|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2007 : 19:33:41 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...but I think anyone who claims that a purely rationalist worldview results in anything other than agnosticism/negative atheism (opposed to positive or strong atheism) is fooling themselves about their own ulterior motives.
Well, um, fooling oneself is, uh, rather, erm... stupid... isn't it?
My criticism of the use of “stupid” was in a particular context. The context was the word “stupid” being used to describe any worldview which isn't rationalist. Above I say that someone who claims to have a rationalist worldview but then also comes to a conclusion other than agnosticism/weak atheism, is fooling themselves. Last time I checked, most religious groups do not claim to be rationalists. In fact, most claim to embrace a mixture of reason and other avenues for discovering truth (however less reliable or untestable those methods may be). Thus, the people I claimed to be “fooling themselves” are not the same group that Half originally called “stupid”.
In other words, I agree with you that fooling yourself is rather stupid, but contrary to what is implied by your forced hemming and hawing, my agreeing with that doesn't contradict my earlier critique of Half's use of “stupid”.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/17/2007 19:54:53 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2007 : 19:54:04 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: quote:
But I don't think it's inaccurate to say that we have the only provenly reliable method for determining truth. Special revelation, as you say (using your definition to include intuition, etc.), cannot make that claim.
Reason and science are indeed the most testable and reliable methods for determining facts. However, they fail us all the time, not because reason and science themselves are flawed (as far as we can tell), but because those who use them are often flawed. 20x64 might always equal 1280, but plenty of children might give a wrong answer to that question on a test. This is why experimental results must be repeatable. This is why old scientific discoveries that have withstood the test of time (such as the discovery that the world is round) are almost universally accepted by people in educated societies, but newer discoveries are much more easily ignored and religion and pseudo-science put in its place.
We atheists do make assumptions and many of us do base at least some of our atheism in intuition. We assume the trend of filling in the mysterious gaps in our understanding of the universe with consistent, naturalistic explanations will continue until either all is understood or humans go exist, whichever comes first. And when religious people point to something still unknown and say “God…” we say “Ha! God of the gaps!” But often in the face of a mystery, religious people do have some personal reason to believe in something supernatural or at least transcendent. It might be merely a feeling or dream or other subjective experience, but it is more than nothing, and in the face of nothing, any little something is sufficient for many. It has to be if there is ever to be intellectual progress. Even scientists have to start with hypothesis that are based on very little, if anything, before they can start seeking more solid evidence.
I would not defend someone who rejects time-tested, solid scientific evidence because of subjective religious experience or authority. I would agree with any skeptics who claim that such ideas are either ignorant or stupid or both. For example, I do think it is either stupid or ignorant for educated people to entirely reject the theory of evolution. But I do not think it is either stupid or ignorant to believe some sort of intelligent and supernatural force created everything and orchestrated evolution. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2007 : 19:56:19 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis wrote: quote:
So then the answer of who is right and who is wrong is a waste of good thinking power. No one could ever know, not even the original postulators.
and quote:
Thus, these things I would call stupid for wasting time and building foundations that are false.
I guess the same could be said of anything that involves thinking for the sheer fun of it. Is it stupid to enjoy art? Is it stupid to watch and then deeply discuss the film “Dumb and Dumber”?
You are probably thinking something along the lines of: No because art and entertainment don't make claims about the nature of reality, but religion does. And if you are thinking that, it is, IMHO, half of a good point.
I'm an atheist, so I think all religious beliefs are false. And yet, history and now evolutionary psychology strongly suggests that there is a reason for religious beliefs beyond it being some sort of side effect of self awareness. People can and often do take religion too far. They do so when they deny plain scientifically-proven facts. But religious belief in moderation seems to often function like a deception which serves a positive purpose.
I have a hard time trying to get this idea across to strict rationalists, but I keep thinking of this film with Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin called “Housesitter”. Not that this movie itself is all that great, but the premise is that the woman creates a whole fantasy life, and gets the guy involved with it. They both know the truth, but their friends and neighbors only know the lie. Originally the lies had the purpose of deceiving the friends and neighbors, but by the end, the lies became a psychological bridge for two people who would have never allowed themselves to fall in love, to be able to fall in love and stay together. Another example of this sort of self-deception is with memory and story-telling. My husband tends to exaggerate stories for the sake of making the story more entertaining. I have no doubt that from time to time his exaggerations have become part of the memory for him and for myself, to the point where we can no longer remember what parts were exaggerated. But since the exaggeration is so much more enjoyable, we don't bother trying to sort it all out.
