Please dont shout at me. I'm sure you've discussed it countless times. But I would like to have my specific quiestion answered.
It is about the belief in God.
I am Polish, where 95% of our population state that they are Catholic. A very high percentage also attends to masses every sunday, but the numbers are decreasing every year. Supposedly, in thirty years time Poland will be no different to other european coutries (perhaps not like France, where peaople are generally proud of their atheism).
But this is not the problem, I just want to show my background. My family is not Catholic by faith, only by tradition. By that term I mean we have Catholic marrieges, funerals, have our food "baptised" on Easter and thats all. I consider myself mildly intelligent, I am studying two minors simultaneously- journalism and chinese studies. I know a lot of people who are much more intelligent than me and belive in God. Actually, I'm slowly getting to conclusion, that faith has little to do with brains.
My question(s) is(are): - Do some of you (Christians) belive in the fact that Saint Mary was indeed a virgin before the birth of her first Child and Joseph was not the genetical father? - Do you belive that three days after His death, Jesus Christ ressurected and met with His followers? As a man made of flesh?
There could obviously be thousand questions like this, but its just the idea. My questions is- do you believe in this truthfully, that this indeed happened, not as a symbol or a metaphore? And if so, why? How? It is impossible! How come you dont think these are just symbols? That Jesus was a clever, good man, a martyr but just a man?
And is a belief in all these things a requirement to be considered a Christian?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You actually expect a definitive response to this? Good luck.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. Yes, I believe Mary was Jesus' mother, was a virgin when she became pregnant, and that Joseph was not the genetic father. I don't believe she remained a virgin all her life, or that she herself was conceived without sin, or that she was a saint, acutally - not in the way you mean. But, yes to your direct question.
2. Yes also to the second. Genuinely dead for three days, genuinely came back, but in a resurrected body. not the same body, but...okay, I don't know how resurrection works. But I believe that it did.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Actually, I'm slowly getting to conclusion, that faith has little to do with brains.
I agree. I think it has more to do with wanting to see the conections between ourselves and something larger.
Believing Jesus was God made flesh is usually considered a pretty important part of being Christian, yes. You might be able to reconcile a philosophy without it, but other Christians will probably disagree with you. However, none of that impacts how spiritual you consider yourself. Jesus aside, do you believe there exists a benevolent creator deity who wants you to love him and do good works in his name?
As for your questions, personally, I lean towards the idea that God used some form of cloning on Mary's DNA and altered her XX into an XY to make Jesus male. Doesn't seem that tough for the Dude that wrote the DNA in the first place.
And He spent a good bit of time talking about heavenly bodies being different from earthly bodies. So while he appeared with form and mass - evident from Thomas being able to touch him - I don't know if it was the original body or a new one. I sort of hope the old one since it still had the wound in it. I'm hoping for a better body when I get to Heaven. Preferably one without flat feet.
Why do I think Jesus needed to be all these things? I'm assuming God did it for our benefit. While some sects believe God is held to universal rules even He must follow, I believe He made the rules. So why make a rule that inconveniences Himself and puts on a show? I'm assuming because we needed Him to. Maybe we wouldn't accept salvation if it cost less than human blood to create. Maybe it was His way of emphasising how important it really was.
But the more important question here is, what do you believe?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: 1. Yes, I believe Mary was Jesus' mother, was a virgin when she became pregnant, and that Joseph was not the genetic father. I don't believe she remained a virgin all her life, or that she herself was conceived without sin, or that she was a saint, acutally - not in the way you mean. But, yes to your direct question.
2. Yes also to the second. Genuinely dead for three days, genuinely came back, but in a resurrected body. not the same body, but...okay, I don't know how resurrection works. But I believe that it did.
I agree with this, except for maybe some quibbling about what she means by "not the same body".
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:1. Yes, I believe Mary was Jesus' mother, was a virgin when she became pregnant, and that Joseph was not the genetic father. I don't believe she remained a virgin all her life, or that she herself was conceived without sin, or that she was a saint, acutally - not in the way you mean. But, yes to your direct question.
Conceived with out sin? So the very act of conception is a sin?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think it is a reference to Immaculate Conception, which kinda implies that the rest of us were conceived un-immaculately (for lack of a a better word).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:My question(s) is(are): - Do some of you (Christians) belive in the fact that Saint Mary was indeed a virgin before the birth of her first Child and Joseph was not the genetical father? - Do you belive that three days after His death, Jesus Christ ressurected and met with His followers? As a man made of flesh?
There could obviously be thousand questions like this, but its just the idea. My questions is- do you believe in this truthfully, that this indeed happened, not as a symbol or a metaphore? And if so, why? How? It is impossible! How come you dont think these are just symbols? That Jesus was a clever, good man, a martyr but just a man?
And is a belief in all these things a requirement to be considered a Christian?
As to the two questions: Yes, I do think both happened.
As to how it happened: I have no idea - and that kind of is the point of it. They are supposed to be miracles that would not have happened by the normal laws of the universe as we've understand them. (And there are quite a few things, including mostly non-miracles, that I don't understand in the world!)
As to why I believe it: Mostly because there are eyewitness accounts that have been passed down that say it happened, I have no strong evidence that they were lying, and it seems to be consistent with a larger story of God and the way the world is as I observe it. The laws of the universe as we know them are simply rules that haven't been falsified yet, meaning they've held true every time we've observed them. There's no real reason to assume that means they must always hold true, especially if there does exist a God who can circumvent them. Thus, I don't assume miracles are false simply because they're miracles.
As to the final question: No, I don't think it is a minimum requirement to be Christian. I think a belief that Christ is intended to be a model for the rest of us would be enough.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: Actually, I'm slowly getting to conclusion, that faith has little to do with brains.
I agree. I think it has more to do with wanting to see the conections between ourselves and something larger.
Personally I've only ever met one marginally intelligent person who believed in the nonsense (as I see it) of biblical creationism, and even he approached it from a broader philosophical perspective than he at first implied. It never ceases to amaze me, that I have traveled around the world and met hundreds or thousands of people, had conversations about religion, and never once met someone who firmly believed in literal biblical interpretation, and admitted it openly. Granted, it's not my favorite discussion topic, but I've always found it weird that the states and the rest of the world have this huge population of fundamentalists, and I've never seemed to bump into one. Others here claim to have met many, and it's not like I'm a hermit. I usually cringe at talk about the "80% of Americans who don't have passports," but is that actually as big a phenomenon as people think it is? Do fundamentalists just not travel in any kind of numbers? I know Mormons do, but I never see them about here- maybe because the conversion rate in this country is just about the lowest in the developed world.
Just weird, I think- weirder than the fact that I've never met a single person who claimed to have voted for John McCain (but then I live in Europe, so most people I know can't vote in the states, or are democrats).
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: As to why I believe it: Mostly because there are eyewitness accounts that have been passed down that say it happened, I have no strong evidence that they were lying, and it seems to be consistent with a larger story of God and the way the world is as I observe it.
I don't mean to offend you, but there are eyewitness accounts of alien abductions, Jesus' face appearing in cheese sandwiches, psychic powers, and cat-monkey hybrids. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I think it is a reference to Immaculate Conception, which kinda implies that the rest of us were conceived un-immaculately (for lack of a a better word).
The important part of the articles is this:
quote:The dogma states that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further said by Catholics that she lived a life completely free from sin.[1] Belief in Mary's immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, through sexual intercourse, should not be confused with the doctrines of the virginal conception of her son Jesus, known as the Annunciation and the Virgin Birth.
This is often misunderstood as to mean that Mary was conceived without sexual intercourse, or to refer to Jesus's conception. It doesn't mean that.
As for the rest, I believe that Jesus was God Incarnate - fully God and fully Man. I believe that He conquered death. I don't know how that worked and the mechanics of it are not important to me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: As to why I believe it: Mostly because there are eyewitness accounts that have been passed down that say it happened, I have no strong evidence that they were lying, and it seems to be consistent with a larger story of God and the way the world is as I observe it.
I don't mean to offend you, but there are eyewitness accounts of alien abductions, Jesus' face appearing in cheese sandwiches, psychic powers, and cat-monkey hybrids. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
Enjoy discussing the meaning of evidence with a factual relativist. I mean really, just enjoy it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: And is a belief in all these things a requirement to be considered a Christian?
If you polled most Christians, I think they would say yes.
But what do you think? What is a Christian to you? Do you fit that definition? And why is the label important to you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmboots - that's what I don't believe. I don't believe Mary lived a life without sin or that she was markedly different from the rest of humanity - special and awesome, sure, but not special the way her son was, or even close. A brave, valiant, and faithful woman, but not perfect herself.
Then again, I don't beleive this:
quote:the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind
Christ's atonement made possible that sanctifying grace for everyone, including retroactively. Since I don't believe in original sin, there's no need to make Mary an exception to it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it is mostly a Catholic thing. That being said, it is not an aspect of Catholic doctrine that I find important, personally. I would not be bothered at all if it were not true and what you wrote about Mary were correct.
[ March 01, 2010, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: As to why I believe it: Mostly because there are eyewitness accounts that have been passed down that say it happened, I have no strong evidence that they were lying, and it seems to be consistent with a larger story of God and the way the world is as I observe it.
I don't mean to offend you, but there are eyewitness accounts of alien abductions, Jesus' face appearing in cheese sandwiches, psychic powers, and cat-monkey hybrids. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
I've heard lots of eyewitness accounts of things, some of them true and some of them false - but it has always seemed to me to be wiser to assume people tell the truth unless given reason to believe they are lying, rather than assume they are lying unless they can prove they're telling the truth, when there's an absence of other evidence and it doesn't conflict with what I already know about the world. If you insisted you saw Jesus' face appear in your cheese sandwich, I might have more questions, but I'd probably believe you.... because why not?
Now the example of alien abductions gets more complicated, because other beliefs I have seem to conflict with the notion that aliens are secretly out there abducting people but somehow hiding entirely from us, since that would have all sorts of implications. This conflicts with how the world seems to be to me. That's not to say its impossible - its just to say that in order to accept that I'd have to reject lots of other beliefs that I have stronger evidence for than one person's eyewitness account. This is similar to how I feel about other religions. Christianity seems to me to be consistent with the world as I've observed it in ways that some other religions are not.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What if someone claimed to have seen Mohammed's face in a cheese sandwich? Does this still fall into the category of "why not?"
What beliefs do you have that conflict with the notion that aliens are abducting people? (I have no such conflicting beliefs. But I believe that if you are going to make an extraordinary claim, you need more than ordinary evidence to back it up).
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Tres, Jesus just appeared to me and told me you need to make me lots of grilled cheese sandwiches, preferably with his likeness on them for extra holiness. Go! Go make them! Your Lord commands you and you have no reason to believe he wouldn't appear to me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What if someone claimed to have seen Mohammed's face in a cheese sandwich?
I would ask how would anybody know that it's Mohammed's, since it's supposedly wrong to make any image of him.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Yes, Mohammed's face in a sandwich would fall into that category too.
As for the aliens, there'd be a lot of issues. For one thing, it doesn't make sense to me that advanced aliens would behave in that manner - why? For another thing, it would seem like we'd be able to detect them in some way, given modern technology. Like I said, these are not unanswerable problems, but they do require changing enough beliefs I have about the world that it would require more than one person's testimony to outweigh those beliefs.
quote:Tres, Jesus just appeared to me and told me you need to make me lots of grilled cheese sandwiches, preferably with his likeness on them for extra holiness. Go! Go make them! Your Lord commands you and you have no reason to believe he wouldn't appear to me.
If you were serious, and if it didn't conflict with most other beliefs I have about Jesus, I might believe you. However, I also have a semi-magic sense that tells me you are not, in fact, being serious right now. (I can't blame you for trying though; grilled cheese sandwiches are good, even when not miraculous in nature.)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:but it has always seemed to me to be wiser to assume people tell the truth unless given reason to believe they are lying, rather than assume they are lying unless they can prove they're telling the truth
Just wanted to point out that this is a false dichotomy.
People aren't just telling the truth or just lying. One also has to consider things like accuracy, hyperbole, and being mistaken for any number of reasons, deception being just one.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What if you had heard eyewitness accounts about a religious event that contradicted Jesus' teachings prior to hearing about Jesus' teachings? By the logic you have presented thus far, you would find Jesus' teachings to contradict the worldview you've already arrived at, and thus would dismiss Jesus' teachings.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
So you're saying the only thing coming between me and lifetime supply of grilled cheese is my lack of credibility?
I always knew this would cause problems eventually, I just didn't realise how dramatic it would be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:What if someone claimed to have seen Mohammed's face in a cheese sandwich?
I would ask how would anybody know that it's Mohammed's, since it's supposedly wrong to make any image of him.
Only for certain groups of Muslims. There are many depictions of his, including Muslim ones that have been done over the ages, some of which are collected here http://www.muhammadimages.com/index.php
quote:Survey of images of Muhammad from Western and Muslim sources, ranging over 900 years, with 31 images reproduced in full color and a Preface setting the images in historical context
Edit: Oops, attaching an image where the actual face is visible link Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Do we have any actual images of what Jesus looked like? Otherwise the point seems a little moot.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: As to why I believe it: Mostly because there are eyewitness accounts that have been passed down that say it happened, I have no strong evidence that they were lying, and it seems to be consistent with a larger story of God and the way the world is as I observe it.
I don't mean to offend you, but there are eyewitness accounts of alien abductions, Jesus' face appearing in cheese sandwiches, psychic powers, and cat-monkey hybrids. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
I've heard lots of eyewitness accounts of things, some of them true and some of them false - but it has always seemed to me to be wiser to assume people tell the truth unless given reason to believe they are lying, rather than assume they are lying unless they can prove they're telling the truth, when there's an absence of other evidence and it doesn't conflict with what I already know about the world. If you insisted you saw Jesus' face appear in your cheese sandwich, I might have more questions, but I'd probably believe you.... because why not?
Now the example of alien abductions gets more complicated, because other beliefs I have seem to conflict with the notion that aliens are secretly out there abducting people but somehow hiding entirely from us, since that would have all sorts of implications. This conflicts with how the world seems to be to me. That's not to say its impossible - its just to say that in order to accept that I'd have to reject lots of other beliefs that I have stronger evidence for than one person's eyewitness account. This is similar to how I feel about other religions. Christianity seems to me to be consistent with the world as I've observed it in ways that some other religions are not.
Tres... the amount this makes me *head desk* cannot be described in words.
What makes Christianity more consistent with what you've observed of the world than say... Buddhism? Buddhists succeeded in guessing the basic physical nature of matter long before western scientists did. Sure there's some stuff in there about say, everyone being stuck in a cycle of death and ressurection - but how is that any more far out than Jesus dying and being ressurected?
As for UFO and alien abductions - what about the idea of them is inconsistent with what you've observed? Or history?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Raymond Arnold: Shroud of Turin, maybe, if you want something really direct
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Do we have any actual images of what Jesus looked like? Otherwise the point seems a little moot.
Not at all. Regardless of what the man actually looked like, there is a long tradition of images depicting Jesus. I can show you a picture, and you'll know instantly that that's what it is.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Do we have any actual images of what Jesus looked like? Otherwise the point seems a little moot.
Not really, why would Jesus stick to his real image and not the image he's become popularly known by? Seems the effect would be lost on the potential target of the miraculous appearance.
Plus if it was his real image, people would make a lot less money on eBay selling toast with "some Arab guy's face on it".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:As for UFO and alien abductions - what about the idea of them is inconsistent with what you've observed? Or history?
He already answered that question -- from what he knows of the world, he would expect that if there really were alien space ships abducting people, that modern technology would have detected them by now.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Oh jinx potato head.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You owe me a coke.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Jesus appeared to me and told me I don't owe you a coke.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Tres: I didn't mean to espouse a belief in any of the examples I stated. What I meant was that eyewitness statements about extraordinary things are insufficient evidence. "Why would they lie?" is a good question to ask, but not the end of the argument. There are many reasons to lie, and many more reasons why a person can be honestly wrong. Those who claim to have been abducted by aliens may well (in fact I think most do) believe that they have been abducted by aliens. Belief does not imply truth, however. As to Christianity's consistency with the observed world, I would argue that it's no more or less consistent than most religions. There are any number of internal inconsistencies: parts of the bible which contradict other parts. In addition, the history of Christianity is full of hypocrisy and strife. What remains of the original religion is quite small, so even if the eyewitness accounts of 2000 years ago are completely accurate, the modern religion would still be in need of some serious examination. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm for some information and links.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:quote: As for UFO and alien abductions - what about the idea of them is inconsistent with what you've observed? Or history? He already answered that question -- from what he knows of the world, he would expect that if there really were alien space ships abducting people, that modern technology would have detected them by now.
There are many things with in our own technological arsenal that can make things effectively invisible to many of our detection technologies. There are even more things in theoretical physics that could soon be with in our grasp that would allow something to be - in effective - completely invisible to most of our detection technologies. Heck - we can barely detect giant asteroids hurtling towards us a full speed, what makes you so confident we could detect an alien craft with stealth armor (of the sort we possess)?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
Tres... the amount this makes me *head desk* cannot be described in words. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Dude, Tres is telling you that he believes the accounts of Jesus existing are not lies because he believes that jesus existed. He believes that accounts of aliens *are* lies because he doesn't believe aliens exist. That he's couching it in a weirdly pseudo-logical framework doesn't change that. This is a guy who has maintained beliefs intact over pages and pages, and literally years, of being presented with evidence against them- not just religious stuff, but *everything*. Gave over. Draw.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Are you asking me? 'Cuz I haven't expressed any personal opinion about such things.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Orincoro, in the discussions I recall having with Tres he has always been perfectly reasonable and rational.
While I do not think it is strictly rational to maintain religious beliefs, I do think it is entirely reasonable. The majority of the world has religious or spiritual beliefs of one sort or another, most people are raised with them. They are a preconception. It is entirely reasonable to maintain them and defend them in the face of criticism.
And actually, let me back up and check my own preconceptions before I go accusing someone of not accounting for theirs. Tres, are you from the US? And were you raised Christian?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Are you asking me? 'Cuz I haven't expressed any personal opinion about such things.
I was asking Tres, but I'd be just as interested to hear your thoughts on the matter Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't believe she remained a virgin all her life
Well, she wasn't, was she. Bible clearly states Jesus Christ had brothers, Josephs and Marys children.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: But the more important question here is, what do you believe?
I crave to belive. I would love to be able to belive. But unlike someone here I just cant let go: I must have all the questions answered. Perhaps it means I am incapable of believing?
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: And is a belief in all these things a requirement to be considered a Christian?
If you polled most Christians, I think they would say yes.
But what do you think? What is a Christian to you? Do you fit that definition? And why is the label important to you?
I am not a Christian. I often talk to Christians, they quite often say "We, Christians", and this "We" is definitely an exclusive one. "Have you been baptised?" they often ask, considering it an important thing and making me half-christian;).
Why the labeling? Labeling has bad collocations, I'd rather say: naming. One has to name things in one's life to make things easier. "I love you", thats a useful one. "Im not Christian" ("though I wish I was" And so on and so forth.
I know a guy who claims that during one of his evening church meeting he sort of, I dont now how to say, dozed off, and was illuminated by a force of some sort, that it was a Holy Spirit. That it is not uncommon, he's not the first to have expierienced this. He was so happy about it that he texted all his friends about it at once, including me. It was just... amazing. I think this is a great thing to belive so truthfully.
I am sure he was wrong, misleaded, saw what he wanted to see. But then, how can one be wrong about one's own thoughts.
(spelling edit)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would love to be able to belive.
Why?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What if you had heard eyewitness accounts about a religious event that contradicted Jesus' teachings prior to hearing about Jesus' teachings? By the logic you have presented thus far, you would find Jesus' teachings to contradict the worldview you've already arrived at, and thus would dismiss Jesus' teachings.
This is why it's not as simple as "X says Jesus exist, so I believe them." Yes, there are lots of conflicting teachings about what happened, some of which conflict completely and some of which conflict partially. As I see it, I have to try and judge between them and figure out what to believe. I don't see the solution as "They aren't all consistent, therefore I reject ALL accounts of Jesus as untrustworthy."
