It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Regarding religious claims and the burden of proof: when a faith, any faith, asks men to behave in certain ways, whether it is their flock or a whole society or the rest of humanity (and let's be honest: name me one religion that has no hegemonic aims, except the tribal ones), then it is essential that they back up their claims by some evidence. If they base their behavior in accordance to a certain doctrine instituted by a god they obey, or want to obey, and worship, then they need to back it up. And claiming special knowledge because of revelation is not good enough. In fact, it is not good at all, as there is no way to distinguish it to wishful thinking, delusion or Don Quixotism. Simple as that. And that would start with the claim that there is a god. Mind you, we would then need to establish if this god cared about mankind and if he had any moral authority over it, but right now it would be getting ahead of ourselves... Like every single faith, every single church has done. Because they haven't even demonstrated any god's existence.
Now I am not saying I only believe in what my five senses tell me. Because my senses can be mistaken and because there are a lot of things we know are true even though we cannot normally perceive them (the atom for instance and to take an easy example). But for everything known as true it has been demonstrated. I became an atheist because of this. Not because I found the Catholic Church oppressive and amoral (my anti clericalism came later), but because I discovered they were making a lot of claims that they could not back up.
Regarding the doctrines of Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, etc: there may be some things that are morally sound in them (although I would argue that they were then hijacked by religions), but what comes first the core of them is: 1)belief in extraordinary claims 2)obedience/worship to god. Acting morally comes afterwards and we could argue a lot about the moral value of many elements of the doctrines. Pretty much all of them consider disbelief a sin and consider worship a virtue. Of course I do not worship a God that I don't think exists. But if there was sufficient evidence for any of these gods, if any of these gods were real, their existence, even proved, would not be a sufficient reason to worship any of them or obey them or their authority. Their authority and power would not be de facto legitimate, their rule would not be moral. Neither would be moral or legitimate the punishment, if any, they would give for whoever disobeyed them.
But I don't worry about said punishment because I think the plausibility of God existing is extremely slim and that it is even less likely that he cares if we exist. I don't think the universe was created by some higher being, let alone created for us. Which I never thought, by the way, was a very humble way of looking at our existence as a species. And I don't believe that the primates that we are started standing on two legs just so they could bend the knee in prayers. I do find the exercise pointless to the extreme. Seeking God on the ground? No but more seriously, however imperfect is mankind, I trust far more its inquisitive nature to discover what is true through investigation and what is moral through our own judgment, a by-product of evolution.
So in essence, one is going about it the wrong way asking for factual proof from religion.
We (humankind) are merely minions in a large, dangerous (there are so many things that can happen to us at any time - have you ever thought about how fortunate most of us must be not to poke out an eye during our existence?) world. We can't control everything, much less most of what matters. We are at the whims of probabilistic outcomes every day.
However, it is in our nature to exert control - to know.
Having faith is giving up that control to a degree. Giving up that certainty and just believing. It provides a comfort.......a sanity.
----
So I believe religion exists so people can make sense of the unknown (including their own life trajectory and those of their loved ones) - to provide some sense of calm in what is unknowing stormy waters. It exists precisely because not everything can be proven in life.
I'm not opining on that either way....just stating what is.
----
I have no problem with religion's individual spiritual healing benefits for individuals as I've said before. However, I do have problems with how it is misinterpreted/misused as a means of power or authority. That is the same with anything of importance however - humankind (and normally mankind) will find a way to abuse it/misuse it. In that regard, I am in agreement with you, but I also see the fundamental spiritual benefits of religion at a deeply personal level as well.
Actually, one asks for evidence about something is the only way to go if one is to be intellectually honest and wants to live his life according to whatever doctrine. Because in extenso, faith is very often about leading a life a certain, according to some commandments and to please a god whose existence has not even been proven to begin with, let alone his intentions! One can be a deist of course, believing a god that would exist, but that he is indifferent to us. But let's face it, many believers are theists and they not only want to live their life according to a belief, but want other people to share them. And their justify their beliefs by special experience or revelation, which is meaningless and insufficient to hold something as true.
