The great Church debate!

Posted by: Jonathan Gorse on 25 December 2009

Merry Christmas to everyone - I'm just curious how many of you are going to Church on Christmas morning? I rarely do (in fact I consider myself of no religious affiliation at all - just curious about what's really at the root of the cosmos) whereas my wife (a Catholic background and slightly more religious than me) always wants to go. This always makes for lively debate and in fact I don't often get there!

I'm curious though how many attend a service on Christmas morning?

Anyway Merry Christmas no matter how you choose to spend it. Personally I'd rather set up the Beatles Rock Band pack that's under the tree complete with Strat, drums, microphones etc for PS3 so I can butcher the finest rock music ever written...

Jonathan

Posted on: 04 January 2010 by mongo

quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Anderson:
quote:
Originally posted by FlyMe:
God didn't give me my face - 5 000 million years of evolution did that - if it was god I am sure he could have done a better job!

I think Paul's reply was tongue-in-cheek, er, face.

Pretty much leaves the responsibility for the results to us or our parents, or our parent's parents or ....... or perhaps, an ill-timed piece of cosmic debris.

Jeff A

It was indeed.

I hate myself for the pedantic next sentence, but.....

It would be nearer 3800 million years for the evolution FlyMe. Hope you don't hate me for that

Should you wish to delve further back Jeff, the responsibility seems to lie with an accidental molecular replication that just didn't know when to stop!

Posted on: 04 January 2010 by u5227470736789524

quote:
Originally posted by mongo:
..... the responsibility seems to lie with an accidental molecular replication that just didn't know when to stop!

When you get as old as I am and have health issues, you can blame those on the pharmaceuticals they use to keep you "alive".

But that is a different thread on its own, sometime.

Jeff A

Posted on: 04 January 2010 by Trevp

Well, it looks as if "the great church debate" has turned into something a bit different from the intention of the OP. I'm reluctant to get drawn into these debates as they usually generate more heat than light, but in this case I'd like to quote the great philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell:

"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on religion. Also, I would like to point out that "bad mouthing" Dawkins (as happened earlier in this thread)in no way detracts from the validity of his arguments.

Posted on: 04 January 2010 by mongo

quote:
Originally posted by Trevp:
Well, it looks as if "the great church debate" has turned into something a bit different from the intention of the OP. I'm reluctant to get drawn into these debates as they usually generate more heat than light, but in this case I'd like to quote the great philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell:

"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on religion. Also, I would like to point out that "bad mouthing" Dawkins (as happened earlier in this thread)in no way detracts from the validity of his arguments.

Hello Trevp.

I wish i'd recalled Russell a little earlier. It would have been much more fun to have simply posted quotes from 'Why i am not a christian'.

How can any of us normal mortals compete with the man's withering prose?

I could kick myself. ( i'm sure some others on this thread might also wish to

)

Posted on: 04 January 2010 by mongo

quote:
Originally posted by munch:
Three things we dont talk about down the pub.
Religion,
Politics,
And our mate Johns misses because she is well fit and he gets the hump

There are precious few things to discuss that generate such zest as the precise three things you mention.

Though obviously not your friend's wife specifically

Posted on: 04 January 2010 by DanielP

quote:
Originally posted by JWM:
What would YOU be willing to be skinned alive for?

Well, that's not really an argument for the truth of the gospels, as in much more recent times sceptics who thought the idea of the trinity was nonsence were willing to be burned by the Christians rather than recant their criticism, which is well documented.

Your other arguments would apply equally to other mythological traditions, including Zeus, Odin, Budha, Shiva, and all the other Hellenistic traditions of a just man, injustly accused and condemned, who returned from death to right wrongs. The history of religious mythologies, how they evolved, is fascinating, but I don't think people base their faith on that. The Christians I know base their faith on internal revelation, and it's very hard to argue with that.

-- Daniel

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by Trevp

quote:
Originally posted by mongo:

Hello Trevp.

I wish i'd recalled Russell a little earlier. It would have been much more fun to have simply posted quotes from 'Why i am not a christian'.

How can any of us normal mortals compete with the man's withering prose?

I could kick myself. ( i'm sure some others on this thread might also wish to )

Hello mongo,

Glad you spotted the reference - its good to meet a fellow Russell enthusiast!

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by Trevp

quote:
Originally posted by DanielP:
The Christians I know base their faith on internal revelation, and it's very hard to argue with that.

