Re: Mocking religion
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:28 pm
To be fair, it’s probably quite tricky to buy a present for the incarnate Son of God. It’s the ultimate “boy who has everything” problem.
To be fair, it’s probably quite tricky to buy a present for the incarnate Son of God. It’s the ultimate “boy who has everything” problem.
Thanks - I'll give that a listen. I read Me Talk Pretty One Day and that was acceptable so I assume this clip will be worth listening to.JellyandJackson wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:37 pmThis reminds me of David Sedaris on the meaning of Easter. https://youtu.be/N5apZmwR9UI It’s one of my favourite bits of radio ever.
Can you give some examples of these theological changes. By a change I mean where at one point a religion asserted that something was true, then some new evidence was considered, and in the light of the evidence the religion said that it had previously been wrong and that the truth was actually some new position.warumich wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:18 amWell yes, as squirrel said, and as I have noted in previous posts, the medieval catholic church has not only tolerated Aquinas, but even canonised him. They were almost the only sponsor of intellectual activity for most of the period and theology changed frequently to accord with scientific advances. I don't understand why that is not good enough for you. As for women priests, as squirrel notes, it's not as if any other institutional setting, religious or secular, covered themselves in glory.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:28 amProvide a few examples of what we would agree were religions changing their beliefs due to an intellectual process of considering evidence. For example, a religion which decided that women could be priests before society had already made a huge movement towards equality, or changing position on homosexuality, racism, or something like that. Not change because the religions was forced to follow society, or it was forced to by the king, or the new emperor - change by considering evidence.
We do? How long did it take for the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church to converge and unify after the Great Schism nearly 1000 years ago? And as to Christianity in general, after about 2000 years of it, rationally taking evidence into account as you say they do, we much have a single unified church by now which has figured out every doctrinal matter of any great significance. Is that what we see?First, I don't actually think people do Bayesian calculations when assessing what to believe, however it shows that coming to different conclusions when considering the same evidence is perfectly rational. And yes though people would converge, this is a process that takes time and several iterations, even if people are perfect Bayesians. Which is more or less what we've been seeing, people do come round eventually.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:28 amIn Bayesian reasoning you will converge to the truth unless your prior probability is 1 in which case your unshakeable faith will remain. I don't see religions converging on truth: I see then clinging on to silly ideas until external changes become overwhelming. And I don't mean that the religions change due to being convinced that they were wrong by argument or evidence - I mean that other factors, such as losing believers or politics do it.
That depends on what you mean by "perfect sense". It makes sense that people perceive vague, hallucinatory things as consistent with what they believe because they are inventing an explanation. So people see UFOs or angels or whatever, when these things are not really there. It doesn't make sense to concluse that these things must be there merely because some people have agreed a comon fantasy.Santa Claus has nothing to do with this. I'm talking about people going into a trance or whatever happens and then attribute the experience to something they already believe exists, it makes perfect sense particularly when other people appear to have similar experiences. Now why exactly is a supernatural reality behind it not possible? What feat of logic are we using here?Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:28 amWell, firstly people are remarkably consistent in describing Sherlock Holmes or Santa Claus, even though they're fictional. One of the skills that people develop in dealing with others is evaluating whether or not something is true or the other person is mistaken or lying.
But secondly, it's entirely possible that there is some objective reality behind it - just not a supernatural one. If different people are subjected to a similar stimulus (e.g. drugs, sleep deprivation, stress) they may well have similar hallucinations if there is something about the brain which favours them.
Children are ignorant of both facts and techniques. Once they have facts, such as the size of the Earth, its population, how friction works, how speed and manoeuvrability depends on power, where material things come from; and techniques of assessing evidence, the whole thing collapses. The only point in its favour is that if it's false it must mean there is a vast, global conspiracy to deceive - a hypothesis which also is hugely unlikely (and would be ridiculed in any other context).Incidentally, if children believe Santa Claus exists because people they trust tell them so, and they see snowy footprints going out of the chimney on Christmas morning, and if they believe that their parents couldn't possibly be so mean as to make the whole thing up, then it would be rational to believe that Santa came. Our children are being deceived, but they're not naturally stupid. They're wrong, but justified in their belief. That's all I'm claiming for religion.
