"human error"

[d_b]

Ok I started this thread to move my and Anacoluthon64 discussion off “Virginia Tech massacre, what will the reason be?”. But I still feel it is related to the forum. If a admin want to move it to another location please do so.

@Anacoluthon64 post:16

You repeatedly talk of “human error” (which doesn’t actually explain anything) rather than facing or even acknowledging the obvious alternative that a religious (faith-based, anti-evidence) mode of thinking is directly responsible for many of the ills we observe in the world, specifically in this case the tensions between catholics and muslims reported in the article in that thread’s opening post.

I thought we had talked about “human error”:

@Anacoluthon64 post:8

It seems to me, then, that if human error – defined as faulty action resulting from factors such as state of mind, physical health, attitude, emotions, propensity for certain common mistakes, errors and cognitive biases (i.e. defective reasoning habits and/or inadequate information) – is the pivotal agent in many such tragedies, if not all of them, we are duty-bound, if for no other reason than to avoid such a thing befalling oneself and loved ones, to critique it whenever we notice it to occur.

So if one person or even a group of people loses reason and start to kill or do wrong to other people I will say it is human error. I’m not justifying the action the people take and I do not try to defend anything except the point that you can’t blame a group(in this case religion) as whole for something one person or member of the group did.

@Anacoluthon64 post:16

…when you seem to hold the christian bible as a reliable source of knowledge…

Would you be so kind to also point out where I give the bible as a reliable source. But in the same breath I would say I do believe in Jeses Christ and what the bible tells us, but I also question it. I will not force this believe one to someone but I will stand up and ask for proof if one makes a statement that I do not agree with, other wise it is just a believe/opinion and not science.

@Anacoluthon64 post:16

…when you call a contrary blog entry “a bit flawed” but don’t give any reasons…

I think the blog in question is “Geen rede meer om in ‘n god te glo nie” and I said it is flawed because in the first paragraph it already makes statements without any proof, so it is a opinion a believe. It even uses names like Copernicus and Galileo who where Roman Catholic’s to give a illusion that they believed religion to be false. Thats why I said it’s a bit flawed.

@Anacoluthon64 post:16

a notion that troubles me because it goes to the heart of what this forum is actually all about: evidence for beliefs.

And that is what I hoped this forum is for and that is why I’m active on it(or atleast try to be active). But to point at a event that happened and blame a believe system is not evidence its a speculation/opinion.

Regards,

[Mefiante]

@d-_-b post:1

I thought we had talked about “human error”: …

Talked about, yes; resolved anything useful, no.

@d-_-b post:1

So if one person or even a group of people loses reason and start to kill or do wrong to other people I will say it is human error. I’m not justifying the action the people take and I do not try to defend anything except the point that you can’t blame a group(in this case religion) as whole for something one person or member of the group did.

I don’t know whether you’re (1) deliberately choosing to misunderstand and ignore the point being made, or (2) playing semantic games, or (3) really not understanding what this whole thing is about, so I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and say that it’s (3), despite the numerous times and ways it has been put to you. You very much can blame an individual or a group for clinging to indefensible beliefs, particularly when they produce harmful actions and when the beliefs fly in the face of evidence the believers are well aware of. Do you think a Court of Law will acquit, on the grounds of “human error,” someone of murder for killing somebody s/he thought was an alien disguised as a human if the accused is found to be otherwise mentally fit? And the individuals that instilled and sustained that belief are complicit and just as guilty as the actual perpetrator. The faulty belief that prompted the harmful action is itself the “human error,” so your insistence on drawing a distinction between the two is entirely bogus, as has been pointed out several times. What part of this don’t you get?

@d-_-b post:1

Would you be so kind to also point out where I give the bible as a reliable source.

You wrote, “so I would agree with you that it was the official position of the RCC and they misinterpreted the Bible, but I would not agree with you that the Bible is wrong …” in the “Creationist Stew, Anyone?” thread, and I took this to mean that you seem to hold the christian bible as a reliable source of knowledge, just as I wrote.

@d-_-b post:1

But in the same breath I would say I do believe in Jeses Christ and what the bible tells us, but I also question it.

Really? And, having “questioned” it, you clearly still find the account of JC’s life and work, and the bible itself plausible, despite the dire scarcity of evidence for it, and the mountains of philosophical, historical and scientific evidence that militate against it, particularly in respect of the miracles that are supposed to have occurred. This is not consistent with your later assertions about “evidence” in your post. Or perhaps you’re using that word in a novel way. Would you care to explain this apparent anomaly?

