Beliefs: how do they work? [Archive]

cj.23

8th December 2008, 03:48 AM

OK, following on from some comments in another thread, I am getting interested in how beliefs work. I have written a little on this before, a couple of years ago. On that occasion I was involved in a discussion on the "meme theory", which seemed to fail to me in it's basic analogy of beliefs as a virus. Here is the model I played with...

Obviously, assuming we are not solipsists, we have two basic things - External Reality and the Person experiencing that reality. The "compression" model suggests we create "mental shortcuts" or handy pieces of "mental code", that is beliefs, based upon on our experience which allow us to deal efficiently with reality. So beliefs are in fact a sort of mental map imposed on the universe, a shorthand for understanding how things work. That in itself is interesting - because obviously if you follow this model then the utility of a model is actually what matters, not its relationship to "external reality". So I suspect Dennett might argue about religion? It's provides survival/pay offs as a model, while being inherently "untrue"? The thing is that our brains are not wired for ultimate truth - they are wired for evolutionary adaptive advantage, through the process of selection.

That however immediately runs in to problems. While we might like HP Lovecraft conclude that the Universe is utterly indifferent to us, and indeed almost hostile in that indifference, and hold a somewhat nihilistic worldview (which HPL did not, seeking solace in "human level" beliefs), and assume therefore that people construct religious beliefs as a utility, many religious beliefs strike me as quite dysfunctional/survival negating at individual level. Therefore we have to shift up to kin selection (Hamilton's Rule?) but I fail to see why individual belief structures would arise at kin level. Phenotypes? Yet we have much evidence of altruism and religious structures operating at a much higher level than kin (gene) grouping -indeed many make claims about the whole of humanity - so we now have group selection? That belief structures can pass beyond ethnic and kin identity groups strikes me as quite obvious - we can have say "American Mythologies" which tie together many of the citizens of the USA, regardless of genetic diversity? Let's take a classic British line "Dulce et Decorum est, pro patria mori" - loosely, "it is right and proper to die for your country". That belief took hold in the form of jingoistic patriotism - yet wherein lies the survival value? Something odd is going on here.

I suppose if beliefs are "short cuts", or programs if you like, there is no need for them to be logically compatible with each other. That makes perfect sense - two radically opposed beliefs may both be useful in different contexts. Belief A and Belief B may be contradictory, but give a greater adaptive advantage than possion of Beliefs C & D which are mutually compatible. So we back to Athon's question about how confirmation bias arose - the answer may be simply "because it is useful, as a compressed rule for interaction with nature."

However, beliefs can and do change, as the fact we have so many converts from one belief system to another demonstrates. We all change our beliefs?

Now to return to my point I made in the other thread - Just as I see that the evidence of our senses is not actually unconditioned, but that the data has a reflexive relationship with the model (belief system) held, and that theists interpret the data reflexively, so I guess atheists interpret likewise in line with their own existing personal models. I see no reason to exclude any belief system from this filtration/interpretation process.

There is nothing new here at all - replace "sense data" with "thing in itself" or "noumena" and we are immediately in familiar territory, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Where I would differ from Kant is I do not think that means we have to stop and call limits to reason. Our minds are capable of studying mind, including their own, so we begin by questioning every single assumption and dogma and belief we hold, and trying to understand if each is actually demonstrably true, and then by trying to falsify it and holding the conflicting position to see if that makes sense - decoding our own "mental shortcuts". This tends to render one severely uncompetitive i suspect, and quite possibly useless, but questioning every assumption has always seemed a good place to begin to me.

So what I think occurs with beliefs is that they do represent a series of "shortcuts", often expressed in language - and that those beliefs are based in evidence, but that the evidence is read through the filter of the belief system. If so, then when we "join" a recognizable belief system, we learn to interpret our experiences in the light of that system, creating a reflexive feedback loop. I think this applies to atheist members of the forum just as much as theists - the language and conceptual framework differs, but we all interpret our experience in line with beliefs, and those beliefs are then strengthened by the confirmation we are receiving.

Occasionally, the belief system breaks down through inherent contradiction, though probably not often - only when two radically opposed beliefs come to play on the same issue. Occasionally, we read or are exposed to ideas which allow us to look at the world through a different belief system, and then make a sudden shift in our viewpoint, and re-read the evidence creating new shortcuts.

I have no idea if any of this makes any coherent sense, but I thought I'd post my vague thoughts and ask opinions!

Anyone?
cj x

Almo

8th December 2008, 12:23 PM

athon

8th December 2008, 03:15 PM

While I still wait for you to explain your adherence to 13th c. scholasticism (:p) I'll have a shot at this.

That in itself is interesting - because obviously if you follow this model then the utility of a model is actually what matters, not its relationship to "external reality".

I guess we'd find it hard to go past Descarte's 'only one certainty' here; we can only be certain that we are undergoing the process of constructing a reality. That's it. Beyond that, we can only form conjectures which have some use in our mental model.

You are correct in suggesting that science no longer aims to describe 'external reality', as such. I think this lies more in the absurdity of the term than any change in process - it implies that reality is somehow distinct from our perceptions of it. However, reality is by its nature the process of perception. It's not like reality is a tv show we're watching - it's all part and parcel.

...many religious beliefs strike me as quite dysfunctional/survival negating at individual level. Therefore we have to shift up to kin selection (Hamilton's Rule?) but I fail to see why individual belief structures would arise at kin level.

Humans aren't an individualist species. They're collectivist to the core. We survive because of our fine-tuned social behaviours which help our genes to be passed on. Indeed, most of how our brain has evolved to work relies on our social environment more than than anything else.

As we evolved in tight-knit, familial social groups, it's of much greater advantage to develop shared community beliefs that deal with the social interplays. The individual evolution comes into it when you need your genes to 'represent' the group, and get the most benefit from the social network. The competition in this case isn't you versus other species, but rather you versus your siblings. Those genes that survive must work the best within the social network, meaning you need to be able to communicate well, read others intentions and meanings etc.

IMO, something of a knock-on from this is the way we then use this brain to interpret nature. We anthropomorphise non-human (and non-living) objects simply because our brain is so good at reading other people. We'll see faces where there aren't any, assume intentions where none can exist and feel emotions in sources where none can arise.

Phenotypes? Yet we have much evidence of altruism and religious structures operating at a much higher level than kin (gene) grouping -indeed many make claims about the whole of humanity - so we now have group selection? That belief structures can pass beyond ethnic and kin identity groups strikes me as quite obvious - we can have say "American Mythologies" which tie together many of the citizens of the USA, regardless of genetic diversity? Let's take a classic British line "Dulce et Decorum est, pro patria mori" - loosely, "it is right and proper to die for your country". That belief took hold in the form of jingoistic patriotism - yet wherein lies the survival value? Something odd is going on here.

It is indeed interesting. However, nationalistic pride is very recent, and I fear far more complex than you're alledging. Most older communities are collectivist and reflect more of a respect for familial relationships. Nationalism only arises once resources are plentiful (although I don't want to digress into a discussion on the arise of patriotism over collectivism - we'll leave that for another time).

So we need to look at collectivist ideals, where people will defend their own blood in competition over resources. Which is what we see happen.

I suppose if beliefs are "short cuts", or programs if you like, there is no need for them to be logically compatible with each other. That makes perfect sense - two radically opposed beliefs may both be useful in different contexts. Belief A and Belief B may be contradictory, but give a greater adaptive advantage than possion of Beliefs C & D which are mutually compatible. So we back to Athon's question about how confirmation bias arose - the answer may be simply "because it is useful, as a compressed rule for interaction with nature."

I've argued the same thing. We relax cognitive dissonance when we have need for both answers to be true. They both satisfy a need, even if they contradict one another. Hence why myth and religion can be such strong forces, even if they are internally inconsistent.

However, beliefs can and do change, as the fact we have so many converts from one belief system to another demonstrates. We all change our beliefs?

We change beliefs as our needs and values change. As you just accurately pointed out, we can hold two opposing values in our head at the same time because they both satisfy different needs. If our values change for some reason - either because we discover new resources or find ourselves relying on a different social group - we'll need different beliefs to deal with them.

Where I would differ from Kant is I do not think that means we have to stop and call limits to reason. *snip* This tends to render one severely uncompetitive i suspect, and quite possibly useless, but questioning every assumption has always seemed a good place to begin to me.

It depends on the environment in which you operate.

You're correct that in an environment where resources are in demand and risks are great, metacognition of any sort is detrimental. You cannot afford to be ostracised from your group, so the group's beliefs must be inherited. That's why we didn't see any metacognitive behaviour until the Greeks - a compatible social environment didn't arise until then (which is a fascinating discussion in itself).

In a social environment which embraces information which is often not dependant on coming from a culture, we need a way of 'ojectifying' beliefs. It's more worthwhile to be able to share an experience through empirical means than to rely on a shared faith, especially if you don't share that faith.

The problem with 'reason' is that on its own, it relies on what one finds to be reasonable. In a completely fictitous universe, such as within any fantasy series, there will be invented laws and rules which are internally consistent. They are 'reasonable' within this construct.

Now, such constructs are infinite. We can all invent our own, and each will be reasonable. If we share it with others and require that they also share it, without sharing any ratifying observations (or making it empirical), then we also won't have any problems. It's not very progressive in any technological sense, but if it keeps the community happy then it serves a purpose.

Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way. The only thing we all seem to share are observations of events that appear to be external to our thinking of them. Therefore reason alone cannot help us socially any more, nor can it be useful in a pragmatic sense. Reason alone becomes a useless act.

So what I think occurs with beliefs is that they do represent a series of "shortcuts", often expressed in language - and that those beliefs are based in evidence, but that the evidence is read through the filter of the belief system.

Good ol' Thomas Kuhn would agree. :)

If so, then when we "join" a recognizable belief system, we learn to interpret our experiences in the light of that system, creating a reflexive feedback loop. I think this applies to atheist members of the forum just as much as theists - the language and conceptual framework differs, but we all interpret our experience in line with beliefs, and those beliefs are then strengthened by the confirmation we are receiving.

I totally agree. I'm a great advocate of Kuhn's paradigm model, even if it has certain flaws.

However, have you read any Feyerabrand? You're starting to sound as if you have a little in common with his views, which (if you'll excuse the apparent slur - I don't mean any offence) I find rather ignorant of how science differs to other 'reality-describing' tools. To give you an example, Feyerabrand sees no real difference in outcome between witchcraft, mythopoeism and science.

Occasionally, the belief system breaks down through inherent contradiction, though probably not often - only when two radically opposed beliefs come to play on the same issue. Occasionally, we read or are exposed to ideas which allow us to look at the world through a different belief system, and then make a sudden shift in our viewpoint, and re-read the evidence creating new shortcuts.

Close, although this must be kept in context with the needs of the individual holding the belief. Conflicting beliefs can be held if the values for both exist at the same time.

Athon

Soapy Sam

8th December 2008, 05:25 PM

Mental laziness.

At least, that's my belief. (YAWN!)

Iconoclast08

8th December 2008, 09:18 PM

...However, have you read any Feyerabrand? You're starting to sound as if you have a little in common with his views, which (if you'll excuse the apparent slur - I don't mean any offence) I find rather ignorant of how science differs to other 'reality-describing' tools. To give you an example, Feyerabrand sees no real difference in outcome between witchcraft, mythopoeism and science.

Paul Feyerabend's Against Method, which was originally intended to be a discussion between he and Imre Lakatos, is a wild ride indeed. Ever read all the way through that one?

I always took him to be a provocateur and trouble-maker who reveled in stirring people up. I don't believe for a minute that he truly believed "anything goes" in the loose sense that critics point out but rather used it to convey that there is no universally applicable method in an obtuse, obnoxious way.

athon

8th December 2008, 09:52 PM

Paul Feyerabend's Against Method, which was originally intended to be a discussion between he and Imre Lakatos, is a wild ride indeed. Ever read all the way through that one?

I read enough to find it difficult to want to continue. I could imagine poor Lakatos in that situation trying to deal with the insanity.

I always took him to be a provocateur and trouble-maker who reveled in stirring people up. I don't believe for a minute that he truly believed "anything goes" in the loose sense that critics point out but rather used it to convey that there is no universally applicable method in an obtuse, obnoxious way.

Yeah? I wish I could believe that. It would help. But sadly I really think he believes in what he says. Even if you're correct, I've met a few too many who support his brand of philosophy and who do take him at face value.

Athon

cj.23

8th December 2008, 11:20 PM

Iconoclast08

9th December 2008, 12:42 AM

Never read any Paul Feyerabend, though I have caught the name in discussions of Philosophy of Science. Er, Against Method? You make it sound like the Necronomicon or extreme post modern relativism, which does not appeal aty all to me - well the second doesn't, I'm all up for a bit of kinky shoggoth action - anyhows I'll order a copy as a Christmas present to myself. If it's dreadful I shall blame you all for ruining my Christmas! :) cj x

'Twill make some nice "light" bedtime reading. :P

Yeah? I wish I could believe that. It would help. But sadly I really think he believes in what he says. Even if you're correct, I've met a few too many who support his brand of philosophy and who do take him at face value.

You're probably right, actually. That rag of an essay he wrote, Defending Society Against Science, or whatever it was, really turned me off to reading much else by him. I guess I just tend to give people the benefit of the doubt more than I should.

Feyerabend was a deep, complex thinker who actually started out as a "raging positivist", but something got knocked loose at some point and sent him zooming to the opposite extreme.

cj.23

9th December 2008, 01:45 AM

While I still wait for you to explain your adherence to 13th c. scholasticism (:p) I'll have a shot at this.

