201. Comment #150540 by notsobad on March 27, 2008 at 4:53 am

McGrath is a sleazy hypocrite.
He uses sweet language and nice words and always evades any conflicts in the debates, but in writing, he gets shrill and just lies way too often.

Just compare any of his debates to this text from The Dawkins Delusion:
"Whereas Gould at least tries to weigh up the evidence, Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking."
"There's lots of pseudoscientific speculation.."
"Having read the ludicrous misrepresentations of religion which are such a depressing feature of The God Delusion, I very much fear that secularists would merely force their own dogmas down the throats of the same gullible children."
...
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby#mcgrath

Other Comments by notsobad

202. Comment #150944 by Riley on March 27, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Steve Zara wrote: No, as they already have the belief - "the bible is true, science isn't".

You couldn't be more wrong on this account Steve. They definitely *do* claim that science is true. In fact, they claim that science is on their side. (see: the Discovery Institute, Liberty University, Intelligent Design "scientists" in general, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc, etc).

And how do the fundamentalists do this? Claim that science is on their side? They scheme, connive, and lie to make it appear that the evidence that proves them wrong is part of a "liberal" or atheistic conspiracy. Their approach to belief is at it's core, a dishonest process.

At least Alister McGrath (and other moderates) don't lie about the findings of science or try to re-define science when confronted by disagreeable findings. When faced with decisive scientific evidence, "moderates" are honest enough to admit to being wrong.

Clearly, as such, the "moderates" are more honest in their approach to belief than the "fundamentalist". The problem I think is that the "moderate" beliefs tend to be so ill defined that you can't really pin them down -- and that can be frustrating.

Other Comments by Riley

203. Comment #150947 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Riley,

The problem is that the "moderate" beliefs tend to be so ill defined that you can't really pin them down. But that's not a matter of dishonesty, it's just that their beliefs aren't as literal as the fundamentalist.

I think some atheists actually get mad because their "nail down and destroy" method doesn't work with moderates thus depriving them of an easy victory. The fundamentalists are way too easy a target.

clodhopper summarized the moderate believers' approach excellently in a post on Fleabytes, I would like to cut and paste it here:

I find nothing insincere or dishonest in this approach.

Can I bat for the b team?

Because god wants us to work to know him and to find out for ourselves what he wants of us. A meal laid out on a plate will keep the body going but food I have grown and cooked for myself is way more satisfying.

Many Christians/Muslims/Hindus etc are trying very hard to be very good people in the sense of loving one's neighbour, being kind, generous, reasonable, charitable and so on. Because there are so many questions to ask keeps us on our toes through having to explore what it means to be good in the way that god wants. He has given us free will to choose to act according to his commandments [or not], essentially about loving one's neighbour as oneself in compliance with the golden rule. This means working hard to interpret the teachings of Christ in the modern world.

*ducks*

Good post, Clod.

Other Comments by Bonzai

204. Comment #150955 by Gordy on March 27, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Viva Sue Blackmore!

First time I've heard her speak but I hope it won't be the last. She made her points very eloquently and convincingly, and avoided showing any annoyance in the face of some pretty stupid provocation (such as McGrath's point-scoring, willful misunderstanding that she was ascribing consciousness to memes). Wonderful!

I went straight out and bought "The Meme Machine" and am getting stuck into it now...

Other Comments by Gordy

205. Comment #150963 by windfall on March 27, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Ah, that was punishing! I was walking down the street listening to it on headphones and I wanted to scream every time he would talk about his 'evidence-based' belief in god. He mentioned this several times. WHAT EVIDENCE, Alister?!? What are you talking about? Not once during his speeches did he offer one shred of this supposed evidence. It was all just fuzzy circumlocution, all the way down. At the end of one of his meandering explorations of semantics, I would be like 'What?!'. You don't even know where to begin questioning him. He's quite good at obfuscation. It's like watching a long snake eat itself by the tail.

I thought Sue Blackmore did pretty well, but missed many opportunities to call him on things he got away with. He is pompous and slicker than grease.

Other Comments by windfall

206. Comment #150979 by Greyman on March 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm

His argument was simply (paraphrasing) "unlike 2 plus 2 equals 4, we can't prove most of the important beliefs in our lives, such as democracy is better than facism". How on Earth does that even begin to address the question of God's existence?

