Polite Society

[Gilbs]

Hello, new to the forum. I was wondering if any one has the answer to this social dilema:
My wife is a "believer" and as a family we were invited to a BBQ at her church. I was chatting to the vicar who then informed me he was reading Hawkin's "A brief history ......." after I closed my slack jaw he sat back laughed and then said, "Ah these people, I was reading his views on Quarks and Anti Quarks and these are theories postulated by physicists with so many assumptions that they have to have "faith" in them to be true, because of the complete lack of evidence. Yet the evidence for God is so overwhelming; you see it every day, intercessory? prayer etc, they make me laugh. They are atheists for the sake of being atheists because the faith they need is the same yet there is more evidence for God" end quote. Now I would no more want a believer bashing me about the head with his bible at my BBQ than presumably a heretic telling the vicar at his BBQ he is a complete A**e who does not understand the first thing about the scientific method. Just wandering what other people would do? and also if someone can succinctly put for me the difference between his versions of faith so I can more effectively rebut this view outside church grounds.

Cheers.

[Matt]

Hello, new to the forum. I was wondering if any one has the answer to this social dilema:
My wife is a "believer" and as a family we were invited to a BBQ at her church. I was chatting to the vicar who then informed me he was reading Hawkin's "A brief history ......." after I closed my slack jaw he sat back laughed and then said, "Ah these people, I was reading his views on Quarks and Anti Quarks and these are theories postulated by physicists with so many assumptions that they have to have "faith" in them to be true, because of the complete lack of evidence. Yet the evidence for God is so overwhelming; you see it every day, intercessory? prayer etc, they make me laugh. They are atheists for the sake of being atheists because the faith they need is the same yet there is more evidence for God" end quote. Now I would no more want a believer bashing me about the head with his bible at my BBQ than presumably a heretic telling the vicar at his BBQ he is a complete A**e who does not understand the first thing about the scientific method. Just wandering what other people would do? and also if someone can succinctly put for me the difference between his versions of faith so I can more effectively rebut this view outside church grounds.

Cheers.

Hi Gilbs and welcome to the forum.

Well there's a darn sight more athiests who don't have the first idea what a quark actually is than those who do. It's rather silly to say that atheist place thier faith in quarks. Even those that have heard the word are unlikley to have much working knowledge of particle physics in general or specifically quantum chromo dynamics and the recorded and replicable behavior it seems to be able to predict. Then the small sub set of atheists who do know a lot about quarks may decide to treat the model as just that. A model from which predictions of varying precission may be made, rather than the actual real mechanism. Count Murray Gell-Mann himself amongst the people who weren't prepared to say for certain that quarks were real. Finally those who do make the assumption that quark theory is the real underlying mechanism for the strong nuclear force may be doing so scientifically. That is to say they treat thier beliefs as a provisional truth, and will accept new evidence requiring them to to modify or replace their beliefs. Only those who when presented with hard replicable evidence in defiance of their beliefs afrim the belief and deny the evidence, can have thier beliefs classed as faith.

There may be some athiests like that but I hope I'm not one of them.

Faith is belief without or in opposition to evidence. Your vicar aquaintance needs to decide what his beliefs are. Are they evidence based or faith based? If his belief in God is based upon evidence, the effectiveness of intercessionary prayer then it's not faith based, it's evidence based. The difference is how he would react to the truth that many quality studies have been done on the effects of intercessionary prayer and found it to be totally ineffective. If this causes him to abandon his belief in God then it was indeed evidence based. If instead he asserts contrary to the evidence that intercessionary prayer really does work then that's faith based.

[Admin]

Well I'd argue back if he started it!

He's completely wrong of course. It's an old argument that science is just another form of faith. The difference between science and faith is that knowledge has empirical support (i.e. it's evidence based), is testable and falsifiable.

Yes, science can be speculative and some theories could do with more support but if they are currently held to be provisionally true at least they are capable of being proved false. Something that can't said of religious dogma!

If the good vicar does have evidence of God's existence then invite him to this forum to present it.

My bet would be, however, that he's using arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Mike Hall]

I think the central problem here is an equivocation fallacy.

"Faith" can mean either:
1. Persistant belief in spite of disconfirming evidence or lack of evidence.
2. Confident belief in the truth of some trustworthy thing or idea.

Atheists can be said to be relying on faith as defined in (2) but not as defined in (1). However the type of faith referred to in the "atheism is based on faith" argument is that of definition (1).

