Atheists are Most Hated and Distrusted Minority

[Beorn]

Intolerance is a bitter beast. There are many groups in America that are subject to discrimination and prejudice, but none are more hated than atheists. Research (http://www.soc.umn.edu/%7Ehartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf) conducted a couple years ago at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that atheists are more distrusted than Muslims or homosexuals in the US.

Austin Cline (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm) from about.com writes, “Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It’s not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.

The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ’sharing their vision of American society.’ Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.” The results from two of the most important questions”

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…

Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….

Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%

The degree of this intolerance is a bit surprising. My experience has taught me that atheists tend to be very intelligent (http://www.answers.com/topic/religiosity-and-intelligence), thoughtful people with a high standard of ethics that they carry through to their everyday lives.
So why the fear, why the hatred? This situation is not the norm for most of the planet. Most East and South Asian countries don’t exhibit this fear of atheists or agnostics. In fact, many of these countries have a significant portion of their population that does not believe in any deity (http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121).

European countries have large portions of the population that are atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_No_Belief.png). There is not the mass discrimination there based on one’s freedom to believe or not to believe. About the only places in the world that tend to have intolerant attitudes are nations with strong monotheistic cultures, such as both Latin and Anglo America, and the Islamic countries (particularly Turkey).

Considering that atheist nations are more peaceful (http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html), it seems particularly odd that there would be a predilection towards animosity towards atheists. When one group is being discriminated against, it detracts from the freedoms of every group. A society based on tolerance must support the rights of minority groups, including atheists.

Source (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/)

[Cato]

"Considering that atheist nations are more peaceful..."

http://www.infoukes.com/humour/if_i_did_it/images/joseph_stalin.jpg Peaceful atheist leader, cuddly Joseph "Unle Joe" Stalin: A single death is a tragedy a million deaths is a statistic.

http://images.chron.com/blogs/texaspolitics/archives/moses.jpg Biblical war criminal Moses: “Why have you let all the women live?” he [Moses] demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people. So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:15, 16, 17, 18

They both liked the color red, it seems, blood red.

[Lutiferre]

Biblical war criminal Moses: [i]“Why have you let all the women live?” he [Moses] demanded.

You simply don't understand the setting of this, and you haven't even included part of the context. They are not innocent. They are perpetrators in a deliberate plot against Israel.

Now you are quoting from the scriptures, but not quoting what precedes it. If you want a full exposition of the attack on Israel that merited this, then read here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html). But I doubt you want that, you probably just want to throw out accusations.

Therefore, here is an analogy that explains what the men, and notably the women (who had had intercourse, not the virgins) and the others have done in their plot against Israel in this story:


I struggle with trying to come up with a modern analogy to this, that communicates the atrocity level…It’s almost like 10,000 women, in advanced stages of the Ebola virus (or perhaps AIDS, since they would survive longer), were persuaded by their city leadership, to whole-heartedly travel to a different city and aggressively seduce and offer “sex for free” to all the married men, deliberately concealing or lying about the fact that they had Ebola/AIDS, and for the specific intent of inflicting the men (and their wives and families) with this horrible and quickly fatal disease. And, this decision was supported by their husbands and fathers (“in front of” the children), and the trip funded and planned by their government. And this all done against a people who were no threat to them now, and were actually friends/allies of a related group.

Why would anyone “defend” the “values” of such a sub-culture? It was not just a matter of their “own consensual sexual preferences and ethics”—this was aggressive, deliberately destructive malice toward others/outsiders, and self-destructive abuse of the precious gift of feminine allure…

There was nothing ‘noble’ or ‘innocent’ or even ‘neutral’ about this plan—however it was actually implemented--it was deliberate, hostile, treacherous deception and destruction. And it wasn’t even characteristic of all of the Midianites—many of the Midianites were only ‘semi-bad’, some of them were good, some of them were ‘okay’…but this little pocket of Midianites perpetrated this de-personalizing and de-humanizing atrocity on their own families, on some of the Moabite women, and on many of the Israelite families. And God said “enough”…

And, the virgins who were not part of this plot were spared, as Philo notes:

“And they led away a perfectly incalculable number of prisoners, of whom they chose to slay all the full-grown men and women, the men because they had set the example of wicked counsels and actions, and the women because they had beguiled the youth of the Hebrews, becoming the causes to them of incontinence and impiety, and at the last of death; but they pardoned all the young male children and all the virgins, their tender age procuring them forgiveness” (311)

In any case, given the tribal situation and given the crimes committed, this is far from unjust, but is exactly a just reaction after a vile attack.

A few things about modern presuppositions:

I have discussed the situation, ethics, and unfortunate realities of children victims (in this case the boys) in ancient warfare in the preceding pieces on the Canaanites and on the Amalekites, so I won’t repeat those arguments and supporting documentation here. But let me point out again that:

1. The Midianite parents would have been legally/ethically responsible for this situation falling upon their children—NOT the Israelites;
2. This situation was forced upon the Israelites by the unprovoked treachery of the Midianites;
3. No ANE land-based and/or blood-succession-based civilization had means for assimilating foreign males into them, except as severely constrained/debilitated slaves (e.g., “prisoners were often blinded en masse. When brought to their captors’ land, they could still perform certain tasks, such as carrying water from a well or canal with a bucket and a rope” [OT:DLAM:237]);
4. All ANE civilizations recognized the military threat/risk that male slaves (even children) of foreign stock represented. Even the case in which David ‘served’ the Philistines, the Philistine leaders were sensitive to the issue—that David might ‘turn on his Philistine masters’ in the heat of battle (1 Sam 29);
5. There were no ‘social relief’ institutions in this world [only the largest of empires could afford to take in destitute women and children as temple ‘personnel’—see OT:CANE:445], and the land in which this event occurred was depopulated .(“Those who were able to flee from their conquerors often died of exposure, starvation, or thirst” [OT:DLAM:237])
6. There would be no practical way to transport these boys to their ‘next of kin’ down south, and there was no guarantee that they would take them in anyway. Even the Kenites, generally loyal to Israel, were divided in policy, as Heber the Kenite’s alliance with Syria in Judges indicates. “The propensity of pastoral nomads for raids, or razzias, both against one another and against sedentists is well attested in the near eastern historical record.” [OT:CANE:251]
7. As in the case of the Amalekites, Israel was forced--by the Midianite atrocity--into the difficult situation of selecting the ‘most humane way’ of dealing with the boys, which, in most situations in the ancient world, was killing them very quickly (similar to ‘euthanasia’, perhaps, which was also considered the ‘most humane’ way of doing this, according to ANE testimony—see the discussion/documentation in the case of the Amalekites, at rbutcher1.html)

