Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I don't think that religion is a delusion.
Sort of like how some theists will use an overly loose definition of religion to try and include science. Some atheists will use a colloquial definition of delusion that likely all human being fall into in one way or another.
Probably true, although I think it would still be necessary to define one's terms. I think it's the difference between saying "I know" versus "I believe."
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
In order to support his assertion, he would have to cite this supposed "strong contradictory evidence," of which there is absolutely none.
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Leaving aside things like only 4 out of 10 people believe in evolution There have been numerous studies on the power of prayer showing that it doesn't work the way believers keep using it.
The same link shows that only 25% actually disbelieve in evolution, while 36% have no opinion either way.
I think a lot of people may not know enough about evolution to be making any opinions about it one way or the other. They might just defer to the experts and get on with their lives. But as for the 1 in 4 who actively disbelieve in evolution, perhaps you have a point, although I was talking about the supposed strong contradictory evidence to the believed existence of God. There isn't any such evidence that I'm aware of.
As to the power of prayer, the religionists have an answer for that one, too: Sometimes, God's answer is "No." In that sense, the power of prayer might have the same level of power as writing a letter to the President.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Moreover, many people are socialized to believe in religion from birth, not unlike many Americans are socialized to believe in Freedom, Liberty, and Justice For All. Is that a "delusion," too? I just don't get what he's trying to say here.
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
See my first reply. Though if I were you I would have gone with a more obvious example like how roughly 90% consider themselves to be above average intelligence, less biased than average, better than the average driver and so forth.
Perhaps, although I think both examples could work, especially since I could use the historical record to easily show strong contradictory evidence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I think agnosticism is the truly valid scientific position to take, while atheism seems more like a political position than anything else.
I don't think that's the case. Certainly the choice of atheists such as myself to talk about positions held by a majority or at least a significant number of theists instead of theistic positions that I've only ever heard advocated by agnostics could be considered a political choice but I don't think that means that atheism is a political position.
I think we've both noticed in the past that we have similar views on the likelihood of various possible theistic positions. I tend to spend my time talking about the positions that are more likely to be held where as I've seen you spend your time talking about positions that are more likely to be non-falsifiable. If that choice of subject makes atheism more like a political position than anything else wouldn't agnosticism also be more like a political position than anything else for precisely the same reasons?
Possibly, although in science, it's perfectly valid to say "I don't know." However, if you say "I know" in a scientific context, then it's customary to ask for evidence and proof to demonstrate how you know this to be true. Once the discussion comes out of the scientific realm, then we can be a bit more loosey-goosey and colloquial about how things are worded and expressed. But science has to be more exacting and precise in its use of language.
Using the Sam Harris essay linked upthread as an example, it's clear that he's not using the scientific definition of "delusional" as it would be defined by psychiatrists and others in that field. He states that he's being colloquial, which would indicate that he's trying to write a persuasive essay, which would be more in the political realm, not scientific. Even he says that himself. Another example might be American Atheists, which promotes political activism. While there may be many scientists who are members of that group, I don't think it can be considered to be a scientific organization. It's political.
|
RE: Think there is a god and what is your evidence? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread