Theophobia

[Canadian_watcher]

At in the video the guy on the far left makes an interesting statement when they are talking about the lack of evidence being a requirement for faith. it's the last sentence below that made me take particular note.

They like that ... demonstrated because then there'd be nothing to be faithful about..
If everyone had seen the resurrection and we all knew that we'd been saved by it.. then we would be living in an unalterable system of belief and it wouldn't have to be policed.. and it would actually be... Those of us who don't believe it are very glad its not true because we think it would be horrible.

I had though, judging from the usual atheistic positions, that the problem of faith is that there is no evidence to support it any of the claims made in the Bible or other Holy Books and therefore the faith people have isn't based on rational critical thinking. But.. here we have an atheist stating (and others agreeing) that if there were evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead 'it would be horrible.'

It seems that for one or two of the atheists in the video above that while they are concerned with a lack of proof/evidence for religious faith they are equally horrified at the notion that such proof might ever be uncovered.

Why would they be horrified by evidence that faith in any given religion is justified?

EDIT: Now that same guy is using Hamas as an example of how to counter the question: "Wouldn't you say that religion has done some good in the world?" I mean... talk about your non sequiturs and ad hominems.

[Searcher08]

From http://friendlyatheist.com/category/richard-wade/
07.04.11
Ask Richard: Atheist Worries She’ll Go Back to Religion

I thought this was interesting as means of teasing out religion vs faith

Richard (the friendly atheist) replied
Your former religion gave you emotional and social benefits:
(my comments are after Richard's in bold

It reassured you that death is not the end of you.
Well, no death isnt. I find the way evidence of life after death is dealt with is somewhat
less than... rigourous.

It reassured you that a parent figure loves you and is protecting you.
My only experience of this is my (large) extended family - spirituality of people in their 80s and 90s seems quite different from those in their 70s. Often conversation is about longing to rejoin the ones who have already passed over rather than a spiritual authority figure

It gave you a sense of meaning or purpose.
An external organising framework can be very useful for dealing with complexity. There was a saying around Landmark - if you want your life to really turn out - take on something really huge and worthwhile and impossible
Consciously CHOOSING to follow an external framework for utility is often very effective.

It made you feel important both in the cosmos and in your community.
Hmm I would tend to think that this cuts both ways. Most atheists I have met or been exposed to seem to be more arrogant and tend to look down on , patronise or sneer a lot and are every bit as reactive as people of faith to having their foundations or assumptions challenged.

It gave you guidelines to follow. Many things were already decided for you.
This sounds as if guidelines are bad things, which is nonsense. A pre-flight checklist is enables a lot to be processed and increases the effectiveness of a process.

It gave you easy, pat answers for tough questions and complex dilemmas.
I was asked to join a Facebook page that said "1,000,000 people believe Darwin was right about evolution". I would say that what is required is open-mindedness to information which contradicts your beliefs.
For me a truly demonic statement from the "Critical Thinking Church" is
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
NO THEY FUCKING DO NOT. THEY REQUIRE PROOF.

"Im sorry Mr Godel, your Incompleteness Theorem is claiming something EXTRAORDINARY and we dont think your proof is frankly, EXTRAORDINARY ENOUGH. SORRY"

The people I really respect are those who look for novelty in information and do not lock it in a drawer.

It gave you external forgiveness for your screw-ups.
This is an interesting one - because there is a force of transformation - the ability to experience that you can control the context of your life, even if you have very little control of the content - a la Shawshank Redemption

It gave you the comfort and confidence of being in the majority.
There is the snobbishness of the majority... and the trendiness of being in the minority.

It gave you social approval and affirmation.
The most self-congradulatory, high-fiving social group, bar none, I have ever seen is JREF. Being in a group having a sneer at another.

It gave you a group you could draw upon for practical help.
This is true - I would say there is a big cultural element here eg how the Japanese responded in Sendai was very different to how Thais responded after the Sumatra earthquake.

It gave you fun things to do with people who were like you.
This I think is true, important and a deep human need IMHO

[American Dream]

It's probably obvious that it's not a question of critical thinking OR faith, but critical thinking AND faith. Faith without criticial thinking is dangerous or silly (see cartoons), critical thinking without faith is pointless and directionless.

Yes- and though I'm not a big consumer of corporate media content, I believe that this sort of "black vs. white" presentation is a staple for our would-be masters. I'd imagine they're less interested in having us look at the intersections, contradictions and complementary factors with more nuance than that...

