How do theists "know" what is real?

[bilby]

What is real can bite you on the arse regardless of what you believe.

Just ask Herman Cain.

Oh, wait. You can't.

 

[Learner]

Yes of course and what of people? Where has there EVER been a claim from theists which is a wierd thing to even suggest, that these are "opposing beliefs." It may seem like a good argument but really... it's not. Now with individuals who actually deny science, well .... you may have a case there. It doesn't seem to be the one I'm claiming i.e. denying science.

You are a science denier. You have claimed in the past that the Big Bang theory is flawed, that the universe not expanding, on more than one occasion, and then run away when asked to defend your position, on more than one occasion. And this is just one example.

What were you trying to say in your post about fraud and sexism in science? What was your intention, if not to diss the process?

Still trying to paint the same old picture, "running away" myth? That's Rheas line. Anyway that could be a flawed bit of logic based just on the above, when there could be an alternative science theory to the BB. Where would science denier come in?

If I did say there was an issue with the BB it wasn't something "I made up", which you keep insisting on. At the time back then (even 10 years + when I wasn't a born-again), I learned some scientists who had issues with the BB, I think I mentioned it then, in context that nothing conclusive is yet set in stone. I do of course believe the universe began!

 

[DBT]

What we believe is true may have no bearing on what is true.

 

[Learner]

Well DBT, I won't argue with that.

 

[Learner]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. I have some questions...

What of what people? What do you mean here?

I mean that there's not much argument to have with the Religion "verses" Science, since they're are totally different, let alone not being opposite things.

Where has there EVER been a claim from theists which is a wierd thing to even suggest, that these are "opposing beliefs."

What opposing beliefs - do you mean science and religion? Science isn’t a belief. It’s a method. And religion specifically says they approve of an opposing method - faith.

There are two methods, faith and science. My point was that my friends who are BOTH scientists AND religious, they never use the scientific method to examine their faith.

Ever. They do not run experiments, they do not test hypotheses. They believe in their religion without using the scientific method to do so. IN fact, they will quote that

their religion (their god) has expressly asked to NOT be tested. And so they don’t.

Let me repeat that:

Science is not a belief. It is a method.

You are repeating the same understanding we both have. The reason I mentioned that they are NOT opposing faiths is because YOU were treating them as if they were. Read your own posts!

"They never use science to examine their faith???" So.... HOW on earth do you know that? Is there some study or survey out there, some consensus? Did the scientists who are also of faith say somewhere, "We are scientists who will refuse to use science because this may cause doubt in our beliefs?" It should in fact ....be the very reason theists in science, would be quite eager to research and find ways to verify their faith, especally to others.

And I know a lot of scientists and engineers who are religious, so of course being religious is not opposing to being a scientist. And you will see all of those people

compartmentalize the belief from the method. Why do they do that? Why do they trust the scientific method to tell them which cars are safe, and why they can trust a

compuer’s results, and that their phone will work, and that the plane won’t fall out of the sky, but they don’t trust it to help them know if their god is real?

I don't know about your experience but the scientists that ARE religious may well be inclined to believe science WILL give some indications from the natural objects/specimens of study. The possibility that there IS an intelligent mind at the bottom of it all.

Biases on either side of the fence may not be quite a hindrance as one would think, like I previously mentioned above in terms of a little motivation for finding out as best with what they see in front of them. The race is on!

Well, that is something that may be related to the dissonance of wanting to believe and knowing that the scientific method is pretty reliable in detecting repeatability and reliability, which might harm their faith. And they don’t want to know what science says about their beliefs. So they never use their knowledge of the scientific

method on their religion. I’m speculating on the cause here, but I can tell you what they do, and that is they don’t use their science to examine their religion.

See previous response.

It may seem like a good argument but really... it's not. Now with individuals who actually deny science, well .... you may have a case there. It

doesn't seem to be the one I'm claiming i.e. denying science.

What do you mean? Are you denying science or not denying science?
Either way - Science has a mechanism to check for fraud.
Religion does not have a mechanism to check for fraud.

