|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2007 : 21:34:44 [Permalink]
|
OK, I think I've read enough of whats going on to actually comment on this stuff.
Dave, There are a few points that I do not agree with.
Compartmentalization can be bad. The potential for improper compartmentalization is dangerous.
With this premise, I disagree with the idea that compartmentalization can be improper on its own or even dangerous. It is the content of the compartmentalization that has the perpensity for a problem.
Bidlack, in my opinion, takes his faith as a coping mechanism and although he logically knows the probability of such a being's existance still allows himself to believe because it is a harmless bit of fancy which fulfills some psychological need he has.
The function of faith is to provide for the psychological need for mysticism, spirituality, and ceremony that theists have. As long as that psychological need does not interfere with processing of reality or logical workings on practical matters, it is largely harmless.
The default position of believing in the existance of a being where the probability of that being non-zero but damn near can be a valid holding as long as the person makes no practical applications of that belief.
I.E. faith and driving the car. Take the wheel, Jesus = bad, Taking full responsibility for piloting the vehicle while believing = inconsequential.
While we strive to remove emotion from our logical discourses, we are human. And humans are emotional beings. So all of us try to compartmentalize our emotions so that it does not interfere with our logical processes. Much as Bidlack does with his faith. (And so do I.) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 21:40:46 [Permalink]
|
| Why wouldn't you seek alternate explanations, such as a hypnagogic state colored by popular conceptions? |
If such could give me a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, then bring it on!
Now, granted, hypothetically there could be a scenario where an individual is granted some sort of iron-clad personal proof of some phenomenon that for whatever reason can't ever be replicated or shared. However, I guarantee you that in practice this never occurs with theists. |
I don't quite see how you could guarantee that. Granted, I don't think it exists either. But there is no way in hell you would ever catch me guaranteeing such a thing.
| I mean between wishful thinking, selective thinking, the placebo effect, self-deception, subjective validation, etc. a skeptic should have more reason to doubt his or her own experiences than anyone else. |
But in my example, there is personal evidence that the event really happened. That evidence can not be taken as evidence for extraterrestrials by others. To make a faith comparison, God talks to a guy and tells him about a specific event that will take place at a specific time on a specific date. Not wanting to sound crazy, the guy doesn't say anything thing. The event then happens. That is personal evidence that can not be taken by any self respecting skeptic. None the less, it exists. Remember, I am entirely talking about hypotheticals.
| We would just caution you not to accept it at face value. |
Then whence came the proof?
| However, the idea that a human can know or intuit or sense in any manner the existence of an all-powerful creator of the universe which resides outside of it and is invisible to all attempts at empirical detection? Yeah, that's about as extraordinary as they come. |
But that is not a claim. A personal belief does not equate to a claim.
| No, that's only having the self-awareness to realize you are being irrational. It doesn't actually change your behavior to rational, however. |
I wasn't saying it is rational. Only that you are not irrational as long as you fully conceive that it is a belief based no evidence. I know it sounds weird, but I think there is rational, irrational, and an area in between of neither.
| People suffering from OCD will often realize that having to touch a light switch 17 times before turning it on is not a sane thing to do, but they feel compelled to do it anyway. |
I think your comparison of mental disorders to beliefs is quite faulty. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/30/2007 21:41:33 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 21:48:33 [Permalink]
|
I so want to drive back into this conversation fully, but alas, right now real life is making demands that I must answer to. However, my brother just read me a passage from John Fowles's novel The French Lieutenant's Woman that I felt was a good response to much of Gorgo's statements about people who believe in certain things hating and denying reality, and this being some kind of weakness, danger, or fault. In chapter 13 of this novel, Fowles abbruptly breaks into first person and speaks as himself, about writing novels. I've often referred to as progressive religiosity (although I use that term mostly for lack of a better one, and by it, I mean those who hold faith that is not literal or dogmatic, but rather vague, mysterious, undefined, and use words that more resemble poetry than prose when they talk about it) and said it is more akin to art than science in the kinds of truths it seeks, and so this passage, which is about creating fiction, seemed especially appropriate. I seems further appropriate in that much of the spirit of this sentiment is in line with one of the essentially characteristics of philosophical skepticism - the impossibility of finding certainty in any absolute truth.
