John Doe believes in god and you don't. Why do you think he is wrong and you are right?

[Brian2]

Quite a lot so far....

And I'm such a quiet and shy person.

 

[firedragon]

People admire skill and competence. Incompetence annoys us.

You think all of those people who believe in theism are all incompetent and your tribe (what ever you call "us") are all competent?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It actually seems to offend some that Joe believes in god. Why is that?

My issue is more with certain packages of religious beliefs more than some nebulous belief in God on its own.

The problem is that nobody ever believes in just one bad idea. If someone has a failure of critical thinking, it's going to express itself in many areas, not just in how they spend their Sunday mornings.

I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the anti-lockdown protests around here have been led by churches, or that the shop near here trying to prohibit vaccinated people from entering sells naturopathic herbs.

 

[RestlessSoul]

My issue is more with certain packages of religious beliefs more than some nebulous belief in God on its own.

The problem is that nobody ever believes in just one bad idea. If someone has a failure of critical thinking, it's going to express itself in many areas, not just in how they spend their Sunday mornings.

I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the anti-lockdown protests around here have been led by churches, or that the shop near here trying to prohibit vaccinated people from entering sells naturopathic herbs.

Don't see any mention of Tony Pantalleresco's spiritual beliefs in that article.

I did wonder though, why any shop owner would deliberately turn away trade, but it looks like he's won his business a fair amount of free publicity, so perhaps he knows what he's doing.

Incidentally, is this herbalist and bead seller doing more or less harm than all the doctors in America who have been over prescribing, if not actively promoting, the use of opiates for pain relief? Because I bet you every one of those qualified medics is going to claim they were following the science.

 

[HonestJoe]

The scientific method cannot address a range of output from a class of natural phenomena. As an example, dreams are a common output of the human brain that everyone has experienced.

That isn't a limitation of scientific method, only our ability to apply it. The hard data exists as the electrical signals in our brains, we just don't have the practical abilities to measure it in sufficient detail and clarity. If someone or something did have that ability, they would be able to apply scientific method to that data to reach meaningful conclusions.

Those who believe in the infallibility of science do so based on faith.

Again, that'd be the infallibility of people rather than of science. And, of course, people are responsible for theism as well so our fallibility applies equally to both. The key thing about scientific method is that it is specifically designed to reduce the negative impact of human fallibility. Faith (regardless of what it is in) will tend to magnify our fallibility.

Soft science does not deny the data, but tries to deal with the reality of unique data, that is not subject to the philosophy of science.

I disagree that it is not subject to the philosophy of science. The fact that we're not able to fully apply hard scientific methods to a specific situation doesn't exclude it from science, it just requires us to recognise and accept those practical limitations and take them in to account when reporting conclusions.

God type data appears within this range of natural phenomena.

Isn't the phrase "God type data" a little presumptive? It is true that a lot of the basis for all sorts of claims for the "super natural" are based on abstract human experiences - dreams, feelings, unexplained experiences and the like. Those things can be studied to an extent but we are limited and so are generally unable to reach definitive conclusions in any direction.

Atheists tend to accept the approach of the philosophy of science and they unscientifically assume this is all there is to reality.

Is that any worse than assuming it isn't?

 

[viole]

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science.

I would not be so sure about that. I think it is plausible that predisposition to believe in imaginary agents could be a naturally selected trait of our physical brains.

Like love, or other spiritual looking traits of our biology.

Ciao

- viole

 

[We Never Know]

I would not be so sure about that. I think it is plausible that belief in imaginary agents could be a naturally selected trait of our physical brains.

Ciao

- viole

I've seen a few say or insinuate it isn't above science/out of the scope of science.
Could one of youns tell me which science discipline studies gods and the supernatural if they exist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What if John Doe were able to show you how a simple faith in a loving creator had changed his life for the better? Supposing he said he knew what was in his own heart, and that he was convinced God had enabled him to change his life in a way that was truly miraculous? Would you still try to deny him his faith then? And why?

It's not john doe's experience and connection to it that's questioned. Most know believers have an deep attachment to their belief. It's challenging the subject of they're belief.

For example, if a therapist listened to someone who said they hear voices, they won't devalue their clients experiences. They would look at psychological causes and the nature of that person's symptoms to validate whether the client is telling the truth not his experience of it.