A summary of the nature of this in context:



Summary:

1. The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with lewd ‘tests for virginity’
2. The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with ‘sex slaves’ or even slavery in the sense of New World Slavery
3. The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with a religious war against the Midianites, “because they worshipped a different god than Israel”
4. The Midianites were a tribal league of generally nomadic peoples, with a wide variation in orientation, ethics, and practices.
5. They were known to engage in kidnapping and international slave trading, as well as raiding and pillage of sedentary peoples/villages.
6. The Moabites, who start the chain of events leading to Numbers 31, are under no danger or threat from Israel, but nonetheless begin unprovoked attempts to vanquish the unsuspecting Israelites
7. After the Mesopotamian diviner/sorcerer/prophet Balaam fails to curse Israel, he nevertheless advises the Midianite leadership on how to overcome Israel—by a sexual deception of a massive scale.
8. Moab transports women into the area en masse, and Midian moves into the territory east of Shittim, to begin this initiative. Some 6,000-12,000 married women aggressively offer sex to the Israelite men (most of whom are married), and after having sex/adultery, convince then to participate in further acts (involving both sex and disloyalty to the Lord).
9. Israel ‘falls for it’, and likely makes a ‘covenant’ with a Canaanite fertility god of vegetation (Baal Peor), and are judged by God (at least 24,000 Israelites die of a plague, most of which are males)
10. The Moabite and Midianite women retreat out of the area, having successfully used their sex as a weapon (with full knowledge, consent, support, and encouragement from their husbands, fathers, and civic leaders).
11. For this atrocity, God orders Israel to attack this specific group of Midianites (not the Moabites) and eliminate them.
12. The Israelite force of 12,000 men travel east/southeast to where the Midianite sub-group is camping, and engage in combat. (They are NOT instructed to hunt “all the Midianites in the world down and kill them”—just this group that did the treachery at Baal Peor.) They kill almost all of the males in this battle, but return to the Israelite camp with the herds and property of the Midianites, as well as with the women and (mostly girl) children.
13. Moses is shocked to find out that they spared the very women who used the sex-weapon against them, and even brought these women back to the Israelite camp! He orders them to execute the women, who had been involved in the treachery (but only the Midianite women—the Moabite women are spared), and any remaining males among the children.
14. The remaining young girls—with an average age of 5 years—were spared and distributed throughout the people, into families. They would eventually be assimilated into Israel families, but from this moment on, they would care for them, feed them, train them, etc. for family life in Palestine.
15. The 32,000 young girls could be assimilated into Israel, largely because of the death of the 24,000 adult Israelites.
16. The judgment for the atrocity at Baal Peor fell both on Israel and Midian—both would have lost around 24,000 adult members of the population, and the consequences on the Midianite children (especially the boys) would have been a direct result of the choices of their parents and leaders.
17. The realities of life in the ANE precluded absorption of the residual boys into the people—in keeping with realities of the time.


This action/atrocity by the Midianites is an intensely sordid and depressing tale, of greater scale than even that of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of greater anti-Hebrew malice and calculating treachery than even that of the Amalekites…The removal of this exact sub-culture (without impacting the Moabites or the rest of the Midianites—for good or ill), while mercifully sparing a very large number of innocent young girls, yet without sparing the guilty Israelites, seems neither cruel nor unfair nor unwarranted, given the horrendously dehumanizing character of this crime, and given the unavoidable consequences of conflict upon children in the ancient world…

[Puddle of Mudd]

http://rmbrowning.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/atheism2.jpg?w=428&h=365

[Fortis in Arduis]

If most Americans are religious, and most atheists go out of their way to offend religious people, what is to be expected?

[SuuT]

Try telling someone in America that you are a Heathen. You'll never see someone clammer so fast to remove themself from the situation.

[Phlegethon]

Telling them you are staunchly Catholic has about the same effect, though.

[U R Face]

The opposite is true in Europe. I don't know anyone who isn't an atheist or at the very least irreligious, and religious people are perceived as weirdos who we wouldn't want our children to marry.

[Beorn]

The opposite is true in Europe. I don't know anyone who isn't an atheist

I can't speak for your country, but in my country I have perceived it that they are generally just indifferent towards religion. They have an allegiance towards a religion and when pushed do admit to at least praying to God in the privacy of their home.

[SuuT]

Telling them you are staunchly Catholic has about the same effect, though.

You (Catholics) are not reflexively feared in America, though - via the commonality of Christ in the equation. Just reflexively hated:p. More seriously, there is a growing dynamic of indifference (amongst Protestants in general) about Catholics.

Lutiferre will be moving here, and I will be moving to Danmark in "SuuT's EthnoCulturalReligioMoral Exchange Programme" later this year;). Don't worry: I have no interest in Germany.:coffee::wink

[Phlegethon]

Nah, there is an indifference about lax Catholics. Rest assured that I will make a difference!

[Sally]

All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.
-Pope Pius V

[Poltergeist]

The opposite is true in Europe. I don't know anyone who isn't an atheist or at the very least irreligious, and religious people are perceived as weirdos who we wouldn't want our children to marry.

Anyone thinking with their own head and not conforming with the majority "values" of the modern idiotic and superficial society is perceived as "weirdo", so it can be worn as a badge of honour, actually (speaking on principle, not just in relation religion vs. irreligion).

"Europe" is not a monolithical entity.

As for marrying, here more religious than irreligious people do marry.

There is something very specific about both American Christianity and American atheism, it seems so. Socio-religious phenomena can be properly assessed and dealt with only within a specific context of a country in which they are at work. I come across this kind of thing quite often. The same word can denote something very different in different countries and cultural milieux.

