Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

DogmaHunter said:

The potential amount of reasons to "jump ship", as you put it, is imo uncountable.
By that I don't mean "infinite". I just mean uncountable. There could be a whole range of reasons for someone to do so.

Click to expand...

oh........................................so it's complex, then. "NOW" you tell me!

How does it feel to play both sides of the tennis-court, DH? You must be getting quite a workout!

Here's a fun fact that I just thought of, which seems appropriate here in context of this subject...

There is a christian on this site, who frequents the apologetics forum and who has as geographic location Saudi Arabia.

Look me (virtually) in the eye and tell me without blinking (virtually) that you didn't think "ha...how about that..." when you first noticed it... I sure did!

Click to expand...

no blinking required for this one. You see, that's what a Master's Degree in Social Studies/Social Science Education does for a person. And if you really want to know, yes, I do suffer from Dry Eye Syndrome.

Because one doesn't expect a christian living in Saudi Arabia. That's why.

Click to expand...

They don't? Why not? They've had 2,000 years to move in.

We all know that there are some living there. We all know that there are also some budhists living there. Even some jews.

We also all know that whenever we meet a random saudi arabia citizen, the chances of them being anything but muslim, is rather low.

Click to expand...

And that's the wonderful thing about 'questions,' and by using them, we can find out. "Hey, Mr. Visitor from Saudi Arabia, are you indeed Muslim?" And he might say in response, "Heck no! Jesus is Lord!"

I'm not sure how you think that ties into the subject being discussed.

No matter what people claim that Jesus has said or didn't say... None of this is relevant to the subject matter. Being that religious beliefs of individuals are, by and large, determined by the people that raised said individuals.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Click to expand...

How convenient for you, DH! How convenient.

My point is that individuals more often then not, grow up to believe what they are taught to believe from a young age.

Click to expand...

So, would you want to say that this is an example of the Law of Averages?

You could end a religion in a single generation by no longer indoctrinating children into it.

Click to expand...

I could say that. But then I'd probably think you're a Communist if you really and truly believed it.

Not sure who said this once, but I feel it's appropriate here:

If the bible would disappear and all of christianity purged from people's minds overnight, then all of christianity, Jesus, etc would be lost for eternity, never to resurface again. The same goes for all religions.
However, if you would do the same with for example Physics, then it's only a matter of time before it's rediscovered.

Click to expand...

This last statement of yours partially reflects some of the nuance in what Evangelical Christians mean by the term "Specific Revelation." So, in that sense, I think I can concur with a portion of your essential epistemic evaluation here, at least as far as it directly applies to Christianity. But I'm not going to speak for all of the other of the World's Religions. Surprising, ay?!

DogmaHunter said:

What problem?

Click to expand...

...i.e. the existential issues that comes into play when we honestly take the Bull by the Horns and begin to wrestle with the other issues inherent to the problem of Divine Hiddenness AND Epistemology. Of course, I'm guessing @Silmarien will want to add in the notion that Ontology/Metaphysics plays a role in mediating all of this mess as well.

ps: muslims do not believe what the bible teaches about jesus....

Click to expand...

...ok, so what does one HAVE to believe about Jesus in order to be a Christian?

DogmaHunter said:

It's a 7-headed dragon which I explicitly searched for after I once made an argument about an undetectable 7-headed dragon that lives in my garage, who's existance is just as well-evidence as any god ever claimed by human kind.

And that's its only meaning.

I get that I said things you didn't like in the past. And I'm 100% positive I'll say things you don't like in the future.

None of which has any relevance to the point being discussed here: that the vast majority of people end up having the religious beliefs that they were taught by their parents.

Click to expand...

I very much "believe" in the 7 Headed Dragon. Thanks for clarifying the reference of your avatar... but if this is the case, and you're in any way fully invested and committed to it, I'm sure I'll be saying some things that you won't like in the future, and about the future, as well.

DogmaHunter said:

And you know it's true.
You just argue this point because you don't like it. Because it shows that religious beliefs aren't held because there are rational reasons to hold them. Religious beliefs are held because they are taught from a very young age onwards.

Click to expand...

I think this discussion is beneficial because it teaches us that before we can agree with or disagree with someone’s argument, we have to first know what that argument is.

