Comments on: Seeking the Hidden Switches http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Archi Medez http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4070 Archi Medez Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:26:48 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4070 Adam, thanks for the Sci Am Mind reference. Very interesting stuff. We were talking about these sorts of issues in a previous thread. As we expand our empirical knowledge of how the developing mind works, we will continue to increase our knowledge of how the mind invents religious beliefs. This is one of the most exciting areas of research. Adam, thanks for the Sci Am Mind reference. Very interesting stuff. We were talking about these sorts of issues in a previous thread. As we expand our empirical knowledge of how the developing mind works, we will continue to increase our knowledge of how the mind invents religious beliefs. This is one of the most exciting areas of research.

]]> By: Ignoramus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4066 Ignoramus Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:05:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4066 Yes, that seems more sensible to me, too Yes, that seems more sensible to me, too

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4062 Philip Thomas Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:49:35 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4062 My belief in Christianity is based on my judgement that the Resurrection ocurred and that this should be interpreted in the way that the Church has interpreted it. This seems eminently more sensible to me thatn asserting that Christianity is true because the bible is inerrant... My belief in Christianity is based on my judgement that the Resurrection ocurred and that this should be interpreted in the way that the Church has interpreted it.
This seems eminently more sensible to me thatn asserting that Christianity is true because the bible is inerrant...

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4051 Alex Weaver Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:10:48 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4051 Let me clarify: the embrace the erroneous portions of the bible, though they do not admit them to be such. Let me clarify: the embrace the erroneous portions of the bible, though they do not admit them to be such.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4050 Alex Weaver Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:09:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4050 I meant that they embrace the bible's errors, and often act according to the less moral of its dictates and in an irrational fashion consistent with its internal contradictions. While vile, this is more or less consistent according to their view of the bible as God's word. As for the essay, I specifically remember Adam citing on at least one occasion statements from liberal theists, saying he agrees that they are reasonable and morally sound, but then asking "how do they know?" Meaning that the bible does not support their positions and that if it is their own consciences from which these ideas are derived, then religion is unnecessary. Fundamentalism, by contrast, counts a significantly greater degree of Biblical support, even though no one with a functional conscience could endorse much of its position. I imagine this is what Rowan meant by fundamentalism being "more rational" (if so, not the best choice of words, but...). I meant that they embrace the bible's errors, and often act according to the less moral of its dictates and in an irrational fashion consistent with its internal contradictions. While vile, this is more or less consistent according to their view of the bible as God's word.

As for the essay, I specifically remember Adam citing on at least one occasion statements from liberal theists, saying he agrees that they are reasonable and morally sound, but then asking "how do they know?" Meaning that the bible does not support their positions and that if it is their own consciences from which these ideas are derived, then religion is unnecessary. Fundamentalism, by contrast, counts a significantly greater degree of Biblical support, even though no one with a functional conscience could endorse much of its position. I imagine this is what Rowan meant by fundamentalism being "more rational" (if so, not the best choice of words, but...).

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4035 Philip Thomas Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:04:57 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4035 Thinking about this some more: a)I don't actually follow my conscience <i> all </i> the time: there is such a thing as sin (or whatever you choose to call it). b)Often the direction of my conscience is not very specific: it may consist merely in a desire to obey due authority, for example. My actions then follow on the direction of said authority, assuming said direction does not come into conflict with some other matter of conscience. Thinking about this some more:
a)I don't actually follow my conscience all the time: there is such a thing as sin (or whatever you choose to call it).

b)Often the direction of my conscience is not very specific: it may consist merely in a desire to obey due authority, for example. My actions then follow on the direction of said authority, assuming said direction does not come into conflict with some other matter of conscience.

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4033 Philip Thomas Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:40:02 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4033 I do, when I obey the teachings of the Church I am obeying my conscience as well. I do not have strong feelings on all moral topics, though. I do, when I obey the teachings of the Church I am obeying my conscience as well. I do not have strong feelings on all moral topics, though.

]]> By: Ignoramus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4032 Ignoramus Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:16:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4032 Philip Thomas, I just read your piece on Mithala. com, and I wonder, if your conscience can override the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, then why don't you just use it all of the time? Philip Thomas, I just read your piece on Mithala. com, and I wonder, if your conscience can override the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, then why don't you just use it all of the time?

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4028 Philip Thomas Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:34:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4028 Good morning Azkyroth Weaver. I have read God is Love, and you can read my response to it here: http://mithala.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=989&start=0 God is Love actually specifically states in the first paragraph that liberal theism is a more rational position. On Adam's website there are many essays attacking the essentially irrational nature of biblical literalism. I'm not sure what you mean by "adhere closely"- do you mean that they embrace the Bible's errors? Or that there are biblical passages which adequately explain those errors? Good morning Azkyroth Weaver. I have read God is Love, and you can read my response to it here:

http://mithala.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=989&start=0

God is Love actually specifically states in the first paragraph that liberal theism is a more rational position.

On Adam's website there are many essays attacking the essentially irrational nature of biblical literalism. I'm not sure what you mean by "adhere closely"- do you mean that they embrace the Bible's errors? Or that there are biblical passages which adequately explain those errors?

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4027 Alex Weaver Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:22:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4027 And for the confused, I've been commenting as Azkyroth for the past X long. And for the confused, I've been commenting as Azkyroth for the past X long.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4026 Alex Weaver Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:20:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4026 I think what he means is that the Fundamentalists have a more solid basis of scriptural support in that they adhere closely in most respects to the bibles, particularly the contraditions in the Bible, the immoral nature of many of its passages, and the contradictions between the Bible and what Science tells us. This is a position Adam has argued (I believe it's <a href="http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/godislove.html" rel="nofollow">this essay</a>). I think what he means is that the Fundamentalists have a more solid basis of scriptural support in that they adhere closely in most respects to the bibles, particularly the contraditions in the Bible, the immoral nature of many of its passages, and the contradictions between the Bible and what Science tells us. This is a position Adam has argued (I believe it's this essay).

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4025 Philip Thomas Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:44:04 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/07/seeking-the-hidden-switches.html#comment-4025 Rowan, you and I believe that the scientific evidence clearly points to evolution. So belief that some other method was responsible for the development of human beings is less rational. On the wider point, fundamentalist believers face severe problems in the numerous contradictions in the Bible, in the immoral nature of many of its passages, and in the contradictions between the Bible and what Science tells us. So I contend that liberal theism is more rational than fundamentalism- and I think Adam also believes this. In addition, liberal theists are your ally on 90% of your agenda, so telling them they are less rational than fundamentalists is tactically unsound. Rowan, you and I believe that the scientific evidence clearly points to evolution. So belief that some other method was responsible for the development of human beings is less rational.

On the wider point, fundamentalist believers face severe problems in the numerous contradictions in the Bible, in the immoral nature of many of its passages, and in the contradictions between the Bible and what Science tells us.

So I contend that liberal theism is more rational than fundamentalism- and I think Adam also believes this. In addition, liberal theists are your ally on 90% of your agenda, so telling them they are less rational than fundamentalists is tactically unsound.

]]>