Oh yes! I'd forgotten about that, I'll have to head back and answer. (Incidentally I would not take my claims to Scholasticism too seriously! :D I think you have probably already guessed that though...)

I guess we'd find it hard to go past Descarte's 'only one certainty' here; we can only be certain that we are undergoing the process of constructing a reality. That's it. Beyond that, we can only form conjectures which have some use in our mental model.

You are correct in suggesting that science no longer aims to describe 'external reality', as such. I think this lies more in the absurdity of the term than any change in process - it implies that reality is somehow distinct from our perceptions of it. However, reality is by its nature the process of perception. It's not like reality is a tv show we're watching - it's all part and parcel.

If it helps I'm an Objective Instrumentalist. At first I tried to change, I hid my shameful secret from my friends, but now I'm out and proud! Jokes aside, sure agreed with above -- but what I was actually getting at was far more prosaic. Basically, regardless of the value of instrumentalism as a philosophy of Science, at the individual biological level and indeed at the species level we evolved for adaptive advantage, not for capacity to comprehend objective reality. So Instrumentlaism merely reflects a larger evolutionary imperative: the utility of a belief trumps its relation to objective truth, in that an idea which gives an adaptive advantage to an organism will be selected as that organism prospers? So my claim is really "our brains did not evolve for truth" -- but for survival.

Humans aren't an individualist species. They're collectivist to the core. We survive because of our fine-tuned social behaviours which help our genes to be passed on. Indeed, most of how our brain has evolved to work relies on our social environment more than than anything else.

Again, complete agreement. I think Dawkins might object vehemently - he would see the social environment as an epiphenomena of genetic determinism? However as it happens i think all the evidence can be read the way you suggest. Organisms and species shape their environment, so their is a reflexive relationship between the beastie and the world shaped by it, and this modifies selection?

As we evolved in tight-knit, familial social groups, it's of much greater advantage to develop shared community beliefs that deal with the social interplays. The individual evolution comes into it when you need your genes to 'represent' the group, and get the most benefit from the social network. The competition in this case isn't you versus other species, but rather you versus your siblings. Those genes that survive must work the best within the social network, meaning you need to be able to communicate well, read others intentions and meanings etc.

Right - and as you know, I think a lot of what we regard as thinking errors arose in precisely this manner, for selective advantage. The compression idea gives a quick way of expressing how this might work...

IMO, something of a knock-on from this is the way we then use this brain to interpret nature. We anthropomorphise non-human (and non-living) objects simply because our brain is so good at reading other people. We'll see faces where there aren't any, assume intentions where none can exist and feel emotions in sources where none can arise.

Makes perfect sense to me. I have often wondered why at the age of say 2-5 anthropomorphic animals feature so strongly in Children's literature - it may be just a cultural thing, but if you are right it might possibly have something to do with the child's emergent sense of identity and control over nature.

It is indeed interesting. However, nationalistic pride is very recent, and I fear far more complex than you're alledging. Most older communities are collectivist and reflect more of a respect for familial relationships. Nationalism only arises once resources are plentiful (although I don't want to digress into a discussion on the arise of patriotism over collectivism - we'll leave that for another time).

OK, we will skip this for now.

I've argued the same thing. We relax cognitive dissonance when we have need for both answers to be true. They both satisfy a need, even if they contradict one another. Hence why myth and religion can be such strong forces, even if they are internally inconsistent.

I am very wary of invoking cognitive dissonance as a) I'm not sure it's partiicularly supported by evidence - you can take the results from the experimental work and explain them exactly the same way with Personal Construct Theory and b) in the popular sense it is used today it is quite a way from the original research premise.

We change beliefs as our needs and values change. As you just accurately pointed out, we can hold two opposing values in our head at the same time because they both satisfy different needs. If our values change for some reason - either because we discover new resources or find ourselves relying on a different social group - we'll need different beliefs to deal with them.

Yep: it leads to the interesting question about why we attempt to impose some beliefs on others. It could be as simple as "Transcedental Frodoism helped me relax, cope with work and made my life better - therefore it is true, and i must impart it to Bob to improve his efficiency." So our programming spreads (like a computer virus) and in the right context such programme alterations can be helpful: but if i am right and a brain is a complex set of learned shortcut rules, then the new code might just as well conflict and lead to a mental "blue screen of death" crash -- in short the urge to help the other individual may fail, or be harmful, because they are running X,Y,Z,G and you are running X,Y,Z,H,M. Rule M is given to oyur friend, but it conflicts with rule G, or combines with rule G to have unforseen deleterious circumstances. So we may well be naturally resistant to adopting others code (scepticsm) but have an inherent urge to pas son succesful shortcuts of our own (education/proselytising?)?

Hey I need to go grab some breakfast.If I remeber I'll carry on playing with my little "model" later, and finish replying, but i don't think we disagree on much really??? (apart from the desirability of the New Aristotle that is! :D)

cj x

athon

9th December 2008, 04:39 PM

If it helps I'm an Objective Instrumentalist. At first I tried to change, I hid my shameful secret from my friends, but now I'm out and proud! Jokes aside, sure agreed with above -- but what I was actually getting at was far more prosaic. Basically, regardless of the value of instrumentalism as a philosophy of Science, at the individual biological level and indeed at the species level we evolved for adaptive advantage, not for capacity to comprehend objective reality. So Instrumentlaism merely reflects a larger evolutionary imperative: the utility of a belief trumps its relation to objective truth, in that an idea which gives an adaptive advantage to an organism will be selected as that organism prospers? So my claim is really "our brains did not evolve for truth" -- but for survival.

I can't disagree there. While I don't think science is purely instrumentalist in nature (not every conjecture supported scientifically results in predictions or applications, yet I'd resist saying that they couldn't be scientific), I do think that those ideas that prove to be useful are the ones that also tend be the ones which gain the strongest belief.

Again, complete agreement. I think Dawkins might object vehemently - he would see the social environment as an epiphenomena of genetic determinism? However as it happens i think all the evidence can be read the way you suggest. Organisms and species shape their environment, so their is a reflexive relationship between the beastie and the world shaped by it, and this modifies selection?

I firmly believe so. A significant feature of our brains deals with the complexities of language. Of course, there is the argument that this structure is necessary for analysing the world (having symbolic structure for events and objects certainly helps make sense of observations), but I tend to feel this progressed out of interpersonal communication first and then adopted other applications later. That's the sense I get from much of the research on neurological development and language evolution, at least.

Makes perfect sense to me. I have often wondered why at the age of say 2-5 anthropomorphic animals feature so strongly in Children's literature - it may be just a cultural thing, but if you are right it might possibly have something to do with the child's emergent sense of identity and control over nature.

I feel that animism is our default way of dealing with nature, on account of those social tools we already possess. I feel it demands the imposing of social beliefs to overcome that sense of describing nature animistically - scientific ways of seeing the universe have to be dominant in the child's culture as they grow, or else they will retain the animistic descriptions (or at least modify them to become more akin to a religious view).

This is hard to find evidence for, let alone falsify, I admit. After all, if a child remains animistic within an animistic culture, is it because it is a default or because it is the dominant philosophy? Finding an adult who wasn't raised in any culture and asking them their philosophies is damn near impossible. Still...I feel it's a worthwhile hypothesis. :)

I am very wary of invoking cognitive dissonance as a) I'm not sure it's partiicularly supported by evidence - you can take the results from the experimental work and explain them exactly the same way with Personal Construct Theory and b) in the popular sense it is used today it is quite a way from the original research premise.

Hmm, I'd have to think about that, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm not sure it matters. Whether there is a natural tendency to feel discomfort with mutually exclusive ideas or whether we can simply do it, I feel our ability to believe in two things at the same time which contradict is due to their appealing to two different personal uses. One might satisfy that need to subscribe to one subculture's beliefs, which another might satisfy another's, or to our need to something to follow a logical sequence.

but if i am right and a brain is a complex set of learned shortcut rules, then the new code might just as well conflict and lead to a mental "blue screen of death" crash -- in short the urge to help the other individual may fail, or be harmful, because they are running X,Y,Z,G and you are running X,Y,Z,H,M. Rule M is given to oyur friend, but it conflicts with rule G, or combines with rule G to have unforseen deleterious circumstances. So we may well be naturally resistant to adopting others code (scepticsm) but have an inherent urge to pas son succesful shortcuts of our own (education/proselytising?)?

Careful - it's almost sounding like a memetics scheme there. ;)

It's an interesting idea, and I can't see any inherent flaws in the concept, I admit. Maybe it's just because it doesn't conflict with any of my shortcuts....*ahem*

Athon

Soapy Sam

9th December 2008, 06:23 PM

A lot of stuff is complicated.
Most people really are not that smart - and time is limited, especially if you only live thirty years even if you don't get eaten by a cave lion.
We believe things that seem complex because they are simpler than reality and they work well enough to get by.
Governments believe they control economies by fiddling with interest rates and money supply. Complete bollocks- but we have no idea of how to predict reality in the marketplace. (Look around, if you don't believe me!)
Nobody outside the physics community "believes in" General Relativity. Most folk don't believe in Newtonian Mechanics.
People believe in astrology, not astronomy. Too complicated.

We are lazy and stupid. We believe the minimum we can get away with and trust other people to believe the rest. Usually, it's enough.

Hedgehogs believe curling into a ball keeps you safe. That's why the roads of Britain are paved with hedgehogs.

People believe missile shields keep you safe. What are those lights coming down the road?

RandFan

9th December 2008, 10:52 PM

I like Soapy Sam's response. :) Cool.

My complaint with the whole "beliefs is beliefs" meme is that there is a coherent accumulation of human knowledge and understanding that can be demonstrated in an objective way so as to increase the acceptance of that understanding by experts in their fields. Further that there is a decrease in the dissonance for scientific theories and clarity to what we might call the picture of the natural world. In other words, if we view various and seemingly disparate scientific concepts as a puzzle then the picture that the puzzle reveals is becoming more and more clear. The pieces fit and we can make predictions based on those pieces for other pieces.

Religious belief is outside of the picture. Aside from anthropological understanding (religion as a Rorschach test) religion doesn't fill in pieces of the puzzle. It doesn't advance understanding of the natural world beyond our understanding of human thought and culture and in fact is far more likely to cause dissonance and distort the puzzle.

I might not be able to rigorously defend and understand my beliefs with a high degree of certainty but I have a rational basis for those beliefs. I can't say that about religion.

I reject, for good reason, religion as belief comparative to my other beliefs.

athon

10th December 2008, 12:02 AM

My complaint with the whole "beliefs is beliefs" meme is that there is a coherent accumulation of human knowledge and understanding that can be demonstrated in an objective way so as to increase the acceptance of that understanding by experts in their fields.

I fully agree. Yet we have to take care to understand what this means - most people accept this knowledge because it is coherent. Yet 'understand that it can be demonstrated' is an article of critical faith. I say 'critical' as it's not blind faith, but rather a form of trust that says that others who have tested the knowledge have done so according to a process that shows that knowledge to be useful. It still amounts to a form of knowledge that is inherited from others, which amounts to a belief.

I realise that 'belief' has negative connotations which equate blind trust. Yet the word still has a fundamental meaning which goes beyond that.

Further that there is a decrease in the dissonance for scientific theories and clarity to what we might call the picture of the natural world. In other words, if we view various and seemingly disparate scientific concepts as a puzzle then the picture that the puzzle reveals is becoming more and more clear. The pieces fit and we can make predictions based on those pieces for other pieces.

I've used a similar analogy in my classes. If the universe is like a painting, then science is a way of making sense out of the pixels, creating a clearer picture.

I know that people often abuse terms like 'theory' and 'belief' in order to make all speculations equal. We know damn well that there is a way to evaluate ideas for their worth, and some ideas are clearly better than others. Yet to resort to notions that some ideas therefore transcend 'beliefs' is also abusing the term.

Religious belief is outside of the picture. Aside from anthropological understanding (religion as a Rorschach test) religion doesn't fill in pieces of the puzzle. It doesn't advance understanding of the natural world beyond our understanding of human thought and culture and in fact is far more likely to cause dissonance and distort the puzzle.

Agreed. It doesn't make it useless to understand why and how people inherit beliefs from their social group, though.

I reject, for good reason, religion as belief comparative to my other beliefs.

I'm not sure where this is relevant. I don't think this thread has compared science and religion on any level other than as a collection of beliefs, which both are.

Athon

RandFan

10th December 2008, 12:26 AM

I fully agree. Yet we have to take care to understand what this means - most people accept this knowledge because it is coherent. Yet 'understand that it can be demonstrated' is an article of critical faith. I say 'critical' as it's not blind faith, but rather a form of trust that says that others who have tested the knowledge have done so according to a process that shows that knowledge to be useful. It still amounts to a form of knowledge that is inherited from others, which amounts to a belief. We drive our cars and operate our computers and take our medicine and take for granted that if our faith were ill founded then our world would not function the way that it does. It would be perverse to think that our cars would blow up at any moment or simply not run. Or that elevators all over the world would stop functioning. It really is more unreasonable to think that there is a conspiracy of the elite to foist falsehoods on us purposefully or ignorantly than to think that science actually works. Not perfectly but pretty damn well.

I can assume all religion is bunk and function in the world just fine.
I can't reasonably make the same assumptions about technology and science. To do so would be to become paranoid and would be more along the line of delusion. In other words it takes far more "faith" to assume that science and technology are bunk.
I realise that 'belief' has negative connotations which equate blind trust. Yet the word still has a fundamental meaning which goes beyond that. Oh, I understand, I don't have a problem with the word itself so long as people don't equate beliefs based on experience and rational and objective thought with superstition.

