve]

Keep The Reason,
A journey [path of truth] need not be along a fence.

[Moonwood the Hare]

The trouble I have with you Keep the Reason is that although you claim to be an advocate of critical thinking you don't seem to use it very much. If for example I make some kind of claim, say for example the claim that not all truth claims need to be based on evidence on order to be valid then instead of examining my claim and considering whether there are any valid truth claims that can be made without evidence you will simply repeat your request for evidence as if it were already established that all claims need evidence. You do not seem to be willing to have your own presuppositions critically examined.

To take another example recently you made a claim that Marxism is a form of religion. We went on to establish that you really meant Stalinism not Marxism. And it appeared that you were arguing this on the grounds that Stalinists worship something. I felt this was in interesting argument and one which could easily be subject to critical thinking. You have said that critical thinking demands precision and clarity. So naturally I ask you to clarify why you think worship is a defining feature of religion. It is fairly clear that not all religions involve worship, for example many forms of Buddhism do not, and you are presumably going to respond by saying that in that case Buddhism, at least in the forms that do not involve worship is not really a religion. Then you have the issue that Stalinists regard themselves as anti-religious and do no believe that what they do is worship. So you are working with a definition of religion which does not seem to fit with reality. Surely you need to make some kind of case for why we should accept this understanding of religion. You seem remarkably keen to avoid critical thinking and very prone to treating your theories and interpretations as dogmas. I am still hoping you will respond to my last post especially on this matter of what you think religion is.

There is also a problem with the definition of critical thinking you have offered. I know it is not your own definition but you have quoted it with approval even if you have not had time to think critically about it.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

The difficulty here is that the demand for accuracy precision etc is being held to be something that transcends subject matters and this ignores the fact, which was pointed out two and a half thousand years ago by Aristotle, that not all subject matters can admit the same degree of precision and clarity. In more recent times the attempt to squeeze all subject matters into the same methodological mould has caused a great deal of difficulty. Sometimes this has taken the form of assuming as you sometimes do that there is a universal scientific method which transcends all particular sciences and sometimes critical thinking is assumed to be universal with no regard given to the need to adapt our critical method to the subject matter we are dealing with. You seem to accept this when you use very crude and uncritical psychological models to explain people's behaviour, as though you think that psychological theories do not need to have the precision of theories in say physics but then you throw all that out of the window when it suits you and start making demands for precision and clarity. Are you working with some kind of clearer method at some deeper level so that you have definite ideas about when you need or need not be clear or are you just being a bit vague about it all?

[Keep The Reason]

To take another example recently you made a claim that Marxism is a form of religion. We went on to establish that you really meant Stalinism not Marxism.

Okay, that was a typo; a mistake.

And it appeared that you were arguing this on the grounds that Stalinists worship something. I felt this was in interesting argument and one which could easily be subject to critical thinking. You have said that critical thinking demands precision and clarity. So naturally I ask you to clarify why you think worship is a defining feature of religion.

Why do you aver that I said worship is a defining feature of religion? It's a defining feature of Christianity, but then-- it also was a defining feature of Stalinism, and it's presently a defining feature of the North Korean model. You're tilting at windmills that don't exist, Moonwood.

It is fairly clear that not all religions involve worship, for example many forms of Buddhism do not, and you are presumably going to respond by saying that in that case Buddhism, at least in the forms that do not involve worship is not really a religion. Then you have the issue that Stalinists regard themselves as anti-religious and do no believe that what they do is worship.

People can worship a whole lot of things. Some people worship money, others worship sex with women. What is a defining feature of theism however is that of worshiping a god. But you're spinning like a Dervish on the word "worship" and the only person with the problem on the word here... is you.

So you are working with a definition of religion which does not seem to fit with reality. Surely you need to make some kind of case for why we should accept this understanding of religion. You seem remarkably keen to avoid critical thinking and very prone to treating your theories and interpretations as dogmas. I am still hoping you will respond to my last post especially on this matter of what you think religion is.

