Originally posted by PhlabibitYou're wrong - not all of us are atheists.
Sorry rwingett, I know you said that also and I did not put it down.
Just kind of hard to find a thread of yours that does not use the word atheist... I don't think it is a very good synonym…. And I think it is still a strict requirement of your clan to be one.
[b]EDIT Weather you intended it or not.
Phla-
[/b]
Rich
(Freethinking non-atheist)
Reason is a wonderful thing. Whether one uses it to support their aetheism or their professed faith, both are complemented in a thoughtful examination that considers not only what one experiences to support their position, but also what doesn't fit. A couple of weeks ago I was listening to this very articulate black preacher on TV. I am usually loathe for TV evangelism, but he said something that I don't often hear from "people of faith." He said, "I am wanting to hear from people who are struggling. I want to hear from people who don't quite fit in. I want to hear from people who feel lost and struggle with their faith. I'm tired of hearing from people who know it all. WE need to learn from these people." Preach on, my brother.
Originally posted by FeivelIt's both. I know you asked Ivanhoe, but I couldn't help giving my two cents. My reason led me to conclude that there is a God who has revealed Himself to us. From what I've learned about Him, I have decided to put my trust wholly in Him. That trust is what I call faith. If I have a "religion," it is my relationship with that God, and that relationship depends upon reason and faith (ie, trust), among other things (eg, love).
Is revealed religion reason or faith?
I hate to dispute the dictionary, but I find it odd that it defines a freethinker as one who rejects authority of any kind. What if a thinking person's free and rational investigation leads him to the conclusion that he can in fact trust a certain authoritative source? I mean, I trust historians that Alexander the Great ever lived and led men. That belief of mine depends entirely on my faith (ie, trust) in the authority of historians and historical records of various kinds. The point is: by this dictionary's strange definition, any freethinker must deny all knowledge of history. Further, if he is not himself an astronomer, he must have trouble believing in the existence of, say, Alpha Centauri. Such a belief would require faith in a certain authority: the astronomers. Obviously we can continue through a wide range of fields of knowledge, in all of which the non-specialist can only trust the specialist authorities.
1 edit
Originally posted by huntingbearThis is known as the "appeal to authority". There are relevant and irrelevant appeals to authority. Appealing to someone outside their field of expertise, or appealing to an expert in a field in which there is not an adequate degree of agreement amongst experts would be an irrelevant appeal to authority which would result in a fallacious argument. Appealing to an authority in a field in which there is a general consensus among experts would be a relevant appeal to authority.
It's both. I know you asked Ivanhoe, but I couldn't help giving my two cents. My reason led me to conclude that there is a God who has revealed Himself to us. From what I've learned about Him, I have decided to put my trust wholly in ...[text shortened]... hich the non-specialist can only trust the specialist authorities.
Appealing to authority on religious matters would be irrelevant as there is no clear area of agreement among experts. Each side could line up its experts and have them go at it, and nothing would be gained. Appealing to authority on certain historical matters (such as the existence of Alexander the Great) would be a relevant appeal to authority. All historians agree that Alexander the Great was real, there is no disagreement among the experts. As I am unable to personally verify that Alexander the Great existed (without great difficulty), this would be a relevant, reasonable, and rational appeal to authority on my part.
1 edit
Originally posted by richjohnsonVery good, richJ. Your vote has been counted. EDIT As a matter of fact when rwingett and I hammer things out I hope to go head to head with you in the next match.... that would be fun.
You're wrong - not all of us are atheists.
Rich
(Freethinking non-atheist)
royalchicken! I hope you don't think I think that all athiests are freethinkers. They are not.
rwingett Hope you understand I stand by your views and belive you over most people thumping the bible around here. You have every right not to believe!
Cya 'all
Phla-
Originally posted by rwingettFrom your post, it would seem we agree for the most part about appeal to authority: it is sometimes rational, sometimes not. The definition of "freethinker" in an above post makes no distinction between relevant/irrelevant, rational/irrational appeal to authority, and that's the bone I have to pick with that definition.
