What you’re describing is belief that human reasoning is correct. But that’s not “belief” in the religious/spiritual sense. Not to me. Religious belief is faith that something that can't be proven is true.
Science is a method of showing how something can be proven to be true. Just because you “believe” what someone else has proven, doesn’t make science belief-based—it makes you lazy at worst, or reliant on your fellow humans to do the hard work at best. You take Science’s word that evolution happens because you can't be bothered to test it out yourself. That doesn't mean you couldn't if you wanted to. That doesn't mean every person in the world couldn't do it if they wanted to.
Religion is a belief because *no human* can prove that any tenet is true. *Everyone* has to take it on faith. There is not one human who has ever lived who could prove that God/gods exist, nor show how any other human could verify that existence for himself. That's what faith means.
The only thing you have to “believe” is that your experience of life follows predictable patterns of cause & effect. If you “believe” in that, then Science is just an elaborate extension (and rigorous testing) of that.
For younger readers, the Lloyd Alexander series, The Chronicles of Prydain are fantastic. I didn't read them until I was much older, and I regretted it. It definitely got me hooked on fantasy (even more than Tolkein).
In order, these are:
The Book of Three
The Black Cauldron (Winner of the 1966 Newbery Honor)
Yes we disagree about the definition of religion. But if you really thought about yours, you would see that yours is so broad it’s meaningless:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
You say that the part I’ve emphasised is not necessary. But then what’s left? A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Well that pretty much covers every single human on the planet. Which one of us doesn’t have a set of beliefs about the universe and our place in it? So you’re effectively saying we all have religion, that we’re all religious. Okay, then why not just say all people think thoughts? What’s the point of that statement, exactly? Can’t you just come up with a better counter-argument against atheism? Apparently not.
I think you want to say that we’re all the same when it comes to not having answers about the unanswerable, that religious people don’t have the market cornered on dogmatism. No argument there. But resorting to “atheism is just another religion” is not the way to make your point. It’ childish and illogical.
I suspect you haven’t really listened carefully to atheist argmuments. You’ve certainly ignored mine. I’m not trying to unconvert you, but your statement that atheists are religious was so graspingly absurd, I had to say something.
Note that a superhuman agency, ritual obervances, and moral codes are not required.
Like I said, loosy goosey definition. This is trying to encompass everything so that it is virtually meaningless.
So how about my definition of atheism: non-belief in supreme beings, deities, or other superhuman agencies. [Note: This says nothing about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.]
That’s not a “set of beliefs” by any standard. That’s an absence of belief, period. I don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either, and I don’t think anyone could call that lack of belief a religion.
I was doing a training course in the Chicago burbs where my hotel was 2 blocks away from the office building the course was in. Only the two Canadians walked there and back every day -- and not because we didn't have cars. I was asked if I wanted a ride twice, and when I refused, the drivers tried to insist. It was only a 5-minute walk.
One day, I agreed to go to lunch with one of the other students. He suggested this place he went to the day before. We got into his truck, he pulled out of the parking lot, drove about 100 feet down the road and turned into a parking lot on the other side of the street. I was so embarassed. I just couldn't believe he wouldn't walk all the way there when the walk to his truck in the first parking lot was about half the distance already. Unbelievable.
When Toyota had the choice between building a new factory in Alabama or in Ontario a few years ago, they chose Ontario, despite the tax incentives in Alabama. Their reasoning was that there was universal health care and a better educational system in Ontario, and in the end, they preferred to have a healthy, better-educated work force over tax breaks.
Slashdot Mirror
What you’re describing is belief that human reasoning is correct. But that’s not “belief” in the religious/spiritual sense. Not to me. Religious belief is faith that something that can't be proven is true. Science is a method of showing how something can be proven to be true. Just because you “believe” what someone else has proven, doesn’t make science belief-based—it makes you lazy at worst, or reliant on your fellow humans to do the hard work at best. You take Science’s word that evolution happens because you can't be bothered to test it out yourself. That doesn't mean you couldn't if you wanted to. That doesn't mean every person in the world couldn't do it if they wanted to. Religion is a belief because *no human* can prove that any tenet is true. *Everyone* has to take it on faith. There is not one human who has ever lived who could prove that God/gods exist, nor show how any other human could verify that existence for himself. That's what faith means. The only thing you have to “believe” is that your experience of life follows predictable patterns of cause & effect. If you “believe” in that, then Science is just an elaborate extension (and rigorous testing) of that.
Nice try at sidestepping my argument.
Yes we disagree about the definition of religion. But if you really thought about yours, you would see that yours is so broad it’s meaningless:
You say that the part I’ve emphasised is not necessary. But then what’s left? A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Well that pretty much covers every single human on the planet. Which one of us doesn’t have a set of beliefs about the universe and our place in it? So you’re effectively saying we all have religion, that we’re all religious. Okay, then why not just say all people think thoughts? What’s the point of that statement, exactly? Can’t you just come up with a better counter-argument against atheism? Apparently not.
I think you want to say that we’re all the same when it comes to not having answers about the unanswerable, that religious people don’t have the market cornered on dogmatism. No argument there. But resorting to “atheism is just another religion” is not the way to make your point. It’ childish and illogical.
I suspect you haven’t really listened carefully to atheist argmuments. You’ve certainly ignored mine. I’m not trying to unconvert you, but your statement that atheists are religious was so graspingly absurd, I had to say something.
Like I said, loosy goosey definition. This is trying to encompass everything so that it is virtually meaningless.
So how about my definition of atheism: non-belief in supreme beings, deities, or other superhuman agencies. [Note: This says nothing about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.]
That’s not a “set of beliefs” by any standard. That’s an absence of belief, period. I don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either, and I don’t think anyone could call that lack of belief a religion.
Hogwash. Belief != Religion. Moreover, non-belief != religion. Otherwise not believing in Santa Claus and unicorns is religious, yeah?
You appear to subscribe to a loosy goosy definition of religion beyond it’s intended use:
If you’re allowed to redefine religion, can I redefine atheism?
People who have a problem with English spelling should be thankful that the Welsh didn't take over the world.
I was doing a training course in the Chicago burbs where my hotel was 2 blocks away from the office building the course was in. Only the two Canadians walked there and back every day -- and not because we didn't have cars. I was asked if I wanted a ride twice, and when I refused, the drivers tried to insist. It was only a 5-minute walk.
One day, I agreed to go to lunch with one of the other students. He suggested this place he went to the day before. We got into his truck, he pulled out of the parking lot, drove about 100 feet down the road and turned into a parking lot on the other side of the street. I was so embarassed. I just couldn't believe he wouldn't walk all the way there when the walk to his truck in the first parking lot was about half the distance already. Unbelievable.
When Toyota had the choice between building a new factory in Alabama or in Ontario a few years ago, they chose Ontario, despite the tax incentives in Alabama. Their reasoning was that there was universal health care and a better educational system in Ontario, and in the end, they preferred to have a healthy, better-educated work force over tax breaks.