Religion, as it is commonly understood, is a doctrinal ideology that turns primarily on the belief in a supernatural realm, with a god, and with various claims about what happens after ones dies. Religion is a specialized sort of ideology; one that crosses into metaphysics for its core claims. Before you get all wound up tilting at a different set of windmills that aren't extant, this doesn't mean that other ideologies don't exist, or people cannot be fanatical about them, or even fervent to appear as religious about believing them. But for religion, as it's commonly understood, you need all the supernatural claptrap like god, heaven, hell, etc.

There is also a problem with the definition of critical thinking you have offered. I know it is not your own definition but you have quoted it with approval even if you have not had time to think critically about it.

The difficulty here is that the demand for accuracy precision etc is being held to be something that transcends subject matters and this ignores the fact, which was pointed out two and a half thousand years ago by Aristotle, that not all subject matters can admit the same degree of precision and clarity.

So what? In those instances, you then are best served by reserving judgment. If there are factors out a premise that are not at hand or attainable, then you incorporate that into your approach and acknowledge it.

Here's an example of a person who doesn't do this: "The bible says it, I believe it, and that's the end of it."

The previous comment is made by people who abandoning critical thinking and refuse to acknowledge that they don't have all the facts; that some of the facts are, as you just noted, beyond the same degree of precision and clarity. And in such cases, rather than entrenching and insisting one is right, it's the mark of a well reasoned individual to acknowledge the weakness of their position.

Now, when you do the studies, you find that atheists readily admit to being #6 on the Dawkins scale (#7 being "Certain no god exists"; #6 being, Fairly certain, but not utterly positive that god does not exist"). On the theists side of the same equation, you find by far the number of #1 believers is vast-- #1 being, "Absolutely certain god exists." Well, your issue should be with them, rather than me. Of course, they are your kinsmen so I don't expect to hear much criticism of therm form you. The truth is, I'm actually not at all "dogmatic" about my conclusions of atheism; and my years of critical thinking on the matter came about long before you and I ever swapped 1's and 0's, so you're seeing me at post-conclusion. I have concluded that your religious models are nonsense. I've reached that point in my journey, whether you like it or not, or whether you think my giving voice to my conclusions haven't had the necessary decades of critical thinking behind them.

I doubt very much you go around asking theists, "Well, now, do you have this theistic conclusion based on deep study and well reasoned consideration?" I know you don't bother doing that here; you hardly say a word to the other theists. Coincidentally, those very theists are "on your side of the fence" and you're not looking behind you, you are looking over the fence and seeing only me. But take my word for it-- those theists are standing right behind you. But you never task them on their approach to their conclusions, do you?

In more recent times the attempt to squeeze all subject matters into the same methodological mould has caused a great deal of difficulty.

To echo Ethan Allen-- are you stating the above with reason, or without reason? Look, I just find the comment utterly laughable. "Squeeze all subject matters into one mold" is funny coming from everyone who says it who are using reason to say it. Fine. Don't use that one mold, then. Go find something else to use. And when you do, try communicating it to us without using the mold you've had to abandon.

Or, acknowledge we do use one mold to investigate these issues and travel on these journeys-- and that "mold" is called Reason.

[Dr Mundo]

I don't know what you mean by magic, and in any sense in which I would use the word magic is not involved. As far as I can see this is an example of what Richard Dawkins would call the argument from personal incredulity and as such it has no intellectual force although the emotional impact is considerable and I don't want to dismiss that. none the less the fact that you find something incredible is no reason for thinking it cannot happen.

