Treating religious people with kid gloves?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Religious people are not rational and rigorous when it comes to religion, otherwise they wouldn't be rational and rigorous.

Huh?

This is clearly true because normally rational and rigorous people have contradictory religious beliefs to each other (unless you are claiming that christians and no other theists are rational and rigorous). They cant all be right, so at the very minimum, all of them less one group is not being rational and rigorous in their examination of their beliefs.

I'm not claiming anything. You are. And you've identified the fly in your own ointment. How do you get this dissonant blanket to cover all religious people.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

The devil, as ever, lies in the detail. Words such a critical, evidence, proof, reasoned are slippery things and the tendency, I find, is for atheists to demand that folk conform to their particular take on these words.

Lord Chief Justice Darling is widely quoted along the lines of suggesting that: based on the evidence available, no intelligent jury could find other than that the resurrection story is true. This doesn't mean it is true in fact - it just means that according to the rules of evidence as they pertain to a court of law - and supposing a jury operating intelligently according to the rules which constrain them (which would naturally involve leaving their personal belief systems outside the jury room) - such would be the verdict.

Would the burden of proof in this case satisfy a scientific equiry? Obviously not.

So which court do you suppose we sit in?

Some would see it as logical to live a happy life.

First of all, what Darling didn't mention or maybe he did and you missed it is that there are different standards of evidentiary proof applied in legal cases depending on the circumstances of the proposition. These standards are:

1. Some credible evidence

2. Preponderance of the evidence

3. Clear and convincing evidence

4. Beyond a reasonable doubt

As Carl Sagan pointed out extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think we would all agree that someone being resurrected from the dead without the intervention of medical personnel would count as extraordinary.
The extraordinary evidence for the resurrection, however, is absent. There is very little extra-biblical evidence for the resurrection. The record of the resurrection in Mark's gospel was added to King James version but was not present in the oldest manuscripts. As for the other gospels, their dating have lead most biblical scholars to conclude that they are not eyewitness accounts and merely anonymous compositions. The only account that could be considered to be an eyewitness account is Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. However, since most christians would discount the authentication of the Book of Mormon by an angel despite the eyewitness testimony provided with every copy, eyewitness testimony alone is clearly insufficient evidence. These points, combined with the alternate naturalistic explanations make the resurrection story weak to the point of ridicule.

Also making appeals to authority won't help your case much.

The only reason you dismiss scientific enquiry is because your claim won't stand up to such examination. The scientific method at a basic level simply requires a claim to conform to available evidence and for any evidence presented in its favour to be objectively verifiable.

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

As for the criticism versus ridicule idea, I actually enjoy ridiculing ideas that I respect. Since I don't respect religious ideas you can only imagine....

Oh no, we have a FF voter.

beggar

[QUOTE=mariebeth
hi
i'm muslim and i just wanna tell u that muhammed is just a messenger ,actually we think he is the last and we believe in god and all the other messangers

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First of all, what Darling didn't mention or maybe he did and you missed it is that there are different standards of evidentiary proof applied in legal cases depending on the circumstances of the proposition. These standards are:

1. Some credible evidence

2. Preponderance of the evidence

3. Clear and convincing evidence

4. Beyond a reasonable doubt

I'm supposing that as a Lord Chief Justice, he makes his comments utilising a sound working knowledge of what constitutes admissible and convincing (from the legal perspective) evidence.

As Carl Sagan pointed out extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think we would all agree that someone being resurrected from the dead without the intervention of medical personnel would count as extraordinary.

That would depend very much on your starting perspective. If that perspective is one that holds to God's existance (which is no more or less extraordinary than that the universe arose from nothing/existed perpetually) then a person rising from the dead is relatively speaking, humdrum. If you, on the other hand, are a naturalist then of course, a person raised from the dead is extraordinary.

Carl Sagan isn't a neutral jury.

The extraordinary evidence for the resurrection, however, is absent. There is very little extra-biblical evidence for the resurrection.

There is paltry written evidence for much of historical antiquty as I'm sure you well know. Such is life when considering a time when writing was other than the normal way of recording events.

The fact that something appears in the Bible isn't itself a reason for dismissal - it's testimony must be weighed on own merits. Now you might take the view that Lukes historical approach render as evidence the eyewitnesses supposedly recorded. Or you might take the view that Luke was no historian at all.

But one can have a view. And be rational and rigorous in arriving at it.

The record of the resurrection in Mark's gospel was added to King James version but was not present in the oldest manuscripts. As for the other gospels, their dating have lead most biblical scholars to conclude that they are not eyewitness accounts and merely anonymous compositions.