[Saurian Tail]

Contrast with the Hopi Elders, who in the past would consider the consequences of major tribal decisions as far forward as seven generations...

"If we make this short term decision that seems good, but it has negative long term consequences, then it is not a good decision." That is critical thinking at it's best. So this takes us a step deeper into worldview. The Western Judeo/Christian worldview is fundamentally apocalyptic ... and the Hopi's worldview was not.

world·view
n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

this assumes it's a simple matter to know if something has "negative long term consequences" - if we could accurately predict the future it would be one thing, but we can't be certain of the long term ramifications of any action. If we could accurately predict the future we would most probably see that every possible course of action has both positive and negative long term consequences. So - the essential thing is to ensure that we maintain agility, flexibility; and so quality pragmatic responses can be summoned when needed, free of any form of dogma or predetermination. The best courses are ones that can easily be reversed.

That's a sensible response drew, but I think you put too fine a point on it. There are plenty of things that we know have long term negative ramifications. We could start with the easy stuff ... say halving the defense budget, eliminating depleted uranium shell casings, reeling in the Wall Street Ponzi Scheme, repealing corporate personhood, etc.

[Canadian_watcher]

We could start with the easy stuff ... say halving the defense budget, eliminating depleted uranium shell casings, reeling in the Wall Street Ponzi Scheme, repealing corporate personhood, etc.

I am loving this list of first steps!

[justdrew]

At in the video the guy on the far left makes an interesting statement when they are talking about the lack of evidence being a requirement for faith. it's the last sentence below that made me take particular note.

They like that ... demonstrated because then there'd be nothing to be faithful about..
If everyone had seen the resurrection and we all knew that we'd been saved by it.. then we would be living in an unalterable system of belief and it wouldn't have to be policed.. and it would actually be... Those of us who don't believe it are very glad its not true because we think it would be horrible.

I had though, judging from the usual atheistic positions, that the problem of faith is that there is no evidence to support it any of the claims made in the Bible or other Holy Books and therefore the faith people have isn't based on rational critical thinking. But.. here we have an atheist stating (and others agreeing) that if there were evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead 'it would be horrible.'

It seems that for one or two of the atheists in the video above that while they are concerned with a lack of proof/evidence for religious faith they are equally horrified at the notion that such proof might ever be uncovered.

Why would they be horrified by evidence that faith in any given religion is justified?

EDIT: Now that same guy is using Hamas as an example of how to counter the question: "Wouldn't you say that religion has done some good in the world?" I mean... talk about your non sequiturs and ad hominems.

even if every attributed "miracle" were proven and well documented and known to have happened, that would STILL not constitute proof the "magic-power" wielding entity is the creator of the universe, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. IF the vengeful jealous murder-god of the bible exists (and it just may) that is indeed horrible.

[Canadian_watcher]

I had though, judging from the usual atheistic positions, that the problem of faith is that there is no evidence to support it any of the claims made in the Bible or other Holy Books and therefore the faith people have isn't based on rational critical thinking. But.. here we have an atheist stating (and others agreeing) that if there were evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead 'it would be horrible.'

even if every attributed "miracle" were proven and well documented and known to have happened, that would STILL not constitute proof the "magic-power" wielding entity is the creator of the universe, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. IF the vengeful jealous murder-god of the bible exists (and it just may) that is indeed horrible.

I agree that the God of the Old Testament is no God that I can get behind... to attribute vengeance or pettiness (as I believe the Old Testament of the Bible does) to a GOD.. well, that seems ludicrous to me.

However, atheists go on and on about how there's 'just no proof' and 'there's no talking to people who don't even want proof' ... to me, that's pretty central to their argument. If what they are *really* all about is objection to this or that religious doctrine then that's a whole different kettle of fish, wouldn't you say?

[justdrew]

Contrast with the Hopi Elders, who in the past would consider the consequences of major tribal decisions as far forward as seven generations...

"If we make this short term decision that seems good, but it has negative long term consequences, then it is not a good decision." That is critical thinking at it's best. So this takes us a step deeper into worldview. The Western Judeo/Christian worldview is fundamentally apocalyptic ... and the Hopi's worldview was not.

world·view
n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

this assumes it's a simple matter to know if something has "negative long term consequences" - if we could accurately predict the future it would be one thing, but we can't be certain of the long term ramifications of any action. If we could accurately predict the future we would most probably see that every possible course of action has both positive and negative long term consequences. So - the essential thing is to ensure that we maintain agility, flexibility; and so quality pragmatic responses can be summoned when needed, free of any form of dogma or predetermination. The best courses are ones that can easily be reversed.

