Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[uwot]

The conflict is that you expect others to accept reasonable evidence (for evolution), but you yourself refuse to accept reasonable evidence (for spiritual phenomena).

The thing is that what you are calling 'reasonable evidence' for spiritual phenomena, is people telling stories on the internet, or in very old books.

The possibilities for independent verification are all over the place, just do a bit of reading/viewing around the internet.

The problem with that sort of evidence is that you only have someone else's word for it, you accept their authority. We all of us have to accept the authority of some scientists, for the simple reason that no one can know everything. But there is a profound difference; if challenged to explain their reasons, a scientist will be able to point to some rocks, or some apples falling or a machine that goes 'ping' when some event is supposed to happen. These events are facts. Somewhere in a scientific explanation there will be a physical phenomenon, a fact; one that anybody on the planet can experience and make their own mind up as to what they think is the cause of that fact. There can be any number of competing theories, but any that fails to account for the fossil record, or fails to predict apples falling or machines going 'ping' as they do, is wrong. Any theory that accounts for the facts, but does so without making any distinguishing predictions, eg. it's all the work of an undetectable god, is metaphysics. If it makes no difference to science, it isn't science.
Compare that with the discussion kicking off between The doc and Immanuel Can. They too are arguing about how to interpret the facts, but the facts are: there's a couple of books.

If you ask someone who claims to have had an NDE, for example, what evidence they can provide, there is nothing they can draw your attention to, other than the story they are telling you. Even assuming the story is true, the empirical evidence is not repeatable; no one in their right mind would deliberately subject people to near death under laboratory conditions, Jesus Christ doesn't show up on demand and nobody who has been astral planing has thought to take a camera.
By contrast, anyone with the resources and wherewithal can build, for instance, a Large Hadron Collider, and see for themselves whether the results hint at something that might be consistent with hypothetical entities originally postulated over 40 years ago.
When it comes to evolution, MMasz is right, it is only a theory, but there is not a single piece of evidence that contradicts it. The fact that there is not a fossil of every evolutionary stage of every creature does not mean that that stage of development did not occur and that, therefore the whole theory collapses. Nor does the fact that there is no physical evidence for a god, that apparently likes to play peek-a-boo, means there isn't one.
But to be clear, Harry the difference is this:
Evidence for supernatural phenomena=people's subjective account of experiences that they claim happen to them.
Evidence scientific theories=objective phenomena that anybody can see.

[Harry Baird]

Harry: The conflict is that you expect others to accept reasonable evidence (for evolution), but you yourself refuse to accept reasonable evidence (for spiritual phenomena).

uwot: The thing is that what you are calling 'reasonable evidence' for spiritual phenomena, is people telling stories on the internet, or in very old books.

Whoa there, Nelly.

#1 The books aren't old, they are current and ongoing.
#2 The evidence is more than "taking the word of a random stranger on the internet"; it includes such "troublesome" details as:
#2.1 Doctors affirming that patients' healings are miraculous i.e. beyond the bounds of what medical science can explain.
#2.2 Patients being able to report details that they could not have known on a purely materialist account, e.g.
#2.2.1 The exact words of conversations between doctors and concerned family members occurring rooms away, well out of the range of hearing of the patient, even forgetting that the patient is effectively if not actually dead.
#2.2.2 The location of objects whose location they could not have known given a purely materialist account, e.g. the location in a drawer of a patient's glasses which a nurse had been responsible for whilst the patient was involved in the effective or actual death. i.e. the patient reported seeing (from outside of his/her body) the nurse take the glasses off his/her face and place them in the drawer, and who, when awakened, when the nurse did not recall what s/he had done with the patient's glasses, prompted the nurse: "Don't you remember? You put them in this drawer?", to the complete astonishment of the nurse.

For the record, I am referencing reports which I have actually read, I am not just making stuff up.

The problem with that sort of evidence is that you only have someone else's word for it, you accept their authority. We all of us have to accept the authority of some scientists, for the simple reason that no one can know everything. But there is a profound difference; if challenged to explain their reasons, a scientist will be able to point to some rocks, or some apples falling or a machine that goes 'ping' when some event is supposed to happen. These events are facts. Somewhere in a scientific explanation there will be a physical phenomenon, a fact; one that anybody on the planet can experience and make their own mind up as to what they think is the cause of that fact. There can be any number of competing theories, but any that fails to account for the fossil record, or fails to predict apples falling or machines going 'ping' as they do, is wrong. Any theory that accounts for the facts, but does so without making any distinguishing predictions, eg. it's all the work of an undetectable god, is metaphysics. If it makes no difference to science, it isn't science.

