Posted: Sun 16 Mar 2008 12:16 Post subject: Are claims about a deity exempt from site accuracy rules?
MisterLawyer wrote:
You are correct, but I think both are contentions based on belifs that fly in the face of science. One supposes that God hates gay people so much he would destroy them and those who support them, along with innocent people who happend to be in the wrong place. Another supposes the US hates poor people and black people so much that it would create a deadly virus regardless of the consequesces to innocent victims.
If such claims were posted here, my feeling would be that the former is a claim about the person's own faith (religious belief about God that cannot be substantiated by definition), "God did this or that..." The latter is a factual claim about obervable reality, "A U.S. government agency did this or that..." A claim about one's own religious belief is not forbidden here per se, although tolerated barely because it does not advance the site mission. A false factual claim is flatly fobidden here.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 353 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Sun 16 Mar 2008 14:50 Post subject:
Quote:
If such claims were posted here, my feeling would be that the former is a claim about the person's own faith (religious belief about God that cannot be substantiated by definition), "God did this or that..." The latter is a factual claim about obervable reality, "A U.S. government agency did this or that..." A claim about one's own religious belief is not forbidden here per se, although tolerated barely because it does not advance the site mission. A false factual claim is flatly fobidden here.
I recognize the distinction between the two statements, one supposing that a supreme being did somthing and another supposing that human actors did somthing, neither with any factual evidence to back up the claim. But I am trying to work out the real difference between the two. It seems that a "factual" claim becomes a religious belief only by inserting god or the devil into the statement. 1) The U.S. government made HIV because the U.S. hates black people and poor people. 2) The U.S. is an agent of satan and satan made the U.S. government create AIDS to kill black people and poor people.
The difference from the Hurricane Katrina statement is that there is still an intervening human actor. Suppose a Meteorologist could trace Hurrican Katrina back to area of low pressure that developed into a squall of thunderstorms that because of abnormally warm water and prevailing winds developed as it did. Hagee can still say "well, God just did all that because he hates gay people." His belief is not disprovable.
Does having a human actor inserted into the statement make the belief disprovable because it claims person A did B? When it claims organization or government A did B? Proving a negative is hard, sometimes impossible, and I can only imagine all the excuses that the Wright could present when confronted with the evidence that the HIV virus or its genetic predecessors have been around for much longer than the United States and is simply a natural consequence of viral evolution.
When either statement is held as a religious belief in the case of the Katrina statement or a "quasi religious" belief in the case of the AIDS statement, the holder usually will persist in the belief despite any evidence to the contrary, simply denying the evidence as either falsified or inconclusive. Wright's statement regarding AIDS endows the US government with a God like power.
I guess I have come to the conclusion that a statment to the effect that "God did this or God thinks this" should not be given a pass and should be treated as any other unproveable factual statment. Of course, that is only my opinion and I am neither a moderator nor an administrator. (Thank GOD )
It seems that a "factual" claim becomes a religious belief only by inserting god or the devil into the statement. ...
I guess I have come to the conclusion that a statment to the effect that "God did this or God thinks this" should not be given a pass and should be treated as any other unproveable factual statment.
You are very persuasive. In all honesty, I cannot defend why we allow members to claim this or that about a deity but insist that they back up factual claims that do not involve a deity. I suppose, like most Americans, we pussyfoot around religion and give great latitude to even the most bizarre religious beliefs. Is this harmful to the site mission? Richard Dawkins, in some of the essays in A Devil's Chaplain, would say that it does for reasons that can be boiled down to its corrosive effect on intellect and reason.
I would welcome others' thoughts on this. But I am open to ending this site's religious exemption from factual accuracy. I realize that this would essentially end all claims about what God wants, since God's desires are unknowable by definition (in the sense of being replicable by a skeptic).
