The non-thinking that is Religion.

[Keerin]

I'm thinking of one where multiple men have sex with the girl all through the night and she dies because she has been raped so much.

[Ryan.]

My personal stance in all this is somewhat removed from the debate. I am inclined toward a deconstructionist outlook, which basically entails an admission of the impossibility of affirming anything about the world based upon the failure of language and other sign systems to apprehend something as simple as an object.

However, despite my own tendencies towards a kind of permanent immobility in understanding the world, I have to ignore this impulse or else I would be unable to live my life at all, making day to day decisions and performing simple actions etc...

I can therefore see where people are coming from when they say that science has its own limits and we do come to an impasse on issues of existence that would lead to a search for some sort of explanation, a reach for faith or something similar. That said, as I have no choice but to accept the basic and flawed ways in which I can understand the world, the limited conclusions I come to all lead towards religion or a higher power as a type of transference for ignorance.

For me, to admit the existence of a God would entail a dismissal of all that I use to understand and act within the world. Considering the evidence available I might as well choose to believe that up was down and that when I closed my eyes the world vanished. As a thinking person I can only conclude that religion is a way to deal with the utter unknowability of existence, but a way that makes the least amount of sense considering the base tools we have.

[Keerin]

Originally Posted by Keerin

I'm thinking of one where multiple men have sex with the girl all through the night and she dies because she has been raped so much.

SAB, Judges 19

19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

19:23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

19:26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

19:27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

19:28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

19:29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

19:30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.

[Keerin]

Originally Posted by bumperbrew

I can only conclude that religion is a way to deal with the utter unknowability of existence, but a way that makes the least amount of sense considering the base tools we have.

I agree with this.

[GobbHayte]

i used to subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as good and evil, and i agree that it is a matter of perspective, but that doesn't mean it is unreal. pleasure, pain, love, hate, whether or not something is beautiful or ugly are all a matter of perception, does that mean that they are not real? it is a cop-out to say that because a concept is abstract it is not real.
My personal definition of evil is to cause unnecessary or unjust suffering, but even then, whether something is just or necessary is a matter of perception.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by bumperbrew

My personal stance in all this is somewhat removed from the debate. I am inclined toward a deconstructionist outlook, which basically entails an admission of the impossibility of affirming anything about the world based upon the failure of language and other sign systems to apprehend something as simple as an object.

Deconstructionism and relativism has always bugged me. It's all well and good as an intellectual plaything, fodder for debate, but it's completely useless and, in my opinion (assuming I understand it correctly) quite, quite flawed.
It holds (I think) that the objective world is unknowable and all descriptions of it are (indeed, can only be) subjective and symbolic. Yet technology works so well. As Dawkins said, "Show me a relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite".
Also, Sokal, "Those who believe the laws of physics are merely social conventions are welcome to attempt transgressing those conventions from the window of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor."

[Ryan.]

Originally Posted by LesMts

Deconstructionism and relativism has always bugged me. It's all well and good as an intellectual plaything, fodder for debate, but it's completely useless and, in my opinion (assuming I understand it correctly) quite, quite flawed.
It holds (I think) that the objective world is unknowable and all descriptions of it are (indeed, can only be) subjective and symbolic. Yet technology works so well. As Dawkins said, "Show me a relativist at 30,000 feet and I'll show you a hypocrite".
Also, Sokal, "Those who believe the laws of physics are merely social conventions are welcome to attempt transgressing those conventions from the window of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor."

I understand where you are coming from, but you shouldn't conflate deconstruction with relativism. Deconstruction is not useless because it is only the first stage that is the admission of the unknowability of everything. The second stage is using deconstruction as a tool for stepping back from the very basic tools we use to understand the world in order to see them more clearly and come to a greater awareness. In this sense it is not nihilistic but in fact a positive tool for learning.

Perhaps you think it is hypocritical to admit you know nothing and then still live your life as though you do. However I would say that this is because it is an uncomfortable knowledge for those who feel they hold a certainty with science in much the same way it is uncomfortable for those who are religious to see the factual evidence of science.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by bumperbrew

Perhaps you think it is hypocritical to admit you know nothing and then still live your life as though you do. However I would say that this is because it is an uncomfortable knowledge for those who feel they hold a certainty with science in much the same way it is uncomfortable for those who are religious to see the factual evidence of science.

Science doesn't deal in certainties. No good scientist should claim that it does. It looks at what's possible and pulls out what's probable. It's as close as we can get to understanding objective reality.
The products of science work. That's the crucial part of it. I point you again to the the two little quotes by Dawkins and Sokal respectively. They sum up my thoughts on the matter in a nice, concise way.

[ArchFlameTera]

i agree with certain parts from pretty much everyones posts regarding this, a proper UGS debate i would never have thought it!

Although im a firm non believer, i would never think less of someone for believing in whatever they want. Its not really any of my concern what other people do or think.

my family were never that religious. when i was small i had to endure sunday mornings at church until i was old enough to say fuck off! Even when i was very young i never believed anything that was preached. It was all clear as day fantasy to me even then.

Going to church seemed like punishment for gullable people.


Im not even going to touch the whole evil debate.

On the "supernatural" side of things, i follow this easy rule that works for most of all this : I'll believe it when i see it.

People who have seen supernatural things are probably just seeing something that they think is supernatural. Like many examples people have mentioned.

If i myself saw something strange, i would dismiss it as a strange occurance before thinking about being supernatural, although i wouldnt rule it out and if i was proved wrong at some stage then id accept that.

[Pubic Wig]

Im nit picking now, but since this thread started about Dawkins...i would quite like to know if anyone has read (or where i can get my grubby little hands on) 'The Dawkins Delusion' - Alistar McGrath which is a response by a Christian Theologist/Cellular Biologist?

Sorry, we edit here. Heres a nice quote regarding Faith. "while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it".

[Ryan.]

Originally Posted by LesMts

Science doesn't deal in certainties. No good scientist should claim that it does. It looks at what's possible and pulls out what's probable. It's as close as we can get to understanding objective reality.
The products of science work. That's the crucial part of it. I point you again to the the two little quotes by Dawkins and Sokal respectively. They sum up my thoughts on the matter in a nice, concise way.

I would argue that science has to deal with the same tools as we all do to understand the world and therefore at a wider level has literally no idea of what is possible or probable. It is as close as we can get to objective reality in the sense that it is as equidistant from certainty as absolutely any other understanding of the world. But, like I said we all have to live in the world and after accepting how limited that is science appears to make the most sense. I also understand the sentiment of the two quotes, they are exactly the type of flippant, narrow understanding you can reach when working within an empiricist framework and someone points to a greater scope of knowing.

[Jeebus]

Originally Posted by Pubic Wig

Im nit picking now, but since this thread started about Dawkins...i would quite like to know if anyone has read (or where i can get my grubby little hands on) 'The Dawkins Delusion' - Alistar McGrath which is a response by a Christian Theologist/Cellular Biologist?

Amazon has it.