Pebble wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:The problems is that faith is essential to human functioning.
You have to have faith that your senses accurately reflect the outside world - there are well documented instances of where this is not the case and the individual is entirely unaware of what they are not seeing/feeling/hearing
You have to have faith that your brain's construct of your world is functionally accurate - there are precious few checking mechanisms for this.
You have to have faith that the future is worth working for, that the sun will rise, that the rains will come, that food will be available if you plan sufficiently etc.
Anyone setting up a business must have faith in their idea, in the people they work with etc.
All of scientific advancement relies on varying amounts of faith - in constructing the hypothesis through to investing in the effort to try to validate/disprove said hypothesis.

And so on. OK you can change the name to trust/belief, but in all instances we are placing our trust in something that we cannot either presently (or ever in some cases) validate, the amount of evidence we can provide in support of each of these beliefs varies - but makes it very difficult to isolate one type of faith / belief and to determine that that type of faith is unacceptable.

Wrong.

You're confusing inference from insufficient data with uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. Which is wrong, because in the case of the former, you have at least some data to work with. Along with the possibility of changing your inference when better data arrives. The moment you're processing data to arrive at your inferences, you're dispensing with faith altogether.

No you are confusing your world view with the right world view.

I'm not the one exhibiting confusion here. What part of "explicit statement of reasons for my exposition" do you not understand?

Furthermore, what I'm expounding isn't a "world view" as conventionally defined, instead, what I'm expounding is inference based upon observation of the relevant data. "World views" have a habit of being founded upon unsupported assertions, and you should have learned from my extensive output here, how much I regard said assertions with deep suspicion.

Pebble wrote:In the view of 'believers' they are working with the evidence

All too often, they demonstrate on a grand scale, that they don't understand what "evidence" actually means. Courtesy of thinking that apologetic fabrications somehow equals "evidence", when they don't. But then this is an all too often observed aspect of the aetiology of doctrine centred world views.

Pebble wrote:the evidence may be incomplete and in some respects contradictory, but they are working with evidence.

No they are not. To put it bluntly, made up shit isn't evidence.

Pebble wrote:We may disagree with what they regard as evidence, we may disagree with how they weight/scrutinise available evidence - but that may be our bias (viewed from their perspective).

Oh dear, postmodernism alert ...

Genuine evidence places constraints upon the remit of assertions. It defines the conditions under which those assertions are to be considered true, and if those assertions do not meet those conditions, said assertions are regarded, in any properly constituted rigorous discipline, as having been falsified. Contrast this with the frequently observed manner in which supernaturalists try to peddle via their apologetics, that "X holds" and "X does not hold" both purportedly constitute "evidence" for their imagined mythological entities. This would be considered a sad joke in mathematics and the empirical sciences.

Pebble wrote:For example when Einstein came up with relativity, there was no supporting evidence.

Except that, oh wait, Einstein didn't come up with relativity in a vacuum. He came up with relativity, in a scientific environment where problems were starting to arise with the previous paradigm. Such as the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the ultraviolet catastrophe. The Michelson-Morley experiments were first conducted in 1887. Albert Einstein wasn't even born until 1879. The ultraviolet catastrophe, namely the failure of the Rayleigh-Jeans Law to provide a physically realistic view of black body radiation, was first tackled by Max Planck in the early 1900s, with Einstein providing a Nobel-winning solution in the form of the photon (and its role in the photoeletric effect) in 1905.

Pebble wrote:There was a previous Newtonian world view that worked perfectly well for all obvious problems.

You'll find I've already posted extensively on the transition from Newton to Einstein. Einstein's ideas came to prominence because they explained both the new phenomena considered to be problematic for Newtonian physics, and the legions of old phenomena considered to have been explained by Newtonian physics - a prime requirement for any replacement physical theory. If Einstein's ideas had failed at that hurdle, they would have been discarded.

Pebble wrote:The difference then is that this was subsequently validated by empiric observation.

Actually, what really happened, was that Einstein predicted the existence of new phenomena, in a quantitatively precise manner, which were then searched for, and found not only to exist, but to behave in the quantitatively precise manner predicted.

Pebble wrote:But at the time of the initial mathematical modeling, it was simply a hypothesis that some people (Einstein for example) had faith in and appeared to solve some rather eclectic issues with the previous models.