[U R Face]

Anyone thinking with their own head and not conforming with the majority "values" of the modern idiotic and superficial society is perceived as "weirdo", so it can be worn as a badge of honour, actually (speaking on principle, not just in relation religion vs. irreligion).

"Europe" is not a monolithical entity.

As for marrying, here more religious than irreligious people do marry.

There is something very specific about both American Christianity and American atheism, it seems so. Socio-religious phenomena can be properly assessed and dealt with only within a specific context of a country in which they are at work. I come across this kind of thing quite often. The same word can denote something very different in different countries and cultural milieus.

Obviously the religious don't think with their heads. If they did, every religious person would be the founder of a new religion.

I know Europe isn't a monolithic entity. There are still religious freaks in the more primitive recesses of the continent, and uneducated (and by this I mean uneducated in philosophy, not uneducated by the state) old folk tend to be religious too.

Clearly, on a philosophical level, it's unlikely that any random belief that isn't grounded in empirical experience is unlikely to be true, because more things don't exist than do exist (an infinite number vs a finite number). So it's possible that something for which we have absolutely no evidence DOES exist, but it's of course more likely that it doesn't. Therefore, only cultural pressures (and in the case of some few "born agains", emotional pressures) can force someone to take the leap of utterly irrational faith required for religious convition. This isn't free thinking.

[U R Face]

Clearly, on a philosophical level, it's unlikely that any random belief that isn't grounded in empirical experience is unlikely to be true

Damn thing won't let me edit. Should read: On a philosophical level, it's unlikely that any random belief that isn't grounded in empirical experience is true.

[SuuT]

...There is something very specific about both American Christianity and American atheism, it seems so. Socio-religious phenomena can be properly assessed and dealt with only within a specific context of a country in which they are at work.

Quite right. As someone who has lived in both Europe and America, I can say with confidence that the sheer prevalence of 'practicing' Christians in America coupled with a through-and-through Christianised/Protestant secularity (Americans who say that they live not in a "Christian Nation" really should park their tounge) is the primary shaper of American Atheism. There seems to be - generally speaking - a no more self-loathing ascetic than an American atheist. But then again, it must certainly be difficult to be reflexively hated and mistrusted by nearly everyone, which can't do much for self-esteem or self-confidence.

[Poltergeist]

Obviously the religious don't think with their heads. If they did, every religious person would be the founder of a new religion.

I know Europe isn't a monolithic entity. There are still religious freaks in the more primitive recesses of the continent, and uneducated (and by this I mean uneducated in philosophy, not uneducated by the state) old folk tend to be religious too.

Plenty of atheists aren't thinking with their heads, either. Most of the atheists I know (but not all) are dumbasses who blindly accepted some dogmatic views that were at certain point of time handed down to them on a plate.

Obviously all those philosophers and scientists who are believers are "primitive" and "uneducated" and don't think with their heads, according to your ignorant view of things (which doesn't correspond to the social reality at all), only you are, I guess, so very "educated" and "enlightened". :rolleyes:

I guess you are such a supreme mind to come to such sweeping generalizations.


Clearly, on a philosophical level, it's unlikely that any random belief that isn't grounded in empirical experience is unlikely to be true, because more things don't exist than do exist (an infinite number vs a finite number). So it's possible that something for which we have absolutely no evidence DOES exist, but it's of course more likely that it doesn't. Therefore, only cultural pressures (and in the case of some few "born agains", emotional pressures) can force someone to take the leap of utterly irrational faith required for religious convition. This isn't free thinking.

Beliefs can be grounded in empirical evidence. Only that there are, especially in the Western Christianity, some theological currents that tend to deny it and reduce all Christian faith just to intellectual constructions. But that's for some other discussion.

You know nothing about cultural pressures, because situations in many countries are very different. At any rate, no country in Europe today forces people to make profession of some faith and to believe, or to go to church. There is no legal pressure. And that's the only important thing. Everything else (but, ya know, cultural pressures etc) vain conjecturing.

The phenomenon of some "born again Christians", on the other hand, especially (but not only) in Eastern Europe, is due to the work of American missionaries and has little to do with traditional forms of Christianity there (Catholic and Orthodox).

Regarding emotions: emotions are part of the human nature, I find it pretty grotesque when some exorcise "emotions" as something quintessetially bad, which should be totally absent. Furthermore, most people who accuse others of "emotionalism" are overly emotional themselves, in my experience.

[Poltergeist]

Quite right. As someone who has lived in both Europe and America, I can say with confidence that the sheer prevalence of 'practicing' Christians in America coupled with a through-and-through Christianised/Protestant secularity (Americans who say that they live not in a "Christian Nation" really should park their tounge) is the primary shaper of American Atheism. There seems to be - generally speaking - a no more self-loathing ascetic than an American atheist. But then again, it must certainly be difficult to be reflexively hated and mistrusted by nearly everyone, which can't do much for self-esteem or self-confidence.

But, can you, as someone who has lived in America, say it's really so, that they are truly so hated and mistrusted, or articles of this sort are exaggerating a bit?

[U R Face]

Plenty of atheists aren't thinking with their heads, either. Most of the atheists I know (but not all) are dumbasses who blindly accepted some dogmatic views that were at certain point of time handed down to them on a plate.

Obviously all those philosophers and scientists who are believers are "primitive" and "uneducated" and don't think with their heads, according to your ignorant view of things (which doesn't correspond to the social reality at all), only you are, I guess, so very "educated" and "enlightened". :rolleyes:

I guess you are such a supreme mind to come to such sweeping generalizations.

Few philosophers subscribed to denominational beliefs. They simply conceived of a "God" in the broadest possible sense. The "God" of Hegel, Kant, and Spinoza are all different from each other, and certainly different from that of the average believer. Had they lived in a different age, they would have coined a different term and left the word "God" and all its baggage by the wayside. The "God" of philosophers was more akin to a synonym of "absolute existence", as defined by their particular philosophical systems, and nothing they would pray to or worship. A don't see any link but a semantic one between their God and a theologician's God.