It's sort of like if one were to bring a whole bunch of witnesses to a courtroom, and some of them told you one thing, some told you something similar but slightly different, and a few told you something completely opposite. I wouldn't dismiss all of them on the grounds that some disagree with one another. Rather, I'd do my best to figure out what seems most likely taking into account each witness.
quote:What makes Christianity more consistent with what you've observed of the world than say... Buddhism? Buddhists succeeded in guessing the basic physical nature of matter long before western scientists did. Sure there's some stuff in there about say, everyone being stuck in a cycle of death and ressurection - but how is that any more far out than Jesus dying and being ressurected?
I actually don't think Buddhism is generally inconsistent with the world. I don't even think Buddhism is all that inconsistent with Christianity, with a few significant exceptions. I don't understand Buddhism that well, but right now my belief is that Buddhists are probably at least partially right about the world. (There is one major moral question that I think Buddhism is wrong about, but given my lack of knowledge about Buddhism, I'm not even sure I'm understanding their position rightly so I'd rather not get into that debate.)
quote:I didn't mean to espouse a belief in any of the examples I stated. What I meant was that eyewitness statements about extraordinary things are insufficient evidence. "Why would they lie?" is a good question to ask, but not the end of the argument. There are many reasons to lie, and many more reasons why a person can be honestly wrong. Those who claim to have been abducted by aliens may well (in fact I think most do) believe that they have been abducted by aliens. Belief does not imply truth, however.
You're right on that.
I don't view evidence as being sufficient or insufficient. Rather, I view everything as being on a scale. If both sides of the scale contain only "insufficient" evidence, then one of the insufficient sides is still going to be the one I believe. That's how it is with religion. I don't know people are right in what they say about religion, but the evidence on the other side is unclear too, so ultimately I have to pick one or the other based on a judgement call.
quote:There are many things with in our own technological arsenal that can make things effectively invisible to many of our detection technologies. There are even more things in theoretical physics that could soon be with in our grasp that would allow something to be - in effective - completely invisible to most of our detection technologies. Heck - we can barely detect giant asteroids hurtling towards us a full speed, what makes you so confident we could detect an alien craft with stealth armor (of the sort we possess)?
I'm not really confident on that. I just think its more likely that one person is confused about what they saw than that aliens are here, possess some technology like that and are intentionally hiding themselves from us while abducting people (yet are still foolish enough to leave witnesses around to ruin their attempts to remain hidden.) If there were many witnesses with a consistent story, or if the person were someone I actually knew and trusted as being someone likely to be right about this, I might start to judge otherwise. The scales would start to tip the other way.
quote:Tres, are you from the US? And were you raised Christian?
Yes, I'm from the US, and yes I was raised Christian. (And yes, I suspect if I did not start as a Christian, my beliefs would be somewhat different now.)
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would love to be able to belive.
Why?
On one hand you have a pointless life. Obviously, you are happy about things, have your dreams you want to fullfill, live a good life, be loved and love. But than you die and are no more.
On the other hand you have a life, that is just a start. You fear nothing, there is He, who will help you. You will see your parents again, your spouse and children, your beloved friends. Who wouldnt want that? Thats a beautiful dream which I think belief is all about. And am sorry about it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Back to the alien thing for a moment. From my Writer's Guide to Character Traits by Linda Edelstein, alien abductions happen to two types of people. Some are deluded attention seekers that we can easily recognize as wacko and dismiss. But some are respected members of the community terrified by their experience who display no symptoms of psychosis. They usually turn to the police or Air Force for a resonable explanation and want to remain anonymous.
I'm assuming there's some sort of explanation for it, like the rye mold triggering Salem witch hysteria. Maybe a virus or contaminant or even just a sleep disturbance that leaves people semi-aware but unable to move and their dreams take over and fill in details. In another culture, maybe they'd claim to have been kidnapped by elves or tortured by the devil in the night.
So I believe alien abduction claims are indicitive of something without causing me to question my belief that aliens do not kidnap people and probe them in the night. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Who wouldnt want that?
I actually would choose a short but good life over an infinitely long afterlife. The notion of immortality seems really boring to me. I guess if you could were allowed (without any discouraging taboo) to commit existential suicide after a while I would think it was pretty cool, but the notion of an eternal or immortal soul does not appeal to me at all.
I'm here now. I'm happy now. I am sad when people die before they got to do everything they wanted to do. I'm more sad when people spend their lives suffering. But an afterlife isn't necessary for me to find meaning and happiness in this life.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think there is a constructive proof that you are mistaken: On any particular day, you are not ready to die. There is no reason to believe that this will change. Consequently, you actually do want eternal life.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I don't view evidence as being sufficient or insufficient. Rather, I view everything as being on a scale. If both sides of the scale contain only "insufficient" evidence, then one of the insufficient sides is still going to be the one I believe. That's how it is with religion. I don't know people are right in what they say about religion, but the evidence on the other side is unclear too, so ultimately I have to pick one or the other based on a judgement call.
Actually, the most rational choice is to simply not pick. Religion isn't an either/or choice. You have a myriad of options, one of which is "I don't know, but I want to know more."
Yes, not knowing is scarier. And it means you don't get the support community that being part of a religion entails - but it is also the most reasonable and rational position when faced with a lack of evidence for any particular conclusion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Despite how often fiction tries, I think it's impossible to extrapolate what a human consciousness would be like or would desire after thousands, billions, or trillions of years of awareness. I personally don't think it could reasonably be called human.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote: I don't know people are right in what they say about religion, but the evidence on the other side is unclear too, so ultimately I have to pick one or the other based on a judgement call.
Is reserving judgement not an option? Or is it not possible that every religion is wrong? There could be a god, but not after the tradition of any of the established religions.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Consequently, you actually do want eternal life.
If I were to get hit by a car right now, then given a choice "end it now, period, or accept eternal life, period," I'm not 100% sure what I would do. If in my ethereal state I still have basic survival instincts in place I might go with life because hey, survival instincts are strong.
If I had no idea what immortal life would entail and I was thinking rationally, I would go for non-existence (it would suck [tee hee, literally] if immortal life turned out to be as a vampire or something). If the entity making the offer (who presumably, in the circumstances, would be more credible than random humans telling me to convert to their mutually exclusive religions while I was still alive) provided a detailed explanation as to why immortal life would still be interesting and meaningful 500000000000000 years from now, I might give it a go. Testimonials from other entities who had once been alive but had after-lived for millions of years and were happy with it would help too.
If what was being offered was "eternal life" as opposed to "immortal life" (by which I mean life outside of time, where you permanently exist in a single perfect state)... well, I'd probably take the offer but it really wouldn't be that interesting to me because everything that makes me ME has to do with a temporal, 3 dimensional existence. Entering into a singular timeless existence would be effectively killing myself and giving birth to some other entity of pure happiness.
I'd take the offer if only so that I could give something else happiness, but it wouldn't be for my own sake.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Actually, the most rational choice is to simply not pick. Religion isn't an either/or choice. You have a myriad of options, one of which is "I don't know, but I want to know more."
Well, yes, it would really be a scale with many many arms, rather than just two.
quote:Yes, not knowing is scarier. And it means you don't get the support community that being part of a religion entails - but it is also the most reasonable and rational position when faced with a lack of evidence for any particular conclusion.
Well I definitely don't know. And it is scary. But I don't believe the reasonable solution to not knowing is not believing anything at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't believe she remained a virgin all her life
Well, she wasn't, was she. Bible clearly states Jesus Christ had brothers, Josephs and Marys children.
Some people believe that the children mentioned are Joseph's children by another wife or even cousins.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If what was being offered was "eternal life" as opposed to "immortal life" (by which I mean life outside of time, where you permanently exist in a single perfect state)... well, I'd probably take the offer but it really wouldn't be that interesting to me because everything that makes me ME has to do with a temporal, 3 dimensional existence. Entering into a singular timeless existence would be effectively killing myself and giving birth to some other entity of pure happiness.
Ok, agreed. Your distinction between immortal and eternal is useful; I was speaking of immortal life.
quote:If I were to get hit by a car right now, then given a choice "end it now, period, or accept eternal life, period," I'm not 100% sure what I would do. If in my ethereal state I still have basic survival instincts in place I might go with life because hey, survival instincts are strong.
Ok, yes, in this circumstance it is not clear what you would do. But I submit that this form of the choice is a bit unlikely. The actual choice you face is one that you make every day: Do you go on breathing, or jump off a cliff? I notice you are still here. And the choice you will face in the future is likely to be, "Do you accept this treatment for your illness, or check into a hospice?"
Now, it's true that many people do check into hospices, when the choice is between three months and six months, and the latter likely unpleasant. If the choice is three months or five years, I think most people, you included, will go for the treatment.
I think you're running into that classic fallacy of human thought, hyperbolic discounting. You just do not value "1 day of life, in 30 years" the same way you value "1 day of life, tomorrow". But 30 years from now you will; and there's no reason to believe this will change 300 years from now, should you be so lucky. The problem is more familiar in the context of credit cards and smoking, but I think it applies here. Just as with credit cards, you would do well to listen to the future version of yourself, who is stuck with the consequences of your choices: He doesn't want to pay your credit-card bill, he doesn't want to deal with the lung cancer from your smoking, and above all he doesn't want to die because you thought he would be bored.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
You know, there are many things that have always sort of bothered me about the concept of an ever after after life. What happens to people who's first loves were killed early in their life who then marry and have a second love with someone else? What happens when all three of them are together in the afterlife again? Do they have a threesome?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Now I have Queen stuck in my head.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Incidentally, the High One himself - that's Odin to you lot - agrees with my assessment:
quote:The halt can manage a horse, the handless a flock, The deaf be a doughty fighter, To be blind is better than to burn on a pyre: There is nothing the dead can do.
That's from the Håvamål, the Speech of the High One. Straight from the horse's mouth! It's better to be alive, even blind, than dead. You wouldn't think this obvious point required divine revelation, but there you go.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: You know, there are many things that have always sort of bothered me about the concept of an ever after after life. What happens to people who's first loves were killed early in their life who then marry and have a second love with someone else? What happens when all three of them are together in the afterlife again? Do they have a threesome?
I wondered about it too. Doesnt it mean afterlife is personal? Everyone has one of his/her own? Lets leave our bodies, lets presume we are non-physical spirits in our afterlife. Then, without our bodies we are: 1) Soul. Period. 2) Soul (something constant throughout our lives) + memories + else;
1) Ok, than afterlife isnt personal, we look pretty much alike (little white things hoovering around the place) 2) Human being is different in each moment of its life, different when a child, a "grown-up" and a 90 year old dying, probably demented poor human. Which one is the one? Soul would be the bonding thing here, as a constant. But wouldnt that mean what we lived through is less important than what we became during our creation in mother's womb?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't believe she remained a virgin all her life
Well, she wasn't, was she. Bible clearly states Jesus Christ had brothers, Josephs and Marys children.
Some people believe that the children mentioned are Joseph's children by another wife or even cousins.
Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I think you're running into that classic fallacy of human thought, hyperbolic discounting. You just do not value "1 day of life, in 30 years" the same way you value "1 day of life, tomorrow". But 30 years from now you will.
But the question we are asking is not "in 30 years, will I still want to be alive." First of all, we're talking about billions of years, not 30. There is no human experience that can communicate to us what we are likely to want after living billions of years. I think, in a billion years, that I would be mind-numbingly bored. It's possible that I am wrong, but it is my best guess. If I were not bored, then I would have had to have gone through so many different adjustments in my life that the person I am now would have no relation to the person I'd be then. Consequently, I feel no particular obligation to make decisions now for the benefit of that future person, any more than I'd make decisions to help any other random person.
If I were to somehow choose to believe in an afterlife for the soul purpose of making my current existence happier, I'd choose to believe in an afterlife where people have the ability to stop existing if they want. Otherwise, the afterlife is not a comfort to me, it is merely scary, because the notion of me still caring about living after 5 billion years is a bizarre alien concept that does not bring me comfort in the slightest.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, well, afterlives. I was discussing the sort of immortality that might actually be attainable in reality; and timescales of thousands of years, not millions or billions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes, Szymon, I am familiar with the verse in question. Neverthless, some people (given that there is always room for interpretation especially as it is a translation) believe that "brother" and "sister" in this case could mean half or step-brother or sister, adopted brother or sister, or general relative.
[ March 01, 2010, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Oh, well, afterlives. I was discussing the sort of immortality that might actually be attainable in reality; and timescales of thousands of years, not millions or billions.
Well, that was a silly sort of thing to be discussing, given that it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I'm opposed to immortality in the attainable scale simply because it would wreck havoc on our ecosystem unless it was only available to people who didn't have children.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Oh, okay. But there must be limits to interpretation, arent I right? Because then everything could be reinterpreted all the way and we wouldnt be sure of anything.
for those who dont like clicking the links: the word "created" in the first sentence in the Bible is thought to be mistranslated, and ought to be "separated". So God havent create all of this, you know? Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
The link gives it all away, btw Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They will give you an idea of the possible scope for interpretation.
ETA: It is important to remember when dealing with Scripture that the context is very different from our experience and that languages don't translate perfectly.
ETA: In case anyone is curious, I don't care if Mary stayed a virgin or not. Actually, I kind of hope she didn't. I am not even particularly worried about her pre-Jesus virginity. In fact, I find the preoccupation with Mary's virginity to be...well, medieval is a good word.
ETA: Okay. One more. Some context to remember when considering some of this virgin stuff is that, at the time a lot of this doctrine was being formed, the question of Jesus's divinity was disputed. A miraculous birth was evidence for the pro-divine side of the controversy.
[ March 01, 2010, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Oh, well, afterlives. I was discussing the sort of immortality that might actually be attainable in reality; and timescales of thousands of years, not millions or billions.
Well, that was a silly sort of thing to be discussing, given that it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I'm opposed to immortality in the attainable scale simply because it would wreck havoc on our ecosystem unless it was only available to people who didn't have children.
Ok, most important objection first: One 'wreaks' havoc; verb. This may leave a 'wreck' behind; noun. Although one can also 'wreck a car', admittedly. But one cannot 'wreck havoc'.
Actually... if someone else had wreaked havoc, and I came along and restored order, then in a sense I would be wrecking the other guy's havoc. But this is clearly not the sense you want.
Then the ecosystem thing. I find your lack of faith in the ability of society to adjust to technological advances disturbing. You might as well oppose cars and contraception on the grounds that they will lead to sexual immorality unless limited to the very wealthy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Orincoro, in the discussions I recall having with Tres he has always been perfectly reasonable and rational.
I think Tres has a way of *sounding* reasonable and rational. But then in the middle of a debate over teaching creationism in the classroom, someone posted a thread from like 3 years before in which Tres's arguments were almost identical, in which the counterarguments had all been laid out in pretty much the same way. It was not just that Tres had maintained the same beliefs, which would not be shocking, but that he had actually had the same debate, and actually managed to *seem* to learn something the first time around, only to enter into the exact same exchange again, as if from scratch. I mean, it was as if the first discussion had never happened, and he had never heard the counterarguments before. That was weird.
Tres has a way of hollowly mimicking rational thought while talking gibberish that I find more than just dumb, but actually bizarre.
For example:
quote: I'm not really confident on that. I just think its more likely that one person is confused about what they saw than that aliens are here, possess some technology like that and are intentionally hiding themselves from us while abducting people (yet are still foolish enough to leave witnesses around to ruin their attempts to remain hidden.)
See, he can form this perfectly rational thought where he applies Occam's razor to a simple situation. Very rational. Were he simply to depart from this rational approach on a matter of faith- say: "I'm aware that there is not much evidence of Jesus existing, but I have faith that it happened," I might find him the sort of animal I can dimly understand. But no, to the question of actual evidence of Jesus ever being alive, he applies Occam's Butterknife, claiming that he is inclined to believe the accounts because there is no reason *not* to believe them. He could as easily couch the evidence of Jesus having lived in the same way as aliens visiting the Earth, but he doesn't. He can apply logic to one scenario, but not the other. That's weird- it's weird partly because he is being irrational, but also because he appears to actually trust that he is applying solid reasoning in both cases.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Then the ecosystem thing. I find your lack of faith in the ability of society to adjust to technological advances disturbing. You might as well oppose cars and contraception on the grounds that they will lead to sexual immorality unless limited to the very wealthy.
We are already suffering economic pressure from having large numbers of people live to their late 80s. I'm fairly confident we will adapt to that. But I am also pretty positive that it is not physically possible for humans to live thousands of years and continue to have children at the rate they do now, without destroying the earth.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Agreed. Why assume that we will continue to have children at that rate?
There is an economic argument, thus: The immortality treatment will have some cost. (I am not thinking of money, here; rather I'm saying it will require a certain amount of labour and materials.) If the population is sufficiently large, then at some point making an extra dose of immortality serum means that someone doesn't get a loaf of bread, and dies. Therefore, there exists an equilibrium, even in the presence of immortality serum, past which the population cannot go.
Now, you can certainly argue that we're more likely to approach that equilibrium in a stupid, unregulated way, overshoot, and collapse away from it, rather than a smart way, stay well under the support limit, and have no collapses. But it seems to me that we're getting better at coordination problems.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My original point was: "I'm opposed to immortality in the attainable scale simply because it would wreck havoc on our ecosystem unless it was only available to people who didn't have children."
Of course if the rate of childbirth was drastically reduced, it wouldn't be a problem. That was my whole point that you gave the impression you disagreed with.
It doesn't necessarily have to be that people who are immortal can't have kids. But if any sizeable portion of the population has a kid and then continues to live for a few hundred years, and then those kids have other kids and then live for a few hundred years, the population will explode.
If we "approach that equilibrium in a stupid, unregulated way, overshoot, and collapse away from it" I think that can be pretty clearly defined as "wreaking havoc on the ecosystem." By simple definition of what ecosystems are and what having havoc wreaked on them looks like.
The easiest way (and I think a pretty fair one) to prevent that from happening is if the immortality serum is tied with sterilization.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But then in the middle of a debate over teaching creationism in the classroom, someone posted a thread from like 3 years before in which Tres's arguments were almost identical, in which the counterarguments had all been laid out in pretty much the same way. It was not just that Tres had maintained the same beliefs, which would not be shocking, but that he had actually had the same debate, and actually managed to *seem* to learn something the first time around, only to enter into the exact same exchange again, as if from scratch. I mean, it was as if the first discussion had never happened, and he had never heard the counterarguments before.
I don't think it's irrational to, when given the same line of argument twice, respond to it in a very similar way both times. I'm pretty sure there's some issues that come up over and over on Hatrack to which I've given the same counterargument 10+ times to different people.
(As for what I learned, on the topic you were referring to what I learned the first time round was not "my line of argument is totally wrong.")
quote:
quote:I'm not really confident on that. I just think its more likely that one person is confused about what they saw than that aliens are here, possess some technology like that and are intentionally hiding themselves from us while abducting people (yet are still foolish enough to leave witnesses around to ruin their attempts to remain hidden.)
See, he can form this perfectly rational thought where he applies Occam's razor to a simple situation.
I'll leave it to everyone else to judge whether or not anything I've said is reasonable... But I will note that I wasn't using Occam's Razor in that quote. My point there was that Occam's Razor is not something I think we should use; I think it is a question to be decided by weighing the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and other evidence that is never 100% trustworthy.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: My point there was that Occam's Razor is not something I think we should use; I think it is a question to be decided by weighing the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and other evidence that is never 100% trustworthy.
It seems that you don't understand what Occam's Razor actually means. The second half of your sentence (the part about weighing evidence) does not preclude the use of Occam's Razor; on the contrary, correct application of the Razor absolutely depends on taking into account any and all evidence available.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
See, he can form this perfectly rational thought where he applies Occam's razor to a simple situation. [/QUOTE]I'll leave it to everyone else to judge whether or not anything I've said is reasonable... But I will note that I wasn't using Occam's Razor in that quote. My point there was that Occam's Razor is not something I think we should use; I think it is a question to be decided by weighing the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and other evidence that is never 100% trustworthy. [/QUOTE]
:boggle:
Tres, that was Occam's Razor. It's not like I come up to your argument and say: "he used a number 2 pencil," and you say: "no actually, it was a charcoal pencil." I know the argument you were making. You wrote it down. That you don't understand what Occam's razor is may be a different problem.
For your reference:
Occam's razor |ˈäkəmz| (also Ockham's razor) the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ..."I'm aware that there is not much evidence of Jesus existing, but I have faith that it happened,"...
Actually, there's reasonable evidence that he existed. There's just none that he's divine.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, that was Occam's Razor. It's not like I come up to your argument and say: "he used a number 2 pencil," and you say: "no actually, it was a charcoal pencil." I know the argument you were making. You wrote it down. That you don't understand what Occam's razor is may be a different problem.