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1047 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sun 16 Mar 2008 18:43 Post subject:
We could either do what MisterLawyer suggests, or declare that any statements involving religious beliefs, like those about God's will or actions, are faith-based (which they are). Since we have a rule in place that once debates are determined to be faith-based, they must end, we could stop the debates about these claims from going further by invoking that rule. But then again, that wouldn't necessarily stop people from making such claims initially, or stop them from continuing to make them if they are not challenged, i.e., if they are not in an argument with someone over them, since the rule in place is specifically about debates and arguments.
Making faith-based statements do not further the site's mission, naturally. Do they harm it? I don't know.
We could either do what MisterLawyer suggests, or declare that any statements involving religious beliefs, like those about God's will or actions, are faith-based (which they are). Since we have a rule in place that once debates are determined to be faith-based, they must end, we could stop the debates about these claims from going further by invoking that rule. But then again, that wouldn't necessarily stop people from making such claims initially, or stop them from continuing to make them if they are not challenged, i.e., if they are not in an argument with someone over them, since the rule in place is specifically about debates and arguments.
Making faith-based statements do not further the site's mission, naturally. Do they harm it? I don't know.
I agree with William. I would like to respect religious points of view when they are expressed, but I do not believe that faith-based beliefs should be used to substantiate arguments. We do have a rule discouraging faith-based disputes. I'd bet that virtually all religious substantiation comes about because a poster wishes to support or refute a faith-based position.
Besides, if we are going to allow statements that make factual claims about the actions and perspectives of deities, we would need to decide what types of sources credibly provide descriptions of these actions/perspectives. I really don't want to get into a discussion about credible religious sources because I am not aware of any that actually meet the site standards for evidence, yet am fully aware that some members reject that view on grounds of faith. It's a lose-lose proposition unless you are an atheist.
We could either do what MisterLawyer suggests, or declare that any statements involving religious beliefs, like those about God's will or actions, are faith-based (which they are). Since we have a rule in place that once debates are determined to be faith-based, they must end, we could stop the debates about these claims from going further by invoking that rule. But then again, that wouldn't necessarily stop people from making such claims initially, or stop them from continuing to make them if they are not challenged, i.e., if they are not in an argument with someone over them, since the rule in place is specifically about debates and arguments.
Making faith-based statements do not further the site's mission, naturally. Do they harm it? I don't know.
The one area that I believe 'religion' plays a part is when it deals with motives behind racial ideas.
We cannot ignore the religious culture of America in general but more specifically the Confederate States and the mistranslations of the bible. It really had a big affect on the development of race in this country.
The one area that I believe 'religion' plays a part is when it deals with motives behind racial ideas. We cannot ignore the religious culture of America in general but more specifically the Confederate States and the mistranslations of the bible. It really had a big affect on the development of race in this country.
I do not disagree, but I have reached a different hypothesis of causality. Most people appeal to higher authority to rationalize their internalized beliefs. To some people, "higher authority" means science, to others it is the Constitution, and to still others (probably most Americans) it is religion. Within each group there have always been racialists and anti-racialists.
Scientifically oriented racialists use the writings of scientists to rationalize their belief, while anti-racialists of this group use science to disprove the very existence of "race." Politically oriented racialists quote the writings of the founding fathers to buttress their position, while their opponents quote different writings from the same founding fathers in opposition. And religious racialists interpret scriptural quotations to show that God wants "racial" subordination, while religious anti-racialists quote scritures to show the opposite. Specifically, in the antebellum United States, you can find just as many written polemics that draw from scripture to oppose slavery and "race" as there are writings that advocate slavery and "race" drawing from the same sources.
All in all, my hypothesis is that antebellum religious belief had zero net impact on the unfolding of events. Religion was simply one of the three most common appeals to authority that people who had already made up their minds (pro or con) used to rationalize and justify their positions.
I think such statements should be treated in the context of the personal belief/opinion clause (generally speaking).
However, what if, in the context of a certain posting, one can document their/another's supposition, (or 'religious belief'), based upon an actual occurance or factual documentation, i.e recorded miracles and verifiable experiences, etc. The Catholic Church does not cannonize certain 'Saints' unless there is factual documentation of x # of miracles, etc. Certain 'faith healers' also have documented 'proofs' such as these - on video that can be analyzed (if need be) for fraud.