Believing that anti-biotics will cure infections IS NOT the same as believing that 4 leaf clover or prayer will cure infections. There is a substantive difference and we need to see that. If people want to believe that 4 leaf clover will cure them I'm fine with that so long as they make an informed choice and understand that their belief is an unreasonable one.

I've used a similar analogy in my classes. If the universe is like a painting, then science is a way of making sense out of the pixels, creating a clearer picture.

I know that people often abuse terms like 'theory' and 'belief' in order to make all speculations equal. We know damn well that there is a way to evaluate ideas for their worth, and some ideas are clearly better than others. Yet to resort to notions that some ideas therefore transcend 'beliefs' is also abusing the term. I wouldn't say that they transcend beliefs only that some beliefs are reasonable (founded) and some are not

Agreed. It doesn't make it useless to understand why and how people inherit beliefs from their social group, though. Of course, which is why I made the point that they are are beneficial from an anthropological POV.

I'm not sure where this is relevant. I don't think this thread has compared science and religion on any level other than as a collection of beliefs, which both are. I might have misunderstood the purpose of the OP given the other thread. I thought this thread stemmed from that one. I want to be sure that we are careful not to equate founded and reasonable beliefs with unfounded and unreasonable beliefs. The two are quite different.

I'll back off from that point then.

Thanks,

RandFan

athon

10th December 2008, 12:57 AM

Believing that anti-biotics will cure infections IS NOT the same as believing that 4 leaf clover or prayer will cure infections. There is a substantive difference and we need to see that. If people want to believe that 4 leaf clover will cure them I'm fine with that so long as they make an informed choice and understand that their belief is an unreasonable one.

No, of course. I couldn't agree more. I have a friend who supports alternative medicine simply because she finds it morally sound to provide placebos. Fundamentally we agree on all accounts except the moral basis of whether it's ok to lie to somebody to make them feel better.

Yet I find it interesting that for all purposes, she is a damn fine scientist. Great critical thinker. Her family is heavily into CAM, and I must admit, watching her struggle with dealing with the inherited beliefs from her upbringing with her values as scientific thinker are (perversely for me, being a friend) quite fascinating.

I might have misunderstood the purpose of the OP given the other thread. I thought this thread stemmed from that one. I want to be sure that we are careful not to equate founded and reasonable beliefs with unfounded and unreasonable beliefs. The two are quite different.

Of course. You won't find an argument from me on that basis. Yet from the point of view that both are value-laden beliefs, with those values inherited from a social group, it's worthwhile addressing how both sets of beliefs are developed and how they are dealt with by individuals.

I'll back off from that point then.

No need. I appreciate your input, as always.

Athon

cj.23

10th December 2008, 04:57 AM

I like Soapy Sam's response. :) Cool.

Agreed. :)

My complaint with the whole "beliefs is beliefs" meme is that there is a coherent accumulation of human knowledge and understanding that can be demonstrated in an objective way so as to increase the acceptance of that understanding by experts in their fields. Further that there is a decrease in the dissonance for scientific theories and clarity to what we might call the picture of the natural world. In other words, if we view various and seemingly disparate scientific concepts as a puzzle then the picture that the puzzle reveals is becoming more and more clear. The pieces fit and we can make predictions based on those pieces for other pieces.

I don't believe "beliefs are beliefs", lest that is not clear. Well actually it is probably not, because on another level I do believe "beliefs are beliefs". :eek:

Firstly, I suspect as I have outlined above that all beliefs are processed in the same way, and act in the same way. I have suggested a model of how beliefs might work, and made a few vague intuitive suggestions which may be testable somehow. I've thought of a further refinement, but I'll leave that for now. Athon, has anyone else who actually knows what they are talking about developed a similar model? Anyway I believe all beliefs belong to the set "beliefs". There is at this level no reason to differentiate between a belief in Bigfoot being an FBI Superagent, and a belief in the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Both are beliefs: the category itself is content neutral. Belief in this sense is just a description of a type of "thing" which can populate human minds.

This is incidentally true of the proposed memes. Meme theorists often become very indignant when I discuss the addition, subtraction, multiplication and division memes. Yes of course they are more useful than the Bigfoot meme - and they are as I would predict more prevalent - but the fact a meme is respectable does not make it less a meme, any more than the fact Einstien and a serial killer both being humans makes them somehow equivalent morally.

So: Entity N may be a member of Set R without being functionally equivalent to all other members. A set of all washing machines will include washing machines that are high performance models, clothes destroying models, and ones that don't work at all. They are all washing machines. Ditto beliefs. The set of ll beliefs held by person X will contain some which are highly logically demonstrable, some which are subjective and personal, and some which are way out and wacky, and possibly harmful. These different types of beliefs can all exist in the same person. The beliefs are all beliefs: but all beliefs are not equal. They share the label belief because they are processed and dealt with in the same manner, because they share a methodology, because they share a quality of being beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.

SO I am NOT saying all beliefs are equal. If I did after all there would be little point in my attempting to defend, critique, analyse or promote beliefs. I certainly would not work in education, or argue on forums. It would be an utter waste of time. We can still test a belief in two critical ways

i) with reference to external reality: does it pass tests which promote a high level of confidence in its objective truth?

ii) with reference to utility, in allowing its host organism to be a highly successful member of our species?

Both are employed, but as I have argued, evolution favours category ii over category i. An idea which may or may not be true, or even that may be demonstrably false may suceed, replicate if you like and thrive in the correct social or physical environment, regardles sof failing in category i. Scepticism sadly does not necessarily equate to adaptive advantage: even worse neither does objective truth.

Religious belief is outside of the picture. Aside from anthropological understanding (religion as a Rorschach test) religion doesn't fill in pieces of the puzzle. It doesn't advance understanding of the natural world beyond our understanding of human thought and culture and in fact is far more likely to cause dissonance and distort the puzzle.

Well I regard religious beliefs as exactly like any other belief. I think here you are making a qualitative distinction about the value content of the belief - the value of the washing machine: it still remains a washing machine, t use my example above. I suspect that even if religion can not be demonstrated to meet criteria i, that is to have objective proof with reference to an external utility, for religious beliefs to work at all and propagate they must possess option ii, utility. This could get very complex, and my refinement of my model will hopefully clarify m thinking here, but I suspect a major issue may be the divide you make between human culture and thought and the natural world, which to me is a curious distinction. I regard New York City, an operetta or say our current economics models as inherently natural and part of nature, as natural as a beaver's dam or an ant colony f'r instance. I'll explain my thinking here later if it is of any interest to anyone, but i am painfully aware that I am inherently tedious!

I might not be able to rigorously defend and understand my beliefs with a high degree of certainty but I have a rational basis for those beliefs. I can't say that about religion.

I disagree. I think you do defend your beliefs ably and rationally with a high degree of understanding from what I have seen: we share an inherent pragmatism in dealing with reality that many people appear to me to lack. We both agree that what works is more important to us than than metaphysics or these conversations - the urge to eat, sleep and deal with our fellows can exist independently of any metaphysical framework. We both stress action over "belief" in that sense. Perhaps surprisingly Randfan based on what I have seen of your writing on the forum I feel a strong affinity for your essentially functionalist worldview. Obviously we disagree on much - but there is also much agreement, as my "sermons" i posted a while back may show.

However you imply rationality is not a property of the religious argument. on the contrary, I think one can make a perfectly rational case for say theism or atheism, because rationality is a property of an arghument, not a conclusion. The reasoning can be completely sound but mistaken, unless we possess all relevant evidence, as the history of say science demonstrates. I don't think religious people or atheists are rational - I think individual arguments made by each may or may not be rational, in that they are logically internally consistent. An argument can be completely rational and yet completely wrong, if the premises are incorrect.

I reject, for good reason, religion as belief comparative to my other beliefs.

Yes, but you make a qualitative judgement here, based on certain other premises. Hey we can talk about this later. I'd better go do some work. Interesting as always

cj x

Dancing David

10th December 2008, 05:08 AM

There are a number of things we label as beliefs. The theories, stereotypes and projections we make about the behavior of things.

Then there are also the ones about 'how you know what you know', memory and perception sort of stuff. So then we have abberant beliefs or beliefs not shared by others : delusions. the people who have delusions have thos memories and memories of perceptions and they are very valid for them, not the 'president is stupid' sort of beliefs but the ' I saw the sun rise in the west' sort of beliefs.

cj.23

10th December 2008, 05:30 AM

I fully agree. Yet we have to take care to understand what this means - most people accept this knowledge because it is coherent.

I think this is a key point. My readings of medieval theology (back to the scholastics!) demonstrates a massively internally consistent internally coherent mode of thought and knowledge. Ditto my reading of Aristotleian Philosophy. Hell I could probably create a coherent Empedoclean philosophy, to grab one example at random. Yet clearly I favour modern sciences reading of reality to those of Aristotle or say Anselm, or to give a better example of a systematic thinker, Aquinas. As I suggested before, I think rationality is the property of an argument not the arguer - so Aquinan theology is almost mahematically logically coherentin many ways, if one accepts the premises.

Often one can change a paradign to incorporate new data, and find logical ways to amend it. Yet if, as i think is the case, Aristotles or Aquinas basic premises were flawed, the whole structure while internally coherent remains flawed. A better paradigm often to me seems to arise from a reexamination of the premises, rather than the data, but I could be talking bilge. I often do. Is this waht happened with General Relativity? I am reasonably aware of the 1909 revolution in Cosmology, but I lack the real knowledge to work this example through... Coherence however can be illusory.

Do I therefore believe that science is flawed, and we should only take in to account revisions that make us reexamine the model wholesale? Of course not! However, I dod think that such revolutions which allow us to interpret the data in a new light could occur. The functional utility of the paradigm we have does not preclude it not being an accurate depiction of ultimate reality -- yet the increasing coherence and logical realtionship inside our paradigm does mean that we should and must invest a very high degree of confidence in it.

In short my attitude to our science is much like my attitude to my religious beliefs -- I invest a great degree of confidence in them, because of their explanatory and predictive utility (and I must get back to another thread sometime soon where i need to actually discuss my religious beliefs in this light), but I remain open to anomalies in the current model showing revision is required. Coherence is not (given partial data) necessarily equal to truth, sadly, though I believ it is a very strong indicator of such. The history of science is the history of successive models refinement and increasing utility, but also a serach for improved coherence. We are making huge progress, and to oppose modern science as potentially flawed is frankly ludicrous, especially given everyone accepts that our science is a working provisional model. Sadly many non-theologians in the faith and without fail to undertsand theology is equally provisional! :)

Yet 'understand that it can be demonstrated' is an article of critical faith. I say 'critical' as it's not blind faith, but rather a form of trust that says that others who have tested the knowledge have done so according to a process that shows that knowledge to be useful. It still amounts to a form of knowledge that is inherited from others, which amounts to a belief.

Agreed. I happen to believe it is a belief in which we can invest a VERY high level of confidence, because of the nature of the scientific method and scientific community. All beliefs are beliefs, but not all beliefs are equal. The post modernist idea that all beliefs are somehow equally valid, and yes I am aware that is a painful misrepresentation of the best po-mo thinking, is clearly ********.

I realise that 'belief' has negative connotations which equate blind trust. Yet the word still has a fundamental meaning which goes beyond that.

Yep: I'm using belief here ot describe a type of phenomena that exists in mind: the level of confidence ascribed to that belief is a different matter. It's actually why I fear uncritical dogmatism more than I fear the actual beliefs. A belief only becomes dangerous when it causes actions, otherwise it is irrelevant. A belief held irrespective of evidence and uncritically, or a belief which somehow trumps all other beliefs as invested with a special authority is the dangerous part, and the hallmark of fundamentalists, religious or secular.

I've used a similar analogy in my classes. If the universe is like a painting, then science is a way of making sense out of the pixels, creating a clearer picture.

I like the analogy. It's also worth noting one can go further, and often make predictiosn about other parts of the picture, or create new parts of the picture. :) Science is inherently fuctional - combined with economics it provides technology and understanding. I am a huge fan of science in case you have not guessed -- there does appear to be a suspicion sometimes that religious folks and third rate ghosthunters like me are opposed to science in some way. :)

I know that people often abuse terms like 'theory' and 'belief' in order to make all speculations equal. We know damn well that there is a way to evaluate ideas for their worth, and some ideas are clearly better than others. Yet to resort to notions that some ideas therefore transcend 'beliefs' is also abusing the term.

Agreed, and i wish I had read this before replying to Randfan, as it is considerably more elegant than my formulation of the same point.

Religious belief is outside of the picture. Aside from anthropological understanding (religion as a Rorschach test) religion doesn't fill in pieces of the puzzle. It doesn't advance understanding of the natural world beyond our understanding of human thought and culture and in fact is far more likely to cause dissonance and distort the puzzle.

Agreed. It doesn't make it useless to understand why and how people inherit beliefs from their social group, though.

Here we disagree: apart from my inclusion of human culture as a part of nature, I also believe religious beliefs can have predictive and utilitarian value. The argument that religion, which uses supernatural premises does not fot in with science is sound, but it strikes me as an artefact of the basic (sensible) scientific premise of methodological naturalism. If you exclude teleology and supernatural imoacts upon nature by default from a bosy of knowledge, and predicate rationality, materilaim and internal physical causality, it is unsurprising if your science excldes the possibilities of deities - it is written in to the assumprions after all... The science still works just fine: but you won't find a scientific demosntration of a metaphysical truth, anymore than you will find a scientific cause for the outbreak of the American Civil War or asaination of JFK. hose events still had natural causes through. Much of this will depend on wher eone draws the limits of scince, but history clearly si abody of knowledge for example which stands outside Popperian science - something I frequently think causes issues here, or when say Dawkins suggest the evidence in the New Testament for the Resurrection s a scientific question. Science within the usual frameworks is a valid, useful and very productive way of knowing -- but not the only way.