Uhm, SteveN, the question actually was "is belief in God a dangerous delusion?". It was a debate about the utility of religion, not about its truth. Although this point didn't seem answer that either, as far as I can tell.

Firstly, he doesn't seem to consider that there are degrees of rigor in proofs between, "I can rigorously prove," and "I have no proof at all." Preference for Democracy over Fascism can arise from making comparative observations of societies. His belief in god appears to be based on nothing more than his feelings, but that's good enough for him.

Secondly, demonstrating that people do hold unsubstantiated beliefs, about things other than religion, and do make decissions based on such, in no way at all shows that this is harmless behaviour.

Other Comments by Greyman

207. Comment #150991 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 12:13 am

Greyman wrote in post #207:

Uhm, SteveN, the question actually was "is belief in God a dangerous delusion?". It was a debate about the utility of religion, not about its truth. Although this point didn't seem answer that either, as far as I can tell.

Well, I seem to remember McGrath saying at the start of his opening statement something like "There are two questions to be addressed here: "is God a delusion?" and "is belief in God dangerous"" and it was in answer to the first question that he made the remarks I paraphrased earlier.

OK. I've now gone back and listened again to the beginning of the statement, (and I will never forgive you for making me do that, Greyman, ;-)), and I find that my memory was not letting me down. It's at 27:15.

Other Comments by SteveN

208. Comment #150996 by Richard Morgan on March 28, 2008 at 12:50 am

( I'm one of those people who appreciate a good public speaker, and discourse broken up with "Ums" and "Errrs" rather irritates me. During a sleepless night, I cleaned all the "Ums" from Sue Blackmore's Proposition, and posted it in a standalone player on the fleabytes Music Myspace. Give it a try - it makes for much pleasanter listening.)(Next time I suffer from insomnia, I'll clean out the "it seems to me" from A.McGrath's presentation, which will probably reduce it by about a third!)


http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes


(standalone player in the left column with the Lava Lizard's music.)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

209. Comment #151003 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 1:53 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

Next time I suffer from insomnia, I'll clean out the "it seems to me" from A.McGrath's presentation, which will probably reduce it by about a third!

If you take out all instances of "...and this is a very important question", you can probably save another third.

This reminds me of an event in one of Asimov's Foundation novels in which a highly complex but admired document (I think it was a treaty or something similar) was subjected to a mathematical or logical process to remove the waffle and contradictions from the important parts. The remaining content was precisely zero.

Other Comments by SteveN

210. Comment #151081 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 6:13 am

Greyman wrote: Preference for Democracy over Fascism can arise from making comparative observations of societies. His belief in god appears to be based on nothing more than his feelings

I can't say for sure about McGrath, but in a debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe ( listen at: 1:21:00 in the debate) Wolpe defends belief in "God" and the degree to which any religion reflects "truth" based on the degree to which that religion "leads people to live in the presence and with the conscience of 'God'" - i.e. leads a person to live a good life.

Wolpe's statement is probably the most representative position of the "moderate" approach to belief.

The debate is very much worth listening to, both for those who wish to honestly represent the arguments of religious "moderates" and for those looking for good counter-arguments with which address those arguments.

Other Comments by Riley

211. Comment #151088 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 6:29 am

Comment #151081 by Riley

Wolpe's statement is probably the most representative position of the "moderate" approach to belief.

My impression is that even moderates don't just believe in religion because they think it is useful - they believe in religion because they think it is true.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

212. Comment #151098 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 6:47 am

they believe in religion because they think it is true.

What's your point?

Other Comments by Riley

213. Comment #151099 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:53 am

My impression is that even moderates don't just believe in religion because they think it is useful - they believe in religion because they think it is true

If you find something useful, then you will be more likely to be persuaded that it is true.

Do you think science is true or just useful?

Other Comments by Bonzai

214. Comment #151100 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 6:54 am

Comment #151098 by Riley

What's your point?

If we want to understand religious moderates and how they differ from fundamentalists we have to understand what they actually believe. Some priests and theologists may use "religion is useful" as justification for not attacking religion, but if we want to change minds, or even just understand, we have to accept that people, even moderates, truly believe pretty weird stuff, and sometimes believe it very strongly.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

215. Comment #151102 by irate_atheist on March 28, 2008 at 6:56 am

213. Comment #151088 by Steve Zara -

Didn't RD himself once say something along the lines of, "Perhaps the moderates aren't as moderate as you think they are?"