But this is preposterous? A character is either "real" or "imaginary"? If you think that, hypocrite lectuer, I can only smile. You do not even think of your own past as quite real, you dress it up, you gild it or blacken it, censor it, tinker with it… fictionalize it, in a word, and put it away on a shelf – your book, your romanced autobiography, We are all in flight from the real reality. That is a basic definition of Homo sapiens.
"So if you think all this unlucky (but it is Chapter Thirteen) digression has nothing to do with your Time, Progress, Society, Evolution and all those other capitalized ghosts in the night that are rattling their chains behind the scenes of this book… I will not argue. But I shall suspect you." |
I understand that there is a hierarchy of certainty. Some claims are obviously false, while others become increasingly likely based on the amount and kinds of evidence. But progressive religious folks, while they do see their religious beliefs are more real than the literal happenings and characters in a novel, do not see them as literal. The literal imagery and concepts of their beliefs are similar to the literal aspects of a novel, and the deeper truths they imagine or like the deeper truths in art, which are unspeakable and which is why art is necessary. I find it to be no coincidence that the history of art is inseparable from the history of religion and philosophy.
|
"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 08/30/2007 21:51:21 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 22:00:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Hold the phone – quote where I said that awe or states of transcendence are the exclusive domain of religion. Quote where I said that only religion can provide these things. |
You didn't, but you have defended religion on the grounds that it can provide these things. But so can other things, so it's a piss poor defense. That's why I said you can't just declare these things to categorically fall under religion's domain. It's like defending racism by saying that racists can make wonderful parents. Who cares if you can be wonderful parents and not be racist?
| What I said was that progressive, non-literal religious beliefs have been part of the religious experience for thousands of years and not incompatible with the values of skepticism. |
Yeah, you've said it. Demonstrating it has been the problem.
| This is a semantics game and you are utterly ignoring the context in which that was stated. |
Read what I wrote to Ricky. It's not a semantics game. For a skeptic, knowing that virtually every cognitive or perceptual error comes from uncritically accepting subjective experiences as valid, there should never be a time when one accepts one's personal experiences before meeting the burden of proof.
| I never said it was good evidence and I certainly didn't say it was proof. However, if you can't accept my intention of meaning with my use of the word "evidence" then I hereby strike it and change it to "reasons". |
Doesn't matter what you call it. My point is that a skeptics should realize these "reasons" are in fact "non-reasons."
| You are demanding [skepticism] be applied absolutely... |
Yes! Finally I think you understand where I'm coming from.| ...which I don't think anyone is even capable of doing all the time. We all fail to fully apply skepticism in various aspects of our lives. That doesn't stop it from working when we do apply it. |
Look, I agree, ok? Nobody is saying that anyone should be booted out of some skeptics' club for not being perfect. I'm just saying that should be the ideal. That should be the thing we, as committed skeptics, strive toward.
| I agree, however, the point of skepticism is not the process itself. The point is its usefulness in practical application. As I see no more usefulness to Bidlack being an atheist compared to his being a deist, and he seems to gain some emotional benefit from his deism, I'd say that his deism is clearly a good thing, even if it is not absolutely in line with skepticism. Again you seem to adhere to skepticism in an absolute or extreme sense. There are other values that are just as important, and the process of skepticism is a wonderful means to a desired end, not the end in of itself. |
The "desired end" should be the truth. Skepticism, critical thinking, the scientific method, these are the only tools we have for determining truth. No, they aren't perfect. No, they can never answer every question we have. But I can guarantee you one thing. When you stop using them, you are no longer on the path to truth.
I reject the idea that in an absence of knowledge one is free to make up whatever truth they choose. I reject the idea that such shortcuts lead to ultimate happiness. I see it as a tendency toward weakness which should be overcome. I believe that true happiness can only come from true things, that by definition false things can only offer false happiness. As such, if you are really interested in people's happiness, then you should be interested in trying to get them back onto the only reliable track toward truth we know.