It’s not that I think it cannot happen just because I think its ridicules. It’s just that I think magical thinking like that is very bizarre. Please note that I am not saying it’s impossible for it to happen, I don’t how many times I have to make that distinction. I thought by now you guys would understand what I was trying to say. IF I had said, because I find it ridicules I know it cannot happen, then you would have a point I suppose. But you don’t, because I didn’t.
As to the magical aspect, if God did heal you how the hell else would you classify it other than magic? Jesus turning water to wine seems like magic as well. So to does spontaneous healing of cancer because of God’s intervention. What process would God use to cure you of the cancer you had telepathically asked to be cured of?

But suppose God wants me to ask for things.

Why would/should I?

Why should I put limiters on him.

I don’t follow you here??

Besides it is your idea that his existence cannot be known not mine.

No its not my idea… it’s what damn near all of you theists have told us atheists here on these forums. We asked for any demonstration of your God entity and you all say you cannot provide because it cannot be demonstrated. You see why this is so hard, I don’t understand one bit of what any of you are talking about. Now what my idea is, is that I have no idea about this God. If I were pressed I would likely say, that given the history of religions and the knowledge that we have that people make up gods all the time I would be inclined to say there probably isn’t a god. But I wouldn’t ever go that far, I have no evidence to back that up and so I cannot hold that position. Provide some that there is and I will believe, I still wouldn’t worship but I would no longer be an atheist. Until you provide the evidence sufficient for us to accept the existence of a god though I will remain an atheist.

The God you are describing is the God of Deism and yes frankly it would be incredible if such a God ever intervened in creation. But then I never pretended to believe in that God.

Again you lost me. How did I describe a deistic god?

The attitude to that is one that I sometimes come across. You meet a person who is suffering and he says, 'Yes but compared to the real suffering in the world mine is trivial'. This generally means that the person is cutting himself off from his own feelings. He has internalised the idea that really he does not matter. I would not want to reinforce that state of mind and neither I believe does God. Feeling too guilty to feel your own pain is a desperate state to be in but it is where many in the West are. A few years ago I saw an interview with a newsreader who had been assaulted and she said 'this has brought home to me how much evil there is in the world and at the time I thought, 'but the stuff you read out every day must bring that home to you.' But to say that is to ignore the first person perspective. I think God wants to be involved in the detail of people's lives, even the affluent.

My thoughts on that where for the people treating God like a genie in a lamp, where a prayer(wish) is granted by asking for it. Say curing you of cancer. Or help with a loan modification on your house. If you could wish for something like that in the real world, why not wish(pray) for something that has significant impact on the most amount of people. To wish for just yourself seems a bit odd to me at least.

Well I honestly see more harm being done by the supposedly humble attitude you are advocating.

“Supposedly”? Okay say whatever you want about it, but I still think what you are doing is silly and in general religion is not doing enough good to outweigh the bad it has, not to mention is all undemonstrated.

I don't think Christians have avoided the issues of world poverty, do you? And it seems to me that it is the false humility you are advocating that is really punitive for in this view the person with cancer must look on the suffering of the world and find no place for his own pain. How is that kind?

How have you got that we must find no place for our own pain from what I was saying. I am participating less and less on these forums and for that I am sorry because I really liked it when I was more active. But as the time goes by and I read more of how you and the others misrepresent what atheism is and what each of our own unique different perspectives are, it makes it hard for me to even think of a response that I have not already given. Which is stop misrepresenting my views, which I don’t suspect you will do, so I guess we will just have to soldier on with this same old song and dance.

[Dr Mundo]

No aside from the problems in your use of the word "magically", that isn't quite right. I don't think that there is any doubt that Moonwood and Rian believe that God DOES have the power to heal people, just as I do.

If you believe that God does have the “power” (magic power??) to heal people can you , for the love of God, enlighten me on what process he uses to heal your cancer? Asking in your head, and then having an all “powerful” being remove any type of dieses from your body seems to be a whole lot like magic. Seems like the definition of magic. Anyway please give me some insight on how you know God is healing cancer, and what that process is. If you don’t have that knowledge then stop claiming that it’s a fact that this God does these things. Well don’t stop, but just don’t expect me not to call the people who do, out on it.

