Calilasseia wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:I'm not so sure about that. They may well be unaware of what legitimately can be said to constitute knowledge. Ignorance rather than malice. Not everybody obsessively pursues knowledge like some of us. I think it is probably a step too far to tar all of them with the same brush.

Slight problem here with respect to the individual being discussed in this thread. That individual is, or was, a tenured lecturer in theology. Presumably, as a consequence, this individual had access during said tenure to knowledge not available to many others. Usually, tenured lecturers have institutional access to journals and papers that are closed off from the rest of us behind paywalls, have privileged access to other scholars and academics, and as a corollary, it's something of a stretch to attribute 'ignorance' to an individual with said access. Indeed, if such an individual is ignorant of salient facts, particularly with respect to his tenure remit, then this raises serious questions about said individual's competence.

Goldenmane wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Nonsense. They know full well that this can't be classified as knowledge, which is why they tell you it takes faith. It doesn't matter that it's provably incorrect, just that they are fully aware that what they have is faith, not knowledge.

They're lying.

I'm not so sure about that. They may well be unaware of what legitimately can be said to constitute knowledge. Ignorance rather than malice. Not everybody obsessively pursues knowledge like some of us. I think it is probably a step too far to tar all of them with the same brush.

Nicko wrote:I think it's more a case of "giving yourself permission" to apply everyday critical thinking skills to the question of belief in God.

It's not - in my experience, anyway - that the religious don't know how to think critically. They may not be formally trained, but most of them seem to be able to wander through life without giving their bank account details to people claiming to be Nigerian princes.

I don't think it's that they have thought critically about the subject, reached the obvious conclusion and chosen to lie either. It's just inconsistent with the behaviour (ie. consistent honesty on other subjects, even when lying would be advantageous) of most religious people I know.

My own experience with - admittedly mild - religious indoctrination is that it creates the belief that you should not question religious belief. You just don't apply the normal standards of evidence and knowledge to religious questions.

One just ... doesn't.

Nicko wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Nonsense. They know full well that this can't be classified as knowledge, which is why they tell you it takes faith. It doesn't matter that it's provably incorrect, just that they are fully aware that what they have is faith, not knowledge.

They're lying.

I'm not so sure about that. They may well be unaware of what legitimately can be said to constitute knowledge. Ignorance rather than malice. Not everybody obsessively pursues knowledge like some of us. I think it is probably a step too far to tar all of them with the same brush.

Goldenmane wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:I'm not so sure about that. They may well be unaware of what legitimately can be said to constitute knowledge. Ignorance rather than malice. Not everybody obsessively pursues knowledge like some of us. I think it is probably a step too far to tar all of them with the same brush.

Slight problem here with respect to the individual being discussed in this thread. That individual is, or was, a tenured lecturer in theology. Presumably, as a consequence, this individual had access during said tenure to knowledge not available to many others. Usually, tenured lecturers have institutional access to journals and papers that are closed off from the rest of us behind paywalls, have privileged access to other scholars and academics, and as a corollary, it's something of a stretch to attribute 'ignorance' to an individual with said access. Indeed, if such an individual is ignorant of salient facts, particularly with respect to his tenure remit, then this raises serious questions about said individual's competence.

Sorry, mate, but I can't find anywhere that demonstrates that he had tenure. Hell, the original article says the following:

As it turns out, the day came when I really didn't fit within the church anymore. I had been an outspoken critic of the church's approach to our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered members -- that approach being exclusion or, at best, second class membership ("we won't kick you out but you can't participate in leadership"). Through the years, I had also been a critic of the church's treatment of women, their approach to evangelism and their tunnel-vision approach to church growth. I was deeply committed to my community and its betterment -- something that won me the praise of some (and even an Innovative Church of the Year award from the North American Division) and the vitriol of others. I engaged in and sponsored interfaith relationships within my churches and in the community. I struggled alongside our neighbors for justice and peace. All of these things -- things I was most proud of in my ministry -- earned me rebuke and alienation from church administrators. I tried to maintain that I was a faithful critic -- a critic from within -- someone committed to the church and its future success but unwilling to go blindly along with things I felt were questionable, or even wrong.

This was on top of my theological concerns. I couldn't affirm the teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was the "remnant church" -- God's chosen people to prepare the world for the last days. If fact, there was a lot about the church's beliefs concerning the last days (and the more proximate days) that troubled me.

In March, I stood my ground on these issues and was asked to resign. I didn't want to resign but I finally agreed. My family and my health had suffered over the past several years but my faith had suffered most of all. Since that time I have been a religious nomad. I have struggled to relate to the church and, if I'm honest, God. I haven't attended church consistently; I struggle to relate to church people, preferring the company of skeptics and non-church-goers. I haven't prayed much and, without sermons to write on a regular basis, I haven't studied, or even really read, the Bible.

