It seems to me that the basic problem that WCS was trying to address is that most people, including both secular folks and people with a dynamic dialectic between cumulative tradition and individual faith, don't understand what religion is, and that quite naturally results in a hot mess of misunderstanding, which can result in a deep schism between the religious and the non-religious. The obvious solution is for people to better understand what religion is. I don't see how abandoning the concept of 'religion' will do that. Also, I don't think that people with cumulative tradition and individual faith are inclined to put their tradition and faith under a microscope. If religion is the 'opium of the people' that would be a total buzz kill.

I don't see how the concept of religion being new, Western, or somehow static, makes it invalid. Is any concept actually static? No, so why does he claim that it is? Maybe this suggests a reluctance to study and analyze cumulative tradition and faith because that might change our concept of it (and be a buzz kill).

In practise, most times when a people start a sentence with 'religion is...' what usually follows is a regurtitation of their inherited prejudices. Kind of an 'anti-dogma'. — Wayfarer

If cumulative tradition and individual faith were all good perhaps there wouldn't be such prejudices.

Religions are such a diverse set of cultural phenomena that it is arguable that the word really has no useful meaning. — Wayfarer

You have trouble recognizing religion? If so, that may be because you want to label something a religion that isn’t a religion, like secularism. Am I right?

Trump's criticisms of a Gold-Star Muslim family on national television is news to me and it is utterly disgusting.

Obama being presidential at that time:

Trump hired him, and he was Trump's longest-serving chief of staff, so I assume that John Kelly is a slime-ball too. It's characteristic of a slime-ball to turn on their master when it's safe to do so.

You seem to be confusing the reports.

No he didn’t. — NOS4A2

Well, uh... he in fact did...

Kelly set the record straight with on-the-record confirmation of a number of damning stories about statements Trump made behind closed doors attacking US service members and veterans, listing a number of objectionable comments Kelly witnessed Trump make firsthand.

“What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said, when asked if he wanted to weigh in on his former boss in light of recent comments made by other former Trump officials. “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.

“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on evangelical Christians, on Jews, on working men and women,” Kelly continued. “A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”

And again, just out of curiosity, in what context is calling Americans who died in war "Losers" and "Suckers" okey dokey?

Before they spun it in the usual way, by removing context and inserting their own. “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’”, and people still believe it. Dupes passed it around in this very thread even after it was refuted.

Disgraceful propaganda. — NOS4A2

Yesterday John Kelly, the longest-serving White House chief of staff for Trump confirmed that it's true.

Just out of curiosity, in what context is calling Americans who died in war "Losers" and "Suckers" okay?

And humans don't actually love or hate as a matter of their own nature? — wonderer1

They do, according to old Darwinian ideas.

It's God, or the other guy that God created, putting on a puppet show?

The theory of constructed emotion is a theory in affective science proposed by Lisa Feldman Barrett to explain the experience and perception of emotion. The theory posits that instances of emotion are constructed predictively by the brain in the moment as needed. It draws from social construction, psychological construction, and neuroconstruction.

God is not the one doing the constructing in this theory, but it's regarded as just a theory so hopefully no one will cry scientism! :snicker:

Fundamentalists and both Dawkins and Dennett can't grasp romanticism? If you say so.

Many apologists would argue that love emanates from god's nature and our ability to feel it is evidence God in action in our lives. — Tom Storm

I wonder how they would explain the emotions that motivate killers when they commit murder. Surely that doesn't emanate from God's nature.

I think it's an interesting point. Can religion explain the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet?

He rarely says anything about it. — Wayfarer

Laughably, he did in the quote that you picked.

it is indisputable that this is what they both propogate — Wayfarer

Another lie. Of course it's disputable. For example, Dawkins doesn't refuse to consider other forms of knowledge, such as philosophical, ethical, or experiential, as valid or meaningful, and he doesn't ignore or downplay the qualitative, subjective, or personal aspects of human experience, which cannot always be easily studied using the scientific method. This is evident in the quote that you post where he says:

science can't in practice explain things like the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet — Richard Dawkins

As for your fit of pique, get over it. — Wayfarer

I'm insulted by your misrepresenting Dawkins and others???

it was a colloquial expression — Wayfarer

Just locker room talk, aye? Where have I heard that before? :roll:

You missed the point — Leontiskos

His point was that Richard Dawkins and others believe in scientism. An accusation that is often used to discredit atheists and falaciously invalidate their arguments.

Dawkins himself has clarified his position by stating that he does not consider himself a proponent of scientism. He has expressed the view that while science is an incredibly powerful and reliable method for understanding the natural world, there are also limits to what science can address. He acknowledges that there are philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical questions that may fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

"Science disproves God"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

For Dawkins & co. the answer is "B". — Leontiskos

What does B mean? That science mostly disproves the existence of God? That is nonsensical.