This may be why my reasoning doesn't seem to make sense to you: I tell you what I'm arguing, but then you go on believing my argument is something else.
I did not say a thing about which option required making more assumptions, or which is simpler, or which multiplies more entities. My argument was, put very simply, I think accepting alien abductions requires rejecting more evidence/observations/beliefs I've made about the world than rejecting alien abductions would. "The principle that one should weigh evidence, and then accept the belief that has stronger evidence in its favor than it has against it" is not Occam's Razor.
[ March 02, 2010, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ..."I'm aware that there is not much evidence of Jesus existing, but I have faith that it happened,"...
Actually, there's reasonable evidence that he existed. There's just none that he's divine.
I've had this particular debate before. There is not reasonable evidence that he existed at all- there are a multitude of people who would like very much for him to have existed, but zero primary source documents of his existence. Fine, that's fine, it's not not any different from someone who could be conjured in the same way today. 50 people write about someone as if they existed, and it's assumed they really did. Never mind whether all the writings of all those individuals was later rectified and edited to more or less (but still very poorly) document the life of a single fictive person. I never bought and I don't buy it now, and I am not ignorant of the facts of the matter.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Tres, that was Occam's Razor. It's not like I come up to your argument and say: "he used a number 2 pencil," and you say: "no actually, it was a charcoal pencil." I know the argument you were making. You wrote it down. That you don't understand what Occam's razor is may be a different problem.
This may be why my reasoning doesn't seem to make sense to you: I tell you what I'm arguing, but then you go on believing my argument is something else.
I did not say a thing about which option required making more assumptions, or which is simpler, or which multiplies more entities.
How do you not understand the words that you yourself have written down for posterity? Really. Applying Occam's Razor does not require you to specifically talk about what Occam's Razor is. Appealing to the line of reasoning that is defined by Occam's Razor, as you undeniably DID, is :gasp: applying Occam's Razor. Seriously, talking to you becomes like trying to beat up a sofa. It just doesn't ever seem to realize what's happening- it just sits there, getting more and more sad and beaten up.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ..."I'm aware that there is not much evidence of Jesus existing, but I have faith that it happened,"...
Actually, there's reasonable evidence that he existed. There's just none that he's divine.
I've had this particular debate before. There is not reasonable evidence that he existed at all- there are a multitude of people who would like very much for him to have existed, but zero primary source documents of his existence. Fine, that's fine, it's not not any different from someone who could be conjured in the same way today. 50 people write about someone as if they existed, and it's assumed they really did. Never mind whether all the writings of all those individuals was later rectified and edited to more or less (but still very poorly) document the life of a single fictive person. I never bought and I don't buy it now, and I am not ignorant of the facts of the matter.
Thanks for getting me to look that up. You're correct, there seems to be only inconclusive evidence that he existed. Just a lot of evidence that a lot of people really, really thought he did.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Seriously, talking to you becomes like trying to beat up a sofa. It just doesn't ever seem to realize what's happening- it just sits there, getting more and more sad and beaten up.
I've found that there are two broad ways people approach discussions like these: Sometimes a person will treat a discussion as a joint effort to talk and listen to determine some truth. Other times a person will treat a discussion as a fight, where they either beat the other guy up or get beat up themselves. Sometimes it starts as the first type but ends up as the second. I'm not really all that interested in beating anyone up, so when I end up in that second type of discussion, I think I'd usually rather be the sofa.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: I think I'd usually rather be the sofa.
Well, what can I say? That's why I find you consistently have nothing of value to say.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Personally I've only ever met one marginally intelligent person who believed in the nonsense (as I see it) of biblical creationism
What do you mean by biblical creationism...That God lived, that Jesus was literally resurrected? Is that enough to warrant the "nonsense" tag? Or do they have to also believe in the literal Garden of Eden? Or do they have to believe that there is no errors in the Bible and it is the fundamental root of all truth and science?
I am agnostic leaning atheist, but I know many Mormons (including Cards) who, if they are honest about their faith, believe in the literal resurrection and flood.
Does that mean all Mormons are at best marginally intelligent? Or are you only talking about the fraction of Christianity that are considered fundamentalist in believing there are no errors in the Bible?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
biblical creationism, underscore, as in old testament, as in genesis, as in God created the earth in seven days and the rib and the snake and the tree- that stuff.
I have zero interest in the specifics. I find literal readings, and in most cases philosophical readings of the bible to be ridiculous.
Fyi: when I say: I have only ever seen one red door on a new house, that doesn't mean I'm saying: "there are no red doors on new houses, as a rule." That's a matter that you need to work out before construing my statement as representing an argument I am not making.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You seem to have zero interest in a lot of things you discuss Orincoro.
Hobbes Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Seriously, talking to you becomes like trying to beat up a sofa. It just doesn't ever seem to realize what's happening- it just sits there, getting more and more sad and beaten up.
I've found that there are two broad ways people approach discussions like these: Sometimes a person will treat a discussion as a joint effort to talk and listen to determine some truth.
This method only works if all parties are actually making the arguments they really believe, the sources of their conclusions, and not just-so stories designed to sound nicer and more logical than the true premises.
The point of the Creation anecdote about you is that you were clearly not putting forth the arguments you truly found compelling, because after they were refuted into the ground, you didn't change your mind about the conclusions you claimed to have based on those arguments. If you had truly based your conclusions on the arguments, you would have changed your conclusions after your supporting arguments had been refuted.
This happens all the time. How many gay marraige opponants argue "I'm against gay marriage because it's not natural", and are still just as against gay marriage after homosexual relationships are demonstrated to be common in nature? It's because the "natural" argument sounds nicer and more logical than the true reason, which usually boils down to "gay people are different from me, and therefore inferior".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: If you had truly based your conclusions on the arguments, you would have changed your conclusions after your supporting arguments had been refuted.
If and only if you accept the refutation as correct and valid.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: You seem to have zero interest in a lot of things you discuss Orincoro.
Hobbes
You seem to hide behind a wall of passive aggressive pithy commentary, without ever contributing much of anything, and you seem to get away with it because people here like you. I have an interest in this subject- I have zero interest in the specifics of the bible or in discussing them now. That is my prerogative, and you can go and stick your head in a bucket if you don't like it. It's not as though this conversation will miss your thrilling contributions, such as they are. Don't forget to smile with a sense of superiority in your response!
Ori Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:You seem to hide behind a wall of passive aggressive pithy commentary, without ever contributing much of anything, and you seem to get away with it because people here like you. I have an interest in this subject- I have zero interest in the specifics of the bible or in discussing them now. That is my prerogative, and you can go and stick your head in a bucket if you don't like it. It's not as though this conversation will miss your thrilling contributions, such as they are. Don't forget to smile with a sense of superiority in your response!
Ori
Glad to see you've been paying attention Orincoro! I'm also impressed that you were able to discern the sense of superiority in my generic smilie that ends all of my posts, so well done there too.
I know many don't agree with the 'living-room' analogy for this forum, but I was hoping we could get behind the idea that this isn't some sort of colosseum for gladiatorial arguments. How many of these things would get said in a normal, face-to-face discussion and would be able to call it a discussion if there were or would it be a fight? This is exactly what people are talking about when they reference the decline of Hatrack and it's exactly why I rarely do make many substantial posts in threads like this. Not doing enough to get you banned isn't the same as positively contributing to the community.
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:- Do some of you (Christians) belive in the fact that Saint Mary was indeed a virgin before the birth of her first Child and Joseph was not the genetical father? - Do you belive that three days after His death, Jesus Christ ressurected and met with His followers? As a man made of flesh?
1) I believe Mary was a virgin; I don't understand the mechanics of the event though. 2) I believe Christ was resurrected after his death and met with his followers. Again, I don't understand the mechanics involved.
quote:On one hand you have a pointless life. Obviously, you are happy about things, have your dreams you want to fullfill, live a good life, be loved and love. But than you die and are no more.
Not believing in an afterlife doesn't necessarily lead to believing that life is pointless. I think there are lots of atheists and agnostics who are genuine boons to civilization; whose meaningful lives contribute to the good of the world.
There is meaning in life, period.
quote:On the other hand you have a life, that is just a start. You fear nothing, there is He, who will help you. You will see your parents again, your spouse and children, your beloved friends. Who wouldnt want that? Thats a beautiful dream which I think belief is all about. And am sorry about it.
I wish it were that easy. Belief in the afterlife doesn't remove fear of death, necessarily-- because for most believers, when it's down to brass tacks, we don't really know.
So, for me, my faith isn't a forward-looking thing. I mean, I don't think much about my Heavenly reward or whatever. I am concerned with the here and now. I am concerned with obeying the commandments, and fulfilling God's purposes for me here in this life. DOING good brings me a lot more satisfaction than thinking about what comes afterward.
That's what I think this morning, anyway.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: This is exactly what people are talking about when they reference the decline of Hatrack and it's exactly why I rarely do make many substantial posts in threads like this. Not doing enough to get you banned isn't the same as positively contributing to the community.
So positively contributing to the community = quietly bating others while contributing little of your own voice to discussions? It's seeing someone you disagree with, and rather than engaging them on the points they make, try to needle them about not addressing the things you find important? It's then taking a high handed stance about the integrity of the community when people much less worthy than thou get annoyed at your sniping? Is that your positive contribution? Do tell.
ETA: if this were Card's living room, I wouldn't be here. He threw that baby out with the bath water a long time ago.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Orincoro, how do you think you have contributed positively to the community?
Is positive contribution something you value?
Do you believe that you engage others honestly (and with respect/civility) on points you disagree with?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Honestly yes. With respect and civility, sometimes. I don't know if on balance I've contributed more positively or negatively. That's difficult to say. I'm self aware enough to realize how I come off- unlike some who seem positively delusional about what kind of traction they might have. I'm more annoyed by the likes of Hobbes who would rather treat me like a non-entity to be dealt with than you, who are always straightforward and give at least the appearance of caring about/being engaged in a discussion. It's the high and mighty bullcrap I can't stand- that and just pure idiocy, which you don't generate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Which of your interactions on this thread would you say have been wholly positive and constructive?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Why do you insist on revealing your sexual inadequacy by asking such leading questions?
See? Everybody can play this game!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is that post supposed to be an example of your positive contributions?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hey! Join the party! Let's get down and sarcastic!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Maybe you should give yourself a time-out, Orincoro?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Orin, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to accomplish here but I don't think you're succeeding.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Maybe you should give yourself a time-out, Orincoro?
Perhaps you should stop baiting me. Perhaps we should all do a lot of things that will never come to pass.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Orincoro has a point: Neither Hobbes nor Scott are in the habit of engaging in actual discussion, as opposed to would-be funny one-liners.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nonsense. This very thread refutes you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. This very thread refutes you.
And here's another one.
The occasional long screed, which is then not further discussed except in flippant one-liners, does not a habit of engagement make.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This very thread does refute you. I could use more words to point out the same thing, but those were sufficient.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Neither Hobbes nor Scott are in the habit of engaging in actual discussion, as opposed to would-be funny one-liners.
I do have a habit of dealing with incivility in that way, especially if the problem has carried through a couple pages, or is especially ripe.
To my knowledge, though, I don't think I've directed my one-liners at individuals as insults.
Sorry you don't think I'm funny, KoM. I'll try harder to be funny for you.
quote:Perhaps you should stop baiting me.
I wasn't.
quote:I know many Mormons (including Cards) who, if they are honest about their faith, believe in the literal resurrection and flood.
Literal resurrection? Sure, I think that's a tenant of Mormonism.
But the Flood? I dunno. I think lots of OSC's writing about it (at least) show that he seems to think it's a metaphor. (See Atlantis)
Ditto the Adam and Eve story. I think it's in Xenocide where he talks about the metaphorical nature of Cain and Abel; and in Red Prophet (I think), the vision Alvin is given shows Adam and Eve as caring, primitive human ancestors.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I used to participate in threads like these very consistently, and I like to think constructively. Personal opinions, what I thought were decent arguments, etc... A lot of what has changed is the time I have to spend and am willing to spend involved in these discussions, but another major factor is the decline in what I think I can draw from them. I'm not interested in discussing something very important to me and very personal with someone who seems disengaged with the actual subject and more interested scoring points or verbally hounding their opponents. I think you'll notice that my contributions to threads where that isn't an issue (i.e. threads that are totally unrelated to religion and politics) are more substantive. Or if you're not convinced, I'm sure others will agree that in the past my posts in any thread were much more verbose and to the point.
I still read these threads, but don't want to post because I know what the results will be, and that they rarely include thoughtful discussion of points, or respect of people involved. This of course reduces most of the posts I do make to smarmy remarks whenever I get overly frustrated with other’s inability to be civil.
I believe we just had this discussion and several participants admitted that they had no interest in being civil when they thought their opponents were clearly so stupid, so I don’t really expect to be able to solve the problem but I refuse to concede that it is constructive behavior.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:To my knowledge, though, I don't think I've directed my one-liners at individuals as insults.
Then your memory is worse than mine.
Ninety percent of the problems here at hatrack are the result of people who sincerely believe they aren't part of the problem while doing very nearly what they berate others for doing. I'm likely one of them.
Like Hobbes, I tend to steer clear of half the threads on hatrack these days. I do sometimes have fun arguing just for the sake of arguing and just to score points, but not when its something I care about very deeply.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
KOM, I believe Papa Moose banned you from participating in religions threads. I'd appreciate it is you respected that ban.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The thing is, I understand Orincoro's frustration. In what often starts as a perfectly legitimate discussion, debate or conversation, some theists (Ron and Tres being the best examples) involved simply continue to make statements that might appear reasonable at a glance but fall apart under scrutiny, and no matter what evidence or logic is presented to them they don't appear to change their mind. This continues over years. And the atheist has to continue to treat the theist like what they're saying is worth responding to intelligently, because saying "What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever" (let alone less civilized versions of that) results in theists going "see!? Look at the jerk atheist that doesn't respect other people's beliefs!"
Tresopax just outlined, in detail, why believing in aliens is silly. It was a perfectly good argument. And then said "But that doesn't apply to Jesus because I already believe in Jesus and I don't see why I should change my mind."
At this point Orincoro is just being juvenile, and he usually does tend more towards glib sarcasm to an extent that is not necessary. (For whatever it's worth, I do find him funny most of the time). But how exactly are we supposed to respond to that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: KOM, I believe Papa Moose banned you from participating in religion threads. I'd appreciate it is you respected that ban.
Either your memory or mine is faulty.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Either your memory or mine is faulty.
Yours is. He made one statement which was frankly pretty clear, but which you chose to interpret incorrectly, then made a follow up statement which you basically just ignored.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I believe you are mistaken; would you mind linking to these statements?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Not saying who's point this proves, but this is the thread that I think people are referring to:
Papa Janitor:
quote:KoM, I don't know where the line will end up being on a lot of issues, but while holding your position doesn't break the rules of this forum, I think it's quite clear that the way you express them does. If you think that's wrong and the people who run this place have their heads in the ground, that's also a position you are welcome to hold. If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned. I don't like it -- I'd rather you could simply follow the rules while continuing to disagree with them. But that part of it is your choice.
KOM:
quote:If you don't mind: Am I subject-banned, or not? This conditional seems to imply a final warning before the ban comes down, but I'd hate to interpret a mod order wrongly and overstep a line I didn't know was there.
Papa Janitor:
quote:You may consider the conditional a final warning.
Well then, that seems quite unambiguous: Final warning. No ban.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: At this point Orincoro is just being juvenile, and he usually does tend more towards glib sarcasm to an extent that is not necessary. (For whatever it's worth, I do find him funny most of the time). But how exactly are we supposed to respond to that?
With resounding applause? Perhaps a medal? A small one, you understand- that would be appreciated.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This was unclear, but "by respond to that" I was referring to statements such as the ones Tresopax makes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Then your memory is worse than mine.
I'd put my various comments to you in a different category than the one-liners that seem to have KoM and Orincoro in a tizzy, but I understand why others might not.
:shrug:
EDIT: Let me also note that I'm not particularly proud of those moments; I want to find a better way of responding than that.
[ March 04, 2010, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
King of Men is correct in his interpretation of what I said -- that he was given a final warning rather than a ban. I'm sorry if I was unclear. As far as I know, he has remained civil in any such threads since (though I'm open to being corrected), including this thread.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: This was unclear, but "by respond to that" I was referring to statements such as the ones Tresopax makes.
For the record, as a fellow religious-type, I've got to say that I see the point you're making about Tres' alien/Jesus post. Here's the thing, though. you explained it, and I--an innocent bystander who is interested in the subject--got exactly what you meant. I even thought about responding to the OP with an explanantion of why I believe what I believe. The tread was right on track. Things were being said.
Then Tres responded by accusing you of being wrong and unclear. And those on the other side of the argument, instead of thinking, "Well, I could try to clarify, but I've already seen that this is an area where Tres has issues noting breakdowns in his own logic" went with the alternative; "He says I'm unclear? I'll show YOU who's unclear!"
Either you think Tres' arguments are perfectly reasonable, and worth debating, or you don't. If you don't, I think the best response would be to clarify or correct what you think the problem is for others who may not have examined it as closely, and then respond only to subsequent posts that appear to you to be making reasonable points in a polite way.
I don't think pointing out a breakdown in logic constitutes "All the atheists are picking on us Christians!" I DO think that continuing to engage someone who, according to several people's memories has a history of NOT CHANGING THEIR MIND looks a lot like Christian-bating.
If you want rational discussion with people who disagree with you, don't find the most vocal example of a potentially irrational person on the other side of the issue and try to beat some sense into them.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: King of Men is correct in his interpretation of what I said -- that he was given a final warning rather than a ban. I'm sorry if I was unclear. As far as I know, he has remained civil in any such threads since (though I'm open to being corrected), including this thread.
I was actually thinking of starting a thread the other day to mention this. I haven't necessarily seen/read everything he's posted but I have noticed that King of Men has indeed been a little... I would say "nicer" but I guess "civil" works too. He still makes good points, but they aren't as barbed as they used to be.
I commend him on adjusting his style to accommodate PJs request to do so. I just wish some others here would also learn to tone it down a bit.
So, for what it's work KoM.. Thanks!!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me: but they aren't as barbed as they used to be.
I commend him on adjusting his style to accommodate PJs request to do so.
Agreed. And I appreciate it as well.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:If you want rational discussion with people who disagree with you, don't find the most vocal example of a potentially irrational person on the other side of the issue and try to beat some sense into them.
In the abstract, I agree with you. But forum threads, in practice, don't work that way. There's a wide range of people all talking at once, with varying degrees of sincere efforts to engage in conversation/debate. You can try your best to ignore one particular person, but other people might not be ignoring that person and you can't always focus on everyone else without addressing what the more frustrating people have to say.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I too have noticed KOM reign in alot of his more serrated commentary on this board.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax just outlined, in detail, why believing in aliens is silly. It was a perfectly good argument. And then said "But that doesn't apply to Jesus because I already believe in Jesus and I don't see why I should change my mind."
To clarify, "I already believe in Jesus" is not the difference between the two examples.
Going back to the image of a scale weighing different options, I believe the scale that is doing the weighing is human judgement - NOT pure logical proof. I don't believe it is possible to come up with a logical calculation to prove whether "aliens exist" is more reasonable than "aliens don't exist". Instead, I think it is necessary for a human being to make a judgement call on the question, based on the evidence. The reason for this is because there are so many different pieces of evidnece/observations/other beliefs that needed to be factored into the final conclusion, and most of it is very ambiguous. How trustworthy is that person claiming to have been abducted? How unlikely really is it that aliens can remain secret? These sorts of questions cannot be answered precisely. Thus you can't use a precise calculation to weigh all of that evidence and determine the answer. Instead, you have to use a human being's judgement - your own judgement.
Since the Olympics are fresh on my mind, I'll use an Olympic analogy. In some sports, like hockey, the results are determined precisely by a finish line or number of goals or something very cut-and-dry. In other sports, like figure skating, determining who is the best requires weighing many many different ambiguous factors. Because of that complexity, human judges are required to weigh those factors to determine the winner. When it comes to making most beliefs, especially religion, the situation is like figure skating. There are only a few sorts of beliefs that are like hockey scores, usually in well-defined areas like math, where belief-making can be done with precise cut-and-dry logic.
