Religion Breeds Irrationality

[Jeff K.]

Trots is as brilliant as a dust bunny, and almost as substantial in his arguments.

[Tarski]

Or perhaps this particular non-radical-materialist can recognize the beauty in human relationships inter se, and in human relationships with the Divine.

Radical materialists tend to be very poor people people, don't value relationships, lack imagination, and are poor at apprehension.

Perhaps they were frightened by integrals as small children.

Maybe. I don't know what a radical materialist is. Do you?

There exists plenty of things that are not material objects per se.

Information.

Mathematical truths.

Language.

Culture.

etc.

Of course, there is every indication that most of these things supervene on physical phenomena or at least need physical phenomena to be manifested.

In short, matter and energy are patterned in extremely subtle ways. The patterns (biology, mind, society) are real.

On the other hand, you may think that a radical materialist is someone who doesn't believe in an ontological divide (one side of which contains ghostlike things which ironically seem quite spatiotemporal and pseudophysical when push comes to shove).

[mfbukowski]

Of course, there is every indication that most of these things supervene on physical phenomena or at least need physical phenomena to be manifested.

An interesting argument which would include God, since belief in him is definitely manifested in physical actions. Just imagine the wars alone!

Don't you love the Unicorn Tapestries?

http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Unicorn/unicorn_splash.htm

Lotsa "supervening on physical phenomena" there- they took years to weave and have had enormous cultural impact.

[Tarski]

An interesting argument which would include God, since belief in him is definitely manifested in physical actions.

Belief in God is manifested by physical actions and events (even if those events are merely speech acts or cognitions about God).

But what of it? Belief in unicorns (since you mentioned them) is also manifested physically.

Not sure the point.

Perhaps you meant to say that God is manifested physically (rather than just belief in him).

If so, I would call it a tendentious assertion to say the least.

Of course, if you want to define God like this guy then I guess we almost get the conclusion for free:

http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Everything-World-Became-Complex/dp/019513513X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302411687&sr=1-1-fkmr0

[TAO]

Get's a mischievous smile

Information.

0101011101101111011101010110110001100100011011100010011101110100001000000

1110100011010000110100101110011001000000110001001100101001000000110000100

1000000110110101100001011101000110010101110010011010010110000101101100001

0000001100110011011110111001001101101001000000110111101100110001000000110

1001011011100110011001101111011100100110110101100001011101000110100101101

1110110111000111111

Mathematical truths.

In my Java IDE:

int a = 5;
int b = 0;
int c = a/b;

And the output once compiled (an error):

java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
	at Driver.main(Driver.java:38)

Language.

Penso che questo sia troppo materiale.

Culture.

Burger anybody?

-----

Sorry... yah, it's just funny looking for a challenging way to show how these can be physical. I was enjoying myself a bit too much, so don't take it as a insult please XD.

But ultimately, I think those are all material. They are just only material in segments. But they are still material, imo.

[mfbukowski]

Not sure the point.

In effect, that was what I was asking you. What was your point in saying what you said?

[DarkScythe]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic I do think Insane Troll logic describes a lot of things.

[Tarski]

In effect, that was what I was asking you. What was your point in saying what you said?

Context context.

I was trying to get the person I was talking to to explain what "radical materialism" was supposed to be and letting him know what I thought about matter and all that to see if he thought I was one of these radical materialists or not.

[44Foxtrot]

I'm curious, 44Foxtrot, is there anything at all a theist can say about his/her belief in God that appears rational to you?

Is there any "I don't agree, but I respect you" common ground we can come to?

Mars,

This is a combined response to your earlier posts with a questions regarding whether or not I thought there was common ground for mutual respect between theists and secularists and the question regarding evidence against the existence of God.

Starting with the second question, we should be able to agree that here is no credible physical evidence for the existence of the traditional Christian outside-of-space-and-time-existing Creator God or the Mormon matter organizing Elohim, (or for that matter any of the hundreds or thousands of other gods worshipped by humankind throughout history).

If there were such evidence, then as Steven Colbert says, "-- religion would be science and no one would believe it-"

Since there is no evidence, then belief in God (any supernatural god) is an unfounded belief.

The probability that God exists is vanishingly small. Given what science now knows about cosmology and the history of this Earth and the our universe, the idea that this all came about by magic at the command of some supernatural being is absurd. The absurdity can be demonstrated by scientific, philosophical and mathematical (probabilistic) arguments.

