´óÏó´«Ã½

Well it's a pile of BS, but it's no more fraudulent than any other sincerely held system of beliefs. France has no right whatever to ban it.

"Well it's a pile of BS, but it's no more fraudulent than any other sincerely held system of beliefs."

I don't know about the word 'any' in that sentence, but if you had said 'many' I certainly would have fully agreed.

If France does ban it, it might set quite a precedent to do away with other flavours of religious BS. Interesting.

Well, I can sorta see that it might be possible to ban an organisation or an institution or a club or membership of such, or even ban people communicating what they believe, or something like that, but how does anyone ban a belief? I mean how you do ban a person believing something?

Hello petermorrow,

"I mean how you do ban a person believing something?"

You don't. It's been tried many times, in attempts to stamp out all sorts of thinking, employing every possible means to do so, including the most gruesome ones. But in some cases, you can make ideas fade into oblivion. People grow older.
In the case of scientology, I expect it might disappear quite easily. The moment the money-making opportunities are removed, I don't expect it to last very long.

Many years ago, at a relatively tender age, I was sauntering up Tottenham Court Road in London feeling not exactly on top of the world. I was accosted by a cheery fellow who invited me to do a personality test. I went into the premises and took the test, which seemed fairly innocuous, to say the least - you know the sort of questions: "When you're at a party, are you an attention seeker or do you feel uncomfortable and stay on the margins?" - please answer on a scale of one to ten etc - all that sort of thing.

Then I was asked to go into a back room for the analysis. I was then informed by a rather grave and concerned young man that I was really a pretty sad case, and the graph he drew up for me to quantify the results of the test depicted my obviously bankrupt psychological state in a way that did not do wonders for my self-esteem, I have to say! But the "good news" was that Scientology could come to the rescue and improve my psychological state from "totally desperate" to "just about bearable", if I wouldn't mind just paying them over £200 for their course (which was for me a lot of money at the time - in the early 1980s). The analyst showed me on the graph how much the lines would rise up the scale if I would just cough up (this small fortune would be a worthy investment to make my life a little less miserable - but the implication was that it would take a lot more money to get me to the beginnings of real mental stability!)

Thankfully despite actually being nothing more than a little depressed on that particular day, I was sufficiently sane and mentally stable to see through what was clearly a ruse. And I don't mind testifying to the fact that shortly after this I discovered a much better way, but that's another story....

Peter

I quite agree, and I find it interesting that you mention money-making opportunities, and I suppose, whether religions are actually guilty of this or not, making money and storing wealth is often how religious institutions and movements are perceived. It may come therefore as something of a surprise to you that I would actually be quite happy if religious institutions disappeared, especially Christian religious institutions. You see, in a way, I consider the existence of large, wealthy, centrally governed, hierarchical institutions to be the opposite of Christianity, which I think has more to do with living than organising. It would certainly be interesting to see what would happen if, for example, Christian churches had their tax exempt charitable status removed.

LSV

I too would be more than happy to speak of a better way, and I suspect that you and I (inspite of your views on Calvin :-) ) will be pretty much agreed on that way. However, is it not also true that we Christians have to grapple with the fact that there are many who view us in exactly the same way as you viewed the Scientologists?

petermorrow, you are my kind of christian!

(not sure if that will stand you in good stead with your fellow christians, but there you have it)

Peter

"(not sure if that will stand you in good stead with your fellow christians, but there you have it)"

I think you might just have torpedoed my boat below the waterline!

However, maybe the Christianity I suggest, freed from it's wealth and ritual and hierarchy would be more, and not less, potent! :-)

I find the idea of banning stuff like this, even for the very best of intentions, utterly repulsive. Governments aren't powerful enough as it is without needing the power to ban religious organizations? Jeez.

It seems we're all agreed on this one. It's not out of any love for Scientology (or many other religious groups) that I support their rights to exist. I'd rather everyone be free to believe what they want and free to persuade others of their case, even involving vast sums of money, than give the government a millimeter more room to coerce them.

But then, I'm a weirdo who believes in liberty.

Hi John,

I have a good deal of sympathy for what you say. But could you say exactly where the dividing line between religion and fraud lies? I presume you are in favour of the state trying to stamp out attempts at fraud? Is scientology not so close to that line, maybe just over it, that that becomes a legitimate consideration?

Hi chaps,
Just to get back to William's title:
'religion' or 'organised fraud'

Is there a difference?

#12 - Heliopolitan - "Just to get back to William's title: 'religion' or 'organised fraud' Is there a difference?"

Depends how you define "religion" and also depends on your worldview, and whether you can show that your own presuppositions are logically coherent.

It also depends on whether you hold to a worldview which is logically consistent with a concept of "right and wrong" by which you can then judge whether an action is fraudulent.

Suppose you hold to a worldview in which the only impetus is the need to survive - and this struggle to survive is the engine of progress. Suppose some people discover that their fraudulent actions help their chances of survival. Could such a worldview call this action "wrong"? What meaning does "wrong" have in such a worldview?

I think you probably know what I am saying.

So perhaps you should look carefully at the logical implications of your own presuppositions before being so quick with your one-liners to dismiss those with whom you disagree.

Helio

William's title...