But, I actually agree. Atheists who are atheists simply because it's normalwould be Christians or Muslims in a society for which Christianity or Islam was normal.


You know nothing about cultural pressures, because situations in many countries are very different. At any rate, no country in Europe today forces people to make profession of some faith and to believe, or to go to church. There is no legal pressure. And that's the only important thing. Everything else (but, ya know, cultural pressures etc) vain conjecturing.

I was talking primarily about the socio-psychological pressure to be 'accepted into the fold' which is common to all humans and other social species.

[SuuT]

But, can you, as someone who has lived in America, say it's really so, that they are truly so hated and mistrusted, or articles of this sort are exaggerating a bit?

It depends on the state. Also on who/where they (article person/people) sampled (I don't remember if the article made such mention). It is probably pretty accurate, over all; or, if considering the probable average. But it should be noted that even though much of the religious diversity that exists in America exists within Christian sects and denominations, the diversity that lives side-by-side in America - peacefully - is quite the enigma, and not just for the Western world. I think this religious tolerance spills-over into 'putting up with' Atheists, much the same way that Europe now 'puts up with' devout Christians.

In short, I don't think the numbers provided tell the whole story, but numbers never do.

[Psychonaut]

Try telling someone in America that you are a Heathen. You'll never see someone clammer so fast to remove themself from the situation.

Given the type of people I work with in my field, I'm actually usually met with intelligent questions when I tell people what my religion is. I'm not looking forward to being back with all of the unwashed masses though.

[Lutiferre]

Obviously the religious don't think with their heads. If they did, every religious person would be the founder of a new religion.
That is, if they thought with their head for a while, and then immediately stopped to found a sect (see the quote in my signature).

Those who become Christian rather do so on much deeper reflections.



Clearly, on a philosophical level, it's unlikely that any random belief that isn't grounded in empirical experience is unlikely to be true
I am sure you mean that it is likely that it is unlikely to be true.

But Christianity does not base itself on "random" beliefs; far from it. Rather, it bases itself on beliefs which can be traced back to a tradition that goes back many thousands of years, in which numerous historical events are involved, and a long historical process of clearly exacting our beliefs in exposition and discussion in the many ecumenical councils and so on. It is certainly not "random".

If you simply want pure evidence and reason, in that sense, you should look into the many contemporary evidentialist Christian philosophers, like William Lane Craig who argues from the premise that Christianity makes historical claims, which is also relevant to the probability of the truth of the claims of Christianity, in the historical sense, for which you could look to Richard Swinburnes The Resurrection of God Incarnate, (reviewed here (http://www.arsdisputandi.org/index.html?http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000141/index.html)) in which he calculates the probability of Jesus ressurrection to a Bayesian probability of 97% (in the background of his previous theistic work). As to whether there is such evidence to establish Gods existence, you can certainly find many. A modalised version of the third way of Aquinas can be found here (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliMayd.htm), a cosmological proof (http://www.nd.edu/~jrasmus1/NecessaryBeing.pdf) based on a weak causal principle, or the many other cosmological arguments, like Swinburnes C-inductive argument (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#5), not to mention the deductive Thomistic cosmological argument from contingency, or the Leibnizian one from reduction to the minimal amount of necessary causal regressions or the Kalam version, (both sketched shortly here (http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/02/cosmological-arguments-for-gods.html)) or Swinburnes teleological proof from order (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SwinburnDesign.php) and in its similar axiomatic incarnation (briefly discussed here (http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-About-God-Richard-Swinburne-/367) and exposited more deeply along with others here (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html)), or Kurt Gödels ontological proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof#The_proof), or Heartshones modal argument (http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2009/08/hartshornes-modal-argument.html), or Peter Kreefts short and simple list of 20 proofs (here (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0276.htm)). There is also the Kantian transcendental proof (http://butler-harris.org/tag/), which exists in several forms, but is certainly the most radical one.

For certain, it is notable that under a Christian theistic epistemic structure, it is much easier to understand the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. That this question is accounted for, even if the account is not itself taken to be absolutely certain or proven, is something which renders the interpretation of the world more rationally accesible.

But in fact, you should know that your statements and deamnds of evidence already presuppose that evidentialism; and that such is not mandated a priori as some kind of necessity for epistemic justification. Looking to establish religious epistemology on other forms of justification compatible with what would be to be expected given that Christianity is true, is in fact, a necessity to evaluate it's rationality and truth. Therefore, I deflect the evidentialism and refer to the work in Reformed Epistemology, especially here, Alvin Plantingas work on properly basic beliefs, which though, still involve the criteria of epistemic possibility, which is certainly complemented by the work of Christian metaphysicians and even evidentialists. You can find a short introduction to his work on epistemic justification here (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth03.html).

All this, of course, is part of a rationalist paradigm of thinking which needs not be accepted. It might be closer to the truth to accept a kind of wider epistemological effect of Gödels incompleteness theorem and Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and resort to the Christian phenomenologists like Xavier Zubiri and their excellent work and it's implication for how we know the world and the truth and God (short introduction here (http://www.zubiri.org/works/informalintro.htm), and longer expositions here (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Comp/CompFow2.htm), here (http://www.zubiri.org/intro.htm), here (http://www.zubiri.org/general/xzreview/1999/rovaletti1999.htm) and here (http://www.zubiri.org/general/xzreview/2004/web/bes_2004.pdf)). It is also worth looking at, in the end, ultimately a Kierkegaardian approach which is far from impressed by rationalism.

But whichever view one chooses, it's without doubt that your accusations remain irrelevant, show no knowledge of Christian philosophers and thinking, no insight, and bring nothing new to the table of the discussion which has been ongoing for the last thousands of years.


because more things don't exist than do exist (an infinite number vs a finite number).
Or maybe existence is simply not a predicate, per Kant. Or maybe you or I can bring another thing up. Whichever you choose, cowboy.