What so many rationalists seem to not realize is that there is a huge percentage of believers who also hold a certain amount of doubt about their own beliefs. They essentially live with a sort of double or even triple or quadruple think, with different thoughts taking dominance at different times and in different situations. In this way a scientist can be a great scientist and also drop all this scientific method thinking in order to enjoy church on Sunday.
I know most rationalists find this rather repulsive. I am personally a rationalist, but I just like human beings way too much to make a blanket criticism of all forms of double-think and magical thinking. If all forms did harm, I would definitely denounce all religious people as acting dangerously and stupidly. But that's just not true, and I'm way more interested in understanding the human animal with all our fascinating quirks and complexities, than trying to get all people to think the way I do. Humanity does need us rationalists in the mix, but I'm simply not convinced that our way of thinking is best for all of humanity.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/17/2007 19:56:57 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2007 : 20:07:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Even though Dave pretty much trashed the argument that Tor makes in his film here (I did watch the whole thing. I actually found it to be amusing for the outlandish narration. Particularly the over-the-top-silly song at the end. In other words, I didn't take it seriously. But then, I like Dr. D.) but I want to know more about what Original Intent said here:
quote:
AmanhotepIV (Aman is Pleased) AKA Akhenaten.
Elevated the Aten (sun-disk) to a god. Not monotheastic, henotheistic with the new god Aten, who he also equated with his father, to the head of the pack. Around 1300 BC Not to be confused with Amun-Re.
Or
Amen (roughly "God who is trusted"), first written around 1400, but used previously in oral tradition.
Peace
Joe
Specifically, where'd you get your info? I'm just interested in the topic now.
Dig, dig, dig.... Eureka.....
OK, I realize I answered this (sort of). I have located one of the books I used for it buried deep in the bowels of my basement.... (I went from 0 kids, a study, a work/hobby shop, and a sun-room to 1 child, 1 more on the way, and a way over-crowded, disorganized basement. Eventually I will hack and cough my way through my Mother's atticfor more goodies......
From The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durant, copyright 1935, so it is a bit dated.....
I forgot how hated he was.......
Names from the book
Apprx 1380b.c. Amenhotep IV(Amonhotep) was born. "He had hardly come to power when he began to revolt against the religion of Amon, and the practices of Amon's preists."206 He then finds the a new god, possibly borrowedfrom Syria, Aton. He changes his name to Ikhnaton(Akhenaten) which means "Aton is satisfied."206
He helped himself to some already published monotheistic (authors term) poems. I do not agree with the term montheistic, and the author even puts in the footnote of page 206 (emphasis mine): "It has longbeen the custom in Egypt to address the sun-god, Amon-Ra, as the greatest god, but only as the God of Egypt." I admit I have a bit of a time figuring out exactly what he was saying. However, the result is the same, it was henotheistic. Perhaps the term was not mainstream enough yet for Mr. Durant, but one cannot blame a hisorian covering such a huge range, on such a massive scale, to be precise in everything.
I do highly reccomend Durant I have made it through two of his books. I must admit, the The Life of Greece can be very dificult if you do not have a knack for obscure names with redundant parts. Page 100 may say Themhypolies met Herodopolise. On page 150, Herodopman is hanging out with Themostocles. On paage 500, Themostocles is running the navy with Herodetoles. On page 550, Thempolies reappears, and you have seen so many names that your mind blurs and you go... who the hell was he?
When I get up into my Mother's attic, I will find some of my old mythology books..... Probably buried under some well-worn Thor comics....
Peace
Joe
|
| Edited by - Original_Intent on 01/17/2007 20:09:43 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2007 : 20:53:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nice conflation of two different meanings of the word 'assumes', CA. I don't think it'll fly.
I'm sorry, Dave, but there truly was no intent to conflate meanings. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 01:30:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
You most certainly can. Much of the creative aspect of scientific enquiry is precisely that of abstracting and refining by means of provisional assumptions. And the scientist is often passionate in the (again provisional) belief that the scientific law she envisions can eventually be modeled such that it is intersubjectively verifiable.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. First, one sees something (makes an observation or hears a story or whatever) then they wonder about it. They form a hypothesis to test that thing, then they aquire data and possibly a new understanding of that thing.
