"Religion is merely a community of people who gather together on a regular basis to reassure each other that it's perfectly acceptable to continue believing in absurdities. But for me, it's far better to see the world the way it really exists, rather than persist in delusion, no matter how comforting or reassuring that may seem at the time." - Sagan

Sagan was right, but there's one little thing. The universe continually reveals itself to be something other than what we assumed, often very counter-intuitive. We are very limited when it comes to perceiving "reality as it really is."

In fact even in the limited realm of human affairs most things are entirely different than we think they are.

I find the whole thing fascinating, and all the more so now that I am free of limiting dogmas and stupid religious ideas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2012 12:33PM by rationalguy.

If one defines reality to include the truth that humans do not have all the answers and that we learn new stuff about the Universe (it is doubtful that the Universe purposefully reveals anything) all the time, then one could say we have a firm grasp of reality, we just do not know everything.

Polyandry Hotel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Religion is merely a community of people who
> gather together on a regular basis to reassure
> each other that it's perfectly acceptable to
> continue believing in absurdities.

Strawman.


>But for me,
> it's far better to see the world the way it really
> exists,

Presumptuous, fatuous and ultimately disingenuous, for I doubt Sagan ever believed he saw the world "the way it really exists."


>rather than persist in delusion,

Meaningless.

>no matter
> how comforting or reassuring that may seem at the
> time."

The cosmological science today that provided Sagan the false comfort that he saw the world "the way it really exists" will more than likely be very different a hundred years hence. He's projecting.

>- Sagan

May he rest in peace.

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Polyandry Hotel Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Religion is merely a community of people who
> > gather together on a regular basis to reassure
> > each other that it's perfectly acceptable to
> > continue believing in absurdities.
>
> Strawman.
>

Or speaking metaphorically.

>
> >But for me,
> > it's far better to see the world the way it
> really
> > exists,
>
> Presumptuous, fatuous and ultimately disingenuous,
> for I doubt Sagan ever believed he saw the world
> "the way it really exists."
>

It was a statement of preference, not fact. He was stating that FOR HIM it is better do do a than b. He is not stating that he does in fact see the world as it exists, but that it is better. Then again, if you see my discussion of the definition about reality, the "World as it really exists" could mean "a wondrous place we know little about but provides countless opportunities for new discoveries"

>
> >rather than persist in delusion,
>
> Meaningless.

Only because it was taken out of context of the sentence that gave it meaning.

> >no matter
> > how comforting or reassuring that may seem at
> the
> > time."
>
> The cosmological science today that provided Sagan
> the false comfort that he saw the world "the way
> it really exists" will more than likely be very
> different a hundred years hence. He's projecting.
>
>

As a cosmological scientist, he would have been appalled at how you took things out of context to change meaning.

> >- Sagan
>
> May he rest in peace.
>
> Human



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2012 01:02PM by MJ.

...go make me a samwich with that baloney kit of yours.

Human, could you explain what makes the first part Strawman? It's a word thrown around casually a lot lately. I've looked up many definitions and your use does not hold up to them.

Hi blueorchid.

wiki's bit on strawman:

"A straw man...is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

In other words, the quote misrepresents what a religious community is. I'm using "strawman" as loosely as is usual for RfM.


More than a strawman, the quote practices another fallacy that is rife throughout RfM as well as the atheist community, and that is the reductionist fallacy. The reductionist fallacy is when what is worst that can be said about something is passed off as what is truest about that something.

But Sagan wasn't making an argument. He was merely being rhetorical. Too often posters use these kinds of quotes as if they mean more than they really do.

Segan is not engaging in a debate thus does not misrepresent the positions of an opponent. He is describing religion as he sees it, perhaps even metaphorically, and drawing conclusions. Doing so is not a straw man.

Thanks Human, that is one of the definitions I had looked at.

I personally do not see how the quote is anything other than an opinion. Specifically what is the misrepresentation?

I do understand that the religious would not like to have their commonality of beliefs referred to as 'absurdities', but since they cannot prove them otherwise, it does seem to be a valid observation or opinion.

Also, as Polyandry Hotel only gave the quote and gave no personal opinion of it I fail to see how she is passing it off as the worst being the truest.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2012 01:36PM by MJ.

Most likely it's Sagan's use of the word "merely" that he finds to be reductionist.

While that is something that religion does - religion also does more than that.

Well, if you're here to show off how well you understand language I will have to agree. Writers!

He is correct. Because the context of the saying comes within a broader scope of what "absurdaties" and what "reality" is to Sagan.

But picking the phrase out allows one to nitpick over the language used.

Thank you. I don't know if I've got the whole strawmanthing yet, but I feel like I'm on my way. I can't believe the word merely can be so important.

Which would make it a strawman.

But I think that Sagan's quote is more rhetorical, and I remember the context of the quote as well.

Much like the LDS using LDS sponsored Boy Scout Troops to reinforce LDS absurdities. In which case, I would say that CS's statement would still apply.

It's not so much in the word "absurdities". The word "merely" carries far more 'strawman' weight.

But Sagan's use of the word "absurdities" to substitute for the entire corpus of Christian belief and tradition, for which christians gather together, is, I would think, summing it up at its absolute worst.

(And I agree, Sagan wasn't making an argument in any sense of the word. Like I said, I used "strawman" in the loose way it gets used on RfM.)

Cheers.

As I stated in my example about the LDS using the BSA to reinforce LDS absurdities, yes, they do more than just gather, they sponsor boy scout troops, but if the reason for sponsoring those troops is to get the faithful to gather as boy scouts to reinforce the absurdities, then CS's statement still applies.

Cheers.

I enjoyed the quote--food for thought. I see reality as an honest exploration rather than a defined commodity. Religion clings to defined commodities.

In my opinion those who treasure reality enjoy finding new information, including information that proves wrong some previously held notion of fact.

As a response to someone from a closed thread: I have no idea who Polyandry Hotel is and I am totally Y chromosome.

So how often does religion change its opinion after being proven wrong ?

Very valid question.

After being shown wrong they will, SOME TIMES, change their opinion about their scripture. It will change from the inerrant world of god to a metaphorical story meant to teach a lesson that may not be relevant today. Well, at least to people outside of that religion.

I think "absurdities" is a perfect definition of Christianity, God, and any belief in the supernatural whatever. Sorry if that offends anyone, but too bad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2012 03:04PM by rationalguy.

The human brain is only "mysterious" because we don't yet know a lot about how it works. It boils down to atoms arranged a certain way so that it runs software using meat instead of circuitry. That's basically it. When the cells die, the software stops running forever. Bleak, but probably true. If you can't grow up and face reality, it's probably better to keep believing in fairy tales for comfort though.

And who sees that exactly? We're all looking at the world through a tub of raspberry Jell-o (or maybe orango I dunno).

The Four Horseman are a bit delusional at overestimating their ability to see things "the way they really are". All processed information is constantly filtered through this imperfect and largely mysterious thing called the human brain. They seem to thing it's just some wiring and switches (Sam Harris is into neuroscience and not psychology after all).

That said they're probably less delusional than the religionists.

"Believe the man who is searching for truth. Never believe the man who says he's found it."

mrtranquility Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> "Believe the man who is searching for truth. Never
> believe the man who says he's found it."

I do not believe that the "four horsemen" have every said that they have found the truth in everything. Sam Harris is particularly good at saying there are truths we can safely call truths, and there are things we can not.

Here is one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UPLcGCGi-Q

His approach seems quite reasonable to me.

However, it is quite common for religions to claim that ALL the answers are in <insert religious scripture here>. This, of course, implies that they have found ALL the truths.