Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004

Brainiac Five posted:

No thank you, I have no intention of slamming my foot on top of a landmine just because you're asking me to. Hell, your incompetence at using the quote function has somehow made me less likely to do so.

Is the shocking lack of self-awareness in your posting normal? You might want to step away and breathe for a minute, and maybe come back in a better state of mind for discussion.

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 16:14

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Cingulate posted:

I will phrase it in another way.
It is true critical rationalism is old, and it is not a particularly active topic. I don't however see how that is relevant.

How did I insult you? You said I insulted you. It was probably a misunderstanding.

Okay, so for "scientific" I should read "critical rationalist" instead? Because I thought we were talking about science and religion, not Popper's positivism and religion.

Liquid Communism posted:

Is the shocking lack of self-awareness in your posting normal? You might want to step away and breathe for a minute, and maybe come back in a better state of mind for discussion.

I don't get how calling people who disagree with you crazy is intended to foster discussion. Perhaps you should go back to insisting people at high risk of suicide ought to own guns?

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:39

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Brainiac Five posted:

Okay, so for "scientific" I should read "critical rationalist" instead? Because I thought we were talking about science and religion, not Popper's positivism and religion.

Popper's philosophy is called Critical Rationalism. It's not really a positivist philosophy.
Beyond this possible point of confusion, I don't understand what point you are making here. I'm asking you how the fact that Critical Rationalism is an old philosophy matters - it's not that this in itself disqualifies it from anything but winning an Oscar.

Brainiac Five posted:

calling people who disagree with you crazy

Who is doing that?

Again: how did I insult you?

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:43

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Cingulate posted:

Popper's philosophy is called Critical Rationalism. It's not really a positivist philosophy.
Beyond this possible point of confusion, I don't understand what point you are making here. I'm asking you how the fact that Critical Rationalism is an old philosophy matters - it's not that this in itself disqualifies it from anything but winning an Oscar.

Who is doing that?

Again: how did I insult you?

I am saying it is not a particularly relevant philosophy in philosophy of science. I am not saying anything about its age. Your inability to distinguish this is one of the many, many insults you hurl at anyone with the severe misfortune to read one of your posts.

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:44

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Fascinating how it seems everyone besides Brainiac Five is dishonest and insulting, advancing rigged propositions and dropping rhetorical land mines. When they're wrong they are not just wrong, they are contemptibly wrong. Their uncharitable slanders have of course spoiled the threads tone, which Brainiac Five was trying sooo hard to keep civil.

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:47

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Squalid posted:

Fascinating how it seems everyone besides Brainiac Five is dishonest and insulting, advancing rigged propositions and dropping rhetorical land mines. When they're wrong they are not just wrong, they are contemptibly wrong. Their uncharitable slanders have of course spoiled the threads tone, which Brainiac Five was trying sooo hard to keep civil.

Civility is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Anyways, why is insinuating that religious people are all crazy anything other than an insult? If I were to suggest that atheists were all devoid of morals, I would rightly be castigated for such a thing, but I guess that you're ideologically blinded to the prospect that religious people could be anything other than mentally defective. Such a sad turn of events to have warped you so.

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:50

Bolocko: Oct 19, 2007

twodot posted:

You could test for existence given certain definitions of an intercessory God. Like if I say "I'm holding an intangible clock that makes audible beeping noises at noon", if there's no beeping at noon, we know there's no intangible clock that beeps at noon. Religious people aren't usually interested in constructing definitions that rigorous, but it's at least in principle possible.

Well no, your beeping would only indicate a source. It's your assumptions that would tell you it's a clock (for example, it seems to occur at noon in accordance with standard clocks). If the thing is truly intangible you'd be unable to determine whether it's a clock or any other conceivable or inconceivable thing appears to beep once a day. And this isn't a rigorous example.

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:51

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004

Brainiac Five posted:

Civility is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Anyways, why is insinuating that religious people are all crazy anything other than an insult? If I were to suggest that atheists were all devoid of morals, I would rightly be castigated for such a thing, but I guess that you're ideologically blinded to the prospect that religious people could be anything other than mentally defective. Such a sad turn of events to have warped you so.

