Home

TheSinner.net

Why do facts exist?

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Why do facts exist?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:56 pm

Facts don't seem very useful if people are going to ignore them.
The pope helpfully claimed that faith is what underpins liberty and personal freedoms. I cannot help but wonder how on earth an explanation of Franco fits into this gem. :wacko:
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:08 pm

I first saw this a couple of weeks ago and, more recently, I can't get the tune (and the message) out of my head. Enjoy (if you hadn't already discovered Tim Minchin's relatively recent gem). Macgamer, avert your eyes and ears. Mostly your ears, but it's subtitled.

Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby Benedict on Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:10 pm

Facts exist to test your faith, obviously.
Benedict
 

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby macgamer on Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:15 pm

RedCelt69 wrote: Enjoy if you hadn't already discovered Tim Minchin's relatively recent gem.

Wow, inspired. I find it interesting that celebrities are now the providers of public's source of moral guidance. Steven Fry is a notable example, who comes across as secular atheist's Archbishop of Canterbury.

I recently finished reading a 'gem': 'Reason, Faith and Revolution' by Terry Eagleton:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/030016453X

That and learning some interesting facts about Richard Dawkins from a Professor who used to lecture at Oxford:

i) The majority of the content of his recent books are ghost written, but unacknowledged. This seems rather at odds with the public persona that he presents.

ii) In his earlier days he would invite female students to his home and take the tutorials in the bath; he had pictures taken of this and framed prints were in plain sight in his office. This is at striking odds with his role as 'high priest of atheism' that he presents.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby Frank on Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:59 pm

Macgamer, that has me both chuckling and (except for this sentence) largely speechless.

As an aside I'm reading the latest book (The First Heretic) in a series which sports such wonderful quips as "Blasphemy," the god said to the priest, "is a victimless crime" and "At last," the god toasts drinking the priest's millenia-old Scotch, " a spirit I can believe in!".

They're paraphrased, of course, but sheer delight.
Frank
User avatar
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:39 pm

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby Haunted on Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:48 am

macgamer wrote:Wow, inspired. I find it interesting that celebrities are now the providers of public's source of moral guidance. Steven Fry is a notable example, who comes across as secular atheist's Archbishop of Canterbury.

It's a sad reflection that it takes popular comedians to highlight even the most trivial of moral issues. Religion poisons everything (see Hitchslap 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRStkkGHXQA).

I recently finished reading a 'gem': 'Reason, Faith and Revolution' by Terry Eagleton:

A gem of yet another courtiers reply. Eagleton is a strange one however in that he routinely leaps to the defense of theism without actually believing any of it. He is notoriously reluctant to ever state what he himself believes but throws off ideas of god as a meddler (i.e. someone who can answer prayers and perform miracles) as a 'caricature'. You'll of course be aware that the god of the catholics is such a meddler.
He says atheists should attack the best argument for theism rather than these caricatures (which strangely enough is also the sort of god that most believers believe in) yet he never offers any of these arguments. He just keeps making assertions about those horrible and impolite gnu atheists.
I could copy and paste alot of passages where he does this but it's easier to just link you to a comprehensive criticism of the whole book
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... lusion.php


That and learning some interesting facts about Richard Dawkins from a Professor who used to lecture at Oxford:
i) The majority of the content of his recent books are ghost written, but unacknowledged. This seems rather at odds with the public persona that he presents.

How is it that someone who "used to" lecture at Oxford know about "recent books"? Unless his unemployment is also itself very recent there is not much room for overlap here.
The only one I do know that he wrote where he was not the sole author was The Ancestors Tale, where one of his students wrote great portions of the rather large book. He is of course profoundly thanked and his contribution recognised by Dawkins in the foreword.
ii) In his earlier days he would invite female students to his home and take the tutorials in the bath; he had pictures taken of this and framed prints were in plain sight in his office. This is at striking odds with his role as 'high priest of atheism' that he presents.