I'm sure it was on a televised debate of some sort, but can't for the life of me remember what one.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

216. Comment #151104 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 6:57 am

Comment #151099 by Bonzai

If you find something useful, then you will be more likely to be persuaded that it is true.

I disagree. Many people find themselves oppressed by their own religious beliefs. Those beliefs are hardly useful.

Do you think science is true or just useful?

Much science is true without being even the slightest bit useful (well, not right now).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

217. Comment #151106 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:02 am

but if we want to change minds, or even just understand, we have to accept that people, even moderates, truly believe pretty weird stuff,

I don't know if any one "truly believe" in weird stuffs. Maybe we just don't know enough about the psychology of belief.

I wrote a post yesterday on another thread, I think it is relevant here.

have been thinking, to what extent self professed believers actually "believe" in the Gods they claim to believe.

It may not be as definitive as we atheists sometimes assume. I think to many it may be just some kind of working assumption, an inconsistent, murkey idea which helps them muddle through hardships from time to time. "Faith" in the sense we use here maybe too strong a word to describe that level of belief. It may be the desirable goal from the religious perspective, but I suspect few actually attain the state of being able to "believe without evidence". By "believe" I mean confidently and surely commiting to it without any doubt whatsoever.

Even fundamentalists have to use rituals, music and other motivational props to work themselves up to a frenzy. That suggests faith is not a natural state even for the most fanatical believers. Indeed fanaticism may be an over-compensation for lack of faith.

If doubt does not exist, they won't be always talking about faith. If no one commits murder, there won't be any law against it, people wouldn't have thought of needing a law.

Conclusion: no one can actually "believe without evidence", even though some may try very hard.

Other Comments by Bonzai

218. Comment #151108 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:03 am

Comment #151102 by irate_atheist

Didn't RD himself once say something along the lines of, "Perhaps the moderates aren't as moderate as you think they are?"

I would agree. I think there can be a misunderstanding about what religious moderation is about. There can be an impression that it is sort of post-modern, with switchable beliefs held lightly. On the contrary, some beliefs can be held very firmly indeed in some people we would certainly not call fundamentalist.

Perhaps we need new terms to describe the strengths of religious belief, as against the niceness of the believer.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

219. Comment #151109 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #151106 by Bonzai

Conclusion: no one can actually "believe without evidence", even though some may try very hard.

I pretty much agree.

Where I would differ is that I that that people can believe strongly in the mirk!.

Just because their ideas are mirky, does not mean they aren't passionate about them.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

220. Comment #151113 by al-rawandi on March 28, 2008 at 7:10 am

Steve,




Allow me to say this. When people claim moderation, or make moderate statements, but a very different in private.

I know a Muslim figure, fairly well known in the US, who comes across as very moderate, denounces violence. In my presence he said "We wouldn't want to push the Jews (Israelis) into the sea. We would never do that to the fish."

Not precisely moderate.

A lot of moderates are that way in the presence of rational thinkers, but when around their credulous co-religionists, let loose.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

221. Comment #151114 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 7:10 am

As Bonzai wrote more clearly than I had: "If you find something useful, then you will be more likely to be persuaded that it is true."

The difference between "moderates" and "fundamentalists" is not so much what they believe, but the certainty with which they believe it. "Moderates" are by definition "moderate" in their beliefs because they aren't certain! They revel (and wallow) in the mystery and discovery of their faith.

If evidence directly contradicts belief "x", then "moderates" will accept that belief "x" is not a fact of nature and reinterpret it as a metaphorical or inspired experience. "Moderates" are open to change, but you still can't disprove most of their beliefs, because most of their beliefs are not scientifically accessible.

Other Comments by Riley

222. Comment #151115 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:10 am

Steve,

I disagree. Many people find themselves oppressed by their own religious beliefs. Those beliefs are hardly useful.

I am saying some people may think their beliefs are true because they find them useful, you are saying that not all believers find their beliefs useful.

So, I say all cows have four legs, you then tell me, no, dogs also have four legs.