That's a sensible response drew, but I think you put too fine a point on it. There are plenty of things that we know have long term negative ramifications. We could start with the easy stuff ... say halving the defense budget, eliminating depleted uranium shell casings, reeling in the Wall Street Ponzi Scheme, repealing corporate personhood, etc.

Yeah, you still have to try, but it does open the way to FUBAR campaigns, to stop something you don't like all you have to do is raise some phantom concerns about possible negative outcomes. For instance.... "if we cut the military, we could not have enough ability to defend" - "if we over regulate wall street, business will grind to a halt" - "if we don't treat cops as persons, courts and lawmakers will just strip corporations of assets and destroy America" etc etc etc

Whereas were my suggested guidelines in place...

The military would have been designed to scale way back in non-war times, and be ready to scale up again should the need arise (just like we did before/during ww2). This way no oversize permanent military industrial complex would be needed and cost would go way down in peace time.
depleted uranium ammunition would never have been rejected early on, because there would be no simple (or even hard) way to recover from thousands of pounds of aerosolized uranium dust all over the place.
Nothing would be allowed to get 'too big to fail' and all businesses of such critical nature would be required to have fail-safe bankruptcy plans. Every incentive would be placed on long term returns, not short term, etc.
corporate personhood would never have been let get underway as the legitimate concerns that fiction is meant to address would have been addressed with specific legislation rather than a wide general principle that a corp is a person.

nonetheless, I'm not saying that foresight should be abandoned entirely, surely there are plenty of cases where ramifications are fairly clear to a high degree of confidence.

[Canadian_watcher]

Yeah, you still have to try, but it does open the way to FUBAR campaigns, to stop something you don't like all you have to do is raise some phantom concerns about possible negative outcomes. For instance.... "if we cut the military, we could not have enough ability to defend" - "if we over regulate wall street, business will grind to a halt" - "if we don't treat cops as persons, courts and lawmakers will just strip corporations of assets and destroy America" etc etc etc

Whereas were my suggested guidelines in place...

The military would have been designed to scale way back in non-war times, and be ready to scale up again should the need arise (just like we did before/during ww2). This way no oversize permanent military industrial complex would be needed and cost would go way down in peace time.
depleted uranium ammunition would never have been rejected early on, because there would be no simple (or even hard) way to recover from thousands of pounds of aerosolized uranium dust all over the place.
Nothing would be allowed to get 'too big to fail' and all businesses of such critical nature would be required to have fail-safe bankruptcy plans. Every incentive would be placed on long term returns, not short term, etc.
corporate personhood would never have been let get underway as the legitimate concerns that fiction is meant to address would have been addressed with specific legislation rather than a wide general principle that a corp is a person.

nonetheless, I'm not saying that foresight should be abandoned entirely, surely there are plenty of cases where ramifications are fairly clear to a high degree of confidence.

all of those suggestions demonstrate foresight. right? what am I missing?

[justdrew]

I had though, judging from the usual atheistic positions, that the problem of faith is that there is no evidence to support it any of the claims made in the Bible or other Holy Books and therefore the faith people have isn't based on rational critical thinking. But.. here we have an atheist stating (and others agreeing) that if there were evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead 'it would be horrible.'

even if every attributed "miracle" were proven and well documented and known to have happened, that would STILL not constitute proof the "magic-power" wielding entity is the creator of the universe, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. IF the vengeful jealous murder-god of the bible exists (and it just may) that is indeed horrible.

I agree that the God of the Old Testament is no God that I can get behind... to attribute vengeance or pettiness (as I believe the Old Testament of the Bible does) to a GOD.. well, that seems ludicrous to me.

However, atheists go on and on about how there's 'just no proof' and 'there's no talking to people who don't even want proof' ... to me, that's pretty central to their argument. If what they are *really* all about is objection to this or that religious doctrine then that's a whole different kettle of fish, wouldn't you say?

I don't think they generally really care what private beliefs people hold or even talk about, the problem arises when these groundless beliefs are used to drive bad policy or organize political militancy and intolerance. The point has long since past that some counter-balance against the loud mouthed nasty bible-thumping snake-handlers, and the greatest scum, so-called "faith healers" who are at least 99.99% of the time witting or unwitting scam artists. I'm not calling for them to be arrested; fine, free speech, but the answer to objectionable speech is more speech, so I don't have the least problem with atheists talking about their opinions.