Mike

[vbloke]

I was reading his views on Quarks and Anti Quarks and these are theories postulated by physicists with so many assumptions that they have to have "faith" in them to be true, because of the complete lack of evidence.

Quarks have been directly observed in particle colliders, exactly as predicted by the theory.

Yet the evidence for God is so overwhelming; you see it every day

Yet his God has yet to have been empirically observed, despite over 2000 years of repeated attempts at observation and testing.

They are atheists for the sake of being atheists because the faith they need is the same yet there is more evidence for God

Atheists are generally atheists because they reject the notion of any god. There is no evidence for any god apart from special pleading, or a version of Pascals Wager. Merely saying "there is evidence" is not evidence. I would like to see this evidence. Trees, grass, the moon, the sun, etc are not evidence for a god, they are only evidence that those things exist.

[Graham Lappin]

Hello, new to the forum. I was wondering if any one has the answer to this social dilema:
My wife is a "believer" and as a family we were invited to a BBQ at her church. I was chatting to the vicar who then informed me he was reading Hawkin's "A brief history ......." after I closed my slack jaw he sat back laughed and then said, "Ah these people, I was reading his views on Quarks and Anti Quarks and these are theories postulated by physicists with so many assumptions that they have to have "faith" in them to be true, because of the complete lack of evidence. Yet the evidence for God is so overwhelming; you see it every day, intercessory? prayer etc, they make me laugh. They are atheists for the sake of being atheists because the faith they need is the same yet there is more evidence for God" end quote. Now I would no more want a believer bashing me about the head with his bible at my BBQ than presumably a heretic telling the vicar at his BBQ he is a complete A**e who does not understand the first thing about the scientific method. Just wandering what other people would do? and also if someone can succinctly put for me the difference between his versions of faith so I can more effectively rebut this view outside church grounds.

Cheers.

I do have a lot of sympathy. My wife is a catholic (a catholic married to an atheist is quite a combination)! We seem to deal with it very well - we've been married for 30 years

I have had to bight my lip on more than one occasion. "God has given us such great weather for the BBQ" one nun said to me. I got a nudge in the ribs from my wife as a reminder to keep the big gob shut.

It does not bother me that much. I will politely argue on occasions if I deem the time right. I think I would have made an argument in the case you cite, if for no other reason than the assumption they can insult scientists and think that a repost is somehow ruled out by religion being in a more privileged position. I would have done so very carefully however.

I was listening to thought for the day on Radio-4 a few weeks ago whilst driving to work and someone (can't remember who - the bishop of Barton-bigot or somewhere) said (words to the effect of): scientists are coming up with more and more complicated and unfathomable explanations for the big bang. Why don't they take a leaf out of their own book and apply the principle of Occam's razor. The simple explanation is probably the correct one and the simplest of all the explanation is..... (wait for it) ...... (you can guess) ...... (yes)..... god made the Universe.

I found myself shouting at the car radio but I don't think he heard me.

[farmersboy]

I found myself shouting at the car radio but I don't think he heard me.

I do that every morning on the way to work, when Sarah Kennedy has the Pause for Thought thing at 6.20 - they do come out with some real tripe sometimes. It was something to do with trees being evidence for God loving us this morning...???

[Mulder]

The devil is in the detail (). If someone says 'a tree is evidence of god' then ask them, very politely, how exactly? With each answer, ask for more detail, claiming you don't quite understand. Eventually, they will say something so foolish that everyone will notice. Questions are a more powerful weapon than statements and so much more polite.

[VoodooJoe]

I think its perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone without having an argument or feeling as though you are being rude, a simple and respectful "personally i dont agree because i believe/think/observe......." will usually suffice, aslong as you remember you have no real need or right to be angry with someone because they dont have the same world view as you everything should be ok, i find if you approach with respect then people will answer respectfully, if they dont, well, then what matter, leave them be, they have only made a fool of themselves.

[Pebble]

I think its perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone without having an argument or feeling as though you are being rude, a simple and respectful "personally i dont agree because i believe/think/observe......." will usually suffice, aslong as you remember you have no real need or right to be angry with someone because they dont have the same world view as you everything should be ok, i find if you approach with respect then people will answer respectfully, if they dont, well, then what matter, leave them be, they have only made a fool of themselves.

