say what? (Epistemology) (The atheist delusion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 05, 2012, 20:44 (4457 days ago) @ scoobypoo

...
> Clearly no harm, and perhaps much fun and stimulating conversation, but I prefer to address what I see as the very real danger of organized religion in today's world, and that means [IMHO] pointing out the ridiculous beliefs that children are brainwashed with.-As for anything that I've written, just tell me what you want re-explained and I'll do it. I assure you, a degree in philosphy is NOT required, as for the 3 main contributors, we have a Shakespearian writer (dhw), a retired heart surgeon (David), and a programmer/mathematician (yours truly). -Dogma in any form is my enemy. Faith is my enemy. Let us be clear about these two things. -You mention ridiculous beliefs--which ones? And, as I have pointed out in the words above--as long as there is no "one true guiding path" we don't exactly have a lot of say and/or leverage to dictate or force a path for people to follow. There will always be people who won't care for logic and will dismiss wide swaths of well-argued positions simply because their direct experience dictates otherwise. And at the end of the day, I have no more say over say, Santorum's beliefs than Dawkins does. -David, our resident theist, argues philosophically for a creator, purely because of life's complexity: because he values intuition more than empiricism and feels strongly that the "God of the Gaps" is bridged by his observations. Is he correct? We can't say. Can he deliver material proof of a creator? Even he dictates that this is impossible. One of his strongest arguments lies in the fact that theories of abiogenesis are little farther along now than they were nearly 60 years ago. (He believes its time to call it quits here.)-^^^You can't neatly refute this. If someone teaches that to their kids, guess who doesn't get a say in it? You or me. We also don't get to call it brainwashing, because as long as people exist that value direct experience/intuition over empiricism (what I called "The Order of Rank") there will exist no basis to call something "brainwashing." The question of which one is superior is subjective.-Phrased in another way: protecting children from what you call "brainwashing" is ultimately an "ought to" question. "We ought to do x..." This is a normative question--meaning its opinion. There exists no objective criteria to say "We ought to teach Christ risen in 3 days is false." Not unless you can make everyone agree that empiricism is fundamentally superior to any and all modes of thinking. -And good luck on that. I wasted 15 years on that windmill. -Some writers also argue that faith is an evolutionary mechanism... considering every society has some kind of religion, I'm inclined to agree.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"