Anyway, I really should go work. Apologie sif talking rot, I often do. It's a human thing.:)

cj x

cj.23

10th December 2008, 05:55 AM

I think that many beliefs are held because of early installation during upbringing, regardless of any utility. Once they get started, they're hard to kill.

An example is the idea that you get colds from being outside in cold weather. If people would quit telling other people this, it would go away. This belief has no utility, yet it is remarkably persistent.

Back in my medical days I actually thought it would be fun to test this. The survival of the notion struck me as peculiar. My grandmother was always telling me "you'll freeze and catch your death, cos you left your coat behind" (well not in those words - that was Bowie from the song Time. :))

Actually, I think it does work. We need to think it through though....

1. The cold virus is likely to be dormant or less active in winter at sub-zero temperatures?
2. Yet people still get colds in winter, and cold weather does appear at the anecdotal level to be related to the common cold.

So why?

Well, what if we are constantly esposed to cold viruses? Then we might expect that given equal exposure, we would all be ill equally across the climatic variation of the year.

Except: our immune systems might vary. We might be equally exposed, but more susceptible if the immune system was depressed.

So does immune resistance vary with body temperature? Makes no sense, as our internal body temperature remains relatively static? However, what if variation in exposure to external temperature conditions leads to physiological shifts in the immune system? If so, going from a war environment to a veyr cold one or vice versa MIGHT actually depress our immune system resistance, even for only a few minutes -- allowing a window for the cold virus to take effect in the host.

Logically then in an English winter going from a hot room to a freezing cold night could lead to an increase in cold infections by temporary immuno-suppresion, and as the virus despite the cold consitions which are less than optimum for replication is then more common, colds increase. It would be exposure to rapidly varying temperatures rather than the cold itself which would lead to the illness.

An obvious objection: then we would expect to see more of all viruses in times when people pass from very warm environments so to very cold ones -- but we may well do so, it is just that the highly infectious and environmentally prevalent common cold would appear more than say measles, allowing for the folk belief to arise from actual observations.

Of course this is probably rot -- I know nothing worth knowing bout the subject, just speculating. FLS is your person here, she probably has hard data, or someone active in epidemiology if we have such a poster. Logically however i think my hypothesis may be worth testing?

cj x

cj.23

10th December 2008, 06:02 AM

I just spent thirty seconds googling and discovered that while no one seems to have come up with my hypothesis above, which at least is consistent with the idea of homeostasis I think, respiratory tract infections are in fact statistically associated with cold weather,
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0954611108003429
Suggesting that the idea they are not which we have all heard may be a false "debunk" of popular belief, a sceptical myth. Of course the idea is contrary to common sense at first glance, but I think the mechanism I propose can at least be tested, at least in theory, and meets with the data. Anyone think of a way of testing it? I very much doubt my reasoning constitutes a useful breakthrough, but it does at least have the benefit of making some sense?

cj x

RandFan

10th December 2008, 08:23 AM

I don't believe "beliefs are beliefs", lest that is not clear. Well actually it is probably not, because on another level I do believe "beliefs are beliefs". I wasn't trying to commit a tautology. It's a take off from "parts is parts" or, in other words, all beliefs, being beliefs, are equal.

I suspect that even if religion can not be demonstrated to meet criteria i, that is to have objective proof with reference to an external utility, for religious beliefs to work at all and propagate they must possess option ii, utility. This could get very complex, and my refinement of my model will hopefully clarify m thinking here, but I suspect a major issue may be the divide you make between human culture and thought and the natural world, which to me is a curious distinction. I regard New York City, an operetta or say our current economics models as inherently natural and part of nature, as natural as a beaver's dam or an ant colony f'r instance. I accept, as Dan Dennett posits, that all human endeavor is in fact natural. I'm reasonably certain that I've made no such distinction.

However you imply rationality is not a property of the religious argument. on the contrary, I think one can make a perfectly rational case for say theism or atheism, because rationality is a property of an arghument, not a conclusion. The reasoning can be completely sound but mistaken, unless we possess all relevant evidence, as the history of say science demonstrates. I don't think religious people or atheists are rational - I think individual arguments made by each may or may not be rational, in that they are logically internally consistent. An argument can be completely rational and yet completely wrong, if the premises are incorrect.If I were George Bush, son of George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush, I would be President of The United States. I am George W. Bush son of George H. W. and Barbara Bush. I am Batman the President.

It's a rational argument but there is no rational basis to believe that I am George Bush.

That's where you go south. Religious people can make rational arguments in support of their beliefs but is there a rational basis to accept their premises?

Yes, but you make a qualitative judgement here...

I am Napolean ruler of France.
I am not Napolean ruler of France.
I reject, for good reason, that I'm Napolean. That's not simply a qualitative judgement. This is important and I feel it important to stress the point. If it helps then replace "good" with logically valid and demonstrable.

RandFan

10th December 2008, 08:29 AM

I also believe religious beliefs can have predictive and utilitarian value. Utility doesn't make it true. Give me an example of "predictive value"?

cj.23

10th December 2008, 09:15 AM

Utility doesn't make it true.

Agreed absolutely, but it does have bearing on the survival of an idea.

Give me an example of "predictive value"?

Religious beliefs being complex structures are bound to possess some ideas that can be empirically verified, and as much early religion f'rinstance included astronomical data for example many religious claims have subsequently been empirically verified. You can say "hey they were not really religious ideas" - sure, but that si because you are defining religious beliefs as those not empirically demonstrable or with predictive value. The prediction the universe came in to existence, as opposed to having a steady state, and time with it, is a classic example of a prediction that can be made from a religious belief.

Most religious beliefs however revolve around relationships with entity X, a deity -and relationships predictability, as psychology has shown, is complex. Hell it's not so long ago we finally were able to empirically demonstrate that the concept of personality is meaningful!

From my limited interaction with say yrreg, yourself, athon, soapy sam, fls and arthwollitpot I might make limited judgments as to how you might respond - frequently in error. It's the same thing with deities really. Allow me to illustrate...

Friday night on Olympus, and Zeus gets in from a hard day at the office, mating with mortal females in the form of a golden light or bull or -- hey, the girl changes, the modus operandi varies, the same old grind...

Hera: Working late again ... really? (suspiciously)
Zeus: yep, just been the usual, y'know lightning bolts at the blasphemous, making sure Titans still chained, same old, same old.
Hera: So no maidens then?
Zeus: Of course not dear. Oh by the way, I asked a couple of the lads over for a sip of nectar and some hot ambrosia, I trust that is ok?
Hera: Not again! OK, who is this time? That nice Mr Cernunnos and the lovely Epona?
Zeus: (mumbling) er, nope. Yahweh and Odin actually
Hera: or maybe Belobog and Cislobog? Such nice folks!
Zeus, er, no (trying to look regal) Yahweh and Odin actually!
Hera: THOSE TROUBLEMAKERS! After the last time it took me a month to get the blood out of the carpet! You know Odin will always turn up drunk, and insist on feasting all night, and at dawn will start a huge fight. He always bloody does!
Zeus: i know dear, but I have to work with him!
Hera: And that Yahweh! He always has to be top dog, its like no one else gets a look in. He'll be going oin about how he is number one, the only real God, and then him and Odin will get down to some serious smiting - and he is such a prude!
Zeus: yes dear, but ---
Aphrodite sassys in
Hera: Hello dear, you might want to head out for a stag night or something, or take a bath or something. You will never guess who his nibs has asked over? Yahweh and Odin!
Aphrodite: (Looking appalled) - oh but we can't have them tonight! I asked Ba'al Hadad and his friend the nice Mr Loki over! It will be like last Christmas and Baldur and the darts competition all over again! You know this will be trouble if they all turn up here...

The doorbell rings - all three deities turn to look at it aghast.

END OF ACT ONE

cj x

RandFan

10th December 2008, 09:46 AM

Malerin

10th December 2008, 09:53 AM

Belief can be pretty easily defined, I think. The hang-up is going to be on what “true” means, but I’m jumping ahead.

A person has a belief if they think (conclude, realize, etc.) X is more, less, or as likely as true as not X.

A theist has a belief because they’ve concluded (for whatever reason) that “God exists” (X) is more likely true than “God does not exist” (~X). An agnostic also has a similar belief: “God exists” is as likely as “God does not exist”. A strong atheist is a person who has concluded “God exists” is less likely than “God does not exist”. No matter where you’re at on the God spectrum, if you’ve thought about it at all, you have a belief. Even agnosticism is the belief that there’s not enough evidence to form a belief.

This avoids the objection that people have beliefs about trivial things they’ve never heard of, like the existence of dwarves on the 5th moon of Saturn. Since they’ve never thought about it (never had a chance to evaluate the evidence for/against), there’s no belief associated with it. Of course, after reading this, people probably WILL have a belief about those dwarves (most will probably think their existence is not likely, but a few may believe it’s as likely as their non-existence).

The problem is what is meant by “true”. A lot of people here are pragmatists and support the pragmatic view of truth (whatever works is true). This avoids the messiness of having to deal with an ultimate reality- it doesn’t matter if I’m a brain-in-a-vat or not, it is still true that shooting myself in the head is not a good idea.

There is also the correspondence view of truth, which basically says X is true if X corresponds to reality. “The cat is on the mat” is true if there’s actually a cat on the mat. I’ve noticed a lot of atheists here take the pragmatic approach when dealing with issues about reality, but then curiously switch over to the correspondence view when talking about God- the theist is supposed to provide evidence for the literal existence of God (not whether the idea of God works or not). However, when the theist, for example, asks for evidence of the existence of matter, the atheist switches back to the pragmatic view and claims it’s not important what the “Ur” substance is.

Both views of truth have limitations. The correspondence view never really gets us anywhere because reality is ultimately unknowable. All we can go by is what our senses tell us and what they tell us is consistent with countless versions of reality. The pragmatic view runs into trouble when you try to flesh out what “works” means. Some really weird stuff can appear to “work”. Example: a volcano erupts and an Aztec priest decides to sacrifice a person a week to appease the gods. No volcanic eruptions for the next 50 years. Is it then true that “sacrificing people prevented volcanic eruptions”? You can object that it’s not true because we know better now, but then that calls into question all the things we currently think are true- will they all be falsified in a thousand years? Based on what the priest knew, the sacrifices worked (you can even apply the scientific method to it): he observed there was an eruption, he had a hypothesis (human sacrifices will prevent eruptions), he tested the hypothesis for decades, and then concluded that since what he was doing “worked” it was true.

Another example: a lapsed Catholic buys a lottery ticket every week for years and wins nothing. He decides to pray when he buys the next ticket. He hits the jackpot. He believes it to be true that God answered his prayer. Pragmatically, he can make a justified claim that his prayer worked- Out of hundreds of attempts, the one time he prayed is the one time he hit it big.

So herein lies the problem: no matter how pragmatic you view yourself, we all have core beliefs about reality that are correspondence based. Nobody here is a true solipsist or believes the world is five minutes old and we’ve all been given false memories. On the other hand, I don’t think anybody here is really agnostic about those things either. Almost everyone I talk to dismisses the idea that only they exist or the world is five minutes old. I certainly do. Most people have a definite belief that reality is a certain way (other people exist, the universe is 14 or so billion years old, etc.). But what is the evidence for these beliefs? It is impossible to prove or disprove the claim that we were created five minutes ago with false memories. Likewise, the existence of other beings.

This lack of agnosticism tells me there’s a lot of faith on display on both sides, theist and atheist. It would be kind of depressing if reality consisted of just yourself, or the world was five minutes old and you had been tricked on every level. But with no evidence either way (no way to get outside yourself and your senses) the correct position should be agnosticism. Any other belief is “faith-based”. The atheist cannot criticize the theist for a faith-based belief when they have their own.

As Plumjam stated, if people around here were truly pragmatic and agnostic about reality-claims, idealism, immaterialism, and solipsism would not get the rough treatment they always do. It wouldn’t matter to a true pragmatist how reality really is, only that their beliefs work in the context of their own experiences. Instead those claims are vehemently denounced in pages long posts, suggesting that there are very few agnostics among us.

RandFan

10th December 2008, 09:55 AM

A person has a belief if they think (conclude, realize, etc.) X is ... as likely as true as not X. Agreed, but an irrational belief.

RandFan

10th December 2008, 10:03 AM

There is also the correspondence view of truth, which basically says X is true if X corresponds to reality. “The cat is on the mat” is true if there’s actually a cat on the mat. I’ve noticed a lot of atheists here take the pragmatic approach when dealing with issues about reality, but then curiously switch over to the correspondence view when talking about God- the theist is supposed to provide evidence for the literal existence of God (not whether the idea of God works or not). However, when the theist, for example, asks for evidence of the existence of matter, the atheist switches back to the pragmatic view and claims it’s not important what the “Ur” substance is.Nonsense.

The pragmatic view that an internal combustion engine works isn't contradicted by other pragmatic views that an internal combustion engine doesn't work.
The pragmatic view that a belief that Christ is the living embodiment of god "works" (whatever that might mean) is in fact contradicted by beliefs that a belief that Christ is the living embodiment of god does not work.