Now, I don't want to start into a grammar lesson, (mine is quite poor) BUT! the use of the colon in his title is quite important, linking as it does, "Scientology" with " 'religion' or 'organised fraud'." A quote pulled off wiki says, "As a rule, however, a colon informs the reader that what follows proves and explains, or simply enumerates elements of what is referred to before." I could go on, but I won't!

Maybe however you are rather rhetorically seeking to suggest that all religion is organised fraud, perhaps you are suggesting 'religion' and 'organised fraud' are synonyms, indeed I'm quite sure you are, but with some of your recent creative Easter bible 'quotes' in mind I though we should reinsert the word Scientology! :-)

Helio, I accept that you regard all religion as organised fraud, but the title makes sense to those of us who believe there's a difference.

In 1968, Life Magazine wrote a major article about Scientology.



What it boils down to as I recall were an increasingly expensive sessions where the "customer" would essentially learn techniques of what we now call biofeedback, that is a way to control the electrical resistance of their skin with their minds. The device they were sold at very great cost was nothing more than a simple galvanometer (electrical resistance meter.) When they reached nirvana they were said to be "clear." Clear of all negative thoughts, clear of all money in their bank accounts.

Is Scientology a fraud? Well that probably depends on how you define fraud. If it is claiming to give you something that cannot be proved and taking money or services worth money in return, it's hard to say why Scientology is any more of a fraud than any other religion is. Has anyone ever demonstrated that following the teachings of Christ along with putting money in the collection plate regularly got their souls into heaven? I don't think so.

Peter Klaver-

Hi again. I'm sure there are a few reasonable positions to take on where the dividing line between "religion" and "fraud" lies. But I'm fairly sure Scientology doesn't cross it. To defraud someone, you must (A) deceive them intentionally (B) for the purpose of financial gain. It seems to me that Scientologists really believe what they're saying, which would disqualify it on that basis (A), whether or not one objective of the organization is to gain financially (it's a nonprofit, although that doesn't necessarily mean much).

Does the law affect any of these three kinds of activity, in which beliefs are preached:

1- without exchange of money (lay ministry, perhaps);
2- with donations (most churches and denominations);
3- with fees (Scientology)...?

In each case the beliefs preached could be false, which means people are being deceived. But they are not intentionally being deceived, usually. Or at least that allegation cannot be proved (who can prove motive for religious belief?). It could be alleged that some televangelists are acting for financial gain (B), but the content of their beliefs are not intentional deception, rather they're theological in nature and shared even by those who don't gain financially from them, so surely they can't qualify as intentional deception?

One could make a comparison with a late night infomercial: the product may be crap, but it'll meet the letter of the law, sell for the agreed price, and attract only buyers who very richly deserve the result.

But if I'm wrong and Scientology is fraud, then let a Scientologist bring a lawsuit against the church making specific allegations under existing law, which protects real fraud. Let not the government make sweeping class judgements with the aim of BANNING certain groups or organizations: that's tyranny.

John I take your point about the dividing line, but if you read L Ron Hubbard's autobiography he says he invented scientology as a money making racket. His followers have been explaining away that comment ever since! The guy actually admitted it before his death.

Hi John,

I suspect (can't say I have very detailed info on it) that those giving all their money to it do believe it, but that many of those harvesting the money aren't so stupid. If you say infomercial buyers deserve to be parted from their money, then I guess you could say the same of scientology victims. That seems a bit harsh on the stupid in society though. But then again, government protecting them would indeed involve the unpleasant step of government saying 'We know what is good and what is not', I do see your point there.

It would always be choice of the lesser evil, wouldn't it?

Gus, PeterM, LSV - perhaps you might enlighten those of us who do not believe in space pixies as to the nature of the difference between "religion" and "organised fraud". Is it merely the sincerity of the person who does the defrauding (i.e. they themselves are operating under a mistaken supposition about the nature of what they are peddling)?

As for organised fraud, which of the following would you class in that category:
1. Judaism
2. Islam
3. Roman Catholicism
4. Elim
5. Anglicanism
6. Voodoo
7. Hindu
8. Sikhism

IS there a dividing line? I have to confess I don't see one. LSV, your attempt to shift this back to morality is clumsy and ineffective. First establish that *theism* gives you a coherent basis for morality without epicyclical assumptions, then get back to us on another thread. :-)

John_Wright implies something that is absolutely correct: all religion is fraudulent. It is all made up by people claiming to know the word of God(s). Any grown up today who believes that Moses was telling the truth when he came down the mountain, or Mohammed was telling the truth when he came out of the desert, is just as gullible and deluded as anyone believing in the Scientology nonsense.
Don't ban it though - it's always fun to laugh at numbsculls.