To both of your 'points': What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.
But it's entirely possible that he had framed pictures of naked students hanging about in his office for who knows how many years without anyone raising an eye brow about it. Schrödinger was a notorious womaniser and character of questionable morality, but this of course does not therefore invalidate his theory of wave mechanics does it? Maybe if he had a theory of morality or was intent on making moral assertions about how the human race should behave there would be room to accuse him of hypocrisy.
Of course, despite your constant attempts to draw parallels with a lack of belief and your supernatural hierarchy, there is no such thing as a 'high preist' of nothingness (you also use inverted commas around high priest as if to imply it is somehow a stupid thing to have, perhaps you would like to draft a letter to Papa Ratzy elaborating this point further?). Such things are obvious to even most brain damaged of half wits who can grasp even the simplest defition of what atheism is. Don't let that stop however, you would seem to have precious little else to say other than to make (what you must think to be) hilarious and intelligent caricatures.
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby Hennessy on Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:43 pm

Image
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby Gubbins on Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:13 am

macgamer wrote:Wow, inspired. I find it interesting that celebrities are now the providers of public's source of moral guidance. Steven Fry is a notable example, who comes across as secular atheist's Archbishop of Canterbury.


Inspired indeed.

I would question whether Stephen Fry as some kind of atheist moral guardian. However, if he is, what of it? He is an intelligent person who is prepared to speak about a morality to which he (at least to the general observer) adheres and believes is just. Is this any different to any other moralist? That he has achieved some sort of fame only means that he has a large target audience.

If, instead, you were talking about looking to David Beckham and his ilk for morality, that would be a different question. He is famous solely for his ability to fire a round projectile at a rectangular box: hardly a moral high point. I would no more expect him to come out with something coherent regarding the Middle East peace process than I would expect Stephen Fry to score for England.

Talent in one field often encourages ability in another. If the populus identified with a famous person's morality, why should they not look to them for moral guidance, or at least to highlight to them opinions and moral situations that they should consider?
...then again, that is only my opinion.
Gubbins
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:56 pm

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby macgamer on Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:30 am

Haunted wrote:It's a sad reflection that it takes popular comedians to highlight even the most trivial of moral issues. Religion poisons everything (see Hitchslap 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRStkkGHXQA).

'Religion is poison'. Now didn't Mao say something along those lines during the cultural revolution:
Image.
If religion didn't poison Maoism what did? Not that I'm a defender of circumcision, but isn't there an established link between circumcised males and a reduction in HIV infection? Although I presume that Hitchens was railing against the circumcision of infants.

A gem of yet another courtiers reply. Eagleton is a strange one however in that he routinely leaps to the defense of theism without actually believing any of it. He is notoriously reluctant to ever state what he himself believes but throws off ideas of god as a meddler (i.e. someone who can answer prayers and perform miracles) as a 'caricature'. You'll of course be aware that the god of the catholics is such a meddler.
He says atheists should attack the best argument for theism rather than these caricatures (which strangely enough is also the sort of god that most believers believe in) yet he never offers any of these arguments. He just keeps making assertions about those horrible and impolite gnu atheists.
I could copy and paste alot of passages where he does this but it's easier to just link you to a comprehensive criticism of the whole book
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... lusion.php

I've since lent it to a friend who, if that review is common view of the book, might not be a friend much longer and so I cannot quote passage from Eagleton's book. I did agree with the review that the book is poorly organised and could have been written much better. What I thought was convincing was the critique of the Dawkins / Hitchens argumentation which gives no mention of the assumptions which the empirical sciences have to make and indeed need to make. Indeed as Chair of the Public Understanding Science, Dawkins should speak more on the philosophy of science or get someone else to if he himself is incapable. I think what Terry Eagleton perhaps was trying to address, if you can wade the excesses of his polemic, is that science and society needs to revisit epistemology questions: What is truth? How can we know it? What are the limits of our understanding using the current tools / approaches at our disposal?

Edward B. Aveling asked Charles Darwin for permission to dedicate a book 'The Students' Darwin' to him, which was rather polemical as regards religion. Darwin's letter of refusal read in part:

'Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science.'

This from Darwin himself is, I think, sound advice for Dawkins and Hitchens.

How is it that someone who "used to" lecture at Oxford know about "recent books"? Unless his unemployment is also itself very recent there is not much room for overlap here.

He left Oxford about four years ago to take up a Professorship at another university.
The only one I do know that he wrote where he was not the sole author was The Ancestors Tale, where one of his students wrote great portions of the rather large book. He is of course profoundly thanked and his contribution recognised by Dawkins in the foreword.

This Professor spoke directly to researchers under Dawkins who did the scholarship for the recent titles and admitted to writing whole chapters.

Maybe if he had a theory of morality or was intent on making moral assertions about how the human race should behave there would be room to accuse him of hypocrisy.