@d-_-b post:1

… but I will stand up and ask for proof if one makes a statement that I do not agree with …

Exactly. Now where is the proof that supports your religious convictions, please?

@d-_-b post:1

I think the blog in question is “Geen rede meer om in ‘n god te glo nie” and I said it is flawed because in the first paragraph it already makes statements without any proof, so it is a opinion a believe. It even uses names like Copernicus and Galileo who where Roman Catholic’s to give a illusion that they believed religion to be false. Thats why I said it’s a bit flawed.

I must say that you have a very odd interpretation. The blog article makes statements without any proof? Where, exactly, does it do this? Or do you expect the author to cross-reference every single historical and scientific fact, irrespective of how well-known it is? That would be unreasonable. Also, how is the author’s use of Galileo and Copernicus’ names “give a illusion that they believed religion to be false,” and how is this relevant to the article’s main argument in the first place? It seems to me that your interpretation is a bit flawed.

@d-_-b post:1

But to point at a event that happened and blame a believe system is not evidence its a speculation/opinion

That would probably be true if things actually happened in the way you describe. But again you simply ignore the arguments put forward in support of the contention that inter-religious frictions would immediately cease to exist if religious beliefs were subjected to critical appraisal since doing so would expose their essential vacuity and show them to be unnecessary and misguided. Now please explain how these arguments are flawed by being “not evidence” but “a speculation/opinion.”

Because that’s the part that I don’t get.

'Luthon64

[d_b]

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

Talked about, yes; resolved anything useful, no.

Your correct “human error” doesn’t resolve anything. It only pointing out the obvious that there was something wrong with the people in question, because anyone that kills someone else has a screw loose or two. So I will quote a word that has been added to the Oxford dictionary recently for my foolishness: “D’oh”.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

…so I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and say that it’s (3), despite the numerous times and ways it has been put to you. You very much can blame an individual or a group for clinging to indefensible beliefs, particularly when they produce harmful actions and when the beliefs fly in the face of evidence the believers are well aware of. Do you think a Court of Law will acquit, on the grounds of “human error,” someone of murder for killing somebody s/he thought was an alien disguised as a human if the accused is found to be otherwise mentally fit? And the individuals that instilled and sustained that belief are complicit and just as guilty as the actual perpetrator. The faulty belief that prompted the harmful action is itself the “human error,” so your insistence on drawing a distinction between the two is entirely bogus, as has been pointed out several times. What part of this don’t you get?

I now agree “human error” as I called it is useless. A Court of Law will most probably declare the suspect in question insane if they try to spin a story of aliens or that god told them to kill someone. But a Court of Law will not declare a whole group guilty if only a selected few of the group’s members are insane/misguided and this is what I tried to draw a distinction between, the religious group and the misguided individuals that is part of the group.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

You wrote, “so I would agree with you that it was the official position of the RCC and they misinterpreted the Bible, but I would not agree with you that the Bible is wrong …” in the “Creationist Stew, Anyone?” thread, and I took this to mean that you seem to hold the christian bible as a reliable source of knowledge, just as I wrote.

@d-_-b post:30

So I would agree with you that it was the official position of the RCC and they misinterpreted the Bible, but I would not agree with you that the Bible is wrong and all Christians believed their going to fall off the edge of the world.

Above is the quote as I have written it. I nowhere said the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge, I only said the Bible didn’t tell us that we will fall off the edge of the earth.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

Really? And, having “questioned” it, you clearly still find the account of JC’s life and work, and the bible itself plausible, despite the dire scarcity of evidence for it, and the mountains of philosophical, historical and scientific evidence that militate against it, particularly in respect of the miracles that are supposed to have occurred. This is not consistent with your later assertions about “evidence” in your post. Or perhaps you’re using that word in a novel way. Would you care to explain this apparent anomaly?

I could not see why I should find the account of Jesus Christ life and work questionable. You asked me what is my personal believes is and I gave it to you. If you want to talk further about Jesus Christ and the “the mountains of philosophical, historical and scientific evidence that militate against it” I would like it if you would open a new thread with links and references to these evidence so that we can deal with it more fully in the correct thread.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

I must say that you have a very odd interpretation. The blog article makes statements without any proof? Where, exactly, does it do this? Or do you expect the author to cross-reference every single historical and scientific fact, irrespective of how well-known it is? That would be unreasonable. Also, how is the author’s use of Galileo and Copernicus’ names “give a illusion that they believed religion to be false,” and how is this relevant to the article’s main argument in the first place? It seems to me that your interpretation is a bit flawed.