I suppose that we need some definition of "religion" if we are to include Scientology under that umbrella. It has sought recogition as a religion for a variety of reasons. It would give scientology legal protection, and tax concessions in many countries. It also gives the centralised bureaucracy an authority that splinter groups lack.
I don't doubt that Scientology is a religion. It meets most definitions. Something like a "system of practices meant to place us in a relation-of-value to a supermundane reality so grand that it can figure centrally in the satisfaction of substantial human needs" (Jim Stone "A Theory of Religion Revised " Religious Studies)is as good as we are going to get.
Of course this means that it is possible to be a Religion *and* an organised fraud.In many ways Scientology is like a multinational corporation with many financial and commercial stakes. Scientology took on the markings of a religion as part of a marketing strategy. (As Gus has pointed out, there was little secrecy about this strategy.)It has sought to monopolise, first, Dianetics, and second, Therapy.
It has used Religious Rhetoric and concepts to challenge mainstream therapy. Fortunately for Hubbard it is much more difficult to invent a Religion than you'd think. He tried to produce something novel, and reinvented Gnosticism. (Oddly enough, there are some surprising analogies with Mormonism). So we have Thetans exiled into a material world, trying to realise their potential to be gods. It is very difficult to tell if you need to believe that the stories about Thetans are actually true, or just inspiring myths about a spiritual reality. What little I've read of Hubbard would actually incline me to the latter, but it does seem that Dianetics cannot be doubted.
And that is a problem for Scientology. Dianetics is the only legitimate Therapy, and it is also legitimate to sell Dianetics as one would a product. Scientologists don't seem to see any ethical problem here. This is, after all, a product of the land of Privatised Medicine.
But can you sell Dianetics without misrepresenting the evidence? This is not a claim about underlying metaphysical realities. It isn't even a claim about unobserved physical causes. This is a claim about measureable results.
Now *IF* (I said 'if' moderators) Scientologists knowingly misrepresent evidence about experimental results for the financial gain of Scientology, then we have a case of fraud. Even the claim that Dianetics is more reliable than, say, CBT for anxiety attacks is fraudulent (morally speaking) if you begin discussing scientific findings.
State concerns about Scientology tend to revolve around the issue of authority. There are accusations of brain-washing. I'm not sure how seriously we should take those concerns. I know that accusations of brain washing in the Moonies were largely unfounded (most recruits leave. See Eileen Barker's work.)My concern would be about a "regulatory gap" opening between multinational secular organisations and religious organisations. If a religion is competing in a marketplace, then it should not be allowed to become a privileged enclave simply because it is a religion.
And given the difficulty in defining a religion (Nazism can count as a religion on several widely held definitions) I would be very wary of making laws or legal rulings that would protect Religion in general.

G Veale

"all religion is fraudulent. It is all made up by people claiming to know the word of God(s)."

Now there's an interesting empirical claim. I wonder what the data is?

GV

H
My post gives a definiton of religion. John's post gives a definition of fraud. The two definitions are not equivalent.
So being a religion is not necessary or sufficient for being fraudulent.And unless you have evidence that I don't believe in my "space pixie" I think that's one debate that's easily settled.

Now if you want to say that it is irrational to believe that we are reincarnated Thetans, I'm going to agree.
If you want to say - Christianity is irrational because it is a religion, and all religions are irrational because Scientology is a religion - then I'm going to suggest that you have an extraordinarily invalid argument.

And if you want to argue that all religion is based on blind faith etc. I'm going to tell you that you know better. And you know that Space Pixies and Spaghetti Monsters are a distraction, and empty rhetoric. So why mention them? Are you trying to start a debate on God's existence (no reason why not) or spread a few memes (worth a go, but aren't memes up there with Spaghetti Monsters?) or what?

GV

Timeless Rider

Two points. One - Buddhism is a religion. Buddha founded Buddhism. Buddha did not claim to hear the word of God. Bit of a problem with your theory, now, isn't there?

Two. This "numbscull" spells skull with a 'k'.

GV

gveale

Apologies for my poor spelling.

And apologies too for not considering Buddha. Of course, like you, I was there when Buddha started Buddhism and was shown all the evidence that proved everything about Buddhism is 100% entirely true and so it is therefore entirely wrong to claim that any of it might be made up. I was also there in person several thousand years ago to witness everything God said to Moses, to see Jesus walk on water, rise to the heavens, etc, and I can vouch that the Bible recounts it with 100% accuracy. And I was also in Mohammed's cave when God spoke to him, and again the Koran (spell it how you like) doesn't miss a beat.
Unfortunately, I have never been personal witness to anything preached by Scientology, and some of what they say seems very far-fetched. So my view is now duly corrected to state that only Scientology can be a "fraud". Chritianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc, are all clearly proven to be 100% true and not at all far-fetched, so may therefore be called "religions". Have I got it right now?

#20 - Heliopolitan - "Gus, PeterM, LSV - perhaps you might enlighten those of us who do not believe in space pixies as to the nature of the difference between "religion" and "organised fraud"."

I'm afraid that I cannot enlighten you, since I don't believe in "space pixies" either - whatever they might be! So how can I enlighten you when we both agree on something?

"LSV, your attempt to shift this back to morality is clumsy and ineffective."

In what way? See, that's the problem isn't it - it's simply your opinion that my comment is "clumsy" and "ineffective". But it's one thing to air an opinion - which anyone of the lowest intellectual order can do - it's quite another to be able to put a coherent argument.

I assume that you would agree that the word "fraud" relates to a moral issue. Therefore you are making a moral judgement about "religion". So I'm afraid I can't see why "my attempt to shift the argument back to morality is clumsy and ineffective", since I was trying to understand the basis for your moral judgment in the light of your philosophy of naturalism - a philosophy, by the way, which is itself based on the circular epistemology of empiricism. I say this is "circular" since empiricism itself cannot be verified by its own empirical rules (and therefore is self-contradictory - and thus untrue).

Hmm, GV, I'm not sure that we do need a definition of religion, particularly. (Although yours isn't bad.)