It didn't "appear to solve them", it did solve them. But, as I've stated above, it solved them in a manner that didn't involve failure to model existing phenomena. Which is the key issue. The people responsible for that mathematical modelling always had that key issue in mind when launching their new ideas, namely that said ideas would be doomed if they didn't account for already known phenomena. They exercised a lot of effort to maintain the requisite consistency, something totally absent from supernaturalist apologetics.

Pebble wrote:Now move on to faith in the accuracy of your brains internal model of the world - how can you provide unequivocal evidence that this is so?

Appropriate empirical test. See: physics.

Pebble wrote:Given all evidence you produce to support this is true or otherwise is filtered by the same brain!

Except that the brain has to possess a certain minimum level of competence in this vein, before it can even start to construct a model. Plus, the data obtained via appropriate empirical test, is not the product of that brain. There's the key difference. The external world provides the data, whilst the brain, if it applies due diligence, works out what that data is telling it. At least this is how it's done in any endeavour involving even elementary levels of rigour.

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:We may disagree with what they regard as evidence, we may disagree with how they weight/scrutinise available evidence - but that may be our bias (viewed from their perspective).

Oh dear, postmodernism alert ...

Genuine evidence places constraints upon the remit of assertions. It defines the conditions under which those assertions are to be considered true, and if those assertions do not meet those conditions, said assertions are regarded, in any properly constituted rigorous discipline, as having been falsified. Contrast this with the frequently observed manner in which supernaturalists try to peddle via their apologetics, that "X holds" and "X does not hold" both purportedly constitute "evidence" for their imagined mythological entities. This would be considered a sad joke in mathematics and the empirical sciences.

Wonderful to live in such a hermetically sealed test tube. There are many unanswered questions, if there were not science would have done its job, but there remains a long way to go. Now given that each piece of the jigsaw is answered probabilistically - since that is what empiricism can achieve, anyone that is basically honest with themselves can see that room for error will always remain and the more 'facts' contributing to ones arguments the greater the scope for error in the final conclusion.

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:For example when Einstein came up with relativity, there was no supporting evidence.

Except that, oh wait, Einstein didn't come up with relativity in a vacuum.

Where did I claim otherwise? The point I was making is that until validated it was nothing more than one of a number of models that seemed to improve on Newtonian physics. Others were discarded over time but not without a fight. So at the beginning those supporting each theory invested heavily in proving their theory right (belief), often leading to their producing unconsciously biased experimental results. Those looking to determine which if any theory was right/falsifiable, has to invest time in and effort in challenging the evidence produced.

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:Given all evidence you produce to support this is true or otherwise is filtered by the same brain!

Except that the brain has to possess a certain minimum level of competence in this vein, before it can even start to construct a model. Plus, the data obtained via appropriate empirical test, is not the product of that brain. There's the key difference. The external world provides the data, whilst the brain, if it applies due diligence, works out what that data is telling it. At least this is how it's done in any endeavour involving even elementary levels of rigour.

Missing the point. You can observe 'brains' and you can deduce what brains do and don't do. But you can interrogate your own brain (n=1) to only a very limited degree and only where the output of your inquiry is contaminated by the active contribution of your brain. You have no choice but to assume that your brain is similar to other brains and work from there. Before you get off on your high horse, I know your assumptions are reasonable - my point is if you were wrong you have absolutely no way of knowing this.

You don't need to assume when you can test and yes there are testable variations.

You can test for differences in colour vision for instance.


http://enchroma.com/test/instructions/
Or supertaster variations.

Inserting religious claptrap like "faith" and "belief" in a testable reality is a best wishful thinking of some sort of parity and in actually is slef delusion.

Macdoc wrote:You don't need to assume when you can test and yes there are testable variations.

You can test for differences in colour vision for instance.


http://enchroma.com/test/instructions/
Or supertaster variations.

Inserting religious claptrap like "faith" and "belief" in a testable reality is a best wishful thinking of some sort of parity and in actually is slef delusion.

Yes there are some limited things you can test, and the number of things you can test are increasing with fMRI for example. However that still misses the point. Everything you 'see' (etc) has been processed by your brain, your interpretation is the product of a number of processes - therefore the raw data is inacessible. The inescapable consequences for certainty are best expressed I think in "Being No One" by Thomas Metzinger. I am unclear why people want to be defensive on this issue, I am not trying to argue that empiricism is flawed nor that we cannot trust our senses etc.

You are inserting religious terms inappropriately and considering we can already read from the brain what people are seeing your "inaccessible" is inadmissable.
http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decodi ... ds-1.13989

Just drop belief and faith from any science/evidenced based conversation and you'll be fine as from my view you are still trying to maintain an ineffable status for the human brain.