My examples being - documented miracles by medical science or customary practice-
Quote:
Raised From The Dead
Is it a medical mystery or a miracle? A South Florida man pronounced dead from a massive heart attack and then brought back to life. His doctor says the man was raised from the dead by a simple prayer. Seven's Louis Aguirre has the story.
WSVN -- Dr. Chauncey Crandall isn't your usual doctor. The world-renowned cardiologist is a man of medicine and science, but he's also a man of faith.
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: "If you come in with a problem into our service, we are definitely going to treat you with conventional medicine, but we are going to believe it too. We are going to attack it with conventional medicine, and we are going to attack it with prayer."
He calls himself the Christian physician because he prays with each heart patient he sees at his Palm Beach practice. The difference, he says, is dramatic.
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: "The reason I pray for people is because I found, early in my trained practice, that there were miracles, unexplained healings."
But even his strong faith could not prepare him for what would happen the day Jeff Markin walked into the Palm Beach Gardens emergency room.
Jeff Markin: "I drove to the Garden's Hospital, went in, took out my wallet and fell on the floor with a massive heart attack."
For 40 minutes doctors and nurses in the ER tried to revive him. When they couldn't get his heart started again they called for Dr. Crandall, who was doing rounds in the hospital at the time.
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: "As I entered the ER it was like a war zone. Here was this lifeless body on a stretcher."
The doctor couldn't do anything and could only confirm what everyone already knew, Jeff was dead. He had gone almost an hour without a heartbeat, and his body was starting to decompose.
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: "His face, his arms, his legs were pitch black with death. I said, 'Let's just call the code, let's end it because there's no life left.'"
As Dr. Crandall turned to leave, he says he got another call this time, a call from God to pray.
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: "A voice told me to turn around and pray for that man. I looked down at the body, and I said, 'Lord, what can I pray for this man? He's gone.' All of a sudden these words came out, 'Father, I cry out for this man's soul, if he does not know, you raise him from the dead.'"
Despite protests from doctors and nurses who were preparing Jeff's body for the morgue, doctor Crandall insisted they shock him one more time.
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: "So that doctor came over with those paddles and blasted that man and, all of a sudden, instantly a perfect heartbeat came up on the monitor. The stomach started moving, the chest started moving. This man started breathing on his own, and I said, 'This man has been prayed for, he has been brought back from the dead by prayer in the name of Jesus.'"
Louis Aguirre: "So where was Jeff during all of this? He believes he left his body and crossed over to the after life."
Jeff Markin: "I was actually standing in the back of the funeral home, and I came to realize that this was my funeral.
But, in the middle of sitting alone in darkness, Jeff says a figure suddenly appeared to him.
Jeff Markin: "There was a figure that identified himself as Bob, and he was going to make sure that everything was going to be OK. I'm figuring that was my guardian angel. At that time, a very peaceful feeling and very relaxed feeling came over me, and then he said he had to go and, the next thing I know, I woke up in my daughter's arms."
He woke up to a second chance, one that can't be explained by medicine or science. As Dr. Crandall puts it, the only answer is divine intervention.
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: "You are speaking to a scientist, a cardiologist, someone who loves medicine. I've never, ever seen this. There are always people that do not believe these events, and I will just tell them that it did happen. It was a real story, a real life that was restored."
Jeff wasn't exactly a believer before that day. He didn't regularly attend church or read the Bible, but this experience has made him believe there is a higher purpose for his life.
Jeff Markin: "I feel like maybe I am supposed to be a messenger. I want to get the right message across that miracles do happen."
A miracle that brought him life after death.
Jeff Markin: "I'm so happy I have a second chance."
what if, in the context of a certain posting, one can document their/another's supposition, (or 'religious belief'), based upon an actual occurance or factual documentation
Sorry. Such evidence is worthless here. This site's rules are not the same as those of the Catholic Church. And they are not based on either "actual occurrence" nor on "factual documentation." This site's rules of evidence are three: define the question objectively, explain how to falsify your claim, and replicate your findings. The following explanations are summarized from Introduction to Science-As-Process, which see for details.