Dawkins has called religion 'the root of all evil'. So to use the word 'evil' suggests that he has a personal framework of morality at least.

Of course, despite your constant attempts to draw parallels with a lack of belief and your supernatural hierarchy, there is no such thing as a 'high [priest]' of nothingness (you also use inverted commas around high priest as if to imply it is somehow a stupid thing to have, perhaps you would like to draft a letter to Papa Ratzy elaborating this point further?). Such things are obvious to even most brain damaged of half wits who can grasp even the simplest [definition] of what atheism is. Don't let that stop however, you would seem to have precious little else to say other than to make (what you must think to be) hilarious and intelligent caricatures.

I wasn't suggesting that he has called himself high priest of atheism, but rather atheism of the Dawkins-Hitchens variety, has taken on a character of faith with dogma, that is statements of beliefs or principles which are unquestionably true. Those who question these are labelled, mad, bad or criminal, which is especially true of the environmentalists. The term 'climate-change denier' has a rather unsavoury tone to it. Not to say that I don't think there is a strong case for climate change that is.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:51 am

Macgamer, got anything to say about Franco's explicitly religiously-inspired (and expressly catholic) fascist rule in Spain? Got anything to say about the participation of priests in the fighting, or about the explicit approval of the pope for what Franco was doing?
Or maybe you'd like to comment on the very awkward contrast this makes with Ratzinger's remarks about atheistic fascism... which themselves sit awkwardly coming from a former Hitler Youth member (willing or otherwise!).
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby Haunted on Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:57 pm

macgamer wrote:'Religion is poison'. Now didn't Mao say something along those lines during the cultural revolution:

HOLY SHIT I've just learned that Hitler was a vegetarian!!! This means that all other people who restrict their diets are clearly genocidal maniacs! I mean they have to be right? Because Hitler was a bad bloke therefore everything he ever said or ever did or ever thought must necessarily derive from his intrinsic evil and is therefore itself evil and inhumane. Seriously?

If religion didn't poison Maoism what did?

"Religion poisons everything =! Everything poisoned was done so by religion. You are supposed to be educated yet you continue making these juvenile errors, if I was any more cynical I would suggest you are doing so deliberately.

Not that I'm a defender of circumcision, but isn't there an established link between circumcised males and a reduction in HIV infection? Although I presume that Hitchens was railing against the circumcision of infants.

There is also an established link that shows having no legs is a good preventative against developing athletes foot, your point being?

What I thought was convincing was the critique of the Dawkins / Hitchens argumentation which gives no mention of the assumptions which the empirical sciences have to make and indeed need to make.

How is this a defence of theism? Atheism needs no assumptions, materialism certainly, but not atheism. Though the word 'assumption' implies as if these things are pulled out of nowhere or made up with no justification. Induction is the proper term and there would be no scientific method without it and if anyone wishes to criticise the scientific method and all it's achievements they are welcome to.

Indeed as Chair of the Public Understanding Science, Dawkins should speak more on the philosophy of science or get someone else to if he himself is incapable.

He's been retired for at least a year now, but no he didn't need a degree in philosophy to communicate scientific knowledge to the public. It would be difficult to over estimate the number of lay people who now understand the core of biology through reading his many best selling books on the topic.

I think what Terry Eagleton perhaps was trying to address, if you can wade the excesses of his polemic, is that science and society needs to revisit epistemology questions: What is truth? How can we know it? What are the limits of our understanding using the current tools / approaches at our disposal?

Save it for the philosophers (Grayling and Dennett perhaps). Dawkins' position on the whole thing is there is not one shred of evidence for anything supernatural. Not one. After how many thousands of years of poking around, everything that we once thought was magic ALWAYS turned out to be NOT magic. If you wish to disagree with this then by all means share with the world your incontrovertible proof and we can finally have empirical proof of something supernatural. You would easily get a Nobel prize in physics for such a discovery. As it is, Dawkins is not mistaken in his position, but that doesn't seem to matter to his critics.

Edward B. Aveling asked Charles Darwin for permission to dedicate a book 'The Students' Darwin' to him, which was rather polemical as regards religion. Darwin's letter of refusal read in part:

Holy shit did you know that NEWTON believed in alchemy!!! Do you know what this means!?

This from Darwin himself is, I think, sound advice for Dawkins and Hitchens.

