tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post4522644986857134989..comments2023-05-29T15:05:07.086+01:00Comments on Revd Alan: How much do you have to believe?Alan Crawleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-13662612477764416702010-05-29T20:35:55.707+01:002010-05-29T20:35:55.707+01:00I would perhaps be happier with the use of people ...I would perhaps be happier with the use of people like Bertrand Russell who were Conscientious Objectors! WWII had so much pressure on people to go and there was so much propaganda encouraging them to. As for Spain - I don't know what you think of communism, but it strikes me that it has many of the elements of religion that you object to.<br /><br />The video is awful, but I am against all forms of coercive religion - I do not really consider that religion. For me religion is about finding our own way of living. Jesus talked about the truth setting us free and living life in all its fullness. As <a href="http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2010/05/pentecost-spirit-and-dogma.html" rel="nofollow">+Alan said</a> "Christian faith was a process of personal, spiritual and social renewal, more like a fire than an object or a doctrine.". I see my role as helping people to to discover that for themselves - not to teach them the dogmas. This is best done in community - which is what a church should be - and it will be a coalition of those with many different opinions.Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-62234553601283493392010-05-29T18:14:06.448+01:002010-05-29T18:14:06.448+01:00As an over 40 atheist... I risked my life...:
&quo...<a href="http://new.exchristian.net/2010/05/its-not-funny-anymore.html" rel="nofollow">As an over 40 atheist... I risked my life...</a>:<br /><i>"As an over 40 atheist... In the Marines I served my country in war time. I risked my life to ensure that people like Sarah Palin have the freedom to stand up and tell the world that I am 'un-American', that I am 'un-Patriotic' and that I am immoral because I’m an Atheist."</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-29891094528112560242010-05-29T17:59:52.418+01:002010-05-29T17:59:52.418+01:00"You might argue that this isn't a positi..."You might argue that this isn't a positive trait - though you seem to accept that it is." - It can be. That's a subjective matter - whose side they're on, what their cause is. Whether they are religious or not is neither here nor there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-29821629861299578312010-05-29T17:43:40.780+01:002010-05-29T17:43:40.780+01:00Predestination - Another theological hypothesis. B...Predestination - Another theological hypothesis. But like all the others it requires a God to begin with, and like all the others it can be made to explain anything you wish; but without any evidence to back up those claims they are no more meaningful that Russell's Teapot.<br /><br />You don't subscribe? That's the issue isn't it. It's all voluntary subscription, just like any magazine subscription, to whatever you fancy, without any regard for the journalistic integrity of the content just as long as it affirms what you want it to.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-19024200136200841272010-05-29T17:37:17.815+01:002010-05-29T17:37:17.815+01:00"Where are the atheist self sacrificers?"..."Where are the atheist self sacrificers?"<br /><br />Any atheist that fought on the side of communism in any of the communist revolutions, or against the Nazis in WWII.<br /><br />I will agree that there is a tendency for the <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/sharmeen_obaid_chinoy_inside_a_school_for_suicide_bombers.html" rel="nofollow">religious to give up their lives more easily</a>, or at least are more easily persuaded to do so. What is that telling us do you think?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-11511373372040502342010-05-29T17:32:45.575+01:002010-05-29T17:32:45.575+01:00Why I don't agree with that piece by Ayala:
h...Why I don't agree with that piece by Ayala:<br /><br />http://ronmurp.blogspot.com/2010/05/religion-has-nothing-to-do-with-science.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-44756275336546095982010-05-29T15:21:10.424+01:002010-05-29T15:21:10.424+01:00I think that religion has loss of free will pretty...I think that religion has loss of free will pretty much covered - just I don't subscribe to those doctrines! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-73399214978838385742010-05-29T15:18:20.927+01:002010-05-29T15:18:20.927+01:00I am looking at change to benefit others at the ri...I am looking at change to benefit others at the risk to self. I could then add Archbishop Oscar Romero to the list.Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-38074772747534733522010-05-29T15:16:30.602+01:002010-05-29T15:16:30.602+01:00You say that ignoring it ("organisms tend to ...You say that ignoring it ("organisms tend to avoid self harm") isn't a peculiarly religious trait - but haven't found non religious people who do it, whereas there are plenty of religious people who have (though I wouldn't support all of them at all).<br /><br />You might argue that this isn't a positive trait - though you seem to accept that it is. Where are the atheist self sacrificers?Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-18783436340301952142010-05-29T15:10:32.849+01:002010-05-29T15:10:32.849+01:00"OK - do you live your life as though you thi..."OK - do you live your life as though you think you have free will?"<br /><br />Yes, because it looks like that's what we evolved to do. The fact that it's how we naturally see the world explains why it's so difficult to see the alternative. But we also have the natural instinct to see agency where there is no agency. We seem also to be biased towards false positives when seeing dangers - e.g. momentarily thinking a stick is a snake is safer than thinking a snake is a stick. There are all sorts of things that the brain does that seem geared to efficient action at the expense of regular precision - there are computational ideas about the brain that suggest it works on a statistical basis when making judgements; or that it takes short cuts and works in an efficient manner that doesn't reflect reality. <br /><br />We sometimes do this conciously too: instead of looking up a destination on a map we'll often go with our current impression of where it might be and use trial and error when we get there; in science we'll often use simpler linear approximations to non-linear problems because it gives and answer that's close enough.<br /><br />So there are characteristics of the brain that make us act 'as if' one thing pertains when in fact it doesn't. As we examine the actions of the brain further, we find more and more examples of how it doesn't quite give us the correct view of reality we once thought it did. <br /><br />The fact that the loss of one misunderstanding, free will, might cause a problem for another, agent God, isn't a good enough reason to object to it - i.e. because it doesn't suit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-42712438724873446622010-05-29T14:58:18.026+01:002010-05-29T14:58:18.026+01:00"organisms tend to avoid self harm"
