In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...

[Prodigy54321]

...is not that the universe is so easily explained without invoking a god (it isn't), it is that the existence (and proliferation) of these theistic religions is so easily explained without invoking a god.

^I haven't actually bothered to think about this yet...it just popped into my head while I was bored in class...and since I haven't spent much time in SMP as of late, you all get to hear it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

discuss

[drzen]

I don't think it's damning at all. I think reflecting on the blind men and the elephant would help you see that. Just because the blind men aren't correctly describing what they are feeling doesn't mean there isn't an elephant.

[mbillie1]

There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it (which are almost innumerable and overwhelming), or arguing that its value justifies it. I would agree that truth and value are sometimes different things. I just don't think religion justifies itself. But the idea that an argument still needs to be made against religion, theism, etc is pretty laughable, and has been for at least a hundred years.

[Bork]

Care to explain how it is relevant that the existence of religions is easily explained without invoking a god?

The existence of people who believe in aliens is easily explained without invoking aliens too. Does this ruin the case for the existence of aliens? How?


[ QUOTE ]
There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it (which are almost innumerable and overwhelming), or arguing that its value justifies it. I would agree that truth and value are sometimes different things. I just don't think religion justifies itself. But the idea that an argument still needs to be made against religion, theism, etc is pretty laughable, and has been for at least a hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just isn't true. There are theists who have carefully considered opposing arguments and don't merely believe in God because they think that belief has value. They think the evidence justifies their belief that God exists.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain how it is relevant that the existence of religions is easily explained without invoking a god?

The existence of people who believe in aliens is easily explained without invoking aliens too. Does this ruin the case for the existence of aliens? How?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it is ontologically simpler? (ie ockham's razor)

[Bork]

Ontologically simpler therefore massive favorite to be true is not an accurate application of Ockham's Razor. If it was then one wonder's why Ockham or anyone would believe that. Ockham's Razor just states we ought not multiply entities in our ontology unnecesarily. This is generally good advice, but doesn't really apply here as far as I can see.

Ockham's razor can defeat attempts to use the existence of religions as evidence for God's existence though. This is assuming the existence of religions can be explained just as well without invoking God as the possible explanations involving God. This might lead one to suspending judgement, how do you see Ockham's razor being used to destroy the case for God?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it (which are almost innumerable and overwhelming), or arguing that its value justifies it. I would agree that truth and value are sometimes different things. I just don't think religion justifies itself. But the idea that an argument still needs to be made against religion, theism, etc is pretty laughable, and has been for at least a hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I say let religion stand on its own two feet. I'll never make the argument that religion is valuable thus it should be practiced. And until you explain your origination (tracing all the way back to the beginning of life as well as matter), then the debate is still very much open.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain how it is relevant that the existence of religions is easily explained without invoking a god?

The existence of people who believe in aliens is easily explained without invoking aliens too. Does this ruin the case for the existence of aliens? How?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the case for believing people who believe in god/aliens that is under attack not the existence of these things.

The main point being that the existence of god/aliens is entirely independent of people belief in them. Unlike rational beliefs that are not independent of reality because they are tested against reality.

chez

[No_Foolin'?]

[ QUOTE ]
...is not that the universe is so easily explained without invoking a god (it isn't), it is that the existence (and proliferation) of these theistic religions is so easily explained without invoking a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Witness the foibles of a local fundamentalist preacher who I recently conversed with via email. He argues vehemently that the earth is 7000 years old because the Bible tells him so, and will back his argument up using multiple scriptural passages, complete with references to and detailed explanations of the Greek in the original texts. He also asserts that fully one-half of all the "experts" in the sciences that deal with the age of the earth agree with him.

However, pressed for details regarding his assertion about these "experts", he falls silent. He has no answer and has ended our email exchange.

My point: Something somewhere in the human psyche tends strongly to cause us at a certain point to hop off the locomotive of rational thought and into all kinds silliness, all in the name of perpetuating our personally-cherished and largely ignorantly-held notions about our lives and the world around us. Witness my preacher aquaintence: An otherwise very rational, measured, deliberate man suddenly suspends all reason because he has stumbled upon a fact that fails to support his world view.

I can think of no reasonable explanation for this phenomenon other than that it's a product of the interchange between our lizard brain and our more developed brain.

[Splendour]

However, pressed for details regarding his assertion about these "experts", he falls silent. He has no answer and has ended our email exchange. .

He's not an expert on science. He's an expert on other disciplines' aspects that he probably thinks you have no interest in. Sceintists themselves can't decide about evolution and intelligent design (Darwin vs. Newton) and you want a clergyman who's suppose to know issues of faith inside out to know this.

He probably decided to protect you by shutting up.

James 3 (The Message a modern day translation of the bible)
When You Open Your Mouth
1-2Don't be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends. Teaching is highly responsible work. Teachers are held to the strictest standards. And none of us is perfectly qualified. We get it wrong nearly every time we open our mouths. If you could find someone whose speech was perfectly true, you'd have a perfect person, in perfect control of life.
3-5A bit in the mouth of a horse controls the whole horse. A small rudder on a huge ship in the hands of a skilled captain sets a course in the face of the strongest winds. A word out of your mouth may seem of no account, but it can accomplish nearly anything—or destroy it!

5-6It only takes a spark, remember, to set off a forest fire. A careless or wrongly placed word out of your mouth can do that. By our speech we can ruin the world, turn harmony to chaos, throw mud on a reputation, send the whole world up in smoke and go up in smoke with it, smoke right from the pit of hell.

7-10This is scary: You can tame a tiger, but you can't tame a tongue—it's never been done. The tongue runs wild, a wanton killer. With our tongues we bless God our Father; with the same tongues we curse the very men and women he made in his image. Curses and blessings out of the same mouth!

10-12My friends, this can't go on. A spring doesn't gush fresh water one day and brackish the next, does it? Apple trees don't bear strawberries, do they? Raspberry bushes don't bear apples, do they? You're not going to dip into a polluted mud hole and get a cup of clear, cool water, are you?


Note the raspberry bush bearing apples thing. Why do people go to scientists to learn about God? That's like taking a toothache to a cardiologist.