It seems to me that DogmaHunter is arguing for the view that all religious beliefs are grounded on faith and not evidence. His argument could be formulated thus:

1. If the vast majority of people hold to the religious beliefs of their parents, then these religious beliefs are not grounded in evidence, but on faith.
2. The vast majority of people hold to the religious beliefs of their parents.
3. Therefore, these religious beliefs are not grounded in evidence, but on faith.

Is this an accurate summary of your argument DogmaHunter?

Silmarien said:

For an example in the opposite direction, take a look at this theory that people become atheists because of bad father relationships. I have no idea if it actually plays out like that in the general public, but even if it does, it would be completely inappropriate for a theist to ask an atheist about their relationship with their father and then just point to the statistics over and over again. Even without drawing an explicit causal relationship, I cannot imagine anyone failing to see the insinuation.

Click to expand...

Actually, I find it interesting that Christian philosopher, James S. Spiegel (2010), takes this tact in analyzing how an atheist's quality of relationship to his own father may play into his ability to "have faith." Of course, Spiegel also plays the "sexual improprieties feed un-faith" card, as well. ew! I've heard this argument somewhere before.

[And no, that's S...p...i...e...g...e...l, not Smeagle. ]

Reference
Spiegel, James S. (2010). The Making of an atheist: How immorality leads to unbelief. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

2PhiloVoid said:

oh........................................so it's complex, then. "NOW" you tell me!

Click to expand...

Huh?
I never made any claim about the reasons why people might abbandon religion (either for another religion or none at all).

My point is about why the vast majority of people don't....

How does it feel to play both sides of the tennis-court, DH? You must be getting quite a workout!

Click to expand...

Yes, I am getting a bit tired of burning all the strawmen....

no blinking required for this one.

Click to expand...

Ok. So I take it that you agree?

And that's the wonderful thing about 'questions,' and by using them, we can find out. "Hey, Mr. Visitor from Saudi Arabia, are you indeed Muslim?" And he might say in response, "Heck no! Jesus is Lord!"

Click to expand...

But most likely, he'll just answer "yes, I am a muslim".
The point. You might be missing it, while flying over your head.

I could say that. But then I'd probably think you're a Communist if you really and truly believed it.

Click to expand...

Myeah, I'm not getting that point either.
I have no idea what communism has to do with this.

Bottom line: if nobody is around to teach about christianity, then nobody ends up believing in christianity.

But if nobody is around to teach about gravity, people could, and eventually will, still figure out gravity.
The point.

This is how people on opposite side of the globe can come up with the same accurate ideas about physical reality, but no two people will ever independently come up with the same religion. Ever.

This last statement of yours partially reflects some of the nuance in what Evangelical Christians mean by the term "Specific Revelation." So, in that sense, I think I can concur with a portion of your essential epistemic evaluation here, at least as far as it directly applies to Christianity. But I'm not going to speak for all of the other of the World's Religions. Surprising, ay?!

Click to expand...

I happily will. This is how religion differs from actual knowledge.
This is the difference between faith based beliefs and evidence based beliefs.

...i.e. the existential issues that comes into play when we honestly take the Bull by the Horns and begin to wrestle with the other issues inherent to the problem of Divine Hiddenness AND Epistemology. Of course, I'm guessing @Silmarien will want to add in the notion that Ontology/Metaphysice plays a role in mediating all of this mess as well.

Click to expand...

lol, owkay.

...ok, so what does one HAVE to believe about Jesus in order to be a Christian?

Click to expand...

What the bible says about him?

anonymous person said:

It seems to me that DogmaHunter is arguing for the view that all religious beliefs are grounded on faith and not evidence.

Click to expand...

Yes. That's kind of the thing with faith-based beliefs like religion. You gotta have "faith". Why? Because there is no evidence.

You don't require "faith" to believe that jumping from the empire state building will hurt and likely end your life.

You would, however, require "faith" to believe that you'll just float mid-air and not plummet to your death.

Just like you require "faith" to believe that a God exists who will grant you an eternal afterlife in some paradise if you abide by the criteria laid down in that specific religion.