No argument here for me; Science with measurements and rulers, tools oblivious to the human-condition, so to speak, which compares differently to Religion (Christianity DOES deal with fraud and liars and all the emotions that a human being possesses BTW).

So what I mean is: I agree with the 'differences' in differing mechanisms which is not something I or the other theists are debating. Hence people - I would look on the MERITS of individuals...i.e. some believers may deny science and some may not.

LOLz, a religionist trying to diss science by concern trolling about the treatment of women by science.
Dude. Log in your eye. Mote in the eye of science.

Let's note the line in bold. IS this really true? I think by now this seems clear imo - methodically and tactically in error of use, and judgment.

I do not know what this sentence means.

BTW It's an lol for me too ...especially regarding you, because of your social-justice tone regarding women and religion in some of your posts I've seen.

I do not know what you are implying or trying to imply.

Why does my pointing out that religion is unkind to women create an LOL when you reflect that I am a social justice advocate for women?
Seems more like a “sky is blue” kind of statement to me. What’s funny about that?

Implications is the irony, more so now because the log was in your eye in the first place.

 

[Rhea]

Still trying to paint the same old picture, "running away" myth? That's Rheas line.

What does this mean? What are you attributing to me?

Anyway that could be a flawed bit of logic based just on the above, when there could be an alternative science theory to the BB. Where would science denier come in?

What is the alternative science theory?

 

[Rhea]

Science is not a belief. It is a method.

You are repeating the same understanding we both have. The reason I mentioned that they are NOT opposing faiths is because YOU were treating them as if they were. Read your own posts!

I do read my own posts. I have been excruciatingly clear. You are playing fast and loose with words. Is it deliberate?

They are not opposing “faiths.” They are not the same “faiths.” They are opposing methods

Science is not a faith. It is a method. A process. It has a built-in mechanism to correct error.
Faith is also a method, a process. One that does not have any mechanism for correction of error. Religion advocates the use of the method “faith,” which is an opposite method to “science”


I can see why you would want to avoid answering that distinction of methods of knowing by smoke and mirrors of calling science a faith. And it is true that you have done that again right here. It is NOT true that I have ever called science a faith because it is not a faith.


Science and faith are opposing methods of determining truth..
Science is a method that has a mechanism for correcting both fraud and error.
Faith is a method that has no such mechanism. I can see why you would avoid discussing that.

"They never use science to examine their faith???" So.... HOW on earth do you know that? Is there some study or survey out there, some consensus?

Perhaps you missed the part where I wrote that I know lots of people who are both scientists and religious. So in the experience of the thousands of scientists that I personally know and work with and have for over 30 years, they do not use the scientific method to discuss or examine their religion. We talk a lot about science. Religion is never ever used in any experiment. No one prays for results. In a smaller sample, of those thousands that I interact with about work, there is a subset with whom I am more closely involved, and with these religion will come up. They never use their science to discuss their religion. Not ever,

Did the scientists who are also of faith say somewhere, "We are scientists who will refuse to use science because this may cause doubt in our beliefs?"

Wish I could find the quote for you from one of the famous ones, was it Hamm, maybe? Anyway, they explicitly said, they were trained as a biologist or some kind of scientist. When they found that their biology knowledge disagreed with their religious “knowledge,” they deliberatey and explicitly stated, “so I had to abandon science, because my faith is the Truth.”

That’s one famous one. But many less famous ones including people I personally know, live by this:

“The bible says it,
I believe it,
That’s the end of it.”​

No more discussion. No mechanism to check or “test everything.”

This is not isolated or in any way controversial to note as a widespread belief method of religionists.

It should in fact ....be the very reason theists in science, would be quite eager to research and find ways to verify their faith, especally to others.

One would think. But here we are. They just don’t do it.

Feel free to post examples of scientific research into the miracles claims. Research that uses the scientific method, with all of it’s checks and balances, and is not, in fact, debunked by lack of application of the rigor of the method.

It may seem like a good argument but really... it's not. Now with individuals who actually deny science, well .... you may have a case there. It

doesn't seem to be the one I'm claiming i.e. denying science.

What do you mean? Are you denying science or not denying science?
Either way - Science has a mechanism to check for fraud.
Religion does not have a mechanism to check for fraud.