So it's possible that something for which we have absolutely no evidence DOES exist
You have not shown that a Christian worldview does not have sufficient epistemic justification, or that it is a case of "something we have absolutely no evidence exists", or that it is even a case of having to prove any such things rather than being a case of instrumentalist and experiental epistemology and goals which has no occupation with evidence, or even of a Kierkegaardian one and it's implications for what the truth of the thing is to be determined after. Indeed, all you have done is bring a worthless and incoherent accusation full of nonsensical presuppositions that I have no more nerve to dissect.

Few philosophers subscribed to denominational beliefs. They simply conceived of a "God" in the broadest possible sense. The "God" of Hegel, Kant, and Spinoza are all different from each other, and certainly different from that of the average believer. Had they lived in a different age, they would have coined a different term and left the word "God" and all its baggage by the wayside. The "God" of philosophers was more akin to a synonym of "absolute existence", as defined by their particular philosophical systems, and nothing they would pray to or worship. A don't see any link but a semantic one between their God and a theologician's God.

There are varying degrees of connection, and certainly of ontological and epistemic types, even if they aren't "denominationally" equivalent. But even if there are such ontological and epistemic equivlances between theistic and deistic claims, there isn't far from the belief in such a transcendent, rational being that has created all things in existence, which implicitly implies the potentiality of an interaction with humans (from omnipotence) to the actuality of that interaction between one rational and powerful being (the transcendent creator) and the rational and powerful beings it has freely brought about (humans), and that obviously not by compulsion if it is indeed omnipotent as both deists and theists agree. These beliefs, though diverse, share mostly the fundamental similarities, one example of which is your more or less universal nominator of "absolute existence" which is a good basic statement of the fact of God, whichever way we come to realize it.

There are many physicists and biologists and others who maintain their belief in God as the Lawgiver, something that Darwin maintained until his old age, and there are many analogies in the natural world that leads to such a belief.

That too in modern science, in the words of the Anglican particle physicist who helped discover the quark, John Polkinghorne, that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum.".

[Brännvin]

I hate religion but I don't hate the religious people. :P I also don't care about what other people believe in or if they don't believe in anything. But I can say I get extremely annoyed when some atheists insist on saying to religious people "you believe in an invisible man in the sky that is ridiculous blah blah"...

[Mesrine]

But I can say I get extremely annoyed when some atheists insist on saying to religious people "you believe in an invisible man in the sky that is ridiculous blah blah"...

I'm sorry, but religious people simply can't bring anything to back up what they're saying. If they want to believe in their bullshit it's their problem, meaning it strictly belongs to the private sphere.

[Brännvin]

Of course the opposite is also true, reason why I support the secularism..

[Lutiferre]

I'm sorry, but religious people simply can't bring anything to back up what they're saying.
You talk of the necessity of backing up what we say, so since you believe in backing up statements, why not back up your own? I saw no refutation of the post it was written in the face of, which certainly backed up Christian beliefs about God and the world.


But Christianity does not base itself on "random" beliefs; far from it. Rather, it bases itself on beliefs which can be traced back to a tradition that goes back many thousands of years, in which numerous historical events are involved, and a long historical process of clearly exacting our beliefs in exposition and discussion in the many ecumenical councils and so on. It is certainly not "random".

If you simply want pure evidence and reason, in that sense, you should look into the many contemporary evidentialist Christian philosophers, like William Lane Craig who argues from the premise that Christianity makes historical claims, which is also relevant to the probability of the truth of the claims of Christianity, in the historical sense, for which you could look to Richard Swinburnes The Resurrection of God Incarnate, (reviewed here (http://www.arsdisputandi.org/index.html?http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000141/index.html)) in which he calculates the probability of Jesus ressurrection to a Bayesian probability of 97% (in the background of his previous theistic work). As to whether there is such evidence to establish Gods existence, you can certainly find many. A modalised version of the third way of Aquinas can be found here (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliMayd.htm), a cosmological proof (http://www.nd.edu/~jrasmus1/NecessaryBeing.pdf) based on a weak causal principle, or the many other cosmological arguments, like Swinburnes C-inductive argument (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#5), not to mention the deductive Thomistic cosmological argument from contingency, or the Leibnizian one from reduction to the minimal amount of necessary causal regressions or the Kalam version, (both sketched shortly here (http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/02/cosmological-arguments-for-gods.html)) or Swinburnes teleological proof from order (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SwinburnDesign.php) and in its similar axiomatic incarnation (briefly discussed here (http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-About-God-Richard-Swinburne-/367) and exposited more deeply along with others here (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html)), or Kurt Gödels ontological proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof#The_proof), or Heartshones modal argument (http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2009/08/hartshornes-modal-argument.html), or Peter Kreefts short and simple list of 20 proofs (here (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0276.htm)). There is also the Kantian transcendental proof (http://butler-harris.org/tag/), which exists in several forms, but is certainly the most radical one.

For certain, it is notable that under a Christian theistic epistemic structure, it is much easier to understand the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. That this question is accounted for, even if the account is not itself taken to be absolutely certain or proven, is something which renders the interpretation of the world more rationally accesible.

But in fact, you should know that your statements and deamnds of evidence already presuppose that evidentialism; and that such is not mandated a priori as some kind of necessity for epistemic justification. Looking to establish religious epistemology on other forms of justification compatible with what would be to be expected given that Christianity is true, is in fact, a necessity to evaluate it's rationality and truth. Therefore, I deflect the evidentialism and refer to the work in Reformed Epistemology, especially here, Alvin Plantingas work on properly basic beliefs, which though, still involve the criteria of epistemic possibility, which is certainly complemented by the work of Christian metaphysicians and even evidentialists. You can find a short introduction to his work on epistemic justification here (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth03.html).

All this, of course, is part of a rationalist paradigm of thinking which needs not be accepted. It might be closer to the truth to accept a kind of wider epistemological effect of Gödels incompleteness theorem and Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, and resort to the Christian phenomenologists like Xavier Zubiri and their excellent work and it's implication for how we know the world and the truth and God (short introduction here (http://www.zubiri.org/works/informalintro.htm), and longer expositions here (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Comp/CompFow2.htm), here (http://www.zubiri.org/intro.htm), here (http://www.zubiri.org/general/xzreview/1999/rovaletti1999.htm) and here (http://www.zubiri.org/general/xzreview/2004/web/bes_2004.pdf)). It is also worth looking at, in the end, ultimately a Kierkegaardian approach which is far from impressed by rationalism.