Cancer does go into remission. Does that count as magical?

Does a flower growing in a garden count as magical? No its natural, our bodies are known to have processes in place to fight of infections, bacteria and dieses. Claiming that an entity with infinite power was responsible for the cancer diminishing from your body does count as magical though (at least to me).

But regardless prayer can never be a magical means of healing people because people do not and cannot ever control what God does.

How do you know that people cannot control what God does?

That does not mean that we cannot ask. However, I think that Moonwood is absolutely correct that the primary purpose of prayer is NOT to control the actions of God but rather to change the person who is praying. BUT that does not at all mean that God cannot answer our prayers or that He never intervenes in any way in response to those prayers.

it doesn’t mean that god cannot answer our prayers I know. It doesn’t mean that he can either, it doesn’t mean anything.

That is YOU whom you are describing and you alone. I don't see anything silly about it at all. There are a lot of doctors who would not see anything silly about it either. There is a great deal that doctors have absolutely no control over and often all they are left with is hoping, wishing or praying that the patient manages to pull through.

I have no issue with wishful thinking. In fact I engage in it all the time. But I don’t think that just because I want or pray for something to god that I am more likely to get it than if I didn’t.

Now what would be silly is if you think that ALL you needed to do would be to pray and that this would cure your cancer. That would indeed be a magical type of thinking –

Wait a minute……. This is exactly what I was talking about this whole time.

No. Again you completely miss the point.

Your attempt to force it into simpleton black and white, either or terms is what is really idiotic here.

So you think that somebody thinking of thoughts, and that a being that exists everywhere and can hear those and everyone else’s thoughts at the same time is easy for me to believe? How can you not understand that I find it extremely difficult to believe that? To me it is black and white with respects to my prior stamen. You either believe that, or you don’t. I don’t, I have no reason to.

The arrogance here is YOURS. Your declaration that the existence of God can't even be known is something which YOU cannot possibly know.

right and now that both you and MW misunderstood what I meant there means I probably worded it wrong. I don’t believe that, I thought you guys did. I was stating it like you would if say you knew I loved red cars. And you said, “you picked a green car even though red is the best color, why?” that wouldn’t mean you think red is the best you were just stating that red was, for me, the best choice in car color. You should know by now my stance on the existence of God. See the post above addressed to MW for more clarification. I do need you to clarify it for me though, Do you or do you not believe that the existence of God can be demonstrated or shown to be true so that we can all know it? How can you demonstrate this god’s existence? You have all told me in different ways you don’t think it can be, so make it clear and simple please as I obviously didn’t understand you last attempts to clear that up for me. Thanks.

The greatest being and creator of the universe has told us quite clearly that He is intimately concerned and involved in our personal lives.

how can you even say something like this.. quite clearly “told” us eh? How is that?

He is indeed looking out for us. BUT His persespective and priorities are vastly different from ours.

Again, how do you know this!??? I am absolutely tired of just going along to get along. I will not just sit back and let you make assertions like this without pressing you to give us the information and procedure you used to arrive at this conclusion. I clearly think this is just a flat out assertion with no good evidence to back it up, but I am willing to listen to what you have to say about the process used to be able to sit at your keyboard, and type out what you learned. I am all ears. Or eyes w/e.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Keep the Reason. You said:

I would say Stalism is every bit a religion as is that of fundamentalist Christianity

So I asked you to define what you meant by religion and you replied:

Religion, as it is commonly understood, is a doctrinal ideology that turns primarily on the belief in a supernatural realm, with a god, and with various claims about what happens after ones dies. Religion is a specialized sort of ideology; one that crosses into metaphysics for its core claims. Before you get all wound up tilting at a different set of windmills that aren't extant, this doesn't mean that other ideologies don't exist, or people cannot be fanatical about them, or even fervent to appear as religious about believing them. But for religion, as it's commonly understood, you need all the supernatural claptrap like god, heaven, hell, etc.