Darwin is not the emperor of biologists or atheists. Why the constant implication of some sort of power structure? Can you not imagine anything without one? Perhaps Darwin would have more to say were he to learn that over 150 years later most of the population still believe in magic to explain his field.

This Professor spoke directly to researchers under Dawkins who did the scholarship for the recent titles and admitted to writing whole chapters.

The Ancestors tale would be the best example, it's a massive book and indeed whole chapters were written by his research students (and acknowledged). Is there something wrong with this? If you wish to paint a picture of a vile old man who cares only about fame and fortune you could try producing a little more than idle hear say.

Dawkins has called religion 'the root of all evil'. So to use the word 'evil' suggests that he has a personal framework of morality at least.

The sentence you are responding to was about Schrödinger but ok, Dawkins has opinions and beliefs, your point?

I wasn't suggesting that he has called himself high priest of atheism, but rather atheism of the Dawkins-Hitchens variety, has taken on a character of faith with dogma, that is statements of beliefs or principles which are unquestionably true.

What is this dogma? Who is the incontrovertible authority to which we must submit our lives and immortal souls. The definition of the word dogma demands certainty and infallibility. Such things I challenge you to find in their writings. Dawkins himself has made mentioned on numerous occasions his scale of belief on which he places himself at 6.5 i.e. NOT 100% CERTAIN. If god wanted to be known she could do anything to make her presence known. How about transmit the secret to cold-fusion to all the countries of the Earth at the same time? How about resurrecting all the victims from 9/11? If god is omnipotent then such acts are entirely possible and if done would prove beyond all reasonable doubt the existence of powerful supernatural intelligence. If Dawkins and Hitchens have a Dogma then it is one that champions changing your mind based on new evidence. Changing your mind and admitting you are wrong is something to be proud of (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2095). You'll find no such virtues among the faithful where even the very act of doubting is discouraged.

Those who question these are labelled, mad, bad or criminal, which is especially true of the environmentalists. The term 'climate-change denier' has a rather unsavoury tone to it. Not to say that I don't think there is a strong case for climate change that is.
[/quote][/quote]
Idiots are called idiots, you'll have to work hard to extract an apology for that.
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby macgamer on Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:34 pm

jollytiddlywink wrote:Macgamer, got anything to say about Franco's explicitly religiously-inspired (and expressly catholic) fascist rule in Spain? Got anything to say about the participation of priests in the fighting, or about the explicit approval of the pope for what Franco was doing?
Or maybe you'd like to comment on the very awkward contrast this makes with Ratzinger's remarks about atheistic fascism... which themselves sit awkwardly coming from a former Hitler Youth member (willing or otherwise!).

My knowledge of the Spanish Civil War is limited, and so will be my response.

I know of no involvement of Pius XII or his predecessor Pius XI in endorsing Franco and the things he did. I'm sure they probably condemned the Republicans who were murdering priests and religious. Given it was one side against the other, there may have been moderates fighting against the atheism of the leftists, but not too keen on the fascism of the right-wingers. Civil wars are bloody and convoluted, both sides were wrong for different ideological reasons and for the same senseless murder.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby macgamer on Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:40 pm

Haunted wrote:If I was any more cynical I would suggest you are doing so deliberately.

Time to be more cynical, I am trying to wind you up on that one. Your use of 'religion poisons everything' was designed to wind me up.

There is also an established link that shows having no legs is a good preventative against developing athletes foot, your point being?

Again being I was being implicit. I was suggesting that, although I still have mine, the loss of the foreskin is not necessarily damaging, but may be beneficial. This wouldn't be the first of the Jewish Laws that have a grounding in pragmatic benefit. The UN has done a study on it, and is considering encouraging the practice. The morality of circumcision of male infants is debatable, but children don't get a choice whether they want to be vaccinated and arguably it may be better done earlier than later.

How is this a defence of theism? Atheism needs no assumptions, materialism certainly, but not atheism. Though the word 'assumption' implies as if these things are pulled out of nowhere or made up with no justification. Induction is the proper term and there would be no scientific method without it and if anyone wishes to criticise the scientific method and all it's achievements they are welcome to.

The use of the term 'assumption' is perfectly legitimate, the term is used in logic and hence philosophy and mathematics both of which supported the development of the sciences. We assume that our senses provide a true picture and understanding of the world.

