Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

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

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

BattleMoose posted:

Of course it is. But I am not trying to convert you or trying to force my religious views on you. I actually respect your right to religious freedom

Ah yes, my old friend ideology.

Babylon Astronaut posted:

It's literally the opposite of what you just said. If god parted the clouds and farted, his existence would become a secular belief because we could use the scientific method to confirm his existence. What would convince a Christian that Muhammad is the messenger of God without them converting to Islam or logical reasoning and observation (because that would be the secular method of proving or disproving that Muhammad is the messenger of God)? Magic, the answer is magic.

This sort of misses the point of faith and belief. Proving God�s existence wouldn�t do anything to make the concept secular, as if it would strip the quality of holiness from worshipers or something. They already believe he is real without the scientific method. There is no such thing as the secular.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 16:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 15:58

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

the trump tutelage posted:

Say what you want about Sam Harris, but he (among others) picks this apart pretty well. For Gould's argument to hold, "religion" would need to be qualitatively different than it is today.

Ironically enough, Harris�s definition of �science� necessarily includes things like astrology, phrenology, and even elements of religion for his tripe about morality to even be taken at face value. Thankfully the definition of hack is robust enough to include Sam Harris.

Pellisworth posted:

e: just to double triple down, you are describing the very particularly American Evangelical strain of Christianity, and most religious people in the world have extremely different ideas about religion than you're arguing against

It is funny how the two branches of folks most dedicated to applying literal meaning to the Bible (for example) are Evangelicals and New Atheists.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 17:42

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Cingulate posted:

How?

I'm meaning the way he construes science to plug his science of morality schtick. which completely ignores the whole is ought problem:

�Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in the universe,�

the trump tutelage posted:

No, it does not.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/our-narrow-definition-of-science

"When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically." is also not a useful definition of science that would differentiate it from any number of pseudosciences (which includes his own). Harris is at least good at being entertaining when he's being clowned on by people who actually know what they are talking about like that security engineer dude or Chomsky.

Danger fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Mar 8, 2017

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 19:35

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Cingulate posted:

Is that an extensional or an intensional definition? I don't think this means "whenever some individual pursues knowledge to their best ability, they're engaging in science". Without the context, I can only imagine it means something like "looking at the world, we see many attempts to understand it, of which science is by far the best, and religions are rather bad ones".

I personally wouldn't say Sam Harris' work follows the highest standards of logic or evidence. But what pseudoscience that meets this standard are you thinking of ..?
Cause, like, I'm a relativist who likes his Kuhn and Feyerabend, but that sounds really relativistic.

Harris is broadening the term 'science' to include moral reasoning and philosophy so he can demonstrate how science can derive moral facts (instead of merely inform them):

�Some people maintain this view by defining �science� in exceedingly narrow terms, as though it were synonymous with mathematical modeling or immediate access to experimental data. However this is to mistake science for a few of its tools. Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe, and the boundary between it and the rest of rational thought cannot always be drawn." (from the beginning of Moral Landscape)

He supports this by purporting we can use fMRI scans to decide what is a morally superior alternative by finding those that favor pleasure and avoid loss based on straightforward utilitarian ethics.

the trump tutelage posted:

By definition, pseudoscience is not well-known for its high standards of logic and evidence.

Exactly.

Danger fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Mar 8, 2017

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 21:26

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Cingulate posted:

Sorry, you will have to explain to me how this 'definition of �science� necessarily includes things like astrology, phrenology, and even elements of religion' because I don't see it.

Astrology or phrenology is an effort to understand what is going on in this universe; for some it is their best effort. Moral philosophy is as well (which Harris's main contention why it falls to science to answer moral questions). The issue is none of those things are science. The definition is overly broad.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 21:57

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

God is actually great and works in mysterious ways.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2017 14:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 15:58

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

RandomBlue posted:

Personally, as an atheist, I view it more as weakness or slight mental illness than a moral failing. Like I said, the majority of religious believers have been brainwashed to follow their religion blindly since birth. It's extremely hard to overcome that conditioning especially if you're surrounded by others with similar beliefs.

I don't particularly have a problem with the spiritual aspect of religion, even though I disagree with it. I have a problem with the fact that religion has been used as a means of controlling the masses for thousands of years and used as justification for countless horrendous acts, wars and abuses of power.

This, but liberalism instead of religion; and also it's a moral failing.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 21:12

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