divine ignorance-1

Does Faith Imply Uneducated?

How Does Ignorance Imply Godliness?

Does faith fail with education?

Does faith fail with education?

Source: https://plus.google.com/u/0/113376504911684406239

Mr.Doe’s Your Religion Is Fucked Up™

The more “educated” we become, the farther we move away from God. ~ Flagg Church of God

This church understands the demographics of its target audience. It validates “argumentum ad ignorantiam.” The lower the education of its flock, the greater its profitability and control over those minds. “Education” is represented almost as a sin itself, as being “farther” from God, because of it. Ignorance, in matters of faith, is expressed as a virtue.

This, of course, explains just about everything when it comes to religion. But it gets deeper. There are those who invest a lot of thought into defending their religion, so they are not necessarily “ignorant” in terms of their ability to think!

They are called Apologists. And I’ve had the pleasure of a lengthy discussion with such an apologist at the Christian Apologetics Alliance on Google+.  As a Moderator of the group, he exhibits a good understanding of apologetic thought and strategy.

To avoid any misrepresentation, the entire discussion can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/nn4qps4 where I open the discussion with:

“What are the rules of determining truth in apologetics that differ from the rules of determining truth in any other endeavor of knowledge? And a sub-question would be: how does one verify the accuracy of an apologetic conclusion?”

After receiving the answers to my inquiry, the conversation morphed into several categorical topics, but something ALWAYS remained clear.

To the apologist, it is not necessary that a defended position be true, but only that it be defended as not necessarily false! So, inference is the typical strategy for defending a position, but such a tactic requires plenty of, (albeit sometimes convoluted or circular), thought!

So it’s not really fair to associate “stupidity” or “ignorance” or “gullibility” or any sense of unintelligence with belief in the supernatural, or superstition. But as a matter of how one goes about defending a position; it is little wonder that scientists (grounded in the scientific method) are far less likely to be superstitious or highly religious.

This is a quality of thought issue, not necessarily an “ability” of thought issue.

To the apologist, conclusions may not be verifiable, because they are apparently “outside” of our ability to demonstrate. This leads to virtually any claim being as valid as any other. (Islam or Christianity? Buddhism or Judaism? One God or many gods?)  Without the ability to verify, truth can only be asserted without proof or demonstration. One story is as good as another, especially when the magic of the “supernatural” can make anything possible.

The weak point of Apologetics, (or the less educated the better), is accepting the non-verifiable as a valid position for belief. A poor explanation is something science never accepts as complete. But superstitious belief relies on poor explanations, to flourish. (Jesus ascending to heaven is as valid as Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse. In each faith, each claim is true.)

What makes for a poor explanation is the inability to verify! And the more educated one becomes, the more likely they are going to seek verification to extraordinary claims.

Where knowledge grows, God recedes. Where ignorance grows, God is inserted to fill the unknown, and increases. (See: God of the gaps.) This process happens with the uneducated flock, as well as with the educated apologist. Whatever is not known is relegated to God (or, God did it).

The “God of the gaps” has always been the modus operandi behind faith and religion. It is the quintessential “argumentum ad ignorantiam,” otherwise known as “argument from ignorance.”

Asset – How to Dehypnotize a Believer

How to Dehypnotize a Believer – Or, “How to Plant a Truth Virus in the Matrix of Religion”

…is a systematic approach to navigating a “Believer” into critical thinking about matters of faith, without the aspect of (or necessity for) argumentation.

It is written and licensed as a distributable asset (in .PDF) with full rights to republish (on site, online) or redistribute as an independent document.

Read the document online here; How to Dehypnotize a Believer. Use your browser to Save the download in .PDF format.
How To Dehypnotize A Believer
(Or, How to Plant a “Truth Virus” in the Matrix of Religion)

Creative Commons License
How To Dehypnotize A Believer by Dorian Greer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Is Jehovah right, or Allah?

Religious terrorism

The Medieval Inquisitions, marked by torture and murder, were prosecuted through four centuries under the various Catholic Popes; and why most Americans are Christian today. The goal was to cleanse the world of heretics, or the non-believer in Catholicism. If Jehovah was right then, is Allah right today?

The extermination of non-believers, and to take their land and property, is exactly what those fighting for an Islamic State (of Iraq & Syria) and now various parts of Africa, are trying to do. And they are doing it in the name of Islam, or more specifically, Allah.

Under what justification does one man kill another by invoking God’s will? The easy, surface, answer is religion. The deeper answer, that upholds religion, is religious faith.

One of the reasons I made Question 4, “Is Faith Epistemologically Valid?” public, is because once a person can see the mistake in conflating “faith” with “truth” it becomes easier for the religious mind to grasp the significance of the error. If killing people that do not believe what YOU believe is justified by the God of your religion, then YOU are a justifiable victim if murdered in the name of a God other than yours. Unless your god is morally wrong, the other god cannot be morally wrong.

But which God is right?

The rational mind understands this easily, as follows: If God is love, moral, and just, aren’t the actions of terrorists at least prima facie evidence that they do NOT represent a God? In fact, is it not conclusive evidence – for, what other evidence could possibly be needed?

Never mind the fact that a Muslim can no more demonstrate the existence of his God than a Christian could demonstrate his. Never mind the fact that the justification of violence comes not from any God, but from a book. The simple FACT is that if God exists and is moral and just, EVERY act of terrorism is a de facto demonstration that such actions could NOT have come from the will of a God.

Do you see now why some of us (the rational) are pulling out our hair, trying to get those led by faith to see the obvious?

My sad thoughts

My thinking is that if you are rational, you can easily see this. But the faithful have been desensitized to the violence of a loving God for centuries. My sad thoughts are that the irrational will not awaken to the reality of God’s justification for murder until the other team’s God acquires a nuke and uses it in your backyard, because your god has been justifying murder for centuries. Unless your god is morally wrong, the other god cannot be morally wrong. You need to figure this out.