Source?

The only account that could be considered to be an eyewitness account is Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. However, since most christians would discount the authentication of the Book of Mormon by an angel despite the eyewitness testimony provided with every copy, eyewitness testimony alone is clearly insufficient evidence.

As should be appearing evident, Paul isn't being taken in isolation. Nor need he be.

These points, combined with the alternate naturalistic explanations make the resurrection story weak to the point of ridicule.

Also making appeals to authority won't help your case much.

Er.. "Most theologians agree that..."?

Darlings quote wasn't being used as evidence of the resurrection. It was used to suggest that there are different ways of approaching evidence - some of which won't necessarily suit the book of naturalistic empiricists

The only reason you dismiss scientific enquiry is because your claim won't stand up to such examination. The scientific method at a basic level simply requires a claim to conform to available evidence and for any evidence presented in its favour to be objectively verifiable.

This view relies on a philosophy about science that isn't at all scientific. There is no evidence (scientific or otherwise) that science is the ideal tool for establishing all knowledge. Until such time as that situation changes, you're ringing utterly hollow.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm supposing that as a Lord Chief Justice, he makes his comments utilising a sound working knowledge of what constitutes admissible and convincing (from the legal perspective) evidence.

Yes you are supposing. You don't seem to have anything to back it up though. BTW, admissibility is not an issue here. In fact, it is unlikely that the gospels would even be ruled as admissible evidence in a legal proceeding since it is hearsay. Hearsay is only admissible under certain strict conditions, none of which are met by the gospels. Convincing, on the other hand, depends on the standard of proof required to be met which as I pointed out the last time depends on the circumstances of the proposition, namely the resurrection from death of a human.

Also Mr. Justice Darling was never appointed a Lord Chief Justice. In fact, he was a judge of the King's Bench which is a supervisory court. The only case which he presided over which mentioned religion was a case concerning Ascension Day in England [1907] 2 K.B. 112. The quote which you attribute to him was actually taken from a biography published several decades after his death. In fact, the one place you are most likely to find the quote is a religious apologetics website.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would depend very much on your starting perspective. If that perspective is one that holds to God's existance (which is no more or less extraordinary than that the universe arose from nothing/existed perpetually) then a person rising from the dead is relatively speaking, humdrum. If you, on the other hand, are a naturalist then of course, a person raised from the dead is extraordinary.

Carl Sagan isn't a neutral jury.

Yes, of course it depends on your starting perspective. However, a neutral jury would necessarily not make any assumptions, including that a God exists. Without making such an unfounded assumption, the resurrection is an extraodinary claim. Your jury of theists would obviously be biased towards the idea that a demigod could resurrect himself.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The fact that something appears in the Bible isn't itself a reason for dismissal - it's testimony must be weighed on own merits. Now you might take the view that Lukes historical approach render as evidence the eyewitnesses supposedly recorded. Or you might take the view that Luke was no historian at all.

OK, let's take Luke's gospel as an example. The overall reliability of any text which purports to be a historical record is diminished by factual errors. Like this one:

"And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereupon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."
Luke 4:28-29

Now we know from archeological evidence that there never was a synagogue in Nazareth. We also know from geographical evidence that Nazareth was not built on a hill. In fact there has been no hill in Nazareth for at least the last 400 million years.
This is only one example but the cumulative effect of these is to question the reliability of the overall text.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Source?

Well here's one for a start:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Bible-Stephen-Harris/dp/0767429168

Even the NIV Study Bible suggests that the gospels were written no earlier than 50 CE.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. "Most theologians agree that..."?

There is a difference, which you apparently fail to appreciate, between consensus and an appeal to authority. You argued that the opinion of a judge on a matter of historical debate should be automatically taken as the truth. I on the other hand, have merely stated that there is a current consensus among theological historians about the dating of the gospels and the significance of those dates in determining the historicity of the content contained therein.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Darlings quote wasn't being used as evidence of the resurrection. It was used to suggest that there are different ways of approaching evidence - some of which won't necessarily suit the book of naturalistic empiricists

Darling's abstract quote is as I pointed out already useless. As well as being questionable that he ever even said it, you can't point to any source which shows how he examined the different explanations for an event such as the resurrection and came to his conclusion. As such it is, at best, an argument from incredulity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This view relies on a philosophy about science that isn't at all scientific. There is no evidence (scientific or otherwise) that science is the ideal tool for establishing all knowledge. Until such time as that situation changes, you're ringing utterly hollow.