This is the difference between aliens and Jesus. It comes down to a judgement call. In one case, I judge the evidence points to Christianity. In the other case, I judge that the evidence points against alien abductions.
I recognize this poses a problem for a debate like this: If it all comes down to a judgement call and if it is impossible to use a precise proof to show what the one most rational belief is, then that make it pretty hard to force someone to change their mind on any given issue. Anybody could just say "well I judge the world to be flat, so I'm going to believe it." They are really the only ones that can hold themselves accountable; no amount of logic from us on the forum would be able to force them to change, if they insist they see it a certain way. And that in turn, I think, goes to the heart at why some people may be frustrated with my position - they judge the evidence in another way, and simply do not understand how I can see it otherwise, so they think I should be convinced by the argument they've laid out to me.
I think that problem reflects reality though... We really can't force people to change beliefs. People on these forums constantly try, and no matter how good the argument is, it typically does not succeed. It's not always because one person is intentionally being stubborn just to win a debate. I think it is more often because we are each using different scales to weigh the arguments and evidence.
If that's true then a knock-down proof is not the way to go if you want to change someone's mind. Instead, you'd either have to (1) add brand new evidence to the scale, or (2) change the scale. And option 2 is probably a long slow process.
And now I think I've drifted off topic...
[ March 05, 2010, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:This is the difference between aliens and Jesus. It comes down to a judgement call.
Doesn't the fact that it comes down to a judgment call suggest that there isn't a difference?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I judge that one skater who does a bunch of acrobatic stunts and never falls down is better than another skater who just skates in circles, and spends a bunch of time flat on her back.
There's definitely a difference.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't believe it is possible to come up with a logical calculation to prove whether "aliens exist" is more reasonable than "aliens don't exist".
I never seem to be able to grasp why you come at things this way. The point was: you reserve a reasonable level of doubt in regards to reports of an unlikely event. Yet in another equally or even less likely event (certainly not more likely- people do not rise up from the dead), you forgo that skepticism and declare that you are not worthy of denying nor affirming the witnesses- this despite the fact that there are no primary witnesses at all, none who's accounts we now have access to, and that the accounts that do exist can be discredited easily as derivative works.
Now, if you regard it as a more likely scenario that the events that take place in the new testament have at least *some* (read: tangential or remote), basis in actual real life events than that aliens landed on some redneck's farm last Wednesday and made boop-boop noises and ate his cat for good measure, then I say huzzah. There is nothing wrong with assuming as little as possible about things of which your knowledge is perforce limited. On the same token, to take a completely open minded approach to the literal events of the Bible is not reasonable. We have a lot of concrete evidence that proves that the Bible is not a firsthand account, nor even originated at the time in which the text is set. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that several of the books claiming to be accounts of Jesus' life were adapted from accounts of other people's lives. That places the literal events of the bible into a remote category of likelihood, even if you ignore the physical impossibility or unlikelihood of many claims that the writings make. This is true even if you ignore the endless editing and tweaking and translation undertaken since those writings were first created, by unknown authors, in editions that are now lost. Even if the events of the bible were totally credible historical accounts with believable scenarios, the likelihood that they would be accurately preserved is remote. A reasonable person, presented with the evidence available to him, concludes that the factual veracity of the bible is easily dismissed.
I'll tell you how you come up with a rational calculation to tell you whether aliens exist. If you see an alien- aliens exist. Up until such time, your assumptions are based on limited information. We have MUCH more information about the nature of the bible than we do about aliens. And that information tells us, quite pointedly, that the bible is fictional.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a difference between "fictional" and "not historical in the way we think of historical today".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Point taken.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This is the difference between aliens and Jesus. It comes down to a judgement call. In one case, I judge the evidence points to Christianity. In the other case, I judge that the evidence points against alien abductions.
But you haven't demonstrated a difference at all. Your "human judgement" amounts to "I believe what I want, and disbelieve what I don't. If the evidence agrees with me, great. If it doesn't, I ignore it".
Tell us, what is the practical difference between your "human judgment" and what I described above? How does a person know that they are using their judgment, and not just going with what they wish to be true? (And if your answer is ' they use their 'human judgment', that's a total fail of an answer, and you know that)
The thing is, what you want to be true has no bearing on what is true. And acting on false premises is likely to have bad consequences. Didn't we already establish that you would be enraged if your child died because a doctor went with their "human judgement" and not with the treatment that reason and evidence shows would have saved your child? So how is it fair for you to demand that you be allowed to believe what you like, and do what you like, based on your judgment, while demanding that others be held to a different standard?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Point taken.
Thanks. I think that this is an enormous mistake that is made by the biblical literalists as well. They try to read the gospels as if they were contemporary newspapers or history books instead of a collection of records of an oral history that wasn't so much about "fact" as it was about "truth" and incorporates a story telling tradition that is rich in metaphor and symbolism.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The point was: you reserve a reasonable level of doubt in regards to reports of an unlikely event. Yet in another equally or even less likely event (certainly not more likely- people do not rise up from the dead), you forgo that skepticism and declare that you are not worthy of denying nor affirming the witnesses- this despite the fact that there are no primary witnesses at all, none who's accounts we now have access to, and that the accounts that do exist can be discredited easily as derivative works.
I'm not really approaching it from a position of skepticism or doubt at all though. By that I mean I don't hold "disbelief" as a default that holds true unless a certain threshold of evidence is met. I don't think there's any default at all - I just think whichever position I judge to be stronger/more consistent with everything else I believe is the one to go for.
A key difference for the story of Jesus is the fact that I also believe in both religion in general and in God. If you accept God exists, then suddenly the story of a resurrection seems a lot more plausible than it would if you approach it from the belief that there is no God or afterlife. And although I know of nobody who can give me a first hand account of the resurrection directly, I know many people who have given accounts of God and/or spiritual experiences they've had, which in turn make the whole Christian story seem believable to me, which in turn makes me more likely to trust that the New Testament is not a lie.
In contrast, I know of nobody personally who claims to have ever had any sort of contact with an alien. I know such people do exist, but I don't really have much reason to trust them or any way to see why they believe what they do. So I have very little reason to trust them over other beliefs I have about the world which are inconsistent with secret alien abductions and which have seemed generally pretty well founded so far.
quote:But you haven't demonstrated a difference at all. Your "human judgement" amounts to "I believe what I want, and disbelieve what I don't. If the evidence agrees with me, great. If it doesn't, I ignore it".
Tell us, what is the practical difference between your "human judgment" and what I described above?
The difference is, I don't get to choose what my judgement says is true. I can't just pick whatever I want. I can lie to myself and try to trick myself, but ultimately my judgement says what it says. I'm not really using my judgement if I just pick whatever I want to true.
Going back to ice skating, the Russian judge may want the Russian skater to win. He could even lie and give the Russian skater a score that is higher than he knows she deserves. But still he'd know what his judgement truly says, and if his judgement truly tells him the Korean skater did the best, he can't honestly change that simply by wanting it to be different.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Tres, you do get to choose. You are calling your belief your "judgment," but that isn't what it is. We know that isn't what it is because you consistently show that your "judgment" is wildly inconsistent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I get to choose. When there is no compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence to the contrary - and there can be none either way for the existence of God as I define God - I get to choose. Yay! I choose good stuff.
Not so yay for the people who choose less good stuff. I don't understand those people. Nor do I understand the people who don't know that they choose. Of course we do.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:But you haven't demonstrated a difference at all. Your "human judgement" amounts to "I believe what I want, and disbelieve what I don't. If the evidence agrees with me, great. If it doesn't, I ignore it".
Tell us, what is the practical difference between your "human judgment" and what I described above?
The difference is, I don't get to choose what my judgement says is true. I can't just pick whatever I want. I can lie to myself and try to trick myself, but ultimately my judgement says what it says. I'm not really using my judgement if I just pick whatever I want to true.
Going back to ice skating, the Russian judge may want the Russian skater to win. He could even lie and give the Russian skater a score that is higher than he knows she deserves. But still he'd know what his judgement truly says, and if his judgement truly tells him the Korean skater did the best, he can't honestly change that simply by wanting it to be different.
You can't possile be so abysmally ignorant. Human beings are highly fallible, and will let their personal emotions sway their judgment all the time. I don't believe for a single second that you have never in your life seen someone swayed by bias or heard of a single study which shows pervasive bias, even among people who aren't trying to be biased.
As a single example, for years, there were virtually no women in classical music. Heads of orchestras thought they were honestly picking the best players, and women rarely made the cut. Everyone trusted their judgement, and conlcuded that overall, few women were top flight musicians.
Then musicians started auditionaing behind screens, or on numbered tapes, so that orchestra heads didn't know who was male, and who was female. All of a sudden, women started to dominate orchestras. It's not because a whole slew of top flight women mucisians magically appeared, it's because the people hiring were biased the whole time.
Then there's the finding that applicants with obviously 'black' names get fewer interviews thatn people with identical resumes and normal names...etc. People on this board will be able to cite hundreds and thousands of studies showing that people's biases severely affect their judgment, even when they are trying to be fair.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think that people as a whole don't work like this. You are deluded if you think that you are immnue to biases as well. They don't work perfectly, but logic and evidence applied rigorously are the only antidote.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Frankly, I'm with Tres on that particular point - that you DON'T choose. Part of this has to do with not believing in Free Will in the first place, but even that aside, I simply don't understand how you could possibly choose something other than the thing you feel you have more evidence for, or the thing that previous experience makes you more likely to prefer. This doesn't make you RIGHT, and it doesn't mean that you shouldn't periodically re-examine your beliefs and confront them with new evidence to see if your old beliefs were biased.
No matter how hard I try, I cannot choose to believe in the invisible pink unicorn, no matter how little evidence there is against it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As a single example, for years, there were virtually no women in classical music. Heads of orchestras thought they were honestly picking the best players, and women rarely made the cut. Everyone trusted their judgement, and conlcuded that overall, few women were top flight musicians.
Then musicians started auditionaing behind screens, or on numbered tapes, so that orchestra heads didn't know who was male, and who was female. All of a sudden, women started to dominate orchestras. It's not because a whole slew of top flight women mucisians magically appeared, it's because the people hiring were biased the whole time.
Then there's the finding that applicants with obviously 'black' names get fewer interviews thatn people with identical resumes and normal names...etc. People on this board will be able to cite hundreds and thousands of studies showing that people's biases severely affect their judgment, even when they are trying to be fair.
Oh, this was in Outliers, wasn't it.
but either way, what swbarnes is saying is true to a level that we rarely like to admit. Eminently logical and rational people I know who work with the highest echelons of skeptical and methodological thought are always noting it in themselves. I am always amazed to find what doofy things still color my perspectives and conclusions beyond my conscious judgment. especially when it comes to race relations.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I get to choose. When there is no compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence to the contrary - and there can be none either way for the existence of God as I define God - I get to choose.
No, you don't. That is, because our society is regrettably rather soft-hearted towards certain kinds of wrong-headed, foolish thinking, nobody (except me) is going to look at you pityingly for this sort of statement and mutter darkly about locked attics and mental institutions; but that is the correct reaction. There is a definite fact of the matter as to whether a god exists; you do not get to choose which it is. You get to investigate the evidence and see whether it convinces you. And when you decide that no possible evidence could convince against your current belief - especially when you admit that you also don't have any evidence in favour! - then you have abandoned adulthood and become as the child who stamps her foot and insists that of course Santa exists, because how else would she get presents?
Some people, admittedly, think that such "childlike faith" is a good thing. I am prepared to say it has a certain amount of cuteness, in a six-year-old who can be expected to grow out of it, and anyway is not going to be making major decisions on such a basis. But in an ostensibly adult woman with, absent gods help us, the power to vote, I find it horrifying and disgusting. What's next, schoolgirl skirts and an affected lisp?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I get to choose. When there is no compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence to the contrary - and there can be none either way for the existence of God as I define God - I get to choose. Yay! I choose good stuff.
There is no compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence contradicting my belief that if I bet my life savings and yours on the roulette wheel, that we won't make a mint and get to retire early. That's certainly good stuff! So yay, I choose 21!
Kara Neumann's family knew there was no certain, irreffutable evidence that standard treatment would keep their diabetic daughter alive. So they choose the "good stuff" of letting God cure here with no medical treatment, only prayer. Yay for that outcome? Really?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
kmbboots didn't clarify what... (his/her?) belief in God actually WAS, but I would say that if you are, for all practical purposes, defining God as an invisible friend who offers you encouragement and comfort, then you're fine. Possibly wrong, but not consequentially so.
If you're defining God as an entity that would ever influence you to actually change your actions on anything remotely important, then as swbarnes as notes, you are running a very grave risk.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You can't possile be so abysmally ignorant. Human beings are highly fallible, and will let their personal emotions sway their judgment all the time. I don't believe for a single second that you have never in your life seen someone swayed by bias or heard of a single study which shows pervasive bias, even among people who aren't trying to be biased.
I agree that people are biased. We are imperfect scales.
But we don't simply choose our bias. It's also a part of our judgement that, if it is changable, can only be changed very slowly with a lot of effort. I can't tell myself I want the world to be flat and instantly make myself biased enough to truly judge that the evidence tells me the world is flat. The world seems round to me, no matter how strongly I might want an edge to exist.
quote:I get to choose. When there is no compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence to the contrary - and there can be none either way for the existence of God as I define God - I get to choose. Yay! I choose good stuff.
I don't agree with this, at least as far as I can tell. And if I could choose, would it really be good for me to choose anything other than what seems to me most likely to be true?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If you're defining God as an entity that would ever influence you to actually change your actions on anything remotely important, then as swbarnes as notes, you are running a very grave risk.
Could you explain why?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But we don't simply choose our bias.
Not entirely true. We can convince ourselves of extremely improbable things, by simply desiring something that is proposed to be true. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I don't agree with this, at least as far as I can tell. And if I could choose, would it really be good for me to choose anything other than what seems to me most likely to be true?
As I said, I agree with you that you don't necessarily choose anything other than what seems to be true. Those people hiring the male musicians may not have had any reason to think they were being biased or doing anything wrong.
But over time we've been able to realize exactly HOW biased we are, in quantifiable ways that we can educate people about. And the better we get at that, the less excuse we have to believe wrong things simply because they "seem true." After those HR directors are informed of their hiring biases, and that their actions are genuinely causing harm to the world, they have two options: either take steps to eliminate their biases (i.e. having blind auditions), or keep doing what they're doing. If they choose the latter, then they are lazy, stubborn, and bad for the world.
You've been repeatedly shown how your decisions might be biased. And rather than re-examine your biases and double check your beliefs, you have simply said "well that's how it seems to me, the end." Which is just as lazy and stubborn as the HR directors in question would be. And if you ever use your beliefs to make an important real world decision, potentially just as dangerous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Kara Neumann's family knew there was no certain, irreffutable evidence that standard treatment would keep their diabetic daughter alive. So they choose the "good stuff" of letting God cure here with no medical treatment, only prayer. Yay for that outcome? Really?
No. That would be choosing bad stuff. How would that be good stuff?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Could you explain why?
Swbarnes already gave some good examples - faith healing and the like. If you're making a major real world decision and you're basing it solely on something that you've believe because "there's no evidence against it" then you're potentially making a wrong decision for no reason. How damaging this can be depends on what precisely is at stake. (Although a lot of little wrong decisions might add up to something bad over time).
quote:Not entirely true. We can convince ourselves of extremely improbable things, by simply desiring something that is proposed to be true.
I would argue that desiring something is not a decision you make. If you desire to desire something (such as to stop drinking) you might be able to work at that over time to change said desire, but it a) takes time and b) still requires you to desire to desire it in the first place.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@kmmboots: you're going to have to be more clear on what is good stuff and what is bad stuff for this discussion to be worthwhile.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Could you explain why?
Swbarnes already gave some good examples - faith healing and the like. If you're making a major real world decision and you're basing it solely on something that you've believe because "there's no evidence against it" then you're potentially making a wrong decision for no reason. How damaging this can be depends on what precisely is at stake. (Although a lot of little wrong decisions might add up to something bad over time).
Do you find that all people who believe in some sort of god make these kind of wrong decisions? As far as I can tell, there are very few fringe people (at least, in America) that believe in faith healing.
Do you think that boots is running the risk of coming to believe in faith healing and thus eschewing medical treatment?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Not entirely true. We can convince ourselves of extremely improbable things, by simply desiring something that is proposed to be true.
Yes, true, but that's more like tricking yourself. It requires some time/effort on your part to mess up (or "improve" if you look at it that way) your own judgement.
quote:You've been repeatedly shown how your decisions might be biased. And rather than re-examine your biases and double check your beliefs, you have simply said "well that's how it seems to me, the end."
When did I say that? If I was not interested in examining my biases or double-checking my beliefs, I would not be writing this on this forum.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh...I am afraid that I am not quite up for listing everything I think is good or bad or writing down everything I believe about God. It is daunting just thinking about it. And subjective as well.
I guess questions of good or bad could be tested by asking, "how's that working for you?" Does it make you happy? A better person? A force for good (however you define it)?
And there is some evidence. Much of it open to pretty flexible interpretation.
My point is that people don't (for the most part) have to believe in a God that they don't think is good. I don't, for example, buy the "I don't have anything personal against homosexuals, but God[ hates them so I have to" kinds of arguments. People do choose otherwise so clearly people can choose otherwise.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I guess questions of good or bad could be tested by asking, "how's that working for you?"
The Dr. Phil test for religious beliefs? Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB]
quote:You can't possile be so abysmally ignorant. Human beings are highly fallible, and will let their personal emotions sway their judgment all the time. I don't believe for a single second that you have never in your life seen someone swayed by bias or heard of a single study which shows pervasive bias, even among people who aren't trying to be biased.
I agree that people are biased. We are imperfect scales.
But we don't simply choose our bias. It's also a part of our judgement that, if it is changable, can only be changed very slowly with a lot of effort.
I don't see how this argument helps your claim that relying on our biased judgment over reason and evidence is a smart thing to do. Personally, I'd be more inclined to trust the judgment of some who has changed their mind, if they can point to the change of evidence that caused them to do it, over the person who formed a 'judgment' based on their whims and wishes, and never yields it, even when its shown to be baseless, or cntradicted by the facts.
quote:I can't tell myself I want the world to be flat and instantly make myself biased enough to truly judge that the evidence tells me the world is flat. The world seems round to me, no matter how strongly I might want an edge to exist.
Paul seems to have changed his mind rather suddenly, and I don't think that the process is unheard of in other religious converts. This of course says nothing about the logical soundness or the factual accuracy of those beliefs, so I don't know why you brought it up.
quote:
quote:I get to choose. When there is no compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence to the contrary - and there can be none either way for the existence of God as I define God - I get to choose. Yay! I choose good stuff.
I don't agree with this, at least as far as I can tell. And if I could choose, would it really be good for me to choose anything other than what seems to me most likely to be true?
No, it's not, which is why it is so stupid for you to denigrate the only method we falible humans have of weeding out false beliefs from true. "Judgements" are resiliant things, born out of human prejudices and biases and ignorance, more often than not, and changing judgments based on those things is very difficult. However, if one makes conclusions based on evidence and reason, then it is far easier to change thsoe beliefs when the evidence changes. Humans can't do it perfectly, but we do a fair job of it. There are an infinite number of false conclusions people used to believe about the physical world that are no longer believed, becuase the evidence refuted them, and people accepted the evidence. Religious differences are usually only solved by torturing and burning all the dissenting adherants. (The torturers and murderers, of course, believe that they are correctly following their "judgment", so I don't see how you can condemn them)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It's a place to start.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not so yay for the people who choose less good stuff. I don't understand those people. Nor do I understand the people who don't know that they choose. Of course we do.
I guess I have to think not so yay about you, because I just choose to have a God who is WAY better than yours. I think you ought to consider choosing my version, since I have decided that it is more yay. I can't imagine a reason you'd disagree.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Which yay scale did you use?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Point taken.
Thanks. I think that this is an enormous mistake that is made by the biblical literalists as well. They try to read the gospels as if they were contemporary newspapers or history books instead of a collection of records of an oral history that wasn't so much about "fact" as it was about "truth" and incorporates a story telling tradition that is rich in metaphor and symbolism.
While I do not necessarily disagree with that statement, I think one should be careful to not dismiss all scriptures as so bereft of any literal truth that it's all simply opinion and bias.