In any case, if god is unprovable, there is no difference between an existing god and an nonexistent one. And there is no way to differentiate faith and delusion.
[/quote]
Comfort yes, sanity no. You can say: "I am human and I don't have a control on everything, or don't know everything", without believing in a god or gods. Actually, to investigate and widens our understanding of nature, this is what you do. You say I don't know this phenomenon or why there is x, let's investigate. If you say "god did it", you are leading yourself into ignorance for the sake of comfort.
And I don't think the theist thinks he does not control nature: he often thinks he does through prayer, which he thinks may influence what he refuses to know or understand. For instance, it is not comforting to know you have cancer, but we made incredible progress treating in the last few years. Can prayer keep the sick comforted? Sure. Absolutely. But it has no bearing over the reality that is the disease. We have been having greater numbers of remissions because our knowledge of the disease has improved and our way to treat it too. Now what is the most responsible and intelligent way to deal with cancer? By faith in a god's master plan, or by trying to understand the disease through investigation?
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/charlie-hebdos-editor-doesnt-want-to-be-your-free-speech-hero/
And I know nothing about Katha Pollitt, but she is spot on in this op ed: http://www.thenation.com/blog/205897/charlie-hebdo-deserves-its-award-courage-free-expression-heres-why
Lastly, even if you dont require proof within the spiritual World, if the effect of the beief has a direct impact of people in the physical World, you can see why those people get a little upset and bemused.
Delusional people will bend over backwards to justify their delusions rather than deal with reality..and that includes creating scenarios where proof is not required. A self justifying loop that no logic and rational can break into. and a pointless exercise in attempting to debate ("like playing tennis without the net" as Harris one said)
He has you confused with NicNac. All mods look the same. ;)
That's the crux of the problem with spiritual claims: we are meant to accept not only that a God exists, but that he intervened and intervenes in human affairs and orders you to act a certain way, but there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence and he is not demonstrable. Once the theist demonstrates God's existence, then whether this god is just, wise and knows what he is talking about when he gives command would still be up to debate. But the existence of God has not even been demonstrated yet...
And it is ironic that holy scriptures, whatever which ones the believer consider true and holy, often show God acting and meddling into human affairs in no ambiguous way, showing his presence... But now he is simply quiet. Now we need to accept things on faith. And if you don't, you are a doubting Thomas. Very twisted, turning gullibility into a virtue.
Je suis toujours Charlie and his prophet has been dead a few centuries ago and does not deserve my respect whatsoever.
As I said in my earlier post, it is what it is. You can't change it. I can't change it. No one can change it. Ever. So don't bother trying. We've been through enough centuries of mankind and enough advances in science, and religion's stronghold on the educated is as strong as ever. As long as we don't control everything in this world and as long as things happen to us that are outside that control, then there will be a place for comforting stories and self serving narratives.
As I've said before, I have no problem with someone using religion for spiritual individual healing. I do, however, take strong offence when religion is prescribed, or when it is part of the national fabric. That must stop. Religion is best kept at home and for individual well-being - until it can find more evidence to back up its claims.
Now, regarding the links on Charlie Hebdo, as I've said before, freedom of expression cuts both ways. The authors who don't want to honour Charlie Hebdo have that right, and I respect that right.
Do muslims have a right to their religion? Yes, absolutely. That is freedom of expression. Do they have a right to be criticized for their religious beliefs that do not have have evidential bearing, like we are doing on this thread? Yes, absolutely, as do all religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Indeed, any religion that holds any non-evidence based statements as absolute fact is delusional, regardless of its ability to heal individually (similar to how kind words that are in fact lies can comfort a dying person).
However, I draw the line at mocking or satirizing any religion. Especially religions that have a legitimate right to feel persecuted. Even today the word 'antisemitic' has connotations, because of how the jews suffered during WW2. Well, it's about time one gives the muslims similar respect, since more innocent muslims (as a religion) have suffered more (in numbers) bombings, dismemberment and deaths over the past 25 years than what befell the jews during the holocaust (it's actually going on as we speak in several muslim countries - but we conveniently are not shown it on our sanitized western televisions). We conveniently justify massive munitions bombings on ISIS, Al Qaeda, 911 etc, but calmly seem to forget that innocent people are dying every time a precision (a sick joke imho) bomb is dropped in the Middle East, Libya or in Afghanistan. I am not religious and I am not muslim, but I am disgusted that we in the west go living our consumerist ways judging others while seemingly not giving a sh#$ that our governments are massacring innocent civilians miles away under the guise of fighting terrorists.
As I've said before, the majority of muslims are humble, spiritual, peaceful people. They have a right to feel persecuted today because we in the west don't seem to care about the loss of innocent muslim lives, but rather are focusing on the terrorist elements (which are few and far between in relation to the peaceful muslim population). In that environment and context, I believe they should not be mocked. Their religion can be 'called out' for intelligent discussion/debate along with all other religions, but not insulted. The context is important.
Similarly, murdering someone who offends you is obviously a disgusting way to express your discontent. I am not condoning that either. The severest punishment is required for the perpetrators.
As I said earlier, I agree with Andrew Solomon on this matter. Charlie Hebdo has a right to freedom of expression. They deserve the recognition for their commitment to that freedom. As he said, they are not getting the award for the content.
And even Jews don't refrain from mocking their own faith or their fellow Jews. As they should. Criticizing ideas brought in the Torah is not antisemitism. If it was the case, many Jewish stand up comedians would be antisemitic.
As for the writers who refused to award Charlie Hebdo, it was their right, but they were as wrong as they were ignorant of CH.
I'm not condoning the suffering of Muslims at the hands of Muslims. There is a reason for that and a history, but it is not justifiable. That does not justify their suffering at the hands of outsiders as well, does it?
Who says it is important as well. You can criticize a member of your family, warts and all, but when someone outside your family (who does not seem to want to understand you or your family) mocks you, it's something different entirely. That's just common sense and not recognizing that is also a delusion.
Criticize all you want. Have an intelligent discussion and debate all you want. Mock and insult? Mock and insult religion? As an outsider? No matter which religion, doing that will result in undesirable consequences for the offender. That much is common sense as well. It does not make it right, but it is inevitable. Especially when that religion already has a sense of persecution at the hands of outsiders.
Sometimes we ridicule because it is laughable. The Prophet is dead and has been dead a long time ago. He was apparently an unpleasant man who married an underage girl. That can be mocked and ridiculed if one thinks he was virtuous. Or if he thinks women (half the world population) should be subservient to men. Or if he thinks gays should be shot.
We have done it in a civilized way (to date) on this thread. That's the way to do it. Via discussion and debate. View and counter view. We have not mocked here - at least I don't think we have.
Mocking or satirizing something that people believe dearly, something which they have been born with (and which for some is as dear as their life) and for which they have been touched spiritually, is quite different and is likely to cause deep offence.
I can't say the following strongly enough. It does not make it right. It's just common sense. Thinking otherwise is a delusion. One has to accept the world the way it is.
All the "Je suis Charlie" in the world showing support for the fallen is no substitute for intelligent debate and discussion on the subject of religion imho.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*ck*ng what."
And you can hear him here (ans there is even a reference to SPECTRE):
Human beings are emotional beings. They can get offended (we even see people getting offended on something recreational like these threads and this board).
I believe views can only be changed over time for the better by appealing to the intellect and reason. Not by stoking the emotions, which mocking/satire does.
I'm not worried about fighting fanaticism with mocking - I am worried about creating new fanatics by mocking.
Hell hath no fury like a person scorned.
Best post so far. I dont really understand the leap in logic people are prepared to take by saying 'I dont understand something, this made up theory explains it therefore it must be true'. Granted the whole thing is a Schroedinger's Cat scenario where we can never know until we open the box whether God exists or not but mere blind faith as a reasonable hypothesis to explain gaps in our knowledge about the universe strikes me as intellectual bankruptcy.
Even if we ignore fundamentalism, sectarianism and the problems they alone bring this rejection of medical science in favour of prayer is an insidious evil that really should not be allowed in this day and age. By all means pray rather than undergo chemo if its only your life that's affected. That is a matter of personal liberty and I would never intervene there much as I would never intervene to say someone cannot smoke. But if a parent denies their child medical care and trusts in the power of prayer this is somehow seen as noble rather than scandalous.
By all means pray (although it wont make the slightest difference) that your child doesnt get cancer because there is nothing else one can do against such vagaries of fate but once they actually have cancer to deny them something that has proven to be effective (OK not with 100% success but I'd take even the worst cancer treatment's success stats over prayer's any day) because of something you believe in that they cannot have any concept of understanding is outrageously selfish. Do these same people not bother fastening their seatbelt when they get in a car because they just say a quick prayer 'God dont let me have a crash' and that keeps them safe?
Very commendable attitude. Its that kind of bold thinking that put man on the moon.
Is it though? http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/sty-religion.html
What should be more alarming for the religious is not that Christianity has lost 12 percentage points in a decade whilst 'no religion' has gained 10 but that they are dying off. In the over 65 age group they outnumber the 'no religions' by over 3.5 to 1. That ratio steadily decreases to the point where in the youngest age group 'no religion' outnumbers Christianity by 1.5 to 1.
OK this is only the UK but I would be surprised if France, Scandinavia and other north European countries werent following similar trends. The US a different animal and I thank Christ (well - I would if I believed in him) I dont live in a country where a guy has no chance of being elected if he doesnt claim to believe in God.
Why is that? Why do the religious have the right to be treated with more respect and sensitivity than the rest of us? Why should the rest of us keep our own beliefs that religion is ridiculous in check just because some people whine and bleat that they are offended? I find it offensive that I am expected to treat religion with kid gloves rather than disdain but does anyone give a toss about my perceived offence?
Very well said Mr Fry. Satire is a very important weapon in pricking pomposity and hypocrisy - which are terms that are applicable to religion - the moment we stop doing that for fear that somebody, somewhere might take exception we have given up our hard earned rights and nous sommes pas Charlie.
Precisely. Britannia does not rule any more sadly. Neither does Europe. The US still does (for now) as does increasingly China, India, Russia, Brazil etc. etc. These are all religious countries.
I posted this recent Pew study before, but here it is again:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/pew-study-religion/
Precisely because 'scientific' studies have shown that we are as much emotional mammals as we are rational ones. If one is unable to see that the way you phrase a comment or criticism can have an impact on how it is perceived (rightly or wrongly) then one is not going to be able to get one's point across properly imho. Most people are born into their religion. It's as fundamental and as a part of them as their hand, or their affiliation to their country for that matter. That may be unfair and I can kick and scream all I want, but it also is true.
In the same vein, is it wrong to say that you hate the religion, but love (or at least respect) the religious people?
I'd say that respecting religion and the person who practices it are two sides of the same coin, so that would be a "no" from me anyway.
Satire and mockery is also and especially a way to show the absurdity of one's ideology. It is not emotional manipulation. It is quite the opposite in fact. And saying things won't change regarding faith because they have always been this way is circular reasoning and a poor excuse for inaction. It is also inaccurate :things do change and the West is becoming increasingly secular.
I think you miss my point. I'm not saying that religious people arent intelligent (that would be a separate debate entirely) or cant contribute to scientific advancements.
I was actually making a point about your defeatist attitude that theres nothing we can do to stop religion so we just have to lump it. I would say that the statistics from the census quoted below would indicate that people's attitudes towards religion can change over time and therefore I fail to agree with your 'No one can change it. Ever' philosophy.
We have to be thankful that you werent around at crucial moments in history:
'The Nazis are overrunning Europe. Do you think we should stop them?'
'Forget it. The Germans believe all that stuff. You can't change it. I can't change it. No one can change it. Ever.'
'I'm tired of eating raw meat and freezing in this cave. Why dont we try hitting two bits of flint together and seeing if we can make that orange, hot stuff we saw when lightning hit that tree stump?'
'Forget it. We are destined to live in this cold cave forever. You can't change it. I can't change it. No one can change it. Ever.'
'What do you think about evolving our gills so that we can breathe out of the water and try crawling up on the land?'
'Forget it. We are destined to swim around this primordial soup forever' You can't change it. I can't change it. No one can change it. Ever.'
Etc, etc
Well you stated 'religion's stronghold on the educated is as strong as ever'. Not sure how educated I would consider countries where media and internet censorship is rife, women are treated as second class citizens, persecution of homosexuals and racism are commonplace, millions live in slums and where the right for everyone to carry a gun is a fundamental right that it is political suicide for anyone to even question.
In liberal countries with a high standard of living and personal freedoms religion is far more of an irrelevance than in countries that dont have such a liberal outlook and where religion is more prominent. And I wouldnt say that China and Russia are particularly religious, certainly not compared with certain Arab countries where religion is enshrined in law and where, coincidentally, some of the worst human rights violations occur.
Choosing how to phrase something to not cause offence is part of being a decent human being and no one tries to insult or hurt people on purpose. What confuses me is why the religious are granted an extra layer of protection against offence that is not extended to everyone else?
As for their nuclear ambitions, I get worried when a U.S. presidential hopeful believes that the apocalypse is imminent. Just this should disqualify him for office out of safety concerns. You wouldn't want such a deluded madman to have the finger near the button of the bomb. I can't say that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and nuclear fills me with confidence for the very same reason. Iran is a fascinating culture and all. It doesn't make their theocracy anything else than a sinister farce.
1. I'm not being defeatist about religion. On the contrary. We have 38 odd pages that I have contributed to here where I have clearly stated my preference that religion not be granted special treatment in law or in fact. I also realize that it is enshrined in a lot of the population (and actually a lot of people on this forum who may actually be taking offence to our discussion here).
Therefore, if we want to change minds, I believe the best way to do it is via intelligent, rational debate. That's my preference.
My point (which you term defeatist) was that some people have 'faith'. That cannot be changed and it cannot be proved. 'Faith' is independent of religion. One can have faith and not belong to any religious body. One can have 'faith' and be agnostic. No one can change that or prove that. Faith is a deeply personal thing. It is not a specific belief in something. It is the knowledge that we don't know everything and so we must just accept that not everything can be controlled or understood in our individual lifetimes.
----
2. re: your second point - are you talking about the US? You might as well be in a few years at the rate they are going (apart from the fact that women do in fact have equal rights and gays finally can marry....but not in all states yet).
I did not specifically compare the religious conviction in India or China vs. the Middle East. However, China, India, Russia etc. are far more religious than Europe and certainly more religious than Britain. The same goes for the US (far more religious than Europe). Those countries are only going to grow (population wise and economy wise) while Europe bickers, ages and shrinks. The link I posted from Pew research suggests that.
----
3. Yes, I don't expect religion to have any extra layer of protection against insult. I never said otherwise. However, the discussion needs to be rational and intelligent. I don't count satire as that - not at this point in Islamic history any way. There is a time for that and it is not now.
----
@Ludovico, we'll have to agree to disagree. I am as interested in the next person about reducing the hold of organized religion on society, but I don't believe mockery and satire are the way to do it.
I'm sorry this statement leaves me rather confused. You say you are as 'interested in the next person about reducing the hold of organized religion on society' but you single out Islam not to be made fun of? What is this if not appeasement? As @Ludovico says satire alone cannot change anything but is still a useful tool and dont we have a duty in a free society if we find something unacceptable to hold it up to scrutiny and ridicule?