In the light of modern scientific knowledge, the Christian creation myth carries no more weight than that of the most isolated and primitive tribe of humans on the Earth (now or at any time in the past). Science is inexorably closing down the God of the Gaps argument. As scientific understanding in cosmology and astronomy increases, many Mormon beliefs such the sun receiving light from Kolob (as described in LDS scripture), or that an anthropomorphic God with a physical body of flesh and bone can zip from Kolob to Earth and back, or quickly answer earthly prayers from the vicinity of Kolob, are shown to be nonsense.

In terms of philosophical arguments, infinite regress is fatal to the existence of the traditional Christian God. Richard Dawkins rightly asks, 'If God created the universe then who or what created God? (see Roger Montague (2008). Dawkins' Infinite Regress. Philosophy, 83, pp 113-115.)

Continuing with the probabilistic argument, and recognizing that we are not talking about one God, but multiple gods as described by Judaism, Islam, Evangelical Fundamentalist Christianity, Catholicism, Mormonism and dozens of others, it is evident that the Mormon Elohim is among the least probable of some highly improbable modern gods.

In terms of probability, the more attributes that one asserts for God, the less probable that God becomes. And Mormonism provides plenty of specific attributes for Elohim.

Starting from an assertion with no evidence (maximum ignorance argument), there is a 50% probability that the assertion God exists is true. Each time an attribute is added, without evidence, the probability is cut in half. Depending on how many attributes (of creation for example) that one ascribes to their god, the probability gets pretty small pretty fast. Claiming that Elohim is a God of flesh and blood, dwells near Kolob, appeared to Joseph Smith, sent angels to threaten Joseph Smith with a flaming sword, gave Joseph Smith the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, etc. (etc., etc.) makes the probability that Elohim exists vanishingly small.

I can certainly respect an individual who, when given the choice of whether or not God exists, simply assumes that God does exist, that his specific attributes are unknowable, and tries to live a moral and useful life based on what he or she believes God would want them to do. I have met and worked with a number of Jews (both in the US and Israel), Muslims (both in the US and Middle East), Catholics and other Christians who were curious, capable of critical thought, honest, and to my knowledge moral and ethical in their professional and family lives.

None of them tried to convert me to their religion or asserted specific fantastical attributes for their God. They did not claim that I would go to hell if I did not believe as they believed. They did not vilify homosexuals, or refuse to work on their Sabbath when work needed to be done. At the professional level and at the personal level, there was generally mutual respect in these relationships.

In short, these individuals believed there was a God, but did not allow their respective religious beliefs and its associated absurdities to completely dominate and control their lives and the lives of those around them. Their religions allowed them to live in this way and still remain adherents in good standing.

Not so for religious groups such as, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Scientologists. These are highly controlling, top down religious organizations that produce adherents who, in order to qualify as full members in good standing, are required to profess complete belief in the tenets of the religion, are not allowed to question or criticize their leaders, are taught that they have special knowledge that is required to be saved, are encouraged to bring others into the religion etc. Those who do not profess the absurdities, contribute money, blindly follow the leaders, and encourage others to do the same, cannot be members in good standing.

Since it is clear from the responses on this board that secularists generate fear in many active Mormons, and that their evidence based worldviews must be somehow vilified, I see precious little room for mutual respect and tolerance between secularists and religious groups such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or indeed the fundamentalist adherents of pretty much any religion.

I hope this rather long response answers your questions.

[Mars]

I see.

So the more detailed a person's understanding of God, the less likelihood you can find them to be rational? Or even respected? Do I understand you?

[Deborah]

Since there is no evidence, then belief in God (any supernatural god) is an unfounded belief.

You continue to make the mistake that belief in God is unfounded. For the believer there are multiple evidences and experiences that show the existence of God in their lives. A true believer cannot remain so without having evidence in his life that supports his continued faith.

Given what science now knows about cosmology and the history of this Earth and the our universe, the idea that this all came about by magic at the command of some supernatural being is absurd. The absurdity can be demonstrated by scientific, philosophical and mathematical (probabilistic) arguments.

Well, gee, it's a good thing Mormons don't believe this. We in fact believe that magic had nothing to do with it, rather that God as master of science and laws of the universe organized matter to bring about the creation. I find the more I learn about the cosmos the more it confirms my belief in a God who understands all of this.

it is evident that the Mormon Elohim is among the least probable of some highly improbable modern gods.

I find the Mormon belief in God to be the most logical in relation to the universe and how it came about.