I'm fairly certain that the only one in the thread who is insinuating that religious people are crazy is you.

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:52

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Brainiac Five posted:

I am saying it is not a particularly relevant philosophy in philosophy of science.

Ok, I think it is very relevant to scientists, e.g. the LIGO team. It's possibly the most important fleshed-out normative theory for scientists.
But how would it matter for our present purposes if it's currently not a particularly active topic for philosophers of science?

Brainiac Five posted:

I am not saying anything about its age. Your inability to distinguish this is one of the many, many insults you hurl at anyone with the severe misfortune to read one of your posts.

Ok, so you did not experience any specific intentional insult?

Brainiac Five posted:

Anyways, why is insinuating that religious people are all crazy anything other than an insult?

Who is doing that?

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:53

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Liquid Communism posted:

I'm fairly certain that the only one in the thread who is insinuating that religious people are crazy is you.

Maybe you should learn to read, and then apply this skill you have learned to determine what "delusional" means, and then consider what it would mean to suggest that being religious is to be inherently delusional.

I mean, you won't because you probably haven't reasoned yourself into believing religious people are all mentally subnormal, you've got an emotional reason for believing in science as a thing which lifts you up from the idiot masses.

Cingulate posted:

Ok, I think it is very relevant to scientists, e.g. the LIGO team. It's possibly the most important fleshed-out normative theory for scientists.
But how would it matter for our present purposes if it's currently not a particularly active topic for philosophers of science?

Ok, so you did not experience any specific intentional insult?

Buddy, if your posts are unintentional you need an intervention or something.

Well, Cingulate, people are talking about science, and using falsificationanationistic positivism as the arbiter of "is it science" is wrong. I'm sure you will continue "just asking questions" until your body begins to physically rebel against you making any more posts.

# ? Mar 9, 2017 23:57

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Bolocko posted:

Well no, your beeping would only indicate a source. It's your assumptions that would tell you it's a clock (for example, it seems to occur at noon in accordance with standard clocks). If the thing is truly intangible you'd be unable to determine whether it's a clock or any other conceivable or inconceivable thing appears to beep once a day. And this isn't a rigorous example.

What? Did you miss the several times I said "no" in that post? If it's noon and I don't hear any beeping there for sure isn't a clock of any sort or any sort of other device that beeps at noon within hearing range. Obviously hearing beeping doesn't demonstrate the existence of anything other than a thing that beeps, but I'm specifically talking about the absence of beeping.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:07

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Brainiac Five posted:

Buddy, if your posts are unintentional you need an intervention or something.

Well, Cingulate, people are talking about science, and using falsificationanationistic positivism as the arbiter of "is it science" is wrong. I'm sure you will continue "just asking questions" until your body begins to physically rebel against you making any more posts.

I promise you I'm not trying to insult you. To be honest, it's at times a bit hard because you're spewing a lot of bile, but by carefully dosing the powerful sedatives I am constantly under whenever I spend time on D&D, it is manageable.

I'm not "just" asking questions, I'm telling you I don't understand your points.

I think the falsificationalist challenge is still a promising candidate for the demarcation problem. That it's not a topic of much discussion in philosophy of science right now is I think mostly because pholosophy of science isn't focused on the demarcation problem right now, not so much because it has found better answers to the demarcation problem.
So yes, I think "unfalsifiability" is still a serious charge for a contender for the status of being scientific, first and foremost because it is still one of the few fully fleshed-out normative proposals.

Falsificationist positivism is self contradictory.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:09

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Brainiac Five posted:

Civility is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Anyways, why is insinuating that religious people are all crazy anything other than an insult? If I were to suggest that atheists were all devoid of morals, I would rightly be castigated for such a thing, but I guess that you're ideologically blinded to the prospect that religious people could be anything other than mentally defective. Such a sad turn of events to have warped you so.

It's a pretty dumb insinuation I admit. But are you implying that's something I believe? because that would be retarded. If you considered that being in insanely on noxious is not a good way to bring people around towards your point of view?

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:09

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004

Brainiac Five posted:

Maybe you should learn to read, and then apply this skill you have learned to determine what "delusional" means, and then consider what it would mean to suggest that being religious is to be inherently delusional.