It's a complex machine....nothing more. Do recall

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

AC Clarke.

Pebble wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:We may disagree with what they regard as evidence, we may disagree with how they weight/scrutinise available evidence - but that may be our bias (viewed from their perspective).

Oh dear, postmodernism alert ...

Genuine evidence places constraints upon the remit of assertions. It defines the conditions under which those assertions are to be considered true, and if those assertions do not meet those conditions, said assertions are regarded, in any properly constituted rigorous discipline, as having been falsified. Contrast this with the frequently observed manner in which supernaturalists try to peddle via their apologetics, that "X holds" and "X does not hold" both purportedly constitute "evidence" for their imagined mythological entities. This would be considered a sad joke in mathematics and the empirical sciences.

Wonderful to live in such a hermetically sealed test tube.

Congratulations on misrepresenting my exposition on a grand scale, especially as I've already explicitly stated that the above is the result of taking account of observational data, something that doesn't happen in a "hermetically sealed test tube". Or did you miss that elementary concept, in your eagerness to peddle accommodation of bad ideas, just because it makes the pedlars thereof feel warm and fuzzy?

Pebble wrote:There are many unanswered questions, if there were not science would have done its job

Congratulations, you've listened to Dara O'Braian.

Pebble wrote:but there remains a long way to go.

And this is an excuse for continuing to hand unearned privileges to unsupported assertions, and the lame doctrines they prop up? Er, no.

Pebble wrote:Now given that each piece of the jigsaw is answered probabilistically - since that is what empiricism can achieve, anyone that is basically honest with themselves can see that room for error will always remain and the more 'facts' contributing to ones arguments the greater the scope for error in the final conclusion.

This is hilarious. You've just asserted that the world's scientists are more likely to cock things up, if they pay attention to larger and more refined data sets. It's difficult to treat this seriously, but I'll try in the interests of discoursive rigour.

All the data we have, in case you hadn't noticed this, tells us that the biggest source of error by far, is the treatment of unsupported assertions as fact, regardless of what the data happens to be telling us about the purported "factual" status of those assertions. Oh wait, it isn't scientists that are doing this, it's supernaturalists.

Pebble wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:For example when Einstein came up with relativity, there was no supporting evidence.

Except that, oh wait, Einstein didn't come up with relativity in a vacuum.

Where did I claim otherwise?

It was implied in the very sentence of yours I quoted above.

Pebble wrote:The point I was making is that until validated it was nothing more than one of a number of models that seemed to improve on Newtonian physics. Others were discarded over time but not without a fight.

And how was that process achieved? Oh, that's right, by paying attention to data.

Plus, I've already explained how those responsible for the requisite models, were also aware that their models had to be consistent with all previously gathered data. The moment that consistency test failed, it was back to the drawing board.

Pebble wrote:So at the beginning those supporting each theory invested heavily in proving their theory right (belief)

Poppycock. "Let's construct a model, then find out if our model is actually in accord with observation" doesn't involve "belief". Your continued failure to understand this elementary concept is not doing you credit here.

Pebble wrote:often leading to their producing unconsciously biased experimental results.

You are aware that a significant part of the scientific endeavour involves working diligently to eliminate bias? Plus, if the model continues to be in accord with observation after that diligent effort has been expended, we have even more confidence in that model.

Pebble wrote:Those looking to determine which if any theory was right/falsifiable, has to invest time in and effort in challenging the evidence produced.

And you think scientists don't bother doing this?

Pebble wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:Given all evidence you produce to support this is true or otherwise is filtered by the same brain!

Except that the brain has to possess a certain minimum level of competence in this vein, before it can even start to construct a model. Plus, the data obtained via appropriate empirical test, is not the product of that brain. There's the key difference. The external world provides the data, whilst the brain, if it applies due diligence, works out what that data is telling it. At least this is how it's done in any endeavour involving even elementary levels of rigour.

Missing the point.

No, you are missing the point, namely that it doesn't matter what fanciful ideas are cooked up by a given incarnation of the human brain, those ideas go into the box labelled "fantasy" the moment that external data delivers its verdict. It doesn't matter how much one asserts or fantasises that, for example, acceleration under gravity is modelled by the relationship a=f(t), when the data tells us that the actual relationship is a=g(t), where g(t) is an entirely different function. The data wins every time.