People often ask, how can we trust anything the gospel writers wrote as actually happening as they wrote years after the fact, and were biased. I think the scriptures John 14:25-26 and 2 Peter 1:19-21 are instructive,
"These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
I understand these scriptures to mean that under certain circumstances those writing or uttering the words of God were given from God the words they ought to write/say. This allows for the possibility that the gospel writers in a few, many, or even all circumstances wrote exactly what Jesus said and did without error. This does not prove it of course, nor does it disallow interpolations by scribes down the road, but I do think it provides support for the idea that the Bible is not in essence a long drawn out game of telephone in book form, with nothing more than truthiness to it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not so yay for the people who choose less good stuff. I don't understand those people. Nor do I understand the people who don't know that they choose. Of course we do.
I guess I have to think not so yay about you, because I just choose to have a God who is WAY better than yours. I think you ought to consider choosing my version, since I have decided that it is more yay. I can't imagine a reason you'd disagree.
Well, now there is a discussion. More yay how? We could debate that looking at actual yayness.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My point is that people don't (for the most part) have to believe in a God that they don't think is good.
It's funny; some religious people are always accusing secular people of having no moral center, of believing whatever they want to do is okay. And here we have the theists actually arguing "everyone should just believe what they want, don't try to figure out if what you believe is true or not, just believe what your "judgment" tells you, believe what you want to believe".
What you are arguing flies square in the face of a huge number of religious people; people who believe the Bible or the Koran or whatever, not because it's convenient, or because it makes them happy, but because they think it's true. I would argue that their way of determining what is true is faulty, but ignoring a conclusion, not becuase you think it false, but because you think it is unpleasant, or inconvenient, is a very, very bad idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, I do think it is true. But my starting premiss - that God exists and is good - is not something which can be finally proved or disproved. Evidence beyond that is weighed against that premiss.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
swb, You seem to be treating "Believing something that you can't prove is true" as equivalent to "Believing something is true despite very good evidence to the contrary." I'd suggest that these are very different things.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: swb, You seem to be treating "Believing something that you can't prove is true" as equivalent to "Believing something is true despite very good evidence to the contrary." I'd suggest that these are very different things.
In reality, they are not all that different. Once you unmoor your beliefs from reality tests, it is very hard to change them, even when reality-testable evidence is available.
How many people think they have a 'system' for gambling, and lose everything rather than admit their system was flawed? How many people change their beliefs based on contradictory evidence, as opposed to explaining away the contradictions? How many people pray that God will heal their loved ones, and then it doesn't happen. A few people will lose their faith for that, but the vast majority will not.
For the most part, only people who make a concious point of being rigorous in knowing why they believe what they believe will adapt to new evidence by altering their conclusions.
KMBoots specifically said "If you can't be irrefutably certain, believe what you want." Well, nothing in life is 100% sure. But lots of it is 99.999% sure. That's not "there's no evidence either way". That's "the case is as well made is is humanly possible", and KM still reserves the right to ignore that and believe what she likes. Yay to global warming being nothing to worry about!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a lot of evidence for global climate change; what evidence do you have to show that God does not exist?
As for people who people who can't change their beliefs even in the face of irrefutable evidence, don't you think that recognizing that they are choosing that beliefs would make it easier to evaluate evidence?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a lot of evidence for global climate change; what evidence do you have to show that God does not exist?
When there is no compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence to the contrary - such as the case that global warming is a dire threat that we ought to worry about- I get to choose. Yay! I choose good stuff. Not worrying about global warming is good stuff.
There is no 100% certainty on any side of any question. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea to ignore the side that has 99% of the evidence. No, not even if the 99% side is dreary, and has no good stuff.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Now you are just being petulant. I think that the evidence for global climate change* is pretty compelling, as certain as can be expected and has not been reliably refuted. Also the downside to my believing that is to do what I probably should be doing anyway.
ETA: Also you are ignoring the point (and there is no reason you shouldn't know this) that science and faith are different and are useful for different things.
*That it is something to worry about and address.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. Now you are just being petulant.
I am assuming that as an adult, you understand the meaning of the words that you use. The last thing I am going to do is assume that you don't mean what you say, and instead assume that you mean something that I think you should mean, or that I want you to mean.
quote:I think that the evidence for global climate change* is pretty compelling, as certain as can be expected and has not been reliably refuted.
"As certain as can be expected" is not the same as "certain". You wrote "certain. "Not reliably refuted" is not the same as "irrefutable". You wrote "irrefutable".
So the claim does not meet your previously stated caveats, and therefore, by your own argument, I am correct in believing in "the good stuff".
Do you see why maybe you should stop trying to justify your own irrationality? There's no way of doing this without defending a whole boatload of horrendous irrationality propagated by others.
quote:ETA: Also you are ignoring the point (and there is no reason you shouldn't know this) that science and faith are different and are useful for different things.
Reason and evidence are useful for all forms of knowledge where accuracy matters. Eschewing reality testing in arenas where accuracy matters is a very, very bad idea. If you want to formally admit that your religoius beliefs have absoltuely no overlap with any area of human activity where being right is beneficial, and being incorrect is detrimental, you might as well go on and do this. I'm not suite sure what this leaves you with, some aspects of art, perhaps.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: As a single example, for years, there were virtually no women in classical music. Heads of orchestras thought they were honestly picking the best players, and women rarely made the cut. Everyone trusted their judgement, and conlcuded that overall, few women were top flight musicians.
Then musicians started auditionaing behind screens, or on numbered tapes, so that orchestra heads didn't know who was male, and who was female. All of a sudden, women started to dominate orchestras. It's not because a whole slew of top flight women mucisians magically appeared, it's because the people hiring were biased the whole time.
If you're referring to the New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell, he cites specifically trumpet and french horn players, I believe- because it was thought that women were not physically suited to playing those instruments. Women had long been more accepted playing strings, woodwinds, percussion, and singing. Bias against women trumpet players continues today when young girls are not encouraged to pick up the instrument for fear that they will not have the strength to play it- and because there are fewer female role models for the instrument.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ETA: Also you are ignoring the point (and there is no reason you shouldn't know this) that science and faith are different and are useful for different things.
I, for one, wish only for those who choose to put their faith in such things, as much nonsense as they are to me, not attempt to construe that faith as being in any way equivalent to my belief in, and understanding of science and reasoning. Because when I say "belief," you need to understand that I'm not talking about "faith." Our collocation of vocabulary on this subject is a disservice to those who understand and care about the difference between faith and reason.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: It's funny; some religious people are always accusing secular people of having no moral center, of believing whatever they want to do is okay. And here we have the theists actually arguing "everyone should just believe what they want, don't try to figure out if what you believe is true or not, just believe what your "judgment" tells you, believe what you want to believe".
If you're of the mind that religious people sacrifice their own sense of self worth and self-determination in order to allow themselves to be governed by a set of beliefs they themselves are not responsible for understanding or satisfactorily interpreting, in order to avoid personal responsibility for their own actions, feelings, beliefs, and inner contradictions, then this isn't *so* surprising.
I am of that mind. I find it particularly fascinating that conservative Christians bear such resemblance in that subservience to an unseen collective power, to communists. I think that's the reason this country (CZ) has remained so secular. There are plenty of people still alive to observed their neighbors, friends, family, and their collective culture swayed first by religion, and then in the very same way, with even more dire consequences, towards the dominion of communism. The bitter taste of Stalinist communism lingers, for the Czechs, in the rituals of religious institutions- they are more often viewed as enemies of liberated thinking and reason.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Our collocation of vocabulary on this subject is a disservice to those who understand and care about the difference between faith and reason.
Sorry; the greater culture uses belief and faith as almost-synonyms. If you want to discuss the topic with the greater culture, generally, it's not their responsibility to use YOUR (minority) understanding of the vocabulary.
I do not accept that reasoning is limited to secular thinking, any more than I accept that morality is the singular province of the religious.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Reasoning does not have to be limited to secular thinking. But reasoning DOES require you, well, reason. And saying "this seems true to me because it just does" is not reasoning.
And it's largely irrelevant to the point in question how the majority defines faith, belief, and reason. The point is there is a world of difference between the faith required to believe in the Judeo-Christian God and the "faith" required to believe in the value of the scientific method. It is the responsibility of anyone engaging in a debate about the two to clarify that the two things are not the same thing. If you use them without clarifying that, and then try to present one as equivalent to the other (as Tres frequently tries to do) you are being intellectually dishonest.
[ March 05, 2010, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No argument there. I think, though, that most folks have reasons for believing what they do; is articulation necessary?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(Note my edit)
Tres explained why he believes what he does. His explanation consisted of "I made a judgment call. It seems that way to be." Two scenarios with equal amounts of proof (or lack thereof) - aliens and Jesus. He believes in one, and not the other, with no justification other than one appeals to him more.
The only additional caveat he mentioned later was that he had previously come to believe in God - again without evidence (at least not evidence that survives any kind of scrutiny). He uses one belief without adequate evidence as justification for another belief without adequate evidence.
There is nothing rational about this. I can understand why he does it, but to present it as a viewpoint that stems from anything other than intellectual laziness is, well, intellectually lazy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Because when I say "belief," you need to understand that I'm not talking about "faith." Our collocation of vocabulary on this subject is a disservice to those who understand and care about the difference between faith and reason.
It's fairly relevant, IMO, considering this comment.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
In that particular point, Orincoro starts by explaining that he defines belief as something different than faith.
Then he states that the fact that society in general has come to use a lot of words interchangeably makes it harder to have serious discussions about faith and or reason. This is a perfectly valid point.
And in response, you criticize him for not acknowledging that the greater culture uses belief and faith as almost-synonyms, and that he should be sure to define them separately. Dude, he just DID that, AND his very point was that a social norm in which belief, faith and reason are such interchangeable words is damaging to public understanding of the nature of belief, faith and reason.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Belief and faith are interchangeable in popular usage; faith and reason are not, necessarily.
My point is that since belief and faith are commonly understood as synonymous, it's not reasonable for him to expect others to kowtow to his minority definitions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No argument there. I think, though, that most folks have reasons for believing what they do; is articulation necessary?
If you cannot articulate your reasons for believing something, then how do you know your reasons are good? In fact, how do you even know what they are? People do not believe for no reason, but it's not uncommon for the reason to be "I was told when I was three, and never thought about it again." I think, perhaps, most people would agree that if that's your only reason to believe, then that belief should be dropped.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
No. One particular definition of belief is synonymous with one particular definition of faith in popular usage. Simply declaring that because one particular combination is fairly popular is not fair to a variety of definitions of both belief and faith that are necessary for religious and philosophical discourse alike.
Saying "I believe in God" can mean either that you believe God exists, or that you believe in God's goodness and in the promises he's made.
You can believe God exists either because you have a faith based revelation, or because (correctly or not) you have examined the evidence surrounding the nature of the universe and concluded that God is its most likely cause.
You can "believe" in your child, lover, friend or role model in the sense that you think they are good people who will succeed at doing good things for the world. In this case it would be fair to say you have "faith" in them.
Those are just relating to religion and/or faith, and already there are 4 different words we're talking about. ("Faith based knowledge," "faith in a person's goodness", "belief in a person's goodness," and "belief in a person's existence.") Some of these things are similar, some are not.
Let alone that when you say "I believe in gravity," and "I believe that raising taxes is necessary to fix the national debt" you are not talking about faith at all.
Which of those uses are the most common? I don't know for sure, but I'm positive that ALL of them have been used by the majority of english speaking people at some point or another.
So no, you don't get to just lump all those different words together and say "normally people use these interchangeably, therefore trying to differentiate between these concepts in an academic debate is forcing others to kowtow before a ridiculous minority definition."
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Two scenarios with equal amounts of proof (or lack thereof) - aliens and Jesus.
To be fair, these two scenarios do not have equal amounts of proof, even leaving aside their inherent plausibility (or lack thereof). To wit, consider two propositions, A and B, each equally plausible. You are now presented with the following new information: proposition A is accepted by hundreds of millions of people, including many powerful people and many who are well-respected in their communities, while proposition B is only accepted by people who read periodicals like the Weekly World News. Given this new evidence, would you be justified in changing your judgement (to use the terminology of this thread) of the plausibility of A and B?
I would argue that it is far more rational to believe in religion, Jesus even, than in alien abductions, if only because so many otherwise credible people so believe (or claim to). This is particularly true for an individual who was raised in or is surrounded by a religious culture. To argue that these scenarios are somehow equivalent is disingenuous and will not convince anyone.
(Please do not take the above to be an assertion that religion is true/correct/whatever; far from it. I am just pointing out that, other things being equal, the justification "credible people believe it" is actually a pretty good one much of the time. Further, A and B are not exactly equivalent to Jesus and aliens, since in my estimation alien abductions are actually quite a bit more likely, prima facie, than Jesus's divinity.)
Don't pick at the other person's weakest arguments (I'm looking at you swbarnes ) or willfully misinterpret their stance; rather refute their best-defended position that can be refuted, and do it soundly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In the absence of other information, "Many credible people believe this" is not a dreadful argument. But we do have other information. In particular, we are informed that, effectively, these 'credible people' believe in Jesus only because other people have believed it. Examine the causal chain that led to this belief, and it all unravels. It's all popularity; it is built on water, and cannot stand.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: My question(s) is(are): - Do some of you (Christians) belive in the fact that Saint Mary was indeed a virgin before the birth of her first Child and Joseph was not the genetical father? - Do you belive that three days after His death, Jesus Christ ressurected and met with His followers? As a man made of flesh?
There could obviously be thousand questions like this, but its just the idea. My questions is- do you believe in this truthfully, that this indeed happened, not as a symbol or a metaphore? And if so, why? How? It is impossible! How come you dont think these are just symbols? That Jesus was a clever, good man, a martyr but just a man?
And is a belief in all these things a requirement to be considered a Christian?
I believe there is only one requirement to be a Christian. Christ died for the forgiveness of your sins. I was raised Catholic and never accepted the fact that communion was the actual flesh and blood of Christ. I've never accepted the Old Testament literally.
Prior to Christ, believers had to slaughter their prime sheep or burn their best crop for the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness of sins required precious blood in the Judeo belief system. Christians are just Jews who believe the slaughtered lamb of God was precious enough to pay for the sins of all mankind, for eternity. The Jew's sacrificial lamb had a nice coat, nice muscle tone and paid for this weeks sin. All faiths believe there is no more eternal than god. The eternal sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is the son of God.
I'll share with you my unorthodox belief as a Christian. A belief that the Church does not teach, rather my personal way of reconciling logic and religion:
The worst teachers I've had were the smartest ones. I cannot understand how a man could perform oral sex on another man for a chemical drug. I'm not a drug addict. The best teacher's I've ever had were the ones who understood the struggles of the student and could explain the concept in simple terms. If God is perfect and without sin, how can he comprehend the temptation of sin? I cannot comprehend sucking a dick for a crack rock, but if I were a crack head, I would understand.
I believe Jesus wasn't man's link to God, rather God's link to us. If I were an ex crack addict, I would be more forgiving and understanding of crack heads. Jesus was tempted so that God could experience our temptation. He was tempted just prior to being nailed upon the cross.
[ March 06, 2010, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
KoM, it's not all popularity. It also has the nice features that it it explains subjective spiritual experience, does something to alleviate the fear of uncertainty and death and the pain of loss, and serves as a catalyst for the formation of strong communities, among other things.
Religion comes with a very high perceived value; as such, individuals who believe are often acting rationally (or at least metarationally, i.e. in their best interests) when they hold on to their system and culture that provides these benefits, absent any better alternatives. (Note also that there are significant costs to determining whether any given alternative (belief system, lifestyle, etc.) is in fact better than the status quo.)
Edited to add: I don't mean to imply that religion explains subjective spiritual experiences accurately or in a way that makes sense to me, only that it explains them adequately for many people. Consider also the failure of science and rationality to explain the subjectivity of experience, the I-ness that everyone feels and takes as a given, on an intuitive level that most people can understand.
[ March 06, 2010, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Many people in our history have chosen what they believe to be the "better alternative" or followed the "metarationally" to their demise. Let the unemployment rate fall ever farther and the masses will follow the Vimar Republic.
If he's hungry enough, a man will give up his freedom for a bowl of beans and a sack of rice. Our history is full of people who sold themselves into slavery for years,...to come to America for a chance at freedom. Soon America will be no different than the counties they want to escape. Accept the "fair" system of economic stagnation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Sorry; the greater culture uses belief and faith as almost-synonyms. If you want to discuss the topic with the greater culture, generally, it's not their responsibility to use YOUR (minority) understanding of the vocabulary.
I do not accept that reasoning is limited to secular thinking, any more than I accept that morality is the singular province of the religious.
Sorry, but when I'm speaking, I get to define my terms clearly and as accurately as possible, for the purposes of my own speech. I also get to have my opinions about how the words are generally used, and I get to express that opinion. The poor state of our lexicon in that regard is a hindrance to me, and I am free to point that out. Does it appear that I am attempting to deny the general perception? I am certainly aware of it. I don't like it.
And anyway, I'm not talking about who's domain reasoning is. I'm saying that we need to be able to recognize the different between reasoned belief and faith based belief. I find that to be important. I think you do as well.
quote: The point is there is a world of difference between the faith required to believe in the Judeo-Christian God and the "faith" required to believe in the value of the scientific method. It is the responsibility of anyone engaging in a debate about the two to clarify that the two things are not the same thing. If you use them without clarifying that, and then try to present one as equivalent to the other (as Tres frequently tries to do) you are being intellectually dishonest.
QFT, you beat me to it with a much more clearly stated point. Thanks.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Belief and faith are interchangeable in popular usage; faith and reason are not, necessarily.
belief |biˈlēf| noun 1 an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists : his belief in God | a belief that solitude nourishes creativity. • something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction : c.ontrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language | we're prepared to fight for our beliefs. See note at opinion . • a religious conviction : Christian beliefs | I'm afraid to say belief has gone | local beliefs and customs. 2 ( belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something : a belief in democratic politics | I've still got belief in myself.
faith |fāθ| noun 1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians. 2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. • a system of religious belief : the Christian faith. • a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.
The minority definition is yours, my friend. While the two clearly collocate very closely with each other, they are defined differently. The dictionary is based on usage, not on some abstract that caters to "minority" views. Arguing the narrow definition is a losing battle. The definitions *clearly* distinguish the two terms in quality. Just admit you're wrong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't see how referring to those definitions disproves what I was saying.
Lots of synonyms are defined differently.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you're using the word belief, Orincoro. What problem do you see in its usage?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm saying that we need to be able to recognize the different between reasoned belief and faith based belief. I find that to be important.
What do you think is the difference?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well for starters, one can be communicated, demonstrated and justified to others. The other -regardless of how true or important it might be to the person experiencing it - cannot be distinguished from a delusion by outsiders who do not share the experience. (And by nature of delusions, the person experiencing it has no way of verifying whether it's a delusion either).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I do agree with Mike on this point:
quote:Religion comes with a very high perceived value; as such, individuals who believe are often acting rationally (or at least metarationally, i.e. in their best interests) when they hold on to their system and culture that provides these benefits, absent any better alternatives. (Note also that there are significant costs to determining whether any given alternative (belief system, lifestyle, etc.) is in fact better than the status quo.)
This is a decent reason for remaining in a religion, and a corollary is that if you're looking for something to make your life better and a religious group happens to offer you community, inspiration and comfort, I wouldn't necessary blame you for going with the first one you found that works for you rather than trying all kinds of philosophies to verify you were doing the best thing for your life.
But this approach has no bearing on the truth value of a religion, and if you lose sight of the fact that you HAVEN'T tried all the other religions out there, and go on to use your experience as justification that your religion is correct, you are not being rational.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
When I was a missionary, I met lots of people-- both in my faith, and not of my faith, and also not of ANY faith-- who I communicated, demonstrated, and justified my faith with.
It's a bit simplistic to say that faith-based belief cannot be experienced by anyone except the believer; missionary successes seem to invalidate the idea.
Rather some individuals don't or can't accept or experience the evidences given for faith-based belief. Others seem to be able to.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:When I was a missionary, I met lots of people-- both in my faith, and not of my faith, and also not of ANY faith-- who I communicated, demonstrated, and justified my faith with.
While I have an understanding of how the process by which people come to accept a religion, I'm sure it varies a lot and it may be helpful to know:
1) How did you in particular arrive at your faith (Also, I'm assuming you're Mormon but I don't remember for sure).
