Slashdot Mirror

The argument holds perfectly true. [T]hat same demographics page shows that 75% of the US population is 'White' (which also includes non-euro originating caucasians but in general is a euro originating group) and political leadership is going to reflect that when you look at all the numbers.

You missed the point. Your original comment suggested that a politician must be Christian because 88% of population is Christian. (“...[T]ell me again why being Christian shouldn't be a pre-requisite...”) Are you trying to say that black people should not be allowed to hold office because 75% of the population is white?

The various churches do not hold any particularly powerful sway in goverment, else you'd see an entirely different government.

Surely you are joking.

We have (attempted) abortion bans, the FDA blocking over-the-counter distribution of Plan B, bans on homosexual marriage, an unbalanced policy on Israel, and both tax breaks for and government hand-outs to churches.

And the present Administration strongly professes religion. Bush (used to) conference with Ted Haggard weekly and says he asks God for guidance when making decisions.

so it's not a theocracy but the fact that the majority of the leadership of a country has similar beliefs as the populace shows no correlation with theocracy either.... you are just rambling and trying to show some connection because you feel disenfrachised by the fact that your personal beliefs are not represented to your satisfaction. Understandable but you'll just have to get used to it... as long as your personal beliefs are a minority view in the general populace.

I am the first to state, in this discussion, this country is not a theocracy.

And I honestly have no idea how you draw these conclusions. Black people, as you point out, are the minority and yet black people are often elected in spite of a majoriy of white voters. Meanwhile, going back to the original comment, atheists are immediately disqualified and therein lies the dissonance. One minority remains eligable for public office but the other does not.

stop whining.

Stop equating calls for fairness with whining.

Religion has nothing to do with whether a person's decisions are grounded in reality or not.

It most certainly does. If our President started telling us that he asks The Flying Spaghetti for guidance in morning prayer, we would rightly think he was insane. Or if not FSM, Zeus or Thor or Baal. Why does belief in a relatively modern deity somehow deserve respect where belief in Ra or the Tooth Fairy does not?

Saddam Hussein was a public Aetheist and no one could say that his decisions were grounded in reality, at least not our version of it.

I never made that assertion. Quit putting “words in my mouth” (this is twice now). Even atheists can be stupid (and I will gladly line up the crack-pots in my camp), but theism is a clear indicator that the person is rejecting reality to some degree. Not a condition I want in people who have the power to start wars.

First of all, nots confuse theism with a belief in the afterlife. They are correlated, but not so closely as one would believe.

Second of all, one possible position for an atheist to take is ethical egoism. It's not the only position, but if an atheist held that, he might well choose to send other people off to war so he can reap the benefits without bearing the costs.

We really should be looking for a Hindu or Buddhist president who believes that Karma -- the results of his actions -- determines the conditions of his future rebirth.

The correlation of religion to morality is in any case ovverrated. St Paul, in his letter to Titus, said, "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." John Milton, in in work Aereopagitica uses this to argue that censorship is useless. It impedes the pursuit of virtue without impeding the pursuit of vice. But in a larger sense, this is true not only of knowledge, but of belief: virtuous men and women find good in ideas that other virtuous people disbelieve, and wicked people will find justification for evil in those same beliefs.

No. The only logical choice given the evidence is to be agnostic. With neither proof or lack of proof to prove or disprove the concept of a supreme being that somehow dictates reality, I have to choose simply to not know.

Now some atheists and science types might claim Occam's razor (as you mentioned), but I'm never quick to rush to judgment like that. I'm not sure Occam's razor PROVES anything. It is sometimes helpful in a situation where there is more than one possibility, and the simple explanation is immediately implicated by "Occam's Razor", but even in those instances, further testing and evidence is generally necessary.

I mean, Two Hundred years ago, "Occam's Razor" would easily have disproved all of quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean that are current understanding is vastly superior.

Simply stated: We do not know enough about our Universe and it's structure to assume anything about it's meaning and origins.

Anybody who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves with wishful thinking.

If "God" or some other prehistoric human invention showed up in the flesh tomorrow and held a press conference, well then, I would have no problem acknowledging his/her/their/it's existence(s).

Until that happens, or further scientific inquiry somehow fully disproves the notion, pretending to know either way is the grossest form of irrationality, and purely the domain of the idiot, which, funnily enough, our species seems to have no small genius in propagating.

I'm no arrogant ass, either. I'm one of the idiots like most of us. I just happen not to be an idiot with regards to THIS topic. Any of my ex-girlfriends would surely have no problems pointing out a myriad of various other idiocies that I am quite guilty of, however.

