Stephen Fry on god

[SoulMonster]

What do you think are it's weaknesses?

As I think you touched upon, components of humanism, like critical thinking, relies on humans' ability to think which is far from perfect. Basically, any man-made concept or idea might on some level, small or grand, contain errors because we are not infallible -- not even as a collective. This is of course why science attempts to move away from any methods that relies on human interpretation. Humans aren't evolved to tackle the grandest of questions, we are evolved for simpler thinking and tend to make mistakes when we push our cognitive faculties to their limits. The whole idea that the universe and everything within should be within the grasp of human minds' is a bit arrogant, I think. There are biological limits on our intelligence and ability to, even through concerted, accumulated efforts like science, unravel and understand everything. But as I said, this doesn't mean we have any better alternatives, and being aware of the weaknesses, and how they might affect the outcomes, gives us at least some way to minimize their effect.

The same goes for man-made ethics vs divined ethics (I believe this distinction is a fallacy, even ethical systems found in religions are man-made). We might attempt to come up with the perfect ethical systems to regulate our behaviour, but it will still be derived from our flawed brains and hence, probably, not be the theoretically best, although it might be the best we have.

With all that mind do you not get something of an indicator of why someone might take a dim view to it?

Not really, since I really see no better alternative

Why the need to attach yourself to the best possible, even though it has holes in it?

Because all other alternatives have larger holes in them. If you can come up with something better than, say, critical thinking and rationalism, as components of humanism, then please tell me about them. But since I have to apply some method for assessing data RIGHT NOW, I have to go with the best methods we have, and might ever get, than to just postpone everything in the hope we might arrive at a better method sometime in the future. And it is not like humanity isn't constantly improving and evolving our ideas abut epistemology, this is a jouney that we are taking right now and have for hundred of years, it's just that we canæ't have a standstill in the possible naive hope that we some time in the future might come up with something better than what we have today -- especially since what we have today gives such outstanding reults despite their weaknesses.

[Dazey]

At the end of the day god's just fucking boring. Well that and the kiddy fucking.

[Len Cnut]

What do you think are it's weaknesses?

As I think you touched upon, components of humanism, like critical thinking, relies on humans' ability to think which is far from perfect. Basically, any man-made concept or idea might on some level, small or grand, contain errors because we are not infallible -- not even as a collective. This is of course why science attempts to move away from any methods that relies on human interpretation. Humans aren't evolved to tackle the grandest of questions, we are evolved for simpler thinking and tend to make mistakes when we push our cognitive faculties to their limits. The whole idea that the universe and everything within should be within the grasp of human minds' is a bit arrogant, I think. There are biological limits on our intelligence and ability to, even through concerted, accumulated efforts like science, unravel and understand everything. But as I said, this doesn't mean we have any better alternatives, and being aware of the weaknesses, and how they might affect the outcomes, gives us at least some way to minimize their effect.

The same goes for man-made ethics vs divined ethics (I believe this distinction is a fallacy, even ethical systems found in religions are man-made). We might attempt to come up with the perfect ethical systems to regulate our behaviour, but it will still be derived from our flawed brains and hence, probably, not be the theoretically best, although it might be the best we have.

With all that mind do you not get something of an indicator of why someone might take a dim view to it?

Not really, since I really see no better alternative

Why the need to attach yourself to the best possible, even though it has holes in it?

Because all other alternatives have larger holes in them. If you can come up with something better than, say, critical thinking and rationalism, as components of humanism, then please tell me about them. But since I have to apply some method for assessing data RIGHT NOW, I have to go with the best methods we have, and might ever get, than to just postpone everything in the hope we might arrive at a better method sometime in the future. And it is not like humanity isn't constantly improving and evolving our ideas abut epistemology, this is a jouney that we are taking right now and have for hundred of years, it's just that we canæ't have a standstill in the possible naive hope that we some time in the future might come up with something better than what we have today -- especially since what we have today gives such outstanding reults despite their weaknesses.

Perhaps the way is to have no way and make adjustments according to any given situation. This doesn't mean the rejection of logic and cognitive thinking but like...the accepting that that doesn't work. Like, i was watching a movie last night right, called Birdsong, about this guy in WW1 and he goes through ALL this fuckin' shit, i can't even tell ya, love of his life gets arm amputated, dodges getting blown to bits on the Somme, just all manner of crazy improbable shit...and i remember watching it and thinking like, God, how the fuck would I process all that shit in my head? Cuz like, i agree with you a lot in your commitment to that kinda thinking...but then how could i possibly process all that shit using those methods? I don't think I could.

