Yeah, I think I have read your disdain of Sam Harris before.
We can't all value the exact same people, in the exact same way, so , fair enough!
I personally think the presence and influence of atheists ( I don't value the term new atheists) and atheism on the internet, is increasing significantly.

Of course they do, but that wasn't the question on the table. You weren't talking about the methods, mindset, approach, or beliefs of scientists studying quantum mechanics. You were talking about QM's preposterousness. Now you're trying to change the subject. — T Clark

In fact, I said nothing at all about QM being preposterous. I said it "certainly seems strange." You said QM is preposterous, and apparently feel it's as preposterous as religion, if not more preposterous than it is. If that's what you believe, so be it. I merely think QM and religion are not analogous.

I don't value the term new atheists — universeness

I prefer to call Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens,et al mere "anti-religionists".

I merely think QM and religion are not analogous. — Ciceronianus

:up:

The motives of both the atheist and theist to spouse their different world views remain alien to me. What concern is it to either if one believes or not ?

You kinda get lunatics on both sides of the fence.

It’s kind of amusing to me to see such misguided passions with an almost religious zeal be it atheist or not that I’m tempted to dismiss it as some sort of psychological deficiency or just lack of emotional intelligence to be engaged in such fruitless discussion.

Sure the debate has many different arguments for and against its existence but apart from an intellectual tussle of wits (and dimwits) is it more to the pandering of an ego that wants to be right or just the typical intellectual masturbation that you so often find in people who have some sort point to prove and score points?

While the scientists operate by different rules and glean their information from different sources than the mystics, a creation myth doesn't sound more impossible than a big bang. — Vera Mont

Ok. I would think it might depend on the myth, though. But for all I know the world may have come about from the piling of mud on the back of a large sea turtle.

What concern is it to either if one believes or not ? — invicta

The theist proselytizes as his religious tenets require and the atheist objects on the grounds that she rejects being preached at or persecuted for disbelief and lack of the sufficient reasons she requires in order to believe in the proselytizer's g/G.

Also philosophically, the question of g/G is a central metaphysical topic with implications for epistemology (at least), and so discussions, even debates, on this question are legitimate for many of us. No doubt, many others are not motivated to or interested in this question and therefore they / you should ignore those / us for whom 'g/G questions' are both fascinating and intractable.

The motives of both the atheist and theist to spouse their different world views remain alien to me. What concern is it to either if one believes or not ? — invicta

Perhaps think bigger. Religions actively shape world politics and nationalism and supports legislative change which impact on millions of people - everything from gay rights, the rights of women, capital punishment, euthanasia, contraception, abortion, what books which can be read, etc, etc. It's not just America and stacking the Supreme Court. Pernicious social policies and practices are rife in places like Modi's Hindu nationalist India and Saudi Arabia through the impact of Wahhabi Islam.

Ok. I would think it might depend on the myth, though. — Ciceronianus

No, it doesn't depend on the myth. It depends on one's understanding of the myth, its meaning, context and significance.
Just as belief of* any particular scientific theory depends on one's understanding of it.
* of, not in

QM is a matter of knowledge, not (make)belief like religion. — 180 Proof

Again, you're not responding to my argument, which is what started this portion of the discussion. Yes, I do believe quantum mechanics is our best current understanding of how the subatomic world works. That doesn't change the fact that, as a story, it's hard to believe. So, light is both a particle and a wave. What about the law of the excluded middle? Electrons are particles, but they don't really have a location. They're sort of spread out over space? They can "tunnel" through matter? Particles are spontaneously created at random by "quantum fields." You can't find anything written about QM that doesn't use the word "weird." If you look it up, you'll find that "weird" and "preposterous" are often used as synonyms.

Making a response to an argument that ignores the argument and substitutes your own irrelevant ideas is bad philosophy.

In fact, I said nothing at all about QM being preposterous. — Ciceronianus

No, that was me. I claimed that believing in God is no more preposterous than quantum mechanics. You have yet to address that argument.

If that's what you believe, so be it. I merely think QM and religion are not analogous. — Ciceronianus

Again (and again, and again, and again) that is not the question on the table. You made a glib statement about religion being preposterous. I made a comment in response. You have yet to respond to my comment.

As I said to @180 Proof, you are guilty of bad philosophy.

Religions actively shape world politics and nationalism and supports legislative change which impact on millions of people - everything from gay rights, the rights of women, capital punishment, euthanasia, contraception, abortion, what books which can be read, etc, etc. It's not just America and stacking the Supreme Court. Pernicious social policies and practices are rife in places like Modi's Hindu nationalist India and Saudi Arabia through the impact of Wahhabi Islam. — Tom Storm

This argument has always struck me as wrong-headed, blinded by ideology. I think there is a good case to be made that the primary agent of destructive social policy is large institutions. That certainly has included religions, but also includes communism, Nazism, colonialism, fascism, and lots of other isms not to mention governments in general. There's a case to be made that the worst of the large institutions facing us today are corporations.

Do you think that conditions in Iran or Saudi Arabia today are worse than those in China during the cultural revolution, the USSR during Stalinism, or Cambodia during the rule of the Khmer Rouge?

Making a response to an argument that ignores the argument and substitutes your own irrelevant ideas is bad philosophy. — T Clark

Actually, projection is "bad philosophy".

