A diamond the size of a refrigerator

[carlfense]

If I told you that I thought there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard, and you asked me, why do you think that? I say, this belief gives my life meaning, or my family draws a lot of joy from this belief, and we dig for this diamond every Sunday and we have this gigantic pit in our lawn. I would start to sound like a lunatic to you.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Why-Religion-Must-End-Interview-With-Sam-Harris.aspx?p=3

[Undone]

This is in my opinion a very shallow analogy from Sam.

 

Tell me this, Carl: Since Sam doesn't give any specifics about the backdrop of this analogy, are you personally using it as a defense against theism? If so, a particular sect of theism, or all theism? Is it an all-encompassing argument against the supernatural, which would include deism? Is this a positive argument in favor of the non-existence of God, or a negative argument against the existence of God?

 

What are the terms here? Explain where you're intending for this to go.

[EbylHusker]

I would think the people digging are a little bit crazy, but it's their yard and as long as it's not negatively impacting others, it's their business. In the same way, I think religious people are a little bit crazy, but it's their life.

[carlfense]

Tell me this, Carl: Since Sam doesn't give any specifics about the backdrop of this analogy, are you personally using it as a defense against theism? If so, a particular sect of theism, or all theism? Is it an all-encompassing argument against the supernatural, which would include deism? Is this a positive argument in favor of the non-existence of God, or a negative argument against the existence of God?

None of the above. I saw it on Reddit and laughed. I thought someone else might get a kick out of it.

 

If you're asking my beliefs . . . I used to be hardcore Methodist. Assisting with youth groups, bible study, etc. Now I'm probably close to being an atheist.

[carlfense]

In the same way, I think religious people are a little bit crazy, but it's their life.

Agreed. Until they start forcing it onto others, into government, or killing people, etc.

[knapplc]

In the same way, I think religious people are a little bit crazy, but it's their life.

Agreed. Until they start forcing it onto others, into government, or killing people, etc.

As with anything. I could care less what you do in the privacy of your own home for the most part. But when that activity or belief starts to harm others, affect others detrimentally, etc, then I have a problem with it.

[zoogs]

This is a little off-topic, but I've never cared too much for Sam Harris. Professional atheist.

 

I think the point though is unassailable -- while you may have personal, traditional, spiritual, or any other reasons for your beliefs, one thing that can't be said about them is that they are plain and obvious to any rational observer, and that anyone calling themselves rational must admit to the truth of [a certain] religion.

 

That doesn't mean the opposite is true -- that anyone calling themselves rational must admit to the falsehood of [...], but in my opinion it is reasonable to point out that religion requires a leap of faith, so to speak. Which is all he's doing here, in his dickish, confrontational little way.

[carlfense]

. . . but in my opinion it is reasonable to point out that religion requires a leap of faith, so to speak. . . .

Pretty much.

[Landlord]

This is a little off-topic, but I've never cared too much for Sam Harris. Professional atheist.

 

I think the point though is unassailable -- while you may have personal, traditional, spiritual, or any other reasons for your beliefs, one thing that can't be said about them is that they are plain and obvious to any rational observer, and that anyone calling themselves rational must admit to the truth of [a certain] religion.

 

That doesn't mean the opposite is true -- that anyone calling themselves rational must admit to the falsehood of [...], but in my opinion it is reasonable to point out that religion requires a leap of faith, so to speak. Which is all he's doing here, in his dickish, confrontational little way.

 

 

I think we all put a great deal of faith in what we believe, whether it happens to be an established world religion or anything else. It's just that those of deep faith are quite a bit more visible in their leaps, and the alleged or perceived inconsistencies jump out a bit easier.

[zoogs]

I think you're certainly right in that there are a lot of things that anybody takes on faith in their own world view. Who am I to ridicule when there's all kinds of things I take for granted but don't know anything about?

 

A lot of times I'll see people pointing to that parallel as an attempt to equate the faith of religion to the 'faith' of science, though, and that's where I sharply disagree. Science is the pursuit of laying it out in the open and accepting only what can be backed up by objective, repeated trials. But then, it is not within the domain of science to shape or guide one's life. Only to document and categorize a base of knowledge about the physical world.

[Landlord]

I think you're certainly right in that there are a lot of things that anybody takes on faith in their own world view. Who am I to ridicule when there's all kinds of things I take for granted but don't know anything about?

 

A lot of times I'll see people pointing to that parallel as an attempt to equate the faith of religion to the 'faith' of science, though, and that's where I sharply disagree. Science is the pursuit of laying it out in the open and accepting only what can be backed up by objective, repeated trials. But then, it is not within the domain of science to shape or guide one's life. Only to document and categorize a base of knowledge about the physical world.