Part of the genius of The Simpsons, and Homer's character in particular, are the subtle truths that sometimes get uttered out of context, seemingly disproving them, and yet subtly underlining them in another way that is, for some (myself included), quite humorous.

rhY

> Of course there is no way to disprove the idea of a god or gods. Neither is there a way to
> prove their existence, either. Hence, believing either that none exist or that there is
> definitively one or more is demonstrably stupid.

There is no way disprove that a small apple pie is in orbit around Jupiter. Neither is there a way to prove it exists. Nonetheless, I believe that there isn't one. Disbelieving in entities based on lack of evidence is called Occam's razor, and is a part of the scientific method. You may call it stupid if it makes you feel better (I don't care), but the scientific method and Occam's Razor has served us well, so I believe in them. They key, of course, is to be willing to readjust your beliefs when new evidence turn up.

In my world view, neither theism or atheism are stupid. There are plenty of evidence (in the form of miracles) for the existence of gods. The quality of the evidence is debatable though. Some are impressed with the atheism, and thus believe in gods. Some think little of it, and take the default position in lack of evidence, which is disbelief.

And finally some are not bright enough to understand why others can reach different conclusions based on the same evidence than they themselves do, and resort to calling everybody else stupid. It is the Homer Simpson position: "Everybody does everything because they are stupid". Very popular on the net.

Because monotheism, or theism in general, or any -ism for that matter, is divisive, self-important, and exclusionary by design.

Therefore it impedes progress.

Therefore it is stupid.

Oh, and its a Negativland reference anyway. Sorry you didn't get it.

"Please tell me how you think theism is falsifiable - please tell me of any measurement I can make to show that your belief that the universe is governed by laws set by an omnipotent god is in any way false. Please tell me how you think theism which lacks this basic feature of any scietific statement could in some way be the ground of the scientific method."

The scientific method is not a scientific falsifiable theory. It is how you falsify or confirm scientific theories.

In a similar way, theism can be shown to be true because it must be assumed in order to make sense out of reality and our experience. If God is the ground of all being, this makes sense. The denial of theism destroys the ground of rationality, morality, etc.

Non-theists have to borrow from theism while denying the necessary basis for it.

Obviously, I'm just giving you a broad overview of the argument.

Probabilities still rest on the future being like the past.

Where's faith in this equation?

The only "ideology" of science, if you want to call it that, is to go where the evidence leads you, no matter how unsettling, disruptive or embarrasing the truth may turn out to be.

Nope.

Science is a tool, a methodology. And a tool per se is clearly not an ideology. But this is a red herring. No one can use a tool without bringing their ideology with them.

The ideologies of scientific practice are so intertwined with science itself that they often aren't even noticed, much less questioned. Examples include the belief that progress is both inevitable and beneficial (utopianism), or the belief that atheism is automatically more rational than theism.

But my favorite ideology is positivism, which claims that nonscientific statements cannot be true. This might sound plausible, even compelling. But it is not science. A silly example: (1) science cannot establish that humans have unalienable rights, (2) therefore human rights are a mere social fiction. Proposition #1 is empirically valid. Proposition #2 cannot logically follow without first assuming positivism -- it is a thoroughly ideological conclusion, yet often represented as "science" anyway.

It is equally valid to say, (2) human rights do exist (perhaps they are incorrigible, for instance), therefore positivism is a mere social fiction. In fact, this is extraordinarily plausible since all of us believe plenty of nonscientific claims -- such as the reliability of logic and the existence of the universe (rather than the Matrix) -- and we do not consider ourselves irrational for doing so. And Godel, of course, showed us that some of these unprovable beliefs will in fact be true.

The kicker is that philosophers abandoned positivism decades ago after discovering a slight problem: the statement "nonscientific statements cannot be true" is a nonscientific statement. It cannot be established by science. Therefore it is not true. =) Unfortunately, the notion remains firmly entrenched in both academic and popular culture, and I am skeptical that SEFORA will take pains to separate illegitimate ideological conclusions from their very legitimate anti-censorship activities. Pot, kettle, black.

The failure of positivism is an unsettling, disruptive, embarrassing truth that its adherents are frequently unwilling to admit. As Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin famously wrote, "We cannot let a divine foot in the door." And no, I am not defending ID. But it is terribly amusing to see how many objections to ID turn out to be ideological.

--
Dum de dum.

You are trolling but I'll bite.

All scientific statements must be falsifiable - we should be able to test them and show that they are an accurate model of nature or we must show that they fail to describe nature. In which case we don't simply give up - its back to the drawing board to find a better description/model.