And, Marf, because I know you love to think the worst of me, let me just state for the record that all I mean by that is we should promote skepticism as better than other "ways of knowing." Would I like to see an end to religion? Nothing would make me happier, but only if it were by voluntary choice. I want to see skepticism and critical thinking win out in the marketplace of ideas. And toward that goal, I will not only encourage skepticism but also actively discourage gullibility, magical thinking, wishful thinking, credulity, and all the rest. It seems like you get angry when skeptics or atheists dare to suggest their way of thinking is "better" than theists. Well, sorry, because I think exactly that. I think it's better. I think religious ideas and faith are inferior world views, and one of my goals is to promote that message.
| Oftentimes "I don't know" cannot be an acceptable answer due to circumstances. Oftentimes people are forced to make a decision knowing that they don't have enough information, and in these cases they utilize other useful tools, such as intuition. |
People, yes, but not skeptics, which is the focus of this discussion.
| I suppose I'm arguing that for people who feel compelled to hold religious beliefs, all the while knowing that their beliefs aren't and cannot be proven, are yielding to their own personal emotional need, just as someone might run away out of an unexplainable sense of danger. Again, given that these kinds of religious belief do not provoke irrational action, I fail to see how they are dangerous or even undesirable. There is more to the quality of life than knowing facts. |
Yes, some people have irrational fears. We should work to quell those fears, not work to stoke them. Something doesn't have to be a danger to be undesirable.
But even if a person is unable or unwilling to abandon their irrational belief, explain again why I can't at least point out that it is irrational? Where is it stated that I need to go along with the same charade someone else relies on to get them through the night? Where does this idea come from that religious beliefs should be beyond criticism?
You wrote to Kil: | The problem with fundamentalists isn't that they believe in a universal truth, but that they're wrong. |
I agree with Kil, the problem with fundamentalists is their self-righteousness; their certainty that causes them to try to push their ideas about "universal truth" above others.
Skepticism is incompatible with any claims of universal truth. This doesn't mean that skeptics must believe there is not universal truth, but rather, that no skeptical claims about that truth can be made with absolute certainty. |
Of course we can't know anything with absolute certainty. However, there is a reasonable approach to knowledge. There is one method that has produced results. Skeptical thinking, in the form the of the scientific method, has been wildly successful in producing tangible results. Faith just never has. Ever. It has a long losing track record. It's a bad approach to truth.
I completely reject the criticism that telling people not to have faith is itself a faith simply because I want convince others of it.
| Now you are just being arrogant. If Bidlack is not a skeptic then probably nobody is a skeptic since it is difficult to imagine any human being being able to be totally skeptical about everything all the time. |
And now you're just twisting my words totally out of context. In that discussion we were focused only on Bidlack's theism, and on that question he is not a skeptic.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 22:04:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
I don't quite see how you could guarantee that. Granted, I don't think it exists either. But there is no way in hell you would ever catch me guaranteeing such a thing. |
Yeah, you're right, I can't guarantee such a thing. It was just an expression.
| But that is not a claim. A personal belief does not equate to a claim. |
Sure it is. A belief is a claim which you accept personally.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 23:57:17 [Permalink]
|
I'm hardly among the better skeptics in the world, or even in these fora. But I try. I'm convinced that the tools of skepticism, or critical thinking, are the best ideas that have ever come from human minds. With imperfect results, I try to apply it to everything.
Most people are partly skeptical, and partly credulous. Perhaps a majority will apply skepticism to claims like Senator Craig's, that a newspaper somehow somehow forced him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, while being entirely credulous about the belief in a magic man who knows all and is all-powerful. My brother, on the other hand, seems to be quite skeptical about all forms of theism, but credulous about almost everything else.
Me, I find it weird that anyone can compartmentalize like that. It does strike me as something like a kind of cognitive dissonance. Not that it makes them bad or mad in itself, but it certainly makes them inconsistent, dangerously vulnerable to manipulation, and, I think, at odds with themselves.