I mean, you won't because you probably haven't reasoned yourself into believing religious people are all mentally subnormal, you've got an emotional reason for believing in science as a thing which lifts you up from the idiot masses.

I think you're projecting a little there, friend. The only one I've yet seen bring up delusion in the context of religion is you. The strongest thing I've said, and which I stand behind, is that a sincere belief in physical transubstantiation is effectively a belief in magic.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:10

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Squalid posted:

It's a pretty dumb insinuation I admit. But are you implying that's something I believe? because that would be retarded. If you considered that being in insanely on noxious is not a good way to bring people around towards your point of view?

Liquid Communism posted:

I think you're projecting a little there, friend. The only one I've yet seen bring up delusion in the context of religion is you. The strongest thing I've said, and which I stand behind, is that a sincere belief in physical transubstantiation is effectively a belief in magic.

Well, if you'd read, you'd have seen multiple people make that assertion, and you have decided that I was targeting you, "Liquid Communism", or you, "Squalid" with a strawman because you can't be damned to read posts if they're not by suspected or known godhavers to take up your cudgels against. So you decided to implicitly defend this claim, because for all that you whine about me being "on noxious" it seems pretty deserved in the face of your jackassery.

Cingulate posted:

I promise you I'm not trying to insult you. To be honest, it's at times a bit hard because you're spewing a lot of bile, but by carefully dosing the powerful sedatives I am constantly under whenever I spend time on D&D, it is manageable.

I'm not "just" asking questions, I'm telling you I don't understand your points.

I think the falsificationalist challenge is still a promising candidate for the demarcation problem. That it's not a topic of much discussion in philosophy of science right now is I think mostly because pholosophy of science isn't focused on the demarcation problem right now, not so much because it has found better answers to the demarcation problem.
So yes, I think "unfalsifiability" is still a serious charge for a contender for the status of being scientific, first and foremost because it is still one of the few fully fleshed-out normative proposals.

Falsificationist positivism is self contradictory.

The basic point is that post-Kuhn, determination of what science is, which is important for a thread obsessed with the lines between science and religion, has generally not relied on Mr. Popper's Penguins as a definition. I'd mention Karl Feyerabend but that might push you to overdosing on your sedatives.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:20

Avalerion: Oct 19, 2012

Avalerion posted:

What would you call believing things that aren't real, then?

I did bring it up (using the above as my definition for delusion in this context) to be fair. Irrational probably would have been a better term in hindsight if delusion has too much baggage attached to it.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:20

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Avalerion posted:

I did bring it up (using the above as my definition for delusion in this context) to be fair. Irrational probably would have been a better term in hindsight if delusion has too much baggage attached to it.

It's, uh, not about the "baggage", the very insistence that religion is inherently false and religious people necessarily do not perceive reality is a claim that religious people are all insane.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:23

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Brainiac Five posted:

Well, if you'd read, you'd have seen multiple people make that assertion, and you have decided that I was targeting you, "Liquid Communism", or you, "Squalid" with a strawman because you can't be damned to read posts if they're not by suspected or known godhavers to take up your cudgels against. So you decided to implicitly defend this claim, because for all that you whine about me being "on noxious" it seems pretty deserved in the face of your jackassery.

Who here is talking about religious people being insane? (With the exception of you.)

Brainiac Five posted:

The basic point is that post-Kuhn, determination of what science is, which is important for a thread obsessed with the lines between science and religion, has generally not relied on Mr. Popper's Penguins as a definition. I'd mention Karl Feyerabend but that might push you to overdosing on your sedatives.

As you know, Kuhn is a historian of science. He gives us a post-hoc description of how a field has progressed in the past; he does not offer us a solution to the demarcation problem, particularly not for a contentious situation. He cannot help us before the dust has settled. For a normative theory, Popper is still very often motivated.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:24

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Cingulate posted:

Who here is talking about religious people being insane? (With the exception of you.)

As you know, Kuhn is a historian of science. He gives us a post-hoc description of how a field has progressed in the past; he does not offer us a solution to the demarcation problem, particularly not for a contentious situation. He cannot help us before the dust has settled. For a normative theory, Popper is still very often motivated.