Pebble wrote:You can observe 'brains' and you can deduce what brains do and don't do. But you can interrogate your own brain (n=1) to only a very limited degree

I suspect the neuroscience literature has something to say on this ...

Pebble wrote:and only where the output of your inquiry is contaminated by the active contribution of your brain.

fMRI, anyone?

Pebble wrote:You have no choice but to assume that your brain is similar to other brains and work from there.

No, you conduct tests to see if other brains exhibit like behaviour. Seems like you've forgotten the elementary concepts once again.

Pebble wrote: Before you get off on your high horse, I know your assumptions are reasonable

Since when is inference derived from data synonymous with "assumptions"? Are you becoming a creationist or something?

Pebble wrote:my point is if you were wrong you have absolutely no way of knowing this.

Poppycock. For one thing, if I ever suspect that there's a problem with the functioning of my neurons, there's a neurology department a 45 minute train ride away I can check into. And doing so would not be an act of "faith", it would be something I do because I know that the requisite medical science works. Courtesy of the century or so of data that has been paid attention to in order to make it work.

The idea that there is any "symmetry" between the scientific endeavour, and supernaturalist assertionism, is dead. All the data tells anyone with functioning neurons that it's dead. Alongside the scientific endeavour, supernaturalism is an intellectual eunuch. Not least because, as is frequently observed, supernaturalists cannot agree amongst themselves on a global scale, which of the numerous extant mythologies is purportedly the "right" mythology, and even adherents of a particular mythology cannot agree amongst themselves what that mythology is purportedly telling us about the world, or instructing us to do. That's because there exists no data for supernaturalists to work with, that would provide a proper, rigorous test of the matter, or even the most rudimentary of proper methodologies in place. Apologetics is a fucking joke.

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:Now given that each piece of the jigsaw is answered probabilistically - since that is what empiricism can achieve, anyone that is basically honest with themselves can see that room for error will always remain and the more 'facts' contributing to ones arguments the greater the scope for error in the final conclusion.

This is hilarious. You've just asserted that the world's scientists are more likely to cock things up, if they pay attention to larger and more refined data sets. It's difficult to treat this seriously, but I'll try in the interests of discoursive rigour.

All the data we have, in case you hadn't noticed this, tells us that the biggest source of error by far, is the treatment of unsupported assertions as fact, regardless of what the data happens to be telling us about the purported "factual" status of those assertions. Oh wait, it isn't scientists that are doing this, it's supernaturalists.

You continue to make the simple error of assuming anyone that disagrees with your position is a. wrong b. a supernaturalist.

You know very well the statistical basis of the claim I have made. Multiple reinforcing pieces of 'evidence' is the supernaturalists refuge - no point going there.

Calilasseia wrote:

Pebble wrote:my point is if you were wrong you have absolutely no way of knowing this.

Poppycock. For one thing, if I ever suspect that there's a problem with the functioning of my neurons, there's a neurology department a 45 minute train ride away I can check into. And doing so would not be an act of "faith", it would be something I do because I know that the requisite medical science works. Courtesy of the century or so of data that has been paid attention to in order to make it work.


The idea that there is any "symmetry" between the scientific endeavour, and supernaturalist assertionism, is dead. All the data tells anyone with functioning neurons that it's dead. Alongside the scientific endeavour, supernaturalism is an intellectual eunuch. Not least because, as is frequently observed, supernaturalists cannot agree amongst themselves on a global scale, which of the numerous extant mythologies is purportedly the "right" mythology, and even adherents of a particular mythology cannot agree amongst themselves what that mythology is purportedly telling us about the world, or instructing us to do. That's because there exists no data for supernaturalists to work with, that would provide a proper, rigorous test of the matter, or even the most rudimentary of proper methodologies in place. Apologetics is a fucking joke.

Again missing the point made, I am not arguing for the accuracy of the scenario I have outlined, simply it's unfalsifiability - this is apparently heresy, so I shall leave it there.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:You can't teach faith out of the people who value it. They will apply skeptical inquiry where they see fit and not elsewhere if they believe faith to be a valuable, appropriate concept to apply to certain facets of their lives.

Except I'm talking about rational and critical thinking at a young age, because you're right, on an adult, only self-criticism can bring critical thinking.

Fallible wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Fallible wrote:We do teach kids about testing and verifying, sadly this hasn't stopped faith. I would like to see the end of religious content in schools. I don't necessarily mean RE classes, but the daily Christian-based act of worship we still have here should go, and any insinuation that God is real which can creep into the whole school day. I'm assuming that by faith you are referring specifically to theistic/deistic faith. I can think of occasions where faith in for example someone, something or oneself can be a positive thing.