Wel..."organisms tend to avoid self harm"<br /><br />Well, they generally do. But humans seem to be capable of convincing themselves of actions that don't have an immediate benefit, and that are not necessarily beneficial to the individual, probably through the foresight and planning features of the human brain that allow us to see benefit in future results and to see benefit to potential self sacrifice. This isn't a perculiarly religious trait.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-44854168913958997462010-05-29T14:57:56.265+01:002010-05-29T14:57:56.265+01:00What "kind of change" do you mean? One c...What "kind of change" do you mean? One contributed to anti-discrimination in a political democracy where though everyone was supposedly free and equal, in practice they were not, and this was based on the colour of their skin. The other was political change that lead to independence of a nation that was still goverened by another. It's still not clear what the distinction is that you're asking for. <br /><br />There are two elements that I suppose you might have picked up on: their religion and their non-violence. Is it this combination that you are referring to "we cannot find non religious people who initiate the kind of change" - i.e. do you mean religiously driven change, or non-violent change, or religious non-violent change?<br /><br />What are you really asking?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-33802982054719579282010-05-29T12:15:01.270+01:002010-05-29T12:15:01.270+01:00Just found this story with which I agree.Just found <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/may/28/religion-science-richard-dawkins" rel="nofollow">this story</a> with which I agree.Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-274902670452540322010-05-29T11:25:41.210+01:002010-05-29T11:25:41.210+01:00OK. What is the simpler explanation of the fact t...OK. What is the simpler explanation of the fact that we cannot find non religious people who initiate the kind of change MLK and Gandhi did?<br /><br />Your comment "All organisms tend to avoid self harm" from your quoted post suggests that once they knew that they were at risk from their activity then they should have stopped.<br /><br />OK - do you live your life as though you think you have free will?Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-5065750498971059142010-05-28T19:44:13.509+01:002010-05-28T19:44:13.509+01:00Hi Alan,
You'd have to give me something spec...Hi Alan,<br /><br />You'd have to give me something specific for me to think about and offer a simpler explanation.<br /><br />It's at least debatable whether we have free will. We certainly can't demonstrate that we have, and there are <a href="http://ronmurp.blogspot.com/2010/05/free-will.html" rel="nofollow">explanations that suggest we haven't</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-57184984747167048372010-05-27T13:39:33.007+01:002010-05-27T13:39:33.007+01:00lol :)
OK - suicide bombers are a problem, but ...lol :) <br /><br />OK - suicide bombers are a problem, but I don't believe that your other examples believe that it is going to happen to them. As for the suicide bombers - they have that level of faith - but in something that I would describe as wrong (try thou shalt not commit murder?).<br /><br />So what is the simpler explanation?<br /><br />Don't you believe in free will?Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-8342216815892733782010-05-26T23:43:49.311+01:002010-05-26T23:43:49.311+01:00I hadn't realised it was part of their career ...I hadn't realised it was part of their career plan. Does this measure of self-sacrifice apply to every assassinated crime boss, every suicide bomber; is it that worthy a measure? Do all crooks choose to be caught and sent to jail? Is having a hard time a worthy measure?<br /><br />I don't think there's any proof or evidence, scientific, common sense, or any indication, nudge or hint that doesn't have a simpler explanation.<br /><br />What free will? Are you sure we have it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-12124982069596439582010-05-26T20:07:07.716+01:002010-05-26T20:07:07.716+01:00Where I am coming from is that to make the kind of...Where I am coming from is that to make the kind of change that MLK or Gandhi made you have to be prepared for self sacrifice (after all both were assassinated) and it is perhaps more likely that this level of self sacrifice will come from those of faith. The argument that people of faith believe that their faith calls them to do things which they wouldn't choose - ordination is a good example, most priests I know ran from it for a good while - argues against your "it is what they would do anyway".<br /><br />The reason for looking for hints and nudges is that I do not believe that there is scientific proof - and its presence would negate our free will anyway.Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-47748220850928805012010-05-26T00:41:50.374+01:002010-05-26T00:41:50.374+01:00Hi Alan,