Do you think that conditions in Iran or Saudi Arabia today are worse than those in China during the cultural revolution, the USSR during Stalinism, or Cambodia during the rule of the Khmer Rouge? — T Clark

That's a classic equivocation fallacy. Who is saying religion is the only source of evil shit on earth? I'm saying it's one of the main players. I have no more love for politics than I have for religion. I am a political bigot too. :wink:

Actually, projection is "bad philosophy". — 180 Proof

Another non-sequitur and an argument based on your imagination about my mental state. No further questions. I rest my case.

That's a classic equivocation fallacy. Who is saying religion is the only source of evil shit on earth, just one of the main players. Certainly that would be my point. I have no more love for politics than I have for religion. I am a political bigot too. — Tom Storm

My point was that it's a problem of large institutions, not religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, not an antipathy to large institutions in general.

To be clear, I never called you a bigot and I don't think you are one. I don't think I've ever called anyone on the forum one. If I did, it was a mistake.

There's no shame, TC, in admitting you were mistaken (i) comparing QM to religion and (ii) suggesting that QM is the kind of thing a great scientist like Einstein could believe in or not believe in.

There's no shame, TC, in admitting you were mistaken aboth both comparing QM to religion and suggesting that QM is the kind of thing a great scientist like Einstein could believe in or not believe in. — 180 Proof

Another non-sequitur. Another contentless response. Nuff said.

Nuff said — T Clark

QED. :victory: :sweat:

My point was that it's a problem of large institutions, not religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, not an antipathy to large institutions in general. — T Clark

I have problems with many practices in politics, atheism, religion, science - any belief system that causes harm (as I see it). Now I happen to think religions are experts in causing harm (based largely upon personal experience and familiarity with their works) but religions are by no means alone in this. I don't just think it's a question of being large. I think there are plenty of small organisations that commit abuse upon their adherents/members. I do hold antipathy towards institutions. I don't think this comes out of atheism, more out of skepticism and perhaps nascent or inchoate anarchism. But that's for a different thread.

I have problems with many practices in politics, atheism, religion, science - any belief system that causes harm (as I see it). Now I happen to think religions are experts in causing harm (based largely upon personal experience and familiarity with their works) but religions are by no means alone in this. I don't just think it's a question of being large. I think there are plenty of small organisations that commit abuse upon their adherents/members. I do hold antipathy towards institutions. I don't think this comes out of atheism, more out of skepticism and perhaps nascent or inchoate anarchism. But that's for a different thread. — Tom Storm

I generally consider you one of the reasoned voices on this type of subject.

I generally consider you one of the reasoned voices on this type of subject. — T Clark

Curious that I find that surprising. Maybe it’s because he stated that “religions are experts in causing harm” and historically you seem to look down on that sort of biased statement towards religion.

Curious that I find that surprising. Maybe it’s because he stated that “religions are experts in causing harm” and historically you seem to look down on that sort of biased statement towards religion. — praxis

In what way is that a biased statement? Even Jesus admitted bringing a sword.

Religious institutions, historically, have been instrumental in sustaining political institutions, and vice versa. The third pillar of that very stable structure of power is the military. The disciplines of monasticism and militarism are very similar in both psychology and practice. Both serve and influence the political regime, which knows it must bow to their demands, because it cannot survive without their support. The dissolute civilian partner, and least reliable institution, is the political one. When a political system collapses under its own corruption or excess, the military and/or religious organizations are able to step in and take control. How the fourth, the silent financial partner - the merchant caste, or bankers, or corporations - plays this endless triangle game is how the rich get richer, with full collusion from church and state.

In what way is that a biased statement? — Vera Mont

My assessment is primarily based on his explanation that the statement is “based largely upon personal experience” and the assumption that that experience was negative in terms of harmfulness.

The disciplines of monasticism and militarism are very similar in both psychology and practice. — Vera Mont

:chin: I fail to see the similarity between monk and soldier.

I fail to see the similarity between monk and soldier. — praxis

Do you really? Formal chain of command, tradition, obedience, austere communal living, early rising, strict discipline, tightly scheduled daily rituals performed in unison, an ideal of self-denial and sacrifice for a single cause. The organization of the institutions themselves.

Curious that I find that surprising. Maybe it’s because he stated that “religions are experts in causing harm” and historically you seem to look down on that sort of biased statement towards religion. — praxis

@Tom Storm generally has a nuanced and self-aware take on issues, including this one. He is skeptical but often generous when it comes to human nature. He also knows a lot about people and has a pragmatic take on most things, including philosophy, which matches my own pretty well.

I agree that a monk may be susceptible to recruitment into military service due to the conditions that you mention. Fundamentally though, a monk is dedicated to renunciation.

An ad hominem is a kind of explanation for the inconsistency I guess.

An ad hominem is a kind of explanation for the inconsistency I guess. — praxis

I don't understand what you mean. No need to explain; we can leave it at that.

Ad homs can appeal to good character as well as bad.

In any event, you seem to be endorsing bias against religion.

TC, thanks, you're being kind. I do sometimes say terrible things. Often I find that trying to shoehorn complex ideas into a few sentences here ends up distorting what I want to say, sometimes eccentuating the wrong parts.

I'm not sure I have much to offer any discussions about theism or religion. I get involved when I hear the odd clanger from someone and then almost immediately regret what I said in response. This stuff is personal and for it to matter, I think it has to be.

When it comes to the crux, the attribute I dislike most in any field (politics or faith) is the gatekeeper who thinks they can tell ordinary people how they should live their lives and judges others for making different choices. The problem is, we all have to make calls on what we think is reasonable and we can't accept every possible position going - so where and how do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable? I think this is my key problem in critical thinking.