The reason we need a definition of fraud is that fraud needs to be prosecuted. So, I'd rather come up with a good definition of fraud to prosecute than a definition of religion to protect: in my line of thought all actions should be protected in law unless they infringe on somebody's rights, which would include legitimate religion. So, in the case that Scientology was really scamming people, defrauding them, deceiving them willfully in order to gain financially without any benefit to the 'consumer', I'd say we should prosecute it. See my distinction?

Peter Klaver, I agree about the difficulties, and I agree in some cases it's a lesser evil.

Augustine, I'm familiar with that quote from Elron; it's a gem, ain't it? Of course even if Scientology exists to make money, it may not amount to fraud. It seems to me that what we have with Scientology is a bunch of buyers paying for the information the Church of Scientology is selling to them. The information may be worthless to you and I, but the buyers aren't being defrauded unless they paid for something that they feel they didn't get (and this must be due to intentional deception about the product on the part of Scientology).

If what we're talking about is banning them, I disagree with that approach on that basis. If what we're talking about is reclassifying them as a for-profit corporation rather than a religion, I think there's a damned good case for it.

I should add that perhaps the word "religion" carries with it two levels of meaning: (a) an overarching theology of how humans figure into the grand scheme of things, usually in relation to a superior power, and (b) a system of practices connected to the organization holding the beliefs in (a).

The reason people think of Scientology as a 'religion' is that it deals with the kind of 'theology' in (a). The reason it may not be is that it operates more like a corporation than the typical way religions operate in (b).

"And apologies too for not considering Buddha. Of course, like you, I was there when Buddha started Buddhism and was shown all the evidence that proved everything about Buddhism is 100% entirely true"

Ah yes, the old "being around at the time and seeing the evidence".

I wonder what evidence Buddha could have shown you to prove that reality is an illusion?

Brilliant. It mazes me sometimes how much people really don't know what they're talking about.

John_Wright

"I should add that perhaps the word "religion" carries with it two levels of meaning: (a) an overarching theology of how humans figure into the grand scheme of things, usually in relation to a superior power, and (b) a system of practices connected to the organization holding the beliefs in (a)."

By your definition, science is a religion;

a) humans figure into the grand scheme of things as an ordinary natural phenomenon no different from any others. No more important, hardly the reason for existance of the universe. In fact the universe in science's view has no reason or purpose to exist at all, it just does. Why is not an acceptable question.

b) it practices are the scientific method of hypothesis, testing, observation, and deduction repeated endlessly, always subject to peer review and criticism, always subject to being overturned by new evidence with better theories.

So is science a religion? In the broadest sense of the word it is and when applied rigorously, it is just as intolerent of other religions as they are of science and of each other. And like all the others, it sells itself as the only rational path to truth. It's the one I've bought into having examined some of the others.

"I wonder what evidence Buddha could have shown you to prove that reality is an illusion?"

Well done. You've outwitted me with your argument that anything, including a spiritual belief, must must be 100% true if there is no evidence for it. And also by claiming that reality is an illusion, when "illusion" actually means by definition something other than reality.

There is no evidence that there is a swarm of invisible elephants flying above my head, so does that mean it's true that it's there? Ouch! I think one of them just whacked me with his trunk.

Sorry, I'm being ridiculous. Of course there is no swarm of flying invisible elephants; but all religions and spiritual beliefs are entirely true, and not at all made up, not even the ones that contradict each other - and themselves.

Marcus,

I guess you're right, though in the strictest sense isn't religion usually based upon beliefs which can't be measured and predicted and tested? So perhaps that needs amended a little to exclude science! Though, of course, often science and religion are competing versions of the same kinds of material.

Yes, well done Timeless rider.

Of course, what i meant to imply was that not all truths can be ascertained by someone "showing" you something.

Actually, I said the Buddha claimed that reality is an illusion. Tell me, what evidence can you "show" me to prove that it's not?

Is there any reality that isn't inside your own head?

Show me.

Bernards Insight

In one sense you raise a good point about reality only being inside one's own head, but then that doesn't really allow for any argument between individuals to take place, does it? Which makes me wonder what we're both doing on this stupid blog site!

I'll leave you to have the last word, Sir.

TimelessRider

Oh, don't go too soon! For one thing you can't retreat and declare victory.
You may actually want to do some reading on Buddhism and religion in general before assuming that Dawkins-lite quotes will do all the hard work for you. But otherwise, stick around.
GV

gveale

Sorry you missed me. I left it to you guys to claim the victory by giving you the last word. I also thought we'd strayed somewhat from the subject of Scientology.

I don't quote from Dawkins or any other source to save myself any work. Rightly or wrongly, I try to use my own brain to form opinions rather than blindly follow anyone else's opinion or belief system.

It seems to me that your argument is that no idea can be proven or disproven, which is why I'm confused by the fact that you are joining in a debate at all, let alone disagreeing with my ideas. If you can enlighten me on that issue, I'd be very grateful.

BI

This is the third alternative, existentialism as expressed by Sartre and Camus among others. There is no way to prove them wrong. And during the 25 to 30 percent of my life that I am asleep, you would be hard pressed to convince me that they aren't right.

Timeless rider.

"It seems to me that your argument is that no idea can be proven or disproven"

Actually, the point is that that was the implication of your argument.

If you need to be "shown" evidence of EVERYTHING, yet you have no evidence that your "sight" provides knowledge, then the implication is that nothing can be proven.

