A statement of faith? Maybe. But it's also a bold assertion that has no evidence behind it and actually has no explanatory power.
Stupid Things People Say
- Thread starter MetalPants
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
Hence, it's a statement of faith.
And, for the very reasons I have listed, it also something stupid to say in order to explain why anything happens. I'm sorry, but it is.
A
Amaris
Guest
That is your opinion, of course, and you are welcome to express it, but I think it is a rather vexatious thing to say to those who have caused you no harm.
Someone could say "Lightning bolts are caused by Zeus when he is angry." They have done me no harm, and in today's day and age, I would say that it is stupid because we know what causes lightning. When it comes to things we can't expl;ain right now, to say "God did it" is just as stupid, because, like the ancient people who came up with Zeus, something was made up when they couldn't think of another answer. "I don't know" is a much better and more intellectually honest response to a mystery than "God did it."
A
Amaris
Guest
Then by that statement, you believe that the religious are stupid, since that is what they believe.
A know a lot of smart religious people. But they, like anyone else, can be stupid about certain things.
A
Amaris
Guest
I still strongly disagree that believing in a god and that a god did something is inherently stupid. Your statement is made without context, which means you consider all forms of it's usage to be stupid. That is way too broad, and you include a great number of thoughtful, intelligent people in that condemnation. It is not stupid for a child to say that God healed their ailing parent. Neither is it stupid for a little old woman to say that God protected her husband while he was at war. These are statements of faith, and they are self existing in that they require no evidence because they bring no evidence aside from that of the speaker. It is not a challenge issued, but a statement of faith that one stands upon. It requires no validation, and is not something one should really consider to be stupid.
^I agree with you in part, but I think that, ironically, your own statements are too broad as well. Your argument, it seems, could be used to justify just about any strongly-held opinion--even those that actually are stupid.
I would agree with you that people are too quick to dismiss opinions and people with which they disagree as 'stupid.' I personally agree with Carlo Cipolla's economic definition of that term: something should only be defined as 'stupid' if it brings harm to others, while bringing no benefit or even harm to ourselves.
By that definition, you're correct: the beliefs that you mention don't harm anyone, and are therefore not stupid. I would argue that those people are reasoning incorrectly--but that's not the same thing. As anyone who studies history, science, and philosophy can attest, even the smartest people often reason quite poorly.
Can we, however, absolve a Jehovah's Witness whose eccentric interpretation of scripture leads them to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion? Or a Christian Scientist whose misplaced confidence in faith-healing condemns a child to death, when medical intervention might have saved its life? In both cases, their faith causes actual harm to themselves and others. How intelligent is that?
I would agree with you that people are too quick to dismiss opinions and people with which they disagree as 'stupid.' I personally agree with Carlo Cipolla's economic definition of that term: something should only be defined as 'stupid' if it brings harm to others, while bringing no benefit or even harm to ourselves.
By that definition, you're correct: the beliefs that you mention don't harm anyone, and are therefore not stupid. I would argue that those people are reasoning incorrectly--but that's not the same thing. As anyone who studies history, science, and philosophy can attest, even the smartest people often reason quite poorly.
Can we, however, absolve a Jehovah's Witness whose eccentric interpretation of scripture leads them to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion? Or a Christian Scientist whose misplaced confidence in faith-healing condemns a child to death, when medical intervention might have saved its life? In both cases, their faith causes actual harm to themselves and others. How intelligent is that?
A
Amaris
Guest
I agree with you. The instances I chose to use were in part because they brought harm to no one. I do agree that stupidity does have it's place at some point. One of those would be the "we don't need to get a Doctor, he will be healed of this pneumonia without treatment. God will heal him." That is the use of faith in place of well known and established fact.
We know that untreated pneumonia will most likely lead to death, and that if someone is so blind as to ignore such an outcome, we can say it is a stupid thing for them to say and follow through, because it does endanger someone's life in the process.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I remember the Y2K thing getting really silly 10 years ago.
Remember how the 3rd millenium didn't really start till Jan. 1st, 2001? Well I knew someone who thought that that's when the Y2K bug would hit, because 1/1/2000 was not the first day of the new millenium.
Remember how the 3rd millenium didn't really start till Jan. 1st, 2001? Well I knew someone who thought that that's when the Y2K bug would hit, because 1/1/2000 was not the first day of the new millenium.
Well, it's not what people believed that was the problem. It was the way computers were hard-coded, ie the logic, that was the problem, and considering our reliance on technology, it was a pretty big problem that programmers such as COBOL programmers like one of my Aunts that worked hard to try to fix and went largely unacknowledged. Without them, there would have been a problem. To computers it didn't matter if the new millenium was in 2001 or 2000, they simply didn't have the logic beyond 1999, because to them, nothing existed beyond that. Sure, it wouldn't have been as drastic as the hype surrounding it, but services like ATMs and government computers, and likely the internet would be down.
Wikipedia said:
Yes -- if it means there'll be one less Jehovah's Witness to ring my doorbell on a weekend morning.
Of course, all Macintosh computers have used a four-digit year code from the beginning. So if you used a Mac -- no problem!
If I were to talk to ten people who believed in God, I'd get ten different definitions of what God was.
The point I am making is that saying that God did something actually does nothing to actually explain what causes something to happen. You can insert anything in place of God because God is an ill-defined term for which the parameters change depending on who you talk to. If you said God causes the tides, and I said the pixies that live in my dishwasher causes the tides, we've basically said the same thing. Yet, we know what causes tides, and we are all the better for having learned what actually causes them.
A
Amaris
Guest
If you were to talk to ten people their belief on the meaning of life, how many different answers do you think you would get? Diversity of opinion does not a stupid thing make.
You're using that broad based generalization again and it simply does not work as you apply it.
My point is simple. Saying God did it explains nothing. At best, it tries to solve a mystery by creatiing a bigger one. And since God is so ill-defined, it basically has no more meaning than if I said X did it.
X saved my dog!
X gave me life!
See both sound asinine and stupid!
Of course, you mention that it is comforting to use god to explain something. I don't know about you, but comfort is not as useful as truth, It might be comforting to think that I could never be hit by a car because I'm a pedestrian and cars aren't supposed to hit pedestrians, but pedestrians do get hit from time to time, and knowing that truth makes me smarter!
X saved my dog!
X gave me life!
See both sound asinine and stupid!
Of course, you mention that it is comforting to use god to explain something. I don't know about you, but comfort is not as useful as truth, It might be comforting to think that I could never be hit by a car because I'm a pedestrian and cars aren't supposed to hit pedestrians, but pedestrians do get hit from time to time, and knowing that truth makes me smarter!
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
^^ with religious debates, as with poiltical ones...I hit "refresh" every ten minutes to see if anything ever gets resolved, or if more problems arise.
Guess which always happens?
Guess which always happens?
it has nothing to do with religion.
Whether or not there is a god also has nothing to do with religion.
Religion is a man-made bureaucracy that exists between man and god and exists regardless of whether there is a god or not
Whether or not there is a god also has nothing to do with religion.
Religion is a man-made bureaucracy that exists between man and god and exists regardless of whether there is a god or not
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Oh man, you see? That didn't get very far.
Discussing deities is religion.
Macs actually have (had? not sure) a similar issue, it just wouldn't kick in until 2036 or some odd time like that.
Similar threads