I am using Kuhn as signifying the shift away from the use of Popper as the sole determinative you stupid loving computer jockey.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:27

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Brainiac Five posted:

I am using Kuhn as signifying the shift away from the use of Popper as the sole determinative you stupid loving computer jockey.

I don't see how you signifying this shift brings us any closer to you having demonstrated inquiring if a potentially scientific claim is falsifiable has no force.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:35

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Brainiac Five posted:

Well, if you'd read, you'd have seen multiple people make that assertion, and you have decided that I was targeting you, "Liquid Communism", or you, "Squalid" with a strawman because you can't be damned to read posts if they're not by suspected or known godhavers to take up your cudgels against. So you decided to implicitly defend this claim, because for all that you whine about me being "on noxious" it seems pretty deserved in the face of your jackassery.

The basic point is that post-Kuhn, determination of what science is, which is important for a thread obsessed with the lines between science and religion, has generally not relied on Mr. Popper's Penguins as a definition. I'd mention Karl Feyerabend but that might push you to overdosing on your sedatives.

This thread is insanely bad so one should be forgiven for not reading it, especially not your posts. I know you were discussing delusions at some point, but in your post quoting me it looked like you were attributing it to me, probably because you are about as rhetorically adept as a sack of potatoes.

I've only advanced a single claim in this thread which was pretty much just that one can have faith in anything they please. I'm not sorry for my garbled phone posting because it such a trivially true statement it's obvious not worth the effort, especially not for someone as miserable as yourself.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:35

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Cingulate posted:

I don't see how you signifying this shift brings us any closer to you having demonstrated inquiring if a potentially scientific claim is falsifiable has no force.

Where did I say that? I want you to find the words "inquiring if a potentially scientific claim is falsifiable has no force", those exact words, in this thread, and quote me saying so.

Squalid posted:

This thread is insanely bad so one should be forgiven for not reading it, especially not your posts. I know you were discussing delusions at some point, but in your post quoting me it looked like you were attributing it to me, probably because you are about as rhetorically adept as a sack of potatoes.

I've only advanced a single claim in this thread which was pretty much just that one can have faith in anything they please. I'm not sorry for my garbled phone posting because it such a trivially true statement it's obvious not worth the effort, especially not for someone as miserable as yourself.

*nods sagely* Not all heroes is sandwiches, indeed.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:39

Eletriarnation: Apr 6, 2005; People don't appreciate the substance of things...
objects in space.; Oven Wrangler

Brainiac Five posted:

Where did I say that? I want you to find the words "inquiring if a potentially scientific claim is falsifiable has no force", those exact words, in this thread, and quote me saying so.

If you're going to be pedantic, he didn't put any quote marks so I don't think that's necessarily a direct quote.

What you said was:

Brainiac Five posted:

Falsifiability is pretty outdated philosophy of science and explicitly doesn't render a verdict on truthfulness.

It's perhaps a bit of a leap from "outdated" to "has no force", but I don't know that you've sufficiently supported the former either. It could be argued that by using these words to dismiss the relevance of falsifiability you're implicitly considering it as having no force, so I see where he's coming from.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:43

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Eletriarnation posted:

If you're going to be pedantic, he didn't put any quote marks so I don't think that's necessarily a direct quote.

What you said was:

It's perhaps a bit of a leap from "outdated" to "has no force", but I don't know that you've sufficiently supported the former either. It could be argued that by using these words to dismiss the relevance of falsifiability you're implicitly considering it as having no force, so I see where he's coming from.

But in intervening posts I have clarified my position repeatedly and so his objection would seem to be from him being braindead.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:46

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Please stop getting sucked into B5's endless holy war against perceived threats to his ego. Please, please just put him on ignore, he will go away. This was a not-terrible thread before he showed up and we can turn it around if we believe hard enough.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:47

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Please stop getting sucked into B5's endless holy war against perceived threats to his ego. Please, please just put him on ignore, he will go away. This was a not-terrible thread before he showed up and we can turn it around if we believe hard enough.