2) Is there a "typical" experience that most people you communicated with as a missionary went through that you could summarize?
Three years ago I was making a concerted effort to understanding Christianity, for the purpose of a) converting my fundamentalist Christian friend to agnostic theism (I was under no illusions of being able to convert him to atheism, not to mention I don't think it would have been valuable to do so), and b) clearing up misconceptions about atheism among various Christian groups.
I went to a Christian forum (crosswalk.com) to ask what people's perceptions of atheism were (a lot of people assumed I had a bad childhood and was into drugs - it was fun to be able to say "nope, childhood was pretty much perfect, I'm an Eagle Scout and have never touched alcohol"). From there we talked about why various people had come to Christianity. The recurring themes I saw were:
-
1) Someone said "Just try this out, follow the church teachings and see how it improves your life." They did, their lives got improved, and they became more open to other religious experiences from there.
2) People honestly found that everywhere they looked, they found signs from God pointing them towards Christianity.
3) Many people felt they had personally experienced God, not communicating in a blatant talking to them way, but in a more visceral way. (For example, they prayed to God about something and felt a sort of internal energy in response)
4) As a sort of combination of 2 & 3, many people had an experience in which they had been lost or in trouble, and then had a flash of insight which felt directly related to religious lessons or experience which helped them to get out of their situation.
-
At approximately the same time, I had actually been experiencing the following:
-
1) I had been lost in a subway station, with 11 minutes to get to Grand Central station if I was to make the last train home for the night. I was standing between two empty subway rails, one labeled "express" and one labeled... well, "not express" I guess.
The "not express train" arrived. I stared at it. I had no idea when the express train would arrive, or how long it would take the not-express train to reach Grand Central. I didn't know if I should get on the not-express train or not.
And then, in a sudden flash of insight, I remembered a particular famous moment in the Magic: The Gathering card game's history, in which a player had to do something that appeared to make victory even more futile, because it was the only way to set up a situation they could POSSIBLY win later on. That decision won the player $16,000.
I realized that if I got on the not-express train, I almost definitely would NOT make it home. Whereas if I waited for the express train, there was a chance it wouldn't come in time, but if it came in the next 30 seconds I'd be okay.
I waited. 30 seconds later the express train came.
And after that moment, I started seeing life-lessons-inspired-by-Magic-the-Gathering EVERYWHERE I looked. I felt like I couldn't escape them.
-
2) In an unrelated incident, I was arguing with my friend about Christianity. He was saying "God has a plan" and I was saying "well then what the heck IS the plan?" and the argument wasn't going anywhere, until I suddenly had this weird, crystalizing moment where I realized what the plan was.
It clearly wasn't for my friend to convert me to Christianity. Because that wasn't happening. It also clearly was't for me to convert my friend to atheism. That wasn't happening either. But I did feel a strong sense that we were meant to bring SOMETHING to each others lives, the way we had entangled ourselves in other's beliefs.
And what came to me, with a power that I am confident is almost exactly what any religious prophet has experienced, was that I exist in my friend's life to teach him about Zoroastrianism, the world's first monotheistic religion that had a strong influence on Judaism and later Christianity. Zoroastrianism has pretty much all the major features of Christianity, except worded in such a way that there are no glaring contradictions or absurdities that makes Christianity seem so baffling to me. And because it was the first of the religions, it seems to me far more likely to actually be true (even if, for me, "far more likely" means something like .01% instead of 0%).
I was actually excited and a little scared when this struck me, because I suddenly had a clear sense of what it must be like to experience revelation. I told my friend "Wait I think I just realized something" and explained my experience. And he basically said "No, it's my religion or nothing."
That was the last moment where I could have conceivably become religious. My friend, in his zeal to advocate his particular religion, basically ruined it. If he wasn't going to treat my religious experience seriously, why should I take his?
One of the tenants of Zoroastrianism is that God is NOT omnipotent. I decided to give Ormahzed a chance to communicate with me. I waited a few days, seriously making an attempt to pray and see if any kind of sign would come.
After 3 days, I decided that even if Ormahzed for some reason couldn't send me such a signal, I couldn't spend my whole life waiting for one. I knew from the Subway experience that moments of insight and mysterious signs didn't have to be religious in nature, and if I waited around forever eventually I'd probably experience something random that I'd misinterpret. Since then, the only religious experience I will accept as valid is the actual appearance of a miraculous entity, either appearing directly to me or in such a way that mainstream scientists cannot ignore it.
There's a little more (relating to the "feeling God's presence aspect), but I think this post is long enough and can justify my point - I've underwent most aspects of the "religious experience," not necessarily in a religious framework but in a way that I can imagine what it would be like to undergo all of them at the same time, or have them happen to me when a parent or missionary was there to reinforce them. If that happened, I can easily see myself believing them in a way that I would have difficulty abandoning. But it wouldn't make me correct.
[ March 06, 2010, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Tenets.
But otherwise, great post. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
tenets? Huh?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A tenant is someone who lives somewhere. A tenet is a core belief.
Unless she has a very strange name, I doubt "God is NOT omnipotent" is a tenant of anyone Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Ah, gotcha. (I think I shall leave the error there for posterior)
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Posterior is a worthy cause indeed.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(and yes, that part was intentional)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:1) How did you in particular arrive at your faith (Also, I'm assuming you're Mormon but I don't remember for sure).
Study, prayer, and obedience, mostly. A couple charismatic (read: crazy emotionally and intellectually intense experiences) cap it off. But for the most part, living the commandments that I believe in, and studying the scriptures for enlightenment is the foundation of my faith.
quote:Is there a "typical" experience that most people you communicated with as a missionary went through that you could summarize?
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. Like...what elements are typical to see in a conversion to Mormonism?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I'm saying that we need to be able to recognize the different between reasoned belief and faith based belief. I find that to be important.
What do you think is the difference?
Seriously? It's as simple as the difference between the reasoned belief that there will be snow on the ground tomorrow because it snowed today. Faith based belief could be believing that I will see my grandmother again after I die. Those being the most simple terms- the more complex being the difference between belief in say, democracy (that is, a belief based in observation and the examination of evidence of success as well as alternatives) and faith in democracy, being the belief that democracy will solve the world's problems eventually, despite it never having done so in the past, and showing no signs of accomplishing that goal in the near future.
The difference is in the definitions I quoted. One is a view based more closely on experience, and the other is a view less easily substantiated (or wholly unsubstantiated) by evidence or experience.
You know, I don't really know why I'm bothering to go into this amount of detail here. The onnus is really not on me to prove the words are different, or that the concepts are different. They clearly are. Your position is the minority position. So in what way are faith and belief synonymous? Why can they be always taken as equivalents? If not, why not?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One is a view based more closely on experience, and the other is a view less easily substantiated (or wholly unsubstantiated) by evidence or experience.
I don't think your dictionary extract proves what you think it proves, Orincoro.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. Like...what elements are typical to see in a conversion to Mormonism?
Just after asking that question I gave a lengthy description of experiences that various Christians had had that led them to or re-affirmed their faith, and then I went on to discuss various experiences I have had that were similar. The focus of the question was "how relevant were any of the experiences I just discussed to the experiences that you have found to be common?"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:One is a view based more closely on experience, and the other is a view less easily substantiated (or wholly unsubstantiated) by evidence or experience.
I don't think your dictionary extract proves what you think it proves, Orincoro.
:long rant about you being a dick:
Go stick your head in a bucket if you don't care to even allow others to define their terms of speech. Brat.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Orin, I'm pretty sure even your significantly shortened post constitutes a TOS violation. I'm also pretty sure you could find a way to adequately express your frustration without making yourself look like the immature one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:stick your head in a bucket if you don't care to even allow others to define their terms of speech. Brat.
Except generally speaking, we DON'T define our own terms of speech when talking with other people. If I say that copacetic really means "unacceptable" when you're talking with me, why in the world should you be inclined to accept that definition?
Like I said, maybe you need a time out...
quote:The focus of the question was "how relevant were any of the experiences I just discussed to the experiences that you have found to be common?"
Lots of people I met had similar experiences, so, yes, I suppose those experiences are relevant to their faith. But consider: you had 2 disparate and unrelated experiences. Religious folks may have many many more such experiences, more consistently and more frequently.
Showing that you had similar experiences doesn't invalidate religious reasoning.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Scott, stop. just stop. Stop baiting me, stop playing the stupid goddamn game you always play. No response necessary, just stop.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not likely to let you redefine common terms, Orincoro. Maybe you could explain why you think that's a prerogative you should be allowed.
EDIT: "Let you" is the wrong term. I'm unlikely not to challenge the redefinition of common words.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Scott, seriously, you are being petulant. I outlined several cases within a religious discussion where it was valuable (and common)to have different definitions of faith and belief. Did you read it at all?
You are the one who is trying to enforce a minority definition. Even ignoring that, you're not letting someone define or clarify their own terms, which is an important part of debate. I'm approaching the point where I write you off as yet another troll on this forum.
(Not quite edited in time)
[ March 07, 2010, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Scott, the second you stop acting like an arrogant ****head is the second I start engaging with you again. Now is not the time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What definition do you think I'm trying to enforce?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
...you know what, I'm done too.
I'm not sure whether you are deliberately trolling or just hopelessly ignorant but this isn't worth my time until someone else returns to the discussion. I had actually been hopeful for a moment we might be getting something worthwhile done here.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Scott, the second you stop acting like an arrogant ****head is the second I start engaging with you again. Now is not the time.
I really don't see what the problem is. You wanted to define belief and faith as somehow separate, non-synonymous terms. But they are synonymous, and most people use faith and belief interchangeably. Even the dictionary example you pointed out implied this point.
SO... come back whenever you like, Orincoro.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm not sure whether you are deliberately trolling or just hopelessly ignorant
I vote for hopelessly ignorant.
Shoot. No poll function on Hatrack.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Is there anyone else still following this? I really did feel for a brief moment hope this discussion might go somewhere worthwhile. In particular I was hoping for a theist to comment on the lengthy explanation of my own religious journey or lack thereof on the previous page.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You wanted to define belief and faith as somehow separate, non-synonymous terms. But they are synonymous...
Scott, have you never had a philosophical conversation? I ask this because you seem to be unfamiliar with the utility of maintaining a distinction between two terms that are lazily used as synonyms in order to address elements of the one definition that are absent in the other. It's quite common, and was explicitly what Orincoro was doing. Would you like me to explain why this is an accepted practice in this sort of conversation?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Hey Raymond. I was following. Only jumping in because you asked.
I liked your almost religious journey. Not sure why you reached the conclusion you did. Just because your friend wasn't receptive enough to fathom the depth of your experience doesn't mean that you should have turned yourself off to perhaps altering your perspective.
Not sure why you chose to test out Zoroastrianism. I think there is actually a lot of scholarly debate as to whether or not Zoroastrianism heavily influenced Judaism or Judaism heavily influenced Zoroastrianism, though, as with Christianity, I can see both being true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Scott, you are being seriously obstructive to having a constructive conversation, here. Just as you usually are, to be sure, which is why I rarely bother with you. But since it seems you're unaware of it, or at least pretending to be unaware, perhaps another note telling you so will be helpful.
On a different point, you never responded to my question on how you justify beliefs you can't articulate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, although there is significant overlap between words like "faith", "belief", and "knowledge", it would be helpful to this conversation if, for the purposes of this conversation, we could agree to more specific definitions.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(Primarily directed at Armoth)
The third experience worth mentioning (I left off before due to brevity concerns) is that I have an active imagination and spent a lot of time during childhood by myself. Whenever I wanted to talk to someone and there wasn't anybody there, I'd just carry on a conversation with an imaginary version of a friend.
This is a habit that I've maintained to this day. Early on, it basically consisted of monologuing, the only difference being that I was imagining a particular friend doing the listening. Generally I pretended they just agreed with whatever I was saying.
Over time that started to feel unrealistic. I'd say something, and then get a feeling like the person I was talking to would have disapproved of what I'd just said, and I'd try to come up with another way to word it or maybe even change my opinion if I thought their (presumed, imaginary) disapproval was warranted.
Effectively all this was was me working out my own problems, but I was doing it through the lens of having other people to talk to about it.
I'm also a writer-ish (more of a storyteller in general, whatever medium I'm using) so a lot of times I carry out scenes in my head between two characters. While I'm doing that, I'm submerged in the role of the two characters. I'll imagine one character saying something, and then immediately, as the other character, I'll think of a retort that isn't necessarily something that I personally would really say, but character I'm envisioning would do so naturally.
The above example is actually why I don't have the logical problem with the idea of the Trinity that a lot of atheists do - I know what it's like to be two different people at once while still being a third person who created both of them, and if I had unlimited intelligence and imagination I think I'd do a far better job of it. But the extent to which I can feel like I'm getting a response from an entity that I know perfectly well doesn't exist makes me suspicious of those who claim to have conversations with God.
Finally (this is a related but separate point) I frequently have dreams that reflect whatever I'm currently obsessing over. I also find that my dreams tend to be structured in a cinematic manner that reflects my focus on storytelling in real life. I assume based on conversations with other friends that everyone's dreams to tend to reflect what they are interested and passionate about, and will likely be structured in ways similar to how they structure most of their thinking. (I am constantly looking for stories and ways to connect disparate "plot elements" in the real world together, and I like it when life experiences translate into a beginning, middle and end)
So to recap, I have experienced:
1) a sudden appearance of signs an portents that guided me in my life 2) a moment of clarity in which a divine plan felt "revealed" to me, which I don't feel that I consciously chose - it simply came to me fully formed. 3) the ability to carry on in depth conversations with people that don't exist 4) potent narrative dreams that reflect whatever I'm currently spending a lot of time thinking about.
None of these things had to do with each other. And none of these things are directly identical to what any theist that I know personally has told me. But they are all very clearly related to the experiences that theists have described. They are also all things obviously influenced by my own life - I play Magic a lot, I studied Zoroastrianism and I only have fake conversations with versions of people I personally know that I want to have a real conversation with.
If, growing up, I had been encouraged to have conversations with God instead of friends from school, and told that it was a real conversation, if religious teachings had been more important to my life and I looked more actively for signs and portents of a religious nature, and if that moment of clarity had related to a religion I was already predisposed to believe in, I would no doubt have a very hard time saying "all these things, no matter how real and important they seem to me, are simply fictional."
The reason I didn't try for more than three days to find some kind of religious truth is that the longer I spent waiting and trying and focusing on it, the more likely I was to receive a "false positive" - a spiritual sign that was the product only of my own imagination and current focus on religion.
I didn't give up on religion because one particular friend was narrow minded. I gave up because I realized (in a direct, personal experience way instead of an abstract academic way like I had before) that it is very easy to find the kinds of signs that the religious ascribe significance to without them having any significance at all.
It is also possible to do so without being mentally ill - I consider myself a mentally healthy individual, but all it would have taken to make me a more religious person than I am is for the experiences I have already had to align in a slightly different way.
And I'd note that I HAVEN'T completely given up. If an angel shows up tomorrow and performs miracles right in front of me, I'll certainly be open to persuasion. But the kinds of signs that most adult theists described to me are indistinguishable from tricks of the mind.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
You're 100 percent right. The biggest obstacle to my own faith is identifying that these same things that are present in religion are present in many superstitious cults, or even in day-to-day experiences and are not divine.
As such, I've rooted them out of my own religious thought. The more I've come to study my own religion, the more I realize that these spiritual self-deceptions are not at all a part of my religion. My religion is founded on knowledge, and it is not based on "searching with your heart", "intense emotional and intellectual searches", frenzied introspective encounters that self-deceptively lead toward the predetermined, desired, destination of faith.
But what has kept me wary of Atheism is that there is as much self-deception and human flaw that is found among atheism and that makes it attractive to the lazy thinker in me, and repulsive to the more clear part of me.
It is common that atheists are reactive, elitist, and use their atheism as a platform to hoist themselves up onto a pedestal. (Everything I'm about to say is in the general sense and I don't believe to be true about all atheists:) Many are ignorant as to the truths about religion, and limit their search for truth to learning from other religionists - which is unfortunate, because the average religionist is ignorant and practices with the flaws you mentioned above. An atheist doesn't choose to be an agnostic engaged in a search, they specifically choose to be atheistic, claiming to be fully-formed in their thought, having reached the conclusion of their search. I know my friends who were in engaged in a search and so happily grabbed on to Dawkins and his argument about how we're all atheists, Thor-Atheists, etc. He equated the search for God to be similar to that of the search for the truth of Zeus - a false parallel that formerly agnostic, now atheists clung to so that they could climb the latter of condescension and don an identity when they may have felt loss and cut-off.
Psychological flaws, self-deception, it's rampant in both camps. Atheists have a cosmetic leg-up in this realm because many religionists claim that closing your eyes, squinting real tight, is a valid form of truth-seeking. But that doesn't mean anything in terms of the real answer to the God question.
What I'm trying to say is that the conclusion to your distaste shouldn't be setting the evidence bar at a miracle or direct communication - that's not exactly an honest way at the answer. If you are truly interested, the information for the real foundations of faith (again, using the Jewish definition where faith means loyalty to what you know to be true, not "belief" for the sake of leaping or whatever)is out there. Go and study, if you like.
Nachmanidies, one of the greatest Jewish Biblical and Talmudic commentaries (13th century) writes in his commentary on Exodus that God wasn't interested in bringing a miracle to each generation. But if you study the Bible, God didn't shy away from revealing Himself to the people. Not just through miracles. The generation of the exodus experienced the 10 plagues, the splitting of the see, manna from the heavens, pillars of fire and clouds of protection...The generations after, until the destruction of the first temple experienced other miracles, great and small, all confirming to all, the existence of God. Additionally, the generation of the exodus heard God speak to them - He revealed Himself to them and they were all prophets. Again, Judaism is unique in this mass revelation - where all other faiths begin with one prophet, Judaism begins with a generation of prophets. A much harder story to fabricate and to sell to people: "Your dad was a prophet, remember? Oh, he didn't tell you? Believe me, he was...check out my book, it's called the Bible..."
Part of Judaism is that this entire world is really about a relationship with God. And I mean that word, "relationship" in the heavy sense - with all the depth of a romantic relationship between husband and wife, the undying love between parent and child, the great understanding of friends, and the euphoria of partnership. God's relationship with mankind is also a part of the long-view and not just the detail of our generation. And Nachmanidies points out that God revealed Himself to the earlier generations - the struggle of their relationship was less about seeing God, and more about what to do in a world where God is always in your face. Will you "hide" from Him, because He is too much? Will your selfish desire to express yourself and not see yourself as a part of a relationship win-out? And those generations need to be studied in that light. But the relationship of later generations is one in which we are expected to be honest - to relate to Him through the world, to see Him in it, even though He appears to be hidden. To remain loyal to a God who was with us so blatantly in generations past...
And in my own struggles - I can tell you from an atheists point of view, how "convenient" my religious philosophy is. I relate to God through finding Him in the word and relying on the evidence of His presence in the past. I've romanticized the search and it blinds me. Yea. I get that that is a possibility.
But I'll tell you on the other hand how much of a hard time I have obligating myself to the realities that I know exist. How I can't stick to a diet. I can't exercise when I know it's right for me. How I can't be honest when I always want to be. How I can't be kind even though I know it's in everyone's best interest that I be kind. And how I only question my faith with the analysis mentioned in the last paragraph when I'm failing to adhere to the religion that I've come to the conclusion is true.
It gives me great pause to know how badly we don't want to be cognitively dissonant. How we hate to live in contradiction - so we either try to bring our actions to adhere to the truth, or we chuck our definition of the truth and choose a new one. I've seen so many people do the latter - and so I pour enormous amounts of effort into living with the dissonance, so that one day, when I'm ready, I can bring my actions to align with what I believe to be true rather than changing my definition of truth to align with my behavior - the ultimate dishonesty.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that, although there is significant overlap between words like "faith", "belief", and "knowledge", it would be helpful to this conversation if, for the purposes of this conversation, we could agree to more specific definitions.
A careful separation between "conclusions which are adequately supported by evidence and reason" and "conclusions which are not so supported" would make it impossible to engage in the fallacy of equivocation. Apparently, Scott is not willing to have a discussion without this fallacy being at his disposal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:In particular I was hoping for a theist to comment on the lengthy explanation of my own religious journey or lack thereof on the previous page.