No argument here for me; Science with measurements and rulers, tools oblivious to the human-condition, so to speak, which compares differently to Religion (Christianity DOES deal with fraud and liars and all the emotions that a human being possesses BTW).

You are mixing things up again. I am talking about research methods. Science vs. faith.
You are talking about research subjects things vs, people.
I’m not sure whether you’re continuing to avoid talking about faith as a method, or whether you just aren’t able to think of faith as a method.

But either way, this is a misunderstanding of the topic.

Science can study people. It can study behavioral disorders and thereby discover things about individuals. And contrary to your unscientific claim, the scientific method absolutely considers the human condition.. That is why we plan for randomized studies, double blinds, statistical analysis - the method explicitly takes the human condition into accound and establishes safeguards to keep it out of the data.

Don’t you understand? That’s how the method detects fraud. That how you know about any of the wrong science at all, because the mechanism itself works to highlight the errors.

The religious method, “faith” cannot do this. Is clearly terrible at it.

So what I mean is: I agree with the 'differences' in differing mechanisms which is not something I or the other theists are debating. Hence people - I would look on the MERITS of individuals...i.e. some believers may deny science and some may not.

Non-sequitur. They rely on the scientific method when their life is at stake. They use this to “know” what is real or not. Automobiles, planes, appliances, weather forecasts. They STOP relying on science when they want to decide what is true about religion, choosing a different method of knowing, one that cannot detect error and fraud. Science protects them, because of its method, from error and fraud. Religion and its method of faith does not protect them from error or fraud, as we can see in Jonestown, Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, and every religion that you think is less correct than yours.

They have NO METHOD to determine which religious faith is true. No method that includes mechnisms to detect errors.


And that is the whole basis of this thread:
How do theists decide that they know what is real about their religion.
What method do you use to discern it and detect error or fraud?
HOW do you go about the proess of acquiring knowledge.

There is no reliable, repeatable method. “Pray on it.” There’s no error proofing.
Do you deny that some people have “wrong” religious beliefs compared to you?

LOLz, a religionist trying to diss science by concern trolling about the treatment of women by science.
Dude. Log in your eye. Mote in the eye of science.

Let's note the line in bold. IS this really true? I think by now this seems clear imo - methodically and tactically in error of use, and judgment.

I do not know what this sentence means.

BTW It's an lol for me too ...especially regarding you, because of your social-justice tone regarding women and religion in some of your posts I've seen.

I do not know what you are implying or trying to imply.

Why does my pointing out that religion is unkind to women create an LOL when you reflect that I am a social justice advocate for women?
Seems more like a “sky is blue” kind of statement to me. What’s funny about that?

Implications is the irony, more so now because the log was in your eye in the first place.

You have not explained what this means. It is not coherent. What are you talking about?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But many less famous ones including people I personally know, live by this:

“The bible says it,
I believe it,
That’s the end of it.”​

Poser.
The message of The Church is:
"The Bible says it, that settles it."
Their belief is our problem, as is our disbelief.
The true faithful know the Bible's answers apply to the unfaithful as well as the faithful. AND those who profess faith, but have put that faith in an incorrect vessel.

This, i think, is the biggest difference between science and faith. With enough evidence, the more acvurate theories will rise to dominate the field. That's how evolution, continental drift, genetics get to the top.

Religious questions like whether Jesus is God, or just from the same substance as God, or from a substance similar to God but discrete... the eventual path to supreme popularity is not acvuracy nor the ability to demonstrate in controlled conditions, but by the following with the greatest secular power exerting their authority as authenticity.

 

[atrib]

Yes of course and what of people? Where has there EVER been a claim from theists which is a wierd thing to even suggest, that these are "opposing beliefs." It may seem like a good argument but really... it's not. Now with individuals who actually deny science, well .... you may have a case there. It doesn't seem to be the one I'm claiming i.e. denying science.

You are a science denier. You have claimed in the past that the Big Bang theory is flawed, that the universe not expanding, on more than one occasion, and then run away when asked to defend your position, on more than one occasion. And this is just one example.