Simply put, I'd like to encourage everyone who'll listen to use skeptical critical thought in as many endeavors as possible.
I may or may not be polite to people who display inconsistency of critical thinking, but I refuse to accept their woo beliefs just because they think they need them. I will tolerate them as they believe nonsense (within limits, that is, as I am quite intolerant of Holocaust deniers and 9/11 demolition buffs, for instance), but I will not tolerate their nonsense.
To me, theism, and, more broadly, all religion, are unevidenced woo. As such, they I cannot see why they should receive special "passes" or dispensations from skeptics.
As I typed in a recent chat, "Hate the woo, love the wooer." To me, that's what being a skeptic is all about. (Though I would agree that the "love" is a personal option.) I don't deny that person who has decided to apply critical thinking in a limited manner can be a skeptic, in a self-limited way. I do think that they open themselves to skeptical criticism, however, for their blind spots. Don't we all?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/31/2007 04:44:29 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 02:35:38 [Permalink]
|
But this is preposterous? A character is either "real" or "imaginary"? If you think that, hypocrite lectuer, I can only smile. You do not even think of your own past as quite real, you dress it up, you gild it or blacken it, censor it, tinker with it… fictionalize it, in a word, and put it away on a shelf – your book, your romanced autobiography, We are all in flight from the real reality. That is a basic definition of Homo sapiens.
|
So, there are many ways that we delude ourselves, so it's a good idea to delude ourselves?
I find it to be no coincidence that the history of art is inseparable from the history of religion and philosophy.
|
If you were talking about people to went to churches and admired art from another era, another world view, and came home and said, "the music is great, but the words are really stupid," then we might be talking about people who admire art. What we seem to be talking about are people who make up reality as they go along. At least fundamentalists are taking someone else's reality and falling for it hook, line and dogma. "Liberal" theists realize that most of that is junk, but for some reason they hate reality enough to want it all vague and pretty.
The point is not that we don't all hate reality to some extent in our lives. The point is that religion, that is, the belief in a supernatural ruler of the universe, makes it sacred. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 02:46:35 [Permalink]
|
While we strive to remove emotion from our logical discourses, we are human. And humans are emotional beings. So all of us try to compartmentalize our emotions so that it does not interfere with our logical processes. Much as Bidlack does with his faith. (And so do I.)
|
The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality.
If Bidlack believed that there are aliens living in his pants talking to him because that belief performed some psychological need, how would that change this conversation? The difference seems to be that he really doesn't believe very much in the supernatural. It seems that that idea wouldn't affect the rest of his thinking. How can we be so sure, when his thinking in this area is based on wish?
That is not to condemn him or the guy that believes that aliens are in his pants, but the guy that thinks aliens are living in his pants probably at least has some hallucinations to back up what he says. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 03:27:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
While we strive to remove emotion from our logical discourses, we are human. And humans are emotional beings. So all of us try to compartmentalize our emotions so that it does not interfere with our logical processes. Much as Bidlack does with his faith. (And so do I.)
|
The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality.
If Bidlack believed that there are aliens living in his pants talking to him because that belief performed some psychological need, how would that change this conversation? The difference seems to be that he really doesn't believe very much in the supernatural. It seems that that idea wouldn't affect the rest of his thinking. How can we be so sure, when his thinking in this area is based on wish?
That is not to condemn him or the guy that believes that aliens are in his pants, but the guy that thinks aliens are living in his pants probably at least has some hallucinations to back up what he says.
|
Yeah, hallucinations at least might qualify as "personal evidence."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 07:53:04 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo:
The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality. |
Thanks for this brilliant psychological insight. I'm sure with your background in psychology, it should be no problem for you to support that claim. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 08:22:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
While we strive to remove emotion from our logical discourses, we are human. And humans are emotional beings. So all of us try to compartmentalize our emotions so that it does not interfere with our logical processes. Much as Bidlack does with his faith. (And so do I.)
|
The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality. |
Sez you. Got evidence?