I think something is amiss in your response.

Besides, I think it is mostly the fundamentalists who are "oppressed" by their own beliefs if you mean that by psychological coercions such as everlasting hell fire and so on. Most moderates don't believe in them, not in a literal way any how.

Much science is true without being even the slightest bit useful

By "useful" I didn't mean having practical applications, I meant allowing you to make predictions and organizing your data in a consistent conceptual framework. This is a usefulness that theology, for example, doesn't have.

So do you not think that science is true because it is useful?

Me, I don't know what is truth, It is meaningless,

Other Comments by Bonzai

223. Comment #151116 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:11 am

Comment #151113 by al-rawandi

Yes, I agree. Useful point.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

224. Comment #151117 by irate_atheist on March 28, 2008 at 7:18 am

220. Comment #151108 by Steve Zara -

Perhaps we need new terms to describe the strengths of religious belief, as against the niceness of the believer.

Indeed. I encounter this all the time in my outlaws. Very kind people, very liberal, pro gay rights, gay marriage etc., would would never entertain the thought that there's no god and Jesus isn't him. So much so that they effectively segregate themselves into a religious world separate from reality.

Indeed - the mother outlaw once said that she was sure her daughter wouldn't marry someone if it wasn't 'right as a Christian for her to do so'. This coming from someone who believes that I am (literally) the answer to her prayers as far as looking after her daughter is concerned. Literally believes it - not metaphorically, or post-modernly. All I can sensibly do is nod politely and think 'thank fuck I got her out of that.'

But, pleasant, liberal, pro-choice, kindly, anti-discriminatory, people who I get on well with. (He who hid well, lived well, anyone?) As ever, please fel free to call me a hypocrite, but their irrational bigotry in this particular matter has to remain their problem - and limit their lives - not ours. And certainly not my wife's.

I don't know how one 'moderately' believes something to be 'true'. Is the average human animal actually capable of 'moderately' believing something?

'No True Scotsman' indeed, but all are still Scottish, we must remember. We forget it at our peril.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

225. Comment #151118 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:18 am

Bonzai:

Besides, I think it is mostly the fundamentalists who are "oppressed" by their own beliefs if you mean that by psychological coercions such as everlasting hell fire and so on. Most moderates don't believe in them, not in a literal way any how.

I was a moderate Catholic. I remember the feeling that there was literally something magic going on at communion. I know people who believed literally that their homosexuality was wicked. I was not a fundamentalist, and neither were they.

Riley:

The difference between "moderates" and "fundamentalists" is not so much what they believe, but the certainty with which they believe it.

No, I think this is just plain wrong. The difference we see between people we call moderate and people we call fundamentalists is usually a matter of what they believe, not how strongly they believe it. I think we need to research strength of belief a lot more.

We tend to call people moderate if they believe things we think are more reasonable, and nice. That is no reason to think that they don't hold those beliefs strongly.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

226. Comment #151121 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #151117 by irate_atheist

I don't know how one 'moderately' believes something to be 'true'.

A very good point.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

227. Comment #151122 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:20 am

I wouldn't call the Catholic Church moderate. But do you think that anxiety over one's sexuality is experienced only by religious people?

Other Comments by Bonzai

228. Comment #151127 by Vinelectric on March 28, 2008 at 7:26 am

If you find something useful, then you will be more likely to be persuaded that it is true.


I disagree. Many people find themselves oppressed by their own religious beliefs. Those beliefs are hardly useful.

I'd say that despite the self imposed psychological torture the fundamentalist knows that in the grand scheme of things he/she will get fantastic rewards in the hereafter for their misery.

At least that's true of Islam. No one puts up with the sticks unless they see a carrot at the end of the tunnel (no pun intended).

Other Comments by Vinelectric

229. Comment #151129 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #151122 by Bonzai

I wouldn't call the Catholic Church moderate.

So you were saying I was a fundamentalist?

But do you think that anxiety over one's sexuality is experienced only by religious people?

So, moderate religion is not to blame because it isn't the only reason for self-oppression?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

230. Comment #151131 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 7:32 am

There are "fundamentalists" who believe very nice things and "moderates" that believe very nasty things. Nice and nasty is not what differentiates the two. Politics shouldn't be what differentiates the two either. Individual members of the Catholic church range in their belief - Catholics are not monolithic.