If it means that science can undermine religious beliefs such as creation stories, that doesn't seem very indicative of belief in scientism.

Let's try this:

"Richard Dawkins believes in scientism"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

A newcomer to Dawkins would come away with a more accurate understanding if they attended to Wayfarer's posts rather than your own. — Leontiskos

I just reviewed my posts and I've practically said nothing about him, other than what he's said himself. I haven't "paraphrased" anything he's said or misrepresented him.

uncharitable interpretation and the lack of effort to ascertain intended meaning — Leontiskos

:lol: Speaking of...

your quibble here amounts to, “No, Wayfarer, Dawkins does not believe that science provides a 7/7 certainty that God does not exist. He only believes that it provides a 6.9/7 certainty that God does not exist. How intellectually dishonest of you.” — Leontiskos

But thanks for agreeing that Wayfarer was exaggerating the truth, if only by 1.43%. Exaggeration is a misrepresentation. Why exaggerate and misrepresent if you have no agenda?

Again, valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.

It’s a valid paraphrase of what Dawkins and Dennett are on about. Not my problem if you can’t see it. — Wayfarer

If a paraphrase is deliberately biased or used to misrepresent the original content to serve a specific agenda, it is considered unethical and misleading. Valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.

Claiming that "science disproves God" is clearly indicative of belief in scientism. None of them say that however, so you are forced to exaggerate what they say to make it appear that they believe in scientism. Your "paraphrasing" shows bias and is misrepresentative. That makes it invalid.

It's dishonest for anyone to do this. For a moderator of a philosophy forum to do this can lead to the degeneration of the integrity of the forum, I fear.

He might not use the exact phrase — Wayfarer

I did a page search for "science disproves God" and nope, it's not in any of those quotes.

There are plenty of examples. — Wayfarer

There are no examples of him saying what you claim he says, that science disproves God.

throughout his popular writing career has held up science as an example of rational thinking and religion as no more than bigotry and superstion — Wayfarer

And he probably doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. What does that have to do with you saying that he claims that science disproves God?

He doesn't claim that science disproves God. Your saying he does is dishonest.
Your failure to admit the truth is also dishonest.

Everyone you are disagreeing with has provided sources, with quotes. You have provided neither. — Leontiskos

Except for the quote that addresses my complaint.

To quote myself (which includes me quoting Dawkins):

I could only find religious believers saying that Dawkins claims ‘science disproves God’. Dawkins himself says things like:

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. — praxis

Do you believe that Wayfarer was merely paraphrasing and it was a happy coincidence that the paraphrasing supported his assertion so well?

For all I know Dawkins or Harris has made the claim that "science disproves God" and I just can't find it. Can you?

I think that I should first back up a bit and point out that atheists such as Harris don't go after fundamentalists because they're easy targets. From what I gather, he's concerned with fundamentalism because he generally considers it the most dangerous (think 9/11) form of theism.

It's interesting to contrast religious liberalism/fundamentalism and science/scientism in terms of power or weakness.

I think everyone can agree that science is valued for its explanatory and predictive power, that it provides a structured framework for identifying and solving problems, that it facilitates technological advancements, etc etc.

I'm not sure what value scientism has as a philosophical position though I think it can interfere with the practice of science by limiting exploration, slowing scientific progress and paradigm shifts, underestimating theory and subjective experience, and neglecting moral and social issues that may arise in science.

Science has power, or rather it has high value. It's unclear what value scientism may have, and it can have a negative impact on science, essentially weakening it.

Considering the power or weakness of religious liberalism and religious fundamentalism, it appears to be the case that the former is on the decline and the latter is on the rise, and the basic reason for that is because religious liberalism is weak tea compared to stricter forms of worship. Stricter worship offers a more potent and fulfilling experience, in other words.

That's why I think religious liberalism is weak compared to religious fundamentalism.

I shouldn't have brought him up — Wayfarer

You should be honest when bringing him up. It’s probably a good idea for the moderators of a philosophy forum to be intellectually honest.

It’s the characterization of ‘weakness’ that I don’t follow. How does fundamentalism in religious belief lack power or strength compared to religious liberalism, or however you contrast fundamentalism?

None of the characters were particularly interesting, or novel anyway, if you’re familiar with Murakami’s work. They’re very similar to characters in some of his other books, and in fact the character of Ushikawa is in The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.

I think there’s some truth to the idea that a person can get stuck in an alternate world or a cat town and it takes some kind of ordeal to escape.

Personally, I don’t appreciate lies whatever camp they come from. Not sure what you mean by fundamentalism being weakest form of theism. Not important though, just curious.

I have things to say about [1Q84] — Jamal

Oh?

