« How religions disable our reasoning practices | Main | Let's agree: life is difficult »

September 19, 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As must have been observed plenty of times by plenty of people, religious beliefs are quite literally psychotic. If a single person held those beliefs, they'd definitely be locked away, or at least fawned on by scores of psychiatrists sticking needles into them and pouring drugs into them and making many a career out of studying them. Because instead of one, or two or four or ten, we have literally thousands and millions and even billions holding these absurd unevidenced beliefs, therefore we call them "religion", and those sheer numbers end up giving these psychotic beliefs legitimacy (which legitimacy, if clearly recognized as no more than pragmatism, might make some kind of sense; but in as much as it is often seen to speak to the truth value of those beliefs, or at any rate to equivocation about such beliefs, to that extent this is no more than a fallacious, and often implicit, argumentum ad populum).


Incidentally, as far as your main argument here, Brian, I'd like to add:

A superficial reading into your excerpt and comments above might lead some to point and cry "No True Scotsman". Therefore it might be important to add this:

Those recursive "Why"s isn't something we're arbitrarily putting a stop to by introducing arbitrary axioms. Such presumptions, and indeed such axioms, as we do introduce, those too can very well be defended, if one wishes to clearly examine the foundations of one's belief systems.

For instance, if asked for proof of prime movers et cetera, the theist is reduced to half-witted Aquinianisms (that, in Aquinas's time, may well have been understandable, and indeed even brilliant, even if mistaken; but are simply ignorant and stupid if held on to today). On the other hand, the presumption of an objective reality --- the first of your the presumptions in your list --- can be indeed be defended, not so much on strictly epistemological grounds, as by a simple application of Occam's Razor, and as the simplest and most apt explanation of our model of how things work. (Which does mean that that presumption is tentative, as indeed all science is tentative, but nevertheless it is entirely a fully justified presumption, one that we can clearly defend if asked to.)

>>This is a valid use of Why? because the so-called presumptions are anything but. They're the sort of reasons that may make sense to a religious believer, and can be fashioned into a mutually reinforcing set of beliefs, but they are very weak philosophically and scientifically. <<

If so ... so what?

Scholar, scientists and others the like are like people running and frequenting 5 stars Michelin establishment. This discussions among chefs, columnists, writers of cook books and the consumers, is only open to the happy few, that have the money, the time and who are educated to talk about food in terms of gastronomy .... but .... for the rest of the majority, the "loosers" ... it is enough to talk about food, in terms of health etc. staying alive, where to get the money to buy food, how and where to get proper drinking water.

It is alright, let the 5 stars restaurant and everything related to it flourish, but do not set it as a standard for all.

Yes ...mental ill people have presumptions but not all people that have these presumptions are mentally ill .... and what to say about those that make it seen that way??

Things are what they are
mostly not what the seem to be
let alone how the are presented by say atheists or people that want them selves to be seen as such, or try to converse the worl to thing their way, for their own good.

@ Brian ; [ -- Our universe is illusory; reality lies elsewhere.
-- Religion or mysticism is the best way to know reality.
-- Perfect mystics or prophets have 100% certain knowledge.
-- Science can't be relied upon, so it is fine to ignore it.

This screed that mysticism is nothing but baseless belief is inaccurate.
The last item -it's fine to ignore an unreliable science- is a pure fabri-
cation. It has the distinct pall of someone overreaching and conflating
religious anti-vaxers with mystics.

Mystics do not support blind belief. That's often a charge justifiably
leveled at followers of many religions however. Don't conflate the two.
For the former, belief alone isn't enough. The goal of mystic discipline
is to confirm every claim scientifically within through mindfulness and
an intense devotional path. Whether followers always succeed, even
after years, isn't the point. A true mystic will encourage a follower to
shift course and try another path if dissatisfied or results aren't attained.

And after school life person learns that Christian thieves have stolen everything from Sanskrit to form false language English.

There is a you tube video Christian Thieves by Frank Padilla.

Your essay is the most impressive strawman argument that I've seen in my 20 years of experience with internet apologetics. I'd write a detailed rebuttal but frankly, it would just take too long to do.

Instead of making ludicrously broad accusations about anyone who disagrees with you, it would be more fruitful to focus on specifics opinions or incidents that you find fault with.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.