And like...extreme situations in life throw up propositions that don't...sit well alongside that kinda shit always. Like this guy, he sees so much horror, this totally mindblowing human tragedy, of a grandness in scope that, i say again, i feel to me would be difficult to process. But he goes back. Why? Why would someone do that? OK, it's a work of fiction but some people did that right? In fact, WIlfred Owen the poet did. Not agreeing with the war, in fact thinking it is barbaric and insane and obscene and i think he called it 'an experiment in seeing how far the human being can be degraded'...but he goes back. And then once again, in a situation where he didn't really have to. And like, watching this piece i felt in my heart that it was the right thing he was doing...but i couldn't process it using common sense and using...like, rationalising and that kinda thinking. But the feeling in my heart that its right was so compelling that i couldn't deny it.

Just a small example.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

What do you think are it's weaknesses?

As I think you touched upon, components of humanism, like critical thinking, relies on humans' ability to think which is far from perfect. Basically, any man-made concept or idea might on some level, small or grand, contain errors because we are not infallible -- not even as a collective. This is of course why science attempts to move away from any methods that relies on human interpretation. Humans aren't evolved to tackle the grandest of questions, we are evolved for simpler thinking and tend to make mistakes when we push our cognitive faculties to their limits. The whole idea that the universe and everything within should be within the grasp of human minds' is a bit arrogant, I think. There are biological limits on our intelligence and ability to, even through concerted, accumulated efforts like science, unravel and understand everything. But as I said, this doesn't mean we have any better alternatives, and being aware of the weaknesses, and how they might affect the outcomes, gives us at least some way to minimize their effect.

The same goes for man-made ethics vs divined ethics (I believe this distinction is a fallacy, even ethical systems found in religions are man-made). We might attempt to come up with the perfect ethical systems to regulate our behaviour, but it will still be derived from our flawed brains and hence, probably, not be the theoretically best, although it might be the best we have.

With all that mind do you not get something of an indicator of why someone might take a dim view to it?

Not really, since I really see no better alternative

Why the need to attach yourself to the best possible, even though it has holes in it?

Because all other alternatives have larger holes in them. If you can come up with something better than, say, critical thinking and rationalism, as components of humanism, then please tell me about them. But since I have to apply some method for assessing data RIGHT NOW, I have to go with the best methods we have, and might ever get, than to just postpone everything in the hope we might arrive at a better method sometime in the future. And it is not like humanity isn't constantly improving and evolving our ideas abut epistemology, this is a jouney that we are taking right now and have for hundred of years, it's just that we canæ't have a standstill in the possible naive hope that we some time in the future might come up with something better than what we have today -- especially since what we have today gives such outstanding reults despite their weaknesses.

Perhaps the way is to have no way and make adjustments according to any given situation. This doesn't mean the rejection of logic and cognitive thinking but like...the accepting that that doesn't work.

What makes you think logic and cognitive thinking doesn't work? I never said it is useful for coping with loss, as in your example, but it can certainly be used to understand human behaviour.

You seem to labour under the misimpression that because something has known flaws it is devoid of merit and use.

We can't have "no way" of obtaining knowledge of the world we live in, or adapt a complete ad hoc approach to it every time we are confronting with a problem. We have to go with the method that is expected to always yield the best results, even if those results might not be 100 % accurate the first time around.

[SoulMonster]

For a guy who doesn't believe in God, he seems to get very angry at Him.

He was asked to put himself in the situation of meeting god. So the premise of what he said was that god actually existed. You can't really blame him for giving it a go.

[Len Cnut]

What makes you think logic and cognitive thinking doesn't work? I never said it is useful for coping with loss, as in your example, but it can certainly be used to understand human behaviour.

Sorry i meant to put doesn't work always, sorry, that looked silly So yeah, there you go, another avenue it doesn't work in...and i just pulled that out of my arse.

You seem to labour under the misimpression that because something has known flaws it is devoid of merit and use.

No, you're taking it to a far extreme, thats not what I meant, i just meant that, on the basis of what I've read on here and what I see you and Mags saying, i don't have any academic grounding in this stuff, it seems like there's a point there in that why commit to something as a way when there are flaws in it, even if it is the best you have, you're kind of engendering a falsehood, to a point, in terms of the theory.