Man, it's pretty awesome knowing I have made you materially suffer simply by refusing to suck up to you.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:49

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Squalid posted:

I've only advanced a single claim in this thread which was pretty much just that one can have faith in anything they please.

Of course, although there's a moral obligation to intervene when beliefs are harmful ie. suicide cults or psychics ripping off pensioners.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 00:58

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Please stop getting sucked into B5's endless holy war against perceived threats to his ego. Please, please just put him on ignore, he will go away. This was a not-terrible thread before he showed up and we can turn it around if we believe hard enough.

Ok I am sorry. I was engaging out of morbid curiosity, but I didn't consider ho it would be bad for others.

Brainiac, I have no idea what you're doing, but I think it's dreadfully bad for 1. whatever position you're arguing for, 2. the health of the debate.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 01:00

Confounding Factor: Jul 4, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

It's odd, I don't like B5's condescending pompous tone but I think he is right about the distinctions between religion and science (I agree with Gould, and Popper to an extent). I think science and religion are doing two completely different things that have their own domains of knowledge. It's nice to see some nuance rather than the same ol Dawkins/Harris dull-witted atheism that gets plugged on boards. When scientists try to philosophize it is disastrous.

So B5, is there a particular framework from which you are arguing? Frankly I have never met a real atheist in America, usually those that are self-described as such still have some sort of god or they are still embedded in Protestant mores and practices.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 01:11

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Brainiac Five is the kind of sad person whose own misery clings to them like a cloud, raining vileness on everyone who comes near.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 01:29

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Please stop getting sucked into B5's endless holy war against perceived threats to his ego. Please, please just put him on ignore, he will go away. This was a not-terrible thread before he showed up and we can turn it around if we believe hard enough.

That sounds like an article of faith to me.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 02:19

Confounding Factor: Jul 4, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Squalid posted:

Brainiac Five is the kind of sad person whose own misery clings to them like a cloud, raining vileness on everyone who comes near.

Hey misery loves company. Yes his posting is abrasively odious, I agree with you but if we can get past the tone what do you find objectionable that religion (maybe in the narrow sense) can never be deemed either true or false? What if instead religions are meaningful in how they relate to our existential condition? I think particular religions can be a fruitful inquiry into who we are and who we should become. This might sound reductionist but I'm not privy to evaluating religions purely on factual merits. I'm not sure that matters.

FWIW.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 02:20

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I think it's more correct to say that religions have many distinct areas it overlaps into. It makes claims about reality (conflicting with the natural sciences), human beings (conflicting with the social sciences), morality (conflicting with moral philosophy) and society (conflicting with political ideologies). Once you separate out each individual aspect, structure it properly, religion becomes superfluous in its entirety, though of course you need more than just science to do that.

The key problem of religion is that that disentanglement is a difficult thing to do, which is what makes its usefulness in any one of those domains questionable - just because something is so, does not mean it should be so, and conversely just because something should be so, doesn't mean it is. Religion mixes those two things together and so ends up with a series of contradictory and useless statements.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 02:25

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

An example would be something like the Scopes trial. Scopes was actually a very moral (and populist) person. His opposition to evolution was not on the basis of scientific fact, but morality - it saw it as advocating social Darwinism, which when you look forward to things like the Nazis, wasn't an entirely unfounded fear.

He was, of course, technically incorrect, natural Darwinism does exist, but that fact alone does not justify social Darwinism, and we see in human civilization the social alternative to social Darwinism - intelligent design, of society.

But scopes wasn't able to bridge that gap, he lacked the self-awareness and understanding of ideology and philosophy to coherently formulate his opposition. So he was still stuck in the anti-evolution stance.

A rigorous treatment of ideology, science and society would have made all of this obvious.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 02:31

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Confounding Factor posted:

It's odd, I don't like B5's condescending pompous tone but I think he is right about the distinctions between religion and science (I agree with Gould, and Popper to an extent). I think science and religion are doing two completely different things that have their own domains of knowledge. It's nice to see some nuance rather than the same ol Dawkins/Harris dull-witted atheism that gets plugged on boards. When scientists try to philosophize it is disastrous.