He is a vicar, why bother being polite? Say what you really think once or twice, and SWMBO will decide that it is best not to invite you along after a while.

[Cuddles]

aslong as you remember you have no real need or right to be angry with someone because they dont have the same world view as you everything should be ok

But, as always, people are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. Woos often like to bring out the old "I just have a different world view" as if that's some kind of defense, but it's almost always just bollocks. Believing acupuncture works isn't a world view, it's just wrong. Believing stars are actually landing lights on giant rocks being flown around by leprechauns isn't a world view, it's just wrong. Believing that physics is based on faith and is no different than religion isn't a world view, it's just wrong.

It's not about being angry with people, it's simply pointing out that what they claim is their world view is actually a complete load of crap. Respect isn't something people just get, it's something you have to earn. Denying reality and pretending that your fantasy is just as valid is not the way to get it.

[Jack of Kent]

I would compliment him on having the gift of great faith.

Faith enables one to have a belief which has no evidence to support it. If evidence supported the existence of god, then the vicar would not need faith. And that wouldn't do, would it?

(I guess that in someways I have this sort of faith too, though not in religious matters. I am an Aston Villa supporter. We will win the European Cup again.)

However, great faith enables one to have a belief in spite of the evidence. For example, all empirical evidence points against there being a god which is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. For some one to still believe in such a god would require faith that moves mountains.

I do not have this sort of faith. But it must make everything easier if you do have it, with no pesky examples to refute a gorgous theory. So he is greatly gifted indeed.

[VoodooJoe]

He is a vicar, why bother being polite?.

Because he deserves your respect as much as anyone else, plus if you are rude to him he is perfectly justified in being rude back to you.

Say what you really think once or twice,?.

Its ok to voice opposing views, you can still totally disagree with someone and be their freind, in fact i find talking to people with opposing views makes for livelier and interesting conversation than people who i know will agree with me.

and SWMBO will decide that it is best not to invite you along after a while.

If you really dont want to be there then why wait until you are unpopular? just dont go in the first place.

[VoodooJoe]

But, as always, people are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. Woos often like to bring out the old "I just have a different world view" as if that's some kind of defense, but it's almost always just bollocks. Believing acupuncture works isn't a world view, it's just wrong. Believing stars are actually landing lights on giant rocks being flown around by leprechauns isn't a world view, it's just wrong. Believing that physics is based on faith and is no different than religion isn't a world view, it's just wrong.

It's not about being angry with people, it's simply pointing out that what they claim is their world view is actually a complete load of crap. Respect isn't something people just get, it's something you have to earn. Denying reality and pretending that your fantasy is just as valid is not the way to get it.

But he has every right to be believe whatever he wants, since when was there laws on what people can and cant think? he can believe magic fairies come and fetch the milk every morning instead of the milkman, completley screwy but totally within his rights as a free thinking human being.

Also i believe he has every right to voice such opinions, wether we agree with them or not.

Instead of just slamming someones beliefs as "a complete load of crap" why dont you try speaking to them and asking them why they believe such strange things? who knows he might give you a really interesting idea you have never thought of before.

Like you said, people are entitled to their own opinions, you can present them with the evidence, whatever they make of it is up to them and there is nothing anyone can do about it other than try and educate and show people the light.

[Cuddles]

But he has every right to be believe whatever he wants, since when was there laws on what people can and cant think? he can believe magic fairies come and fetch the milk every morning instead of the milkman, completley screwy but totally within his rights as a free thinking human being.

Also i believe he has every right to voice such opinions, wether we agree with them or not.

And no-one has said any different. It's a lovely straw man you've got there about laws telling people what to think, but this discussion would go a lot better if you stuck to what people actually say instead of imagining what you'd have liked us to say.

If he has the right to voice his opinions, we also have the right to voice ours. You seem to have this strange idea, that's weirdly common among believers, that being entitled to your own opinion only applies to people who believe crap and not those who point it out. If he's allowed to believe crap, I'm allowed to tell him that it's crap. You have a problem with that? Tough.

Instead of just slamming someones beliefs as "a complete load of crap" why dont you try speaking to them and asking them why they believe such strange things? who knows he might give you a really interesting idea you have never thought of before.

Because those beliefs are a complete load of crap. Why would I want to call them anything else? Sure, we can talk about why people believe things and show them evidence of why it's a load of crap, but none of that will actually stop it being a load of crap.