When they find out the voices do not exist, they can address it differently. Not devaluing the experience just finding the reasoning and facts about the cause and nature of what clients say.

We're not saying a christians experience is false. If he says jesus rise from his tomb, That's what's challenged. Historians and other professionals challenge biblical claims all the time. NDEs and even reincarnation claims are challenged.

But they don't make it personal. That's the difference.

 

[We Never Know]

You think all of those people who believe in theism are all incompetent and your tribe (what ever you call "us") are all competent?

Its been shown here several times that people who believe in god are looked down at as uneducated, etc.

 

[viole]

I've seen a few say or insinuate it isn't above science/out of the scope of science.
Could one of youns tell me which science discipline studies gods and the supernatural if they exist?

I did not say God is within science. I said belief in God might very well be within science.

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Its been shown here several times that people who believe in god are looked down at as uneducated, etc.

That is called "bigotry".

 

[firedragon]

The problem is that nobody ever believes in just one bad idea. If someone has a failure of critical thinking, it's going to express itself in many areas, not just in how they spend their Sunday mornings.

So you believe that all theists have "failure of critical thinking"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you believe that all theists have "failure of critical thinking"?

Just those who believe in a literal god or gods, but for those: yes.

Do you have a different view?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I would not be so sure about that. I think it is plausible that predisposition to believe in imaginary agents could be a naturally selected trait of our physical brains.

Like love, or other spiritual looking traits of our biology.

Ciao

- viole

You think there’s a God gene? Could be. Calvinists might well be expected to agree.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are we talking about psychotherapy, or objective truth? Faith or knowledge?

Faith is unsupported belief. Any belief can, conceivably, be comforting: Santa Claus, Krishna, Jesus, Easter Bunny....
Drugs can be comforting, too, and video games. What's the difference?

Well evidenced belief -- knowledge, truth -- is superior to faith/fantasy. Fantasy may be comforting, but don't pretend it's truth.
Take the red pill.

What's wrong with fantasy?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its been shown here several times that people who believe in god are looked down at as uneducated, etc.

Not uneducated.

Theism certainly indicates some sort of failure of critical thinking, but it would be a mistake to think that educated people are immune to failures of critical thinking. It would also be a mistake to assume that some given person who isn't a theist is necessarily better at critical thinking than some given theist.

Theism is a flaw, but everybody is flawed in some way.

Where I think theism is unique is that it's a flaw that people tend not to try to correct; instead, they often make it the centre of their very identity.

 

[HonestJoe]

I've seen a few say or insinuate it isn't above science/out of the scope of science.
Could one of youns tell me which science discipline studies gods and the supernatural if they exist?

If you provide a formal hypothesis for your proposed god or gods, we can work out which disciplines it might fall under, though I expect it would likely be a physics, with potentially some biology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't see any mention of Tony Pantalleresco's spiritual beliefs in that article.

I also don't see where I called naturopathy "spiritual."

Edit: my point was that accepting naturopathy generally involves failures of critical thinking, not that naturopathy is a religion.

I did wonder though, why any shop owner would deliberately turn away trade, but it looks like he's won his business a fair amount of free publicity, so perhaps he knows what he's doing.

We'll see.

Incidentally, is this herbalist and bead seller doing more or less harm than all the doctors in America who have been over prescribing, if not actively promoting, the use of opiates for pain relief? Because I bet you every one of those qualified medics is going to claim they were following the science.

Right.

Edit: but you seem to have missed my point. Even if his beads, herbs and whatnot don't cause much harm on their own, it's important to remember that his belief in those beads and herbs isn't the only way that his irrationality is being expressed.

 

[firedragon]

Just those who believe in a literal god or gods, but for those: yes.

Do you have a different view?

Well, that is the definition of THEIST.

So you basically think that all theists have "failure of critical thinking".

Do you have any research for that statement you confirmed?

 

[We Never Know]

Not uneducated.

Theism certainly indicates some sort of failure of critical thinking, but it would be a mistake to think that educated people are immune to failures of critical thinking. It would also be a mistake to assume that some given person who isn't a theist is necessarily better at critical thinking than some given theist.

Theism is a flaw, but everybody is flawed in some way.

Where I think theism is unique is that it's a flaw that people tend not to try to correct; instead, they often make it the centre of their very identity.

How is someone having faith in/believing in a god/higher power a flaw?