You're making mistakes of category.

DEFINITION:

"Moderate Believer": Someone who believes something but is willing to change that belief when presented new evidence.

"Fundamentalist Believer": Someone who is certain that they are right, and no amount of new evidence will change that belief.

There also tend to be a assertion that made by "fundamentalists" that their "truth" is an objective truth. "Moderates" accept interpretation and subjectivity (e.g. someone's personal experience is "true").

Other Comments by Riley

231. Comment #151132 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 7:34 am

The difference between "moderates" and "fundamentalists" is not so much what they believe, but the certainty with which they believe it. "Moderates" are by definition "moderate" in their beliefs because they aren't certain - they revel in the mystery and discovery of faith.

Some, as you say, use "moderate" to describe those uncertain about the teachings of their particular religion. Some use "moderate" to describe the content of belief: for example, those who reject extreme actions like honor killings or pseudoscience such as young-earth creationism, are "moderates."

The doubting moderates share a lot of common ground with atheists. But those who are moderate by virtue of the content of their beliefs remain a world apart. They're the ones who, for example, believe in moral absolutes grounded in God's nature or personality. So when they think they're right about stem cell research or civil unions or something, there's no talking to them.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

232. Comment #151133 by hungarianelephant on March 28, 2008 at 7:34 am

229. Comment #151122 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:20 am

I wouldn't call the Catholic Church moderate. But do you think that anxiety over one's sexuality is experienced only by religious people?

No, but it institutionalises it and makes it much harder to break.

Similarly I don't believe that stupid tribal disputes are only conducted by religious people. The problems in Northern Ireland were, at their core, territorial rather than philosophical. But "Protestant" and "Catholic" became particularly useful crutches for continuing the battle long after the original protagonists were dead. Strip out religion and you're left with groups of people who have more in common with each other than their neighbours - a situation that's hardly favourable to maintaining strict political divisions like British / Irish or Nationalist / Unionist. It's the shoe-horned religious identity that has the survival power.

Fundamentalism and moderation might be red herrings in that particular problem.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

233. Comment #151134 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:35 am

Comment #151131 by Riley

"Moderate Believer": Someone who believes something but is willing to change that belief when presented new evidence.

You don't get to demonstrate things by putting the word "DEFINITION" in front :)

However, you may be right. We may have been mis-labelling millions of people as moderates.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

234. Comment #151136 by Podaar on March 28, 2008 at 7:35 am

Comment #151122 by Bonzai

But do you think that anxiety over one's sexuality is experienced only by religious people?

That is a really good question! Thinking about it, from my experience, I'd have to say "yes". Do you know of irreligious people that say they have anxiety about sexuality? I'm sure there must be, but I can't think of any.

-- Gregg

Other Comments by Podaar

235. Comment #151140 by irate_atheist on March 28, 2008 at 7:40 am

232. Comment #151131 by Riley -

Hmm, a sliding scale of belief in belief, perhaps?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

236. Comment #151141 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:41 am

The doubting moderates share a lot of common ground with atheists. But those who are moderate by virtue of the content of their beliefs remain a world apart. They're the ones who, for example, believe in moral absolutes grounded in God's nature or personality. So when they think they're right about stem cell research or civil unions or something, there's no talking to them.

Absolutely. But this raises the question of how we label believers (assuming we need to). Do we say someone is (say) a homosexuality "moderate" but a stem-cell "fundamentalist"?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

237. Comment #151143 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:42 am

Here are my two cents.

I think what separates the moderate and the fundamentalist is not the intensity of belief.

People who are fundamentalists in their youth are probably more likely to abandon religion altogether when they get older and become disillusioned,--I don't have data but that is a hunch based on anecdotes, while you can have very committed moderates.

I am now leaning towards the idea that the apparent intensity of belief in fundamentalists is something artificially induced, perhaps as an over compensation to the awareness that deep down the faith is shaky, Mother Theresa was an instructive example. She appeared to be more fanatic as she was losing her faith,

I think what separates the moderates and the fundamentalists is the method of believing.

For the moderates faith is an ongoing, uncertain journey of constant rethinking and negotiation. They "grow" into their faith, This way of believing doesn't exclude common sense and other data outside the texts of the scripture.

