|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2017 11:59:43 GMT
Killing religion, the note upon which this blogger ends his piece is probably not possible, even if desirable. But it does raise questions as how religion, and religious belief, stand in the brave new era of post-truth (defined here as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals). When nothing that religion has to say can be considered 'objective fact' but its emotional appeal does frequently shape public opinion, is it therefore just another version of 'post truth'?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 11, 2017 12:11:37 GMT
The argument is kind of fake by comparing fake news with the notion of fake facts.
Because the guy waits for science to provide the solution even if it is a made up one as well, he dismisses everything else that he doesn't agree to. It's the whole "All life is based on proof" which of course cannot be proven. I say most of our life has no scientific basis unless belief and opinion are part of it as well.
I can understand how the message can appeal to the notion of ending religion, but people need to come to grips with the reality that science is not there to replace anything. It never was and only an idiot thinks that kind of lab tested thinking makes the world a better place anyway.
It is its own thing and it isn't even at odds with belief as the only reason science is strong and vibrant is because of the contributions and interests of the religious.
Of course, I'm sure someone will come by and say how much I hate science because I love God. Scientifically speaking, those have to be the only two options...
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 11, 2017 12:12:01 GMT
Killing religion, the note upon which this blogger ends his piece is probably not possible, even if desirable. But it does raise questions as how religion, and religious belief, stand in the brave new era of post-truth (defined here as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals). When nothing that religion has to say can be considered 'objective fact' but its emotional appeal does frequently shape public opinion, is it therefore just another version of 'post truth'?
So many close-minded falsehoods in one post.. This post is a form of post-truth.
|
|
chasallnut
Sophomore
@chasallnut
Posts: 506
Likes: 158
|
Post by chasallnut on Apr 11, 2017 12:18:39 GMT
Desirable for who? Those without religion?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2017 13:08:47 GMT
So many close-minded falsehoods in one post.. This post is a form of post-truth. If you refer to my intro, rather than the quote I offered up for discussion, then you will need to be more specific. If you mean the blog is all emotion and no fact, then not this bit one would imagine: "Eighty seven percent of all Americans believe in factual impossibilities such as virgin birth, immaculate conception, resurrection, the metamorphosis of souls, Noah’s ark ... " to which one might add alien abductions and supernatural creation- although I am happy to see surveys revealing exactly the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2017 13:11:20 GMT
Desirable for who? Those without religion? I don't necessarily think that this to be an admirable aim, but it is one which none the less an anti theist might hold - which is why I used the non-committal 'even if'.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 11, 2017 13:35:30 GMT
So many close-minded falsehoods in one post.. This post is a form of post-truth. If you refer to my intro, rather than the quote I offered up for discussion, then you will need to be more specific.Okay... At the very least this bit: Most statements of absolutism are falsehoods. Nothing religion has to say?... Really?... NOTHING? Not really... This is more of one of those statements that are kind of blinded by biased perspective that it is basically rendered as a falsehood. Most Christians don't believe in "virgin births, immaculate conceptions, resurrections".... as in they believe that they actually occur.. They see them as unique, miraculous events, divine in nature caused by The Supreme being... They see them as factual impossibilities... unless caused by an act of God.
And I won't even get into: EDIT:
And... Good luck with believing in that impossibility.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 11, 2017 13:37:28 GMT
Surely the difference is that 'post truths' are falsifiable and 'religious facts' are not. The 'fact'(?!) that 85% of Donald Trump’s “factual” statements actually fall into the categories of “half true,” “mostly false,” “false” and “pants on fire” could only have been obtained by being able to provide compelling evidence that Trump's factual statements were incorrect. Whereas all one can usually do with 'religious facts' is to say that there isn't enough evidence to support them.
Is 'killing religion' only necessary to establish a society in which reality is based on facts that we all can agree on, or is it both necessary and sufficient, I wonder?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 11, 2017 13:44:56 GMT
Killing religion, the note upon which this blogger ends his piece is probably not possible, even if desirable. But it does raise questions as how religion, and religious belief, stand in the brave new era of post-truth (defined here as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals). When nothing that religion has to say can be considered 'objective fact' but its emotional appeal does frequently shape public opinion, is it therefore just another version of 'post truth'?