I agree it would be very unreasonable of me to insist that the author cross-reference every single fact it claims. I would also leave it at that, my opinion towards the blog post in question is a biased and I would encourage anyone who reads the article to read the blog comments as well and make up their own mind about the article.

@Anacoluthon64 post:2

That would probably be true if things actually happened in the way you describe. But again you simply ignore the arguments put forward in support of the contention that inter-religious frictions would immediately cease to exist if religious beliefs were subjected to critical appraisal since doing so would expose their essential vacuity and show them to be unnecessary and misguided. Now please explain how these arguments are flawed by being “not evidence” but “a speculation/opinion.”

Would you please post on the specific thread where I ignored the arguments put forward, then I will reply on that thread. I would also like it if all religious beliefs are subjected to critical appraisal, but I do feel that is a very daunting task and one can only try to search for the needle.

I would also agree all inter-religious friction would cease to exist if religion was taken away, but not all friction between humans would cease to exist and I do feel that human element was brought to religion by humans and thus it’s not religions fault.

Regards,

[Mefiante]

@d-_-b post:3

But a Court of Law will not declare a whole group guilty if only a selected few of the group’s members are insane/misguided and this is what I tried to draw a distinction between, the religious group and the misguided individuals that is part of the group.

First of all, you seem to forget that there are many legal cases where an entire group or organisation, rather than the actual individual perpetrators, is in fact held accountable by the law for some misdeed when that misdeed was sanctioned by that group or organisation (even if only tacitly by keeping silent), e.g. a company illegally dumping toxic waste. So when christian and muslim leaders, who presumably are much like the “CEOs” of their groups, engage in infantile slanging matches over issues of dogma, then they do so on behalf of the entire group and thereby encourage animosity between them. Second, on what basis exactly can one realistically draw a distinction between “insane/misguided” members and those who are not when the whole group believes with unshakeable conviction in something that is itself “insane/misguided?” The suicide/murder of over 900 people, almost the entire group, at Jonestown in the late 1970s is a case in point: who exactly there was “insane/misguided,” and wouldn’t it be reasonable to condemn all of the consenting adults for the simple reason that in the first place they believed uncritically in nonsense that led to this tragedy?

@d-_-b post:3

I nowhere said the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge, I only said the Bible didn’t tell us that we will fall off the edge of the earth.

My bad, then, for which I apologise. As indicated earlier, I took the statement to mean that you generally trust the information in the bible.

@d-_-b post:3

I could not see why I should find the account of Jesus Christ life and work questionable.

Realise that this is a statement that almost cries out for a sarcastic reply, especially in view of your prior declaration that the bible isn’t necessarily a reliable source of knowledge, but I will refrain from doing so. Instead, just for starters begin asking yourself what the evidence is for JC being …
[ol]- god’s son (assuming that the christian god even exists);

• born of a virgin, and
• first killed, then coming back to life again.[/ol]

@d-_-b post:3

Would you please post on the specific thread where I ignored the arguments put forward, then I will reply on that thread.

For the umpteenth time, it’s quoted in this thread and occurs the “This is why we don’t need religion” thread: if muslim and christian (and all other faith-based belief systems, for that matter) relinquished their unreasoned adherence to dogma and actually questioned their faith in a meaningful way by adopting an evidence-based approach, they would both find their beliefs to be deeply deficient and unfounded. Consequently, they would be a lot more cautious about calling one another names, and the whole tense situation would not have arisen at all. Not so long ago, such a situation could easily have resulted in a large-scale, inter-religious war. And for what?

@d-_-b post:3

I would also like it if all religious beliefs are subjected to critical appraisal, but I do feel that is a very daunting task and one can only try to search for the needle.

Indeed, but such critical appraisal must start somewhere, so why not take the initiative and do it?

@d-_-b post:3

I would also agree all inter-religious friction would cease to exist if religion was taken away, …

Good.

@d-_-b post:3

… but not all friction between humans would cease to exist …

If this is meant to suggest that we shouldn’t tamper with religion because we can’t eliminate all human friction by removing it, then this is a specious argument: we can’t eliminate all human illness by concentrating on polio, either.

@d-_-b post:3

… and I do feel that human element was brought to religion by humans and thus it’s not religions fault.

How so? What would be left of any religion if you removed the “human element” from it? After all, we don’t see animals engaging in religious behaviours (except maybe in the metaphorical sense). And the institutionalised aspect of religion, i.e. the part that perpetuates unfounded religious beliefs through ritual for believers as well as through indoctrination of children, is very much at fault here.

'Luthon64