In short, these individuals believed there was a God, but did not allow their respective religious beliefs and its associated absurdities to completely dominate and control their lives and the lives of those around them.

And you apparently assume that LDS go to work and to this? Seriously, I've been working for a very long time and I have never discussed my religion at work unless someone asked me a question. We have been told countless times in church to be missionaries through our actions. I'd like to know how we control the lives of those around us by answering questions or presenting them the opportunity to learn more. That is an absurdity to claim we somehow have great control of everyone or the church has great control of us. Even prop 8 had many non-LDS supporters and wouldn't have passed without them.

You really do have a twisted view about believers, and most particularly about LDS believers. Of course a lot of this is based on false beliefs about same, which you apparently use to justify your own illogical and asinine conclusions.

[Mars]

Starting with the second question, we should be able to agree that here is no credible physical evidence for the existence of the traditional Christian outside-of-space-and-time-existing Creator God or the Mormon matter organizing Elohim, (or for that matter any of the hundreds or thousands of other gods worshipped by humankind throughout history).

If there were such evidence, then as Steven Colbert says, "-- religion would be science and no one would believe it-"

Earlier you said there was "overwhelming contrary evidence" respective to God's existence.

Could you elaborate, please?

[44Foxtrot]

I see.

So the more detailed a person's understanding of God, the less likelihood you can find them to be rational? Or even respected? Do I understand you?

Not exactly.

First of all you must realize that Mormons do not understand God. What they claim to understand are myths about God. One person makes up stories about God and others embellish those stories. They have no evidence to support these stories, which have no basis in fact, and are only the imaginings of often less than honest people.

Mormons believe all kinds of improvable and often absurd claims about God and the attributes of God. And it is true that when no evidence is available, the more attributes one ascribes to a god, the less likely it is that such a god exists.

[44Foxtrot]

You continue to make the mistake that belief in God is unfounded. For the believer there are multiple evidences and experiences that show the existence of God in their lives. A true believer cannot remain so without having evidence in his life that supports his continued faith.

You are apparently mistaking belief for evidence.

Well, gee, it's a good thing Mormons don't believe this. We in fact believe that magic had nothing to do with it, rather that God as master of science and laws of the universe organized matter to bring about the creation

And in what way is this different from magic?

I find the Mormon belief in God to be the most logical in relation to the universe and how it came about.

Again this is a personal and unfounded belief. You have no real evidence.

And you apparently assume that LDS go to work and to this? Seriously, I've been working for a very long time and I have never discussed my religion at work unless someone asked me a question. We have been told countless times in church to be missionaries through our actions. I'd like to know how we control the lives of those around us by answering questions or presenting them the opportunity to learn more. That is an absurdity to claim we somehow have great control of everyone or the church has great control of us. Even prop 8 had many non-LDS supporters and wouldn't have passed without them.

How can you mention Prop8 and say that the Church does not exert control when you know that members in California (and elsewhere) were instructed, from the pulpit, to contribute to the Prop8 campaign?

You really do have a twisted view about believers, and most particularly about LDS believers. Of course a lot of this is based on false beliefs about same, which you apparently use to justify your own illogical and asinine conclusions.

My view of the LDS Church came from three decades as a faithful member. My beliefs and conclusions in this regard are based on evidence.

[Deborah]

My view of the LDS Church came from three decades as a faithful member. My beliefs and conclusions in this regard are based on evidence.

If indeed you were a faithful member you have well illustrated either how little one can pay attention or verify the words that say when one leaves the spirit of God he soon forgets even what he knew before.

[44Foxtrot]

If indeed you were a faithful member you have well illustrated either how little one can pay attention or verify the words that say when one leaves the spirit of God he soon forgets even what he knew before.

Or one could say that I finally got wise to the scam. And unlike my wife (and no doubt countless others) who realize that the Church is not what it claims to be, but still attend for social reasons, I decided not to pretend any more.

My children, all married in the temple and with children of their own also know (for the most part) that the Church is not what it claims to be, but think it provides a good environment for raising kids and so continue to attend.

While I might have agreed with them about the "good environment for raising kids" 20 years ago, I can certainly not do so now, and have real and valid concerns for the well-being of my kids and grandkids, even as NOM.

[mfbukowski]

You continue to make the mistake that belief in God is unfounded. For the believer there are multiple evidences and experiences that show the existence of God in their lives. A true believer cannot remain so without having evidence in his life that supports his continued faith.