"Revelation" is not just a book, but it unfolds slowly, privately and subtly through out a life time. So that comes back to my earlier point. They believe God is true perhaps because they do find it is a useful concept to organize their experience and express their emotional yearnings and passions.

On the other hand, the fundamentalists see revelation as just in the Book, they work themselves to a frenzy by prayers, rituals, Jesus camps and so on, fervently trying to kill their doubts by keeping reality at bay, They agree with atheists on the nature of faith, that it is believing without evidence and they think it is good so they try hard to attain that artificially induced state of gullibity.

But that probably cannot be kept up for long and it breaks at some point when there is too much cognitive dissonance. It is like you take some drugs to work yourself up to have sex, then unleash one big load and pass out, never able to get it up again for a month, (sorry for the family audience, but I don't do artistic compromise)

The difference in what they actually believe comes as a result of difference in methods. The moderate's method is just incompatible with certain literal interpretations which fragrantly at odd with their experience with life and people. Whereas the fundamentalists think that the more incredible and stupid the things they claim to believe, the more it is a proof of their faith and I think it is a kind of over compensation.

Well, better get off the computer to get some productive work done.

Other Comments by Bonzai

238. Comment #151146 by irate_atheist on March 28, 2008 at 7:52 am

235. Comment #151134 by Steve Zara -

We may have been mis-labelling millions of people as moderates.

Indeed. It takes a rational person a long time to start to comprehend just how irrational others may be. The more you realise it, the more you want to 'just nod politely' and walk away as fast and as far as possible. There is rarely any point privately debating someone who has voluntarily given up their reason. They are incapable of realising when they are wrong. In fact, it is anathema to them. Don't step on my memes, as it were.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

239. Comment #151147 by Podaar on March 28, 2008 at 7:53 am

Comment #151143 by Bonzai

For the moderate it is an ongoing, uncertain and slow process of constant rethinking and negotiation, one "grows" into his or her faith, This way of believing doesn't exclude common sense and other data outside the texts of the scripture.

This eloquently describes the majority of religious people I know. Great post!

EDIT: What worries me is, as they grow in faith are discarding rational evidence. Example; my Mother, at the age of 70, now believes medical science is a gift from God. In her 40s she never would have said that.

Other Comments by Podaar

240. Comment #151148 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 7:54 am

Comment #151143 by Bonzai

The difference in what they actually believe comes as a result of difference in methods. The moderate's method is just incompatible with certain literal interpretations which fragrantly at odd with their experience with life and people. Whereas the fundamentalists think that the more incredible and stupid the things they claim to believe, the more it is a proof of their faith and I think it is a kind of over compensation.

As Dr Benway pointed out, you can get both aspects in the same individual. There can be a "protected core" of beliefs that are non-negotiable.

Also, your description does not describe those who believe "what is in the book" because they are raised that way and remain in that kind of culture. There would be more effort to abandon the belief than retain it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

241. Comment #151151 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 8:01 am

irate_atheist wrote:Hmm, a sliding scale of belief in belief, perhaps?

When speaking about "moderate" and "fundamentalist" within the category of "approach to belief", yes, I think that's right. There's a sliding scale of certainty ranging from "skeptical" to "moderate" to "fundamentalist" approach and methods to belief (and the method used is similar to the certainty with which a belief is held).

Bonzai, I think that when a believer raised in the "fundamentalist" community converts, it's more likely to be a sudden thing (and thus more recognizable) than with the "moderate" believer, because the "fundamentalist" community is so rigid - it's all or nothing for them. The "moderate" person that escapes religion, is able to gradually fade away without a clearly recognizable break -- because the definitions of what is acceptible belief are so much more fuzzy.

Other Comments by Riley

242. Comment #151152 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:02 am

Podaar,

That is a really good question! Thinking about it, from my experience, I'd have to say "yes". Do you know of irreligious people that say they have anxiety about sexuality? I'm sure there must be, but I can't think of any.

Yes, I had. I was never religious except briefly,--three months and then got kicked out from Church for asking too many questions,-- but that didn't contribute to my anxiety.