-- Daniel

Daniel,

In my experience, most of the Christians I know base their faith on geographical accident. I would speculate that if the Christians you mention in your post were born in areas where other religions prevailed, their "internal revelations" would lead them in other directions.

All the best,
Trev

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by mongo

quote:
Originally posted by Trevp:
quote:
Originally posted by DanielP:
The Christians I know base their faith on internal revelation, and it's very hard to argue with that.

-- Daniel

Daniel,

In my experience, most of the Christians I know base their faith on geographical accident. I would speculate that if the Christians you mention in your post were born in areas where other religions prevailed, their "internal revelations" would lead them in other directions.

All the best,
Trev

Yup!

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by Simon Perry

I would still like to understand specifically what pseudo science Dawkins is peddling.
Yours
The Prat

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by Mike Dudley

quote:
Originally posted by Simon Perry:
I would still like to understand specifically what pseudo science Dawkins is peddling.
Yours
The Prat

Quantum Physics, according to the "member" for Warrington. Although that's a TAD odd, as Richard's a biologist...

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by droodzilla

quote:
Originally posted by Trevp:
Well, it looks as if "the great church debate" has turned into something a bit different from the intention of the OP. I'm reluctant to get drawn into these debates as they usually generate more heat than light, but in this case I'd like to quote the great philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell:

"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on religion. Also, I would like to point out that "bad mouthing" Dawkins (as happened earlier in this thread)in no way detracts from the validity of his arguments.

Russell was a good logician, but a fairly average philosopher. Kant has a finer, more nuanced, approach to matters of faith but I note that no one on this thread has attempted a response to my earlier post which refers to his work. Another vital reference point in this debate is William James' essay, "The Will to Believe" (a more accurate title would be "The Permissibility of Belief"), which tackles Russell's first point head on by challenging the "evidentialist thesis" (i.e. the view that in all situations, one one's degree of belief must be proportionate to the amount of evidence). You can read the whole thing here:

The Will to Believe

From memory, Dawkins acknowledges James's work in "The God Delusion", but then simply trots out the hackneyed view that the American Pragmatists claim that "Truth" = "What it is good to believe". Ho-hum - as I said in my earlier post, Dawkins is a gifted scientist, but a poor philosopher.

I don't think it's possible to discuss the question of faith convincingly without digesting the work of Kant and James, and forming one's own opinion afterwards.

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by mongo

'Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable'

Monty Python. HAHAHAHAH!

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by droodzilla

quote:
Originally posted by mongo:
'Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable'

Monty Python. HAHAHAHAH!

Mongo, you claim to value rationality. Do you have a reasoned response to Kant, or William James?

That Monty Python song is very funny, I'll give you that.

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by Simon Perry

Droodzilla

Thanks for the link. I am (honestly!) not trying to be a smart alec, critical, cheeky, clever or disingenuous here, but could you please summarise the principal arguments that Kant and James are making?

I am not convinced why mainstream organised religions are all that different from some of the more "superstitious" type stuff that has also been mentioned. Is the principal difference the fact that one is a "creator" type entity or entities and the others are not? I can see that type of difference. On the other hand, five thousand years ago we had other creator type entity "gods" and some catch on and some die off. Mormonism and scientology are interesting examples. Depending on your personal beliefs you could argue that Joseph Smith was a crackpot down the end of the garden who saw an angel (actually I think it might have been up a hill, but you get the gist), and that is turning into a major religion. So we can see from these examples and others how certain religions can catch on from humble beginnings and others die off (Christianity has been very effective at competing against other religions).
How does one determine the "right" religion? Once the existence of a god or gods is accepted, then isn't it quite possible that the true god really really really wants you to worship him/her/it and not the wrong, non existing god? How do you know you've got the right one? How do you go an workship a single one in the face of all this uncertainty?
Cheers

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by mongo

quote:
Originally posted by droodzilla:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mongo:
'Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable'

Monty Python. HAHAHAHAH!

Mongo, you claim to value rationality. Do you have a reasoned response to Kant, or William James?

That Monty Python song is very funny, I'll give you that.[/QUOTE}]

I couldn't resist! i tried, but it was too obvious and funny to ignore.

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by droodzilla

quote:
Originally posted by Simon Perry:
Droodzilla

Thanks for the link. I am (honestly!) not trying to be a smart alec, critical, cheeky, clever or disingenuous here, but could you please summarise the principal arguments that Kant and James are making?