The actual problem is that he admits only one kind of "evidence", which is the least important type. It's like looking for bacteria with a metal detector and then saying "there is no evidence".

[mfbukowski]

Again this is a personal and unfounded belief. You have no real evidence.

This is a logical category error. What you call "personal beliefs" are actually the creation of meaning in one's life, and this is based on subjective evidence, not objective evidence.

Your myths about the nature of what you call "reality" are as much myths as those created by anyone else: you have created them all in your mind.

You admit only objective evidence to constitute your world, and by doing so you are missing much of the rich experience of being human.

But I don't really care- that is your business.

[DarkScythe]

it begs the question, What is Reality?

[Analytics]

Starting from an assertion with no evidence (maximum ignorance argument), there is a 50% probability that the assertion God exists is true. Each time an attribute is added, without evidence, the probability is cut in half. Depending on how many attributes (of creation for example) that one ascribes to their god, the probability gets pretty small pretty fast. Claiming that Elohim is a God of flesh and blood, dwells near Kolob, appeared to Joseph Smith, sent angels to threaten Joseph Smith with a flaming sword, gave Joseph Smith the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, etc. (etc., etc.) makes the probability that Elohim exists vanishingly small.

I don't follow your reasoning here. Say it is asserted that "Jason Tyler" exists. I've offered no evidence for this. Does that mean that the probability of "Jason Tyler" existing is 50%? If I say, "Jason Tyler" is a man, 35-years old, blonde hair, lives in Kalamazoo Michigan, drives a truck for a living, has 2 kids, etc. does the probablity of Jason Tyler existing somehow become vanishingly small as I add more and more details?

I'd be interested if you've read Nassim Taleb' The Black Swan. When dealing with stuff we don't know about, statistics can be dangerous.

[mfbukowski]

it begs the question, What is Reality?

The sum of human experience- objectively experienced, like science, and subjectively experienced, like everything else. There's what each of us experiences privately and then the experiences we share and can compare, and never the twain shall meet.

Both points of view have their place in creating our definitions of reality. Foxie is only looking at what is objectively verifiable, less than half of what is important in life.

[44Foxtrot]

I don't follow your reasoning here. Say it is asserted that "Jason Tyler" exists. I've offered no evidence for this. Does that mean that the probability of "Jason Tyler" existing is 50%? If I say, "Jason Tyler" is a man, 35-years old, blonde hair, lives in Kalamazoo Michigan, drives a truck for a living, has 2 kids, etc. does the probablity of Jason Tyler existing somehow become vanishingly small as I add more and more details?

In general, yes. The more attributes that one requires of an object or entity, the lower the probability that an object or entity with those exact attributes will exist.

An example often used to illustrate the point is to assume that one has a small monochrome video screen that has a screen resolution of 800 by 600 pixels, and that any given pixel can only be in only one of two possible states, i.e. it is either "on" or "off" (black or white).

When betting on the state of any single pixel, without looking at the screen and with no knowledge of the image being displayed, you have a 50% chance of being correct. If you are betting on the state of two of the pixels, your chances of being correct are 25% (1 in 4), for three pixels your chances of being correct are 12.5% (one in eight), and so on. An 800 by 600 display has 480,000 pixels.

In the example you provided, I would not agree that one is starting from "maximum ignorance", however. Jason is a human, and we know that humans exist. We know that Jason and Tyler are both names used by humans, and that it is therefore highly likely that Jason Tyler exists. We know that Kalamazoo exists, etc.

So we have evidence that such attributes as you describe can be observed. While the principle applies here, I am not sure that you would not have to take as much as a 50% deprication in probability for each attribute you add.

In the case of Jason Tyler, for example, you could just look in the Kalamazoo phone book and if his name appeared you could give him a call and ask about his age and number of kids, etc.

In the case of Elohim, we have no evidence that such an entity exists. His claimed attributes include residing near Kolob. Unlike Kalamazoo, no one has any evidence that Kolob exists. No one has any evidence that supernatural creators or galactic organizing entities exist. In fact we have very good (not yet perfect) physical and mathematical evidence to describe how the universe did come into being, which serves as evidence to the contrary for the existence of Elohim. (Given my {not yet perfect} understanding of how Toyotas are made, I would certainly not bet that the one in my driveway was created by a supernatural entity.)

I'd be interested if you've read Nassim Taleb' The Black Swan. When dealing with stuff we don't know about, statistics can be dangerous.

I have not read Black Swan, and I certainly disagree about the use of probability estimates.

