Household Debate

[willtruncheon]

Sandy and I have been having a religious argument in our house this morning, which I want to reproduce here in the hopes that others might want to comment on it. I asked her to reproduce her side here, but she's a little too busy right now, so I'll just try to objectively boil down our respective statements here

Comments

[willtruncheon]

What would you accept as empirical evidence against the existence of souls? Could it not be said that because we are demonstrably unable to communicate with the dead that the fact alone pushes us closer to the "not likely" end of the spectrum, if not providing real certainty

[willtruncheon]

Where I disagree is when you say that the truth of the matter isn't important. Why live a life based on a lie if you can help it? Do we need lies to be fulfilled and happy? I don't think anyone truly does.

[gospog]

Once I accepted the Orbiting Green Toast into my life, everything turned around, and for the better. Spread me, oh lord, I am but butter before thee.

But seriously, who is right depends on what sort of discussion you are having. In a scientific discussion based on facts, "You can't prove it" holds a hell of a lot more water than "You can't disprove it". Like you said, no one can disprove the Green Toast (praise be!) either.

But if you are having a practical discussion about how the world really works, he point in mucho valid. As an atheist, I am a huge supporter of organized religion. Orbiting green toast never encouraged people to turn the other cheek or give to charity. The masses need something bigger than them.

Everyone needs something bigger than them. I refer you to "Horus Rising", with respect. And green toast. :)

[willtruncheon]

Okay, I agree with you that living for a purpose other than your own personal satisfaction is a good thing. But why, oh why, does that purpose have to be Unprovable Invisible Omnipotent Irrational Sky Faeries? Can't we just cut the bullshit and say, "Look, if you treat people well, it's more likely that they'll return the favor. Happy people create other happy people. The more happy people there are, the more likely it is that they'll make you happy, too,"? Can't that something bigger be, say, the welfare of the human race by virtue of empathy alone? Do we have to patronize the Unwashed Masses (I use the term sarcastically) by perpetuating a series of silly myths to keep them in line?

BTW, Horus Rising was awesome. I had such low standards as to what constituted a 40K novel... my eyes are opened.

[warriorbard63]

People will always need to believe something, and yeah, Horus Rising is a great illustration. I do believe there's more than just this flesh-bound existence. I do not believe in any particular dogmatic system, primarily because they're all written by flawed people (not "god"), and they almost all require one to believe that their way is the only way...to me, that's criminal and anathema to anything a "real" god might actually expect of his or her children. I've often thought that if there were such a god, he or she is either laughing at us or crying nonstop over how we "just don't get it". As to the existence of the soul...I pretty much know for the fact I've had quite a few go-rounds, so I have to tell you, it's the real deal. Proof? Can't be done, but I know what I know.

As for 40K...I haven't read a bad Dan Abnett book yet. Can't say the same for the other authors of the Black Library, though. I'm halfway through False Gods at the moment, and it's a decent pick up on what Abnett started, but not as well done.

[willtruncheon]

I have to appeal to your sense of reason here. You're claiming to know something that is, at the least, scientifically improbable (assuming what you're referring to is reincarnation). You're also freely admitting that you can offer no proof for this belief. This makes no sense. It is the same argument used by fundamentalists worldwide: "It's irrational and has no evidence to support it, but I have secret knowledge that makes me privy to the Truth." You say you "pretty much know for a fact" that your soul exists and has been reborn in different bodies. You cannot know this for a fact, by any meaningful definition of the word "fact". I mean, if you DO have some sort of evidence supporting the existence of the soul, please share!

[tirianmal]

Belief and rational thought are pretty much by definition opposite sides of the human equation. To try and impose the rules of one on the other, is doomed to failure. I find both sadness and strength in the fact that people are not wholly given to one or the other, but thankfully exist in a middle ground where they are willing to use logic some of the time and their beliefs are not wholly capable of rendering their rational capabilities useless. Mostly

[tirianmal]

as to

Sandy's Argument: Belief in the existence of human consciousness after death is justified because it provides comfort to the bereaved and supplies a possible sense of meaning to people's lives. As the existence of souls is an idea that cannot ever be decisively "disproven", it should be accepted as a valid theory. This belief exists in part because people would be incapable of dealing with the psychological impact of thinking that their loved ones would eventually truly cease to exist.[edit: As stated by Andy above, my response to her position would be ... if she said something different, I might have to comment differently

[ghostowl]

Haha I never said it was a theory - that's Andy's misinterpretation of my argument. All I said was that you couldn't prove it or disprove it.

[tirianmal]

Like I said, I was replying based on his summary. :)

[ironrat]

Technically, you are both correct: your assertion is that there is no evidence for the soul and that mainstream acceptance of an idea does not make it true (this is all correct); Sandy's argument is that there are benefits to belief in the soul (which is also true). "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they can make everyone happy

[willtruncheon]

Please comment any time! I love geeking about religion, too. I'm one of the lucky ones who has friends who can handle it.

I agree that there are benefits to having faith, but I feel that the point is moot. It's like saying that filling your shoes with helium will help you run faster. Well... it might, a little, possibly. But what would really, demonstrably help you run faster would be cross-training and a proper diet. You believe that lighting a candle and saying a prayer will make the world a better place? It might, but the evidence suggests that you'd be better spending your time by volunteering for community service.

[ironrat]

Well, a lot of the people who light a candle and say a prayer are also people who are doing social work like helping in soup kitchens, shelters, etc. Why is funding for faith-based institutions so controversial? It's not just because of the separation of church and state. It's also because these institutions are often really good at providing social services where the government is inefficient and ineffective. If the faith-based initiatives weren't good at it, there would be more backlack against funding. There's a correlation between lighting-a-candle-and-saying-a-prayer and giving money and time to help people who need it. Some people will be charitable without the prayer, and some people pray without being charitable, but if you aren't going to give your time or money to helping people, isn't it better to at least hold hope that things get better

[willtruncheon]

"...It's also because these institutions are often really good at providing social services where the government is inefficient and ineffective."

My gut is to disagree with you there, although I freely admit I don't have statistics to look at. The government-funded charities don't provide Bibles to people dying of protein deficiencies, or withhold aid dependent on religious beliefs. I feel the muted backlash against the faith-based initiatives is more due to general apathy, people's priorities, and the American tendency to tiptoe around or embrace issues of religious faith.

Also, I agree that it's important to hold hope for the future. Isn't hope based on fact and a plan of action a far stronger and reliable thing than hope based on an unprovable hypothesis?

[dcltdw]

My response (without being polluted by reading the other comments first; I may come back and amend^H^H^H^H^Hplagarize others) is: where's the problem

[willtruncheon]

I guess I see the problem as this: we run into difficulty as a race when we start accepting as "true" concepts that are unsupported by evidence, and enthusiastically defend this "right". I think it just makes it that much easier next time to accept a belief in something just because it's comforting

[dcltdw]

Agreed on all points. I think tax-exempt status should be stripped from religious organizations. If they're doing charity work, great; they can spin that off and apply for tax-exempt status for that, and the rest of their organization pays taxes as normal.

But well, try to convince anyone of -that-. :)

[tirianmal]

Because of the separation of church and state idea, that will always be hard to do. However, in a strictly constructionist constitutional point of view, there's nothing that says that the government can't tax churches. After all, the churches aren't outside of the law.

Still, any church or organization that becomes a political entity should have it's tax-exempt status removed. And the problem is that many churches are moving more and more into the realm of motivating their parishiners politically. And that's a problem. Because while the Constitution provided that the govt shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, the framers didn't put any equal protection into the Constitution in the reverse case. If only.