The Problem with Religion (whatever that is ...)

[8the8just8]

GOOGLE THE HOLOCAUST HOAX AND PROPAGANDA BY DAVID COLE

[gibsonfan871]

---

[NashvilleKildCountry]

Ah... my rational freethinking brain is being over loaded by all those big philosophy words!

[Ekenedil]

@telemantros There is a definition of "science" and "religion". Read the dictionary, you illiterate moron. That's what it is there for.

Actually, we do have a consensus on how to do science.

Yes, science is mutually exclusive with religious dogmas and religious epistemological philosophy.

Thunderf00t is absolutely right when he says that religion is divergent and science is convergent.

Religions doesn't dominate ethics either.

You are very unlettered.

[GodIX2]

Yea, let's ignore that TF clearly compares supernatural explanations (religion!) vs "pearl" (i.e. explanations based on physical evidence). Do you really think that the beef with religion is based on that it's just another set "ideological belief"?

A hint is that religious beliefs demands faith in the supernatural, which almost all other beliefs don't. Even where there are no evidence to support it.

[jimmo42]

"Religions are not revealed: they are evolved. If a religion were revealed by God, that religion would be perfect in whole and in part, and would be as perfect at the first moment of its revelation as after ten thousand years of practice. There has never been a religion which fulfills those conditions." — Robert Blatchford, "God and My Neighbor," 1903.

[hippo11222]

Scientism IS NOT MADE UP! For those that are interested in the subject; LOOK IT UP!!!!!!

[Lingula77]

I like how you treat the problem of the divisions between science and religion: indeed most commonly made divisions do not hold up to scrutiny. The problem of demarcation has, I thin, serious consequences for the study of problems concerning science and religion. However, it is not just about definitions; Thunderf00t would get away too easily if he just defined his terms. There are serious issues with induction, underdetermination and methodology if science is used to falsify religion.

[TheRedHutt]

I agree that PEARL doesn't give you moral imperatives, but that is not to say this property of "ought-ness" of which you are fond of speaking cannot be explained by scientific methods. Neuroscience can go a long way in giving some substance to this property, viz. what kinds of neurophysiological states accompany our moral judgments. Science/anthropology can even give a causal explanation of moral experience. Morality can be explained by science, but science does not tell us what we ought to do.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@TheRedHutt Really? Science (whatever that is) at least is descriptive. Ethics and morality is prescriptive. Neuroscience can tell us what chemicals are bubbling and present while someone helps the old lady cross a street or when someone commits a murder. It can't tell us if those actions are morally reprehensible or permissible. It can't tell us what is the good life is, what is intrinsically valuable, if there are moral values and can they be known. Anthropology describes at trends in

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@TheRedHutt our behavior. There is a fundamental logical disconnect between science and morality. "You can't derive an ought from an is" or at least not by naturalistic science. Am I understanding what you're saying correctly? I feel like you're assuming morality is ultimately reducible down to naturalistic terms and therefore, open to scientific inquiry. It's not. You're erroneously assuming they're connected, and I have yet to see a promising naturalistic bridge across the is/ought gap.

[TheRedHutt]

@ToriesPolishBoy You said science can't tell us what the good life is or what is intrinsically valuable, but nothing is intrinsically valuable and no objective good is implied by "THE good life." Neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology can explain why and how we make the moral judgments we do, and there's not much beyond that to be explained. All that's left to do is reasoning from means to ends. With no regard for logic, we jump from is to ought because we're biologically disposed to do so.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@TheRedHutt "but nothing is intrinsically valuable and no objective good is implied by the 'THE good life.'" I have to ask, by what methodology did you use to come to such a conclusion?" I disagree that nothing is intrinsically valuable. Autonomy, for instance, is good in its own right.