You cannot possibly devise an experiment to test something you have no experience of, experience that would give a clue about the properties of it that you would be testing. How could you device a test for unicorns, less you have an idea about how a unicorn could be captured. Maybe they can walk through walls, you don't know.
We certainly would not walk into the jungle looking for the unicorn (unless we were on a Discovery special ). We would instead walk into the jungle (that thing we see and want to know what it contains) then we would take a look, record what we see, and then we would know what it contained. Probably not everything it contained, but that would not lead to wild speculation at least not on the part of the scientist. Likewise, the travelors to Australia did not go looking for a platypus, but they did find one. Strange as it is, it was doubted to be a real specimen (and rightfully so, even though it was indeed shown real later). That is the point, it can be reproduced.
Science is not about wishing away in your daydreams, then trying to find out if that fantasy has ties to reality. It is, instead, about studying more about reality, what we see and what we have evidence of by its interaction with what was already known. It is a building process.
Edited to add:
You are using the word assume to mean to take to be true. Scientist really don't assume in that sense but more closely, they guess. Saying If this then we should expect that. Hypotheses should be worded that way in order to be accurate. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/18/2007 01:38:31 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 01:36:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...(however less reliable or untestable those methods may be)...
Less? Try not at all. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 04:42:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
[brReason and science are indeed the most testable and reliable methods for determining facts. However, they fail us all the time..
No, we fail ourselves. It is only through the re-examination of our conclusions through those methods we used erroneously the first time, that we can correct ourselves. Maybe we don't want to check our work over and over, but we must in order to ensure accuracy. Contrarily, faith has no way to self-correct, the self is all there is to it. How do we feel about it, where does our faith lie. But since it is ourselves that fail and not the methods. How then can a method that relies solely on ourselves ever be considered a good one?
quote:
We atheists do make assumptions and many of us do base at least some of our atheism in intuition. We assume the trend of filling in the mysterious gaps in our understanding of the universe with consistent, naturalistic explanations will continue until either all is understood or humans go exist, whichever comes first.
You may I don't. The thing is, I don't balme you for that position because at least you have several thousand years of history backing you up, even if not true.
quote:
And when religious people point to something still unknown and say “God…” we say “Ha! God of the gaps!”
Actually, we say claiming god as a cause is false, and a 'god of the gaps argument'. If god was a good solution to the problem it would be fine. If we saw the cheese was missing, and someone suggested mice, we would not exclaim "Ha, the mouse of the gaps!"
quote:
But often in the face of a mystery, religious people do have some personal reason to believe in something supernatural or at least transcendent. It might be merely a feeling or dream or other subjective experience, but it is more than nothing,
That is debatable but not the point. A dream is not enough to base purchasing one thousand lottery tickets on, instead of some food for the cabinents. Nothing is a good reason to buy a thousand lottery tickets bacause that would still only bring the odds to 5 million to one, .000005%. A dream here is more than the nothing, but is it even enough to consider? I know I am using nothing in a way that doesn't quite line up, but you see my point.
quote:
and in the face of nothing, any little something is sufficient for many. It has to be if there is ever to be intellectual progress. Even scientists have to start with hypothesis that are based on very little, if anything, before they can start seeking more solid evidence.
Here is the difference. Scientist start with a guess, If this then that. Then test that guess. If it is true then they continue forward, not until then. Also, science build from the known, not from the fantasy realm.
quote:
I would not defend someone who rejects time-tested, solid scientific evidence because of subjective religious experience or authority. I would agree with any skeptics who claim that such ideas are either ignorant or stupid or both. For example, I do think it is either stupid or ignorant for educated people to entirely reject the theory of evolution. But I do not think it is either stupid or ignorant to believe some sort of intelligent and supernatural force created everything and orchestrated evolution.
Why? Because it is so appealing to them? I think that you are more off-set by the association than anything else. The association of the word stupid with, mindless dolt. But as I already pointed out everyone does stupid things one in a while. Everyone is subject to emotional and illogical thinking. It is not a thing to be prideful over.