[Mesrine]

You talk of the necessity of backing up what we say, so since you believe in backing up statements, why not back up your own?

I don't have to bring evidence of the existence of what exists. Religious people just believe in something, without any proof. So it's the believers who have to bring evidence for their claims, not the others.

[Lutiferre]

I don't have to bring evidence of the existence of what exists.
I am sure many religious people would use the same argument. That which is apparent to our experience needs no proof, and I agree.

Your post fails to back up your statement that religious people "can't back up what they are saying", since my post does back up what Christianity is saying, and so, your statement ironically refutes itself by postulating that others cannot back up their statements, but you are unwilling to back up your own statement itself.

[Mesrine]

Your post fails to back up your statement that religious people "can't back up what they are saying", since my post does back up what Christianity is saying

You mean people can actually bring proof of the existence of some superior being, the divinity of Jesus, or the afterlife? No? So, as I said, they just can't back up their beliefs with reality, and they just blindly swallow it. So my point stands.

[Lutiferre]

You mean people can actually bring proof of the existence of some superior being, the divinity of Jesus, or the afterlife?

They can back up what they are saying, yes. Did you read the post? Read it again (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101653&postcount=26) and back up your statement that Christians can't back up theirs.

[Mesrine]

They can. Did you read the post? Read it again (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101653&postcount=26) and back up your statement.

They simply can't. What you quoted is a whole load of bullcrap, really.

[Lutiferre]

They can't. What you quoted is a whole load of bullcrap, really.
And that is a load of bullcrap.

If you consider merely stating that your opponents arguments and evidence are bullcrap without even trying to demonstrate it, to be sufficient for the very necessity of backing up your statements which you yourself enforced, then you are no better than even the most ignorant religious person.

That is plain and simple hypocrisy.

[Poltergeist]

I hate religion but I don't hate the religious people. :P I also don't care about what other people believe in or if they don't believe in anything. But I can say I get extremely annoyed when some atheists insist on saying to religious people "you believe in an invisible man in the sky that is ridiculous blah blah"...

This kind of atheism is complete garbage and braindead and I don't usually pay any attention to it, just have some scornful attitude towards it and people supporting it. Once atheism used to be something else. It used to be one of the manifestations of the rebellion against the ruling order, it wanted to put the autonomous man in the place of God and deny the legitimacy of some secular authorities deriving their right from "divine sanction".

Today - nothing similar. no liberation, nothing. The mainstream atheism is composed of people who firmly believe we are living in the best of all worlds, don't question the modern style capitalist liberal democracy and the ruling structure of it, just want to remove God, can't stand that there are many people believing in God. Besides, most of this new atheism is about stupid circular arguments, digging out some already worn out stereotypes current in the last 200 years or something of western culture, inventing spare gods ("selfish genes" or something like that), or outright parody and mockery. now parody and mockery is tool of idiots who have no arguments. Anyone can mock anything at any moment, it is the easiest thing in the world, for which no intellectual capabilities are required. There are also plenty of atheists criticising this new fashion. There are atheisms and atheisms.

That's why I don't take this (post)-modern atheism seriously. Even the old style Marxist one made more sense, as much as poorly argumented it was. I usually don't try to "convert" anyone to anything, unless the other person shows some explicit interest in my spiritual views (if the initiative comes form the other side, that is). The ordinary is I-don't-touch-you/you-don't-touch-me style of behaviour. But if some aggressive atheist tries to shove his bullcrap down my throat, then I say everything I think about his nonsense and how shallow it is (not the usual whiny Christian pastime: "But you know, faith in God gives comfort to many sorrowful people..."). Then the atheist usually withdraws. The same applies to protestant street preachers, Jehova's witnesses and similar.

PS. I am not "religious" in the conventional sense of word.


I'm sorry, but religious people simply can't bring anything to back up what they're saying. If they want to believe in their bullshit it's their problem, meaning it strictly belongs to the private sphere.

neither can materialist atheists bring up anything to back up the truthfulness of their position, apart from few bits of circular reasoning. Church should be separated from the state, yes, and no-one should be forced to hold any religious belief (that would be impossible anyway, because you can only force people to make some public profession of some belief, while you can never be sure of what's in their heads), but at the same time bear in mind that nothing can be 100% private, except in the strictly legal sense.

[lei.talk]

Originally Posted by Mission of Mercy http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=101649#post101649)
I'm sorry, but,
religious people simply can't bring anything to back up what they're saying.
If they want to believe in their bullshit it's their problem,
meaning it strictly belongs to the private sphere.

Originally Posted by The Revenant http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/jagohan/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=101677#post101677)
Neither can materialist atheists bring up anything to back up the truthfulness of their position,
apart from few bits of circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning).when materialists/atheists point to physical objects in reality
and logically/scientifically demonstrate the relationships
between those objects,

that is circulus in probando?

when a person of religious beliefs
expounds on the topic of god
or quotes some one else doing so,

that is evidence?

[Lars]

Only in America...

[Poltergeist]

when materialists/atheists point to physical objects in reality
and logically/scientifically demonstrate the relationships
between those objects,

that is circulus in probando?

no. It is not circulus in probando merely to demonstrate relationship between physical objects. Where did I say it was?


when a person of religious beliefs
expounds on the topic of god
or quotes some one else doing so,

that is evidence?

Depends, your question is too general.

[SuuT]

Only in America...

Or the middle East. :coffee:

[Poltergeist]

Or the middle East. :coffee:

Mid-west, middle east...even sounds similar.:D

[Mesrine]

If you consider merely stating that your opponents arguments and evidence are bullcrap without even trying to demonstrate it

Obviously you can't read. I said believers can't bring evidence of the existence of a superior being, afterlife or whatever crap they believe in, and effectively, they can't. Demonstration done, case closed.



neither can materialist atheists bring up anything to back up the truthfulness of their position, apart from few bits of circular reasoning.