Cognitive thinking will always have a value, definitely...but i don't understand the commitment to it when you know it ain't THE thing, this idea of 'I'm a humanist' when you see holes in it. The fundamental principles of it don't really hold water theoretically, let alone in practise.

We can't have "no way" of obtaining knowledge of the world we live in, or adapt a complete ad hoc approach to it every time we are confronting with a problem. We have to go with the method that is expected to always yield the best results, even if those results might not be 100 % accurate the first time around.

So then you use elements of a thing for what it's good for and where it's not applicable you extemporise and improvise and work it out with whatever way works? Well then can you rightly call yourself a devotee of a thing if you kinda don't...really adhere to it as such?

I'm really not qualified to be having this discussion i think Whats your understanding of Magses position?

Edited February 1, 2015 by Len B'stard

[DieselDaisy]

That is the irony of it all. Atheists spend far more time ranting about god than religious people haha.

[Len Cnut]

That is the irony of it all. Atheists spend far more time ranting about god than religious people haha.

Well they've got a lot of catching up to do, haven't they?

[Dazey]

That is the irony of it all. Atheists spend far more time ranting about god than religious people haha.

That's really insightful or rather it would be were it not complete and utter bollocks!

Edited February 1, 2015 by Dazey

[SoulMonster]

No, you're taking it to a far extreme, thats not what I meant, i just meant that, on the basis of what I've read on here and what I see you and Mags saying, i don't have any academic grounding in this stuff, it seems like there's a point there in that why commit to something as a way when there are flaws in it, even if it is the best you have, you're kind of engendering a falsehood, to a point, in terms of the theory.

Because we are pragmatic and the benefits of using it far outweighs the weaknesses since it leads to marvellous results? What you are saying is like saying that since breathing causes oxidative damage to our cells we should just stop it right now and not popularize such a non-perfect method of respiration. We are talking about ways of understanding the world surrounding us, ways that have given us the majority of the accumulated and collective knowledge we have. Sure, we make mistakes now and then, theories are discarded, we have to find out way back from dead-ends, but all in all it works amazingly, despite the inherent flaws. And the alternative, that we should refrain from using such a great method because it isn't 100 % perfect, as if anything really is, is with all respect a bit silly. Critical thinking is not only inherent to research and science, but vital for most decisions we as humans make in our daily lives. If we gave this up because we know that in, say, 1 out of 1000 events we might arrive at the wrong conclusion, we wouldn't just discard all result sof science throughout history, but basically transform humanity into an animal devoid of cognitive abilities.

[SoulMonster]

Cognitive thinking will always have a value, definitely...but i don't understand the commitment to it when you know it ain't THE thing, this idea of 'I'm a humanist' when you see holes in it. The fundamental principles of it don't really hold water theoretically, let alone in practise.

As far as I understand it, when anyone thumps their chest and proclaim they are humanists, it has more to do with distancing themselves from religion or pointing out their ethics, than adhering to any specific methods of epistemology.

As for the components of humanism as per the definition you posted earlier: I think some of these components are either or. Like cognitive thinking, or simply thinking. You either think it is a good idea to think or you don't. We are talking about two different apporaches here, to think or not to think. It is not like there are other options available. And I think all humans would agree they are embracing thinking wholeheartedly even though they realize that their thinking isn't always perfect.

[SoulMonster]

So then you use elements of a thing for what it's good for and where it's not applicable you extemporise and improvise and work it out with whatever way works? Well then can you rightly call yourself a devotee of a thing if you kinda don't...really adhere to it as such?

I'm really not qualified to be having this discussion i think Whats your understanding of Magses position?

To take an example: The problem with many methods in science is the human component, because humans tend to make many thinking mistakes. But unfortunately, as of 2015, we can't remove humans entirely from the scientific process because we simply aren't able to create robots that would do the thinking part for us. Does this mean we can't call ourselves devotees of science? I think we still can. Not in the sense that we consider it an infallible method that is 100 % perfect, but based on the sheer success of it and the very fact that it is ways better than any other method we have of figuring things out. And we might even say that it is the best method we will ever arrive at, it might even be proven to be the theoretical best method even if it isn't 100 %. To make an analogy: Are you afraid to be a fan of Mohammed Ali because he wasn't 100 % perfect? Or Bruce Lee? Again, of course you can! They don't have to be 100 % perfect to deserve our appreciation, it is enough that they were good, and better if they were the best.

