3 ms·

Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma i

Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma is a fiction without any basis in reality". You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution?

hectorlorenzo 9y ago
Have you read this? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fai...
- steanne 9y ago
  i have to go with siderea's response https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html
  - vacri 9y ago
    What's always missing from these discussions is that that patronising mockery and outright dismissal is how atheists and agnostics have always been treated by the religious - it wasn't until atheists started really kicking and screaming about the injustice that people started to take note. One the one hand you have folks like this complaining of atheists merely being (gasp) rude!, and on the other hand you have things like some states in the US still not allowing atheists to hold office, by articles in their consitutions[1]. It's exactly the same with women's rights and minority civil rights: "Really, people would listen to them more if they just toned down and spoke politely". We already know that that doesn't work and just gets you ignored. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/?utm_term=.5b10c6e2d2f9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/t...
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Both those articles, and the comments seem focused on liberal's tolerance of religion as a problem, to a degree that astonishes me as an outsider looking into their communities. The crushing weight of cognitive dissonance seems so vast that it lends an almost religious aura to their discussions as they carefully avoid the rather glaring truth that religion permeates US politics at all levels but that it's clearly more ingrained on the Republican side.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma is a fiction without any basis in reality". Lack of nuance? Maybe. Lack of reality? Not really. I don't think nuance is helpful here. The fundamental defining characteristic of the institution is faith as an epistemology. The details of how exactly this irresponsible epistemology is constructed don't really contribute anything to the understanding of why that makes it a bad institution. > You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution? No, it's simple, but not simplistic. And whether it's a way to jumpstart a useful dialog? That's generally difficult to judge before you see the result, really.
vacri 9y ago
Given that Catholicism (like other religions) has wholly retreated to and now lives only in the area of "questions that have no answer", yes, it has no basis in reality. Nothing in Catholic dogma is independently verifiable. For example, the justifications around the eucharist literally being the blood and body of christ require some truly incredible mental gymnastics, and this transubstantiation is a core element of the faith. Yet strangely, the bread and doesn't literally change into the flesh and blood for the Protestants... So where does the 'useful dialogue' start? I think it starts well before we just give moral authority to a bunch of very old men arguing about rules that only they made up. They should give us a better chain of authority than "since time immemorial".
- Gupie 9y ago
  No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. I also would not quite agree that religion has retreated to "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps", i.e. the creation, consciousness etc. These are very large gaps in scientific understanding, but of course this does not mean we need supernatural explanations for them, and it would be reasonable to expect science to fill these gaps eventually. But then again there might be limits to what can explain.
  - vacri 9y ago
    > No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation Plenty of people have believed it historically. Scroll down to the Catholic section and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics I talked about to claim it in modern times. Protestants don't believe in literal transubstantiation; I'd say they probably trust their taste-buds more, but then again, compare Protestant/Anglo-German food against Catholic/Franco-Italo-Spanish food :) > "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps" I don't personally see a difference between these terms - they both mean claiming to have an answer for something that is unanswerable. If you have an answer for which the only proof is basically "just trust me", then it's not much of an answer. Russell's Teapot is a pretty clear example of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
thriftwy 9y ago
Isn't all the christianity based on what is unsatisfactory chain of evidence? There's this thing that Jesus rose from the dead, and also this thing that he delegated his authority to his apostles (including people who never actually saw him in person). Both are very weak arguments.
- foldr 9y ago
  The phrase the parent used was "basis in reality". There is good evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    Sure, but is there overwhelming evidence that he did the impossible and rose from the dead? Last time I researched the issue, I was incredibly underwhelmed by the reasons that were used to defend a belief in an actual resurrection.

hectorlorenzo 9y ago

Have you read this? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fail-so-miserably/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/24/how-did-new-atheism-fai...

steanne 9y ago
i have to go with siderea's response https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1361333.html
- vacri 9y ago
  What's always missing from these discussions is that that patronising mockery and outright dismissal is how atheists and agnostics have always been treated by the religious - it wasn't until atheists started really kicking and screaming about the injustice that people started to take note. One the one hand you have folks like this complaining of atheists merely being (gasp) rude!, and on the other hand you have things like some states in the US still not allowing atheists to hold office, by articles in their consitutions[1]. It's exactly the same with women's rights and minority civil rights: "Really, people would listen to them more if they just toned down and spoke politely". We already know that that doesn't work and just gets you ignored. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/?utm_term=.5b10c6e2d2f9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/t...
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Both those articles, and the comments seem focused on liberal's tolerance of religion as a problem, to a degree that astonishes me as an outsider looking into their communities. The crushing weight of cognitive dissonance seems so vast that it lends an almost religious aura to their discussions as they carefully avoid the rather glaring truth that religion permeates US politics at all levels but that it's clearly more ingrained on the Republican side.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma is a fiction without any basis in reality". Lack of nuance? Maybe. Lack of reality? Not really. I don't think nuance is helpful here. The fundamental defining characteristic of the institution is faith as an epistemology. The details of how exactly this irresponsible epistemology is constructed don't really contribute anything to the understanding of why that makes it a bad institution. > You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution? No, it's simple, but not simplistic. And whether it's a way to jumpstart a useful dialog? That's generally difficult to judge before you see the result, really.

vacri 9y ago

Given that Catholicism (like other religions) has wholly retreated to and now lives only in the area of "questions that have no answer", yes, it has no basis in reality. Nothing in Catholic dogma is independently verifiable. For example, the justifications around the eucharist literally being the blood and body of christ require some truly incredible mental gymnastics, and this transubstantiation is a core element of the faith. Yet strangely, the bread and doesn't literally change into the flesh and blood for the Protestants... So where does the 'useful dialogue' start? I think it starts well before we just give moral authority to a bunch of very old men arguing about rules that only they made up. They should give us a better chain of authority than "since time immemorial".

Gupie 9y ago
No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. I also would not quite agree that religion has retreated to "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps", i.e. the creation, consciousness etc. These are very large gaps in scientific understanding, but of course this does not mean we need supernatural explanations for them, and it would be reasonable to expect science to fill these gaps eventually. But then again there might be limits to what can explain.
- vacri 9y ago
  > No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation Plenty of people have believed it historically. Scroll down to the Catholic section and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics I talked about to claim it in modern times. Protestants don't believe in literal transubstantiation; I'd say they probably trust their taste-buds more, but then again, compare Protestant/Anglo-German food against Catholic/Franco-Italo-Spanish food :) > "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps" I don't personally see a difference between these terms - they both mean claiming to have an answer for something that is unanswerable. If you have an answer for which the only proof is basically "just trust me", then it's not much of an answer. Russell's Teapot is a pretty clear example of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

thriftwy 9y ago

Isn't all the christianity based on what is unsatisfactory chain of evidence? There's this thing that Jesus rose from the dead, and also this thing that he delegated his authority to his apostles (including people who never actually saw him in person). Both are very weak arguments.

foldr 9y ago
The phrase the parent used was "basis in reality". There is good evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  Sure, but is there overwhelming evidence that he did the impossible and rose from the dead? Last time I researched the issue, I was incredibly underwhelmed by the reasons that were used to defend a belief in an actual resurrection.