You seem to be wanting to draw a distinction, whereas there is in fact no distinction. You talk about merely accepting someone's authority, whereas, if you consult my numbered list #2 above and onwards, you might recognise that there is objective verification beyond merely taking someone's word for it. You suggest that "a scientist will be able to point to some rocks"; likewise a scientist will be able to point to a miraculous healing, or to a patient having access to knowledge that s/he could not have had on a purely materialist account. What, effectively, is the difference? These are both facts. The only difference is that one can be produced "on demand" and the other occurs only "with God's blessing". If you were to disqualify the latter on that basis alone, though, then I think you truly *would* be biased. Wouldn't you agree?

[aiddon]

Gladly, since you've proved my point for me very nicely. All I said was that there is no prohibition against killing in Islam. You show that to be true, at the very least.

Not only that, but you claimed the moral equivalency of Islam and Christianity, most particularly the words of Jesus Christ, which you interpreted as "love one another." So according to you, "aggression is permitted against the aggressors," and "you may kill and evict them," as the same thing as "Love one another," as well as, "Pray for your enemies, and do good to those who spitefully use you," and "If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other one." However, I suppose you may avoid the obvious by simply claiming that the parts I've cited are things that are not "true teachings of Jesus."

As for "self-defense," it is notoriously broadly defined by Conservative Islam. Did you insult 'the prophet'? That's an act of aggression. Did you insult a Koran? That's aggression. Did you occupy land that at one time was occupied by Islamists? That is aggression. Were you associated with the 'Great Satan,' the US, or with Israel? That's aggression. Were you guilty of advocating Western media, being associated with a negative report, a cartoon, or speaking contrary to Sharia Law? That's aggression. Were you a modernist, advocating things like the equality of women? Aggression again.

Almost anything can be "aggression," according to them. And since Islamists are free to kill aggressors....So the suggestion that "all Islamic wars are defensive" is simply facile and dishonest. It's simply a manipulation of "aggression" as a concept.


Now, let's refer to a rabidly pro-Islam "answers for infidels" type site:

"For the state of someone’s definite and decisive adoption of another religion, in the language of English, the word conversion is used. However, according to Islamic faith, everybody is born into the religion of Islam. Later on under the influence and guidance of their parents, etc., people become followers of other religions. Thus, conversion is not the proper word to use for somebody who embraces Islam later in life. Since the word reversion is defined as an act or the process of returning (as to a former condition), we call reverts, instead of converts, those who come back to their original faith, Islam, to which they are born."

[Islamanswering.com]

I see the relative merits of Islam has got you all riled up, IC? I take it you're not a fan? It boils down to interpretation doesn't it? You interpret the barbarous blood-letting, human sacrifice, mudering of adulterers, disdain of homosexuals that pepper the Christian bible in your own way - a Muslim will interpret the psychotic parts of the Koran in his. Both are old books claimed to be directly from God. The same God.

[Ginkgo]

You seem to be wanting to draw a distinction, whereas there is in fact no distinction. You talk about merely accepting someone's authority, whereas, if you consult my numbered list #2 above and onwards, you might recognise that there is objective verification beyond merely taking someone's word for it. You suggest that "a scientist will be able to point to some rocks"; likewise a scientist will be able to point to a miraculous healing, or to a patient having access to knowledge that s/he could not have had on a purely materialist account. What, effectively, is the difference? These are both facts. The only difference is that one can be produced "on demand" and the other occurs only "with God's blessing". If you were to disqualify the latter on that basis alone, though, then I think you truly *would* be biased. Wouldn't you agree?

I remember reading a few years ago about a doctor who worked in an emergency room who had resuscitated many people and managed to record a lot of examples of NDE's and outer body experiences. The usual explanation was the brain being starved of oxygen that is responsible for creating these outer body experience. According to the scientific account NDE is a type of hallucination.

This particular doctors was not so sure so he wanted to devise test. I don't remember the exact details, but is was a very clever idea. Many of his patients reported they floated above the operating table as if to have a bird's eye view of proceedings. He wanted to fit some electronic equipment on top of the lights that hung down from the ceiling. The equipment in question was a electronic screen that flashed random pictures and words every 10 seconds or so. I think the idea was that if the patient resuscitated he would ask the patient did he notice a picture of the Sydney Opera House or the Grand Canyon, or what every was showing at the time.