What were you trying to say in your post about fraud and sexism in science? What was your intention, if not to diss the process?

Still trying to paint the same old picture, "running away" myth? That's Rheas line. Anyway that could be a flawed bit of logic based just on the above, when there could be an alternative science theory to the BB. Where would science denier come in?

If I did say there was an issue with the BB it wasn't something "I made up", which you keep insisting on. At the time back then (even 10 years + when I wasn't a born-again), I learned some scientists who had issues with the BB, I think I mentioned it then, in context that nothing conclusive is yet set in stone. I do of course believe the universe began!

Here is the later post asking to clarify your objections to the Big Bang theory. And it quotes an earlier post where you had done the same thing. You never responded to my challenge. You never posted a response clarifying your position. You ran away. And now you are here denying it and calling me a liar. Prove that I am lying: show me the post where you responded to anything I had asked for!

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak. This regarding the universe having began at some point. If you type when the universe began in google its usually generally understood by common rhetoric and the links associated to the "age of the universe".

Quoting an earlier post I had made in response to the same nonsense you are repeating here:

The Big Bang Theory is a mathematical model that was developed to fit the observations we have collected over the past 90 years, observations which show
1. that the universe is expanding, and
2. that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating

Are you questioning the data or the model that was built to fit the data? What specifically are you questioning?
1. Are you suggesting the observations are flawed? If so, how so? Please be specific. Do you even know how astronomers measure distances to other stars and galaxies?
2. Are you questioning the Big Bang Model that was developed using the observations? If yes, what methodology or construct or assumption are you questioning? Please be specific. Do you even know what the Big Bang Model is, what it predicts, and how its predictions match the data?

You never responded to this post. I don't think you understand what the Big Bang Theory actually states, or have any comprehension of the data it is based on. But you could surprise me and prove me wrong. So are you going to prove me wrong?

Also, can you please respond to this question:

What were you trying to say in your post about fraud and sexism in science? What was your intention, if not to diss the process?

 

[bilby]

There are three ways to gain something that feels like knowledge:

1) Have an idea; Look for evidence that your idea is right; If you succeed, add the idea to your pool of knowledge.

2) Have an idea; Look for evidence that your idea is wrong; If you fail, add the idea to your pool of knowledge.

3) Accept what someone else tells you, on the basis that they know, so now you do too.

Number 1 is called 'confirmation bias'; Number 2 is called 'science'; and Number 3 is called 'gullibility' (unless you are guilty of it, in which case you are likely to use the synonym 'faith').

Of course, everyone uses some combination of all three in developing their overall pool of knowledge. But only number 2 actually works; The other two just feel good - if they happen to also be correct, that's just a matter of random dumb luck.

 

[Learner]

Here is the later post asking to clarify your objections to the Big Bang theory. And it quotes an earlier post where you had done the same thing. You never responded to my challenge. You never posted a response clarifying your position. You ran away. And now you are here denying it and calling me a liar. Prove that I am lying: show me the post where you responded to anything I had asked for!

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak. This regarding the universe having began at some point. If you type when the universe began in google its usually generally understood by common rhetoric and the links associated to the "age of the universe".

Where's the denial? Those two posts you are quoting are not contradictary. The first quote was in general and relates from the earlier posts you had in discussion with me, with the same sort of argument-line also regarding the BB, maybe a year or two ago where you were "calling me out" once or twice. In fact it is YOU who have more than once implied I was the liar it seemed to me, hence in a previous post I said "still painting the old picture?" And the 2nd post you quoted just means I'm unsure how, but saying that ... I'm changing my mind too... that is to say I have not denied anything at all, or that it never happened ... I'm am more open to it now each day... a recent view of the BB than one I have had for some years before (before I became Christian).

Quoting an earlier post I had made in response to the same nonsense you are repeating here:

The Big Bang Theory is a mathematical model that was developed to fit the observations we have collected over the past 90 years, observations which show
1. that the universe is expanding, and
2. that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating

Are you questioning the data or the model that was built to fit the data? What specifically are you questioning?
1. Are you suggesting the observations are flawed? If so, how so? Please be specific. Do you even know how astronomers measure distances to other stars and galaxies?
2. Are you questioning the Big Bang Model that was developed using the observations? If yes, what methodology or construct or assumption are you questioning? Please be specific. Do you even know what the Big Bang Model is, what it predicts, and how its predictions match the data?