Guessing by your response, I'm under the impression morality is ultimately reducible down to naturalistic terms subject to empirical investigation. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Under such a view, nothing

[ToriesPolishBoy]

@TheRedHutt is intrinsically valuable because it's not within its scope to tell us, and that's the fundamental problem to which the is/ought gap refers. Scientism is such a narrow and damning ideology.

"we jump from is to ought because we're biologically disposed to do so..." I'm assuming you mean for survival. But that "ought" is not a normative "ought." This derivation misses the point of the entire issue. Is survivability good? What's "good" under what I'm assuming is your worldview?

[TheRedHutt]

@ToriesPolishBoy 1. My method is just clear and careful thought.

2. If you can freely choose b/t A and B, but you don't value A and B differently, then your autonomy in choosing b/t A and B isn't valuable, hence autonomy is not intrinsically valuable. Nothing is: you need a valuer making evaluations to have values at all, and these values do not exist independently of valuers.

3. Prescriptive cannot be reduced to descriptive, but moral experience/behavior can be fully explained scientifically.

[TheRedHutt]

@ToriesPolishBoy 3(cont'd). Nothing in my comments implied that I'm defending scientism or that survival is good. Moral oughts don't reduce to descriptive, naturalistic terms, but our moral experience and behavior do. Science won't tell us what's good because science deals with observation and (purported) fact, and moral prescriptions aren't factual or observable.

Here's my point: "Why should I X?" vs "Why do people say I should X?" Only the latter question has a satisfactory answer.

[Dogschach]

Actually, thunderfoot defined science as "the process of forming predictive models of utility about reality." Also, I think you misused "convergence" since you appear to mean that "convergence" simply means agreement among different belief systems since you passingly mention the Golden Rule which has found it's way into all sorts of belief systems from radically different cultures. While thunderfoot may not have been clear about "religion", he was clear about convergence . . . cont.

[Dogschach]

cont . . . and by convergence, he meant the ability for any given model to explain the current facts and improve in predictive power, by new facts. And considering that different religions or noetic (?) systems have different crreation stories, I doubt they can be used as an example of convergence in the sense thunderfoot used it. Even more, how is the predictive power of any creation story improved by all the new facts we have discovered? . . . cont

[Dogschach]

Cont . . . considering that fossils, not only weren't predicted by any creation model, but were a major problem for such models which resulted in explanations such as "God is tricking us to test our faith" to "Genesis must be metaphor", I fail to see how any creation story can be a useful model for anything. Also, to get back to the Golden Rule, how effective is it? Certainly Torquemada believed in and tried to lived up to the Golden Rule and he tortured people for a living.

[Botzu]

@telemantros how do you get the oughtness of moral accountability without using PEARL, in specific, the part about reasoned logic?

[telemantros]

@Botzu The oughtness of ethics does not come from reasoned logic but from moral prescriptiveness i.e. moral accountability. In other words it is an ethical ought, not a logical ought.

[Aresftfun]

Let me tell you what the scientific method is.

The scientific method is to make a prediction and make an observation about that prediction. You were using that when you were a child. The thing is, science is probably our most useful tool that we have ever had. Religion has given us a bunch of people who read, but the teachers did not expect them to read other books, and they hadn't for centuries. Nonetheless, I am at awe with what science has brought us; Not so much with religious scare tactics

[telemantros]

@Aresftfun Did you watch the critique? This seems simply like a repetition. What do you mean by religion? What version of the scientific method do you espouse (e.g. Inductivism or Eclectic or Hypothetico-Deductive)? Science is useful I agree, but it has its place.

[Lingula77]

@Aresftfun "Let me tell you what the scientific method is."

Wow. This has been a problem for centuries. As it turned out, all people like Hume, Kant, Duhem, Popper, Quine, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Fraassen and Laudan had to do was wait for a single message on a youtube comments section and all problems would be solved.

[TogetherForPeace]

Thanks for the 'entry' :). So far there are only two people who have entered and I don't have any desire to promo this any more and postpone. I'll let you know if you won the hd webcam tomorrow.