I am not convinced why mainstream organised religions are all that different from some of the more "superstitious" type stuff that has also been mentioned. Is the principal difference the fact that one is a "creator" type entity or entities and the others are not? I can see that type of difference. On the other hand, five thousand years ago we had other creator type entity "gods" and some catch on and some die off. Mormonism and scientology are interesting examples. Depending on your personal beliefs you could argue that Joseph Smith was a crackpot down the end of the garden who saw an angel (actually I think it might have been up a hill, but you get the gist), and that is turning into a major religion. So we can see from these examples and others how certain religions can catch on from humble beginnings and others die off (Christianity has been very effective at competing against other religions).
How does one determine the "right" religion? Once the existence of a god or gods is accepted, then isn't it quite possible that the true god really really really wants you to worship him/her/it and not the wrong, non existing god? How do you know you've got the right one? How do you go an workship a single one in the face of all this uncertainty?
Cheers

Hi Simon, thanks for the interest. I'm pretty wiped right now having walked to work and back in heavy snow, but I'll have a go at summarising James' argument later in the week, or maybe at the weekend. It's a lovely essay, with much food for thought, even if you don't agree with his conclusion. Kant is a lot harder, as his remarks on faith, are spread across several major works, and the argument is denser and more abstract. However, I will try to say a little more about the passage that inspired my first comment (later).

As I said, I don't want to get embroiled in a lengthy debate about this. I am not a paid up member of any sect, but I do meditate regularly, and have a lot of time for Buddhist thought (Dawkins conveniently excuses Buddhism from his polemic but I think he is wrong to do so). I also have a strong background in science, having completed first year Physics at Uni, before going on to study Economics for half my degree. Even now, I maintain a strong interest in quality popular science writing. I suppose it just frustrates me when I see simplistic arguments trotted out as if they're knock-down refutations - or when it's suggested that one cannot both have faith, and be of sound intellect.

Anyway, I'll do my best to provide a proper response soonish.

Regards
Nigel

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by Trevp

quote:
Originally posted by droodzilla:
quote:
Originally posted by Trevp:
Well, it looks as if "the great church debate" has turned into something a bit different from the intention of the OP. I'm reluctant to get drawn into these debates as they usually generate more heat than light, but in this case I'd like to quote the great philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell:

"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on religion. Also, I would like to point out that "bad mouthing" Dawkins (as happened earlier in this thread)in no way detracts from the validity of his arguments.

Russell was a good logician, but a fairly average philosopher. Kant has a finer, more nuanced, approach to matters of faith but I note that no one on this thread has attempted a response to my earlier post which refers to his work. Another vital reference point in this debate is William James' essay, "The Will to Believe" (a more accurate title would be "The Permissibility of Belief"), which tackles Russell's first point head on by challenging the "evidentialist thesis" (i.e. the view that in all situations, one one's degree of belief must be proportionate to the amount of evidence). You can read the whole thing here:

The Will to Believe

From memory, Dawkins acknowledges James's work in "The God Delusion", but then simply trots out the hackneyed view that the American Pragmatists claim that "Truth" = "What it is good to believe". Ho-hum - as I said in my earlier post, Dawkins is a gifted scientist, but a poor philosopher.

I don't think it's possible to discuss the question of faith convincingly without digesting the work of Kant and James, and forming one's own opinion afterwards.

Droodzilla,

Your assessment of the relative merits of Russell, Kant, James and Dawkins' philosophical attributes is entirely subjective.

I have read the essay by James and it is hardly a model of clear and concise prose. As I read it (and I may be wrong - if I am please enlighten me), the main difference between Russell's position and James' position lies in the premises of the arguments. James states at one point in his essay that "religion is a live hypothesis which may be true" whereas Russell simply states that "there is no reason to suppose that religion is true". As a scientist and a rationalist, I favour Russell's viewpoint since from a rational and logical point of view, the probability of any religion actually being true is very low (out of all of the different religions, a maximum of one can be correct - the most probable outcome is that they are all wrong. There is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise).

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by droodzilla

Hi Trev - please see my holding reply above :-)

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by mongo

quote:
Originally posted by mongo:
quote:
Originally posted by droodzilla:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mongo:
'Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable'

Monty Python. HAHAHAHAH!

Mongo, you claim to value rationality. Do you have a reasoned response to Kant, or William James?

That Monty Python song is very funny, I'll give you that.[/QUOTE}]

I couldn't resist! i tried, but it was too obvious and funny to ignore.

I know nothing of James except the article i've just read and that seems to me to be a man who in all logic knows there is no serious call to believe but he really wants to and so imagines an argument to allow himself to.