Souls. He always wants more.JellyandJackson wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:28 pmTo be fair, it’s probably quite tricky to buy a present for the incarnate Son of God. It’s the ultimate “boy who has everything” problem.
Thanks for this. I'll be quoting it at internet morons who claim "the science" doesn't support mask wearingWoodchopper wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 6:51 pmBack to Kuhn and paradigms.
Interesting account of a dogged scientist trying to challenge the dominant paradigm, and were eventually successful:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-t ... ovid-kill/
The paradigm concerned airborne transmission of infections disease.
It's a good example of something which does probably happen quite a lot in science, that there's something which "everyone knows" but when you try to dig into why they know it you can't find the original source. And then when you find it, it turns out it was only true under a certain set of assumptions which aren't necessarily valid for the case you're talking about now.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 6:51 pmBack to Kuhn and paradigms.
Interesting account of a dogged scientist trying to challenge the dominant paradigm, and were eventually successful:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-t ... ovid-kill/
The paradigm concerned airborne transmission of infections disease.
I found that when the prof waffled about something and the explanation was muddled, it was because science did not understand yet and the prof had forgotten that point. This is particularly true in engineering where a lot of empirical rules are used with statistical but not theoretical basis. The better the university, the more ready people were to say we don't know yet.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 8:41 am
Science does require young people to regularly come along and challenge the "established wisdom", I think this tends to happen during most people's PhDs, and corresponds to an angry "my professors don't know what they're talking about" phase.
When you realize the old guys* aren't all-knowing fonts of wisdom, you're basically ready.
That was needlessly hurtful.shpalman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:32 pmLook! An example of religion changing its mind!
... regarding a badly-applied arbitrary principle and it only took 66 years during which it caused needless suffering!
You need to show who's in chargejimbob wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:54 pmThat was needlessly hurtful.shpalman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:32 pmLook! An example of religion changing its mind!
... regarding a badly-applied arbitrary principle and it only took 66 years during which it caused needless suffering!
What utter lack of compassion did the priest have?
Is Sandra Harris the mother of Sarah Pascoe?plodder wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:29 amhttps://mobile.twitter.com/ScarredForLi ... 3173387266
Times have changed.
Hmmm; looks like the author of the piece decides the definitions of 'pious' and 'atheist'. Hmmm, just hmmmshpalman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:27 pmStaunch atheists show higher morals than the proudly pious
Well feel free to define your own boundaries so as to reach a significantly different conclusion.Gfamily wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:02 pmHmmm; looks like the author of the piece decides the definitions of 'pious' and 'atheist'. Hmmm, just hmmmshpalman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:27 pmStaunch atheists show higher morals than the proudly pious
ETA - I only read about a third of the way down - as far as where they made it clear where "their" boundaries lay. It could be they reverse ferretted.
Feel free to let me know if I should read the rest of the article
So I guess they stuck with their original premise.shpalman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:08 pmWell feel free to define your own boundaries so as to reach a significantly different conclusion.Gfamily wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:02 pmHmmm; looks like the author of the piece decides the definitions of 'pious' and 'atheist'. Hmmm, just hmmmshpalman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:27 pmStaunch atheists show higher morals than the proudly pious
ETA - I only read about a third of the way down - as far as where they made it clear where "their" boundaries lay. It could be they reverse ferretted.
Feel free to let me know if I should read the rest of the article
It's entirely true. Most of the depraved are still religious.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 7:59 pmPassed a street preacher on Solihull high street yesterday. His mate was wearing a hi vis with “Atheism Is The Last Refuge Of The Depraved” on the back.
It’s a fair cop.
Given that the author is in the USA, writing for a US audience, I think those definitions of "most secular among us" (atheists, agnostics, people who never attend religious services, don't think the Bible is the word of God, and don't pray) and "most devout among us" (religious fundamentalists who believe in God without any doubts, who attend church frequently, who consider the Bible the infallible word of God, who pray a lot, and who insist that Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and the only life) are perfectly reasonable.Gfamily wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:02 pmHmmm; looks like the author of the piece decides the definitions of 'pious' and 'atheist'. Hmmm, just hmmmshpalman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:27 pmStaunch atheists show higher morals than the proudly pious
ETA - I only read about a third of the way down - as far as where they made it clear where "their" boundaries lay. It could be they reverse ferretted.
Feel free to let me know if I should read the rest of the article