Malerin

10th December 2008, 10:15 AM

[LIST]
The pragmatic view that an internal combustion engine works isn't contradicted by other pragmatic views that an internal combustion engine doesn't work.

That just means it's consistent with other beliefs. You could make the same claim about the Aztec priest in my example- other priests who have tried human sacrifices to prevent eruptions have also had success.

The pragmatic view that a belief that Christ is the living embodiment of god "works" (whatever that might mean) is in fact contradicted by beliefs that a belief that Christ is the living embodiment of god does not work.

So is the belief that Prozac helps depression. For some it works, for others it doesn't. Does that mean Prozac doesn't work?

Malerin

10th December 2008, 10:17 AM

Agreed, but an irrational belief.

What you quoted was my definition of belief. What was irrational?

Malerin

10th December 2008, 10:22 AM

RandFan

10th December 2008, 10:24 AM

That just means it's consistent with other beliefs. No. See falsifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability).

You could make the same claim about the Aztec priest in my example- other priests who have tried human sacrifices to prevent eruptions have also had success. Actually you can't make the same claim. To do so would be to make a causal error. There is no mechanism for the belief to work. Not true with internal combustion engines and the fact is the human sacrifices didn't always work. There are serious fundamental differences between these two examples.

So is the belief that Prozac helps depression. For some it works, for others it doesn't. Does that mean Prozac doesn't work? Again you are making an error. Prozac has a mechanism to work and it is based on more than self reporting so the example is spurious because there is science behind the use of Prozac.

If you are seriously interested in a discussion on the merits of Prozac and whether or not there is any scientific basis for its use I'd happily join you in a new thread. In the mean time please feel free to peruse the following:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172)

Skeptic Ginger

10th December 2008, 10:24 AM

This is such a complex issue and I have no expertise other than personal observation with great interest over the years, but it seems to me the first problem is making an assumption our brains perceive reality. Some brains perceive the Universe more closely to its real nature than others.

We have examples of people whose perceived reality is clearly pathologic. That would be someone who is experiencing psychosis. But then it is assumed psychosis is an either or condition, when the evidence suggests there may be more of a continuum from accurate perception of reality to grossly inaccurate perception.

To get to the bottom of irrational beliefs, (which I call non-evidence based beliefs), there are two things then to consider. 1) Is the person even perceiving the evidence rationally to begin with, and 2) How good are that person's critical thinking skills?

I separate these because they influence beliefs in different ways. Someone who doesn't understand evidence of causality, for example, may perceive reality correctly but draw erroneous conclusions from what they perceive. While someone else may draw erroneous conclusions because they distort the incoming messages before they get around to analyzing them.

RandFan

10th December 2008, 10:30 AM

Randfan, are you denying my claim that theists aren't constantly challenged for proof that God actually exists, in the correspondence sense? I have seen very few atheists ask for proof that a belief in God "works" or not. And by "very few", I mean none.

Likewise, I have seen many atheists dismiss questions about reality as irrelevant because what they believe in "works". Whether or not god works is irrelevant at best and spurious at worst. That there are so many contradictory claims about god and that belief in god leads to more and more fragmenting, dissonance and disagreement of the nature and "efficacy" of god lends to the conclusion that god does not work any way that has to do with the truth of whether or not god exists.

But I ask for proof that god "works" on this forum almost daily. I point out that a belief in a jug of milk is demonstrably as effective as a belief in god. If you want I'd happily post the links.

Skeptic Ginger

10th December 2008, 10:32 AM

As for the Aztec belief sacrifice controls the success of the crops or whatever, that would likely be based on a mix of the two problems. Poor critical thinking skills would lead the person to believe the sacrifice had causality. But irrational perception would lead the person to discount the evidence which contradicted the belief in sacrifice before it is considered in the analysis.

Skeptic Ginger

10th December 2008, 10:36 AM

Everyone weighs the evidence (perceived reality) based on prior experiences. People who believe in gods discount evidence which doesn't support that preexisting conviction. For example, how many studies showing prayer has no effect does it take to convince a god believer that prayer has no effect? When asked to provide evidence supporting the success of prayer, bad science is touted as evidence. The criticisms of the positive outcome prayer studies are ignored. And where that fails, the apologies start. That is the rationalization of how the studies failing to provide evidence of the effect of prayer don't prove prayer doesn't work because [fill in the blank].

cj.23

10th December 2008, 10:51 AM

If you are seriously interested in a discussion on the merits of Prozac and whether or not there is any scientific basis for its use I'd happily join you in a new thread.

i'd be interested in a discussion of good old fluoxetine. I'm amusing myself at the moment by teaching myself a little pharmacology, as you may have guessed from a couple of references on other threads. As there is variability across the population of the enzyme cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) , one of the P450's I mentioned in the Evidence for God thread, which as i recall is involved in the uptake of fluoxetine, and in I think about 5-10% of the population that enzyme action is significantly increased, I'd estimate that flouxetine would be ineffective in a small part of the population. Other SSRI options would be more suitable. Of couse some people will have a CYP2D6 action which is less efficient - given that as far as i know Prozac absorbs and delivers avery high percentage of the active ingredients, I don't think this would matter at clinical doses. Dunno - ask a pharmacist!

Drugs generally vary, depending on all kinds of factors, in their effects on people. The P450 enzyme grtoup is really interesting though. If you are interested in the biochemistry I can look it up by hitting my books, but I really am at the "just started to get interested" level. Asking a phramacologist, GP or doctor would be a wiser move. My thinking above is based on probably falwed logic, not any empirical evidence. I just like to think about things. Never take my thoughts on any medical issue too seriously!

cj x

Malerin

10th December 2008, 11:20 AM

Actually you can't make the same claim. To do so would be to make a causal error.

But you're assuming you're not making the same error with your belief that engines work (which is kind of vague- HOW do they work?). How do you know that in 500 years, scientists won't laugh at our ideas of how things work?

There is no mechanism for the belief to work.

Sure there is, you just don't believe in it. You sacrifice the body, the gods are pleased, no more eruptions. You switched back into correspondence mode just then. You assumed there was no mechanism because you assumed reality was such that there are no gods who are swayed by human sacrifices. Of course you don't know this and it may be true that there would have been a lot more volcanic eruptions had those gods not been pacified!

Not true with internal combustion engines and the fact is the human sacrifices didn't always work.

Engines always work? Tell that to my mechanic! I'm sure the priest would tell you that sacrifices, done properly, work. After all, he's been doing it for 30 years and no eruptions. He can also point you to priests that have tried the same thing to prevent earthquakes. One priest and his son and grandson haven't had an earthquake in over 100 years. If there IS an earthquake, well the priest didn't do the sacrifice right.

There are serious fundamental differences between these two examples.

Not really, that's the problem with pragmatism. It makes no claims about reality and depends on a nebulous meaning of "work". Did prayer work for the lottery winner? I'm sure you would reply that it hasn't worked for other people who have prayed and lost, and I'm sure you know my reply- the winner did not pray for OTHER people to win, only himself. If other people pray and don't win, then God must not have wanted them to win.

Again you are making an error. Prozac has a mechanism to work and it is based on more than self reporting so the example is spurious because there is science behind the use of Prozac.

Theists have "mechanisms" too (prayer being one). And any trial of an anti-depressant is going to rely heavily on self-reporting. What good is an anti-depressant if no one claims they're any less depressed? How would the chemicals associated with depression ever have been identified if it wasn't for a person reporting they were depressed? It's all based on self-reporting. So then, how do you evaluate the truthfulness of a theist's claim that prayer "works"? We have a mechanism in place, self-reporting, and a whole bunch of people who claim it "works".

If you are seriously interested in a discussion on the merits of Prozac and whether or not there is any scientific basis for its use I'd happily join you in a new thread. In the mean time please feel free to peruse the following:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172)

I believe it works. My point is A) it doesn't work for some, which doesn't invalidate it) and B) we're not going to get anywhere until "work" is fully defined.

RandFan

10th December 2008, 11:39 AM

But you're assuming you're not making the same error with your belief that engines work (which is kind of vague- HOW do they work?). How do you know that in 500 years, scientists won't laugh at our ideas of how things work? How Car Engines Work (http://www.howstuffworks.com/engine.htm).

You are abusing skepticism. It's true, we might be laughed at 500 years from now but our understanding of the internal combustion engine is very detailed and precise. It doesn't lead to dissonance or controversy (unlike religious beliefs).

Sure there is, you just don't believe in it. You sacrifice the body, the gods are pleased, no more eruptions. A.) It's not true that it always worked and B.) there is no mechanism for how it would work (how does a god cause a volcano to erupt? You rely on magical explanations. No magical explanations are needed for internal combustion engines. Perhaps a better understanding of engines will emerge in 500 years but the current explanation is well understood, non-controversial, predictiable, fits with all other fields associated with it and damn precise and functional.

You assumed there was no mechanism because you assumed reality was such that there are no gods who are swayed by human sacrifices.

There is no mechanism for magical gods causing volcanoes to erupt.
There is no evidence that if there were gods they were always pacified.
The belief is unfounded and unreasonable and one must abuse skepticism to assert that a belief in pacifying gods is as reasonable a belief as the theory of the internal combustion engines.

Nonsense.

Engines always work?You are making a serious error. When they don't we can diagnose why they don't work and fix them. Not possible for gods. See, that's the power of science. We can understand the workings of an internal combustion engine, why it works and when it doesn't why it doesn't.

Not really, that's the problem with pragmatism. It makes no claims about reality and depends on a nebulous meaning of "work".Again, you are wrong. We can explain how something like an internal combustion engine works and we can measure that work (horse power) very precisely. We know that based on any number of measurable variables like gas flow, stroke, weight, aerodynamics, etc how efficient a system with an engine will be.

God? We know nothing. Will sacrifice guarantee that the volcano won't erupt?

Can you begin to see the difference?

Theists have "mechanisms" too (prayer being one).Demonstrated to work no better than masturbating.

I believe it works. My point is A) it doesn't work for some, which doesn't invalidate it) and B) we're not going to get anywhere until "work" is fully defined. If you are going to abuse skepticism then the conversation will get nowhere.

If not then I would recommend the use of horsepower (http://www.google.com/search?q=horsepower&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1) as a measurement of the ability to work. Work then, in this case, would be to propel a vehicle forward. To overcome the initial inertia of a body at rest (the vehicle) and to overcome the force of gravity and air to continue moving the vehicle to a desired distance (from point A to point B).

Thanks and please don't tell me that you would rather play obtuse and abuse skepticism and/or play semantical games.

Malerin

10th December 2008, 11:42 AM

RandFan

10th December 2008, 11:51 AM

The point is that Prozac and prayer take on the same form: X is depressed, X does action Y (prayer or Prozac), X feels better. You claim to know WHY Prozac works scientifically, but then the theist claims to know why prayer works, theistically: prayer brings them closer to God, which makes them happier.No. This is wrong. I realize now that you are just sticking your fingers in your ears and humming but I'll be redundant for those who are listening.

There is a mechanism for Prozac to work. It's understood from a scientific POV. Prayer does not work the same way or with the same level of confidence. At best prayer is the same as meditation and masterbation.

I'll post the links again for those interested. I normaly don't argue via link but there is no way I could do justice to the science the way Novella does. Please, for anyone who honestly believe that Prozac is no better or worse than praying see the links. Psychiatry is a valid scientific field.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172)

RandFan

10th December 2008, 11:55 AM

The Scalpel and the Soul is a wonderful book about a neurosurgeon (Allan Hamilton), his take on spirituality and medicine, and some paranormal experiences he's had. Please see Consciousness: An Introduction (http://www.amazon.ca/Consciousness-Introduction-Susan-Blackmore/dp/019515343X). Written by Susan Blackmore, a formal paranormal researcher. After years of exhaustive searching she realized that paranormal is bunk.

Also please see What can the paranormal teach us about Consciousness (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si01.html)?

Malerin

10th December 2008, 01:13 PM

How Car Engines Work (http://www.howstuffworks.com/engine.htm).

You are abusing skepticism.

What an odd thing to say in a skeptical forum.

It's true, we might be laughed at 500 years from now but our understanding of the internal combustion engine is very detailed and precise. It doesn't lead to dissonance or controversy (unlike religious beliefs).

Aristotelian physics was very detailed, precise and lasted for quite a long time with no dissonance or controversy.

A.) It's not true that it always worked and B.) there is no mechanism for how it would work (how does a god cause a volcano to erupt?)

What is the mechanism for the creation of virtual particles? How about the mechanism behind twin particles communicating and changing spin properties faster than light? The mechanism behind the big bang?

Not knowing is not the same as not possible.

You rely on magical explanations. No magical explanations are needed for internal combustion engines.

Magical? No, just unknown. If you believe an engine is real, you're in the same boat: why did the big bang happen? Why something instead of nothing? Why does an electron go around an atom instead of shooting off in another direction? Does the electron KNOW what to do?

Perhaps a better understanding of engines will emerge in 500 years but the current explanation is well understood, non-controversial, predictiable, fits with all other fields associated with it and damn precise and functional.

According to what we think we know now. I'm sure other people at other times thought the same about their worldviews. Let's examine that with my example of the Aztec priest:
Well understood? Yes. Sacrifice person correctly, happy god.
Predictible? Yes. Sacrifice person correctly, no volcanoes or earthquakes.
Precise? Yes. Bring person to spot X, place dagger in chest, have sufficient faith.
Functional? Yes. Live for decades or centuries with no earthquakes.

You did all that and an earthquake occurred? Reexamine faith, attempt again, and enjoy more decades of no earthquakes or volcanoes.