Please tell me how you think theism is falsifiable - please tell me of any measurement I can make to show that your belief that the universe is governed by laws set by an omnipotent god is in any way false. Please tell me how you think theism which lacks this basic feature of any scietific statement could in some way be the ground of the scientific method.

If the way nature behaved changed (and I really do mean the structure and character of the laws changing not just varying something like the fine structure constant or finding a new process in some privously unexplored regime) then it would have measurable consequences - astronomers and astrophysicists look into the past on a daily basis and if we find some system that does not obey the same laws you'd better believe that we'd pounce on it and do everything we could to explain it scientifically. Until we find such evidence the scientific method supports the simpler theory that the laws don't change over time and from place to place.

Ofcourse you could argue that the laws always change in such a way to hide the fact that things were different at some point but that clearly is not a scientific theory since its not falsifiable.

So yes until I find convincing evidence that the laws are changing I will support the view that they are not. I don't feel the need to pray to god(s) tonight so the omnipotent one(s) keeps my microwave working tommorrow.

Years of observing doesn't guarantee they will stay the same.

I start with the assumption that the laws of physics are grounded on a God who orders and sustains the universe as He has promised to do.

Physical laws which are rooted on nothing mean they could change, stay the same, go back and forth...who knows?

Miracles doesn't mean the whole paradigm shifts. The possibility of a miracle doesn't necessitate a whole new set of physics each time a miracle theoretically happens.

Rational people have every reason to believe the sun will rise and set on schedule tomorrow. Christians and Jews can't be so sure.

Yeah right, because Christians and Jews by definition are not rational. They would never dream of taking the Bible as anything other that GOD'S LITERAL WORD.

It's not like someone could believe in God and not be stupid is it?

After all no believer would think it's a mashup, would they? I mean no other ancient texts are partially historical, partly allegorical and contain deep symbolic themes - so the bible's probably not any different.

Optionally, the above may be considered sarcasm.

That's funny- what do you think a university degree is at the doctorate level anyway, if not "indoctrination" in a religion?

"Not a religion" is what I think it is. Your definition of religion appears to be so broad and vague that anything can be considered a religion. Making up your own definitions is not helpful. You seem to want to believe that any time any person believes or claims one thing but not another, that constitutes a religion. Any cultural or sociological tradition becomes a "religion". The word loses its meaning.

They look a lot alike to me, the only difference is that scientific reasoning believes in "objective" evidence, but it's just another way of limiting the evidence down and censoring certain heretical voices.

It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of certain kinds of evidence being provably more reliable than others.

It's just how you pick your assumptions.

You can pick your assumptions to make anything valid, but that won't make miracles conform to the known physical laws that we have actual evidence for. If you want to assume the existence of new laws that make Biblical miracles possible, fine, but once again you are merely playing at semantics. Even Biblical apologists don't claim that all miracles conform to anything like known physical laws.

"within natural law" doesn't neccessaily mean "non interventionist", it could also mean "omniscient without needing to be omnipotent".

Omniscience certainly has nothing to do with it. I have no idea what you think non-omnipotence has to do with it, other than perhaps being unable to alter physical laws.

In other words, Rational.

Again with your bizarre private definitions. "Omniscient but non-omnipotent" is not even remotely the same thing as "rational". It is possible to be omniscient and rational, omniscient and irrational, omnipotent and rational, omnipotent and irrational, etc. etc.

I see no use in this conversation when you are going to argue that people are wrong based on redefining words at whim in order to make your claims correct.

Some religions have such a tradition, but that in no way logically implies that the scientific method is a religious tradition. Particularly because religion is not a prerequisite for theorizing, studying, or testing. (Religions have also been historically weak on "testing" in their scholarly traditions, compared to science.)

That's funny- what do you think a university degree is at the doctorate level anyway, if not "indoctrination" in a religion?

Of course it is. The "evidence" and "observation" involved bears little resemblance to that which is used in scientific reasoning.

They look a lot alike to me, the only difference is that scientific reasoning believes in "objective" evidence, but it's just another way of limiting the evidence down and censoring certain heretical voices.

That is a ridiculously unsupported assertion, even for a Biblical apologist.

Not at all. It's just how you pick your assumptions.

In other words, for those theists who ignore the possibility of capricious will of a deity, and assume a non-interventionist deist-type god: i.e., one operationally indistinguishable from natural law.

"within natural law" doesn't neccessaily mean "non interventionist", it could also mean "omniscient without needing to be omnipotent". In other words, Rational.

And isn't obsessing over theorizing, studying, and testing in and of itself an example of a religious tradition?