His argument could be formulated thus:

1. If the vast majority of people hold to the religious beliefs of their parents, then these religious beliefs are not grounded in evidence, but on faith.
2. The vast majority of people hold to the religious beliefs of their parents.
3. Therefore, these religious beliefs are not grounded in evidence, but on faith.

Is this an accurate summary of your argument DogmaHunter?

Click to expand...

No.

For starters, religious beliefs are grounded in faith by definition of the word "religion".
That's a fact that doesn't require any argument. That's just how religion works.

DogmaHunter said:

Yes. That's kind of the thing with faith-based beliefs like religion. You gotta have "faith". Why? Because there is no evidence.

You don't require "faith" to believe that jumping from the empire state building will hurt and likely end your life.

You would, however, require "faith" to believe that you'll just float mid-air and not plummet to your death.

Just like you require "faith" to believe that a God exists who will grant you an eternal afterlife in some paradise if you abide by the criteria laid down in that specific religion.



No.

For starters, religious beliefs are grounded in faith by definition of the word "religion".
That's a fact that doesn't require any argument. That's just how religion works.

Click to expand...

DogmaHunter said:

Yes. That's kind of the thing with faith-based beliefs like religion. You gotta have "faith". Why? Because there is no evidence.

You don't require "faith" to believe that jumping from the empire state building will hurt and likely end your life.

You would, however, require "faith" to believe that you'll just float mid-air and not plummet to your death.

Just like you require "faith" to believe that a God exists who will grant you an eternal afterlife in some paradise if you abide by the criteria laid down in that specific religion.



No.

For starters, religious beliefs are grounded in faith by definition of the word "religion".
That's a fact that doesn't require any argument. That's just how religion works.

Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on Martin Luther’s conceptualization of faith? Are you familiar with it?

Thanks for clarifying by the way.

DogmaHunter said:

Huh?
I never made any claim about the reasons why people might abbandon religion (either for another religion or none at all).

Click to expand...

I'd think you kind'a need to, really. That is, if you want to be objective in a research kind of way. But, if not, believe what you want.

My point is about why the vast majority of people don't....

Yes, I am getting a bit tired of burning all the strawmen....

Ok. So I take it that you agree?

Click to expand...

Hardly.

But most likely, he'll just answer "yes, I am a muslim".

Click to expand...

....the thing is, there is what you 'think' he will do........................and then there is what he actually does. Sometimes, reality bites, and it bites hard.

The point. You might be missing it, while flying over your head.

Click to expand...

Are you sure? Because flying over my head versus continuing to fly over my head are two different things:

Myeah, I'm not getting that point either.
I have no idea what communism has to do with this.

Click to expand...

You're such a literalist ... gee.

Bottom line: if nobody is around to teach about christianity, then nobody ends up believing in christianity.

Click to expand...

Right.

But if nobody is around to teach about gravity, people could, and eventually will, still figure out gravity.
The point.

Click to expand...

Correct.

This is how people on opposite side of the globe can come up with the same accurate ideas about physical reality, but no two people will ever independently come up with the same religion. Ever.

Click to expand...

You're sure about that? In what way precisely do you mean that no two people "independently come up with" the same religion? Are we still talking about pedagogical issues pertaining to the inculcation of children, OR are you now looking at the other instance wherein some random person comes to think, "Eureka, I've discovered the Divine!" and just happens to differ from that of another person on the other side of the globe?

I happily will. This is how religion differs from actual knowledge.
This is the difference between faith based beliefs and evidence based beliefs.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean, evidence based beliefs about how averages win out without the actual statistical study to back it up? That KIND of evidence? Or do you really mean to imply that generalized human experience, all by itself, actually does mean something? Of course, you'd be careful to avoid answering 'yes,' because.....well.....that might let the Trojan Horse into the castle, and we wouldn't want that.

What the bible says about him?

Click to expand...

Oh, so, you're a Christian theologian now, ay? And what does the Bible say for sure about all of this?

Nicholas Deka said:

I'm not sure what you think the subtext is. If you trace it all the way back to NV who made the point first, he was making a statement about how powerful indoctrination as a child is. Dogma jumped in from there just to further push the statistic. What you think he's implying is really all your own. Just acknowledge that's what the stats are and ask "So what?". That's what Zippy did, and I think his line of questioning is completely valid.