I have no idea what magisme has to say about humanism expect that he considers it "just as retarded as any religion", and something about it putting something at the centre. But then you have to realize that humanism is sort of a vague term. To me, obviously, I am focussing on the parts of humanism that has to do with epistemology, he might be focussing on its philosophical framework. I tend to be very pragmatic, and if it does good for people then I will approve. I don't care so much about lofty theoretical dissections.

[SoulMonster]

I just thought of something. Lenny, I seem to remember you accusing me of being all about logics and cold rationalism. I think tha is unfair. Logics is just a tool with limited applicability. I tend to engage myself in discussions where logic is suited, and hence it might appear that I would use logics on any problem. When talking about whether religion is good for humans, its net effect, then logics can be used, when dicussing how to cope with overpopulation, then logics can be used, when talking about how to reduce gun fatalities, then logics can be used. But I would never use logics outside its sphere of suitability, I hope (like saying, "if you stop being unhappy you will be happy again", which is a perfectly fine logical statement but would not make a damn good when said to anyone suffering from some personal grief). So yeah, I think you misjudge me. Logics is fine when it may serve us in some way. Not else. Like everything else, basically. I'm a pragmatist at heart and will use whatever is required for the job, to the best of my abilities, whatever that might be. I think the point of using what is best for us, is key in this discussion. It works if it helps humans. It is all about serving humans. And that is where humanism comes in, it is a set of methods and ethics designed to serve humans. It doesn't necesarrily have any more lofty goals than that. Religion, or theisms at least, aim to serve god. The 10 commandments aren't meant as what is best for humanity, but what is best for god, unlike humand rights. That's a big difference between these two things. And in that regard you might very well be a proud humanist who proclaim it to the world through tshirts and bumber stickers, not because its multitude of methods and components are in themselves perfect, but because in contrast to religions it has a unique purpose: To serve humans. Does this make sense?

[DieselDaisy]

That is the irony of it all. Atheists spend far more time ranting about god than religious people haha.

That's really insightful or rather it would be were it not complete and utter bollocks!

It is thoroughly true. You actually do not have to look much further than, here, this very forum, to see it operating for yourself. Soul Monster is obsessed with posting anti-religious drivel; he must spend his life ranting about 'theocracy'', in between analyzing his petri dishes filled with sperm. You yourself never let a moment go by without leaving a snide anti-religious comment. Lithium is also in on the act. Now, where are the religious people on here? Where is the, ''though will be spoke'' threads; ''though shall be dammed if you do not follow the righteous path''; ''atheists will burn in hell?

This would be the reverse of the situation and I know there are religious people here but you do not see it, do you? They do not post so because they have accepted the fact that we live in pluralistic times, and there needs to a bit of decorum excised.

Edited February 2, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

They do not post so because they have accepted the fact that we live in pluralistic times, and there needs to a bit of decorum excised.

They do not post because they are unable to defend their irrational beliefs and/or are a bit embarassed about having them.

[Lithium]

They do not post so because they have accepted the fact that we live in pluralistic times, and there needs to a bit of decorum excised.

They do not post because they are unable to defend their irrational beliefs and/or are a bit embarassed about having them.

This. Anyone who started to write about Adam and Eve or Jesus turning water into wine on this forum know very well that they wouldn't be taken seriously.

[Dazey]

That is the irony of it all. Atheists spend far more time ranting about god than religious people haha.

That's really insightful or rather it would be were it not complete and utter bollocks!

It is thoroughly true. You actually do not have to look much further than, here, this very forum, to see it operating for yourself. Soul Monster is obsessed with posting anti-religious drivel; he must spend his life ranting about 'theocracy'', in between analyzing his petri dishes filled with sperm. You yourself never let a moment go by without leaving a snide anti-religious comment. Lithium is also in on the act. Now, where are the religious people on here? Where is the, ''though will be spoke'' threads; ''though shall be dammed if you do not follow the righteous path''; ''atheists will burn in hell?

This would be the reverse of the situation and I know there are religious people here but you do not see it, do you? They do not post so because they have accepted the fact that we live in pluralistic times, and there needs to a bit of decorum excised.