Not believing in something I can't see is nothing of a circular logic. Anyway, the material reality exists.

[Poltergeist]

Not believing in something I can't see is nothing of a circular logic. Anyway, the material reality exists.

no way to prove it, that's just your assumption.

For a long time I thought that material reality might not exist at all, but was only figment of my imagination. And I know plenty of others who thought so.

[Lutiferre]

Obviously you can't read. I said believers can't bring evidence of the existence of a superior being, afterlife or whatever crap they believe in, and effectively, they can't. Demonstration done, case closed.You haven't demonstrated anything, you have just repeated your self. Your only demonstration was to call my post "bullcrap".

Not believing in something I can't see is nothing of a circular logic. Anyway, the material reality exists.
Stating that the material reality exists proves nothing. It might as well be an illusion in your mind. You can only resort to your sense-data to prove anything, and that sense-data is part of your mind, and hence, merely saying it exists proves nothing except that it is in your mind.

[Poltergeist]

Can Catholic Agnostics prove anything?

[Mesrine]

no way to prove it, that's just your assumption.

For a long time I thought that material reality might not exist at all, but was only figment of my imagination. And I know plenty of others who thought so.

Please...



You haven't demonstrated anything

I have. And you demonstrated that you can't read.



you have just repeated your self. Your only demonstration was to call my post "bullcrap".

I can say it again, if you want. The more posts you make, the more bullcrap adds up in this thread.


Stating that the material reality exists proves nothing. It might as well be an illusion in your mind. You can only resort to your sense-data to prove anything, and that sense-data is part of your mind, and hence, merely saying it exists proves nothing except that it is in your mind.

If you want to believe that material reality "doesn't exist and is an illusion", you should seek medical help, boy.

[Poltergeist]

Things exist only if I think they do. no "please", or anything of the kind.

[Lutiferre]

If you want to believe that material reality "doesn't exist and is an illusion", you should seek medical help, boy.
The difference lies in that you gave no valid grounds why you believe the material reality exists, you simply repeated it, but if I was asked, I could give valid grounds why to believe it.


Can Catholic Agnostics prove anything?
I am neither Catholic nor Agnostic my friend. I am certainly gnostic before I am agnostic.

[Poltergeist]

I am neither Catholic nor Agnostic my friend. I am certainly gnostic before I am agnostic.

But you have one Catholic Agnostic friend and guru, I thought he might have converted you.

[Lutiferre]

But you have one Catholic Agnostic friend and guru, I thought he might have converted you.
I don't think theres much coherence between the two terms "guru" and "agnostic".

[Poltergeist]

I don't think theres much coherence between the two terms "guru" and "agnostic".

Is there one between "Catholic" and "agnostic"?

[Lutiferre]

Is there one between "Catholic" and "agnostic"?
Indeed not. Even less than between "Catholic" and "married clergy".

[Poltergeist]

Indeed not. Even less than between "Catholic" and "married clergy".

Then your friend must be mentally retarded?

[SwordoftheVistula]

Not surprising, though as said by others it depends greatly on region. Probably a result of all the big fights over such things as attempts to ban christmas trees from public places, so that's what people think of when they think of 'atheists', even though its only a small minority of atheists who want that along with assorted liberal christians and various wacky religions such as jews

[Mesrine]

The difference lies in that you gave no valid grounds why you believe the material reality exists

I don't believe reality exists. It simply exists, wether people like me acknowledge it, or loonies like you refuse it and try to escape in bullshitland.



you simply repeated it

I repeat: seek medical help.



but if I was asked, I could give valid grounds why to believe it.

I'm sure some people would like to hear about the very interesting things you have to say.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/1658/volaudessus.jpg

[Lutiferre]

I don't believe reality exists. It simply exists, wether people like me acknowledge it, or loonies like you refuse it and try to escape in bullshitland.




I repeat: seek medical help.




I'm sure some people would like to hear about the very interesting things you have to say.

You are an ignorant who has no idea about the epistemological loadedness of your own statements.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Atheist babies.

http://images.smarter.com/blogs/guests/Devil%20Baby%202.jpg

They start their evil young.

[Mesrine]

You are an ignorant who has no idea about the epistemological loadedness of your own statements.

Epistemology won't save you from reality, delusional retard.

[Lutiferre]

Epistemology won't save you from reality, delusional retard.
Obviously not, but it will enable me to have a clearer grasp of what I know and how I know it, unlike you who resorts to meaningless repetitions because you had no other means of argument.

[Mesrine]

Obviously not, but it will enable me to have a clearer grasp of what I know and how I know it

How can you have a grasp on anything? You can't even acknowledge the reality of the outer world. In other words, you're a joke.



unlike you who resorts to meaningless repetitions because you had no other means of argument.

LOL, who's repeating himself? You repeated this ad nauseam.

[Lutiferre]

How can you have a grasp on anything? You can't even acknowledge the reality of the outer world. In other words, you're a joke.
I can acknowledge that reality exists because I can give valid reasons why I think so, whereas you haven't actually provided any valid reasons for thinking so (only a repetition), so the one who can't even acknowledge objective existence is you, not me.

[Lutiferre]

Spaniards are degenerates.
Croatians are angels :)

[Mesrine]

I can acknowledge that reality exists because I can give valid reasons why I think so

Shoot it then, instead of repeating the same nonsense over and over.

[Poltergeist]

Luti, how can you befriend that fat human garbage Yago? It says something about you.

[Lutiferre]

Shoot it then, instead of repeating the same nonsense over and over.
Then we need to have a debate on the foundations of philosophical realism and anti-solipsism.

But my only point for this debate was that simply asserting or repeating something isn't a valid foundation for it's truth value.

And that, especially when it comes to a complicated question like how we know anything exists outside of our conscious experience, which makes any appeal to immediate experience null and void (e.g. I feel reality exists, therefore it exists) because it fails to address the issue, which is how we know that that our conscious experience represents an ontologically existing reality outside the experience itself.


Luti, how can you befriend that fat human garbage? It says something about you.

I think your lunatic obsession with him says something about you.

[Poltergeist]

I think your lunatic obsession with him says something about you.

