[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-14, 19:20, said:

Why can't we talk instead about the continued worthiness to society of the magical, mystical, fairytale-like belief systems that are the basis for all these assorted actions and reactions?

Because such a large and general subject does not easily fit into a discussion board thread. Not being tethered to reality, a religion can espouse pretty much anything. That makes any such discussion too abstract to be interesting, I think.

To me, it appears that a good number of people believe quite sincerely in a god or gods. Folks become so invested in their particular religions that no discussion thread is about to change their minds. And, as history demonstrates, it takes a very long time for an established religion to fade out.

In all honesty, I'm not at all sure that people who find comfort in their religious beliefs would themselves be better off without them. Better to focus on protecting society from the negative effects of religions than to try to convince folks that their beliefs are wrong.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-14, 19:20, said:

In response:



Why can't we talk instead about the continued worthiness to society of the magical, mystical, fairytale-like belief systems that are the basis for all these assorted actions and reactions?

I suppose I may have some magical beliefs. I dunno, could be. I see the main difference as: I don't really care if someone else thinks my beliefs are stupid, I don't have a need to organize others who share my irrationality and kill people who insult me or my beliefs. I have known more than a few people who believe that if we all sit in a circle and chant mantras or bang on drums it will contribute to world peace. So far this hasn't much seemed to work, but I suppose when people are banging on drums they aren't banging on heads. They don't behead people such as myself who think all of this drum banging is silly.

Western culture has at times sanctioned various forms of violence to avenge various forms of insults. Making lewd remarks to the wife of a mafia don is probably not in one's best interests.


Religion and culture are inter-woven. The idea, that someone may well have behaved like a real jerk in his insulting way but that still doesn't mean you get to kill him or others who have no relationship to him except perhaps being from the same country, has not yet taken hold everywhere. This speaks badly, at least from our perspective, of both the individuals and the culture that accepts such actions.


A question (not rhetorical, I don't know the answer) along these lines: In the countries where these reprisal killings took place, what is the government's response? A country cannot help the fact that there are crazies within its borders, but it can decide whether to accept their actions or not. We accept as legal the burning of the Qu'ran, the burning of the Bible, and perhaps even the burning of our flag although, oddly in my view, this seems to arouse the most opposition. We do not accept killing people and their families to avenge an insult. Other cultures see it differently.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-14, 19:20, said:

Why can't we talk instead about the continued worthiness to society of the magical, mystical, fairytale-like belief systems that are the basis for all these assorted actions and reactions?

From atheists to satanists, we all act on unprovable assumptions. Without belief-systems, there would be no art or science or civilisation.

[luke warm]

nige1, on 2011-April-15, 08:28, said:

From atheists to satanists, we all act on unprovable assumptions. Without belief-systems, there would be no art or science or civilisation.

careful, that's too close to hinting that even atheists have belief systems when it comes to immaterial realities

[nige1]

luke warm, on 2011-April-15, 15:38, said:

careful, that's too close to hinting that even atheists have belief systems when it comes to immaterial realities

All idealists do

[PassedOut]

nige1, on 2011-April-15, 08:28, said:

From atheists to satanists, we all act on unprovable assumptions.

Of course. The fact that I've always hurt myself when I've walked into a tree does not prove that I won't walk right through the tree next time. But I prefer to act on the unprovable assumption that my past experience is an accurate guide.

[Winstonm]

Anytime there is a holding that non-believers are unequal and underserving there is the potential for dangerous promotion of a belief. Whether it is the Torah, the Qu'ran, or the Bible, beliefs that promote themselves as the only possibility must be tempered by the culture that surrounds it or else risk outlandish acts like the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, and 9-11.

There is nothing wrong with moderate religions. But I would venture to say that most moderate religions place faith more in the hands of tradition and history rather than in rigorous belief in the inerrancy of oral tribal tales retold around desert camps at night. It is difficult to think any 21st century human could truly believe that a winged creature, somewhat like a mule or donkey, carried Muhhamad on a magical flight. At the same time, it is hard to imagine any 21st century human could truly believe an invisible superbeing could and would make a burning bush that talked and a donkey that talked.

Uri Geller fooled millions of t.v. viewers with his spoon bending trick before James Randi exposed his fraud. At least Geller had a live act he performed well. One would like to think that reasoned people would no longer be tricked simply by claims written on ancient scrolls of magical powers at work.

Perhaps a deity should start off with bending spoons for real.

[blackshoe]

There is no spoon.

[PassedOut]

nige1, on 2011-April-15, 08:28, said:

Without belief-systems, there would be no art or science or civilisation.