I commented.
quote:you never responded to my question on how you justify beliefs you can't articulate.
I'm not sure you can. But that may be a consequence of the adherent's ability-- it doesn't say anything about the validity of the belief itself.
Witness various efforts at convincing people of global warming or evolution: the fact that these things have been so poorly communicated doesn't remove the fact that they're...fact.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Orincoro, however justified you feel your response may be, it's not acceptable here, even as a response to (what you perceive as) obtuseness or baiting. Please refrain from using abusive language.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:you never responded to my question on how you justify beliefs you can't articulate.
I'm not sure you can. But that may be a consequence of the adherent's ability-- it doesn't say anything about the validity of the belief itself.
Witness various efforts at convincing people of global warming or evolution: the fact that these things have been so poorly communicated doesn't remove the fact that they're...fact.
You have to be kidding. Scientists can articulate their claims. You are claiming that you can't.
You are equivocating between different meanings of "communicate". It is patheticlaly transparant.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:you never responded to my question on how you justify beliefs you can't articulate.
I'm not sure you can. But that may be a consequence of the adherent's ability-- it doesn't say anything about the validity of the belief itself.
Witness various efforts at convincing people of global warming or evolution: the fact that these things have been so poorly communicated doesn't remove the fact that they're...fact.
You have to be kidding. Scientists can articulate their claims. You are claiming that you can't.
You are equivocating between different meanings of "communicate". It is patheticlaly transparant.
I don't think it's pathetically transparent...
I understood him to say that his experience, though difficult to communicate, should not have any bearing on whether or not his experience is true. He drew an imperfect analogy to scientists and global warming. The process may not be the same, but just because it is difficult to convey, doesn't make it suspect for being false.
Nothing pathetic about his reasoning.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:you never responded to my question on how you justify beliefs you can't articulate.
I'm not sure you can. But that may be a consequence of the adherent's ability-- it doesn't say anything about the validity of the belief itself.
Witness various efforts at convincing people of global warming or evolution: the fact that these things have been so poorly communicated doesn't remove the fact that they're...fact.
You have to be kidding. Scientists can articulate their claims. You are claiming that you can't.
You are equivocating between different meanings of "communicate". It is patheticlaly transparant.
I don't think it's pathetically transparent...
I understood him to say that his experience, though difficult to communicate, should not have any bearing on whether or not his experience is true.
No. You can't possibly identify truth without a robust system of detecting untruths. And in order to catch an untruth, you have to be able to examine your idea. How do you intend to examine an idea that you can't articulate?
Ah, of course, you and Scott have a perfect way that works all the time, you are just unable to articulate what it is. How convenient.
quote:He drew an imperfect analogy to scientists and global warming.
Blatent fallacies are not accurately described as "imperfect analogies".
You can't possibly read the text you cited and conclude that "articulation" and "convincing irrational people" are remotely the same thing, yet Scott's argument equates them.
That's transparent. That such a transparant equivocation was the best argument he could make is pathetic.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
1)I did not say that my system is anything close to that of Scott (it's not). You were just being a little rough with him and I figured I'd lend a hand.
2)Truth is detected by a person's interaction with the world. Ultimately, each person decides for himself what he believes to be true. In the same way that nothing is provable, our existence is not even provable, we set our own standards for what we assume so strongly to be true that we don't even question it anymore.
I assume so strongly that I am speaking to another human being, and not hallucinating this interaction.
Perhaps Scott has a way to reach an emotional/intellectual frenzied state and he becomes a prophet. In that state, the information he receives and the feeling he has is unique and indescribable, but it simply "feels" true. He is unequivocal about that, it "feels" true. You may not feel the way he feels, but the point is, because he had the experience and he defines it as a valid measure of truth - you can't say that it isn't true just because you didn't experience it, and just because he can't make you feel what he felt.
3) Scott doesn't equate the two in their entirety. He just demonstrates that just like it would be invalid to disprove Global warming because it is difficult to convey, it is invalid to attack his reasoning for that reason.
4) Check your ego at the door. No one wants to read you being a jerk to someone just because you disagree with him. I've seen many theists on this forum engage in self-deception. We all engage in self deception. If it suits your argument to point it out, point it out. But don't be a jerk about it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Scott doesn't equate the two in their entirety. He just demonstrates that just like it would be invalid to disprove Global warming because it is difficult to convey, it is invalid to attack his reasoning for that reason.
I think Scott is saying that global warming is no less factual simply because a certain person can't convey it very well. Not that global warming is necessarily difficult to convey. He said "witness various efforts" and I took that to mean that there are people who try and convince others of the truth of global warming, but don't have the skills to do so accurately, and he drew a parallel between that and a religious adherent's ability to fully articulate his beliefs. That doesn't strike me as false at all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:points at PSI Teleport's post:
Yep.
All:
I should have paid more attention to Orincoro's overall point. While I don't concede I was being..."obstructionist," I probably wasn't giving his argument due consideration.
My apologies.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I didn't give up on religion because one particular friend was narrow minded. I gave up because I realized (in a direct, personal experience way instead of an abstract academic way like I had before) that it is very easy to find the kinds of signs that the religious ascribe significance to without them having any significance at all.
I agree with this point that it is very easy to ascribe significance to things that don't really have any significance. When it comes to religion, it's clear by looking at things objectively that there's almost no way of really knowing we haven't completely fooled ourselves.
But what I've come to conclude is that this isn't just true for religion; its true for almost everything complicated - politics, interpersonal relationships, right and wrong, parenting, anything. We know its very easy to be convinced of something that isn't true. Given this, I think a degree of skepticism must ultimately be balanced with a degree of trust in oneself. I don't think its best to go around saying "I could easily be wrong, so I won't believe it". I think its better to say "I might be wrong, so I will keep an open mind for new information, but until something makes me judge things to be different than they seem to me to be now I will trust what I believe."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Given this, I think a degree of skepticism must ultimately be balanced with a degree of trust in oneself.
And, apparently, skepticism in others, since you haven't concluded that all those Mormons going around bearing their testimony are correct about God.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
But with politics and interpersonal relationships, there are identifiable results that you can look at and and change your mind based on. Even if you've become emotionally attached to one particular worldview, there are measures you can take to keep yourself grounded. If you are basing religion off of nothing but inner feelings, then you have no such mechanism for self correction.
@Armoth - I will be replying to that eventually but I keep not having time to sit and read the whole thing with my full attention.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But what I've come to conclude is that this isn't just true for religion; its true for almost everything complicated - politics, interpersonal relationships, right and wrong, parenting, anything. We know its very easy to be convinced of something that isn't true. Given this, I think a degree of skepticism must ultimately be balanced with a degree of trust in oneself.
But you don't "balance" at all! What you clearly mean by this is "When it comes to things I deeply want to be true, I throw away skepticism". You've already admitted that other people should not trust themselves if they beleive certain things (like that Christians can drink poison and live), so what, besides your egoism, makes you different from them?
quote:I don't think its best to go around saying "I could easily be wrong, so I won't believe it". I think its better to say "I might be wrong, so I will keep an open mind for new information, but until something makes me judge things to be different than they seem to me to be now I will trust what I believe."
In order for that scheme to work you have to be able to articulate exactly what information would cause you to change your conclusions, and then you have to go look for it. You can't do that, and you never will.
Once again, let me apply your exact reasoning to a specific case, and we'll see if you actually believe your argument:
I don't think its best to go around saying "I could easily be wrong about my conclusion that that old woman killed her neighbor's cow with witchcraft, so I won't believe it". I think its better to say "I might be wrong about that witch, so I will keep an open mind for new information (like what she'll say after I torture her for hours), but until something makes me judge things to be different (and more cow deaths after her death won't count, because there might be more witches) than they seem to me to be now I will trust what I believe."
I don't think its best to go around saying "I could easily be wrong about my conclusion it's God's will that Tres's child be treated with prayer alone, therefore, I'll use the treatment that evidence predicts will cure her". I think its better to say "I might be wrong about God's plan so I will keep an open mind for new information (like waiting to see if my deeply held feeling changes), but until something makes me judge things to be different than they seem to me to be now (God's plan may be that the child should die, so that changes nothing if it happens) I will trust what I believe."
Is this really how you think people ought to behave and justify their actions?
Theists, I'm sorry, but there is no way for you to justify your nicey-nice deeply held wishes on the basis of their sincerity alone without justifying sincere horrors. So stop justifying atrocities already.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tresopax:
Theists, I'm sorry, but there is no way for you to justify your nicey-nice deeply held wishes on the basis of their sincerity alone without justifying sincere horrors. So stop justifying atrocities already.
Please elaborate. What are you talking about? When were theists justifying atrocities?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Um, any atrocity committed in the name of religion ever? Inquisition, crusades, 9/11, to name the first ones that come to my mind, let alone smaller scale stuff. Not to mention that swbarnes includes witchcraft and faith-healing for children who desperately need real medicine.
Theists in this thread have not been doing advocating these things. The point is that other people have used the exact same reasoning presented by people in this thread to do terrible things. If your reasoning can result in such things, you should rethink your reasoning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Justifying atrocities would be a great example of choosing bad stuff. Again, if someone chooses to justify atrocities, (and it is perfectly possible to do that without religion, too) that is on them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
I should have paid more attention to Orincoro's overall point. While I don't concede I was being..."obstructionist," I probably wasn't giving his argument due consideration.
My apologies.
Accepted. I apologize for being impatient, as usual.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Justifying atrocities would be a great example of choosing bad stuff. Again, if someone chooses to justify atrocities, (and it is perfectly possible to do that without religion, too) that is on them.
This is totally missing the point. If the process by which you justify atrocities (or any particular kind of "bad stuff") is identical to the process by which you justify good stuff, how can you tell the difference? Especially given that, with some frequently, people use the method Tres has described to derive their moral framework in the first place.
To the person who chooses faith healing or witchburning, they appear to be choosing the good stuff. They are simply doing what their gut tells them to. In the case of faith healing, there have been some interviews showing families whose child died, and they still thought that faith healing was the right thing to do, that the charlatan who tricked them was still a good man, and that it was all part of God's plan, or that they simply didn't pray hard enough. They didn't go out and say "hey, let's choose to use our gut inner feelings to derive an absolutely terrible idea!" They did what they felt was right.
Until you provide some concrete examples of what the good stuff is and how you can tell, I cannot take you remotely seriously on this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Really? You can't tell good stuff from bad without a "process"?
It isn't about the process; it is about the result.
You seem to be under the impression that faith precludes using other "processes" as well. It doesn't. A person of faith can be perfectly capable of using reason and science and evidence as well as far as they go. Some things are beyond using those tools; there I use faith.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. That was a little snarky. Here is an example of the process I would use if someone told me that God wanted me to do X.
Who is telling me? Do I trust them? Does X seem reasonable and good given everything I have so far experienced about reasonable and good? How does it fit with the original premiss that God is good? Let's see what God really had to say on the matter. Study scripture, check the context, read, check other sources. Do I trust those sources? Pray, think, study some more.
Something like that.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Really? You can't tell good stuff from bad without a "process"?
No, because anything at all can fall under a person's judgment as to what "God's plan" is. And following God's plan has to be "good stuff", right?
quote:It isn't about the process; it is about the result.
Right, and what better result could there be than to "convince" someone to renounce heresy, for example? Go read the first page of the board abotu the Pearls. Those people were aiming for what they thought of as good results. They thought that raising their chidren according to those religious priciples was "good stuff".
quote:You seem to be under the impression that faith precludes using other "processes" as well. It doesn't. A person of faith can be perfectly capable of using reason and science and evidence as well as far as they go.
Think of reason and evidence as driving with headlights. If someone tells you that there's this great place to drive to at night, but you can't use your headlights, you shouldn't try it. It's just a bad idea, someone is going to get hurt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Really? You can't tell good stuff from bad without a "process"?
No, because anything at all can fall under a person's judgment as to what "God's plan" is. And following God's plan has to be "good stuff", right?
Only if we know what that is and clearly we get that wrong all the time.
quote:
quote:It isn't about the process; it is about the result.
Right, and what better result could there be than to "convince" someone to renounce heresy, for example? Go read the first page of the board abotu the Pearls. Those people were aiming for what they thought of as good results. They thought that raising their chidren according to those religious priciples was "good stuff".
And they were wrong.
quote:
quote:You seem to be under the impression that faith precludes using other "processes" as well. It doesn't. A person of faith can be perfectly capable of using reason and science and evidence as well as far as they go.
Think of reason and evidence as driving with headlights. If someone tells you that there's this great place to drive to at night, but you can't use your headlights, you shouldn't try it. It's just a bad idea, someone is going to get hurt.
Who says I can't use my headlights? Why not? You seem to think having faith means I can't use headlights but it doesn't mean that at all.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The point is that other people have used the exact same reasoning presented by people in this thread to do terrible things. If your reasoning can result in such things, you should rethink your reasoning.
Consider...
Person A: "The candidate with the most votes should win an election." Person B: "Not so. What if the majority are Nazis, and the candidate with the most votes is Hitler? That would result in an atrocity! Therefore the candidate with the most votes should not win elections."
See the problem in person B's argument here?
There are rules that usually give the best result, but don't always give the best result. If you try hard, you can think of many instances where it fails to give a good result, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad rule. The fact that it is possible to come up with instances where trusting your judgement in making beliefs will lead you to a horrible mistake does not imply that in general it is the wrong way to think.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
There are rules that usually give the best result, but don't always give the best result.
In real life, there are virtually no rules that always give the best result. Therefore, you should stick with the ones that are most likely to do so.
quote:The fact that it is possible to come up with instances where trusting your judgement in making beliefs will lead you to a horrible mistake does not imply that in general it is the wrong way to think.
What makes irrational thinking in general inferior to reason and evidence is that reason and evidence do a good job of catching mistakes. Irrational and religoius thinking do a terrible job at it.
Tres, you seem to be arguing that because human reason isn't perfect, that anything widly irrational can't be a worse way to think. Hence your repeated claim that one's belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is no less "faith-based" than a belief that Jesus died and was resurrected. It's just not true.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Please don't lump theists together.
On multiple threads, I've striven to make my perspective known as different from that of Kmb.
I do believe that it is the process that is important. Our intuition, our perspective on "result" is flawed, often biased by emotion or desire. Emphasis on process, an honest process, leads one to truth. Truth may be ugly, but at least it is real.
I reached my religious conclusions through process. In fact, I tell young Jews whom I know that before God, comes intellectual honesty. If you cannot find God through honesty, then to be religious is a lie.
As for justification of religious evils, we've addressed this on the forum many times. Here are a number of answers:
1) It isn't religion that is the cause of violence and war, it is passion. Our desire to fight for something to believe in something so powerfully that we fight for it, is a very human desire. We aren't good with "happily ever after" we always seek to strive, to struggle, and to work for our happiness. We get obsessively passionate over football teams, and we'd die for our team just because we live in the state where they play. On a less ridiculous scale - Communism and Nazism were entirely secular, even anti-religious. Nationalism, Racism, etc.
2) I'd venture to say that most of the atrocities committed in the name of religion are actually human atrocities committed through ego, pride, a desire to oppress so as to raise oneself up, for politics and power - all prostituting religion to suit their own ends. I'd argue that most religious atrocities were not about God at all.
There are studies about witch persecution that explain that their persecution arose as a result of fears that existed at the time (of the elderly, of harvest, of disease) - religion was just an excuse. The same is true of persecution of Jews - the forced subservience of one culture, raises up another.
These are human flaws, not religious ones.
3)Ultimately, you are right. My conception of God is one in which I equate Him with all of existence. He isn't a glorified superhero to me, but He who perpetuates existence such that my fingers can type at these keys, and so that your eyes can follow the words on the screen. My interaction with the universe, with everything and everyone, to me, is an interaction with God. As I said above, I came to this understanding through a process - an intellectually honest one. As such, I define my morality, not "objectively" (a result - centered approach), but through God ( a process - centered one).
God, and the Torah, is a guide for every moral struggle I face. I don't follow my gut, but I follow the processes laid out in Judaism, which I believe are processes laid out by God.
If God asked me to commit an "atrocity" it wouldn't be an atrocity. I don't start off with the premise that Kmb does. Instead, I start off with the premise that God exists and that he perpetuates everything. When I smell fresh air, listen to music, or am just happy to be up in the morning, then I feel like I am having a relationship with God. When I stub my toe or when someone close to me dies, I am also having a relationship with God. In general, I feel that I have been given, that we have all been given a lot more good than we have been given evil. There is evil in the world - and the Bible and Talmud (or God's revelations to mankind) explain why and how we are supposed to deal with that. I am compelled by the explanations within, and understand and accept the pain I experience in this lifetime. As such, the ultimate good for me, is a relationship with God - the source of all good I've experienced in this world. So good for me is defined by what brings me close to God and what brings me far from Him.
If the scales ever tipped - If I felt that God caused too much pain, if the revelations in Bible and Talmud didn't exist, and if I lost the will to come close to a God who only brought pain - I'd no longer define "good" by my relationship with Him. But since I've identified Him as the source of all existence - in such a scenario, I'd wait to be smitten, since I know of no way of escaping God.
But in the world that currently exists, I still define good by relationship with Him. In Exodus, God tells Moses that he will wipe out nation of Israel (after the sin of the golden calf) and make a new nation from him. Moses doesn't say - "awesome, go ahead." - He argues. He tells God to erase him from His book. To Moses, it was an atrocity too great to bear, and so he challenged God. Not that it would help anything if he were shot down...
God didn't change His mind. He was testing Moses. Would Moses show His love for the nation of Israel? The point is - it's all about relationship. God's relationship with the world, with Moses, with Israel. He has proven that throughout history. With Abraham, God tested his loyalty. But in both cases, the result was good.
It's so complicated...I hate reducing all this to a post on hatrack, but maybe this gave you a glimpse of my life and my religion. I'm sure it's scary to interact with someone who powerfully believes in a force that is external and that has the ability to command him to commit "atrocities" in the name of religion. And unless you believe in the God that I do, nothing I say will comfort you. I guess the only thing that will is that my God hasn't commanded me to do anything that you would view as an atrocity. Actually, it's quite the opposite. the world would truly be a better place if I truly aligned my beliefs and actions, instead of merely vocalizing my faith.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Edited for proper pronoun usage.
I'd like to repeat something I said a while ago, the clarify what I'm actually arguing:
quote:kmbboots didn't clarify what her belief in God actually WAS, but I would say that if you are, for all practical purposes, defining God as an invisible friend who offers you encouragement and comfort, then you're fine. Possibly wrong, but not consequentially so.
If you're defining God as an entity that would ever influence you to actually change your actions on anything remotely important, then as swbarnes as notes, you are running a very grave risk.
Kmbboots seems to be saying that she already has a system to determine if something is good or not. If someone tells her God wants her to do something, and that something isn't good, then she doesn't do it.
Depending on how Kmbboots defines "good" in the first place, that might be fine. But if that's the case, then God is not an entity that actually influences your life - you already have a system by which to decide what actions to take and God's approval is merely a formality. As I said, it's if you rely on God to tell you whether something is good in the first place, that you are taking a grave risk.
I'd also note that once you've accepted the existence of the afterlife, you can justify pretty much any action ever so long as you honestly believe it is God's plan. If you choose faith healing and your child dies, you can rest assured that this was all for the best, that the child is now with God and that that was the plan all along. And there is nothing anyone can tell you to prove otherwise.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
There are rules that usually give the best result, but don't always give the best result.
In real life, there are virtually no rules that always give the best result. Therefore, you should stick with the ones that are most likely to do so.
quote:The fact that it is possible to come up with instances where trusting your judgement in making beliefs will lead you to a horrible mistake does not imply that in general it is the wrong way to think.
What makes irrational thinking in general inferior to reason and evidence is that reason and evidence do a good job of catching mistakes. Irrational and religoius thinking do a terrible job at it.
Tres, you seem to be arguing that because human reason isn't perfect, that anything widly irrational can't be a worse way to think. Hence your repeated claim that one's belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is no less "faith-based" than a belief that Jesus died and was resurrected. It's just not true.
Again, this isn't my approach. But is it possible that choosing to live a faith-based life, engaging in self-deception and living according to the romance of religion is a far more attractive easy and fulfilling life than living life as an atheist? Atheists also have to engage in a whole host of self deception and distraction to find their lives fulfilling as well. Religion have whole institutions and communities for that. Isn't it just easier to be religious?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Raymond, Boots is a she.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Atheists also have to engage in a whole host of self deception and distraction to find their lives fulfilling as well.