You never responded to this post. I don't think you understand what the Big Bang Theory actually states, or have any comprehension of the data it is based on. But you could surprise me and prove me wrong. So are you going to prove me wrong?

As I said... there were scientists who had found some errors therefore, there WERE people asking those questions. It's all very well posting the above list, but even then... errors could be found. Perhaps you must have been unaware of some of the problems found with some of the data that people 'believed' correct.

Saying that... things change ... my views will possibly change ... because there must be quite a bit of updated knowledge since the time I came across some disputes back then, based on some methods, and of course there also being newer models. I haven't checked yet if some of those old issues STILL stand. (even with these lockdowns I find myself, oddly enough, quite busy)

Also, can you please respond to this question:

What were you trying to say in your post about fraud and sexism in science? What was your intention, if not to diss the process?

I'm saying there was 'dishonesty.' Therefore Dissing the process was not the intention. The merits of people, individuals, personal character.

 

[atrib]

Here is the later post asking to clarify your objections to the Big Bang theory. And it quotes an earlier post where you had done the same thing. You never responded to my challenge. You never posted a response clarifying your position. You ran away. And now you are here denying it and calling me a liar. Prove that I am lying: show me the post where you responded to anything I had asked for!

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak. This regarding the universe having began at some point. If you type when the universe began in google its usually generally understood by common rhetoric and the links associated to the "age of the universe".

Where's the denial?

What does this statement mean?

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you.

For that matter, what does anything in your post mean? And what makes you qualified to discuss the merits of the Big Bang model, when you clearly have no idea what the theory states, the data it is based on, and how its predictions have been tested?

Those two posts you are quoting are not contradictary. The first quote was in general and relates from the earlier posts you had in discussion with me, with the same sort of argument-line also regarding the BB, maybe a year or two ago where you were "calling me out" once or twice. In fact it is YOU who have more than once implied I was the liar it seemed to me, hence in a previous post I said "still painting the old picture?" And the 2nd post you quoted just means I'm unsure how, but saying that ... I'm changing my mind too... that is to say I have not denied anything at all, or that it never happened ... I'm am more open to it now each day... a recent view of the BB than one I have had for some years before (before I became Christian).

Quoting an earlier post I had made in response to the same nonsense you are repeating here:

The Big Bang Theory is a mathematical model that was developed to fit the observations we have collected over the past 90 years, observations which show
1. that the universe is expanding, and
2. that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating

Are you questioning the data or the model that was built to fit the data? What specifically are you questioning?
1. Are you suggesting the observations are flawed? If so, how so? Please be specific. Do you even know how astronomers measure distances to other stars and galaxies?
2. Are you questioning the Big Bang Model that was developed using the observations? If yes, what methodology or construct or assumption are you questioning? Please be specific. Do you even know what the Big Bang Model is, what it predicts, and how its predictions match the data?

You never responded to this post. I don't think you understand what the Big Bang Theory actually states, or have any comprehension of the data it is based on. But you could surprise me and prove me wrong. So are you going to prove me wrong?

As I said... there were scientists who had found some errors therefore, there WERE people asking those questions. It's all very well posting the above list, but even then... errors could be found. Perhaps you must have been unaware of some of the problems found with some of the data that people 'believed' correct.

What errors? I am asking you to explain specifically what you disagree with. We can't discuss the alleged shortcomings until you explain what they are.

Saying that... things change ... my views will possibly change ... because there must be quite a bit of updated knowledge since the time I came across some disputes back then, based on some methods, and of course there also being newer models. I haven't checked yet if some of those old issues STILL stand. (even with these lockdowns I find myself, oddly enough, quite busy)

Some things never change. Like you pretending that you understand what the Big Bang theory is, for example.

Also, can you please respond to this question:

What were you trying to say in your post about fraud and sexism in science? What was your intention, if not to diss the process?