Science is, from all the evidence available, the best tool for understanding the world. It's just that the types of evidence which science tends to disregard, i.e. personal experience, revelation, divine inspiration are usually the ones most used by religious apologists. It is as Huxley said, common sense at its best, rigidly accurate in observation and merciless to fallacy in logic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This view relies on a philosophy about science that isn't at all scientific.

Care to explain that one?

aidan24326

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet many people who are demonstrably rational and rigorous in their thinking happen to be religious. The usual atheist bolthole at this point is to wave the magic wand of childhood indoctrination / cognitive dissonance / comfort blanket.

How have you managed to square this particuar circle. Rationally and rigorously that is..

I think it comes down to something like mental compartmentalisation. That people with otherwise rational minds simply don't apply the same rationality and logic to their religious beliefs. It's like they reserve a little section in their brain for religion that remains untouched by all those faculties that would normally lead to its intellectual demise. It's strange to me that people can do that. But it's not necessarily always cognitive dissonance either, as that implies that the person is uncomfortable with the internal conflict, which may not always be the case. Some people seem happy to hold such conflicting views.

beggar wrote: »

hi
i'm muslim and i just wanna tell u that muhammed is just a messenger ,actually we think he is the last and we believe in god and all the other messangers

Thanks for that wonderful insight beggar. Muhammed himself couldn't have put it any better.

pH

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm supposing that as a Lord Chief Justice, he makes his comments utilising a sound working knowledge of what constitutes admissible and convincing (from the legal perspective) evidence.

It's no surprise, that as someone religious you like arguments from authority - no matter how spurious or tenuous they may be.

Can you explain who Lord Chief Justice Darling was? When was he chief justice and where? And where did he write down your quote?

This is the problem with even bothering to read theists posts, they use a scattergun approach, amazing little nuggets which when they're found to be misrepresentations or even downright lies they just ignore *that* one and trot out the next 10.

ShooterSF

Rather than dealing in exponential posts (dancing the dance of internet arguments) I'll go back to your original question and try and answer it for you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet many people who are demonstrably rational and rigorous in their thinking happen to be religious. The usual atheist bolthole at this point is to wave the magic wand of childhood indoctrination / cognitive dissonance / comfort blanket.

How have you managed to square this particuar circle. Rationally and rigorously that is..

The how of the belief is cognitive dissonance. This is why we're asked to give a special respect to a personal faith based belief as, if the poster approached the belief rationally (maybe provoked by posters not "respecting" the belief) they will find it harder to justify imo.

Now we need the why for such a strange approach and that is comfort.

mariebeth wrote: »

I guess that's up to everyone's own opinion on what they do or not, but I don't go around saying or thinking that peoples beliefs are ridiculous whether they believe in a God or don't. The way I see it is that I've thought a lot about what I believe and don't believe, I have made a conscious decision that I do believe in a God and that there is more than just nothing after we die. For me that's comforting to me to believe that there is something after I die, that I'll be able to meet the people I've loved again in some way, shape or form. I don't think that there's anything ridiculous in those beliefs, just as much as I don't see that there's anything ridiculous in not believing that. Every one is different, and some people need the comfort of beliefs, while others don't.

I will admit that it is upsetting & frustrating to me when people put religious beliefs down as being ridiculous. In some cases maybe that's justified, particularly if people just follow along without thinking and questioning things. I've honestly thought a lot about it by myself. I haven't consulted the bible or anyone or anything else. I've sat down and thought out for myself what I believe, and what comforts me. It's because I've thought it out for myself and made a truly personal decision to believe what I believe, that I find it upsetting to know my beliefs are considered ridiculous by people, because ridiculous comes across to me as though I haven't spent ages thinking about it, that I've just followed my parents mindlessly in believing what I do believe in.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Huh?

Sorry, I meant to say that religious people are not rational and rigorous when it comes to religion, otherwise they wouldn't be religious.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not claiming anything. You are. And you've identified the fly in your own ointment. How do you get this dissonant blanket to cover all religious people.

I dont think its much of claim to point out that if each religion contradicts each other religion, then maximum, only one can be true and all the others must therefore not be rational or examined rigorously.
To see how this actually applies to all religions is very simple, just recognise that despite the contradicting beliefs, the arguments are very much the same - just look at the thread from a while back about the debate Michael Nugent had with a muslim creationist, where the muslim creationist was using almost exactly the same arguments that christian creationists use. Religious people from different religions use the same arguments as each other (giving the god a different label) but they end up with the same flaws.
(Now, of course you shouldn't just automatically assume that religious people have the same arguments, or that they are flawed, you need to hear them out first, but I've been listening to them for years and I've yet to hear an argument that doesn't point to cognitive dissonance and that, with a name change, couldn't be used for pretty much any god)