He was asked to resign in March last year, and as he himself has since pointed out, he was contracted on a half-yearly basis ro whatever it was. Not tenure. Far from it.

Look, as someone who took a long time to go from brought-up-in-church-serious-believer to the loveable rogue you all know me as today, I can't condemn the poor fuck out of hand. I majored in physics at uni, and in some ways that contributed to me eventually working out that I didn't believe any of the god nonsense, but being raised inside this shit can seriously fuck with your head. I was academically bloody talented, but because of my upbringing and my intelligence I was almost certainly a fucking nightmare to teach. You're a fucking genius, and so are several others here, so you won't understand this, but for the not-genius educator, coming up against a kid like me is a horrible thing. It's impossible to teach me, because I know I'm smarter than you and on top of it I'm vastly more glib.

(Aside: this is why I don't think WLC is stupid. I think he's quite intelligent, but also emotionally stunted. He reminds me of me when I was about 17. An intelligent idiot.)

Anyway, I'm going to need you to demonstrate to me that the bloke was a tenured lecturer in theology, and on top of that I'm going to need you to demonstrate to me that that necessarily dictates that he can't also be a poor, ignorant, blinkered, sheltered fool.

Without that, all you have is assertions. And you know how we treat them here.

Calilasseia wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:I'm not so sure about that. They may well be unaware of what legitimately can be said to constitute knowledge. Ignorance rather than malice. Not everybody obsessively pursues knowledge like some of us. I think it is probably a step too far to tar all of them with the same brush.

Slight problem here with respect to the individual being discussed in this thread. That individual is, or was, a tenured lecturer in theology. Presumably, as a consequence, this individual had access during said tenure to knowledge not available to many others. Usually, tenured lecturers have institutional access to journals and papers that are closed off from the rest of us behind paywalls, have privileged access to other scholars and academics, and as a corollary, it's something of a stretch to attribute 'ignorance' to an individual with said access. Indeed, if such an individual is ignorant of salient facts, particularly with respect to his tenure remit, then this raises serious questions about said individual's competence.

Sorry, mate, but I can't find anywhere that demonstrates that he had tenure. Hell, the original article says the following:

As it turns out, the day came when I really didn't fit within the church anymore. I had been an outspoken critic of the church's approach to our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered members -- that approach being exclusion or, at best, second class membership ("we won't kick you out but you can't participate in leadership"). Through the years, I had also been a critic of the church's treatment of women, their approach to evangelism and their tunnel-vision approach to church growth. I was deeply committed to my community and its betterment -- something that won me the praise of some (and even an Innovative Church of the Year award from the North American Division) and the vitriol of others. I engaged in and sponsored interfaith relationships within my churches and in the community. I struggled alongside our neighbors for justice and peace. All of these things -- things I was most proud of in my ministry -- earned me rebuke and alienation from church administrators. I tried to maintain that I was a faithful critic -- a critic from within -- someone committed to the church and its future success but unwilling to go blindly along with things I felt were questionable, or even wrong.

This was on top of my theological concerns. I couldn't affirm the teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was the "remnant church" -- God's chosen people to prepare the world for the last days. If fact, there was a lot about the church's beliefs concerning the last days (and the more proximate days) that troubled me.

In March, I stood my ground on these issues and was asked to resign. I didn't want to resign but I finally agreed. My family and my health had suffered over the past several years but my faith had suffered most of all. Since that time I have been a religious nomad. I have struggled to relate to the church and, if I'm honest, God. I haven't attended church consistently; I struggle to relate to church people, preferring the company of skeptics and non-church-goers. I haven't prayed much and, without sermons to write on a regular basis, I haven't studied, or even really read, the Bible.

He was asked to resign in March last year, and as he himself has since pointed out, he was contracted on a half-yearly basis ro whatever it was. Not tenure. Far from it.

Look, as someone who took a long time to go from brought-up-in-church-serious-believer to the loveable rogue you all know me as today, I can't condemn the poor fuck out of hand. I majored in physics at uni, and in some ways that contributed to me eventually working out that I didn't believe any of the god nonsense, but being raised inside this shit can seriously fuck with your head. I was academically bloody talented, but because of my upbringing and my intelligence I was almost certainly a fucking nightmare to teach. You're a fucking genius, and so are several others here, so you won't understand this, but for the not-genius educator, coming up against a kid like me is a horrible thing. It's impossible to teach me, because I know I'm smarter than you and on top of it I'm vastly more glib.

(Aside: this is why I don't think WLC is stupid. I think he's quite intelligent, but also emotionally stunted. He reminds me of me when I was about 17. An intelligent idiot.)