MLK is a genuine exception, but his role...Hi Alan,<br /><br />MLK is a genuine exception, but his role as a religious leader, his oratory skills honed preaching, his time, place and colour all conspired to form the legend. But no less a contribution was the opposition of the right wing religious white supremists, the racism that is more prominant in the ignorant uneducated, the same as the more conservative religious base, so I guess religion made him, in sense. MLK's contribution was great, and it moved a lot of black Americans. But he had plenty of liberal white support, so maybe the religious aspect was incidental. Guess you can reconstruct this either way - unless we do serious historical analysis.<br /><br />Ghandi is a leader of religion who has the advantage of not only being genuinely wise, but also not so wise - hence his 'racist' bloopers. <br /><br />I don't think you're going to find the type of atheist you're looking for - atheists tend not to be charismatic leaders of religious groups, not generally wanting to dictate what others should believe, not particularly wanting to evangelize. On the other hand you won't find many great religious leaders either. <br /><br />And I'm not sure what's so great about the fact that someone is a leader of many of the faithful. The gullible are easy to lead, no? How many Roman Catholics are there? Are all the Popes great leaders worthy of acclaim? So, I'm not sure what your hint is going to tell you - that religious leaders take advantage of the gullible more than atheists do? <br /><br />Rather than looking for hints and nudges that confirm what you want to find, wouldn't it be better to define what it is you think is worth looking for, defining parameters, then looking for statistical evidence to support of falsify you hypothesis - in other words, evidence rather than anecdote?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-80363639247242379092010-05-21T09:32:41.799+01:002010-05-21T09:32:41.799+01:00My use of Godel was to suggest that there are true...My use of Godel was to suggest that there are true things which science can't prove. If you are happy to live only with what science can prove that is fine, but I'm not.<br /><br />The difference is that homeopathy is open to scientific experiment. As we have discussed faith isn't.<br /><br />I am looking for atheists who have made a significant positive contribution to the world. It is one of my "hints".<br /><br />I said you would :)Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-48392246138167190782010-05-21T01:04:34.372+01:002010-05-21T01:04:34.372+01:00Hi Alan,
"There is never going to be the kin...Hi Alan,<br /><br />"There is never going to be the kind of evidence that you are looking for" - Probably right. That's why I think there's no mileage in the God hypothesis.<br /><br />"that is why hints and nudges are all that we have to go on" - We don't accept that for mundane stuff, like whether homeopathy works (well, some do, and that's the problem), so why should we make do for the big questions?<br /><br />Atheist Gandhi or Martin Luther King? - Other than the religious association, what precisely do these two have in common that you are looking for? <br /><br />"I would want to argue that the really bad cases might have thought that they were doing God's will, but weren't." - And I'd want to argue the same for the good cases.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-1811796095963981072010-05-19T18:07:44.493+01:002010-05-19T18:07:44.493+01:00There is never going to be the kind of evidence th...There is never going to be the kind of evidence that you are looking for - that is why hints and nudges are all that we have to go on.<br /><br />Where is the atheist Gandhi or Martin Luther King? Genuine question - they might exist, but I can't think of them.<br /><br />You will accuse me of circular argument (although "by their fruits shall you know them" comes to mind) but I would want to argue that the really bad cases might have thought that they were doing God's will, but weren't.Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-20253299500856518612010-05-19T16:40:51.369+01:002010-05-19T16:40:51.369+01:00Hi Alan,
I can accept most of you're first pa...Hi Alan,<br /><br />I can accept most of you're first paragraph, if the data supports it. And if it does, then fair enough, believers are nicer than atheists.<br /><br />"then seeing in that some hint of the existence of God." - No way! If the evidence supporting the case that believers are nicer exists, then that's all it shows. Nothing more. <br /><br />No atheist disputes the fact that atheist can do harm, as can scientists, or anyone from any walk of life. Atheists usually only bring up the bad done in the name of religion when being told that the religious do good, as if that has some implication for the truth of the belief; i.e. if good religious deeds are evidence for God, then bad deeds are evidence against. You can't say that the good deeds count as evidence for and the bad deeds are just down to human nature - the good deeds are down to human nature too, not down to God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-72318486719802273292010-05-19T15:20:40.614+01:002010-05-19T15:20:40.614+01:00I was arguing more that church goers do good apart...I was arguing more that church goers do good apart from their churches. That Christians do more good in the world than atheists, and then seeing in that some hint of the existence of God.<br /><br />If you get onto the harm that religion has done that is an entirely different matter! Religions are the human organisations that are set up to uphold the faith tradition and they get it wrong - badly so sometimes. However, I don't think it is fair to criticise the scientific method because there are "scientists" out there who abuse it, so too blaming God for the behaviour of "bad" Christians isn't fair either!<br /><br />I will comment on your post over there!Alan Crawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17879972273938932321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4553919504704971225.post-67155927417363402362010-05-18T19:29:04.597+01:002010-05-18T19:29:04.597+01:00I'm not disputing many churches do a lot of go...I'm not disputing many churches do a lot of good. But the balance of good and harm for many religions isn't so clear - I think good old CofE is an exception. But how genuine is the holding of a faith in a God that many think is not there,or needn't be there, for the faith to do good? Is it really honest?<br /><br />In <a href="http://ronmurp.blogspot.com/2010/05/belief-in-belief-practical-v-factual.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> I go over the view of Dan Dennett on this type of belief.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.com