I'm suggesting that that's wrong, and that there are others way of knowing things other than "seeing" the evidence.

So make up your mind; either no argument can be proven, or there are way of knowing other than "seeing" the evidence....and thus your asking Buddha to "show you the evidence" is ridiculously misguided.

Marcus;

"This is the third alternative, existentialism as expressed by Sartre and Camus among others. There is no way to prove them wrong"

Except that, if they are right, everything is entirely absurd and meaningless. Including the statement of belief that they are right. So if it is absured and meaningless to say that they are right, maybe the rational alternative is that they are wrong.

Dear Mr Insight

So please explain to me how you can "know" something other than by seeing it. Someone must have shown you Buddhism and the idea that you can know something without seeing it, or are you seriously claiming that you and all followers of Buddhism reached the idea of Buddhism entirely independently? You never saw or heard the name Buddha from anyone - the name just popped into your head out of nowhere, did it?

Oh, you can't explain, can you. Because that would mean showing me something. Again, how can you have an argument or a debate if you don't believe it is possible to be shown something?

Tell me, when you walk out into the street, do you put clothes on? If so, why? Because you KNOW from having been shown by experience that you will feel cold or embarrassed if you don't. Why do you eat every day? Again, because you KNOW from being shown by experience that you will alleviate hunger and you KNOW from evidence shown to you on the news that you that people die very quickly if they stop eating altogether. If you don't believe evidence shown to you, stop eating, stop wearing clothes, stop pausing to cross the road if you can SEE or HEAR a car coming, and stop leaving buildings via the ground floor.

Dr Mr rider;

"So please explain to me how you can "know" something other than by seeing it"

By making an intellectual and rational judgment based on experience, insight and sufficient reason.

If YOU believe that you CAN'T know ANYTHING without seeing it, then the implication is that you can't KNOW anything...as you can't SEE how "sight" can provide knowledge.

"how can you have an argument or a debate if you don't believe it is possible to be shown something"

But of course I believe it is possible to be shown something...I just don't believe it is possible to be "shown" everything...like, for example, your assertion that "seeing" something provides knowledge. You can't "show me" the truth of that.

Your confusion is apparent in your attempt at example.

"Tell me, when you walk out into the street, do you put clothes on? If so, why? Because you KNOW from having been shown by experience that you will feel cold or embarrassed if you don't"

Ah yes, every time I walk down the street I am "shown" that I will feel cold without clothes????

Don't be ridiculous....I make an intellectual judgement based on physical reaction that I would be cold...No one has ever SHOWN me that. don't be so silly fella.

I'm reminded of that old Maria McKee song

Show me heaven...

Dear Insight

You clearly misunderstand my meaning and usage of the word "shown". When I say "shown" I mean "demonstrated" or "taught" through any one of our senses or experience. I don't necessarily mean someone else has literally shown you purely through sight.

I never claimed that someone has literally shown you via sight that you would feel cold without clothes. I claimed that your experience (of physical reaction) has "shown/demonstrated" that you would feel cold. And you obviously accept that "showing/demonstration" as real, which is why you continue to wear clothes. And you didn't have an intrinsic understanding that you should cover your body to avoid embarrassment, your culture "showed/taught" you that you would be embarrassed through all kinds of experience, not just literally through what you saw with your eyes.

What we are doing in this or any argument is trying to "show/teach/demonstrate" things. You can't try to get anyone else to understand your view except by "showing" your points and your argument, as you have tried to "show" your Buddhist ideas - which I maintain must have been "shown" to you at some point, because experience has "shown" me that it would be far to big a conincidence that all followers of Buddhism could have arrived at the idea and name of Buddhism independently. Someone originally started the idea of Buddhism and "showed" it to others. Just as someone started the idea of "Scientology" and "showed" it to others. But none of those people who started these ideas has been able to "show/demonstrate" that they got them from any kind of divine or spiritual source, or that they are any more valid than any other ludicrously far-fetched idea that any one of us might make up in their head. This debate was about fraud. If you don't believe that you can "show/demonstrate" that any religion or spiritual belief is fraud, then by the same argument you can't "show/demonstrate" that anything is fraud, which in turn means that you must believe you can't "show/demonstrate" anything. But I think you are trying to "show/demonstrate" something by getting involved in this argument, which is why, yes you're right, I'm confused.

Ah right, you're just using the wrong word...

In which case, I've been "shown" the truth of christianity many times...it has been demonstrated to me that the world is contingent so that I could form a rational conclusion of a source of meaning an intelligibility based on the contingency of the rational and meaningful universe.

Problem solved.

Perhaps no one has "shown" you yet.

and yes, you are confused. A quick course in epistemology might help...although I don't know how far anyone else can "show" you the truth of your own judgments.

:)

"It seems to me that your argument is that no idea can be proven or disproven, which is why I'm confused by the fact that you are joining in a debate at all, let alone disagreeing with my ideas."

Er...when did I say that? I just said that you weren't very well informed about the nature of religion. And that you had absolutely no evidence that Jesus or Muhammad were "frauds".

"please explain to me how you can "know" something other than by seeing it."

Okay, few examples of things I know.