There is no mechanism for magical gods causing volcanoes to erupt.
There is no evidence that if there were gods they were always pacified.
The belief is unfounded and unreasonable and one must abuse skepticism to assert that a belief in pacifying gods is as reasonable a belief as the theory of the internal combustion engines.

You already said all this.

You are making a serious error. When they don't we can diagnose why they don't work and fix them. Not possible for gods. See, that's the power of science. We can understand the workings of an internal combustion engine, why it works and when it doesn't why it doesn't.

Like I said, other people spoke with the same conviction talking about how everything was made of the right combinations of Earth, Wind, Fire and Water, and if there was a failure, it was due to an imbalance in one of the elements. How do you know that in five years, you won't be unplugged from the experience machine you're currently in, and the REAL answer for what an engine is and why it works will be revealed?

Again, you are wrong. We can explain how something like an internal combustion engine works and we can measure that work (horse power) very precisely. We know that based on any number of measurable variables like gas flow, stroke, weight, aerodynamics, etc how efficient a system with an engine will be.

More repitition.

God? We know nothing. Will sacrifice guarantee that the volcano won't erupt?

Can you guarantee that anything you know will not be revealed to be false at a later date? There are no guarantees. Einstein and Hoyle were pretty sure the steady-state model of the universe was correct.

Can you begin to see the difference?

I should ask you the same. Are you agnostic about any of the following claims?
- Other people exist
- The world is five minutes old
- You're dreaming
- The world is a projection of God's mind

Demonstrated to work no better than masturbating.

Sez you. Prayer has been so much more helpful to me than jacking off. Maybe if you looked inward instead of downward...

If you are going to abuse skepticism then the conversation will get nowhere.

And if you actually engaged in it, instead of assuming everything you know is true, we might get somewhere. Your lack of skepticism is ironic, here on a skeptical forum.

Malerin

10th December 2008, 01:17 PM

No. This is wrong. I realize now that you are just sticking your fingers in your ears and humming but I'll be redundant for those who are listening.

There is a mechanism for Prozac to work. It's understood from a scientific POV. Prayer does not work the same way or with the same level of confidence. At best prayer is the same as meditation and masterbation.

I'll post the links again for those interested. I normaly don't argue via link but there is no way I could do justice to the science the way Novella does. Please, for anyone who honestly believe that Prozac is no better or worse than praying see the links. Psychiatry is a valid scientific field.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171)
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172 (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172)

I never claimed Prozac or psychiatry didn't work. I claimed prayer DID work. You assumed the two are mutually exclusive. They're not.

cj.23

10th December 2008, 01:27 PM

Please see Consciousness: An Introduction (http://www.amazon.ca/Consciousness-Introduction-Susan-Blackmore/dp/019515343X). Written by Susan Blackmore, a formal paranormal researcher. After years of exhaustive searching she realized that paranormal is bunk.

Also please see What can the paranormal teach us about Consciousness (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si01.html)?

Sue has about a decade on me as far as I know in this area, bUt she is a great person from my recollections. I think it's interesting that we have reached such radically different conclusions: I totally disagree with her based on pretty much the same evidence (admittedly I never argued with Sargent!) If you want a book of hers on Consciousness I'd recommend this one --
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Conversations-Consciousness-Interviews-Twenty-Minds/dp/019280622X

I fundamentally disagree with her on memes, consciousness and parapsychology, but still found her an intelligent and witty critic. However you and Malerin are both really arguing from authority here - what the neurologist and Blackmore thinks are distinctly irrelevant: what matters is that you can read their reasoning and summaries of the evidence and formulate your own evidentially based beliefs. :) Or even better, test things yourself - Dr Blackmore notoriously got negative results where others got positives (ask Ersby!).

Incidentally a large number of neurologists including at least one nobel laureate are dualists, and in the case of the nobel laureate a creationist, in the neurological sense of believing consciousness is not a natural result of brain development. I can outlime a bit on this issue if you are interested -- I happen to know a tiny bit about it.

cj x

RandFan

10th December 2008, 01:45 PM

I never claimed Prozac or psychiatry didn't work. I claimed prayer DID work. You assumed the two are mutually exclusive. They're not.{sigh}

Prayer does NOT work in any way or extent the same way that Prozac and psychiatry does. There is zero clinical evidence that prayer can treat any psychiatric or neurological disorder. Your continued insistence that prayer "works" is nonsense.

Let me try this, would it be ethical for a doctor to prescribe prayer to cure depression or any neurological or psychological disorder?

Here's a hint: No.

Now, figure out why and you will stop stressing prayer. It works no more than 4 leaf clover or horse shoes.

Ok?

plumjam

10th December 2008, 01:46 PM

Malerin's post 25 nominated

RandFan

10th December 2008, 02:12 PM

What an odd thing to say in a skeptical forum.Not at all. People who are not skeptics are prone to abuse skepticism. See Abuse of skepticism (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Abuses-of-skepticism).

Aristotelian physics was very detailed, precise and lasted for quite a long time with no dissonance or controversy. But they failed to answer many questions or resolve many problems and contradictions. Aristotelian physics was a poor model. We can see effective difference in the evolving of models. BTW, some models don't always supersede previous models. Newton's model works fine for most everyday things.

The question that you are failing to answer is, what unanswered questions and problems do we have with our understanding of the internal combustion engine? How does our understanding fail to answer the questions raised and what are the gaps in our understanding?

What is the mechanism for the creation of virtual particles? How about the mechanism behind twin particles communicating and changing spin properties faster than light? The mechanism behind the big bang? The physics and logic behind these are beyond my competence but that does not mean that they are not rooted in logic and or mathematical proofs.

What similar reason do you have for religion?

Magical?You can't explain the mechanisms that make it work.

If you believe an engine is real, you're in the same boatNo. I can explain the mechanisms and make predictions and answer questions based on understanding of the internal combustion engine.

why did the big bang happen? Why something instead of nothing? Why does an electron go around an atom instead of shooting off in another direction? Does the electron KNOW what to do? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Functional? Yes. Live for decades or centuries with no earthquakes. But there were earthquakes and they didn't understand the mechanisms. Science doesn't work that way.

You already said all this. Yet you fail to understand or grasp the significance.

There is no mechanism for magical gods causing volcanoes to erupt.
There is no evidence that if there were gods they were always pacified.

Like I said, other people spoke with the same conviction talking about how everything was made of the right combinations of Earth, Wind, Fire and Water, and if there was a failure, it was due to an imbalance in one of the elements. Because the early convictions of understanding were grossly incomplete and raised more questions than answers. Current models, though incomplete and any could be overturned at any time are far more comprehensive and answer ever so many more questions and have provided predictions that have been demonstrated. The past explanations failed to do this.

More repitition.And you still don't get it.

Can you guarantee that anything you know will not be revealed to be false at a later date?Of course not but that's a canard. There is a substantive difference why believing in modern medicine is better than 4 leaf clovers. That reason is why you choose modern medicine.

If you can figure out why you choose modern medicine over 4 leaf clover or blood letting then you will understand why your objections are meaningless.

- Other people exist
- The world is five minutes old
- You're dreaming
- The world is a projection of God's mindI'm apathetic. I don't care. It doesn't make any difference. I still have to go to the bathroom. I still have to eat. I still have to drink water. I still have to sleep.

I don't care.

You've asked me this question and I've answered it before. You accuse me of repetition but fail utterly to understand simple concepts.

*I don't give a damn whether other people exist or not. I can't act as if they don't.
I don't give a damn if the world is five minutes old or not. I can't act as if it isn't.
I don't give a damn if I'm only dreaming. I can't as if I'm not.
I cant give a damn of the world is a projection of god's mind or not. I can't act as if it isn't.
Is any of this sinking in?

Sez you. Prayer has been so much more helpful to me than jacking off. Maybe if you looked inward instead of downward...Prove it?

And if you actually engaged in it, instead of assuming everything you know is true, we might get somewhere. Your lack of skepticism is ironic, here on a skeptical forum.I'm willing to be skeptical of just about anything and in fact I am. What I don't do is abuse skepticsim (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Abuses-of-skepticism).

There's a difference.

*In fact I do care that my wife is real and I do believe that she exists but not if pushed to make a decision as to the truth of whether or not people exist. I could very well be a brain in a vat and my wife is just an illusion but if I did believe that it wouldn't change anything. I would still love her and believe that she is real. THAT'S the point.

Malerin

10th December 2008, 02:16 PM

{sigh}

Prayer does NOT work in any way or extent the same way that Prozac and psychiatry does. There is zero clinical evidence that prayer can treat any psychiatric or neurological disorder. Your continued insistence that prayer "works" is nonsense.

Let me try this, would it be ethical for a doctor to prescribe prayer to cure depression or any neurological or psychological disorder?

Here's a hint: No.

Now, figure out why and you will stop stressing prayer. It works no more than 4 leaf clover or horse shoes.

Ok?

If you stop thinking prayer and medicine are mutually exclusive, you might get somewhere. As for the benefits of faith, I know LOTS of people who find meaning, fulfillment, and happiness in their spirituality. For them, it WORKS.

Do most of the people here strike you as happy and fulfilled? My impression of the atheists here (and the ones I know in RL) is sarcastic, angry, and petty. But that's just my impression.

Malerin

10th December 2008, 02:18 PM

Malerin's post 25 nominated

You nominate so many kooks and wackos, it's lost all meaning. Oh wait, that was MY post! JK.

RandFan

10th December 2008, 02:31 PM

If you stop thinking prayer and medicine are mutually exclusive, you might get somewhere. I don't think medicine and prayer are mutually exclusive but then I don't think that medicine and 4 leaf clover or any other superstition are mutually exclusive. The point is that modern medicine works and the other doesn't.

As for the benefits of faith, I know LOTS of people who find meaning, fulfillment, and happiness in their spirituality. For them, it WORKS. Moving the goal posts. Besides, some people find meaning, fulfillment and happiness in many things that are not true.

I have a 50 carat diamond buried in my back yard. It gives me meaning, fulfillment and spiritual happiness. For me it WORKS. ??? :rolleyes:

Hey, if it works for you fine. Don't come to a skeptics forum expecting anyone to believe you have a large diamond buried in your back yard just because you believe it.

Do most of the people here strike you as happy and fulfilled? My impression of the atheists here (and the ones I know in RL) is sarcastic, angry, and petty. But that's just my impression.I know lots of atheists and theists and the atheists are by and large more happy, less angry and less petty.

Don't mistake criticism of superstition with angry and petty. Just because atheists challenge pet world views doesn't make them anything.

Oh, and I would definatly say that looking at this forum theists are very petty and sarcastic including radrook and you. So go look in the mirror.

RandFan

10th December 2008, 02:34 PM

How does prayer work?

jk6ILZAaAMI

To date no one has disputed the argument that prayer to god works no better than prayer to a jug of milk.

Can you?

Nick227

10th December 2008, 02:47 PM

Just a quick follow-up on predictive value: I think prayer has a certain predictive value. Many people report that if they're feeling down, they pray and then feel better. Of course this doesn't work for everyone, but then neither does Prozac.

The point is that Prozac and prayer take on the same form: X is depressed, X does action Y (prayer or Prozac), X feels better. You claim to know WHY Prozac works scientifically, but then the theist claims to know why prayer works, theistically: prayer brings them closer to God, which makes them happier.

For me the issue is to develop a causal relationship between the action and the result. Where this can't be established, skepticism inevitably flies in. Prozac (fluoxetine) does blockade the metabolism of serotonin in the brain. This means that there is more of this brain chemical available and it is known that this alters mood. Thus there is a functional model of why prozac can relieve depression.

Personally, I'm sure that if drug companies had sufficient possibility to make money from prayers they would invest in trying to establish a causal mechanism for praying being useful in the treatment of depression. As it is we have to wait for data to accrue from entities less encumbered by the "for profit" model.

There is actually research these days to show how expectation of a positive outcome can trigger the release of dopamine in the brain. Thus if praying has already been established in the mind of the individual as an agent that can create positive change, then to a degree this could manifest simply as a result of that belief. With ritual praying or use of mantra no doubt there is also a relaxation which could for some be beneficial.

But the crux these days is to establish the physical mechanism. It is kind of a loaded dice because with our existing system for financing R&D only certain treatment modalities stand much chance of being scientifically investigated.

Nick

Nick227

10th December 2008, 02:57 PM

To date no one has disputed the argument that prayer to god works no better than prayer to a jug of milk.

Can you?

I can dispute it. Culturally, God is far better established as a suitable vessel to pray towards. Thus, if we say that the belief in a positive outcome can stimulate the release of beneficial brain chemicals it is obviously necessary to have a suitably regarded entity to pray towards. Most people would likely regard praying to a milk-jug as ridiculous, and so I imagine that studies to monitor, say, dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens or whatever, would reveal that praying to God would release more dopamine than praying to the milk jug.

To me, the very nature of the human psyche, and really the human predicament, means that certain types of entity are far more likely to become objects of veneration than others. Archetypal forms and entities whose activity accounts for human mysteries will inevitably predominate imo.

Nick

Malerin

10th December 2008, 03:10 PM

*In fact I do care that my wife is real and I do believe that she exists but not if pushed to make a decision as to the truth of whether or not people exist.

Well, the first part is clear, and that's enough really. You have a faith-based belief, just like all the other atheists here (getting them to admit to a belief in anything is like pulling teeth for some reason). Oh, you can make an appeal to your senses, like others here, but I don't think you're dumb enough to believe that maneuver works. If you do that, then I have to bring up my spiritual experience as proof that God exists and both of us end up sounding like idiots.