He's been retired for at least a year now, but no he didn't need a degree in philosophy to communicate scientific knowledge to the public. It would be difficult to over estimate the number of lay people who now understand the core of biology through reading his many best selling books on the topic.

Well he held the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science. Knowledge is one thing, understanding is quite another. People can have an understanding of a topic divorced from its fundamental foundations.

Save it for the philosophers (Grayling and Dennett perhaps). Dawkins' position on the whole thing is there is not one shred of evidence for anything supernatural. Not one. After how many thousands of years of poking around, everything that we once thought was magic ALWAYS turned out to be NOT magic. If you wish to disagree with this then by all means share with the world your incontrovertible proof and we can finally have empirical proof of something supernatural. You would easily get a Nobel prize in physics for such a discovery. As it is, Dawkins is not mistaken in his position, but that doesn't seem to matter to his critics.

I think the key word is 'super' in 'supernatural'. God is so-to-speak above the empirical sciences, it is not something that the sciences can prove or disprove. My, and other reasonable religious peoples' biggest problem with the likes of Dawkins is his insistence that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. To hold the position of atheism is a reasonable and rational one, but so too is it to hold a theistic position. There is no empirical proof either way and either position can justified by reasoning.

Darwin is not the emperor of biologists or atheists. Why the constant implication of some sort of power structure? Can you not imagine anything without one? Perhaps Darwin would have more to say were he to learn that over 150 years later most of the population still believe in magic to explain his field.

I think it is implicit from Darwin's quotation that he prefers to illuminate men's minds and allow them to come to their own conclusions, allowing the evidence or truth to speak for itself.

If you wish to paint a picture of a vile old man who cares only about fame and fortune you could try producing a little more than idle hear say.

I wish I had substantive evidence, but I have none. I suppose this is what it feels like to be a News of the World journalist on a bad day.

The sentence you are responding to was about Schrödinger but ok, Dawkins has opinions and beliefs, your point?

He has these ethical beliefs: do they have a framework? What are the influences? Has he applied the same rigour to the formation of these principles as his scientific work?

What is this dogma? Who is the incontrovertible authority to which we must submit our lives and immortal souls. The definition of the word dogma demands certainty and infallibility. Such things I challenge you to find in their writings. Dawkins himself has made mentioned on numerous occasions his scale of belief on which he places himself at 6.5 i.e. NOT 100% CERTAIN.

Well it is a pity that the public's understanding of scientific evidence and certainty, after Dawkins' tenure, is not a concept which has been grasped properly.

If god wanted to be known she could do anything to make her presence known. How about transmit the secret to cold-fusion to all the countries of the Earth at the same time? How about resurrecting all the victims from 9/11? If god is omnipotent then such acts are entirely possible and if done would prove beyond all reasonable doubt the existence of powerful supernatural intelligence.

I think the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is quite telling. John Chapter 20 verse 29 is useful here:
'Jesus said to him, "Is it because you have seen me that you have believed? How blessed are those who have never seen me and yet have believed!"' If should God reveal Himself truly there would be no faith. Indeed there are numerous instances in the Old Testament with the Prophets, none of whom see God as He really is. As for the evil in the world, 'The Problem of Pain' by C.S. Lewis might help.

If Dawkins and Hitchens have a Dogma then it is one that champions changing your mind based on new evidence. Changing your mind and admitting you are wrong is something to be proud of (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2095). You'll find no such virtues among the faithful where even the very act of doubting is discouraged.

Indeed, I changed my mind recently about nuclear disarmament. I'm not sure whether I'll join CND yet, but changing my mind about nuclear disarmament was the only consistent position to hold if one opposes, as I do, the use of nuclear weapons against civilians, or WMD more generally. As for doubt amongst the 'faithful', the beatification of John Henry Newman is an example of a man who underwent great doubt in his life and trials of conscience (Read his 'Apologia' for examples). Blessed (Mother) Theresa of Calcutta is another example.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:46 pm

macgamer wrote:My knowledge of the Spanish Civil War is limited, and so will be my response.

I know of no involvement of Pius XII or his predecessor Pius XI in endorsing Franco and the things he did. I'm sure they probably condemned the Republicans who were murdering priests and religious. Given it was one side against the other, there may have been moderates fighting against the atheism of the leftists, but not too keen on the fascism of the right-wingers. Civil wars are bloody and convoluted, both sides were wrong for different ideological reasons and for the same senseless murder.