Well that's clearly not everywhere, far from it.

How do you mean? We teach science in schools in the UK, France, Belgium, etc., which involves testing and verifying. We teach how to analyse and assess sources for accuracy in other subjects too. We could definitely do with logic/critical thinking classes, but we learn to apply critical thinking across different subjects already. In countries where the education system is fully secular, we still haven't got rid of faith and belief.

Not really. We are taught facts, formulas and laws, but the method is pretty vague. At least that's what I got. There's a reason why France only ranks 25 on PISA.

Fallible wrote:
Think of it this way. No one is directly taught in schools that any weird perceived phenomenon which does not have an explanation is caused, for example, by the disembodied spirit of a dead person, but people still make the jump to believe that. My view on both this and theistic faith is that you won't rid the world of them through education in logic and critical thinking, because it by definition has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking. Faith is belief without evidence. In other words, many of those who have faith don't care for it to be scientifically or logically verified. They have faith for purely emotional reasons, and because they really, really wish it to be so.

Because faith is taught as an important part of religion. And the youngest it is taught, the deeper it goes. If you prevent this by teaching that faith is wrong (and why), that it doesn't help you get the truth, I'm pretty sure faith and religion will slowly disappear.

surreptitious57 wrote:

aban57 wrote:
in our society faith is always presented as a positive thing beyond criticism

Faith is not always presented as a positive thing beyond criticism

You're right, not always. Just 99.9% of the time.

Wilbur wrote:
Your perspective is sluice, you should read up on such things as the epistemic relevance of controversy, disagreement as evidence, and deliberative constraint.

I didn't understand a word you said here.

Edit : messed up with the quotes.

Aban, again - people who have religious faith are not interested in getting to the truth, they don't care to find out if their beliefs chime with reality. Their fath is belief without evidence - that's the whole point of it. That's why you won't be able to educate it out of them. It sates an emotional need, and emotions are very strong and often impervious to reason.

Fallible wrote:Aban, again - people who have religious faith are not interested in getting to the truth, they don't care to find out if their beliefs chime with reality. Their fath is belief without evidence - that's the whole point of it. That's why you won't be able to educate it out of them. It sates an emotional need, and emotions are very strong and often impervious to reason.

So how are we different ? many of us here believed in (a) god at some point, and yet, here we are. In hard times, we don't turn to religion or any other belief, our brain finds another way to cope with the pain.
And again, you speak about adults, and I speak about young children.

So called secular France certainly does not seem to treating faith with much respect. And in actual fact it seems to be going
out of its way to criminalise faith based upon the wearing of certain items of clothing in public. The banning of any religious symbol on campus is another manifestation of this intolerance. This is a very dangerous way for a democracy to be behaving It is one step removed from thought control and if that is their idea of libertie egalite fraternite they can keep it. A secular state [ that is what France supposedly is ] is one that accepts all belief systems equally by treating none with fear or favour
They should look the word up as they appear not to know what it means

surreptitious57 wrote:So called secular France certainly does not seem to treating faith with much respect. And in actual fact it seems to be going
out of its way to criminalise faith based upon the wearing of certain items of clothing in public. The banning of any religious symbol on campus is another manifestation of this intolerance. This is a very dangerous way for a democracy to be behaving It is one step removed from thought control and if that is their idea of libertie egalite fraternite they can keep it. A secular state [ that is what France supposedly is ] is one that accepts all belief systems equally by treating none with fear or favour
They should look the word up as they appear not to know what it means

Faith has nothing to here. The secular law doesn't condemn any faith, only its display in public facilities. Just like the current hot debates about whether we authorise or not baby Jesus representations ("crèches" in French, don't know how it's called in English) in city halls. I think we shouldn't, as it's a religious display in a place that represent the State. And that's what our secular law is about: separation of religion and state.
I agree however that the recent outcry about the burkini and some related events are just stupid. Dangerous even. No one complained when nones walked around almost entirely covered.

The separation of religion and state references that religion should not have any influence on the formulation
of laws. It does not extend to how private individuals choose to dress in public. As it is a violation of personal
freedom. And so is none of the states business. In a democracy everyone must be free to dress as they choose

surreptitious57 wrote:The separation of religion and state references that religion should not have any influence on the formulation
of laws. It does not extend to how private individuals choose to dress in public. As it is a violation of personal
freedom. And so is none of the states business. In a democracy everyone must be free to dress as they choose

Depends on how you write the law. Here we assume that when you have a public job, you are supposed to be neutral, just like the state you represent, so you shouldn't display any religious sign.