Appealing to authority on religious matters would be irrelevant as there is no clear area of agreement among experts. Each side could line up its experts and have them go at it, and nothing would be gained. Appealing to authority on certain historical matters (such as the existence of Alexander the Great) would be a relevant appeal to authority. All historians agree that Alexander the Great was real, there is no disagreement among the experts.
We have priests here and monks there, popes and rabbis and so on and so forth. If we decide to call them all "experts" on "religious matters," then indeed we shall have quite a problem! How do we determine who is right, if anyone?
I think it is clear that a single field of study called "religious matters" is a silly notion. Clearly one can be an "expert" in Christian theology but not in Islamic. And so we find that grouping them all as "experts on religious matters" is a mistake. If you want to know about Catholicism, talk to a priest. About Judaism? A rabbi. etc. etc. etc.
The question of which religion is true or closer to the truth (if any) is quite separate and does not depend in the slightest on all "experts" of all faiths reaching a general agreement. This is clear?
Yet I have not really even touched the problem of whether by "authority" I mean "experts"! In fact, I do not. But that's ok, for what we have said about experts applies in principle to authorities of all kinds. Some are trustworthy, others are not. For now I just want to point out that trusting an authority can come as a consequence of Free Thinking. To put it shortly, if a source is proven on rational grounds to be reliable, then a free thinker would trust it. I believe we agree about this.
As for historical matters, I would be at least as concerned with why there was disagreement as with whether there was. For an example, some claim that the Holocaust never happened, while most historians say it did. Assuming we want to know what actually happened, we would ask: Why is there disagreement? Should we trust the majority just because they are the majority? Should we trust the minority just because they're a minority? Should we investigate the evidence and the motives on both sides and attempt to determine which claim is correct? Should we assume that some type of compromise of their positions is the truth? Or should we simply say "disagreement exists, and therefore appeal to authority is irrelevant. Nothing can be said about whether the Holocaust occurred"? Is not the free thinker, in fact, free to determine, according to reason, which "authorities" are trustworthy?
Originally posted by huntingbearThere is a checklist (taken from: http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/authorit.html) that can be used to decide when an appeal to authority would be a relevant one:
From your post, it would seem we agree for the most part about appeal to authority: it is sometimes rational, sometimes not. The definition of "freethinker" in an above post makes no distinction between relevant/irrelevant, rational/irrational appeal to authority, and that's the bone I have to pick with that definition.
We have priests here and monks ...[text shortened]... thinker, in fact, free to determine, according to reason, which "authorities" are trustworthy?
1.Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
2.Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
3.Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
4.Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
5.Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.
If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of Ad Verecundiam.
From your example, the person who claims the holocaust did not occur would fail the 5th and probably the 4th points listed above. He could probably be shown to be biased in his opinion, and would definitely be in contradiction of expert consensus. Relying on his opinion would result in a fallacious argument. You could appeal to a priest to learn about Catholicism. He would be qualified to tell you what Catholicism is. There is a clear consensus on this. But he would not be quailified to tell you whether or not Catholic beliefs are true. There is no clear consensus on this, so an appeal to authority of this sort would not be reliable.
The following websites give additional information on appeals to authority:
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/authorit.html
http://skepdic.com/authorty.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_legitauthority.htm
Originally posted by rwingettRight. We seem to be mostly in agreement. The 4th and 5th criteria are certainly as good as the others, but not so practical. An unbiased opinion is like a porcine aviator, so far as its probability of existence is concerned. As for the fifth criterion, it is a prime example that every rule has exceptions. There was once a time when most experts believed there was no Hittite civilization, for example. A small minority of researchers in the relevant fields stood by a belief in its existence. The overwhelming "expert" consensus was that the Hittites simply never were. In the end, archaeological proof was finally discovered which overturned the majority expert consensus (basically, a huge Hittite empire was unearthed). The minority, who would be disqualified by criterion 5, were correct (this means, incidentally, that we must dismiss those who deny the holocaust on more complete grounds than by simply saying, as your post seems to suggest, "they're a minority so we won't listen to them"😉. Clearly the criterion list needs expansion or refinement, but that's really neither here nor there, as your entire list of criteria is valid as a tool, even if incomplete. I'm sure that goes for your entire list of references about appeal to authority. I'm not so much soliciting education about this as simply pointing out that the original definition of "freethinker" is strange. I believe your last post quite confirms your agreement with me on that point, since it describes a process by which a (presumably) free thinker can come to trust an authority. My point all along has been that by rational means a person can come to trust an authority without abandoning his or her own reason. Our conversation has taken a rather circuitous route, but I think you have agreed with my point and gone that step further of providing a method for determining the relevance of a given appeal to authority. I'm sure that's appreciated by all, as is your provision of the corresponding vocabulary terms for the concepts described in the course of this discussion.
