A conversation with Robvalue about religion.

[robvalue]

Alright, here we go. I'll stick to one argument. I don't need to concern myself specifically with Islam to make the point.

It is sensible to only believe things for which there is credible evidence. Having an internal model of reality that is as accurate as possible means that you are able to make the best decisions. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence we should require before believing it. The same goes for how important the claim is.

I made some videos on the important of scepticism before which go into more detail:

http://youtu.be/cX7mdUh9yUE

http://youtu.be/lOrP9nb-yrk

The only "evidence" ever presented for religions is:

1) Religious texts
2) Fallacious or irrelevant philosophical arguments

1) All of these books are exactly what one would expect to see from primitive societies trying to make sense of the world around them. Even if they happen to contain some things that are true, and even if those things are impressive by the standards of the time, that in no way validates the truth of the rest of the book. It also doesn't validate claims about where those truths came from, and certainly doesn't give the author free reign to write a load of magic stuff and expect us to just believe it. If you get to the point where you will believe whatever someone writes based on what they have already written, you are literally prepared to believe anything. I don't consider that a good position to ever be in.

They are just books. They are surrounded by oral myths, and without these myths, they would be viewed as a mixture of vague historical record and fiction. This is further evidenced by the very high correlation between the religion someone is "raised" in (indoctrinated) and the religion they "believe".

2) Abstract arguments are never evidence about reality on their own. They require producing a model of reality, and then manipulating that model. When manipulated correctly, all we have are conclusions that are as true as the initial assumptions of the model. They would be true in a reality that followed this idealised model exactly. But inevitably, our models are simplified. The only way to be sure that our abstract, idealised reality bears any resemblance to how reality actually works is to go back to reality and study the results. Otherwise, we can never be sure that we haven't gone wildly off target, and are considering a fictional reality that is in line with what we want it to be, or what we can understand.

Generally, these arguments make huge simplifications, reducing the whole of physics and the study of space-time to a single, simple sentence. The idea that these arguments can produce results that the whole of science cannot is ludicrous. And further, every religion uses the same arguments to try and establish some sort of entirely abstract "God", without any evidence to check it's actually anything real, and then makes the huge non-sequitur jump of assuming "their God" is the real God.

If there is a "God", then we currently have no way to learn anything about it with any accuracy. Not only are there multiple religions all claiming to be true while contradicting each other, not even a single religion can agree with itself what the truths are.

If there is a "God", until such time as some credible evidence about it is presented, it is irrelevant. To try and follow the whims of an undemonstrated being, based on the say-so of fallible humans touting magical stories is foolhardy. Even if it wishes us to act a certain way, we have no duty to do so. If it wants us to do anything other than what we feel is right, for objectively good reasons, it's not a being worthy of our attention.