I would definitely call most religious beliefs 'stupid' because they both are unclear and unserving to any end, less the psychological consolations of purpose and yada ya. I realize that certain people need those things as well. That still has no impact on how I feel about how and why decisions should be made and how a person should think, rather than follow just because its easier. I realize that some people need a lighter load or a smoother path sometimes, we all need our breaks, right? But I still respect those who are willing to take the extra mile, and focus on the things that others shy away from out of fear and pain. And acknowledgment of human faults and the imperfect nature of man does not, to me, beget respect of those faults. I can respect someone regardless of their faults but certainly not due to them.
There are three defintions of stupid that may very well fit all the contexts (please inform me if I am in error here):
1) Serving no point, wasting time, or showing no sign of forthought and reason. As in the case of stupid actions.
2) Lacking acuity. Not being clear or serving to provide clarity. As in the stupid answer or idea.
3)Lacking Intelligence. As in an idea, person, place, or thing being modified, adj.
Religion fits all three. If the religious don't like it they should take it up with Webster's because I call them as I see them. It is not an insult thing. They will freely admit that (as you have shown also) they are not relying solely, or even mostly on, logic or intellect and thus, should not even be insulted. In any case, I am not about insults, as I said before, I am about data. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 05:41:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Neurosis wrote: quote:
So then the answer of who is right and who is wrong is a waste of good thinking power. No one could ever know, not even the original postulators.
and quote:
Thus, these things I would call stupid for wasting time and building foundations that are false.
I guess the same could be said of anything that involves thinking for the sheer fun of it. Is it stupid to enjoy art? Is it stupid to watch and then deeply discuss the film “Dumb and Dumber”?
Those examples don't relate to what I said. Enjoying art is not dumb or stupid, if the purpose was enjoyment. Arguing over what piece of art is most beautiful without objective context is quite stupid. (I have stated a similar thing before concerning who is the most beautiful wife of two friends and their subsequent and quite useless argument. The same thing applies.) Literature is art also, but it is quite stupid to get one's scientific knowledge from Sci-Fi books.
Yes, analyzing Dumb and Dumber for any purpose other than entertainment and discussing what life may be like in alternate realms of reality where Spiderman is a real person, me; is in fact a waste of time and stupid unless the purpose was in actuality to waste time and have fun. Actions have purposes and can serve many at once. People have made many a Eureka moment out of the trivial moments of life, and I for one was saying nothing negative about free thought and basic wasting of time in fantasy worlds. For those nerdy enough (and I mean that in a highly prideful remark) to understand, I play RPG's in all forms even the pen and paper (DnD, Star Wars, Vampire, Mage, I play them all). Even I will freely admit to wasting more that 16 hours straight enjoying myself without even the benefit of computer graphics. Only our imagination fueled by a room full of good friends and a relaxed atmosphere. The point being that my favorite past time is passing time, and most of us can at least relate to that.
Nevertheless, it is still a waste of time if my goal were anything productive and for that end 'stupid'.
quote:
You are probably thinking something along the lines of: No because art and entertainment don't make claims about the nature of reality, but religion does. And if you are thinking that, it is, IMHO, half of a good point.
Sadly, not. It is not the audacity of the claims I blame them for, it is the uselessness of the claims to serve any end.
quote:
I'm an atheist, so I think all religious beliefs are false. And yet, history and now evolutionary psychology strongly suggests that there is a reason for religious beliefs beyond it being some sort of side effect of self awareness.
Please explain or provide some links. I love these kinds of fields (girly squeal stifled by swift self punch in the gut). I am an atheist, but I love the psychology of philosophy.
quote:
People can and ofte |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 11:11:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Last time I checked, most religious groups do not claim to be rationalists. In fact, most claim to embrace a mixture of reason and other avenues for discovering truth (however less reliable or untestable those methods may be).
Other avenues for discovering the truth which aren't considered to be irrational, but I would contend that that's just another way that people are fooling themselves. No, 'religion' isn't an entry in the DSM-IV, but there's a difference between being unreasonable and insane. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 11:36:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I'm sorry, Dave, but there truly was no intent to conflate meanings.
I understand there was no intent, but Neurosis nailed the difference between a scientific assumption and the assumption of something untestable (like the existence of god). Scientists are forced to assume things only in order to devise tests through which the truth of the assumption itself can be verified. On the other hand, people assume the existence of God because they cannot test his existence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