They aren't synonymous — Hanover

I appreciate your honesty, not that it was a big ask. I don't appreciate the claim that some atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists and then put words in their mouths to indicate that that is in fact the case. I'm not a new atheist fan, by the way, I'm just partial to truth.

Do you believe those two statements are synonymous?

We recently chatted in Clark's AI art topic and he seemed fine to me, but then I swim in the low-quality end of the pool myself. Good thing I'm not a prolific topic starter. :grimace:

This is not as bad as the NFT bubble crap though so kinda refreshing. — simplyG

Actually, I understand that a lot of the NFT crap was AI generated. It helped to provide a new plaything for the rich and contributed to a big waste of energy

I said it was interesting. I didn't say it was better or that I even liked it. It's mildly interesting in how it kind of lost the plot and confused the 3d impasto technique with the still-life elements.

Should I have expressed fear and loathing to be more in the cool kid camp? :snicker:

I don't interrogate Van Gogh every time my spirits are lifted by sunflowers; I don't take Yeats to task each time I read a poem. Something of them passes to me, by however indirect a route, that simply doesn't happen with computer generated art; those images never get past my eyeballs. — Vera Mont

I looked up the expression 'get past my eyeballs' and apparently it has something to do with vitreous detachment and floaters. I didn't know AI had that effect. Anyway, just for fun I wanted to see how Midjourney might forge some Van Gogh sunflowers. Some renderings were much closer but the following is interesting. Looks like impasto painting over a 3D sculpture.

Click the reveal button at your own risk of eye damage.

Science undermines religion and the belief in God.

Science disproves God.

Do you guys actually think these two claims are the same?

It's easy to intuit that science may tend to undermine religion. How can science disprove the existence of God? No one says that, other than believers fallaciously trying to invalidate atheist arguments.

How good are you at thinking paradoxically? — Athena

The only thinking I’m good at is not thinking.

New atheists like Dawkins claim there is evidence, like natural selection, that explains phenomena that were previously undertaken by religion, yes.

I could only find religious believers saying that Dawkins claims ‘science disproves God’. Dawkins himself says thing like:

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.

That’s a far cry from claiming that science disproves God. But then believers are not known for their honesty.

There's a great deal of pseudo-scientific nonsense spouted by the 'new atheists' such as Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris who all mistakenly believe that 'science disproves God' or some such, leading none other than Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame), no believer himself, to describe Richard Dawkins as a 'secular fundamentalist'. — Wayfarer

Some claim that Dawkins and crew believe that science disproves God but when you try to find them saying some such it’s not easy to find. What do they call that, a strawman argument?

Salvation — Isaiasb

The theological definition of salvation is the deliverance from sin and its consequences.

Have you been delivered from sin and its consequences? If not, do you know anyone who has been?

But think about all those poor guys who make motel room and doctor's office art. They need to work too. — T Clark

One of the first jobs I had was working in a painting factory that would mass-produce crap for hotels and the like. It was piecework, doing batches of around 20 canvases simultaneously. Talk about starving artists. :cry:

For me, "aesthetic experience" is an act of communication between two people. What happens when there is only one person there? — T Clark

One person viewing a pretty sunset is like :starstruck:

Art is a creative process but sometimes it’s a destructive one too. Destructive in terms of destroying our deepest held convictions about the world and creative via romantic ideals or impressionism. Whatever the style may be beauty is mostly universal if it’s expressed elegantly enough and transcends time by being timeless and says something no matter how much society changes through the centuries. — simplyG

Seeing beauty in what's normally regarded as ugly via aesthetic experience can be rather depatterning, if you asked me. Anyway, it's not like revolutionary art comes before the impulse to revolt.

Once again we're talking about the utility of art, I note.

The question is what distinguishes human creativity from machine creativity as the latter is merely a program which produces results via input whereas human creativity stems from something different altogether such as emotion which machines are incapable of feeling. — simplyG

So far, AI doesn't identify creative problems or possess the impulse to express itself. Nor does it explore, play, or innovate of its own accord. I guess the impulse to express oneself requires consciousness, but I think the rest could be developed without it, and that's just around the corner.

Because that’s not religions goal. — Isaiasb

What is religion's goal?

Whilst aesthetics is an important part of art it’s not the be all end end all of art... — simplyG

I agree, and like I said it's not enough. I'm wondering what it would be like if it were enough. If it were maybe there would be no need for AI art.

Notice how you defer to religious authority. That's being religious. That's not being spiritual.

... the question pertinent is that of originality which is what real art should bring to the table... — simplyG

People have various criteria for art, such that it should be original, authentic, true, meaningful, reflect the values of society, or whatever else. I wonder if aesthetic experience is taken for granted or if it's practically an afterthought in our materialistic society and it is not enough.