elizabeth veldon

Them: people who believe in god/ a god/ gods are bad and cause harm and their belief system is no way to get at truth.

Me: Ok, there are examples of people of no faith doing bad things and people of faith doing good things, this is about people not their beliefs. Also: what do you think is a path to truth?

Them: science and logic and only science and logic.

Me: ok, I think you should read Derrida

Blocked.

#Atheism #Theism #Scientificity #Logocenterism (hey, let's make 'logocentrism' a tag)

Mar 25, 2024 at 1:04pmWeb
Show threadelizabeth veldonMar 25, 2024
also: they completly ignored the solutions to omipodence and free will I offered as they where not actually interested in this theological problem, only using a straw man version of it to have a go at people of faith like its a sport and not an enquiry into our shared lived experence wot we do in philosophy and theorogy.
Show threadelizabeth veldonMar 25, 2024
its a branch of the 'debate me!' school of thinking which sees discussion and debate as a game to be won.
Show thread𝗖 𝗔 𝗧Mar 26, 2024

@elizabethveldon
Although peoples actions aren't solely determined by their #religion, religious beliefs can sometimes contribute to harmful behaviors or inhibit critical thinking.

The scientific method is the most reliable tool for understanding the natural world and uncovering objective truths about reality, and logic gives us the ability to analyze arguments and identify valid conclusions based on sound premises. Faith can't do that. #Faith is subjective and unreliable.

#atheism #atheist

Show threadStationkeeperMar 26, 2024
@Radical_EgoCom @elizabethveldon It's why faith should only ever be "to me" and "about me". It can provide guidance in the murky world of the self, but only the scientific method, verifyable and provable fact, and repeatable, testable observations can govern the exterior world where everyone else lives.
Show thread𝗖 𝗔 𝗧Mar 26, 2024
@chriswho @elizabethveldon
I disagree. While faith can offer personal guidance and comfort, relying solely on subjective beliefs is insufficient for understanding and navigating the complexities of the world. A balanced approach that incorporates both personal introspection and evidence-based reasoning would be far more reliable when addressing questions about the self and the external world.
Show threadStationkeeperMar 26, 2024
@Radical_EgoCom @elizabethveldon One's internal sense of faith can't be the sole arbiter for one's sense of morality, nor did I suggest it to be that way. I just said that if faith is to be anywhere, it's place is the internal, not the external.
Show thread𝗖 𝗔 𝗧Mar 26, 2024
@chriswho @elizabethveldon
Beliefs, whether faith-based or not, can often influence external actions, behaviors, and societal norms. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend people having faith even in an internal sense, as its effects can extend to external interactions and shape broader social dynamics, and I would rather recommend critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning as tools for evaluating beliefs.
Show threadStationkeeperMar 26, 2024
@Radical_EgoCom Well, when you meet someone of faith and they want to have this conversation with you, you should tell them.
Show threadelizabeth veldonMar 28, 2024
@Radical_EgoCom @chriswho one can ask what constitutes a belief and where subjectivity and objectivity end.
Show thread𝗖 𝗔 𝗧Mar 28, 2024
@elizabethveldon @chriswho
Regardless of where objectivity and subjectivity end and what constitutes a belief, that doesn't change the inherently unreliable nature of faith and the superiority of science and logic.
Show threadelizabeth veldonMar 28, 2024

@Radical_EgoCom @chriswho i don't disagree but the eugenicists where scientists working in a scientific field.

my point is that nothing is an entirly reliable approach and while science and logic are better they should face the same chalanges

Show thread𝗖 𝗔 𝗧Mar 28, 2024
@elizabethveldon @chriswho
Science and logic do face challenges, but I wouldn't say that they face the same kinds of challenges as faith. As horrible as eugenics was, notice how it only lasted for a few decades before the scientific community abandoned it. That's because science only accepts things that have evidence to back it up, and once it became clear that eugenics wasn't scientific it was abandoned. Faith doesn't work that way. If eugenics were a faith-based belief no amount of evidence..
Show thread𝗖 𝗔 𝗧Mar 28, 2024
@elizabethveldon @chriswho
...would be able to discredit it because faith-based beliefs are accepted on emotion and illogical thinking.
Show threadAntares Binding RituallMar 28, 2024
@Radical_EgoCom @elizabethveldon @chriswho that's not because the scientific community abandonned it, that's because moral pressure made it stop, but it still exists in many places. Metaphysic may not solve any problems, but it acknowledge the fact that there may be more than what science can operate on, and since science operates in the human brain, even if facts are facts, science is necessarily serving a human ideology. That's where metaphysic/faith/moral is needed
Show threadAntares Binding RituallMar 28, 2024
@Radical_EgoCom @elizabethveldon @chriswho
Kropotkine was right about the moral compass as consubstantial to anarchism, and the idea he got got Adam Smith was not unrelated to the notion of egregore (which is totally what the invisible hand is about but put in non masonic terms).
Show thread𝗖 𝗔 𝗧Mar 28, 2024
@antares @elizabethveldon @chriswho
It was a combination of a lack of scientific evidence and moral pressure that caused eugenics to be abandoned by society, but the scientific community abandoned it for its lack of evidence. While I agree that morality is needed in humanity, I can't say that faith or metaphysics are needed, as metaphysics relies on non-empirical and supernatural explanations that can't be proven, and faith, belief without evidence, is an unreliable pathway to truth.
Show threadelizabeth veldonMar 28, 2024

@Radical_EgoCom i agree but scientific beliefs led to eugenics so they are not a universal good.

Additionally logic and science come with their own codified hierarchies that we must be aware of when we use them.

logic and science must be tempered by ethics and other philosophical systems. indeed levanis would argue that relying on logic and science only is a tool based ontology which fails to recognise the human.

Show thread𝗖 𝗔 𝗧Mar 28, 2024
@elizabethveldon
Scientific beliefs don't inherently lead to eugenics, dangerous and racist beliefs about groups of people that are unfounded by science lead to eugenics. I agree that ethics and philosophy should be used to temper science and logic. The point I was making was that faith is an unreliable tool for discovering truth and that science and logic are far better tools to use.