As for Kant it has been a very long time since i read anything of or by the man. I do recall it was like trying to wade through lead soup. He was a man of his time (as we all inevitably must be) and was a believer. Therefore i do not feel that his notions will bear the scrutiny of a disinterested judge. However from what little i recall (and it is little)...
His demolition of the ontological argument is unassailable and his conviction in the moral
argument for the existence of a god is anthropic at best.

The simple fact will always remain that those who want or need to believe will always do so. Evidence or otherwise is not relevant, only what they feel, and to my mind this is self serving nonsense.

As to any particular religion (and the huge number counts against them all) it's adherents are such because they, at heart seem to believe that they are special and that by extension so is humanity. That in all of the universes history people are the one best thing and that an omnipotence somewhere is watching over them.

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by mongo

quote:
Originally posted by droodzilla:
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Perry:
Droodzilla

Thanks for the link. I am (honestly!) not trying to be a smart alec, critical, cheeky, clever or disingenuous here, but could you please summarise the principal arguments that Kant and James are making?

I am not convinced why mainstream organised religions are all that different from some of the more "superstitious" type stuff that has also been mentioned. Is the principal difference the fact that one is a "creator" type entity or entities and the others are not? I can see that type of difference. On the other hand, five thousand years ago we had other creator type entity "gods" and some catch on and some die off. Mormonism and scientology are interesting examples. Depending on your personal beliefs you could argue that Joseph Smith was a crackpot down the end of the garden who saw an angel (actually I think it might have been up a hill, but you get the gist), and that is turning into a major religion. So we can see from these examples and others how certain religions can catch on from humble beginnings and others die off (Christianity has been very effective at competing against other religions).
How does one determine the "right" religion? Once the existence of a god or gods is accepted, then isn't it quite possible that the true god really really really wants you to worship him/her/it and not the wrong, non existing god? How do you know you've got the right one? How do you go an workship a single one in the face of all this uncertainty?
Cheers

Hi Simon, thanks for the interest. I'm pretty wiped right now having walked to work and back in heavy snow, but I'll have a go at summarising James' argument later in the week, or maybe at the weekend. It's a lovely essay, with much food for thought, even if you don't agree with his conclusion. Kant is a lot harder, as his remarks on faith, are spread across several major works, and the argument is denser and more abstract. However, I will try to say a little more about the passage that inspired my first comment (later).

As I said, I don't want to get embroiled in a lengthy debate about this. I am not a paid up member of any sect, but I do meditate regularly, and have a lot of time for Buddhist thought (Dawkins conveniently excuses Buddhism from his polemic but I think he is wrong to do so). I also have a strong background in science, having completed first year Physics at Uni, before going on to study Economics for half my degree. Even now, I maintain a strong interest in quality popular science writing. I suppose it just frustrates me when I see simplistic arguments trotted out as if they're knock-down refutations - or when it's suggested that one cannot both have faith, and be of sound intellect.

Anyway, I'll do my best to provide a proper response soonish.

Regards
Nigel

Hi Drood. Please specify the simplistic arguments if you would? Cheers, Paul.

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by droodzilla

quote:
Hi Drood. Please specify the simplistic arguments if you would? Cheers, Paul.

I mainly had in mind the view that belief in (an) absolute being is equivalent to believing in spaghetti monsters or fairies. It's a cheap rhetorical device that's often wheeled out to mock faith.

Regards
Nigel

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by Simon Perry

Hello Nigel
The point you make above is an interesting one and I look forward to your post on this maybe at the weekend. It is an argument I have used myself to attack belief in gods so if it's a weak one I am interested to understand why!!
I will read the James essay more closely in the meantime
Cheers
Simon

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by Derry

Did Kant, or any other philosopher, claim to have proven the existence of the Christian, or any other, God?

Posted on: 05 January 2010 by mongo

quote:
Originally posted by droodzilla:
quote:
Hi Drood. Please specify the simplistic arguments if you would? Cheers, Paul.

I mainly had in mind the view that belief in (an) absolute being is equivalent to believing in spaghetti monsters or fairies. It's a cheap rhetorical device that's often wheeled out to mock faith.

Regards
Nigel

What is your view if such an opinion is genuinely held and is used to express disbelief in someone's firmly held faith ?

I for one do equate faith in any god with a belief in astrology or indeed pixies.

Oh and as a ps,

i also feel perfectly justified in mocking faith and although i don't actually wish to offend i know that such views will.

Paul.