Such as?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Please don't lump theists together.
Well OK, but...
quote:Atheists also have to engage in a whole host of self deception and distraction to find their lives fulfilling as well.
Hrm.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Heh.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If God asked me to commit an "atrocity" it wouldn't be an atrocity.
I have to admit, you are one of a very small number of theists I have seen on these boards who is willing to own up to the consequences of their beliefs and arguments, even when those consequences are unpleasant and unpopular.
Things would be much simpler if the other theists would be so straightforward.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. She.
I could say that I know what good is because of God. Another question to ask is if the thing in question is consistent with what I have already experienced of God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If "God" asked me to commit an atrocity, it wouldn't be God.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not able to commit all that much time here, so my contributions are kinda limited.
So I'll just ask, how do atheists avoid justifying atrocities?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Some of them don't avoid it at all.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Edit: directed towards kmbboots.
What you have yet to explain is how you came to believe in God, and goodness, respectively. 3,000 years ago our moral schema was very different than it was today. If God asked people to commit what we'd now consider an "atrocity," nobody would even blink. How do you know that you're interpretation of goodness, or of God, is correct? And which came first, because when you say "I know God would want something because it is good" and "I know what good is because of God" you are sounding ludicrously circular.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Depends on the atheist. Me, I know that I am happiest when I am doing things that help other people. I also know I am happiest when other people are doing things that help me. Thirdly, I know from experience that I am more likely to be kind when I am inspired by others kindness and others are more likely to be kind in turn by my kindness.
The inverse of the above is similarly true. Acts of cruelty tend to beget other acts of cruelty.
So with all of that in mind, I find that I am best off if I am doing my personal best to make the world a better place for everyone in it. Atrocities make the world a worse place for everyone in it, so I generally try to avoid them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, you seem to be arguing that because human reason isn't perfect, that anything widly irrational can't be a worse way to think.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that because human reason isn't perfect, a rational person bases beliefs on their personal judgements of what is most likely to be true based on all the evidence (even the ambiguous evidence, such as hearsay) available to them. And I'm arguing a rational person should trust those beliefs as long as their personal judgement says those beliefs are best, while keeping an open mind towards new evidence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What if you (or some other atheist) find that committing atrocities makes you happy or that you find that committing atrocities would lead to what you see as a better world?
Historically, atheists haven't exactly been shy about committing atrocities and your moral reasoning seems to me that it can easily be used to justify committing them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course it is circular! If God is good by definition, than how could it not be circular?
Why is that a problem?
As far as how I came to believe in God? I don't remember. I do remember when I was maybe four or five reading a book about God or Jesus and recognizing what I already knew in a sort of ,"that's what we call this" kind of way. Possible that I picked up something from my parents though they didn't give us any formal religious training. They wanted us to choose for ourselves. Also possible that I picked up something from my great-aunts when I went to visit.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Historically, atheists haven't exactly been shy about committing atrocities and your moral reasoning seems to me that it can easily be used to justify committing them.
Those atheists tend to also be something-else-ists and it's the something else that drives the atrocities. Very little is done in the name of atheism itself.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@MrSquicky
Certainly, there are people who make that determination. On a smaller scale, there are people who think that shorted sighted greed and pleasure make them happy. Usually, however, I think those people are wrong - the harm they are inflicting or the pleasure they are seeking may grant them a superficial level of happiness, but the kinds of happiness that come from community, peace and kindness are longer lasting and more substantial.
By and large, the traits we have come to describe as "good" are considered good specifically because they improve the quality of the world. The question of whether people are inherently good or selfish is a false question. People are selfish, and goodness is in their best interest.
There are some people who either haven't bothered to try being "good" or who have unfortunately found themselves in a situation where goodness is punished (if you live in a violent, dangerous area, goodness may be taken advantage of to the point that whatever happiness you glean from it doesn't end up helping). There are also people who are just plain bad (psycopaths, etc). This is unfortunate, and the only thing we can do is encourage people who are on the wrong path to get onto the right one, and when necessary punish those who refuse to stop inflicting harm on others.
There is no particular evidence that "bad" people are more likely to arise in an atheistic setting. In fact, peace and prosperity have been found to be correlated with secularism.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Of course it is circular! If God is good by definition, than how could it not be circular?
Why is that a problem?
As far as how I came to believe in God? I don't remember. I do remember when I was maybe four or five reading a book about God or Jesus and recognizing what I already knew in a sort of ,"that's what we call this" kind of way. Possible that I picked up something from my parents though they didn't give us any formal religious training. They wanted us to choose for ourselves. Also possible that I picked up something from my great-aunts when I went to visit.
I wasn't talking about God, I was talking about your understanding of him. And yes, I absolutely have issues with such an important basis of anyone's morality to be derived from circular reasoning (i.e. blatantly illogical thinking).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Some people have pretty horrible ideas about how to improve the world and what is good. Community, peace and kindness are not universally admired.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
And I believe those people - whether they are atheists or not - are wrong. I said specifically it depended on the atheist. These are my beliefs, not necessarily anyone else's.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ray, I'm going to quote you here:
quote:The point is that other people have used the exact same reasoning presented by people in this thread to do terrible things. If your reasoning can result in such things, you should rethink your reasoning.
Haven't we agreed that this applies to your reasoning as well?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I have a problem with reasoning based on circular reasoning. If you are trying to build a foundation of an argument, and it is based in whole or in part on circular reasoning, it will not (at least to me) be convincing. Not in the slightest.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Historically, atheists haven't exactly been shy about committing atrocities and your moral reasoning seems to me that it can easily be used to justify committing them.
Those atheists tend to also be something-else-ists and it's the something else that drives the atrocities. Very little is done in the name of atheism itself.
While that's not all that relevant to what I'm getting at, I also don't think that it is true, really. The persecution of religious people under Communism seems pretty clearly atrocities done in the name of atheism.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Haven't we agreed that this applies to your reasoning as well?
My moral framework is derived from basic sense experience, evidence and logic. It is possible to derive a wrong moral framework from those things, yes. But it is significantly harder to do so than if you are relying on instinct and faith that cannot be checked by other people. It's also easier to make mistakes if you prefer to jump to any conclusion given a lack of evidence rather than admitting you do not know and leaving it at that. ESPECIALLY if you are then going to derive or refute other things based on the conclusion you reached without evidence.
I didn't say you should abandon any form of reasoning that can possibly produce bad results, simply that you should rethink it. It wasn't a particularly persuasive line, I admit. Faith based knowledge is not bad because it can produce wrong results, it is bad because it is more LIKELY to produce wrong results.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Faith based knowledge is not bad because it can produce wrong results, it is bad because it is more LIKELY to produce wrong results.
I don't think you have shown this.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The persecution of religious people under Communism seems pretty clearly atrocities done in the name of atheism.
You are disagreeing with my statement about the necessity for other "-isms" by citing one of those other isms?
My position is basically that of Sam Harris:
quote:People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
Perhaps I need a new label - adogmaist?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
MattP, is that from this speech?. I just listened to this yesterday. It's a great one.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's on a list of "10 myths about Atheism". It may be incorporated into one or more speeches. I haven't actually seen that speech.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I have a problem with reasoning based on circular reasoning. If you are trying to build a foundation of an argument, and it is based in whole or in part on circular reasoning, it will not (at least to me) be convincing. Not in the slightest.
Why do you think I am trying to convince you of anything? I don't have any intention of converting anyone nor do I think it would be a good thing. At best, I am trying to clear up some common misunderstandings.
Raymond, just like I believe certain theists are wrong. You may be dealing with "reason" and "evidence" still have some pretty subjective ideas about what is good and right.
MattP, do you think that "religious" wars are really fought over minute points of doctrine?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Atheists also have to engage in a whole host of self deception and distraction to find their lives fulfilling as well.
Such as?
This is a bit of a deep exercise to do on a forum. But what do you see as a the telos of your life? What do you live for? Work for?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Please don't lump theists together.
Well OK, but...
quote:Atheists also have to engage in a whole host of self deception and distraction to find their lives fulfilling as well.
Hrm.
Hahaha. I hear that...
It's definitely useful to lump. I just wanted to make sure I distinguished myself from Kmb.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If God asked me to commit an "atrocity" it wouldn't be an atrocity.
I have to admit, you are one of a very small number of theists I have seen on these boards who is willing to own up to the consequences of their beliefs and arguments, even when those consequences are unpleasant and unpopular.
Things would be much simpler if the other theists would be so straightforward.
Thanks. I hope you meant this as a compliment, and I will take it as such.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:MattP, do you think that "religious" wars are really fought over minute points of doctrine?
Did I say I thought they were? People go to battle "in the name of <deity/church/religious leader>" in a way that doesn't really have a parallel in atheism. "In the name of Stalin" invokes Communist ideology, not a mere lack of belief in God. "In the name of atheism" just sounds silly - you'll never see it as a battle cry.
Religions were persecuted when they challenged a power structure. The Communist purges affected anyone that was seen as a threat. An outspoken atheist humanist would have been killed just as quickly as a Christian priest.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The persecution of religious people under Communism seems pretty clearly atrocities done in the name of atheism.
You are disagreeing with my statement about the necessity for other "-isms" by citing one of those other isms?
My position is basically that of Sam Harris:
quote:People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
Perhaps I need a new label - adogmaist?
I think that the argument I'd make in response to this is that people want something to live for. We like to organize ourselves to become a part of a greater whole. Freud talked about this in Civilization and its Discontents. You may be adogmatic, but it is in our nature to unite behind something and stand for something. If it isn't religion it's something. We love our isms.
Many of our isms are productive, and beautiful. The way we unite to respond to tragedy - democracy - maybe even Capitalism (Read: American Dream). Our isms are only evil when they are fueled by human flaws - ego, pride, etc. It's not isms that are the problem, it's humanity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:This is a bit of a deep exercise to do on a forum. But what do you see as a the telos of your life? What do you live for? Work for?
My own satisfaction (the measure of which is not fixed). The happiness/betterment of friends, family, and community(broadly defined). That's pretty much it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Many of our isms are productive, and beautiful.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just noting that atheism, itself, is not a cause any more than theism is a cause. It takes quite a bit more than either to create an ideology that drives action, good or bad.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:This is a bit of a deep exercise to do on a forum. But what do you see as a the telos of your life? What do you live for? Work for?
The short answer is the pursuit of art and knowledge, and (ideally) to share them in a way that makes the world a better place. But honestly, this is not something I need to justify to you. I find my life fulfilling. You asserted that I need self deception and distraction to lead a fulfilling life. Surely you had a reason for that assertion?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:This is a bit of a deep exercise to do on a forum. But what do you see as a the telos of your life? What do you live for? Work for?
My own satisfaction (the measure of which is not fixed). The happiness/betterment of friends, family, and community(broadly defined). That's pretty much it.
1) Why do you care about the happiness of others? 2) why did you not say that you care about the happiness of "others" but instead of friends, family and community - is that in order? Do you care about the happiness of friends or family more than about my happiness? 3) If so, Why?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:1) Why do you care about the happiness of others?
I'm reasonably confident that it's a feature of our species. I can generate any number of post-hoc hypothesis for this (the golden rule, etc.), but not being the self-deceptive type , I won't pretend to know which of any of them are correct.
quote:2) why did you not say that you care about the happiness of "others" but instead of friends, family and community - is that in order?
Ditto. Like any social species, we tend to put primacy on familiarity. I'm defining community very broadly - as a progression from greater to lesser familiarity to myself. I include essentially every human being, though some are weighted more heavily than others.
quote:Do you care about the happiness of friends or family more than about my happiness?
Sure.
quote:3) If so, Why?
See #2
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:This is a bit of a deep exercise to do on a forum. But what do you see as a the telos of your life? What do you live for? Work for?
The short answer is the pursuit of art and knowledge, and (ideally) to share them in a way that makes the world a better place. But honestly, this is not something I need to justify to you. I find my life fulfilling. You asserted that I need self deception and distraction to lead a fulfilling life. Surely you had a reason for that assertion?
We don't have to engage in the exercise if you don't want to.
There are moments in life and in history where all seems meaningless. Earthquakes, wars, terrible tragedies, etc. I also know that we spend so much of our lives distracting ourselves, building our fortunes or entertaining ourselves. We need to lie to ourselves to make our lives meaningful, or else we'd cease to see purpose in existence. Cat's Cradle, Mad Men, etc.
But what do you mean by "make the world a better place?" - Is it to prevent disease, so that we live longer? Well, we all die eventually, is it that every moment of life is so precious and so we seek to extend our lives? Well, why is every moment of our lives so precious? Is it merely because our minds and bodies shout that they want to remain alive?
And if it is to make other people happy, see the post above.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:We need to lie to ourselves to make our lives meaningful, or else we'd cease to see purpose in existence.
I'm still not following. Can you provide an example of a way that I must lie to myself in order to make my life meaningful? I'm not able to make that leap based on your mention of earthquakes, wars, etc. I don't see how they have a bearing on the meaningfulness of life.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
So Matt, your answers are basically definitional.
You are happy when others are happy, because you are programmed as a species to be happy about this. This means that if you are not programmed this way, and you have a great time killing people, then your problem with this is that it gets in the way of what makes you happy.
But that doesn't matter to me as much as the why? If you were to think about things in a hardcore logical way, I think you'd find it to be meaningless. Why does the happiness of others matter? We will all die one day. We will probably all experience great pain. Why do you acre about a world that exists after you die? Is it all because you have this evolutionary feeling? Say you could overcome it. It's not exactly logic. It's just using human feelings as the baseline for what is happy and what is not. And by that logic, if religion makes you happy, you might as well be religious.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:We need to lie to ourselves to make our lives meaningful, or else we'd cease to see purpose in existence.
I'm still not following. Can you provide an example of a way that I must lie to myself in order to make my life meaningful? I'm not able to make that leap based on your mention of earthquakes, wars, etc. I don't see how they have a bearing on the meaningfulness of life.
Sure. I understand I'm not being clear. I think that when we are in our clearest state of mind, when we are able to keep all in perspective, then we find that things are not meaningful. I think that wars, earthquakes, they help us reach this clarity of perspective. We tend to fog this clarity with the distractions of our everyday struggles.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
The tension is that you're looking for some objective criterion for meaningfulness. The tendency to eschew the subjective (e.g. love of one's family etc) as giving meaning has its own pitfalls.
For one thing, in many cases the original pit has merely been delayed. If I find meaning in some movement, unless that movement is itself somehow objectively meaningful, I'm no better off.
Religion is a special case because you can basically say that God is the ultimate explanation. However we can still ask why it's meaningful for God that we live life in a particular manner. I'd like to hear your answer to this. The answers I've heard amount typically to us being incapable of comprehending the mind of God. Contrast MattP's answer: "Friends/Family/Loved ones give my life meaning; Why? Perhaps biological; don't really know" with this: "God gives my life meaning; Why is such a life meaningful to God? For reasons too profound for me to understand." I don't regard substituting "I don't know" with "Too complex to understand" as an improvement.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think that when we are in our clearest state of mind, when we are able to keep all in perspective, then we find that things are not meaningful.
This seems similar to saying "You don't really love your wife. You're just interpreting a complex machinery of chemical processes and biological proclivities as love." Yeah, that may be the case, but "love" is my shorthand for the experience regardless of its fundamental basis. Being unaware of, or unconcerned with, that basis doesn't indicate self deception, IMO.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We need to lie to ourselves to make our lives meaningful, or else we'd cease to see purpose in existence.
No. "Meaning" itself is something that I invent. It is not a lie to say that I have determined that something has meaning to me; in fact, I am the only person capable of doing so.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
This is coming several pages late but here it is:
Ornicoro: you're right, I have not participated in threads like these with much consistency or substance for several years and thus really don't have the right to call you out in your participation. I apologize. I will attempt to engage in these kinds of discussion with greater frequency and depth.
Hobbes Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Armoth, your own morality is just as vulnerable to the criticism you are making: Why should you care what your god wants? To obey it is just as arbitrary a choice as obeying primate instinct. This is not a critique of theism or of atheism; it can be applied to absolutely any moral framework whatsoever. The question "Why do you care about X?" is a Universally Valid Counterargument; no moralist has an answer to it, and consequently it does not actually weaken any morality.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Armoth, your own morality is just as vulnerable to the criticism you are making: Why should you care what your god wants? To obey it is just as arbitrary a choice as obeying primate instinct. This is not a critique of theism or of atheism; it can be applied to absolutely any moral framework whatsoever. The question "Why do you care about X?" is a Universally Valid Counterargument; no moralist has an answer to it, and consequently it does not actually weaken any morality.
Hey! Why aren't you trouncing about Italy and Norway with Queen of Men?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Armoth, your own morality is just as vulnerable to the criticism you are making: Why should you care what your god wants? To obey it is just as arbitrary a choice as obeying primate instinct. This is not a critique of theism or of atheism; it can be applied to absolutely any moral framework whatsoever. The question "Why do you care about X?" is a Universally Valid Counterargument; no moralist has an answer to it, and consequently it does not actually weaken any morality.
I think you're right and that I should revise my argument.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think most of the explanation I could have given has been made by others by this point. Like Tom, I do not find any inherent meaning in the universe - only meaning that make up myself. The only useful definition for "meaning" that I can think of is "things that matter to people." I'm a person. Some things matter to me, not necessarily for any particular reason.
I do art and learn things because I find learning and art fun and fulfilling.
My position on happiness and making the world a better place was pretty much covered by Matt (I also already explained some of it earlier on this page).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So do you think other people matter only insofar as they matter to you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm pretty sure they matter to themselves, too, and probably matter to other people as well.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The full explanation is more complex than that. I started to touch upon it and decided there wasn't a good way to do so without writing a lengthy dissertation. I'll try to strike a balance here.
I donate some money to Doctors without borders and Heifer International each year because yes, the people over in Africa and Haiti and whatnot do matter to me. I am a vegetarian and make an effort to conserve resources because animals and people in the future who I'll never meet matter to me. To some extent this is rational (insofar as I'd rather live in a world where people take care of each other). To some extent it is just a product of empathy combined with abstract reasoning and the means by which to contribute.
Regardless, there's a limit to how much time and money one can invest in distant, nameless faceless people without burning out. If everyone tried to divide their attention equally among distant suffering people, they won't have the time left over to take care of themselves and their loved ones. Self actualization and human connections are important for everyone's happiness. Connecting with and helping immediate family and friends also comes more natural to people than helping people on the other side of the world. While helping those distant people is important, I think we're most effective at improving the world if we focus first on the things we, as biological creatures, are most inclined to do.
Everyone has, through a combination of genetic and upbringing, a set of things they are good at and drawn to. I think it is in the world's best interest for people to do what they are best at. In some cases that means doctor or teacher or other professions that directly alleviate suffering and improve our quality of life. In other cases that means artists whose contribution to society is less quantifiable but nonetheless makes the world a beautiful place.
I also think that most people (and this certainly includes myself) could probably do more than they currently do to improve the world around them and in turn improve themselves. I don't blame them for not doing that, because, well, it's hard. I encourage myself and others (as much as I can without sounding like a holier-than-though know it all) to do better, but constantly comparing yourself to a perfect version of yourself doesn't necessarily help either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Armoth, your own morality is just as vulnerable to the criticism you are making: Why should you care what your god wants? To obey it is just as arbitrary a choice as obeying primate instinct. This is not a critique of theism or of atheism; it can be applied to absolutely any moral framework whatsoever. The question "Why do you care about X?" is a Universally Valid Counterargument; no moralist has an answer to it, and consequently it does not actually weaken any morality.
Hey! Why aren't you trouncing about Italy and Norway with Queen of Men?
Well, in fact I am. But the workshop is having a break at the moment, and the weather outside is not very sunny. In fact it's a soggy sort of sleet. So I'm glad enough to be sitting in a warm conference room.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Armoth, your own morality is just as vulnerable to the criticism you are making: Why should you care what your god wants? To obey it is just as arbitrary a choice as obeying primate instinct. This is not a critique of theism or of atheism; it can be applied to absolutely any moral framework whatsoever. The question "Why do you care about X?" is a Universally Valid Counterargument; no moralist has an answer to it, and consequently it does not actually weaken any morality.
I think you're right and that I should revise my argument.
This is well done. Not many posters here will just plain back down when they meet a convincing argument.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)