*1+1=2
*It is always wrong to torture a baby to death to feel pleasure, and only to feel pleasure.
*Other human beings have thoughts.I can see the effect of those thoughts(behavior like typing). I can see the physical causes of thoughts (the brain etc) But I've never experienced or been shown another person's thoughts, feelings or emotions.
*I should trust my mental and perceptual faculties unless I have been given reason to doubt that they are functioning properly
*A is not non-A
*If A therefore B, and B therefore C, then A therefore C
*If A therefore B, and notB, then notA
*If all A's that have been sampled are B, then I can rationally predict that the next A I discover will also be B
*I am rationally entitled to seek a good and meaningful life


And so forth...

GV

And could you show/teach/demonstrate why I should only believe what can be shown/taught/demonstrated? And then show/teach/demonstrate why I should accept that argument? And then... oh, you get the picture.

Bernard

When did you convert to Buddhism?

GV

Ha, i was just wondering that myself. I think someone has shown/taught/demonstrated its truth to me.

I believe it involved some kind of chemical experiment....turning gold into lead or something like that, though I'm no scientist.

:)

Well done, guys. Still using this medium to try and show/teach/demonstrate your idea that you can't show/teach/demonstrate things. But then in other places saying you can be shown some things. Great and consistent logic!

I was not using the wrong words. "Show" can mean to demonstrate, present or prove something, and not necessarily by visual means. "See" can mean to grasp a concept, such as your charming example about torturing babies. I suggest you go back to primary school to learn that - that's the place where they teach people that 1 + 1 = 2. You didn't have an independent insight into maths; if you did, how come you write 1 + 1 = 2 exactly the same way that I do? Bit of a coincidence, huh? I think someome showed you how, just as they showed me. And, Sir, I think you know that, in exactly the same way that you know you must eat to stay alive, though you may not have seen anyone starve, and you know not to jump off tall buildings, though you may never have seen the effects on anyone who has done so.

We all accept certain things as being truth beyond all reasonable doubt, such as wearing clothes when it is cold or eating when hungry. You believe you have been shown the truth beyond all reasonable doubt there, otherwise why do you do it? But there is no sense at all in blindly following a religion or spiritual concept (that someone has obviously made up and then shown to others) on the basis that just maybe they hit gold and there is the tiniest possible chance that, however far-fetched it is, it may be true.

Fraud is a legal term, and the law works on the basis of determining things beyond all reasonable doubt. If you don't believe in the idea or validity of "beyond all reasonable doubt", you've no place getting involved in a discussion about fraud, or any discussion at all. But then you do believe in "beyond all reasonable doubt", by ensuring that you eat, wear warm clothes and avoid jumping off tall buildings.

Those are my thoughts and I have just shown them to you. NOT LITERALLY - I MEAN PRESENTED, DEMONSTRATED, CONVEYED!!!!!!!!!

"Still using this medium to try and show/teach/demonstrate your idea that you can't show/teach/demonstrate things"

Actually, I'm well aware that we can be shown/taught/demonstrated things.

It was you who was suggesting that one CAN'T possibly be shown/taught/demonstrated the truth of religions. I assumed you meant because one can't be "shown"....I'm not sure how we can't be "taught" the truth of religions....you just made the assertion, and that was it.

""Show" can mean to demonstrate, present or prove something, and not necessarily by visual means. "See" can mean to grasp a concept, such as your charming example about torturing babies"

All of which can be done with religious concepts....so why did you assert, with no evidence, showing/teaching or demonstrating, that it can't?

"But there is no sense at all in blindly following a religion or spiritual concept (that someone has obviously made up and then shown to others) on the basis that just maybe they hit gold and there is the tiniest possible chance that, however far-fetched it is, it may be true"

Certainly not.

Who does that? Can you show/teach/demonstrate that people do this? I don't know anyone who does. i know people who follow religious concepts because they have been shown/taught/demonstrated to them.

You really are confussssing yourself here boy.

And, funny enough, you're blindly following the view that it is impossible to show/teach/demonstrate religious concepts to others, even though you obviously can't show/teach or demonstrate that fact.

Do you understand? I am not claiming that we can't be shown, taught or demonstrated ANYTHING....I'm arguing with your claim, made with absolutely no argument or demonstration, that it is impossible to show/teach/demonstrate/present religious concepts....in fact, despite your assertion that it is impossible, you then contradict yourself by saying that Buddha did precisely this.

Exactly what are you saying? that it's impossible to show/teach/demonstrate anything, or that it is just impossible to show/teach/demonstrate religion?

Can you show/teach/demonstrate that? or is it just a blind assertion?

OK, again you completely misread or misunderstood me. And maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe like me you are trying to do some work while continuing this ridiculous debate.

I don't believe I ever said "it is impossible to show/teach/demonstrate religious CONCEPTS to others". I certainly didn't mean that. I wouldn't even claim it is impossible to PROVE that any religion is entirely truthful. It's just that nobody ever has ever even tried to prove a religion to me, although plenty have told me that I should just believe it because they say so.

I think we both agree that certain things have been proven as truthful - such as you will die if you jump off a high roof. We could prove that again today if we wanted. Are we definitely agreed on that point - that some things can be proven as truthful?

However, I got the impression you were arguing that no proof can be provided that a religion is true - that it somehow has an exemption clause in that respect. Is that right or are you claiming it can, like anything else, be proven to be true?

If you're claiming that it can't, well that's a handy get-out clause! Almost as good as the "God moves in mysterious ways" clause. What is so special about religion that, unlike 1 + 1 or dying if you jump off a high roof, it is exempt from even the possibility of being proven?

