Unfair.  My thesis advisor is a Nobel Prize laureate and a fervent Catholic.  He objectively knows more than all of us combined.  So simple possession of information isn't enough.  By the same token, I don't think anyone would call Colbert an idiot.  The head of the Human Genome Project... Look, I'm not going to list all the names I can think of, but a lot of genius-level folks with insane amounts of information believe.  That's just an easy "Us v.s. Them" attack.

Me too.  I'm sure there is an evolutionary/genetic reason some of us see past the hooey and others don't.  I've heard a few theories posited based off psychology studies, but nothing that really grabs me as True.  Religious attitudes might just be a function of personality.  And the particular religion you choose... well, most people don't choose.  One is thrust on them at birth.

That's the worst.  The absolute worst.  *commiseration hug*

You can't possibly have actually heard Dawkins speak if you're making this comment.

Watch all ten minutes of this video -- and the six other ten minute parts of Dawkins talking to this harpy -- and then  tell me Dawkins isn't pleasant and respectful.

For the record, "pleasant and respectful" is fine when that's actually what you mean, but too often when people want "pleasant and respectful" they actually mean "spineless and conciliatory," and I have no time for that.

Both smart and pleasant and respectful are rather lower on my list than the question "Correct or incorrect?" I don't care how smart someone is, if they're wrong about something, that's what matters.

Yeah, he knows more stuff. Does he know more stuff about his religion? Has he actually investigated his religion? Because that's what we're talking about. This other stuff is a different subject entirely.

In my experience, the smarter a believer is, the more vague and general they are about what they believe. I'm sure your thesis advisor is a very smart man, and I'm also sure he's never bothered to read the Bible, never bothered to spend much time thinking about the contradictions in what he believes, and if you asked him about it he'd quickly change the subject after perhaps some hand-waving about the difference between things that can be measured scientifically and things we take on faith. Smart people are much better at compartmentalizing and rationalizing their beliefs.

No. A very, very few such people believe. Fewer by far in that cohort than the population at large. The majority do not. And for the ones who do, the amount of information they have available to them doesn't enter into it. They either compartmentalize by saying that whatever we know about the universe doesn't disprove their belief, or they go "I know, it's amazing! And God made it that way!" and if you ask how they know that, THEN they'll mumble something about personal faith.

It's all well and good to be smart, but you have to actually care whether what you believe is true. And if you push smart people on it, they usually will admit that in this case, they don't care, they just take comfort from belief.

Historically speaking, the less respect religion gets, the more civilization seems to improve. I'll take the Renaissance and Enlightenment over the Middle Ages and the contemporary Middle East, thanks.

I don't agree with this. I don't have to know all the nuances of the Silmarillion before I can decide I don't believe that it's true, nor should I have to memorize the five pillars of Islam in order to say I think it's all hooey. I don't think you need a lot of information to reject a concept -- but you should need a lot of information before you accept it.

Like you say, the main reason I know a good amount about Christian mythology is because when I was losing my faith I did a lot of research to try to find something to cling to. But I don't think it's invalid for an atheist to not believe it simply because they never saw any good reason to.

For the most part, pleasant matters to me because, outside of a working environment/paying bills, being correct or incorrect rarely means jack on the personal-level.  I could have a proof that shows god doesn't exist.  That won't change anyone's mind today or tomorrow.  It's like that guy who stores vast amounts of trivia and waits for the moment to correct someone.  Rarely is it for the benefit of the corrected.  It's to make the corrector feel better about himself.  That's what a lot of these types of debates become.  Pissing contests.  Not here, of course, because we're civilized, damnit.

Fair enough.  You're a smart dude, Mike - and it would be unfair for me to expect you to know advanced economics or radiology.  That's not your expertise.  However, you're making an assumption that he hasn't mulled over it critically.  You might be right.  I don't know.  It was hard enough to get him to look at me as an undergrad student, much less sign off on my work… much less ask him about god.  And you're also right that smart people are good at defending whatever the hell they want.  It's hard to be challenged when you're smarter than everyone around you, can see systems, can poke holes, and can find intellectual refuge.  But these are a lot of negative assumptions. 

Man. We've really gotten off track. 

One of the reasons I latched on to what Matt said is because in the commentaries I've noticed an annoying trend where anyone who has a sense of faith gets dismissed as an idiot.  Granted, this is usually a theoretical idiot.  But there are smart people who believe in dumb things.  Why dismiss them wholesale?   I mean, you like Super Mario Bros - no one is perfect.

