Comments on: Reality: your bridge to marital bliss

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:27:41 +0000

“In fact, religion is not a pseudoscience. It’s a non-science, like ethics, morality, esthetics. The basic tenets are generally things that can’t be tested empirically, and so just aren’t there, scientifically, to be proved or not.”

That’s entirely true, _but_ the religious mode of thought has a great deal in common with pseudoscience and conspiracy hypotheses. (No, I won’t use the word “theory” to describe them.)

In all three, the conclusion comes before the premises, whether that conclusion is that god exists, that arranging your furniture a certain way will make you rich, or that little green men crashed in the New Mexico desert. The mode of thought and the methods of denying reality are all the same.

*ahem*

Congratulations, Linda! I wish you and your newly minted skeptic many happy years together. =)

By: r a varga

r a varga — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:57:50 +0000

Lidsay, you had the dude when you spread it all out on the bed, forget facts & logic, that’s all it takes to win an argument with a man.

By: steve james

steve james — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:20:46 +0000

My GF is an eastern European with an ingrained belief in various types of traditional healing, which she received from her mother, a nurse. I can’t get into arguments with her on why ‘cupping’ isn’t going to relieve chest congestion any more, but I have been able to explain why homeopathic remedies don’t work. And I’ve developed a useful shorthand to get straight to the point and limit the emotional fireworks, and have tried it on others as well.

“Magic Doesn’t Work.”

I find this statement tends to make people stop and think about what they are claiming, because they think they agree with it already. I have seen some of them realize a need to examine their own beliefs on the subject when faced with it. Otherwise how could I be calling it magic?

Steve “From Homeo, meaning expensive, and pathic, meaning ‘doesn’t work’.” James

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:35:32 +0000

Doc said:
Religion in itself does not equate with pseudoscience. That being said, holding to some religious beliefs (e.g. biblical inerrancy) indicate either a lack of critical thinking ability, a tendency to assert something that hasn’t been critically examined, or an unwillingness to examine beliefs when doing so might cause discomfort. None of those traits are desireable when engaging in scientific thought.

Nicely put, Doc! You said it much more clearly than I could have.

Barton Paul Levenson, I read That Guy’s post the same way Doc apparently did: that he was saying skepticism led him away from pseudoscience and also from religion, not that it led him away from religion because it is a pseudoscience.

In fact, religion is not a pseudoscience. It’s a non-science, like ethics, morality, esthetics. The basic tenets are generally things that can’t be tested empirically, and so just aren’t there, scientifically, to be proved or not.

By: TSFrost

TSFrost — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:15:58 +0000

I guess Carl Sagan was the one who originally set me down the right path when I used to watch Cosmos way back in the day. When I came across this site, I was already very much the skeptic. I visit this site nearly every day to read how much further down the drain rational thinking has swirled. So it is quite nice to read this story about someone who worked long and hard to ’save’ the one she loves!

Heck, I’ve got such a warm fuzzy that I’m not even going to point out that religion is, indeed, a pseudo science, what with divine intervention being akin to psychic powers, with zero evidence of either.

Nope, just gonna let that one drop!

By: Michael Lonergan

Michael Lonergan — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:40:54 +0000

One more thing to ponder that relates to this. I am amazed and confounded when I see Criss Angel perform some of his illusions. But I am not willing to say that he has some kind of divine, supernatural power. Even he states it is all an illusion.

By: Michael Lonergan

Michael Lonergan — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:59:01 +0000

Doc: I agree, religious faith, of any type, I suppose, can provide a sense of comfort when confronted with the unknown. I think even the most skeptical among us would have to agree that there is still, and will probably always be an element of the unknown in the human experience. Personally, I have followed the teachings of the Bible for 24 years of my life, before abandoning it. In those 24 years I found no concrete evidence for the existence of God, let alone a personal being that took an interest in my daily affairs. Yes, I prayed. Yes, some of those prayers were “answered.” However, was that due to coincidence, or divine providence? I tend to think the former.

Granted, I did have one or two bizarre incidents that I simply cannot explain, however, at this point I cannot prove one way or the other if they were the result of the hand of God, as they were personal, and I have no concrete proof. And no, praying for a parking spot in front of the place you need to be, and finding one does not count. I cannot tell you how many times I heard that one during “Sunday Night Testimony Time!” What, God can give you a parking spot, but can’t restore a missing limb, or feed the hungry, or stop the genocide in Darfur?

What happens when we draw our last breath? Some here, like Barton would probably say, “Well if you believe in Christ, you go to heaven. if you don’t, you go to hell.” Others would say, “You are dead. Your existence is over. Your body disintegrates and that is it.” Still others might say, “I simply don’t know.” At this time in my life, that is where if fit.