On the other hand, if you think it can be proven - have a go. For example, prove to me that there is a heaven. If you can't even begin to prove that, then I think the concept of heaven was just made-up and is no more truthful than my own made-up idea of the swarm of invisible flying elephants above my head. What's the difference?

I'm not going to accept the argument that I should have to try to disprove any far-fetched stories. What a waste of time! Anyone could make up an infinite number of far-fetched stories this second, that doesn't make them true and there's no way you can set out to disprove a far-fetched made up story.

The burden is not on me to disprove anything far-fetched. If someone claims that something far-fetched (like a god or a heaven, or that we're all alien beings) is the truth, the burden is on them is to prove it's the truth and not the made-up nonsense it appears to be. Otherwise, I consider that it is beyond all reasonable doubt a fraud. That's all any reasonable or sensible person can do.

TimelessRider

OK, lets cut to the chase. I'm a Christian and I can't prove God. If I could prove God, I'd be God.

We can'tprove God.

However, and you're gonna hate this, faith is not irrational.

If I missed something along the way, apologies, I only scanned the comments, time is too precious to waste!

By the way we might not die if we jumped off a high roof if there was also a very high and very large air filled bag type mattress thingy to catch us and cushion our fall, or if for example we were attached by a bungy rope, or if we were coyote out of "Road Runner", he jumps off lots of high things and doesn't die, but that is by the by.

#52 - TimelessRider - "The burden is not on me to disprove anything far-fetched. If someone claims that something far-fetched (like a god or a heaven, or that we're all alien beings) is the truth, the burden is on them is to prove it's the truth and not the made-up nonsense it appears to be. Otherwise, I consider that it is beyond all reasonable doubt a fraud. That's all any reasonable or sensible person can do."

Why do you say that a supernatural reality is "far-fetched"?

You may think that is a ridiculous question, but it is not. You are making that statement on the basis that "naturalism" is true - that the only reality that exists - or that we can know or prove exists - is that which we discern with our senses (e.g. through scientific investigation). Fundamentally, it is saying that matter is all that exists. Thus, in that thinking, supernatural concepts are automatically debunked. This philosophy is based on empiricism, that claims that all knowledge is derived from the experience of our senses.

But logic tells us that this is actually the "far-fetched" philosophy.

Why?

Because it is self-contradictory in that the claims of naturalism depend on the use of a reality from outside nature. This reality is called "logic". "Logic" itself cannot be discerned by empirical means.

Can we see logic? No.
Can we hear logic? No.
Can we taste logic? No.
Can we touch logic? No.
Can we smell logic? And again, the answer is no.

Can we see logic under the microscope? Through the telescope? Need I answer these questions?

But if "logic" does not exist, then the claims of naturalism - or any other philosophy - cannot exist. Therefore atheism cannot exist, neither can agnosticism - or indeed theism. Knowledge itself becomes an illusion.

But since you do clearly acknowledge the reality of logic, why are you saying that those who believe that there are realities beyond "nature" are being expected to prove their case, since our case is already proven by the fact that we are seeking to reason with each other? Reason itself cannot be derived from nature, while at the same time standing back from nature and studying it. C.S. Lewis was right when he put it like this:

"...the Gulf Stream produces all sorts of results: for instance, the temperature of the Irish Sea. What it does not produce is maps of the Gulf Stream. But if logic, as we find it operative in our own minds, is really a result of mindless nature, then it is a result as improbable as that. The laws whereby logic obliges us to think turn out to be the laws according to which every event in space and time must happen. The man who thinks this an ordinary or probable result does not really understand. It is as if cabbages, in addition to resulting from the laws of botany also gave lectures in that subject: or as if, when I knocked out my pipe, the ashes arranged themselves into letters which read: 'We are the ashes of a knocked out pipe.' ... Unless all that we take to be knowledge is an illusion, we must hold that in thinking we are not reading rationality into an irrational universe but responding to a rationality with which the universe has always been saturated." (De Futilitate, from Christian Reflections, by C S Lewis)

So Lewis is showing here that the laws of the universe, and the laws of our thought are responding to a rationality which is above and outside of matter, and cannot result from matter, since matter is mindless. If logic and mind derive from the mindlessness of matter, then knowledge becomes an illusion.

Some people can't seem to see this. I remember an atheist once saying to me "There is no meaning to life". What was interesting is that she contradicted herself by that very statement. Because if there is no meaning to life - if all is chaos and meaninglessness - then the statement that "there is no meaning to life" is itself meaningless. Of course, she had to make an exception of the relevance and validity of her knowledge, in order to promote her brand of nihilism. This is what naturalists do. They steal something from the "super"- naturalist worldview (i.e. reason itself) in order to then use that thing to attempt to debunk supernaturalism. It is an example of intellectual parasitism.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on the naturalist to explain how matter can produce reason, while matter is itself mindless. If the naturalist cannot do this, then I regard the philosophy of naturalism as an intellectual fraud.

Timeless rider;

It depends what we mean by proof. i think that God can be proven insofar as anything else can be proven. Its being can be grasped intelligly, in a way which fits in with all of our other observations and conceptions about the world.