How about this for an endorsement of Franco? A message from Pius XII to Franco at the end of the war: "Lifting our hearts to God, we give sincere thanks with your Excellency for the victory of Catholic Spain." Franco was strongly supported by the church in Spain, the bishops pronouncing that "God provides the most profound bonds holding together a well-ordered society." These profound bonds included nearly 200,000 political executions between 1939 and 1943, as well as exile or labour camps for tens of thousands. Secret policemen would report on those who did not attend mass, and priests encouraged their flocks to keep an eye open for political subversives, which included socialists, communists and democrats. All Spaniards were made catholic by state decree. All prospective employees had to be able to present a certificate of spiritual cleanliness from a priest, and the church imposed public morality. One poster demanded 'No immoral dances, no indecent frocks, no bare legs, no heathen beaches." Those who disobeyed such posters risked the attentions of paramilitaries in the street.
There were few clergy who opposed the regime. Some of them were disturbed by the Gestapo training given to the secret police, but some who disliked the regime did so largely because it was not quite an absolute theocracy. Clerical opposition, never significant, diminished further after the pope thanked Franco for bringing "honour, order, prosperity and tranquility" to Spain. Some priests were rabid supporters of the regime. Father Martin Torrent, head prison chaplain in Barcelona, enthused about mass executions of political prisoners, saying, "Can any greater mercy be granted to a soul which has gone through life separated from God?"

The situation in Spain before the war began can be illustrated succinctly with this statistic: at Easter, 1936, only 14% of the population fulfilled their basic religious responsibilities. There was dire poverty in huge swathes of Spain, with many subsisting literally on the verge of starvation. The church showed no interest in helping. It preferred to keep its power and wealth intact, and to maneuver politically to achieve that aim. There are documented cases of peasants so poor that they moved out of their hovels and squatted in newly-built pigsties, because the pigs were better housed. Actions like this usually brought the guarda civil out to evict the squatters, and probably shoot them, too.

It is either breathtaking ignorance or mind-boggling cynicism which allows the pope to stand up and speak about atheist fascism. Leaving aside his own less-than-stellar history with fascism, to ignore this kind of voluminous historical evidence is incomprehensible, and to my mind, unforgivable. It is not on the same level as holocaust denial, but it is of the same species. It boggles my mind.

(if you doubt any of the information or quotations I have provided, I can offer academic citations for them all. Nothing has been pulled from wikipedia or any other similar source)
*edited for a typo
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby Haunted on Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:23 am

macgamer wrote:Your use of 'religion poisons everything' was designed to wind me up.

No it wasn't, it's not a fresh idea that religious belief is responsible for good people doing bad things.

Again being I was being implicit. I was suggesting that, although I still have mine, the loss of the foreskin is not necessarily damaging, but may be beneficial.

And you've missed my entire point. A child cannot consent to cosmetic surgery and to mutilate another human being without their consent is immoral (at least when their life is not at stake).

The morality of circumcision of male infants is debatable

Only because it is such an old and established tradition. If I told you how I was looking forward to ceremoniously cutting off the small toes of my first born I'm sure you would be horrified, but because it's religious tradition it gets a free pass as usual and the worst anyone will say is that it's 'debatable'. It's quite simple, either you can mutilate human beings without their consent or you can't.
but children don't get a choice whether they want to be vaccinated and arguably it may be better done earlier than later.

To not vaccinate them would be to expose them to an unacceptable risk of death. Inaction can be just as immoral as action.

The use of the term 'assumption' is perfectly legitimate, the term is used in logic and hence philosophy and mathematics both of which supported the development of the sciences. We assume that our senses provide a true picture and understanding of the world.

Yes that's what I'm getting at, however, a more descriptive term for the premises on which the scientific or materialist method works is inductive reasoning.

Well he held the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science. Knowledge is one thing, understanding is quite another. People can have an understanding of a topic divorced from its fundamental foundations.

Distracting semantics.
The aim of the Professorship is to communicate science to the public without, in doing so, losing those elements of scholarship which constitute the essence of true understanding.
In the words of Charles Simonyi:

The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all.


I think the key word is 'super' in 'supernatural'. God is so-to-speak above the empirical sciences, it is not something that the sciences can prove or disprove.

It all depends on how you define what god is and is capable of. If god can answer prayers and perform miracles then god is NOT outside the universe or beyond the laws of the physics. If god (indeed, if anything) can violate physics then it is a testable hypothesis with real world observations. You can define god as being outside of reality if you wish and if you do we have no argument.