You see there are these things called churches where religious people go (see also mosques, temples, synagogues etc). In these places they pretty much exclusively "rant about God". It's kind of the point y'see. Unless you can show me some kind of atheist megachurch that I'm not aware of then your assertion that atheists bang on about God more than religious folk is clearly utter nonsense. Edited February 2, 2015 by Dazey

[Dazey]

This lot WISH they were as obsessed with God as an atheist!

[Dazey]

Look at these fuckers! I know it's not a closeup but if you could read lips at a distance you'd see that they're all talking about just how much they wish they could be as obsessed with God as Richard Dawkins.

Never mind praying 5 times a day for your entire life. What they really need to be doing is making snarky comments once in a while on a Guns n' Roses forum. Now THAT is dedication to the cause!!!!!

[Len Cnut]

He has an uncanny knack for putting things in perspective does our Christopher

[netcat]

sometimes i think the world was created by Monty Python

[Dazey]

......................and furthermore!!!!!!

I only have to leave the house to walk by 5 or 6 religious loonies ranting on about god and all that cobblers yet Ive yet to see a single atheist standing in the street waving pamphlets or bellowing nonsense through a megaphone. On my commute every day theres always a bunch of people lined up on the station approach waving anti evolution literature at me as I walk past. Its the same at Oxford Road Station on the corner outside Sainsburys if Im taking a different train.

Theres this guy that stands outside Boots on market street every day with a copy of the bible and a megaphone telling everybody how the end times are coming and how they will be judged! Hes actually pretty fucking funny to be honest bless him. Not so long ago there was a fella that got arrested for preaching that homosexuals were no better than dogs and that god had decreed that they would all perish in flames. It all kicked off when a couple of fellas got right in his face and started making out with each other. He DID not like that and started ranting at them so the coppers were called and he spent a night in the cells.

So theres that anyway

...and this

...this too

Piccadilly Gardens campaign: Council to crackdown on 'hate preachers'

Members of the public have inundated councillors and police with claims that evangelists with loud-hailers are intimidating them with homophobic and sexist abuse

Council chiefs are to launch a crackdown on hate preachers around Piccadilly Gardens.

Members of the public have inundated councillors and police with claims that evangelists with loud-hailers are intimidating them with homophobic and sexist abuse. Several readers have raised religious street preaching as a gripe in response to our Piccadilly Gardens survey, launched as part of the M.E.Ns campaign to transform the square. There have been 14 incidents logged with the police over the past year about noisy or homophobic preaching in the area.

However none of them have resulted in a crime being logged, with police saying there is often little they can do due to freedom of speech and human rights legislation. Now the council is looking at whether they can be moved on on the grounds of noise, including serving noise abatement notices. City centre councillor Pat Karney said: We will be going round the city after Easter and tackling these people directly about their language and messages and we will not put up with them abusing women and gay people. As a Christian myself Im ashamed they are using God to preach these hate messages. We have decided to get rid of them - most of them arent from Manchester and the one on Piccadilly Gardens is like a public cathedral.

One member of the public complained to city centre councillor Kevin Peel last month about a Market Street preacher shouting about not normal gay men and yelling: Women in this society are only looking for a good ****.

But police often struggle to prosecute, with the bar under public order legislation set high.

Just last month Greater Manchester Police paid out £13,000 in compensation to preacher John Craven, who was arrested after preaching gay love was a sin.

Mr Craven had sued for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and breach of human rights. City centre Inspector Phil Spurgeon said GMP would work with the council to see what more can be done, adding: We will always look at complaints, particularly if they are about race, religion or gender, but our experience has been that most of the activity has been within the boundaries of freedom of expression.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/piccadilly-gardens-hate-preachers-council-7004510

Edited February 2, 2015 by Dazey

[Lithium]

Have my babies, dazey.

[Axls Rocket Queen]

'Amen to Stephen Fry's atheism: A gentle response to his recent rant

http://24-7prayer.com/features/2445

[Len Cnut]

I take exception to the word 'rant' yknow. Not just in this context but whenever someone says something longer than two sentences it becomes a 'rant', I'd be quite put out if my intelligent well reasoned and pointed offering in the context of a serious discussion were labelled a 'rant', ranting is like raving isnt it, a sign of madness, its almost a devaluing of whats being offered.