Why do you defend him? Are you lovers?

[Lutiferre]

Why do you defend him? Are you lovers?
I don't defend him, and since I don't share your pathological obsession, I see no reason to talk or think about him.

[Lutiferre]

So you do suck his dick? OK
I know you like to think about Yago's dick a lot, but please don't involve me in your sexual fantasies.

[Poltergeist]

I know you like to think about Yago's dick a lot, but please don't involve me in your sexual fantasies.

I think? You are his friend.

Luti, you repeat everything that Spanish turd says. You are his echo.

[Lutiferre]

Luti, you repeat everything that Spanish turd says. You are his echo.
You would know, since you've memorised everything he's ever said, and you constantly talk about it.

[Poltergeist]

You would know, since you've memorised everything he's ever said, and you constantly talk about it.

no, i didn't. I never read his long worthless posts. More inspiring idiocies were by Dux, Kernunnos and Carnyx.

[Lutiferre]

no, i didn't. I never read his long worthless posts. More inspiring idiocies were by Dux, Kernunnos and Carnyx.
Good, so forget he was ever born. It's not like it makes any difference to your life anyway.

[Poltergeist]

Good, so forget he was ever born. It's not like it makes any difference to your life anyway.

It doesn't. Shit is to be thrown to the toilet.

Kernunnos had more interesting ideas about Zerope.

[Liffrea]

Personally I have no problem with the scientific method, in fact quite the opposite. A tendency I have noted is that science often has uncanny parallels to much of the mythological background our “ignorant primitive” ancestors created.

Myth as a form of science? Perhaps for another thread.

The problem in holding the scientific method as the only valid way to look at the universe is that it is one dimensional and neither is reality buried in its entirety. Science is the glorification of ignorance, that’s its nature, any true scientist has to admit he is ignorant and that to believe anything defeats the point of science. If science is done properly you only ever end up with a shallow grasp of reality so fragile that the next bright idea smashes it all to pieces. Even then the scientific method is only valid when we can test what we are trying to prove, and, anyone who knows anything about current scientific theories, realises that much of “science” is untested, especially when we look at the world of quantum, a realm so bizarre even Einstein thought it was bunk for a long time, which leads to the point that science is often a “good idea” and nothing more than that. Real science tends to be a series of “good ideas” whether they have any basis in reality, or not, ahhh…..

Of course, none of what I have written above proves the existence of God; perhaps such a thing is untestable? Well so was atomic theory up until recent times, so is most of quantum mechanics, indeed even much of Einstein’s theories are only “good ideas” extremely “good ideas” and probably even “correct good ideas” but, at the moment, only “good ideas”, of course Einstein’s theory that the speed of light is constant (or rather has always been constant) may not be a “good idea” at all, if you have an interest in these things you’ll know what I’m writing about. Darwin’s theory of evolution is just that a “theory” a “good theory” for sure and certainly the best we have at the moment, but not infallible and, perhaps, even wrong, who knows.

To say that people who believe in God or anything that is none physical, as we understand it are delusional or wrong, but who see science as the alternative is pretty much throwing stones in a glass house. Science is good for what it does, but that’s all it’s good at, and even then it’s not always competent.

I see science as a tool, applied to the right job it often brings great results, used incorrectly it’s a potential disaster; science can help us with the how, it hasn’t, so far, helped us with the why.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Most people are still stuck in that primitive mindset that the supernatural is real. People who can see through all that crap and speak only what they know to be true scare them. Too many logical people going around making sense all the time really puts a damper on their blind faith.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Hrolf Kraki
Most people are still stuck in that primitive mindset that the supernatural is real.

Well the “supernatural” may or may not have some basis, I’m open minded about that, where the evidence is inconclusive it’s best to reserve judgement.

But supernatural and metaphysical are not the same thing at all. Indeed the metaphysical is, arguably, the basis of all philosophy and science, and even religion; otherwise what is the motivational point of any of them?


People who can see through all that crap and speak only what they know to be true scare them.

This could delve deep into the murky waters of existential thought….

What we “know” to be true (if correct) may be first relative and second not the whole. For example much of science is relative, it has to be, that’s the way science is done, a good theory gives us the best possible answer that fits observation relative to other potential answers, but whether it’s “true” or not is another question whether it explains the whole truth is another question.


Too many logical people going around making sense all the time really puts a damper on their blind faith.

Is faith necessarily blind, though?

[Lutiferre]

Most people are still stuck in that primitive mindset that the supernatural is real. People who can see through all that crap and speak only what they know to be true scare them. Too many logical people going around making sense all the time really puts a damper on their blind faith.
And others can see through crap like this.



I see science as a tool, applied to the right job it often brings great results, used incorrectly it’s a potential disaster; science can help us with the how, it hasn’t, so far, helped us with the why.
I agree, at least when it comes to the natural sciences.

The fact is that there can be other kinds of "sciences", and I would say religion, spirituality and religious/spiritual views are as close as anything has come to be phronetic and noetic science, which informs of us of something that natural science can't on it's own, which is how to see the world as conscious beings (not just the physcial world, but also other humans, and our entire experience), and how to act, and with what ultimate end.

Both highly individualised beliefs and the more communitarian religious views fill that role in some capacity.

[Hrolf Kraki]

And others can see through crap like this.


Sorry, but talking snakes and people rising from the dead is make-believe.

[Óttar]

For a long time I thought that material reality might not exist at all, but was only figment of my imagination. And I know plenty of others who thought so.
I wonder what it would be like to hold a Solipsist Convention. I can see it all now, people trying to convince other people that each one is a product of their unconscious minds. I am real! No, I am real!

Thing is, neither one of them could make the other disappear unless they were dictators so for all practical purposes this world exists.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I wonder what it would be like to hold a Solipsist Convention. I can see it all now, people trying to convince other people that each one is a product of their unconscious minds. I am real! No, I am real!

Thing is, neither one of them could make the other disappear unless they were dictators so for all practical purposes this world exists.

Not sure about other religions, but in Christian Science even your own body is a product of your imagination, or the entire world is a collective imagination or something