In a secular democracy there should be no undue influence of either religious or non religious views
Laws should as far as possible be based upon logic and reason and pragmatism rather than ideology

surreptitious57 wrote:In a secular democracy there should be no undue influence of either religious or non religious views
Laws should as far as possible be based upon logic and reason and pragmatism rather than ideology

And how does the current law differs from that ? If you represent the state, you need to be neutral. How is that ideology ?

aban57 wrote:

Fallible wrote:Aban, again - people who have religious faith are not interested in getting to the truth, they don't care to find out if their beliefs chime with reality. Their fath is belief without evidence - that's the whole point of it. That's why you won't be able to educate it out of them. It sates an emotional need, and emotions are very strong and often impervious to reason.

So how are we different ? many of us here believed in (a) god at some point, and yet, here we are. In hard times, we don't turn to religion or any other belief, our brain finds another way to cope with the pain.
And again, you speak about adults, and I speak about young children.

I'm not speaking of adults. Children learn what their parents show them much more effectively than what school teaches them. Even if they're not overtly taught faith, if they see it enough, or if the home environment has other things going on such as, for example, a lack of coping skills, kids look for ways to get comfort. How are we different? Well I'm ostensibly different because I come from a faithless household, but underneath that superficiality, I'm no different. I just learned to prop myself up in a different way. Faith in a god and a divine plan being in progress was never in my retinue, but using things to alter my state of consciousness, and attempting to control the uncontrollable, was. As for those who lost faith, they probably went on to get their emotional needs met in different ways. I'll have to give this part a bit more thought.

aban57 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
In a secular democracy there should be no undue influence of either religious or non religious views
Laws should as far as possible be based upon logic and reason and pragmatism rather than ideology

And how does the current law differs from that ? If you represent the state you need to be neutral. How is that ideology ?

If the laws are secular and they are fairly applied there is no ideology. However religious influences might try
to undermine this and so where such influences are to be found the state has to be vigilant in respect of this

A case in point : some Muslims in this country want a law on blasphemy to protect Islam from disrespect and ridicule
For a secular state this would be wrong since it would be giving undue influence to one belief system over all others

surreptitious57 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
In a secular democracy there should be no undue influence of either religious or non religious views
Laws should as far as possible be based upon logic and reason and pragmatism rather than ideology

And how does the current law differs from that ? If you represent the state you need to be neutral. How is that ideology ?

If the laws are secular and they are fairly applied there is no ideology. However religious influences might try
to undermine this and so where such influences are to be found the state has to be vigilant in respect of this

A case in point : some Muslims in this country want a law on blasphemy to protect Islam from disrespect and ridicule
For a secular state this would be wrong since it would be giving undue influence to one belief system over all others

What country are you talking about ? I never heard of such a demand in France.

Fallible wrote:Aban, again - people who have religious faith are not interested in getting to the truth, they don't care to find out if their beliefs chime with reality. Their fath is belief without evidence - that's the whole point of it. That's why you won't be able to educate it out of them. It sates an emotional need, and emotions are very strong and often impervious to reason.

I find that you are being illogically presumptuous with this. I disagree with how you characterize "people who have religious faith" as not being interested in getting to the truth. I have known in the present, as well as studied in the past, many people of faith of various kinds, and I can assure you, all of them were VERY INTENSELY interested in getting to the truth. Aside from the direct funding of actual scientific research which took place under the auspices of various religions, we can see that many members spent a lifetime of energy, working diligently, and using the very same tools of logic and deduction that atheists use, to try to work out the details of their understanding OF their own Faith.

And most of them very much DO care that their beliefs chime with reality. The histories of various religions include many adjustments and "epiphanies" which were required to bring the religious tenets into line with newly discovered realities.

Now. There ARE plenty of believers, who will refuse to accept SOME otherwise obviously real things, but they aren't a valid way of judging religious belief, any more than the many lesser "atheists" who are really only making a physics book into a bible, are valid representatives of atheism.

Your final note, that religion is all about emotional coping, is also naive. I suspect you wrote this in haste, because from all your other entries here, I know you to be among the more thoughtful people , most of the time. Again, "emotional comfort" is certainly AN element of SOME facets of religious belief, but it has never been the primary reason for those who believe to carry on.