Sorry, @zippy2006 , I don't have any sort of stake in the conversation at large. I'm not trying to ignore your questions. I just really hate straw men; they're a pet peeve of mine.

Click to expand...

Well, Dogma has now doubled down and what we thought he was implying turned out to be precisely what he was implying.

My point has always been that the statistics don't apply to individual cases. Which is basically a "So what?" response.

DogmaHunter said:

Which is statistically VERY LIKELY true.

As said plenty of times: tell me the religion of your parents and >99% of the time, I'll succesfully guess your religion.

Click to expand...

And you would be guessing wrong even with yourself, seeing as how you are neither Christian nor Muslim. So perhaps this is not the sort of approach you should be pushing.

DogmaHunter said:

And you know it's true.
You just argue this point because you don't like it. Because it shows that religious beliefs aren't held because there are rational reasons to hold them. Religious beliefs are held because they are taught from a very young age onwards.

Religious beliefs of an individual, as a general rule, are determined by the parents.

Click to expand...

I don't know that it's true. I have no idea why my own family's nominal Christianity, combined with random Eastern beliefs, determined that my own beliefs would be Christian. If you were arguing that someone who was brought up in a strict religious household would be likely to end up that religion, I would agree with you, but you are going much further than that. You are tossing the whole post-Christian crowd into your statistics because our parents loosely identified as Christian, even if they barely practiced it and did not teach it. People don't learn religious beliefs by osmosis simply because their parents happen to identify with a particular religion.

If you randomly decided to embrace Christianity at some point, it would obviously not be because your mother was Christian, so you need to fix your position to account for that type of situation. Otherwise you're simply wrong. You're assuming a correlation between religion of the parent and the actual intentional transmission of that religion that you should know from experience doesn't always apply.

If you developed your method here to be more flexible to various circumstances, I would probably agree with the conclusion, but right now it is simplistic to the point of being obviously fallacious.

DogmaHunter said:

I never talked about skin color.
I talked about culture and how the religious beliefs of parents are taught to children, how then the vast majority of the time stick to those beliefs for the rest of their lives.

I did talk about ethnicity, that is correct, in context of metropolitan cities and guessing people's religion based on geographic location. And I stand by it.

If I walk around in Antwerp and I come accross someone religious of north-african ethnicity, like Moroccon... I'ld guess that person is a muslim. And most of the time, I'ld surely be correct.

If I'ld come accross a "white" religious person, I'ld guess that person is a christian. And most of the time, I'ld surely be correct also.

Click to expand...

This is literally ethnic profiling. How can you not see that this is ethnic profiling?

DogmaHunter said:

If you come accross a person named Achmed, Abdullah or Mohammed... what do you think is most likely his religion? Christian, muslim, hindu or scientologist?

Be honest now...................................

Click to expand...

Honestly, I would assume secular unless someone is wearing religious symbols or actually says or does something to give away their religion. I would not be surprised if the answer were Muslim or Oriental Orthodox, but I don't really go around trying to guess what religion people are because of their names. That's bizarre in the extreme.

DogmaHunter said:

Yes. That's kind of the thing with faith-based beliefs like religion. You gotta have "faith". Why? Because there is no evidence.

You don't require "faith" to believe that jumping from the empire state building will hurt and likely end your life.

You would, however, require "faith" to believe that you'll just float mid-air and not plummet to your death.

Just like you require "faith" to believe that a God exists who will grant you an eternal afterlife in some paradise if you abide by the criteria laid down in that specific religion.



No.

For starters, religious beliefs are grounded in faith by definition of the word "religion".
That's a fact that doesn't require any argument. That's just how religion works.

Click to expand...

This seems to be the crux of your argument:

A necessary condition of being a Christian (or an adherent of any religion), is that you cannot have evidence or good reasons for your religious beliefs.

Now the only reason you’ve given for thinking that that is a necessary condition is that religion is defined that way. That faith is defined as believing something for which there is no evidence.