 

 

I agree with that in part. However, I think science takes a great deal of faith; I just think the word we use for it in science is 'theory'. Now, I'm not one that just throws around that word without understanding what it means specifically in the context of science - scientific theory is not just guesswork or speculation. However, scientific theory is argued and tested inductively, just as belief in God is. Theories don't make apodictic propositions, and for good reason. Now this might not seem like the same type of leap of faith - I believe that's only because we take for granted the underlying pillars of support that scientific theory is based on. We need to put faith in human reasoning, in the existence of reason and order at all, in our perception being adequate and unclouded in observation, etc.

[EbylHusker]

You're right, it doesn't seem like the same leap of "faith" - mainly because it's not. Not at all. Not even close.

[JJ Husker]

I don't know, my logic tells me that it takes a leap of faith to believe this universe was created simply by chance. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't scientific reactions require a cause? For example, lots of people will point to the big bang as being the beginning. Well what caused that? What was here before that? We know that the universe has not been here for an infinite amount of time. What caused it to come into being? The cop out answer is usually something like this; "well that was so long ago that we'll never know". But, the people providing this answer are usually the first ones to be adamant about our existence being the result of pure chance. So, if you are a proponent of there being no creator, you are taking a leap of faith, because you have no answer for what existed before or for what caused the big bang.

 

The cosmological argument goes like this;

1- Things exist.

2- It is possible for those things to not exist.

3- Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.

4- There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.

5- Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things.

6- The uncaused cause must be God.

 

Since an entity like God is really the only thing that could exist eternally, I think this is a pretty good logical argument for there being a creator. Once that point is realized, a whole bunch of the other issues surrounding God, belief, faith, miracles, religion, etc. become a whole lot easier to grasp with our limited powers of reasoning.

[EbylHusker]

And right there is the huge fallacy that so many people use while trying to legitimize religion by comparing it to science.

 

Us not knowing exactly how the universe was created, or what came before it (if anything), is a perfectly acceptable answer. We don't know, and anyone who tries to tell you we do (like saying the Big Bang has to be how it happened) is only trying to sell you something. Real scientists who aren't trying to make headlines will tell you it's the leading mainstream theory, but it in no way answers all the questions and it certainly has some problems.

 

No leap of faith is required for that. The Big Bang theory is supported as a current best fit model through observation and mathematical calculation. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got right now (at least I think so).

 

Religion requires, at its core, a belief in something that there is absolutely no shred of verifiable, scientific evidence for. God. Not a single bit. And that's fine - it's taken on faith. It does not need to be legitimized by trying to compare it to science. Doing so only makes people look foolish, ignorant, and insecure in their beliefs.

 

It is, in fact, the exact same thing as believing in bigfoot. There is not a single shred of verifiable, scientific evidence that bigfoot exists. The difference is, idiots try to legitimize their belief in bigfoot by mixing it with "science" (which is really a stretch to even call it science). And that's where the problem comes in. The same is true for religion...when you start trying to legitimize it with science, it gets ridiculous.

 

You can make all the "logical" arguments you want for there being a creator. There exists no evidence for it whatsoever. Feeling that way is not any kind of faith - it is looking at the available facts and NOT taking a leap of faith.

[Landlord]

And right there is the huge fallacy that so many people use while trying to legitimize religion by comparing it to science.

 

Us not knowing exactly how the universe was created, or what came before it (if anything), is a perfectly acceptable answer. We don't know, and anyone who tries to tell you we do (like saying the Big Bang has to be how it happened) is only trying to sell you something. Real scientists who aren't trying to make headlines will tell you it's the leading mainstream theory, but it in no way answers all the questions and it certainly has some problems.

 

No leap of faith is required for that. The Big Bang theory is supported as a current best fit model through observation and mathematical calculation. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got right now (at least I think so).

 

Religion requires, at its core, a belief in something that there is absolutely no shred of verifiable, scientific evidence for. God. Not a single bit. And that's fine - it's taken on faith. It does not need to be legitimized by trying to compare it to science. Doing so only makes people look foolish, ignorant, and insecure in their beliefs.

 

It is, in fact, the exact same thing as believing in bigfoot. There is not a single shred of verifiable, scientific evidence that bigfoot exists. The difference is, idiots try to legitimize their belief in bigfoot by mixing it with "science" (which is really a stretch to even call it science). And that's where the problem comes in. The same is true for religion...when you start trying to legitimize it with science, it gets ridiculous.

 

You can make all the "logical" arguments you want for there being a creator. There exists no evidence for it whatsoever. Feeling that way is not any kind of faith - it is looking at the available facts and NOT taking a leap of faith.

 

 

 

You have a narrow definition of evidence. Tell me, in court, do eyewitness accounts not count as evidence? Do expert testimonies not count as evidence? Do logical conclusions and arguments not count towards proving a case?

 

Scientific evidence != evidence. Philosophical and logical conclusions hold just as much weight as scientific conclusions. In fact, science would not be able to exist or achieve it's job without philosophy and logic.