[legodesi]

You're back on my favorites list.

[hxrtotally]

Excellent, well-reasoned and mapped out. I think you really get at the root of the problem with thunderfoot's style of polemics, the reliance on some vague scientism in which two systems, which are used for different things, are compared on the basis of what one of them is made for and the other isn't, and so the other is judged "inferior" based on a scale it isn't made for (to use some of these words in a rather broad sense).

[PainefulMass]

Wow. What you seem to miss is that every single one of those variants in the scientific method are infinitely better at getting at truths about the world than religion. It doesn't matter which one you use. The variants don't discount science.

[telemantros]

@PainefulMass What do you mean by 'religion'?

[bofumytofu]

scientism? really? stop making up words >.>

[thunderbolt94]

@bofumytofu

It's a real word that's in the dictionary. He didn't make it up. Stop being ignorant.

[bofumytofu]

@thunderbolt94 just because wikipedia has a page for it doesn't make it a word. which dictionary btw?

[thunderbolt94]

@bofumytofu

Merriam webster. It's right there in the dictionary.

[bofumytofu]

@thunderbolt94 god damn it, leave it up to websters to add fake words to their dictionary.

[1GodOnlyOne]

–noun

1.

the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists.

2.

the belief that the assumptions, methods of research, etc., of the physical and biological sciences are equally appropriate and essential to all other disciplines, including the humanities and the social sciences.

3.

scientific or pseudoscientific language.

You might want to invest in a dictionary in order to avoid making a fool of yourself in the future.

[bofumytofu]

@1GodOnlyOne what dictionary u copypaste that from

[telemantros]

@bofumytofu lol, I'm sorry ... but really, look it up.

[Lingula77]

@bofumytofu As far as a I can trace, the term was coined by Friedrich Hayek.

[Uhlbelk]

I would have to disagree that science is not useful for ethics. The scientific method is the underlying source of knowledge that allows ethical statements. The problem is people who don't realize that "aught" is not a complete thought without a qualifying "if". Thus the statement is in fact a scientific experiment, with a predictive cause and effect.

[Youanden]

As for morality. If we are to consider that the environment influences people, and a goal that people hold in consensus is living with as few negative retroactions as consciously (able to react) possible - it is beneficial to treat others with maximum courtesy. If you treat others in a way that they do not tolerate (physical pain), you stratify each other, and have one more obstacle to overcome if you have the intention to interact. Likewise, it is beneficial to be tolerant and analytical.

[Youanden]

Hmm.. Interesting analysis. Now, I can't account for all religions, but if I were to talk about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, I could very well argue that they are inherently divisive (stratify people 'us vs them'), if one adheres to a literal interpretation of their respective holy texts. Now, it may also be argued that Thunderf00t was referring to the faith-based belief system that those religions often times inspire their congregation to actuate.

[Youanden]

Read any books on General Semantics?

[zarkoff45]

To say TF's vid doesn't tell you whether to use inductive or abductive reasoning in theory formation is like complaining: Winnie-the-Pooh fails to explain how massive the Higgs boson is. Details of how you get theories is irrelevant, you could use a magic 8 ball, if doesn't give "convergent descriptions of reality with predictive utility." TF defines science in terms of results, not methods.

You also failed to explain just how massive the Higgs boson is.

[DecKrash]

Very well-stated, argument, Telemantros! If the comments below are any indication, it's a shame it had to fall on so many deaf ears. Keep up the good work and don't let the haters get you down. God bless.

[HubertCumberdale22]

"You" (whatever that is) don't "know" (whatever that is) you're "talking" (whatever that is) about!

[telemantros]

Hubert, engage the content. Bald face assertions like this are irrelevant, unless you can be specific and back your claims up.

[WolfSyndrome]

@HubertCumberdale22 Hubert Cumberdale? You taste like soot and poo!

