Richard Dawkins on evolution and the Holocaust

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Originally Posted by Kamandi

I doubt very much that anyone's ability to reason has ever been 'crushed' by the doctrine of transubstantiation; Leibniz and Pascal reasoned pretty well and they were devout Catholics.

Fair point, although both worked in fields where the Church didn't have much of a say; I never heard of a Pope giving a Papal Bull concerning probability theory or calculus.

Originally Posted by Kamandi

You cannot assign a probability to the propositions of religion because, like Kant said, whenever you try to set a limit on the transcendent, the result is always a logical contradiction. The human mind just isn't capable of handling it.

I do believe in the transcendent but I think it's nearly always a mistake to mix it up with the earthly. The idea that God intervenes to solve our problems if we pray to him, for example, has disappointed far more people than it has satisfied (assuming it has satisfied any).

[The Enchanted Platypus]

Originally Posted by Y_I_Otter

Of course.

It's not about whether somebody orders their life according to any of set of beliefs. But surely their right to believe along a particular set of lines stop dead at any "Grand Commission" or perceived Divine right to impose their reality onto people who don't choose to share it.

True. Im no bigoted tyrant, so I think everyone should have the right to believe in whatever they wish, of course within reasonable bounds. I also think that critical thinking should be encouraged as well, which in most cases is a deterrent against blind faith.

Originally Posted by Kamandi

Personal faith, my study of the Vedas and astrology, spiritual experiences I've had, etc.

Its cute that you believe in astrology.

Experiences are definitely more substantial than belief, but in some cases, the experience may actually result from the misfiring of neurones in the temporal lobes. Despite this, I have had interesting transcendent experiences during (and after) vedantic and buddhist meditation, and it was pretty intuitively conclusive that these experiences did not necessitate belief of any kind.

In fact, you write here;

Originally Posted by Kamandi

You cannot assign a probability to the propositions of religion because, like Kant said, whenever you try to set a limit on the transcendent, the result is always a logical contradiction. The human mind just isn't capable of handling it.

Of course the mind is incapable, since the mind is a by-product of evolution. As far evolution is concerned, the grand transcendent truth is a mere afterthought with regard to its main function of survival.

And yet, it is the same imaginary mind with which you place hope in your gods. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. There is nothing transcendent about belief itself. In fact, belief can actually be an obstacle of the truth, since belief takes one away from the only moment which can be considered real. Belief is always hypothetical and not actual. If the belief is a true fact, but one which can't be experienced- then that belief is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is real or not as far I am concerned. Its utterly irrelevant to our plane of existence, i.e demonstrable through evidence by data received via our senses.

[Kamandi]

Originally Posted by SmokeOnTheWater

Fair point, although both worked in fields where the Church didn't have much of a say; I never heard of a Pope giving a Papal Bull concerning probability theory or calculus.

The church did comment on their philosophical ideas - which is why Leibniz's Monadology remained unpublished until after his death - the Vatican's scholars just weren't on the cutting edge of math/physics.

I do believe in the transcendent but I think it's nearly always a mistake to mix it up with the earthly. The idea that God intervenes to solve our problems if we pray to him, for example, has disappointed far more people than it has satisfied (assuming it has satisfied any).

God does intervene --- by giving us the wits to analyze our problems and the strength to endure them.

[Kamandi]

Originally Posted by rahxephone

Its cute that you believe in astrology.

It's cute you think it's cute.

Experiences are definitely more substantial than belief, but in some cases, the experience may actually result from the misfiring of neurones in the temporal lobes.

If you want to take the most reductive (and arbitrary) perspective possible.

Of course the mind is incapable, since the mind is a by-product of evolution.

Or it's simply the sheath of an irreducible unit of awareness from which all cognition stems.

In fact, belief can actually be an obstacle of the truth, since belief takes one away from the only moment which can be considered real. Belief is always hypothetical and not actual. If the belief is a true fact, but one which can't be experienced- then that belief is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is real or not as far I am concerned. Its utterly irrelevant to our plane of existence, i.e demonstrable through evidence by data received via our senses.

It seems to me that you're confused about key differences between 'fact' and 'value.' Beliefs can be true, false or neither

[Kamandi]

Originally Posted by SmokeOnTheWater

You can if you assign a precise meaning to the "blood and the body of Christ", i.e. that belonging to someone who (assuming he existed at all) lived and died 2,000 years ago.

There is no way to test whether the wafers and wife become the aforementioned in a believer's mouth during communion. It's unfalsifiable.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Originally Posted by Kamandi

There is no way to test whether the wafers and wine become the aforementioned in a believer's mouth during communion. It's unfalsifiable.

Easy; do a series of endoscopies before and after communion (or mouth swabs would probably suffice) on a group of believers and a control group. See if there are any differences.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Originally Posted by Kamandi

The church did comment on their philosophical ideas - which is why Leibniz's Monadology remained unpublished until after his death - the Vatican's scholars just weren't on the cutting edge of math/physics.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Kamandi

God does intervene --- by giving us the wits to analyze our problems and the strength to endure them.

So my gran believed when she was nursing my grandad thorough a long illness. She may have been right, but there's no way to test for it.

Personally I think if there is a divine intervention, it's not in having the wits to analyse our problems but the ability to disengage from them enough to see them objectively (as Vipassana meditators develop a facility for doing) whereby they can be seen more objectively and any solutions more easily perceived.

[The Enchanted Platypus]

Originally Posted by SmokeOnTheWater

Personally I think if there is a divine intervention, it's not in having the wits to analyse our problems but the ability to disengage from them enough to see them objectively (as Vipassana meditators develop a facility for doing) whereby they can be seen more objectively and any solutions more easily perceived.

Whilst it is a faux pas for me to suggest this as a skeptic, I think one of the great things that can come from religion is the relieving hope for a better future. In that sense, the benefits of religion may overcome the odds of it being possibly untrue.