Define the Question Objectively – You must be able to define the issue in a way that everyone, even your most hostile but honest skeptic, accepts. This knocks out almost all religious arguments. Believers in some aspect of the supernatural are seldom if ever able to define the concept objectively.
Explain How to Falsify Your Claim – If you are making a claim, you must tell what evidence, if found, would make you change your mind. This knocks out almost all of the remaining religious arguments. Believers ask others to accept their "evidence" but proudly state that no conceivable evidence could ever change their own minds. This rule may not seem fair. Why should a claimant tell how to disprove their own claim? But, fair or not, it is the site rule.
Replicate your findings -- Some people make things up. It happens. And so, this site ignores findings that have not been replicated by hostile but honest skeptics. Your evidence must be such that it can be re-created by someone who does not believe a word of it. All remaining religious argments fail this test. Non-replicated findings and personal testimony are inadmissible evidence in this site because they fail this rule. I claim that if you hold a brick at arm's length and let go, it will fall. No matter how strongly you believe that it will not fall, try it yourself and you will find that it falls, like it or not. There is no religious claim that passes a similar test conducted by an unbeliever.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Tue 18 Mar 2008 05:25 Post subject:
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: "A voice told me to turn around and pray for that man.
How do we know it was a voice other than Crandall's? Was Crandall making the request from a doctor's point of view or solely on his faith? How can we determine which it was?
doctor Crandall insisted they shock him one more time.
If the power of prayer is sufficient from anyone's point of view then why did Dr. Crandall see fit to ''shock him one more time''?
While no one can say that Dr.Crandall didn't hear a voice the fact is he said he heard it. This is an appeal to the unknown; from a sceptic's point of view anyway.
It seems to me the power of prayer fails in this situation because the electric shock in fact revived the man, not prayer; obviously jolting the neural pathways back into their ''proper position.''
He could only have been ''dead'' from the hospital's position because their efforts and equipment told them so. Yet if not for the Dr's last rescue efforts the man would have died for sure. Again, this still says nothing about why the doctor felt he had to use a medical technique to revive instead of actually praying and leaving the paddles out of the equation.
The one area that I believe 'religion' plays a part is when it deals with motives behind racial ideas. We cannot ignore the religious culture of America in general but more specifically the Confederate States and the mistranslations of the bible. It really had a big affect on the development of race in this country.
I do not disagree, but I have reached a different hypothesis of causality. Most people appeal to higher authority to rationalize their internalized beliefs. To some people, "higher authority" means science, to others it is the Constitution, and to still others (probably most Americans) it is religion. Within each group there have always been racialists and anti-racialists.
Scientifically oriented racialists use the writings of scientists to rationalize their belief, while anti-racialists of this group use science to disprove the very existence of "race." Politically oriented racialists quote the writings of the founding fathers to buttress their position, while their opponents quote different writings from the same founding fathers in opposition. And religious racialists interpret scriptural quotations to show that God wants "racial" subordination, while religious anti-racialists quote scritures to show the opposite. Specifically, in the antebellum United States, you can find just as many written polemics that draw from scripture to oppose slavery and "race" as there are writings that advocate slavery and "race" drawing from the same sources.
All in all, my hypothesis is that antebellum religious belief had zero net impact on the unfolding of events. Religion was simply one of the three most common appeals to authority that people who had already made up their minds (pro or con) used to rationalize and justify their positions.
True,
my statement was more or less to say that, in discussions about race that is the only place I see how religion really can should be used in our discussions.
An example is the post you presented that made was about equating blacks with apes and the various comparisons many of us used with other ethnic groups and animals.
Another is the equating the negro slaves position in the new world with the curse of Ham by Noah...
I'm not saying these are justifications but just that in certain discussions like these are the only place I see the need for deity and religion. Not only Christianity but other religions and spiritual ideas.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
)