So B5, is there a particular framework from which you are arguing? Frankly I have never met a real atheist in America, usually those that are self-described as such still have some sort of god or they are still embedded in Protestant mores and practices.

I agree, this is an important central point. I have a hard time with scientists who get suckered into the "science is its own religion" debate, since it's never presented in good faith to begin with.

I wonder how you define an atheist if protestant practice is a disqualifier? I grew up a reform jew and realized I was an atheist in my early teens. My rabbi basically said "there's no conflict of interest between jewish culture and atheism, that's sort of the point of the midrash." I would imagine more progressive protestantism might have the same kind of view, but I know very little about how that would work.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 02:51

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

rudatron posted:

But scopes wasn't able to bridge that gap, he lacked the self-awareness and understanding of ideology and philosophy to coherently formulate his opposition. So he was still stuck in the anti-evolution stance.

Even if you take his stance and run with it, you then have to argue that erasing the concept of evolution from social consciousness is A: possible and B: an effective means to avoid social darwinism. I'm not sure I can find a very good argument for either.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 02:55

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Yeah, there's that problem to. But my point was in relation to what TomViolence was talking about though, and my response to that.

It is a technical, scientific truth that natural selection exists and that people are a product of it. You cannot ignore that. The trick is then to say "so what?". Why does that matter?

Religion does not encourage precise thinking, and in an era of fake news and special interests, that's what you need, more than anything.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 03:08

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Though I should not neglect to say that religion itself is not proof of stupidity, on the part of either modern believers or humanity in general.

If you lack the tools of philosophy or ideology, then you of course need religion and theology to even do anything. Expression is the precursor to analytic thought. If you can't express, then you can't think.

You have to crawl before you can walk.

But it's primitive, too primitive, and you have to replace that tool with better ones, once you find those better ones.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 03:47

RasperFat: Jul 11, 2006; Uncertainty is inherently unsustainable. Eventually, everything either is or isn't.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Please stop getting sucked into B5's endless holy war against perceived threats to his ego. Please, please just put him on ignore, he will go away. This was a not-terrible thread before he showed up and we can turn it around if we believe hard enough.

I agree, but they problem is almost everyone mostly in agreement. Don't be assholes to religious people irl, things like liberation theology have a long intertwined history on the left, and that maybe religious claims are all inherently silly on some level.

Brainiac 5 takes these ideas and says so you are saying religious people are all crazy, and that we can't just dismiss magic out of hand for *reasons*.

Back on topic I think that eventually there will be more conflict between the left and religion. It never has to be violent or involve taking away people's rights, but as we expand our knowledge of the universe it will inevitably start conflicting with religion more. As we move toward gender equality and LGBTQ equality, there will be huge speed bumps in the form of religious pushback, even from non extreme sects.

The Catholic Church has never and plans to never, allow a female pope. Never been a female Dalai Lama. Never been a female run caliphate.

This a serious issue, and these organizations can hide behind their traditions to keep women from positions of power and reinforce their second class gender roles.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 05:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 16:14

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004

Confounding Factor posted:

Hey misery loves company. Yes his posting is abrasively odious, I agree with you but if we can get past the tone what do you find objectionable that religion (maybe in the narrow sense) can never be deemed either true or false? What if instead religions are meaningful in how they relate to our existential condition? I think particular religions can be a fruitful inquiry into who we are and who we should become. This might sound reductionist but I'm not privy to evaluating religions purely on factual merits. I'm not sure that matters.

FWIW.

I consider it this way. So long as religion does not make empirical claims about the physical universe, there is no conflict. Scientific thought really doesn't have any reason to try to disprove the existence of the soul, or of an afterlife, because in both cases they are trying to prove a negative in arenas where empirical evidence is not possible.

Sadly, religion (specifically American Evangelical Christianity) really likes to make outlandish empirical claims about the physical universe, so there will be argument there.

Back to the main topic of the thread, I would suggest that a lot of leftists are also uncomfortable with the social claims of some sects of the Abrahamic religions, especially as relates to the 'proper' place of women in the world, homosexuality, and the like.

# ? Mar 10, 2017 09:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

«‹›57 »