[justdrew]

Yeah, you still have to try, but it does open the way to FUBAR campaigns, to stop something you don't like all you have to do is raise some phantom concerns about possible negative outcomes. For instance.... "if we cut the military, we could not have enough ability to defend" - "if we over regulate wall street, business will grind to a halt" - "if we don't treat cops as persons, courts and lawmakers will just strip corporations of assets and destroy America" etc etc etc

Whereas were my suggested guidelines in place...

The military would have been designed to scale way back in non-war times, and be ready to scale up again should the need arise (just like we did before/during ww2). This way no oversize permanent military industrial complex would be needed and cost would go way down in peace time.
depleted uranium ammunition would never have been rejected early on, because there would be no simple (or even hard) way to recover from thousands of pounds of aerosolized uranium dust all over the place.
Nothing would be allowed to get 'too big to fail' and all businesses of such critical nature would be required to have fail-safe bankruptcy plans. Every incentive would be placed on long term returns, not short term, etc.
corporate personhood would never have been let get underway as the legitimate concerns that fiction is meant to address would have been addressed with specific legislation rather than a wide general principle that a corp is a person.

nonetheless, I'm not saying that foresight should be abandoned entirely, surely there are plenty of cases where ramifications are fairly clear to a high degree of confidence.

all of those suggestions demonstrate foresight. right? what am I missing?

near-term foresight, and flexible pragmatism, I'm not sure how well anyone, including Hopi elders, have been at predicting how things will work out 210 years in the future (~7 generations).

[Canadian_watcher]

I don't think they generally really care what private beliefs people hold or even talk about,

I don't see how that can be said, since they speak of people faith as if 'people of faith' are some homogenous glob of impenetrable goo.

the problem arises when these groundless beliefs are used to drive bad policy or organize political militancy and intolerance.

whoa. groundless? Do you mean 'groundless' as in "without the backing of empirical evidence?"

so I don't have the least problem with atheists talking about their opinions.

neither do I, but I have a hard time not picking them apart (just like I do with everything.)

[Canadian_watcher]

near-term foresight, and flexible pragmatism, I'm not sure how well anyone, including Hopi elders, have been at predicting how things will work out 210 years in the future (~7 generations).

well, we can be sure that science has fucked that up, too. Radiation and all that. And peak oil (if that's something you believe).. and urban planning. And .. well.. lots of stuff. And given that science is based on 'truths that can be proven' there must be another accounting for why they've botched things so effing badly. What might that be?

[American Dream]

I don't think they generally really care what private beliefs people hold or even talk about, the problem arises when these groundless beliefs are used to drive bad policy or organize political militancy and intolerance. The point has long since past that some counter-balance against the loud mouthed nasty bible-thumping snake-handlers, and the greatest scum, so-called "faith healers" who are at least 99.99% of the time witting or unwitting scam artists. I'm not calling for them to be arrested; fine, free speech, but the answer to objectionable speech is more speech, so I don't have the least problem with atheists talking about their opinions.

Yes, the way this whole thread was set up- from the titling to the OP- seems problematic to me. From what I know of things here in the United States, it seems like the political power of those identifying as "people of faith" is great- and growing stronger, especially as reactionary religionists are courted as a political constituency.

It's easy enough to latch on to an endless stream of complaint about "atheists" or people whose faith is "not strong enough" for these conservative and/or theocratic forces but how enlightening is this, in and of itself?

Are "people of faith' really such an oppressed group in North America?

Quite the opposite- the self-identified "faith community" seems more a force of oppression than liberation to me. It is essential to affirm the many, many "people of faith" who are doing good things but it seems that they are dwarfed by the power of the reactionaries.

[justdrew]

I don't think they generally really care what private beliefs people hold or even talk about,

I don't see how that can be said, since they speak of people faith as if 'people of faith' are some homogenous glob of impenetrable goo.

eh, that is mostly just shorthand, it would be way overly wordy and annoying to fully qualify every signifier. "people of faith" is also an attempt to use a polite term, it wouldn't be so nice to call a spade a spade sometimes, they should often say in my opinion, "theocratic demagogues"

the problem arises when these groundless beliefs are used to drive bad policy or organize political militancy and intolerance.

whoa. groundless? Do you mean 'groundless' as in "without the backing of empirical evidence?"

ok, I'll rephrase that as: "not universally accepted" or "disputed" or "non-verifiable"

so I don't have the least problem with atheists talking about their opinions.

neither do I, but I have a hard time not picking them apart (just like I do with everything.)

that's fine by me