1) religion by its very nature is not the denial of verifiable fact. First of all the reason people in religion in this context does not determine the nature of it. Second of all even if the above was true that would still not make religion the denial of verifiable facts as people believe in religion for reasons other than the one he gave. Either way very very few religious people, if any say verifiable facts are irrelevant as he is saying they are. No religious doctrine states that verifiable facts dont matter. 2) If we are to believe in that last sentence we must ignore large parts of the history of intellectual progress. Clearly unreligiousity is not neccessary. Even if what he said were true killing religion is the way to go about it. This piece is just new atheist propaganda used to justify the crusade against religioN.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 11, 2017 13:51:38 GMT
I would hardly say that 'post truth' is a new era. A new term perhaps but as it's defined here it has obviously been around for a very long time. People have generally tended to lead with their emotions and opinions rather than any facts. Not really a new concept.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 11, 2017 13:55:27 GMT
As for how religion fits...I would say regarding Christianity you have to have a heavier weight in emotional bias over objective fact to be a believer. I don't necessarily consider that a negative, so long as it's personal. I've long said that whatever helps a person be a better person objectively in society is a good thing. If that means believing in a being that watches over you or Santa Claus or that we all have invisible strings that reflect our life essence dangling from the heavens...so long as you are a better person objectively for it.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Apr 11, 2017 13:57:43 GMT
Catman knows both religious and nonreligious who fall into the post-truth camp.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2017 14:42:59 GMT
If you refer to my intro, rather than the quote I offered up for discussion, then you will need to be more specific. Okay... At the very least this bit: Most statements of absolutism are falsehoods. Nothing religion has to say?... Really?... NOTHING? Well, I am struggling to think of anything 'religion' (or the transcendental) 'says' which is an objective fact, i.e. that is unique to it (and by this I mean something independently verifiable which is proven as true, and that only religion can detail) while being true for everyone. Obviously 'religion' and the religious can tell us how many bibles were published last year, but that fact is not something which religion has a monopoly over, or what makes it 'special' which is what I have in mind. But perhaps you have can think of something? I am sure there are plenty - otherwise who would believe in such stuff, eh? The problems of saying anything meaningful about a proposed supernatural, or transcendental truths inspired only by faith, inspiration, insight and credulity are obvious, while one must be careful not to confuse what is true from what is just valid. Which I am sure is true - but it does not mean the statistic given in the quote are at the wrong end of things. The blogger, it can be noted, does not distinguish belief in such things happening and such things happening 'as miracles', merely asserting that people believe they can happen thanks to their god. They would of course certainly consider God as your 'factual possibility' - and, one imagines, put things a little stronger than that.
Well, it can be argued that it depends upon the fact. And what is being denied about it, and by whom. But I would certainly agree that the statement is a generalisation, since for every Creationist who insists that his religion denies (say) the fact of the modern evolutionary synthesis, there are others, less fundamentalist in outlook, who readily accommodate evolution into their belief system. It is arguable, though, the biggest 'fact' of all - that the natural exists, we don't know everything about it, and so that it might contain the cause of itself which has always existed on the same 'brute fact' basis as God can be held - is something the religious will most likely always deny.
Is that a fact?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 14:44:13 GMT
"Post-truth"?
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Apr 11, 2017 14:46:06 GMT
"Post-truth"? You know, things like how they're supposed to be upright, and sometimes they're for fences, and sometimes people hang lights on them, stuff like that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 11, 2017 14:47:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 18:09:52 GMT
Wow. I'm so impressed by you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 12, 2017 8:44:59 GMT
Wow. I'm so impressed by you. I know. I'm just like you, but on a good day.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 12, 2017 10:54:16 GMT
Isn't the call for a society based on verifiable facts an emotional appeal itself though?
Such nit-picking aside, the major difference between religious claims and the kind of claims Donald Trump makes is the former are acknowledged to be about supposed miracles. For instance the claim that there was a virgin birth is that virgin births by and large do not happen and this was one special case caused by a miraculous intervention. The verifiable fact that women in the natural order of things don't give birth unless their eggs are fertilised by a man is undisturbed by the religious claim. Trump however is making false claims about the natural order of things - if he says Mexican migrants cause more harm to society than benefit, he is arguing against verifiable data and giving no reason as to why that data might be mistaken.
I think I've made the point before that in terms of verifiability, a world with no miracles and a world with few miracles would appear identical. While as a world where Mexicans cause more harm than good would appear substantially different to a world where Mexicans cause more good than harm.
That's not to say religious claims are not problematic, but to equate that problem to the "post-truth" phenomenon is inaccurate IMO.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 12, 2017 11:51:22 GMT
Isn't the call for a society based on verifiable facts an emotional appeal itself though? One supposes this would only be the case if one was emotionally attached to verifiable facts. However it can be argued that the esteem in which empiricism - the 'strictest' form of such - is held by many is not, at base, emotional - more practical. This is interesting. But then again, someone from one faith could argue that miracles claimed by another (such as Muslims, when speaking of the Virgin Birth) are not possible in their own, favoured 'supernatural order of things', of course. Indeed there is no necessity why miracles, even of the supernatural variety, happen; one could theoretically hold religious views which nonetheless exclude such a possibility: as someone who sees the Creator as an 'absentee landlord', or a blind supernatural force with no remaining interest in an accidental creation, say. As for the matter of 'verified' data, one can observe that, rightly or wrongly, some of the faith see their beliefs satisfactorily 'verified' by the tales of scripture, and so the distinction relies on how one views the process, and against which standards. Would a world with limbs growing back and one without such occasions, really appear identical to everyone? Those without the crutches at least would beg to differ.
|
|