I would have thought it was clear that I was asking what you meant by religion not asking for a 'popular definition' Anyway according to the definition Stalinism is not as you had claimed a religion. Unless your point was that while this is a popular definition yours is different. If it is why not tell us what your definition of religion is; that is the one you need to defend and in order to defend it you need first to tell us what it is. So when you say:

I would say Stalism is every bit a religion as is that of fundamentalist Christianity, it's merely the object of worship which has changed.

You can see why it looks like you are saying that Stalinism and Fundamentalist Christianity are both religions because both entail worship. If that was not your point then I am not clear what your point was. So I went on to ask whether you were saying that worship was a defining feature of religion. You say:

Why do you aver that I said worship is a defining feature of religion? It's a defining feature of Christianity, but then-- it also was a defining feature of Stalinism

I hope you can see why I asked now. It looks like your real point was that Christianity and Stalinism are similar because both involve worship. Of course the Stalinists would not see their relation to the state as one involving worship so the parallel is not exact. The original context of this was that I had suggested that the religious persecution of both Stalinism and the Inquisition stems from the fact that both pathologise views different to their own. Stalin in particular saw religion as a form of mental illness, a view similar to your own. The inquisition would tend to talk of spiritual sickness. Now you seem to be suggesting that the real common ground is worship and that it is the act of worship rather than religion that causes people to persecute those who are different. We could check this out by asking whether people ever worship without persecuting or whether people ever persecute without worshipping. This will be difficult because you are seeing worship where those you see as worshipping would not see it. It seems then that you are putting forward a hypothesis in a form that makes it almost impossible to subject it to critical analysis. You are not only using the word religion in an unconventional sense without troubling to define it, you are also using the word worship in the same way and in both cases your argument depends on exploiting the ambiguity created by there being these two meanings.

[Moonwood the Hare]

To echo Ethan Allen-- are you stating the above with reason, or without reason? Look, I just find the comment utterly laughable. "Squeeze all subject matters into one mold" is funny coming from everyone who says it who are using reason to say it. Fine. Don't use that one mold, then. Go find something else to use. And when you do, try communicating it to us without using the mold you've had to abandon.

Or, acknowledge we [i8]do[/i] use one mold to investigate these issues and travel on these journeys-- and that "mold" is called Reason.

Well you were talking about critical thinking which you have said entails precision and clarity, now you have shifted to talking about reason. I had raised the question of whether the need for clarity and precision is uniform across all subject matters and you agreed it was not. And when you talk about reason as always I think you are being quite fuzzy about what it is, using it with several different meanings and exploiting this ambiguity as part of your argument. I have asked several times what you mean by reason and I don't recall getting a reply.

The laws of inference for example can be held to be part of a universal method, so can the law of non-contradiction but the problems start to come in when you try to expand on this method and include within reason ideas like demonstrably or clarity. For example psychology is sometimes held to deal with the mind - psyche literally means soul but whether we call it mind or soul this is something which cannot be observed directly. So some psychologists took the view that psychology in order to be valid as a science would have to confine itself to behaviour which could be demonstrated. Although this method produced some very remarkable and valuable results it is now generally conceded that it lead to a distorted picture of both human beings and animals. I understand that Dr. Mundo thinks he can solve this problem by using a weak definition of demonstrability so that anything for which there is evidence would be held to have been demonstrated but this seems to me to be retreating way to far as well as ignoring the fundamental laws of logic which we all seem to agree are universal. (I've pointed this out several times so I won't labour it)

So what? In those instances, you then are best served by reserving judgment. If there are factors out a premise that are not at hand or attainable, then you incorporate that into your approach and acknowledge it.

Here's an example of a person who doesn't do this: "The bible says it, I believe it, and that's the end of it."