Anyway, I'm going to need you to demonstrate to me that the bloke was a tenured lecturer in theology, and on top of that I'm going to need you to demonstrate to me that that necessarily dictates that he can't also be a poor, ignorant, blinkered, sheltered fool.

Without that, all you have is assertions. And you know how we treat them here.

Well I admit I'm going by my own learning experience, which I've already mentioned included poring over The Children's Encyclopaedia at six years of age, and seeing for myself the vast chasm separating empirical verification from uncritical acceptance of blind assertions. It's not unreasonable to conclude that with this background, I find it hard to imagine how anyone can treat unsupported assertions as fact, the way that is de rigeur in the world of religion, and that I'm naturally minded to conclude that anyone with access to sufficient learning cannot help but reach similar conclusions about said assertions. Though I understand the virulence of the process once it takes hold from a cerebral standpoint, I lack what might be termed the visceral immediacy of experiencing such a viewpoint first hand, and consequently still scratch my head as to how people can do this.

The point remains, though, that since this individual had access to learning at a level not available to many others, and as has been exposed here, was already starting to entertain doubts about the whole supernaturalist assertion-based enterprise, if he continued to espouse the purported "factual" status of those assertions whilst entertaining those doubts and amassing said learning, it does raise some serious questions, does it not?

I have a friend who holds a Masters in Physics, and yet is still strongly religious. I don't think he lies when he talks about his God, and I cannot for the life of me work out how he can believe what he does, especially given that he attended the same university as I did, one year ahead of me, which means he had access to world-class education and information. But he's not a liar. He's just... indoctrinated? Confused? I'm not sure.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Goldenbrain wrote:-
Is he a naive realist? Math is highly seductive as a belief system. It is so reliable. So people get an almost religious faith about math. I had a math prof at UWA. I was a first year, and cleaned the Math building. He was fundi creationist. None of my evidence for evolution mattered. In his view evolution, and OOL life were mathematicially unsound, therefore wrong.

Lentes wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Goldenbrain wrote:-
Is he a naive realist? Math is highly seductive as a belief system. It is so reliable. So people get an almost religious faith about math. I had a math prof at UWA. I was a first year, and cleaned the Math building. He was fundi creationist. None of my evidence for evolution mattered. In his view evolution, and OOL life were mathematicially unsound, therefore wrong.

One doesn't believe in the results of mathematics.

Either one accepts the validity of the logical argument or one doesn't. There is no belief input into the equation, so to speak. Even if one questions the truthfulness of the most fundamental axioms, one must logically accept that the truthfulness of all the results obtained through the axioms is, well, true, if the axioms are assumed to be true.

One can certainly develop emotions about mathematics, just like any other thing. What do you mean exactly, when you say the bolded?

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Goldenbrain wrote:-

I have a friend who holds a Masters in Physics, and yet is still strongly religious. I don't think he lies when he talks about his God, and I cannot for the life of me work out how he can believe what he does, especially given that he attended the same university as I did, one year ahead of me, which means he had access to world-class education and information. But he's not a liar. He's just... indoctrinated? Confused? I'm not sure.

Is he a naive realist? Math is highly seductive as a belief system. It is so reliable. So people get an almost religious faith about math. I had a math prof at UWA. I was a first year, and cleaned the Math building. He was fundi creationist. None of my evidence for evolution mattered. In his view evolution, and OOL life were mathematicially unsound, therefore wrong.

Goldenmane wrote:[...] We don't know if he was still spouting these things as factual whilst not believing that to be the case, but it's also, you'll forgive me for pointing out, entirely beside the point, since the current discussion is regarding whether it can accurately be said that "all preachers and their ilk are professional liars".

I have a friend who holds a Masters in Physics, and yet is still strongly religious. I don't think he lies when he talks about his God, and I cannot for the life of me work out how he can believe what he does, especially given that he attended the same university as I did, one year ahead of me, which means he had access to world-class education and information. But he's not a liar. He's just... indoctrinated? Confused? I'm not sure.

THWOTH wrote:

Goldenmane wrote:[...] We don't know if he was still spouting these things as factual whilst not believing that to be the case, but it's also, you'll forgive me for pointing out, entirely beside the point, since the current discussion is regarding whether it can accurately be said that "all preachers and their ilk are professional liars".

I think we can call preachers 'professional liars' in respect of the point that hey pass demonstrable untruths to others as assured truths or facts.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Just to clarify, I did not mean every math guru or even most of them regard math as a religion. But a minority sure get close to it, if not going over the line altogether. ...

HomerJay wrote:declared to be true by someone who knows they are not true

MS2 wrote:

HomerJay wrote:declared to be true by someone who knows they are not true

That's the problematic bit. Many of them believe they are true.