See how easy it is to believe in something without any evidence?

Skeptic Ginger

10th December 2008, 03:46 PM

I can dispute it. Culturally, God is far better established as a suitable vessel to pray towards. Thus, if we say that the belief in a positive outcome can stimulate the release of beneficial brain chemicals it is obviously necessary to have a suitably regarded entity to pray towards. Most people would likely regard praying to a milk-jug as ridiculous, and so I imagine that studies to monitor, say, dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens or whatever, would reveal that praying to God would release more dopamine than praying to the milk jug.

To me, the very nature of the human psyche, and really the human predicament, means that certain types of entity are far more likely to become objects of veneration than others. Archetypal forms and entities whose activity accounts for human mysteries will inevitably predominate imo.

NickAn hypothesis is not evidence. Nice speculating, show us the evidence.

Malerin

10th December 2008, 03:59 PM

Silentknight

10th December 2008, 04:31 PM

As Plumjam stated, if people around here were truly pragmatic and agnostic about reality-claims, idealism, immaterialism, and solipsism would not get the rough treatment they always do. It wouldn’t matter to a true pragmatist how reality really is, only that their beliefs work in the context of their own experiences. Instead those claims are vehemently denounced in pages long posts, suggesting that there are very few agnostics among us.

Rough treatment? You mean like the appeal to consequences / blank assertion / false cause fallacy plumjam so often uses in arguing that "exclusive materialism" invariably leads to war, conquest, eugenics, and genocide? The worst I've ever seen anyone argue against idealism is that it's impractical and based on faulty reasoning, as opposed to claiming that it caused the Holocaust.

Agnosticism does not involve taking a black and white view and embracing the opposite conclusion of the position one feels is untenable either. You're mangling the definition of the word in the same way you mangled skepticism. It does not refer to a mere excuse to patently reject one side and adopt the one you already believe in, otherwise everyone would be a skeptic by your definition.

Also, quit burning that straw about atheism being faith-based. Atheism is simply the rejection of one particular conclusion, regardless of the degree of that rejection or the motivations for it. Anything else one attaches to that is secondary, which would make atheism a subset of the beliefs you conflate it with, not the other way around. I've encountered plenty of atheists who were essentially idiots who never thought out their stance, had no concept of logic, and with whom I had nothing in common except for the label.

cj.23

10th December 2008, 05:54 PM

I've just nominated Skeptigirl (who let's face it i have argued with as much as anyone) for this post, not for language exactly, but because with great modesty she has raised some critical issues for the ideas I am exploring, and really given me new interest in the thread. Her insight here is extremely perceptive, and I welcome it.

This is such a complex issue and I have no expertise other than personal observation with great interest over the years, but it seems to me the first problem is making an assumption our brains perceive reality. Some brains perceive the Universe more closely to its real nature than others.

We have examples of people whose perceived reality is clearly pathologic. That would be someone who is experiencing psychosis. But then it is assumed psychosis is an either or condition, when the evidence suggests there may be more of a continuum from accurate perception of reality to grossly inaccurate perception.

Sure: most mental health issues strike me as falling on a continuum. To take the two major proposed categories of mental disorder, psychoses and neuroses, and think about them in terms of my little OP proposal...

Psychoses is if I understand it, and I'm terribly out of date, nearly fifteen years out of the business, well many psychotic disorders actually feature distorted sense perceptions, which can manifest as obviously as hallucination, or more subtly. The chemical imbalances result in the mind being fed corrupted data from the external world so to speak, and that will in turn impact on belief structures I guess. Garbage in, garbage out to use a computing analogy.

With neuroses I'm guessing what we have is a set of badly constructed programmes or beliefs. The actual rules may be sound, but they are applied to generally. So one might develop a contamination phobia, based on a real risk but magnified beyond reasonable application, or anxiety, and so forth. What often struck me about patients with thinking disorcers was how many of them seemed to be victims of a poor application of probability - they were prone in some category or other to massively overestimate risk, or took a reasonable enough caution and applied it to a unrealistic extent. I may be talking nonsense here, but this did appear central to many thought disorders.

Now I don't think the two categoris are mutually exclusive, but I would be very careful about ascribing psychoses to those who merely have a different perception of reality to me. Let's face it most [posters on thsi board have a different perception of reality to me!

To get to the bottom of irrational beliefs, (which I call non-evidence based beliefs), there are two things then to consider. 1) Is the person even perceiving the evidence rationally to begin with, and 2) How good are that person's critical thinking skills?

OK, a few random thoughts in response in no particular order --

i) most beliefs are evidenced. It's quite hard to have a completely unevidenced belief. Even the severely deluded can muster evidence for their beliefs - and they do. What is important is the weight which a normal person would ascribe to that evidence. If I believe Zeus is telling me to become a shepherd, and I hear the voice of Zeus saying it in my head I have evidence, but no one else is going to impart much weight to it. I might though! So the issue is hardly ever evidenced beliefs versus non-evidence belief, but the qualitative weight one applies to the evidence - and that always remains a question of judgement. :(

ii) the majority of people who I know who you would i feel regard as holding non-evidenced ideas, from both the parapsychological community and my faith, strike me as astute intelligent critical thinkers. I don't actually believe i am devoid of critical reasoning. (Feel free to disagree!) I feel my thinking is evidentially led -- I am (very) familar with the parapsychological literature, and feel I have made a reasonable critical evaluation. I finf it faintly amusing that many vehement critics of the parapsych discourse are actually not familar with the literature --- with some extremely honourable exceptions like James Alcock and Ray Hyman.

iii) if I am at all right with my little proposal in the OP, all beliefs systems will become ultimately self fulfilling, as we interpret subsequent data in the light of our existing "rules". To change the rulkes is indeed possible - just as a scientific paradigm can be overthrown by massive new evidence. However generally I suspect our minds will resist new ideas strongly which run against existing "rules" making change either gradual, or radical, sudden and potentially devasting. This leads me to a strong principle of mine - scepticism begins at home, and our duty is primarily to critically examine and test our own beliefs and argue against them, and to find the best possible critics we can and expose ourselves as much as possible to dissentinmg voices. I personally find RD.net and here serve this purpose well. :)

I separate these because they influence beliefs in different ways. Someone who doesn't understand evidence of causality, for example, may perceive reality correctly but draw erroneous conclusions from what they perceive. While someone else may draw erroneous conclusions because they distort the incoming messages before they get around to analyzing them.

Yes, and I think it's a very important distinction.

cj x

Malerin

10th December 2008, 05:59 PM

Rough treatment? You mean like the appeal to consequences / blank assertion / false cause fallacy plumjam so often uses in arguing that "exclusive materialism" invariably leads to war, conquest, eugenics, and genocide? The worst I've ever seen anyone argue against idealism is that it's impractical and based on faulty reasoning, as opposed to claiming that it caused the Holocaust.

I was thinking more of the personal attacks against Yrreg (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130098). Granted he doesn't make the most sense in the world, but reading his posts, I get the sense English is not his first language. Even if it is, calling him a "chew toy" doesn't exactly move the discussion along, does it?

Agnosticism does not involve taking a black and white view and embracing the opposite conclusion of the position one feels is untenable either.

It's not taking the OPPOSITE position. It's taking the MIDDLE position. The opposite position of theism is stong atheism. That's not agnosticism. In the middle is agnosticism, which is the belief that a belief in EITHER side is untenable.

You're mangling the definition of the word in the same way you mangled skepticism.

Now I'm "mangling" skepticism? I've also been accused of "abusing skepticism", which is quite funny on a skeptical forum. I don't know how you can either mangle or abuse skepticism. If something can be doubted, then doubt it, as Descartes would say. Since nearly everything can be doubted, I find it equally funny that atheists just sort of assume the physical world exists, and then rake theists over the coals for belief in God. Double standard, anyone?

It does not refer to a mere excuse to patently reject one side and adopt the one you already believe in, otherwise everyone would be a skeptic by your definition.

Um, shouldn't you all be skeptics? I've looking right at the banner above and it says "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking..." Or is it just all talk? Very few people here strike me as skeptics. The vast majority are materialists who can't conceive of science being wrong or religion being right.

Also, quit burning that straw about atheism being faith-based.

It depends on which version you're using, and anyway, my claim was that atheists have faith-based beliefs. They do. I finally teased one out of Randfan. I suppose it's possible there are atheistic skeptics around here, but I haven't seen any. Like Plumjam observed (and I have to agree with him), whenever materialism is questioned, about 50 people jump all over the person. There are no immaterialists here, or idealists, or solipsists. There are a few theists, like CJ and myself, but the vast vast majority are materialists. That should tell you something. It certainly tells me something.

Atheism is simply the rejection of one particular conclusion, regardless of the degree of that rejection or the motivations for it.

Oh, if only it were that simple. Unfortunately, it's also a worship of science and materialism, where core beliefs languish, never seeing the light of day. I learned that months ago with my first post "Does the World Exist?". It was like poking an anthill with a stick.

Anything else one attaches to that is secondary, which would make atheism a subset of the beliefs you conflate it with, not the other way around.

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world? No. Every atheist I've talked to, here and in RL, is invariably a staunch materialist, evolutionist, and worshipper of all things science. Pointing to Raelism as proof of diversity of atheistic belief is pathetic and even they are materialistic and pro-science.

I've encountered plenty of atheists who were essentially idiots who never thought out their stance, had no concept of logic, and with whom I had nothing in common except for the label.

So have I, minus the label part.

cj.23

10th December 2008, 06:17 PM

Everyone weighs the evidence (perceived reality) based on prior experiences. People who believe in gods discount evidence which doesn't support that preexisting conviction.

And people who do not believe in God discount evidence which supports the theistic hypothesis based on that preexisting conviction. Agreed, it's what belief structures do, they lead to interpretation of subsequent perception data in the light of the existing framework. no one is immune.

For example, how many studies showing prayer has no effect does it take to convince a god believer that prayer has no effect?

Millions, if prayer works for them, because they have constantly self-reinforcing feedback for their belief. If however prayer never works for them, they will very soon abandon the experiment, and come to believe prayer simply does not work.

Now prayer is not thaumurturgy - (or even theurgy) - prayer is a petition, to a "person". The god of theists is a person, not a force. If I ask Malerin to lend me a fiver till payday (Malerin, care to help out?) he may or may not respond. If sometimes he does, and sometimes he does not for reasons known only to Malerin, then I will not be able to predict a suiccess rate. So prayer to theists may not be demonstrable in this way.

A theist can of course also shif the goal posts of what constitutes an answer to prayer, or conclude the failure of their prayer to be answered is god telling them something. Prayer is a request, not a final demand for payment or else... So prayer as understood by theists is not amenable to scientific testing, any more than I cna predict every time I ask Malerin for a fiver my paypal account will recieve a cash injection. :(

A god who always creates a 2.5% increase in the recovery rate of neuralgia patients would be an odd sort of bunnny. I'm not sure it would be worthy of worship -- any repeatedly demonstrable cosnsitent effect found in an experiment of this sort, like my mustard seed experiment i palyfully suggested a couple of days back (and boy was I disappointed by the low take up rate - I mean it's hardly onerous to try it! - but kudos to the few who said they would) would to me indicate a hidden but entirely natural variable, not the hand of a benevolent deity concerned with mustard growth - well unless tryng to show the experimenter something at a personal level. :)

When asked to provide evidence supporting the success of prayer, bad science is touted as evidence.

I personally find it almost impossible to seperqate what might be a prayer result from what might be a DMILS result - but both would be of great interest to thepeople on this forum. Bad Scince? nope, I think not. I can make a strong case for some kind of effect in very good studies. Is there laready a thread on this susbject? If ther eis point me to it and i will play. I happen to have access to a rather vast collection of studies, and i might even attempt an Ersby style metanalysis, or simply provide the data so others can so the stats? I'm not convinced it proves the efficacy of prayer, but I can make a decent statistical case -- I need to think how one was experimental quality to see if that is a factor though, but there are a lot of studies and many appear scientifically sound to me.

The criticisms of the positive outcome prayer studies are ignored. And where that fails, the apologies start.

ot in my part of the world they aren't! OK, if ther eis no thread i'll start one. I don't think though as i said we can differentiate prayer from DMILS- the bloody psi hypothesis is to my mind unfalsifibale, and can be used to explain away any interesting result as down to psi. (I'm not a fan of the unlimited psi hypothesis...)

That is the rationalization of how the studies failing to provide evidence of the effect of prayer don't prove prayer doesn't work because [fill in the blank].

I'll have a lok for a thread, and if one does not exist, start one. As I have studied this issue in depth I may be able to contribue a little. :) I'm still not convinced prayer studies prove much about the theistic hypothesis, but I'm interested...

cj x

Silentknight

10th December 2008, 06:29 PM

It's not taking the OPPOSITE position. It's taking the MIDDLE position. The opposite position of theism is stong atheism. That's not agnosticism. In the middle is agnosticism, which is the belief that a belief in EITHER side is untenable.
I was referring to your use of the term agnosticism to defend your staunch support for idealism as opposed to materialism. Your application of agnosticism was to reject the side you happened to disagree with. You certainly weren't arguing that your own side was untenable as well. It's special pleading.

Now I'm "mangling" skepticism? I've also been accused of "abusing skepticism", which is quite funny on a skeptical forum. I don't know how you can either mangle or abuse skepticism. If something can be doubted, then doubt it, as Descartes would say. Since nearly everything can be doubted, I find it equally funny that atheists just sort of assume the physical world exists, and then rake theists over the coals for belief in God. Double standard, anyone?
That only works if you're defining skepticism as arbitrarily doubting everything to the point where nothing useful can be determined. If however skepticism is defined as demanding evidence for a claim, as it is around here, then yes, there is justification for questioning assertions based on a belief in God. It's hardly on equal foundation as the notion that the physical world exists, which is an idea that even the majority of theisms hold as implicit.