I'm saying there was 'dishonesty.' Therefore Dissing the process was not the intention. The merits of people, individuals, personal character.

And? Where does this lead? What was the point in posting this information, if not to diss the process? What argument were you proposing to make based on this information?

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

And? Where does this lead? What was the point in posting this information, if not to diss the process? What argument were you proposing to make based on this information?

I hope you aren't expecting a coherent answer. I once had such hope but, after many frustrating attempts, finally realized that there wasn't going to be one.

 

[DBT]

Well DBT, I won't argue with that.

In which case you agree that faith is an extremely poor means of sorting fact from fiction? That if a faith based belief proves true, it's nothing more than a matter of luck?

 

[Learner]

... snip ...

And? Where does this lead? What was the point in posting this information, if not to diss the process? What argument were you proposing to make based on this information?

I hope you aren't expecting a coherent answer. I once had such hope but, after many frustrating attempts, finally realized that there wasn't going to be one.

At least you were expecting me to answer the other parts of the post before the 'snip?' Or you may know a little somink?

What was his point ignoring and seperating the rest of the infomation which it was part of, from the origininal post, I should wonder? See how wonderful how a little bit o' info can be stretched, with a little skill one can create little strawman goodies.

 

[OLDMAN]

Someone with mental problems is experiencing a reality different than most others. We have to assume they are wrong based on what we can and cannot find evidence for....why should we treat religious experiences any different?

 

[Rhea]

... snip ...

And? Where does this lead? What was the point in posting this information, if not to diss the process? What argument were you proposing to make based on this information?

I hope you aren't expecting a coherent answer. I once had such hope but, after many frustrating attempts, finally realized that there wasn't going to be one.

At least you were expecting me to answer the other parts of the post before the 'snip?' Or you may know a little somink?

What was his point ignoring and seperating the rest of the infomation which it was part of, from the origininal post, I should wonder? See how wonderful how a little bit o' info can be stretched, with a little skill one can create little strawman goodies.

They are not required to be interested in all of your post. It is perfectly acceptable for them to only be interested in why on earth you brought up the completely irrelevant point of women in science and what on earth you meant by it.

Feel free to actually answer instead of wasting a post quoting a question that you are not going to answer. Or feel free to admit that you are not proud of bringing up that point and you’d like us to drop it, please.

 

[Rhea]

The question I have is in any matter at all, be it religious or not, how does a person who believes in ghosts and spirits and souls and gods, a non physical reality, make decisions about what is real and what is not real. Maybe the better question is how such a person makes a decision on what is worth their time at all.

Just a reminder of the question, that still has not been answered by any religionist.

What method and criteria do you use to decide whether your supernatural belief is true?

Can we see the criterai? It would be interesting to apply it to opposing faiths and see if it works every time to identify the “truthful” belief. Or whether it is more like flipping a coin. Or really depends only on who raised you. Or who was the last person who spoke.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Someone with mental problems is experiencing a reality different than most others. We have to assume they are wrong based on what we can and cannot find evidence for....why should we treat religious experiences any different?

It's important to see such behavior in terms of degrees. Invisible sky people who abduct us after we die to live with them is quirky but not a fatal belief. It depends on how much such beliefs affect necessary survival behavior. The true whack jobs don't survive to reproduce. Natural selection decides how much crazy is too much crazy.

How do religionists decide how much crazy is too much crazy? How do they know when to say "stop?" From my observations they do not. I can think of countless crazy scenarios, how do they decide which is crazy and which is good religion. They've obviously concluded that there is bad religion out there because they don't engage in it. How did they decide that?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well DBT, I won't argue with that.

In which case you agree that faith is an extremely poor means of sorting fact from fiction? That if a faith based belief proves true, it's nothing more than a matter of luck?

That's a little fucking hilarious on the face of it.
By 'proves true' you're slready separating faith-based beliefs from actual knowledge.
And it even assumes that it won't be faith-based methods that prove the belief to be true. At least, not to anyone outside the faith. Kinda like facts are not really facts until they're secular facts that evetyone accepts, no matter thrrir ideology.