Some religions have such a tradition, but that in no way logically implies that the scientific method is a religious tradition. Particularly because religion is not a prerequisite for theorizing, studying, or testing. (Religions have also been historically weak on "testing" in their scholarly traditions, compared to science.)

And this is different from say, Vatican I being convinced of the Immaculate Conception of Mary due to the previous 1500 years of debate, evidence, and observation across several different orders of Roman Catholicism?

Of course it is. The "evidence" and "observation" involved bears little resemblance to that which is used in scientific reasoning.

All the so-called "miracles" have scientific explainations.

That is a ridiculously unsupported assertion, even for a Biblical apologist.

Interesting example- but also a completely false one for those who understand gravity and rotational dynamics.

In other words, for those theists who ignore the possibility of capricious will of a deity, and assume a non-interventionist deist-type god: i.e., one operationally indistinguishable from natural law.

The assumption that the laws of physics will stay the same and have stayed the same is a theistic assumption.

Arrant nonsense. A superuniverse with deities can have physical laws that either change with time or do not. So can a supernatural universe without deities.

A non-theist has no reason for assuming that the laws of physics won't change.

It is an assumption from pragmatism, for if the laws of physics changed in unpredictable ways, there is no point in trying to predict anything. It is possible that science will fail because the underlying laws of nature are mutable, but this has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

A theist who believes that the laws of physics are set by an omnipotent God do.

This is also wrong; it is perfectly possible for an omnipotent God to change or violate the laws of physics. (Some would claim that this is precisely what miracles are.) A theist can only do so if one's omnipotent God is assumed to choose not to change the laws of physics once set (e.g., a deist). Your reasoning is circular.

Congratulations. You've managed to get reality exactly wrong. The assumption that the laws of physics will stay the same is the result of years of observing, theorizing, studying and testing.

And isn't obsessing over theorizing, studying, and testing in and of itself an example of a religious tradition?

The interlocking evidence that has been observed repeatedly across different disciplines and over centuries leads sober, reasonable and intelligent people to conclude that certain phenonomena are governed by "laws" that appear to be unchanging.

And this is different from say, Vatican I being convinced of the Immaculate Conception of Mary due to the previous 1500 years of debate, evidence, and observation across several different orders of Roman Catholicism? Sorry, you fail to make your point right off the bat.

If, on the other hand, you're a theist who believes that the laws of physics are set by an ominipotent god, then you believe he can suspend the laws of physics at will.

Actually, that's the difference between Rational Theism (Roman Catholicism) and

There's no reason to believe he hasn't in the past and will do so in the future at any time. Indeed, the Bible asserts that god has indeed suspended the laws of the universe on numerous occasions.

Really? Where? All the so-called "miracles" have scientific explainations. Rare phenomena + fortuneate coincidence != suspending the laws of the universe. Those who do believe so, have a tendency to be fundamentalists- the very group the Pope spoke AGAINST recently, if you read the full speech that made the Islamic world so mad (not just the quote from the Byzantine Emperor), you'll see an appeal to a vision of a God who doesn't change his mind.

Rational people have every reason to believe the sun will rise and set on schedule tomorrow. Christians and Jews can't be so sure.

Interesting example- but also a completely false one for those who understand gravity and rotational dynamics.

Congratulations. You've managed to get reality exactly wrong. The assumption that the laws of physics will stay the same is the result of years of observing, theorizing, studying and testing. The interlocking evidence that has been observed repeatedly across different disciplines and over centuries leads sober, reasonable and intelligent people to conclude that certain phenonomena are governed by "laws" that appear to be unchanging.

If, on the other hand, you're a theist who believes that the laws of physics are set by an ominipotent god, then you believe he can suspend the laws of physics at will. There's no reason to believe he hasn't in the past and will do so in the future at any time. Indeed, the Bible asserts that god has indeed suspended the laws of the universe on numerous occasions.

Is this not written in the Book of the Just? The sun stood still in the middle of the sky and delayed its setting for almost a whole day (making one day into almost two). There was never a day like that before or since, when God obeyed the voice of a man, for God was fighting for Israel." (Joshua 10:12-14)

Rational people have every reason to believe the sun will rise and set on schedule tomorrow. Christians and Jews can't be so sure.

Exactly right- thus one who is claiming that one can separate ideology from science understands neither.

Theism is the ground of the scientific method. The assumption that the laws of physics will stay the same and have stayed the same is a theistic assumption. A non-theist has no reason for assuming that the laws of physics won't change.

A theist who believes that the laws of physics are set by an omnipotent God do. So continue using the scientific method. It will work tomorrow just as well as it worked yesterday.

Objectivists are borrowing from theism.

If my memory of history serves, this is why the scientific method flourished in the monotheistic West.