Not sure what every happened to his experiment, or even if it got off the ground but some positive results would certainly not be explainable in scientific terms. But in the end this would not be a problem for science because this type of stuff goes down as, "yet unexplained phenomena". After all this is what science has to do in these circumstances. It doesn't contain a methodology that allows for any other explanation.

[Harry Baird]

I remember reading a few years ago about a doctor who worked in an emergency room who had resuscitated many people and managed to record a lot of examples of NDE's and outer body experiences. The usual explanation was the brain being starved of oxygen that is responsible for creating these outer body experience. According to the scientific account NDE is a type of hallucination.

This particular doctors was not so sure so he wanted to devise test. I don't remember the exact details, but is was a very clever idea. Many of his patients reported they floated above the operating table as if to have a bird's eye view of proceedings. He wanted to fit some electronic equipment on top of the lights that hung down from the ceiling. The equipment in question was a electronic screen that flashed random pictures and words every 10 seconds or so. I think the idea was that if the patient resuscitated he would ask the patient did he notice a picture of the Sydney Opera House or the Grand Canyon, or what every was showing at the time.

Fantastic! See, that's science. I'd love it if you could look up his results.

Not sure what every happened to his experiment, or even if it got off the ground but some positive results would certainly not be explainable in scientific terms. But in the end this would not be a problem for science because this type of stuff goes down as, "yet unexplained phenomena". After all this is what science has to do in these circumstances. It doesn't contain a methodology that allows for any other explanation.

Yet it has to be integrated into the rest of "known science", and, really, currently, it can't be. There is no "scientific" explanation for how a person's consciousness, "bound to their body", could perceive pictures on a screen hung down from the ceiling. New models and paradigms are called for.

[MMasz]

I don’t teach in a public school, nor do I teach ID as “science". That would be silly as material science methodology wouldn’t apply in that case. However, probability analysis of evolutionary models are a topic we explore. We do spend a lot of time with evolution since the students need to be knowledgable of this area for SAT/ACT testing, etc. .

That is a good thing, but apparently your school teaches to the test?

No, not even close. As a private school we do not have to take state mandated tests, but evolution is expected to be understood as part of the standard biology curriculum and we expect our students to be knowledgeable of the subject in order to engage in discourse, so it is taught.

I also teach a philosophy class where we learn about the tools- epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, logic, critical thinking rather than a survey of the usual suspects. Readings from Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Rand, Russell. I particularly like Rand for ethical/political/economic philosophy despite her weak epistemology/metaphysics.

[uwot]

#1 The books aren't old, they are current and ongoing.

I was referring to the bible and koran, but regardless of the age, books are full of testimony rather than evidence, pictures notwithstanding.

#2 The evidence is more than "taking the word of a random stranger on the internet"; it includes such "troublesome" details as:
#2.1 Doctors affirming that patients' healings are miraculous i.e. beyond the bounds of what medical science can explain.

Doctors are not qualified qua doctors to affirm miracles; all they can say without fear of contradiction is that the patient recovered and they don't know the exact mechanism. For most Doctors this would be true most of the time. Every doctor is aware that the same drug won't cure everybody, nor will the same poison kill everybody. Not many competent doctors put the differences down to divine intervention.

#2.2 Patients being able to report details that they could not have known on a purely materialist account, e.g.
#2.2.1 The exact words of conversations between doctors and concerned family members occurring rooms away, well out of the range of hearing of the patient, even forgetting that the patient is effectively if not actually dead.
#2.2.2 The location of objects whose location they could not have known given a purely materialist account, e.g. the location in a drawer of a patient's glasses which a nurse had been responsible for whilst the patient was involved in the effective or actual death. i.e. the patient reported seeing (from outside of his/her body) the nurse take the glasses off his/her face and place them in the drawer, and who, when awakened, when the nurse did not recall what s/he had done with the patient's glasses, prompted the nurse: "Don't you remember? You put them in this drawer?", to the complete astonishment of the nurse.

For the record, I am referencing reports which I have actually read, I am not just making stuff up.

I believe you; I've heard and read similar accounts.