[RealKeenan]

@HubertCumberdale22

"you" - in this case, telemantros, an entity that claims to have thoughts and feelings that takes the physical form of a human or "homo sapien" male

"know" - a thought claim to be aware of certain "truths" about reality

"talking" - a general form of communication in which an entity expresses thoughts through spoken words.

hope that cleared things up for you.

[HubertCumberdale22]

@RealKeenan now you just added like 20 new nouns to which I could add "whatever that is". My comment was directed at his annoying use of this phrase and should guide the reader to the conclusion that you could put that phrase behind any word you wanted. Every utterance of "whatever that is" is thus a complete waste of time and the only effect achieved by it is me wanting to punch him just a little bit more.

Hope that cleared things up for you.

[RealKeenan]

@HubertCumberdale22 but he had a point to his "whatever that is." he was referring to the strawmen that TF set up. if he meant religious person as one who disregards science as nonsense, then I would agree with what TF says (for the most part). if TF meant religious as in "one who believes in a god," then I would completely disagree with him. when you fail to define your terms, you gain an unfair emotional advantage over your opponents

[HubertCumberdale22]

@RealKeenan Seems like a very thoughtful comment. I'd also like to write something equaly thoughtful in reply relating to this video, but this would be a pointless exercise since I think we more or less agree about what to think of TF's video. My comment was only directed at Telemantros' way of presenting his argument which I thought was fucking annoying.

[RealKeenan]

@HubertCumberdale22 oic

[HolyRevelation]

Good point, when a single word means different things to different people, mass confusion ensues.

To me, hard science holds way more weight than soft science while other people trust both equally.

[mikesomething]

very simply

logic and evidence is better for society than stories

simple

[HolyRevelation]

@SimpleMan You claim that Christianity tells illogical stories without evidence when the only illogical one telling stories without evidence is YOU.

Do you have a specific problem with Christianity or are you only telling illogical stories without providing evidence?

[thesparitan]

@HolyRevelation You didn't have any evidence in your comment. You claim he is telling stories without evidence and yet you have no evidence to back that statement up. You are just making a unproven claim against him.

Kinda ironic, don't you think? Or hypocritical I get confused.

[HolyRevelation]

@thesparitan The only thing that's ironic is you and mikesomethings confusion.

My evidence that mikesomething did not provide any evidence is in mikes own comment.

Mikes statement "logic and evidence is better for society than stories, simple".

He did not provide any evidence backing up that statement, my statement was backed up and you should stop slandering people without cause before you slander the wrong person.

[SomethingSea1]

@mikesomething "logic and evidence is better for society than stories"

Actually, that is not necessarily correct. Like with love and hate, logic and stories provide a dualistic framework to use. That is, they are complimentary. To give a taste of the necessity of one for the other:

Why use logic?

To answer this, you need a story. How are you to find out if the story accords to reality?

To answer this, you need logic.

[longhornman99001]

Yeah, what is "relgion?"

[southmcl]

@longhornman99001 shhh, its too funny right now...

[telemantros]

@longhornman99001 *head slap*

[VampireAuditions]

I think the dividing line between religion and science in TF's mind is science is naturalistic in outlook (a scientific explanation must be naturalistic) and religion is ultimately grounded in supernaturalism. The division is not an arbitrary line drawn to keep religion out of science, it can be summed up as, David Brooks once said: “To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy”

[jcrebel18]

I can imagine people will start arguing "There's no such thing as scientism," which is kind of a shame.

2:20 Don't forget, some sects of Satanism are also Atheistic, and that's still a religion also.. ;)

Good video. ;)

[Youanden]

@jcrebel18 Are you an ainvisibleunicornbeliever? You probably are. Atheism isn't a position (doesn't make claims), its a lack of a position.

You cannot prove a negative, i.e. that invisible unicorns do not exist anywhere.

Sure, some people who lose faith in their god get there through anguish. (have a darker personality)

Likewise, some religious people are threatened into their position. (eternal torment)

There are extremes in many situations. Doesn't always imply an average.