If Bidlack believed that there are aliens living in his pants talking to him because that belief performed some psychological need, how would that change this conversation? The difference seems to be that he really doesn't believe very much in the supernatural. It seems that that idea wouldn't affect the rest of his thinking. How can we be so sure, when his thinking in this area is based on wish?
|
It wouldn't change the conversation at all. If it filled a psychological need and it did not interfere with his processing of reality. As long as he did not practically apply the concept of aliens in his pants that talked to him to real world duties, responsibilities, and science.
I am realistic on how you view religion, Gorgo. I accept that you will think of everything I say as logocally suspect because I believe in a supernatural. So would anyone who has had contact with the more dogmatic "if you have a faith, you're nuttier than a bedbug" crowd.
That is not to condemn him or the guy that believes that aliens are in his pants, but the guy that thinks aliens are living in his pants probably at least has some hallucinations to back up what he says.
|
And your non-circular reasoning is.......? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 08:55:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Gorgo:
The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality. |
Thanks for this brilliant psychological insight. I'm sure with your background in psychology, it should be no problem for you to support that claim.
|
I didn't hear you say that when people said that people have a psychological "need" for faith.
Faith is what you do when you do not have reasonable evidence. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 09:02:24 [Permalink]
|
I am realistic on how you view religion, Gorgo. I accept that you will think of everything I say as logocally suspect because I believe in a supernatural. So would anyone who has had contact with the more dogmatic "if you have a faith, you're nuttier than a bedbug" crowd.
|
Non-sequitur, strawman, and about a half-dozen other fallacies involved here.
I think of everything you say as logically suspect, because I've seen you say a lot of logically suspect things.
I think a belief in the supernatural is not based on reasonable evidence. At best, it is a mistake. At worst, it is insanity.
A "belief" in the supernatural means that non-reality is part of your world view. If you really believe in it, then you act on it. If you don't act on it, then you really don't believe, you just think it's fun to entertain the possibility.
If you act on the idea that the world is such a terrible place that you need these things to give it worth to you, in fact, to give your own life worth, then you are acting on the idea that life isn't worth very much. I do not pretend to know the consequences of that, but I suspect it's not always a healthy thing.
Interesting that I need some degree that you don't have to make my observations, but I need a degree to make mine. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 09:10:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Gorgo:
The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality. |
Thanks for this brilliant psychological insight. I'm sure with your background in psychology, it should be no problem for you to support that claim.
|
See this thread as an introduction. The Rabbi's column explains it very well. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 10:00:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I am realistic on how you view religion, Gorgo. I accept that you will think of everything I say as logocally suspect because I believe in a supernatural. So would anyone who has had contact with the more dogmatic "if you have a faith, you're nuttier than a bedbug" crowd.
|
Non-sequitur, strawman, and about a half-dozen other fallacies involved here.
I think of everything you say as logically suspect, because I've seen you say a lot of logically suspect things.
I think a belief in the supernatural is not based on reasonable evidence. At best, it is a mistake. At worst, it is insanity.
A "belief" in the supernatural means that non-reality is part of your world view. If you really believe in it, then you act on it. If you don't act on it, then you really don't believe, you just think it's fun to entertain the possibility.
If you act on the idea that the world is such a terrible place that you need these things to give it worth to you, in fact, to give your own life worth, then you are acting on the idea that life isn't worth very much. I do not pretend to know the consequences of that, but I suspect it's not always a healthy thing.
Interesting that I need some degree that you don't have to make my observations, but I need a degree to make mine.
|
Nice dodge. I didn't say you needed a degree.
You have only said that I have said logically suspect things due to their attachment of faith.
In addition, you fail to accept the possibility of compartmentalization.
You furthermore assume that self or worldly worth plays any part of the faith equasion. This is not true. I have mention this before in conversations with you. I see that you still are ignoring them.
Again, I asked for evidence, not a degree.
I also asked for your non-circular logic as relates to the assumption of hallucinations and the belief in aliens in Bidlack's pants. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Skepticism Compatible with Belief in God?