When I said "a lot," I was speaking from personal experience.  On the whole, you could be right.  If I get a chance I'll do a JSTOR search for studies, or suggest it to someone getting a PhD in one of the social sciences as a research topic.  But I'm willing to bet money it's more than very, very few.  And there is a difference between religion, faith, and agnosticism.  For the sake of this thread, I was speaking in terms of religion.  But again, you're assuming no one else is applying critical thinking.  Granted, for most people that's true.  Hell, I'm not even critically thinking through this reply.  Hitler!

The major problem with organized religion is the "everything I don't believe in is evil" attitude.  So yeah.  I try to avoid it.

EDIT - I'm sorry the thread has become this.  I'M SO SORRY.

Last edited by oTom (2011-09-27 22:20:57)

I like to think of myself as a humanist; I've no spirituality but think that if someone has a belief system that helps them through the tough times, more power to them. Occasionally wish I had something similar.

I don't have the belief gene; tried it, couldn't do it.

It annoys me that Eddie is THAT much clearer in thought than me.  That's what I wanted to say.

It sure is hard being a Scotsman; nobody seems to think it's the truth.

He's agreeable there, sure, he's agreeable a lot of the time. I've seen an awful lot of Dawkins stuff and read The God Delusion, and initially I liked him. He's quick on his feet and ultimately I agree with him. But I've also seen him be a dismissive, arrogant, unbelievable prick on a recurring basis, and I hold myself to the standard that you're only as good as you are at your worst, so try to elevate that, not dilute it with moments of absolute kindness, however many they are.

In other words, in my mind it's not a question of how you treat people you respect, it's how you treat people you don't.

I don't find that to be the case, with me. This is kind of philosophical.

Would you also say "I don't care how nice someone is, if they're wrong about something, that's what matters?" At what point do you draw the line and say  "you know, this person has done nothing to me, certainly nothing that requires me to play intellectual offense, and even though I know we disagree on something, I'm not going to correct them."

Royal "you," now. Old lady knits you a sweater and says she used gray yarn when it's clearly red, do you say "thanks," or the more-correct "this is red yarn, you old lady." And if you did correct her, how can you ever be sure you've considered the nature of her mistake enough? How can you be positive that her brain and yours are both receiving and storing the same information, and that your conclusion, formed in a perfect vacuum, is the right one? Maybe she's color blind. Maybe she's blind blind. Maybe she just misspoke, and knows perfectly well that it's red. In any of those cases, what does the correction say about you? (Asterisk, coming back to this question.)

But of course you don't correct her in that situation, it doesn't matter. So there is a line somewhere. I just worry, every time I'm in a situation resembling that, that the old lady is going to think I'm an asshole, as are everyone around me who may understand the situation better, all because I corrected her when I didn't know what was going on in the first place.

All of that royal-you stuff is what goes through my mind whenever someone says something that I think is completely bogus. "Put yourself as fully as you can in their shoes, not just with regards to facts and knowledge, but emotionally, compassionately." I've found most arguments are just mistaken attribution of one's own history and assumptions on the other. If I try to clear that up, I find that they're usually not idiots, or at least complete idiots. They're coming from a different place, I just have to care to find out. A little benefit of the doubt. And then a meaningful conversation ensues, you learn more about how a person could have those opinions, and will understand them better next time.

The alternative is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you think everyone is a moron, you'll dismiss them, never learn otherwise, and continue thinking everyone is a moron.

Which brings me back to the asterisk. What does the correction of the old lady say about you? Well, I think the primary influence of a correction-happy person is just wanting to make it clear, when someone says something they think is dumb, that they're not with the dumb-sounder. "Just for the record, everybody, I know that this is red yarn. Just saying. I'm not as dumb as old lady here."

What it boils down to, for me, that kind of attitude, is that the person willing to be that way is willing to immediately throw someone else under the bus to increase their standing in the social situation they find themselves in - be liked - and I don't like that, and don't want to be around it.

I prefer the idea of a gentler road to being liked, which is respectfulness and pleasantness, and correct-ness isn't sacrificed. Not rolling over when specifically confronted with information you know (or think) is wrong, just taking a person in context and not out. "All things considered, this person is probably not an idiot, so let's figure out what they're basing that claim on and not the best way to tear it down." Don't make people feel bad just so you feel smart, or make them feel the need to defend themselves. Or be seen as someone who does.

As a true Scotsman, I just don't get enough of that vibe, amid the confrontation-frenzy that are the Dawtchens videos I've seen, to be a fan of them.

Anyway. That's how I feel about the thing.

Religion vs Public Policy (though I'd say all dogma IS political statement) is an entirely different debate.  One I suspect we all would be in full agreement on.

Sure, people can be inspired to good things from reading the Bible just as from any book of fiction. And if they are, great. But if it's not impolite of them to tell me "I think the Bible is tre," I think it's a double standard that it's considered rude of me to say "Okay, I think you're wrong."