Seen in this light, the argument from the fact that most people retain the religious beliefs of their parents is superfluous. If you start off defining religion and faith in such a way that prohibits there being good reasons and evidence for them, then it necessarily follows that those who do abandon the religious beliefs they were taught for other religious beliefs (something you have acknowledged does happen), do so for reasons other than there being good reasons and evidence to do so.

So really, I would, along with zippy2006, 2PhioVoid, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Martin Luther, and the plethora of others who view faith differently than you do, challenge you to think of faith differently, in the biblical sense, not in the sense so often portrayed by internet popularizers.

Silmarien said:

Well, Dogma has now doubled down and what we thought he was implying turned out to be precisely what he was implying.

Click to expand...

That childhood indoctrination in religion is the most powerful driving force behind belief in religion? I fail to see how that could be construed as "offensive".

Silmarien said:

My point has always been that the statistics don't apply to individual cases. Which is basically a "So what?" response.

Click to expand...

That sort of reasoning would seem to apply to all statistics. Are all statistics worthless?

How about the fact that most people who are born into poverty stay poor. On the individual level, some very few people rise above it and go off to Ivy League schools. Does that mean the statistics about poverty are irrelevant?

Uber Genius said:

But it is a textbook genetic fallacy.

Best to agree on legitimate objections or things that are real like evil and suffering then agreeing on claims that can't possibly be true like the statements above.

Secondly faith is being use equivocally above. It is used differently in scripture (that is NOT as a way of knowing anything but rather TRUST)

so dogmahunter gives us 2 informal fallacies for the price of one.

Click to expand...

The faith vs. reason debate persists because I think so many are taught exactly what DogmaHunter thinks is true, that faith and evidence are antithetical to one another.

Nicholas Deka said:

That childhood indoctrination in religion is the most powerful driving force behind belief in religion? I fail to see how that could be construed as "offensive".

Click to expand...

When applied to individuals? How could it be anything but offensive?

There is a huge double standard here, given how often the atheists on this site insist upon being considered as individuals instead of simply being stereotyped and categorized. The sheer entitlement involved in demanding that type of respect while refusing to grant it in return is a little bit shocking.

Nicholas Deka said:

That sort of reasoning would seem to apply to all statistics. Are all statistics worthless?

How about the fact that most people who are born into poverty stay poor. On the individual level, some very few people rise above it and go off to Ivy League schools. Does that mean the statistics about poverty are irrelevant?

Click to expand...

When applied to individuals, yes. The statistics are irrelevant at best, offensive at worst. If you're talking to someone who was born in poverty and remained poor (or any other combination), you should actually listen to what they have to say instead of lecturing them on what the statistics are. They may reflect the general trend, but they also might not.

We shouldn't go around telling people that their fates are determined by statistical analysis, because it's not true. Statistics have no causal power, and what actually goes on in any individual's life is far more complicated than a numbers game.

DogmaHunter said:

Secularism, is not a belief though.

Click to expand...

Neither is the ability to speak Spanish. Who cares? Secularism involves a worldview, just like religion, and worldviews are inherited.

There are theistic secularists too.

Click to expand...

And their secularism arose ex nihilo no more than atheistic secularists.

I don't expect any theist to easily agree to such, since it kind of undermines the truth value of the things they believe.

Click to expand...

And that supposed entailment is the whole reason you brought it up, no?

If religion is purely deterministic, and everything else is not, then one's religion is neither rational nor free. That antecedent has been looming unspoken in this thread, but everyone knows it's there (presumably even @Nicholas Deka by this point). The interesting thing is that you won't even speak it. It seems like you're almost hoping that people will make the false inference (influenced -> determined), because that's what's needed for your strong conclusion, i.e. the undermining of religion.

(I suppose one could settle for a weaker conclusion, but I've never known you to do that. )

devolved said:

I wouldn't say that it detroys it. We are merely labeling sensory perception and the reality "up the chain" of that perception. It makes no difference whether such mechanism is entirely is of some collective conscious experience, or reality that produces a mind. Conceptually we can still maintain that category IMO.



Language is a very high level abstraction of the models existing in our brain which are not constrained by language at all. Language is a "meme" when it comes to conceptual relationship to mind as a mechanism.

It doesn't have to reflect reality at all as long as it loosely conveys meaning in context of the model.

In fact, there are very few concrete and nominal concepts in the above paragraphs. These are almost entirely "head
-space" concepts that relate to other "head-space" concepts.

Some coversations would likely be closer to concrete reality, but that would not be the case for major portion of our language.

Click to expand...

So, dude, through all of this, what's holding you back from the Christian 'thang,' bro?

Nicholas Deka said:

That childhood indoctrination in religion is the most powerful driving force behind belief in religion? I fail to see how that could be construed as "offensive".

Click to expand...

Imagine for a moment you’re someone like Richard Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Carl Sagan and you’ve literally placed all that you are into the scientific enterprise and one day someone like Ray Comfort is on Fox News and says, “Childhood indoctrination in the scientific method is the driving force behind belief in the scientific method.”

I doubt your first response would be, “Gee! That’s not offensive at all!”

You would have an uproar so great from the scientific community that scientists would be knocking down the door of every radio and news station in an attempt to make it known how misguided and ignorant Ray Comfort was for saying what he did.

“Nicholas Deka said:

That sort of reasoning would seem to apply to all statistics. Are all statistics worthless?

How about the fact that most people who are born into poverty stay poor. On the individual level, some very few people rise above it and go off to Ivy League schools. Does that mean the statistics about poverty are irrelevant?

Click to expand...

If you were poor and living under a bridge or having to stay in a homeless shelter and someone walked up to you and said that most people who are born poor are going to stay poor and that’s a statistic you can’t argue with, you might not be offended, but you definitely wouldn’t be overjoyed to hear that.

You don’t understand why someone here might take offense to what you’ve said because you aren’t putting yourself in the shoes of the one on the receiving end of what you’re saying.

Silmarien said:

When applied to individuals? How could it be anything but offensive?

Click to expand...

Did someone apply it to an individual? I thought you were just pointing out the diversity of individuals to show that statistics break down. Are you saying that some atheist actually told some individual that they only believe because they were brainwashed? Or are you just assuming they wanted to imply that?

Silmarien said:

We shouldn't go around telling people that their fates are determined by statistical analysis, because it's not true. Statistics have no causal power, and what actually goes on in any individual's life is far more complicated than a numbers game.

Click to expand...

No one ever said any such thing.

anonymous person said:

Imagine for a moment you’re someone like Richard Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Carl Sagan and you’ve literally placed all that you are into the scientific enterprise and one day someone like Ray Comfort is on Fox News and says, “Childhood indoctrination in the scientific method is the driving force behind belief in the scientific method.”

I doubt your first response would be, “Gee! That’s not offensive at all!”

You would have an uproar so great from the scientific community that scientists would be knocking down the door of every radio and news station in an attempt to make it known how misguided and ignorant Ray Comfort was for saying what he did.

Click to expand...

You think? I don't believe the scientific community pays all that much attention to YECs. Comfort and others like him have said that same thing about evolution countless times and no one is up in arms about it. More like disdain for ignorance.

anonymous person said:

If you were poor and living under a bridge or having to stay in a homeless shelter and someone walked up to you and said that most people who are born poor are going to stay poor and that’s a statistic you can’t argue with, you might not be offended, but you definitely wouldn’t be overjoyed to hear that.

Click to expand...

You think that would be it? Those stats are evidence that poverty is cyclical and if anyone cares about fixing poverty they need to help the poor with the things they don't have the means to help themselves. I imagine if I cited that statistic to someone under a bridge the only response I would get would be, "DUH!".

anonymous person said:

You don’t understand why someone here might take offense to what you’ve said because you aren’t putting yourself in the shoes of the one on the receiving end of what you’re saying.

Click to expand...

No, I don't understand because I don't feel a broad range of emotions, and being offended isn't one of the few I do experience to a limited extent.

Nicholas Deka said:

Did someone apply it to an individual? I thought you were just pointing out the diversity of individuals to show that statistics break down. Are you saying that some atheist actually told some individual that they only believe because they were brainwashed? Or are you just assuming they wanted to imply that?

Click to expand...

This whole thing started because an atheist told @2PhiloVoid that he was only Christian because he grew up in a Christian country. It was pretty explicit.

I have no argument with the statistics until they're weaponized. They were weaponized immediately here.