Re: Why do you believe what you believe?

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Pulse wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Pulse wrote:
By its very nature, this newsgroup (all newsgroups?) encourages people
to pour forth their knowledge, beliefs, and opinions. Every now and
then, a courageous soul will actually cite some sources. It is these
sources that I am most interested in. For some reason, the conclusions
are less interesting to me than the steps that lead up to those
conclusions. What qualifies a worthy and reliable source of knowledge?

(I understand that this is bordering on being off topic, but I'm
particularly interested in hearing the thoughts of many personalities I
regularly see here.)

Some specific examples:

What makes an individual an expert in a field and worthy of quoting or
believing? Bonus points for defending Richard Dawkins, Michael Cremo, or
any specific active poster to talk.origins.
Anybody who has been through the crucible of peer review, and had
their work supported by it, has a great deal of credibility for their
work. Of course, while I take a respected biologist's word on matters
of biology, I make not take his advice on auto care. Similarly, when
it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word
on matters of their own religion, but not in other fields where they
at not recognized experts. Also, the appearance of a hidden agenda
can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility.
How can a hidden agenda be identified? I've seen that claims of hidden
agendas are thrown in all directions around here. They can't all be true.

Of course, anyone can throw the accusation, but IMO it doesn't carry
much weight without evidence to support it.

If some one posts "Science disproves God," and they're a self-avowed
atheist, that's evidence of a hidden agenda. Similarly, if someone
posts "God disproves Science," and they're a self-avowed creationist,
same thing. (Of course, I consider both statements to be absurd, but
it's just an example.)

What makes specific religious texts more reliable than other
contradictory texts, contemporary or otherwise? I would love to see a
defense of the Bible, the Vedas, or especially any of All-seeing-I's
other ancient texts.
Religious texts are quite reliable at describing the mythology,
values, beliefs, etc, of a given society at a given time. It must be
understood that these were written hundreds, maybe thousands of years
ago, in different languages, addressing social and societal situations
very different from each other society, and different from today's.
It would be pointless to compare an ancient Egyptian creation myth to
a Mayan creation myth with the goal of deciding which was "right" or
"wrong." Each one is correct in its own setting for its own society.

Also, given the fact that they are ancient religious texts, it would
be equally pointless to compare them to contemporary science or
history. They are not science or history books as we understand the
topics today.
Why not? What separates a religious text from a science or history book?

Are you serious?

Religious texts were never intended to be science books. The
Patawomeck Algonquian creation myth tells the story that the great God
Okeus took the hairs from a huge deer pelt, sprinkled them across the
land, and each hair grew into the deer we see today. I don't think
anyone would maintain that the Patawomeck conducted field research,
assembled data, applied the scientific method and sent the results
through peer review.

For a religious story, the point isn't in the details -- the point is
in the *story* and in the lessons it tells people about the society,
its values, etc.

That's simply false.

This is an example of how the view of religion from sophisticates or the highly educated differs markedly from what ordinary folks believe.

Most Jews really do believe that God smote the Egyptians with plagues so that the Pharaoh freed the Hebrews. When Jews celebrate Passover, most think they are celebrating a HISTORICAL event. It's not just a fable with moral lessons like Aesop's fables. It's what really happened, they believe.

Christians, even Ken Miller, really do believe that Jesus was the divine Son of God and was Resurrected after his death.

The God that *most* people worship is a God that does things. In THIS real world of ours. He can heal the sick, reward the faithful, punish the wicked, and (occasionally) make a miracle.

He is not an abstraction about whom we spin yarns to teach moral lessons. When most folks think about God, they mean THIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png

Believers don't equate that to Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales. They think that God really did that, even if it was through the indirect mechanism of evolution.



--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables
    ... Books on Science ... Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables ... for the age of the earth, scientists have to be brave to talk about religion. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Darwins god
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... Atran has been struggling with questions about religion ever ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Religion and evolution
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Religion and evolution
    ... God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. ... about religion ever since - why he himself no longer believes in God ... something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
Loading