Other Comments by Bonzai

243. Comment #151155 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 8:06 am

Comment #151151 by Riley

Within the "approach to belief" category, yes, I think that's right. There's a sliding scale of certainty about what believers believe that defines them from "skeptic" to "moderate" to "fundamentalist".

So, someone is 10% against homosexuality, but 100% against stem-cell research, and also 50% certain about hell.

What do we call them?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

244. Comment #151159 by Podaar on March 28, 2008 at 8:11 am

Comment #151155 by Steve Zara

What do we call them?

Moderately confused? (sorry)

Other Comments by Podaar

245. Comment #151164 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:18 am

So, someone is 10% against homosexuality, but 100% against stem-cell research, and also 50% certain about hell.

Except for hell, it would be very simplistic to think that people take these position just because their priest or minister told them to as if people are just automatons. Many Catholics ignore the Church's teaching on contraceptions, but support its disapproval of homosexuals. Why?

I think you can find secular people who hate gays more than the average Church going Catholics, or atheists who oppose abortion (Hitchens) and non believers who oppose stem cell research. I think the Church has influence on these issues because it somehow tabs into public anxieties on these things, not just because of religious indoctrination per se,

One can argue that the general cultural attitude has been shaped by Christianity down through the years so we still have these hang ups even for people who are otherwise secular. But then to trace where ideas originated was probably a very convoluted process and it is difficult to say whether the chicken or the egg comes first,

If this comes off as letting religion off the hook because I want to get some balance here. I do agree with others that religion has a way to codify and entrench certain outdated practices.

Other Comments by Bonzai

246. Comment #151169 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #151164 by Bonzai

Except for hell, would be very simplistic to think that people take these position just because their priest or minister told them to as if people are just automatons.

You are refuting a point I did not make. I was talking about was the degree of certainty of belief, not how the belief was arrived at, to illustrate the issues involved if one tries to label people by general strength of belief.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

247. Comment #151173 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 8:33 am

So, someone is 10% against homosexuality, but 100% against stem-cell research, and also 50% certain about hell.

What do we call them?

Can you seriously not see the categorical mistakes that you are making here? How do you interpret: "I am 10% against homosexuality"? It's misapplied. It's a suggestive but otherwise meaningless statement.

Other Comments by Riley

248. Comment #151175 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 8:36 am

Steve: Absolutely. But this raises the question of how we label believers (assuming we need to). Do we say someone is (say) a homosexuality "moderate" but a stem-cell "fundamentalist"?

In some ways the labels "religious," "belief," "moderate," and "fundamentalist" *are* the problem.

Analogy: The term "alternative medicine" implies that there are two sorts of medicine: boring old ordinary chemical stuff that doesn't work for everything, verses friendly, safe, feel-good "alternative" stuff that Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about.

But in fact medicine is simply this: a set of treatments with degrees of evidence to support their use. Some treatments are well established; some are new and partially established; some have only very shaky support, such as a few anecdotes of partial improvement.

The term "religious claims" or "religious beliefs" implies that there are at least two sets of claims or beliefs about the world separated by some meaningful epistemic divide: "religious" and "non-religious."

But again, what we have are simply claims that are more or less supported by evidence.

Claims about one's subjective experience are still evidential claims. They're just claims that are often impossible to corroborate. Consequently they deserve less confidence than claims that can be corroborated.

By placing a lower confidence in uncorroborated claims we've discovered a method for separating fact from wishful thinking and delusion. And as an added bonus, the corroboration rule prevents the totalitarianists from telling us what we think and feel inside our own skins.

The person who says he prayed to Jesus for forgiveness and then felt an amazing, euphoric sense of God's loving presence, is providing evidence regarding his inner experience. And no claim that I might make about his experience could ever be corroborated, so I cannot contradict him.

There's nothing wrong in reporting the sense of God's presence or something like that. Where these believers typically err is by insisting that I ought take such claims as seriously as I might take a claim I can double-check for myself.

Labelling a claim "religious" strikes me as a sneaky way to bypass the ordinary rules of evidence we use for all other claims.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

249. Comment #151177 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 8:37 am

Steve, The degree of certainty of a belief and how the belief was arrived at are inseparable I think.

Other Comments by Riley

250. Comment #151180 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:40 am

Well I think I misunderstood steve's comment, so I deleted the post.

Other Comments by Bonzai