*America doesn't make witnesses do this in court anymore, but we used to. This meme is now horribly out of date. That said, I believe "so help me God" is still used and Presidents almost always swear in using the bible.
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Friday, July 5, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Trust Less That Which You Agree
I was listening to the Geologic Podcast’s Religious Morons of the Week segment in which host George Hrab highlights the most ridiculous or hypocritical stories involving people of faith. There was a reported moron a couple weeks ago who convinced followers that his semen was holy and a divine benefit would come from swallowing it. If you have listened to the segment as long as I have, you’d know that this moron isn’t completely unbelievable. There have been many folks who have leveaged their religious authority to trick their followers into sex, especially those from fring cults. This moron was less subtle in it’s connection to specifically blowjobs, enough so that I should have questioned it more than I did. This particular moron didn't exist.
The following week, George admitted that he misreported the story. In fact, it was made up by an Onion-like satirical website. Generally, listeners email Hrab stories to read and he reads them. He bought the lie just as I did because it fell in line with our biases. George, like myself, prides himself as a skeptic, so this is a slap in the face to both of us.
But, hey, good lesson to learn. If a theist said something unusual about atheists that reinforced his view of us, my skepicism would’ve probably been working just fine. If an atheist says something unusual about the religious that reinforces my view that some of them are mainipulative with their beliefs, I have to try to be even more skeptical than I normally would to adjust for my bias.
Holy blowjobs, yeah.
The following week, George admitted that he misreported the story. In fact, it was made up by an Onion-like satirical website. Generally, listeners email Hrab stories to read and he reads them. He bought the lie just as I did because it fell in line with our biases. George, like myself, prides himself as a skeptic, so this is a slap in the face to both of us.
But, hey, good lesson to learn. If a theist said something unusual about atheists that reinforced his view of us, my skepicism would’ve probably been working just fine. If an atheist says something unusual about the religious that reinforces my view that some of them are mainipulative with their beliefs, I have to try to be even more skeptical than I normally would to adjust for my bias.
Holy blowjobs, yeah.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Rebuttal, Part Two
For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here. You might as well check my Rebuttal, Part One too.
"Religious Instincts."
Dr. Conway says that one of the few things atheists and theists agree on is that we have religious instincts. Judging from the original post’s comments, this certainly doesn’t seem the case, but I’d be willing to let the professor’s cited studies do the talking...if he only cited any. He merely mentioned that studies have been done. Dr. Conway should know that an audience of skeptics won’t take his word for it. As it is, there is nothing for me to address here. I have no studies, no interpretations of studies, nor specifics on what said studies were studying. Eventually, even the professor states he doesn’t care about this alleged research, nor will I.
It seems that an unjust jump must be made to say that the instincts and tendencies we may have are religious in nature--although it’s impossible to say not knowing exactly what specific instincts are in question. To fill out this post, I’ll guess.
Most of us have an innate barrier to sexual attraction toward those with which grow up, especially siblings. Looking at this tendency from the perspective of our culture, it appears like a moral instinct. Apologists claim moral instincts are evidence of God. Is this one of the religious instincts to which Dr. Conway refers? If so, I can explain this example without be pointing out the clear evolutionary benefit to incest aversion--seeing how it usually doesn’t bear offspring or increases the risk of birth defects. I’ll explore other seemingly moral instincts in my Rebuttal. Part Three dealing with morality.
I mentioned in my post to The Apologetic Professor that some people are naturally more trusting than others. We could call this a trusting instinct, which is highest in children. Parents know, kids will believe all kinds of crap. This is why I am opposed to religious indoctrination. It’s not fair to the kids. Their cognitive faculties aren’t completely online and will accept any answer to whatever basic inquires they may think up. Dr. Conway mentioned Santa, which largely works against his argument. Kids believe Santa not because they have a Christmas instinct, rather because they have a trusting instinct. A near defenseless youngster believing his or her world-wise parent is a survival trait that would be continuously selected from an evolutionary standpoint. Most people think Darwin set back apologetics only in regards to the Argument from Design, but evolutionary biology acts as a valid hurdle for many a theist assumption.
Finally, Dr. Conway states that he thinks probabilistically. As a poker player, I approve, although I wonder where faith comes in when one thinks God is only probable and not certain. I also question the probabilities the professor assigns to the variables. Just because two things are possible, doesn’t make them equally likely. This, again, will be a common thread as the rebuttal continues.
"Religious Instincts."
Dr. Conway says that one of the few things atheists and theists agree on is that we have religious instincts. Judging from the original post’s comments, this certainly doesn’t seem the case, but I’d be willing to let the professor’s cited studies do the talking...if he only cited any. He merely mentioned that studies have been done. Dr. Conway should know that an audience of skeptics won’t take his word for it. As it is, there is nothing for me to address here. I have no studies, no interpretations of studies, nor specifics on what said studies were studying. Eventually, even the professor states he doesn’t care about this alleged research, nor will I.
Most of us have an innate barrier to sexual attraction toward those with which grow up, especially siblings. Looking at this tendency from the perspective of our culture, it appears like a moral instinct. Apologists claim moral instincts are evidence of God. Is this one of the religious instincts to which Dr. Conway refers? If so, I can explain this example without be pointing out the clear evolutionary benefit to incest aversion--seeing how it usually doesn’t bear offspring or increases the risk of birth defects. I’ll explore other seemingly moral instincts in my Rebuttal. Part Three dealing with morality.
I mentioned in my post to The Apologetic Professor that some people are naturally more trusting than others. We could call this a trusting instinct, which is highest in children. Parents know, kids will believe all kinds of crap. This is why I am opposed to religious indoctrination. It’s not fair to the kids. Their cognitive faculties aren’t completely online and will accept any answer to whatever basic inquires they may think up. Dr. Conway mentioned Santa, which largely works against his argument. Kids believe Santa not because they have a Christmas instinct, rather because they have a trusting instinct. A near defenseless youngster believing his or her world-wise parent is a survival trait that would be continuously selected from an evolutionary standpoint. Most people think Darwin set back apologetics only in regards to the Argument from Design, but evolutionary biology acts as a valid hurdle for many a theist assumption.
Finally, Dr. Conway states that he thinks probabilistically. As a poker player, I approve, although I wonder where faith comes in when one thinks God is only probable and not certain. I also question the probabilities the professor assigns to the variables. Just because two things are possible, doesn’t make them equally likely. This, again, will be a common thread as the rebuttal continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)