The previous comment is made by people who abandoning critical thinking and refuse to acknowledge that they don't have all the facts; that some of the facts are, as you just noted, beyond the same degree of precision and clarity. And in such cases, rather than entrenching and insisting one is right, it's the mark of a well reasoned individual to acknowledge the weakness of their position.

Now, when you do the studies, you find that atheists readily admit to being #6 on the Dawkins scale (#7 being "Certain no god exists"; #6 being, Fairly certain, but not utterly positive that god does not exist"). On the theists side of the same equation, you find by far the number of #1 believers is vast-- #1 being, "Absolutely certain god exists." Well, your issue should be with them, rather than me. Of course, they are your kinsmen so I don't expect to hear much criticism of therm form you. The truth is, I'm actually not at all "dogmatic" about my conclusions of atheism; and my years of critical thinking on the matter came about long before you and I ever swapped 1's and 0's, so you're seeing me at post-conclusion. I have concluded that your religious models are nonsense. I've reached that point in my journey, whether you like it or not, or whether you think my giving voice to my conclusions haven't had the necessary decades of critical thinking behind them.

I thought that was one of the weakest parts of Dawkins book. The problems I have with it are:
1. He treats religious belief as a scientific hypothesis. This makes some sense if one regards a hypothesis as a type of belief or a belief as a type of hypothesis but are they really the same?
2. Dawkins knows that religious belief is not really a scientific hypothesis. It was pointed out to him in an exchange with Mike Poole many years ago. Poole pointed out that he was skipping between regarding religious belief as a hypothesis and not doing so as for example when he tried to distinguish the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics from religious belief by saying it is a scientific theory not a religious belief. Dawkins has never taken this point on board
3. He is assuming that in order to be valid any belief must be testable in the way a scientific hypothesis must be testable. He never states this let alone defends it but his argument makes no sense without this assumption. But this is plainly not the case.
4. He uses the concept of probability in a very ambiguous way. He talks about theories having probabilities which can be described using percentages but he never indicates how he would assess the percentage of probability he would ascribe to any theory. If he has found a method for doing this the scientific community would love to know about it! But of course he hasn't and so when he assess the probability of something being true he means he is making an informed judgement. This is after he has said a few pages earlier that we should not make such judgements which he calls gut judgements.
5. He ignores the logical asymmetry of affirmation and denial. This is a very central point in twentieth century philosophy of science and it seems bizarre he would overlook it. To explain with an example. Suppose there are two people one of whom claims there is a cat in a certain house and one who claims there is probably not. The one who claims there is a cat does so because he is standing in the house holding the cat. The one who says there is probably not does so because he has just made a thorough search of the house and found no cat. Clearly the second is right in his probability claim and the first is right in his certainty claim. (I should also add that if I am certain there is a cat because I am experiencing it I do not become more certain if you walk into the room and I show you the cat. My certainty does not increase because I can demonstrate what I experience to you. So I think the attempt to ground the validity of experiential justification on demonstrability fails.)
6. It is not clear whether Dawkins is talking about psychological confidence that a belief is true or warranted certainty. Again he seems to exploit this ambiguity.

So all in all I think the Dawkins scale is a bit pointless.

I doubt very much you go around asking theists, "Well, now, do you have this theistic conclusion based on deep study and well reasoned consideration?" I know you don't bother doing that here; you hardly say a word to the other theists. Coincidentally, those very theists are "on your side of the fence" and you're not looking behind you, you are looking over the fence and seeing only me. But take my word for it-- those theists are standing right behind you. But you never task them on their approach to their conclusions, do you?

I don't believe that belief needs to be justified by argument in order to be valid. I keep saying that. If however someone claims that their beliefs are a consequence of critical thinking I expect them to be able to justify that claim. Actually I have said several times that I don't believe that beliefs are warranted by faith. I've said it to Aaron when he makes claims of that kind and I've said it to you when you say this is what Christian's believe. I've pointed out to you that this is the Kierkegaardian view that has been adopted by some evangelicals in recent years and that I do not accept it.