You seem to be wanting to draw a distinction, whereas there is in fact no distinction. You talk about merely accepting someone's authority, whereas, if you consult my numbered list #2 above and onwards, you might recognise that there is objective verification beyond merely taking someone's word for it.

What there is, is a lot of claims of similar experiences. No amount of story telling makes the story true, it may well be, but the difference is that there are no objective phenomenon associated with spiritual or paranormal claims, that are not someone's interpretation of their personal experience. It is a fact, for instance that some rocks contain fossils. It is also a fact that some people claim to have bizarre experiences. In the first instance, the question is: Do you believe your eyes? In the second it is: Do you believe the story? If, in either case the answer is yes, you can then create a theory to account for the fact, if you feel compelled. So for instance, to account for the fossil, you might accept some of the theory of evolution and take the fossil to be evidence. You might equally decide, as MMasz's acquaintances have done, that the fossil is the work of the devil. Either might be true, but neither theory makes any difference to the fact of the fossil.

You suggest that "a scientist will be able to point to some rocks"; likewise a scientist will be able to point to a miraculous healing, or to a patient having access to knowledge that s/he could not have had on a purely materialist account. What, effectively, is the difference? These are both facts. The only difference is that one can be produced "on demand" and the other occurs only "with God's blessing". If you were to disqualify the latter on that basis alone, though, then I think you truly *would* be biased. Wouldn't you agree?

No. Looking at fossils and listening to stories are fundamentally different.

[Immanuel Can]

But your interpretation is wrong, there is a definite restriction on when and who they can kill, you are just rationalizing the extremist position and not the beliefs of Islam. The extremes do not prove the mean.

Controversy over interpretation isn't dishonesty, though. I was speaking the truth as I understand it, as you can see, and as anyone who wishes to check can also see. Of course, since all conclusions are provisional, I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, if sufficient evidence is presented.

Now, perhaps you can inform us: what's your evidence for dismissing the radical interpretations we see daily in our newspapers as "not Islam," and claiming that your charming, liberal Muslim friend is instead "true Islam"?

[Immanuel Can]

I see the relative merits of Islam has got you all riled up, IC? I take it you're not a fan?

Not quite, Aiddon. I don't argue with the right of Islamic persons to choose their beliefs. What I find appalling, though, is the suggestion that "all religions are morally equivalent." It wouldn't matter whether I were a Muslim, a Hindu, a Hare Krishna or a Rastafarian -- I would find the suggestion that my "religion" was no more than a warmed-over flavour of everyone else's insulting, intolerant and irrational. And I would be at pains to point out that my "tradition," whatever it was, had something unique and important to offer the world, something not necessarily available in the local Tesco.

It boils down to interpretation doesn't it?

What do you mean by "it", Aiddon? Do you mean what any religion teaches?

The same God.

Try that line on a Conservative Muslim.

"Hey, Omar...you're just another Hindu/Jew/Christian/Wiccan/polytheist."

[thedoc]

What I find appalling, though, is the suggestion that "all religions are morally equivalent."

According to Joseph Campbell, all Mythologies can be traced back to the same few Myths as their origin. Since religion grows our of Mythology, all religions have the same origins, and are morally equivalent.

[thedoc]

"Hey, Omar...you're just another Hindu/Jew/Christian/Wiccan/polytheist."

When everyone would understand that every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow, the world would be a lot more peaceful. To paraphrase 'All religions lead to God'.

[aiddon]

And I would be at pains to point out that my "tradition," whatever it was, had something unique and important to offer the world, something not necessarily available in the local Tesco.

They have Tesco where you're from?

What I find appalling, though, is the suggestion that "all religions are morally equivalent."

So the antithesis of that statement is that some religions are more "moral" than others? Correct? If so, by chance, are you inferring...and I don't think I'm way off the mark here by your comments on Islam...that your Christianity is morally superior to other faiths? Therefore, by accident of birth, your religion can either be a morally superior one or inferior one depending on you were parents were and what part of the world you were born. Fair inference?

If this is fair, then it is simply ludicrous, and surely makes a mockery of a God that would "design" a human race for one whole swathe to be morally superior than another? Given his omnipotence, that is.

[Immanuel Can]

According to Joseph Campbell, all Mythologies can be traced back to the same few Myths as their origin. Since religion grows our of Mythology, all religions have the same origins, and are morally equivalent.

