RE: Long term advice when debating theists.
April 23, 2015 at 2:51 pm
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2015 at 3:10 pm by Brian37.)
(April 17, 2015 at 9:17 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote:(April 17, 2015 at 10:43 am)Brian37 Wrote: "burning the candle at both ends", ...
Hmm...I can do that without getting out of bed.
(April 17, 2015 at 10:43 am)Brian37 Wrote: "Debunk science with science" another way of putting it would be...accept[ing] science when they think it works to prop up their own claims, and reject it when it doesn't....and the idiot apologists who use the 2nd law argument are using it to lead you to their god...
Ahhoo...How selective our ears can be when we have lists to tilt in and a dainty lady in the wings....who is really a deity reviewing her Clausius statement of the Second Law in connection with designing a perfect refrigerator. And one can even inject science into religion without invoking a god, if Engineers and Design do get brief mention at the end. See Tomkins on Chimp/Human sequence comparisons at CRS.
(April 17, 2015 at 6:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: It is more important for most humans to protect their social norms than to admit they got it wrong.
True, and now we're in business. There is indeed safety in numbers as one of your earlier posts said. We Americans (if you're in the USA) are 300 million strong and have the happy combination of a firm government and a pluralistic tradition. We no longer think Amun-Re has sex with the king's mother to create a divine ruler, but there's probably a good reason Egyptians thought so. The world was a very dangerous place for them, without police, with threats of foreign invasion, threats of famine and death in childbirth, and little assurance day-to-day civil order would be maintained. They needed a way to cope with all this and on the whole I feel they acquitted themselves very courageously. Like Egyptians, we have the beliefs we can afford to have. I doubt their society had the option of entertaining a freethinking way; dissent was a threat to civil order for them in a way it is not for us.
Earlier peoples didn't make the sharp division between natural and supernatural that we make. And though I'm thoroughly jaded regarding special claims of the religious kind, I'm also sure our secular-religious distinction is as artificial as any other development in human culture, and worth retaining mainly because it produces useful results for us. While the scientific method itself doesn't depend on religion per se, it does encourage a culture of rationality and secular humanism which has its own social norms and can even function somewhat like religions do when it takes off into issues such as cosmic origins and morality.
That's why I've always thought that when debating the religious (thoughtful ones as opposed to nuts), we should acknowledge that the culture of rationality isn't doing a good job of meeting social, psychological, and existential needs for many people. Otherwise all these religions should wilt as for the most part they can't force their memberships to stay. Theism comes in many flavors but it's a mistake to presume dogma at first blush. Even Christianity displays astonishing diversity of opinion, with people changing affiliations as they search for "church homes" that suit them. Lots of religious are rational enough to work in the sciences and well aware of the arguments deployed against theistic belief.
If the goal is to "convert" them, it is necessary to convince them that believing the cosmos is a giant weather pattern makes more sense than holding some alternative belief. After all, we don't even have precise definitions for what we mean by the terms cognition, intelligence, and purpose, and can hardly expect we've heard the last word on that matter. Sometimes getting it right just isn't that important, especially when it comes to ultimate questions on the nature of reality.
Quote:They needed a way to cope with all this
NO that is not the way to justify clinging to a claim or idea. Gap filling having a real effect of creating group survival is still not an excuse to cling to old ideas. If it were the Dark Ages would be justified, and Islam's treatment of women and non Muslims would be justified.
Saying people create placebos as a coping mechanism only means that it happens. Where progress happens in our species is the good side of humanity's capabilities when we question those social norms.
Quote:If the goal is to "convert" them, it is necessary to convince them that believing the cosmos is a giant weather pattern makes more sense than holding some alternative belief. After all, we don't even have precise definitions for what we mean by the terms cognition, intelligence, and purpose, and can hardly expect we've heard the last word on that matter. Sometimes getting it right just isn't that important, especially when it comes to ultimate questions on the nature of reality.
You will not find any sane scientist who claims to know it all. But that does not mean we need to cling to old ideas. Religions are a result of humans flawed perceptions. It isn't that you can create a godless utopia. It is simply saying religion is only given the human right to make the claim. It should not however be free from scrutiny or blasphemy.
"Convert" is a word I am growing to hate. As an atheist, I am not "recruiting" anyone. "Convert" is a religious word. If humans want to find facts, those are not defended by a mere act of marketing. You don't convince humans gravity is real by marketing it. You don't convince people that evolution is fact through mere marketing.
"Convert" is the language religion uses and atheists don't need to market like a club. "Convince" I like much better. And if we want to convince believers they don't need their old myths and clubs facts are the best way to do that.