There is a checklist (taken from: http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/authorit.html) that can be used to decide when an appeal to authority would be a relevant one:
1.Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
2.Is this a matter upon which expert opinion i ...[text shortened]... /authorty.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_legitauthority.htm
So long as we agree that appeal to authority in and of itself is not necessarily irrational, I'm satisfied on that point (and hopefully that makes two of us).
Originally posted by rwingettYou'd think so, but look at what constitutes 'New Age', the latest in DIY religion. The rise of New Age in the UK, just as Christianity seems to be on the wane (sorry genius et al, but the Church is now but a shadow of its former self), makes me wonder if religious belief is a basic human desire, like sex. If it is, then all your arguments against it are going to be about as effective as the 'Just say No'-style campaigns your government seems to be so fond of.
But many religions are mutually exclusive. Belief in one necessitates the disbelief in all others. Polytheism will only get you so far.
Originally posted by AcolyteChristianity has had 2,000 years to entrench itself in our culture. Other religions have had even longer. The systematic challenge to religion's dominance over society has only been going on for about a hundred and fifty years. That is scarcely enough time to eradicate such an edifice. But much progress has been made. The Church has been fatally weakened, as you point out. Religious beliefs have become more watered down. With each passing decade "god" is being increasingly relegated to an empty figurehead status. It will probably be many more years before people are willing to leave the crutch of religion behind and walk on their own, but I think that day is inevitable. People will likely continue to channel their curiosity into unproductive avenues, but if this assumes the status of a hobby as opposed to a credo, then the battle will have been effectively won.
You'd think so, but look at what constitutes 'New Age', the latest in DIY religion. The rise of New Age in the UK, just as Christianity seems to be on the wane (sorry genius et al, but the Church is now but a shadow of its former self), makes me wonder if religious belief is a basic human desire, like sex. If it is, then all your arguments against it ar ...[text shortened]... bout as effective as the 'Just say No'-style campaigns your government seems to be so fond of.
Originally posted by rwingettI wouldn't get too triumphalist. Religion has indeed been massively reduced in stature in the UK: although Tony Blair is a devout Christian, he knows that discussing it in public is a vote-loser, rather than a vote-winner. But the same certainly can't be said of the status of religion in Africa, Asia, South America or even the US. Isn't Bush Snr on record for saying that he doesn't think atheists can be US citizens? For a country with a constitutional separation of Church and State, some of your leading politicians have a strange attitude to religious freedom.
Christianity has had 2,000 years to entrench itself in our culture. Other religions have had even longer. The systematic challenge to religion's dominance over society has only been going on for about a hundred and fifty years. That is scarcely enough time to eradicate such an edifice. But much progress has been made. The Church has been fatally weakened, ...[text shortened]... mes the status of a hobby as opposed to a credo, then the battle will have been effectively won.
Originally posted by AcolyteTwo steps forward, one step back. Nobody said it would be a smooth linear progression. Religious fervor will certainly go through several mini revivals along the way, but the inevitable trend is toward secularization. The Bush administration is merely a temporary roadblock in that path.
I wouldn't get too triumphalist. Religion has indeed been massively reduced in stature in the UK: although Tony Blair is a devout Christian, he knows that discussing it in public is a vote-loser, rather than a vote-winner. But the same certainly can't be said of the status of religion in Africa, Asia, South America or even the US. Isn't Bush Snr on rec ...[text shortened]... Church and State, some of your leading politicians have a strange attitude to religious freedom.