I don't think we can "prove" the independent being of ANYTHING, including ourselves. I also think, however, that that field of limitation actually includes the whole universe. If the universe isn't "real", it's still a universe...is all we could ever know as a universe, and constitutes every possible instance of any awareness that we can have...that still doesn't "prove", in the sense that you mean, that it has an independent reality.

I would like to see you attempt to "prove" that.

So to make it clear, I do believe that things can be proven. I believe that lots of things can be "proven" - when that means "fitted into an explanatory system which coheres with and explains all of the facts of consciousness, and all possible facts of consciousness"

I'm not sure that's what you mean by "proven".

OK, thank you guys for taking the trouble to write a detailed explanation of your views, at last.

Hmm. I admit I'm a bit new to this kind of philisophical argument, and I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you, but it seems to me that what you are saying essentially is that any story or idea that can be thought up or conceived can be considered as "proven" or as "truthful" as much as the things we all commonly see, hear, touch, etc. Is that right or did I misunderstand?

But that is not the view of specific organised religions, which is what this debate is about. Each religion has very specific ideas about what is the "truth" - they claim things which go beyond what we can all agree. They dismiss the "beyond-the-commonly-agreed" ideas of other religions. They DO NOT accept all conceivable truths. They hold the view so firmly that they are right and other religions are wrong that they sometimes go to war with each other.

Let's not be silly. We all commonly agree that if you fall off a high building you will be killed, unless, yes, you may be lucky that there is a big cushion. It is religions that go beyond those kind of things and try to claim that their own very specific stories and ideas that are way beyond what we all commonly experience are true, whereas the specific stories and ideas of other religions are not.

If they are all different, they cannot all be right. At best, only one could be right. And the chances that any one of the religions with all its very particular or convoluted stories and ideas that go so far beyond what any of us can see or experience or agree is true is so unlikely that it can be dismissed beyond all reasonable doubt as a fraud.

By the way, if some matter is mindless, which I obviously agree with, why can other matter not form a mind? I hold the view that logic, love, hate and consciousness is a part of the electro/chemical operations of the brain. Maybe that is as far-fetched to you as the idea that there are angels is to me, but I know people are working on proving it and I hope one day they'll show us both.

I hope even more that that that one day they'll show us your Angels and Heaven too!

Timeless Rider;

I've been avoiding replying all weekend, because the weather's been so nice. Hope you haven't got tired of waiting.

"but it seems to me that what you are saying essentially is that any story or idea that can be thought up or conceived can be considered as "proven" or as "truthful" as much as the things we all commonly see, hear, touch, etc"

Absolutely not at all. Conceptions are only the first part of the cognition process. We all then make judgments based on experience.

What I am saying is that I think it is reasonable to make a judgment that a transcendental source of being exists, based on the totality of experience, and the contingency of all experienced things.

"By the way, if some matter is mindless, which I obviously agree with, why can other matter not form a mind?"

How do you know that some matter is mindless?

Drawing this thread back to it's original subject...

Wikipedia has clamped down on Scientologists for being 'wikifiddlers', i.e. agenda-pushing wiki editors who are too clearly biased in their edits:

I spent a very interesting evening perusing web-sites dedicated to the FSM. These sites explain soooo much.

Two things remain unexplained - 1) how so much satire can miss it's target completely and *still* be devoid of any humour.
It was a bit like spending an evening with a Monty Python fan who insists on acting out the "Knights who say nee!" over and over. You might smile a little at first - then look for a sharp object.

2)Why are these sites so very smug? It actually seems to be the very reason for their existence.

GV

"Why are these sites so very smug?"

It has to do with the competition, which might well consists of posters like yourself, with knowledge and powers of reasoning on a similar level to yours. The temptation to get smug can become irresistable at times.

But where exactly did post 59 come from? My post 58 was intended to bring the thread back to its original subject. Post 59 seems more like an irrelevant blurp by someone who doesn't have much to add to the discussion on this thread (either the original one the the subject to which the thread had drifted) and just feels he needs to speak out against the evil FSMers.

Feeling frustrated much lately, Graham?

Not even slightly PK. In quite good spirits as it happens.
And now I know why statements like -
"posters like yourself, with knowledge and powers of reasoning on a similar level to yours"
keep entering your posts. In the FSM sites, this sort of thing seems to pass as an argument. And that sort of nastiness actually seems to pass as incisive and biting. It's really very amusing when you put it in context.

Anyway FSM poses as a religion for comic effect. So the FSM sites did seem relevant.
And in fairness Bobby Henderson's letter was very clever, given that ID proponents refused (and still refuse) to say anything meaningful about the designer. That was disingenuous, and IDers needed to be called out over that.

GV

Scientology is not a religion. It is a dangerous cult that uses mind control techniques to fool the unwary into parting with their money in some wild goose chase that supposedly ends in them bettering themselves. In short, it's no different from a pyramid scheme, designed specifically to make the perpetrators of this ridiculous scam rich whilst depriving its students of their own free will.

Critics of Scientology find themselves on the receiving end of a vigorously aggressive legal attack who will stop at nothing to discredit them. Don't take my word for it. Go search on the Internet and find out for yourself.

$cientology and Tom Cruise explaining it did make me laugh. Come on France!

I am with the victims.

One of the scienceblogs reports on a leaked document from the church of scientology. About how members are obliged to sign away every right they have to ever sue the church. Other bits like "8. I am not related to or connected with any intelligence agency, either by past history or immediate familial connection." also show the church knows who they are.