Yep. That's what Joseph Campbell says, alright.

But think again, thedoc. Do we really mean "all religions"? What are the implications of that view?

Is it that child sacrifice is the moral equivalent of infant baptism? Is it that female circumcision is the moral equivalent of female liberation? Is it that an Atheist is the moral equivalent of a suicide bomber? Is a Mennonite the equivalent of a Thugee, or a Satanist chicken-killer the equivalent of a medical missionary? Does any of that make even a drop of sense?

Now, while it may be true that the human *desire* for religion is common, and that some *myths* are derived from previous myths (or alternately, historical accounts, depending), or that various religious prescriptions and precepts developed organically from other ones, can it be true that just *any* religion, or *any* action taken on behalf of a religion, is really the moral equivalent of every other?

Is there absolutely no such thing as a "bad religion" or a "mistaken tradition"? Is there no such thing as a "bad religous precept"? Is even "intolerance" genuinely evil?

Is such a view, even on the face of it, remotely rationally plausible?

And if it is true, then what does it add to any "religious" view or action to call it "moral," since "moral" is then a description of *every* religion? It says nothing about it at all.

But Joseph Campbell is free to have his opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

When everyone would understand that every other religion is just as valid as the one they follow, the world would be a lot more peaceful. To paraphrase 'All religions lead to God'.

This would help -- somewhat, but not much. Most wars are not caused by religion, but by other things.

Again, let's just use our common sense on that. Here are a bunch of things that we know have historically caused wars, as I'm sure you'll recognize.

economics, geography, language, tribalism, resource competition, militarism, secular ideologies, racism, conquest, imperialism, colonialism, hunger, technological innovation, arms races... Now, among those, guess which ones caused more wars than religion did?

[Immanuel Can]

They have Tesco where you're from?

Not where I'm from *now*, but in that fabulous place from which both my ancestors and you hail.

I wrote: What I find appalling, though, is the suggestion that "all religions are morally equivalent."


So the antithesis of that statement is that some religions are more "moral" than others? Correct?

Of course. Don't you believe things you think are true? If, say, you believe in science more than necromancy, isn't it because you think superstition is "wrong," or "misguided" or "insufficient," at the very least? Why would anyone believe what they genuinely thought was *not* the truth?

If one didn't believe one's religion had something special to offer the world, then why believe it at all? Or why believe *any* particular thing at all, even say Atheism, if you don't think it's the real truth about how things are? So you see, I have no problem with any person from any tradition saying "we're right." I would *hope* they think that, or else I'd be dealing with a lunatic who professes things he/she does not actually think are true.

And yet, it is not necessary to go the extra irrational step of saying that other religions are 100% crazy either. You could easily say, "My tradition is the best," (which all world religions do, as do all secular ideologies, of course) and yet say also, "still, other religion and ideologies have parts of truth or valuable insights to offer on truth, and I can remain faithful to what I truly believe, yet while listening and being open to whatever light they may have." Even if you believe you're right, there's no reason it has to turn into a holy war.

If so, by chance, are you inferring...and I don't think I'm way off the mark here by your comments on Islam...that your Christianity is morally superior to other faiths? Therefore, by accident of birth, your religion can either be a morally superior one or inferior one depending on you were parents were and what part of the world you were born. Fair inference?

Of course. You could be born in, say enlightened conditions of present-day secularism, or you could be born in the black darkness of Stalinist Russia or of Interbellum Germany. There's nothing controversial about that thought. Some people are born with advantages and others with horrendous disadvantages.

And yes, we should do what we can to improve the lot of those born in bad situations. If someone is born in a place with a bad ideology, we should do what we can to deliver them from that, no?

Again, I think we agree.

If this is fair, then it is simply ludicrous, and surely makes a mockery of a God that would "design" a human race for one whole swathe to be morally superior than another? Given his omnipotence, that is.

Great question! Given that we can both see that inequality of birth is a very frequent phenomenon, should we ask if that counts against the existence of a Supreme Being that has noble intentions toward them?

All religions say, "No." They all suppose that there could be a plan or purpose of good intent, designed by a Creator or creators, despite the apparent inequalities we see today. (Well, Gnosticism is an interesting contrast: it says the "creator" was bad, but his ultimate creator was "good") In any case, Atheism says "There is inequality; therefore, there's no God."

Is that a sufficient argument? Or are the religions whistling in the dark? What do you think?