My, and other reasonable religious peoples' biggest problem with the likes of Dawkins is his insistence that faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

Are rationality and irrationality compatible? What about monogamy and infidelity? Plenty of married persons enjoy extra martial affairs, does this therefore mean that marriage and infidelity are two complementary ideas?
There is no room for faith science. Faith is a vice, it hinders your ability to doubt and test your hypotheses. Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.

To hold the position of atheism is a reasonable and rational one,

It is the logical option until evidence of the supernatural comes to light. But humans overall are not known for being logical.
but so too is it to hold a theistic position.

You need proof before you can promote a hypotheses to a theory or a fact. I can insert anything supernatural here and make your exact same argument that there's no 'disproof' and it would be equally meaningless. Demonstrate to me why belief in the catholic god is more 'reasonable and rational' than belief in the hindu gods, or the norse gods or the fsm.
There is no empirical proof either way and either position can justified by reasoning.

Lack of evidence for something is a fairly good indicator that there's nothing there. Demonstrate why the invisible pink elephant is reasonable and rational since there is no empirical proof either way.

I think it is implicit from Darwin's quotation that he prefers to illuminate men's minds and allow them to come to their own conclusions, allowing the evidence or truth to speak for itself.

Such an idea would be mutually incompatible with the religious inserting their conclusions into schools and onto young minds which are indefensible against nonsense. Only a truly secular education system would allow complete freedom to make up one's mind.
I wish I had substantive evidence, but I have none. I suppose this is what it feels like to be a News of the World journalist on a bad day.

A bad day would be going to court for libel, which in this country you are still liable for since you have posted such unsubstantiated defamatory remarks on a public forum. The law is being changed (hopefully) but right now the good professor would have a fairly air tight legal case against you were he to contact his solicitors. He won't because he's part of the libel reform campaign and because he believes people should be allowed to say whatever they want. Unlike the churches of course, who fight every attempt to overturn blasphemy laws and use them where they exist to punish dissenting voices. The Catholic church is particularly bad at this as I'm sure you must be aware.
He has these ethical beliefs: do they have a framework? What are the influences? Has he applied the same rigour to the formation of these principles as his scientific work?

I can only presume so but you'll have to either ask him (by posting on his website which is a nice resource) or by digging up some of his videos on youtube where it's probably come up once or twice. He is a professed secular humanist so you might like to start there.

Well it is a pity that the public's understanding of scientific evidence and certainty, after Dawkins' tenure, is not a concept which has been grasped properly.

And whose fault is this? Would it be the apologist brigade who are constantly making unsubstantiated claims about what RIchard has said? Or is it the willingly gullible who refuse to read his books but believe they know all about him because of what priest/pastor/theologian/daily mail journalist x said about him?
Again, the human race is not known for it's logic or rationality.

I think the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is quite telling.

It is because if there is reasonable doubt about anything it would irrational, unreasonable and foolish to take it as fact.

John Chapter 20 verse 29 is useful here:
'Jesus said to him, "Is it because you have seen me that you have believed? How blessed are those who have never seen me and yet have believed!"' If should God reveal Himself truly there would be no faith.

And isn't it rather telling that a being who obviously exists and created the universe should have to hide behind uncertainty and ignorance? It's really nice idea, that god is fucking with you. He created you, your soul and the universe you live in and demands to be worshipped by you, but absolutely insists on remaining invisible with the absolute intention of causing people to doubt the existence of this god so that he may then punish such people. If this being does exist then only someone proud to be a slave would worship such a tyrant.
The fact, if god doesn't exist (allow the possibility for a second) then Christianity would look exactly the same as it does.
As for doubt amongst the 'faithful', the beatification of John Henry Newman is an example of a man who underwent great doubt in his life and trials of conscience (Read his 'Apologia' for examples). Blessed (Mother) Theresa of Calcutta is another example.

Doubting Thomas was the first and was ridiculed by the other disciples for his scepticism. Where they believed anything that the man Jesus supposedly said without any justification, Thomas demanded proof before he would subscribe to any ridiculous idea. If there was a deserving patron saint of science it would be Thomas, the first skeptic and ridiculed for it.
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Why do facts exist?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:42 pm

Catholicism is nothing if not logical.
If only.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts ... 010143163/
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am


Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron