on the atmosphere of this forum

[cnorman18]

Expanded from a comment on another thread:

For some of our newer members, anything less than a total rejection and denial of anything even vaguely "spiritual" or "religious" is evidence of mental defect, aka "irrationality" (as in "you don't know how to think") and worthy of only contempt and derision. In any other context, such an attitude would be called. "intolerant," "doctrinaire," and "disrespectful," but here on the forum of late, civility, tolerance and mutual respect seem to be taking a back seat to scorched-earth tactics and open contempt.

I would readily grant that there are some on the fundamentalist side, again some relative newbies in particular, who are equally guilty of such behavior; but the misdeeds of either side do not justify or make acceptable the incivility of the other, particular when that incivility is applied indiscriminately and not just to the other side's offenders.

I would like to see more moderator intervention, not less. It is one thing to say, "I respectfully disagree." It is quite another to add heavy doses of ridicule, contempt and derision, not to mention personal aspersions on one's ability to reason or one's personal morality and "spiritual vision" or "maturity."

I have been happy here for many months. DC&R has been a place where I could enjoy, as billed, "intelligent, civil, courteous and respectful debate among people of all persuasions." I have found it stimulating, fun, and thought-provoking.

Those days are largely gone. An authentic exchange of ideas is still possible here, but to find it one must wade through and filter out an ocean of spiritual pride, self-righteousness, intellectual arrogance, inflexibly doctrinaire definitions and pronouncements, and, worse than all of these, constant, unrelenting, personally offensive, and sneering contempt for oneself and one's opinions.

I have been posting here virtually every day since November of last year, and I think I have made some significant contributions.
But I no longer feel like I am coming to a friendly, welcoming place where I can quietly talk and compare ideas with friends who like, respect and accept me. I feel like I am going to a fistfight with people who have no regard for me as a human being, who dislike me personally on account of my beliefs, and who neither have nor express any respect whatever for either those views or me. Even some of our older members are beginning to be infected by this uncivil and disrespectful attitude. I think this is a tragedy.

This is becoming an unpleasant place to spend one's time. Some members have already left, including some fine new ones; and I think more will leave if this ugly and acrimonious atmosphere does not change. In fact, I think that is certain.

Early on, I myself threatened to leave this forum on account of what I perceived as unpoliced and unopposed antisemitism. That problem was resolved. This one may be more difficult to handle. It threatens the very reason for the existence of this forum--civil and respectful debate.

Let me make this clear: I DO NOT CARE if you think yourself to be on a righteous crusade to either win the world for Jesus or rid the world of the pernicious plague of religious superstition. Personal respect for the other members of this forum AND FOR THEIR OPINIONS is more important than your "vital mission." How will you argue for your point of view if everyone you would argue it TO leaves in disgust?

As I said on another thread: If you are about disrespecting and demeaning other people, claiming to be spiritually or intellectually superior to them, and sneering at those who do not think or believe as you do--well, as far as I'm concerned, you're full of crap no matter what you believe or how smart you are.

[theleftone]

Ultimately, rationality requires objectivity, honesty, humility and an adherence to parsimony. It's hard, but it's worth it. I recommend that you try it sometime.

Thank you for the discussion, but it's clear discussion has ended.

[Thought Criminal]

Ultimately, rationality requires objectivity, honesty, humility and an adherence to parsimony. It's hard, but it's worth it. I recommend that you try it sometime.

Thank you for the discussion, but it's clear discussion has ended.

And to anyone who reads the previous message, it will perfectly clear just why you chose to end it.

TC

[Cephus]

I think that it pretty much describes why no religious position can ever be rational. Theism is based on the premise of God. Agnosticism is based on the premise of scepticism. Atheism is based on the premise of parsimony. Choose whichever premise you feel is best suited to the matter.

No, agnosticism is the belief that man is inherently unable to know anything about the existence or characteristics of god(s). It has nothing to do with skepticism, it's a position that says "why bother, you can't ever know anyhow".

Atheism, on the other hand, is based on skepticism. It's like being from Missouri. SHOW ME! No evidence, no belief.

[Cephus]

So, inductive reasoning is invalid?

If you look at philosophers like Hume, absolutely. I think that if it's done extremely carefully, it can have some validity, but certainly not the way that you're assuming with religion, where facts are completely discarded and wishful thinking is allowed to run about willy nilly.

What exists which could meet this criteria?

Science does it very well. It follows the evidence where it leads and, due to the peer-review process and constant rechecking, emotional biases are quickly weeded out.

That just doesn't happen in religion.

[theleftone]

So, inductive reasoning is invalid?

If you look at philosophers like Hume, absolutely. I think that if it's done extremely carefully, it can have some validity, but certainly not the way that you're assuming with religion, where facts are completely discarded and wishful thinking is allowed to run about willy nilly.

Poor word choice on my part. I wanted to communicate 'acceptance.' Hence, the question could be rephrased, "So, inductive reasoning is unacceptable?" To which, the response given is clearly no. We both accept induction to be an acceptable form of reasoning. So, I turn towards my criteria question again.

What makes is the criteria for an acceptable inductive argument?

What exists which could meet this criteria?

Science does it very well. It follows the evidence where it leads and, due to the peer-review process and constant rechecking, emotional biases are quickly weeded out.

And we disagree.

(a) The influence of emotion can be lessened, but never entirely removed. (b) Humans are emotional beings. (c) Therefore, humans can never entirely remove the influence of emotions on their activities.

(a) Humans can never entirely remove the influence of emotions on their activities. (b) Science is a human activity. (c) Therefore, science can never be entirely free from the influence of emotion.

I agree science tends to lessen the influence of emotions. I disagree that it can remove the influence.

[otseng]

Ultimately, rationality requires objectivity, honesty, humility and an adherence to parsimony. It's hard, but it's worth it. I recommend that you try it sometime.

Thank you for the discussion, but it's clear discussion has ended.

And to anyone who reads the previous message, it will perfectly clear just why you chose to end it.

It was clear to me, but I doubt it's the same reason that you have in mind. And it would be impossible to judge what would be "perfectly clear" to anyone who reads the message. tselem had decided to bow out of the discussion and I think it would be best to leave it at that without trying to have a parting shot.

[Thought Criminal]

Ultimately, rationality requires objectivity, honesty, humility and an adherence to parsimony. It's hard, but it's worth it. I recommend that you try it sometime.

Thank you for the discussion, but it's clear discussion has ended.

And to anyone who reads the previous message, it will perfectly clear just why you chose to end it.

It was clear to me, but I doubt it's the same reason that you have in mind. And it would be impossible to judge what would be "perfectly clear" to anyone who reads the message. tselem had decided to bow out of the discussion and I think it would be best to leave it at that without trying to have a parting shot.

Like I said, I'm sure it'll be entirely clear just why.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I think that it pretty much describes why no religious position can ever be rational. Theism is based on the premise of God. Agnosticism is based on the premise of scepticism. Atheism is based on the premise of parsimony. Choose whichever premise you feel is best suited to the matter.

No, agnosticism is the belief that man is inherently unable to know anything about the existence or characteristics of god(s). It has nothing to do with skepticism, it's a position that says "why bother, you can't ever know anyhow".

Atheism, on the other hand, is based on skepticism. It's like being from Missouri. SHOW ME! No evidence, no belief.

There is a difference between the meaning of skepticism in philosophy and in common language.

I was referring to philosophical skepticism, which states that all knowledge is provisional and that positions regarding final truth must be avoided. Faced with a position regarding final truth with no evidence for it nor against it (for example, a religious position on the existence of God), a skeptic will refuse to take any position at all.
For the same case, parsimony will state that the preferred position is the simplest explanation that is in accordance with the known facts, which is: God does not exist.

So, agnosticism is based on skepticism and atheism is based on parsimony.

"SHOW ME! No evidence, no belief" is an example of parsimony.

[Cephus]

What makes is the criteria for an acceptable inductive argument?

I think it can be done if done carefully. Unfortunately, a lot of inductive reasoning is done very poorly. "I observe X, I think that Y is the cause of X, therefore I declare that Y is the cause of X." There's no reason to think that Y is really the cause of X, it's a simply assertion and especially in the case of religious subjects, completely untestable. Whereas with deductive reasoning and the scientific method, you need to make predictions, then test to see if the predictions are factually true, there is no such requirement in inductive reasoning.

I agree science tends to lessen the influence of emotions. I disagree that it can remove the influence.

The scientific method itself is entirely without emotion, but certainly the application of it, done by emotional humans, can add emotional content. That's why, because all findings are tested by many, many people, that emotional content can be dramatically lessened, if not mitigated entirely.

That's how we discover how reality really works, rather than how we wish it worked, as religion does.

[theleftone]

What makes is the criteria for an acceptable inductive argument?

I think it can be done if done carefully. Unfortunately, a lot of inductive reasoning is done very poorly. "I observe X, I think that Y is the cause of X, therefore I declare that Y is the cause of X." There's no reason to think that Y is really the cause of X, it's a simply assertion and especially in the case of religious subjects, completely untestable. Whereas with deductive reasoning and the scientific method, you need to make predictions, then test to see if the predictions are factually true, there is no such requirement in inductive reasoning.

It's clear some criteria is being used to evaluate inductive arguments. What are they?

The scientific method itself is entirely without emotion, but certainly the application of it, done by emotional humans, can add emotional content. That's why, because all findings are tested by many, many people, that emotional content can be dramatically lessened, if not mitigated entirely.

Are the principles which comprise the scientific method completely free from emotional influence? How do we know this?