Probability estimates are among the best (if not the best) tools we have for making decisions when faced with incomplete or inadequate data sets.

[ERayR]

In the example you provided, I would not agree that one is starting from "maximum ignorance", however. Jason is a human, and we know that humans exist. We know that Jason and Tyler are both names used by humans, and that it is therefore highly likely that Jason Tyler exists. We know that Kalamazoo exists, etc.

So we have evidence that such attributes as you describe can be observed. While the principle applies here, I am not sure that you would not have to take as much as a 50% deprication in probability for each attribute you add.

In the case of Jason Tyler, for example, you could just look in the Kalamazoo phone book and if his name appeared you could give him a call and ask about his age and number of kids, etc.

So what if Jason Tyler is not listed in the Kalamazoo phone book. He also does not have a mortgage, he has no utilities in his name and he doesn't have a street named after him. Therefore by your reasoning he doesn't exist. His wife and kids are going to be really sad.

[Analytics]

In general, yes. The more attributes that one requires of an object or entity, the lower the probability that an object or entity with those exact attributes will exist.

An example often used to illustrate the point is to assume that one has a small monochrome video screen that has a screen resolution of 800 by 600 pixels, and that any given pixel can only be in only one of two possible states, i.e. it is either "on" or "off" (black or white).

When betting on the state of any single pixel, without looking at the screen and with no knowledge of the image being displayed, you have a 50% chance of being correct. If you are betting on the state of two of the pixels, your chances of being correct are 25% (1 in 4), for three pixels your chances of being correct are 12.5% (one in eight), and so on. An 800 by 600 display has 480,000 pixels.

I have a pretty good understanding of probability. Your example is based upon the assumption that the probability distribution of each pixel is Bernoulli distribution with p = 1/2 and no correlation. If that isn’t the real probability distribution, then your model is flawed.

In the example you provided, I would not agree that one is starting from "maximum ignorance", however. Jason is a human, and we know that humans exist. We know that Jason and Tyler are both names used by humans, and that it is therefore highly likely that Jason Tyler exists. We know that Kalamazoo exists, etc.

So we have evidence that such attributes as you describe can be observed. While the principle applies here, I am not sure that you would not have to take as much as a 50% deprication in probability for each attribute you add.

You are thinking kind of fuzzy here. In your monitor example, we know that pixels exist, and that "on" and "off" are characteristics of pixels, etc.

The correct way to apply your reasoning to my analogy, is to say, I know Kalamazoo has a population of about 200,000. Half of those people are male, which takes it down to 100,000. I know that about 1/100 guys are named Jason, so that takes us down to 1,000 candidates. Tyler is a last name found among 1/200 people, which brings us down to 5 candidates, etc. Follow that reasoning down, and the probability of what I described existing would be 1 in a trillion. If I kept on adding details, the odds would keep getting lower.

Now, if I were just making up characteristics and throwing them together this way, this type of model would give the correct odds of me being lucky enough to describe an entity that by chance happens to actually exist.

The reason why that particular approach doesn’t work here is this: you don’t know how I came up with the list of characteristics. Maybe I just made it all up, or maybe I’m describing somebody I actually know. If I’m describing somebody I actually know, then the odds that this Jason Tyler entity exists as described are quite high. If I’m just making it all up, then the odds are quite low.

In the case of Elohim, you are addressing the probability that Joseph Smith made it all up, but out of sheer luck happened to be right. Nobody is making that claim—that is why this “maximum ignorance” line of reasoning is flawed.

In other words, you are claiming to be “maximally ignorant”, but you are also claiming to know the probability distribution of the various attributes being correct, and the statistical independence between those characteristics. If you really know these details about the probability distribution, you are far from maximally ignorant.

I have not read Black Swan, and I certainly disagree about the use of probability estimates.

Probability estimates are among the best (if not the best) tools we have for making decisions when faced with incomplete or inadequate data sets.

Statistics can be quite useful, but it can also lead to spectacularly bad results and unwarranted confidence, depending upon the situation.

[Jeff K.]

The title of this thread is "Religion breeds irrationality". I find it interesting that Foxtrots posts are the strongest case for "Atheism breeds irrationality". I have never seen a man who claims some sort of position in a scientific firm make so many unscientific assertions. All of them easily batted to the side as being little more than crassly irrational statements against a distinct system. Does science breed such irrationality? Or is prehaps foxtrot merely a plant by theists to make atheists look bad?

Who knows?