[telemantros]

@Youanden I'm not holding a position, I lack atheism. In all honesty, Veritas48, Dawahfilms and I made a whole series on such radical claims: watch?v=9g6ijSG3H8c

[Youanden]

@telemantros Why are you replying to the post when I am replying to @jcrebel18

That comment wasn't aimed towards you.

[jcrebel18]

@telemantros

Don't forget Knowntje (or KnownNoMore). He made a 37 minute video on this too. ;)

[thunderbolt94]

@Youanden

"its a lack of a position."

Are you making claims that God doesn't exist? If you are, then it's no longer a "lack of position."

"You cannot prove a negative"

Yes you can.

"some religious people are threatened into their position."

Nope.

Nice try, but your comment reeks of ignorance.

[Youanden]

@thunderbolt94 A theist makes a claim. The opposite of a theist is an anti-theist. An anti-theist says there are no gods. An atheist does not have a belief in gods.

Okay, prove to me that reindeers can't fly. Its impossible.

"Nope."

So you're saying all kids became religious because they wanted to, and not under the threat of eternal damnation? Note, I didn't say every religious person. I said some.

[thunderbolt94]

@Youanden

Anyone who makes a positive claim (and stating God doesn't exist is a positive), has the burden of proof.

"Okay, prove to me that reindeers can't fly."

Easy. They don't have wings. They don't have the physical capabilities to fly. Therefore, reindeer can't fly. There, I just proved a negative. That's easy.

"I said some."

It may be the case some people are born into a religion, but most people when they are older chose to be religious.

[TheRationalRant]

@thunderbolt94 Prove that reindeers don't use a form of magic to fly.

[Youanden]

@thunderbolt94 I make no such claims. Anti-theists actively reject the existence of a god. atheists hold no beliefs in a god. Just like I'm sure you are an afairybeliever; meaning, you lack a belief in faries. An anti-fairybeliever is someone who denies the existence of fairies, and is making a claim.

You didn't prove reindeers can't fly. Here: /watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

[lockdown260]

@Youanden Well if you truly don't have any beliefs regarding God then you wouldn't be here concerned about burdens of proof on the subject. As soon as you developed an opinion on the subject & started talking to people about it you lost the so -called "neutrality" you claimed to have.

[Youanden]

@lockdown260 I didn't come here to actuate my beliefs. I came here to watch a video, and respond to his analysis.

Its when people replied to me with incoherency that I clarified in a response that went on a separate tangent. Well, neutrality can interpreted. My position has not changed since I started commenting here, and of my own deduction, I am still neutral. However, as you have actuated via your opinion, I am not neutral because forming an opinion is the same as antitheism.

[migkillertwo]

"physical"

What is "physical"? What does it mean for something to exist? What makes it so that the world exists, but pegasus does not exist?

"evidence" What is this "evidence"? How do pieces of evidence stand in justificatory relationships with other pieces of evidence, and other beliefs? What counts as evidence in this scientific method that you worship so?

"reasoned" What is reason? What distinguishes reason from, say, faith? What is the foundation of reason? What counts as foundational?

[MrJurekGG]

@migkillertwo

And...?

Do you have the answers for these questions?

Are you looking for the answers or, you're looking for a table vise grip of the size of a human head rather, and use it as much efficiently as possible, not without the help of your family members?

Are you trying ( perhaps?) prove that since you have these questions in your head ( like most of us) - the god exists?

BTW: You don't worship the scientific methods. You simply use them, when you need them. So far - they work.

[Gnomefro]

@migkillertwo The answers have a lot to do with being demonstrable, practically useful, having some sort of causal presence etc.

Even if nobody had good answers to your questions, it would still be the case that beliefs about things that don't manifest in your experience in any way are pointless, useless and almost certainly wrong due to there being an infinite number of possible realities.