And by the way, if I paid for a red sweater and I get a grey one, you bet your ass I'm gonna correct the old lady and expect a red one or my money back.

Teague, perhaps you could link me to a video of Dawkins displaying this behavior you've ascribed to him. I've watched a lot of videos and never seen it, but I'm open to new evidence.

Which probably represents the exact problem with starting any sort of conversation with most theists.

You: Hey, this sweater is grey, but I paid for a red one.

Senile Grandma (smiling): Oh no, sonny, that's red.

You: No, this is definitely grey. I'd like my money back.

SG: You're being very silly. The sweater is red.

You: I'm looking at it right now. It's grey.

SG: It's definitely red. I don't want to have this conversation anymore. Please leave.

And there's nothing you can do because everyone thinks you're an asshole for haranguing a senile grandma.

Last edited by Doctor Submarine (2011-09-28 02:28:02)

I've been flipping through YouTube for a few minutes and haven't found anything that warrants what I said earlier about Dawkins in particular, so I'll retract it. In all honesty, I'm surprised he's responded to the folks he's been talking to as neutrally as he has.

I'm not sure where I got that in my head about him. I might have been watching Hitchens talk over someone on a news interview for the too-manyeth time and lumped them together, which was a mistake.

So, we're cool, Dawkins. ... For now.

Wow, ok.  Small alteration to my last post: In my experience...

Heck of a discussion though.  I'm with Eddie, mostly (and the "mostly" is just hedging my bets).

I believe anyone should be able to believe whatever they want to believe about anything.  I don't think that point is in dispute here.   I only have a couple caveats: 1.) Don't try to "sell" your beliefs to me, e.g., the "Unnamed-door-to-door-religion-salesmen"  who prowl my neighborhood at least once a month.  I'm not interested, and you are not welcome here. Discussion? Great! Bring it on! I'll put some coffee on and we'll stay up all night chatting.  Just leave the sales pitch at the door.  2.) Don't berate me for not believing as you do.  If you can't have a civilized, rational conversation about your beliefs, go away; you can't "win" an epistemological argument, and if you're going to be a douche-bag about it, I have no time for you.  I really would welcome the chance to sit down with our "Unnamed-door-to-door-religion-salesmen" from caveat 1, and discuss their faith, provided they could adhere to both caveats.  Heck, they might even win me over that way!  Ok, maybe not.

(My apologies to any "Unnamed-door-to-door-religion-salesmen" we may have around here.  I won't pretend I'm not cribbing from a real group, and I mean no disrespect, but I had to site a specific example, and folks literally coming around knocking on my door to try and "sell" me on a belief system really gets under my skin.)

Like Mike, I arrived at atheism after searching for, and failing to find, a belief system I could give myself to, wholeheartedly, and without reservation.  I wouldn't say I'm not spiritual however.  I can't deny the feeling I get when I'm confronted by nature.  I believe there are energies in the universe that we cannot detect, but somehow we can perceive.  Are they really there?  I don't know, and I don't care.  I'm a big believer in science, but if there is one thing science is really bad at, it's proving that something doesn't exist.  The afterlife?  Who knows?  The scientist in me, and the part of me that still clings to the need to believe in something, like the idea that we all have a unique energy about us, and since energy cannot be destroyed, when we die it simply...goes somewhere else.  Maybe there isn't anything after this, and I'm fine with that too.  (I've actually been working on a story idea for that first thought; really need to write it down and post something in the Creations thread...)  Either way though, I seriously doubt that, if there is more to existence after this life, what we believe while we're here will have the slightest affect on what happens next.

I don't think religion is a bad thing.  There are things we don't know, and probably will never know, and I think that frightens a lot of people.  That's not to say that everyone who dresses up nice on Sunday and get together to read out of a book do so out of fear.  I understand that for many it is simply how they were raised, and for many others it is truly a belief that those things are true.  But for some at least, religion is a comfort against the unknown; in one way or another it helps them get through their day, and there's nothing wrong with that.  Personally, I don't need any such comfort, but far be it for me to deny it to others.

On the other hand, I also look at the havoc we have wrought and continue to  wreak in religion's name, and I can't reconcile that.  I'm a big fan of George Carlin, and it's high time he entered this discussion.  I can't deny, his work went a long way it getting me to question my beliefs.  In his bit about Sanctity of Life (skip to 6:52), he says: "Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death".  Yes, the whole bit is a satire, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Religions have some great ideas.  Like Eddie said, we just want to fuck, fight, eat and sleep, and religion is one way we temper those baser instincts; in a way, is one of the reasons society functions at all.  We can argue that that is right or wrong, and the degree to which it is effective, but it's there, and it's not going anywhere, so we all need to learn a little tolerance and understanding.

Until the aliens show up and prove everyone wrong, that is.