So far as I know, no one disputes that. My own belief system is very similar to most everyone's, except for the inconsequential difference that I don't believe in magic.

[nige1]

PassedOut, on 2011-April-16, 08:53, said:

So far as I know, no one disputes that. My own belief system is very similar to most everyone's, except for the inconsequential difference that I don't believe in magic.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "magic". In the old days, organisations believed in sending employees to "New Age Thinking" courses. I bet there are modern equivalents. Advertising, Politics, Law, Accounting (and so on) use smoke and mirrors.

Theories of everything, Quantum theory, Genetics, Astophysics, brains, computers, and so on all seem magical to me.

[kenberg]

Along these lines of magic:
In the Post recently there was an article about the push to require all students to take Algebra II in high school. It has been observed that students who do this have greater success in life than those who don't so, whatever the magic is, the thinking is that everyone should get in on it. My favorite response to this was from a guy who noted that the people he knew who had taken a course in Quantum Electrodynamics also generally had successful lives. Based on this observation, he was planning to introduce his granddaughter to string theory as soon as she learned to tie her shoes.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2011-April-16, 09:34, said:

Along these lines of magic:
In the Post recently there was an article about the push to require all students to take Algebra II in high school. It has been observed that students who do this have greater success in life than those who don't so, whatever the magic is, the thinking is that everyone should get in on it. My favorite response to this was from a guy who noted that the people he knew who had taken a course in Quantum Electrodynamics also generally had successful lives. Based on this observation, he was planning to introduce his granddaughter to string theory as soon as she learned to tie her shoes.

Although a humorous example of our great American pasttime of confusing correlation with causation, this is not an example of magical thinking. In magical thinking you don't even need the school.

[PassedOut]

nige1, on 2011-April-16, 09:14, said:

In the old days, organisations believed in sending employees to "New Age Thinking" courses. I bet there are modern equivalents.

I certainly wouldn't bet against that.

As a young man I spent several years in the corporate world where I saw first hand the tendency toward -- and the foolishness of -- management by buzzword. Every year or so a new set of buzzwords would replace the old set and employees would be sent to courses taught by the scam artists who had dreamed up the new buzzwords. A once-successful athlete, politician, general, or business person would kick off each course. New employees tended to be enthusiastic. Veterans did everything possible to avoid going.

Our family businesses don't waste time on keeping up with the latest buzzwords. (That's one of our competitive advantages.)

[nige1]

We all "believe" things we don't understand advocated by authorities we trust. Earlier somebody mentioned Fermat's last Theorem. You can believe it to be true without understanding the proof.

[PassedOut]

nige1, on 2011-April-16, 11:46, said:

We all "believe" things we don't understand advocated by authorities we trust. Earlier somebody mentioned Fermat's last Theorem. You can believe it to be true without understanding the proof.

Yes. But if the proof depended upon magic, I would not. And I'd count on Ken Berg to blow the whistle if it did.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2011-April-16, 11:46, said:

We all "believe" things we don't understand advocated by authorities we trust. Earlier somebody mentioned Fermat's last Theorem. You can believe it to be true without understanding the proof.

Very little of our knowledge comes from personal experience. We read books, are taught, watch movies, etc., and trust the information as accurate. The key issue is trusting the source.

IMO, the detailed intricacies of oral legends of magic and mysticism passed on by ancient tribes of desert nomads is warrantless as knowledge - unless one is interested in legend, myths, folktales, and other cultural phenomena.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-16, 00:45, said:

There is no spoon.

Aha! An atheist in regards to spoons. You probably would have no qualms about burning the book about the cow running away with the spoon, I bet.

[blackshoe]

I have no objection to fairy tales.

[mycroft]

Blackshoe: There is no spoon. I don't have enough spoons to answer this one.

PassedOut: Yes, Fermat's last theorem is now proven (with the help of computers to analyse the last few (thousand) cases they couldn't prove mathematically (yet). However, assume the Extended Riemann Hypothesis for a minute...or P ≠ NP; or the Axiom of Choice or the Parallel Axiom (those two are cheating, however, as it's been proven that with or without those axioms, the math is consistent (but different)).

[PassedOut]

mycroft, on 2011-April-18, 10:29, said:

PassedOut: However, assume the Extended Riemann Hypothesis for a minute...or P ≠ NP; or the Axiom of Choice or the Parallel Axiom (those two are cheating, however, as it's been proven that with or without those axioms, the math is consistent (but different)).

One can construct consistent systems using all sorts of different sets of axioms. The systems of real value model the real world in a useful, verifiable way.