Um, shouldn't you all be skeptics? I've looking right at the banner above and it says "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking..." Or is it just all talk? Very few people here strike me as skeptics. The vast majority are materialists who can't conceive of science being wrong or religion being right.
I meant "everyone" as in people all around the world, from different walks of life, with different beliefs and motivations, including those not on this forum. I did not say, "everyone on JREF." Stop deliberately misinterpreting my words. You missed my point anyway. I said that skepticism is not simply doubting the opposite of what you believe in. Otherwise all people who hold beliefs of any kind would be considered skeptics. Understand?

It depends on which version you're using, and anyway, my claim was that atheists have faith-based beliefs. They do. I finally teased one out of Randfan. I suppose it's possible there are atheistic skeptics around here, but I haven't seen any. Like Plumjam observed (and I have to agree with him), whenever materialism is questioned, about 50 people jump all over the person. There are no immaterialists here, or idealists, or solipsists. There are a few theists, like CJ and myself, but the vast vast majority are materialists. That should tell you something. It certainly tells me something.
Very funny. Show me some evidence of immaterialism. Please note that attacking materialism, appealing to pity, or appealing to a group do not count as evidence for immaterialism. Additionally, just because there are two sides to a belief does not mean that the truth lies somewhere in between. It's possible for one side to be flat out wrong.

Again, where's your evidence? Descartes' claim that we can only be sure of our own thoughts is not evidence. I can come up with numerous examples from psychology that prove this wrong. Also, if solipsism were true, then I'd have made all the people I disagree with shut up a long time ago. ;)
Oh, if only it were that simple. Unfortunately, it's also a worship of science and materialism, where core beliefs languish, never seeing the light of day. I learned that months ago with my first post "Does the World Exist?". It was like poking an anthill with a stick.
Did it ever occur to you that it was the way you presented your arguments that provoked the reaction? The fact that your claims were put forth in a crude manner that depended heavily on strawmen and confirmation bias had a lot to do with it. This says more about your arguments than about the people who criticized them. Attacking those who disagree with your beliefs doesn't make your position true and it hardly proves "worship."

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world? No. Every atheist I've talked to, here and in RL, is invariably a staunch materialist, evolutionist, and worshipper of all things science. Pointing to Raelism as proof of diversity of atheistic belief is pathetic and even they are materialistic and pro-science.
Do you honestly not know the difference between worship and agreement / acceptance? Or is it that you see everything in terms of worship, therefore you assume everyone you meet thinks the same way? One can certainly believe in God and accept the conclusions of science.

Also, referring to Raelism as pro-science doesn't help your case. :rolleyes:

Malerin

10th December 2008, 06:53 PM

paximperium

10th December 2008, 07:11 PM

There seems to be an unfair predictive standard based on prayer. I think some of you believe prayer is valid if and only if a person can pray and cure a disease or move a boulder (miraculous recoveries do actually happen). That would be like me saying Prozac only works if the person taking it can fly around like superman. It’s an unfair standard. That’s not what Prozac is designed to do.
A False analogy.

There is nothing that's unfair at investigating any claim even a religious one especially if some claim that it has some power. Unless you're into double standards.

Prozac has a measurable affect. Prayer's affect is no better than meditating and random chance.

This problem arises because prayer is lumped in with science and is expected to give the same type of predictive results. That’s all well and good, but that rests on an assumption that prayer is the sort of thing that CAN be scientifically tested.So what affects does prayer have on reality if it cannot be tested, seen, smelt, touched or have any measurable affect at all?

It is entirely possible that God exists and deliberately chooses NOT to reveal (her)himself in obvious ways (perhaps it would be too threatening to us). So god is hiding evidence from us of its existence and yet demanding on blind faith in its existence or else suffer the consequences? You truly have an evil god.

This raises the familiar objection that it can’t be tested empirically, so there’s no justification in believing in it. That’s fine if reality is such that all empirical claims can be tested in a laboratory. Since none of us know what the true nature of reality is, it’s equally likely that reality consists of testable claims and claims that can’t be reliably tested (such as personal spiritual experiences).No. Untestable claims are completely and utterly useless and irrelevant. An untestable claim is an unjustified fantasy.

This would mean that the claim of Mr. Bob down the street who thinks he is Jesus and flies off to the Jupiter every night when no one is watching is as likely as your fantasy.

I can see Planet Zoomba using my mind powers. It is located 50 billion light years away. It cannot be tested therefore it is entirely plausible.

In fact any Buddhist claims of reincarnation or any other theistic claims from any other gods that can never be tested is apparently as plausible as your grand belief.

You logic is silly and a blatant double standard.

Dismissing prayer out of hand because it fails to work in the lab assumes that you KNOW reality is a certain way. That is hubris, to say the least.Claiming that something that does not have any measurable affect and yet works because you say so, is hubris to the highest degree.

Silentknight

10th December 2008, 07:17 PM

There seems to be an unfair predictive standard based on prayer.
Oh yes, a standard based on what people commonly claim prayer to be capable of doing. How unfair is that?

I think some of you believe prayer is valid if and only if a person can pray and cure a disease or move a boulder (miraculous recoveries do actually happen).
Right, and all those doctors who work tirelessly to save people's lives, or the scientists who spent years developing the treatments, did absolutely nothing.

That would be like me saying Prozac only works if the person taking it can fly around like superman. It’s an unfair standard. That’s not what Prozac is designed to do.
If prayer was designed for as specific a purpose as any given modern drug, by all means tell me what it is that prayer was invented to treat. (I think we can rule out gullibility, ignorance, and hypocrisy.)

This problem arises because prayer is lumped in with science and is expected to give the same type of predictive results. That’s all well and good, but that rests on an assumption that prayer is the sort of thing that CAN be scientifically tested.
Then how would you propose testing it? By asserting its veracity over and over again until everyone gives up and agrees? Hey, sounds like a plan!

It is entirely possible that God exists and deliberately chooses NOT to reveal (her)himself in obvious ways (perhaps it would be too threatening to us).
It's equally possible that God is incapable, unwilling, or that he doesn't exist. Or maybe he's just sick of all the whining, especially over lottery numbers. I know I'd be.

This raises the familiar objection that it can’t be tested empirically, so there’s no justification in believing in it.
Oh I dunno, I think the fact that nothing fails like prayer half the time (and I'm being generous) has a lot to do with disbelief in it.

That’s fine if reality is such that all empirical claims can be tested in a laboratory. Since none of us know what the true nature of reality is, it’s equally likely that reality consists of testable claims and claims that can’t be reliably tested (such as personal spiritual experiences).
Argument from ignorance. Seriously, read up on these.

Dismissing prayer out of hand because it fails to work in the lab assumes that you KNOW reality is a certain way. That is hubris, to say the least.
Not at all. Like Voltaire, I once prayed for God to make all my opponents ridiculous, and he granted my prayer.

athon

10th December 2008, 07:22 PM

This raises the familiar objection that it can’t be tested empirically, so there’s no justification in believing in it. That’s fine if reality is such that all empirical claims can be tested in a laboratory. Since none of us know what the true nature of reality is, it’s equally likely that reality consists of testable claims and claims that can’t be reliably tested (such as personal spiritual experiences).

I'll get back to cj's response and other comments later, when I have more time. I thought this might be a quick one to comment on.

It's not at all 'equally likely'. Having two mutually exclusive options and denoting each the same possibility of occurring is obviously ludicrous.

It's true that we have no way of defining a deeper reality, simply because a) the act of defining something requires a more fundamental context, and b) we have no way of verifying anything with absolute certainty beyond the act of perceiving it. However, to make any sense, we can only therefore describe reality as being that which causes us to perceive what we do.

The methods of reality description which science aims to use have a massive advantage over others - the fact that they have predictive power means they relate better to whatever causes these perceptions. That is what distinguishes it above the rest. I might pull events out of a bag, invent it based purely on what seems reasonable at the time, rely on myth and legend...but none of those have a scale of evaluation which can determine how likely it is that some underlying cause is related to the observation.

Dismissing prayer out of hand because it fails to work in the lab assumes that you KNOW reality is a certain way. That is hubris, to say the least.

Ah, I love the capitalised 'KNOW'. Really seems to drive that strawman home, yeah?

Nobody claims to KNOW. Yet, it's irrelevant. Believing in the efficacy of prayer as a means of describing what we see is useless. How do you know if you're praying in the right way? To the right deity? With the right words? How do you know the difference between a response and random events? Of course, you might be able to concoct an ad-hoc response after each event, however this does nothing to demonstrate any inherent worth. I could do the same for any process, and declare it 'equal' to prayer.

Athon

Malerin

10th December 2008, 07:32 PM

I was referring to your use of the term agnosticism to defend your staunch support for idealism as opposed to materialism. Your application of agnosticism was to reject the side you happened to disagree with. You certainly weren't arguing that your own side was untenable as well. It's special pleading.

I apply agnosticism to everything equally. I once gave an argument to show that idealism has a leg up on dualism and materialism, but I'm not convinced by it, and that hardly qualifies as "staunch support". For all I know, the world is materialistic. I think you think that my repeated questioning of reality somehow makes me a "staunch" supporter of something. I have faith in God, but by definition, that means my belief goes beyond the available evidence.

That only works if you're defining skepticism as arbitrarily doubting everything to the point where nothing useful can be determined. If however skepticism is defined as demanding evidence for a claim, as it is around here, then yes, there is justification for questioning assertions based on a belief in God. It's hardly on equal foundation as the notion that the physical world exists, which is an idea that even the majority of theisms hold as implicit.

But all that rests on an assumption that reality is such that every empirical claim is capable of being tested in a lab. How do you know reality is like this? Are you privy to some special knowledge?

I meant "everyone" as in people all around the world, from different walks of life, with different beliefs and motivations, including those not on this forum. I did not say, "everyone on JREF." Stop deliberately misinterpreting my words. You missed my point anyway. I said that skepticism is not simply doubting the opposite of what you believe in. Otherwise all people who hold beliefs of any kind would be considered skeptics. Understand?

"not simply doubting the opposite of what you believe in" Huh? Skepticism is doubting WHAT you believe. Doubting the opposite of what you beleive is non-sensical. Of course you would doubt what you don't believe. That's tautologically true. Since people here are almost all scientific materialists, there's precious little doubting going on.

Very funny. Show me some evidence of immaterialism.

Show me evidence of materialism.

Please note that attacking materialism, appealing to pity, or appealing to a group do not count as evidence for immaterialism.

Never said it did. My point was that it's kind of strange that a skeptical forum would be composed almost entirely of materialists. Kind of suggests there's a prevailing mind-set going on that's not being examined.

Additionally, just because there are two sides to a belief does not mean that the truth lies somewhere in between. It's possible for one side to be flat out wrong.

Never said it wasn't. Materialism may be true. Idealism may be true. In the absence of any evidence, the best thing to be is agnostic. Anything else is taken as a leap of faith.

Again, where's your evidence?

For what, agnosticism? An agnostic doesn't have to supply evidence; they merely have to discredit others'. If I were making a direct appeal to theism or idealism, you would have a point. I'm not and you don't. My claim is that atheists have faith-based beliefs about reality that they SHOULD be agnostic about, but AREN'T.

Descartes' claim that we can only be sure of our own thoughts is not evidence.

If it's a true claim, then that IS evidence. If the only thing you can be sure of is that you're a thinking being, then you must be an agnostic about everything else. No refutation of Descartes has been forthcoming, nor do I expect one.

I can come up with numerous examples from psychology that prove this wrong. Also, if solipsism were true, then I'd have made all the people I disagree with shut up a long time ago. ;)

Just what I would expect a hallucination to say ;) What, did you think YOU exist?

Did it ever occur to you that it was the way you presented your arguments that provoked the reaction? The fact that your claims were put forth in a crude manner that depended heavily on strawmen and confirmation bias had a lot to do with it. This says more about your arguments than about the people who criticized them. Attacking those who disagree with your beliefs doesn't make your position true and it hardly proves "worship."

Maybe, if I hadn't seen CJ, the most patient person I've ever seen on a message board, be on the receiving end of some vicious attacks. Regardless, anyone who questions science or materialism invariably gets ganged up on. True skeptics would be agreeing with people who question reality, not attacking them.

Do you honestly not know the difference between worship and agreement / acceptance? Or is it that you see everything in terms of worship, therefore you assume everyone you meet thinks the same way? One can certainly believe in God and accept the conclusions of science.

We won't convince each other of this. My experience of atheists has been nearly exclusively a fanaticism about science, and a loathing of all things paranormal or religious.

Also, referring to Raelism as pro-science doesn't help your case. :rolleyes:

Advocacy
In December 26, 2002, Brigitte Boisselier, a Raëlian Bishop and CEO of a biotechnology company called Clonaid, announced the birth of baby Eve, a human clone, which at that point ignited much media attention, ethical debate, doubt, critics, and claims of a hoax. Spokespeople for the movement, such as Claude Vorilhon, have suggested that this is only first step in achieving a more important agenda, saying that that accelerated growth process and mind transfer, in combination with cloning are mechanisms by which eternal life may be achieved.[39][40]

According to the Japan Today of February 10, 2003, that Sunday, about sixty Raëlians celebrated with banners the purported birth of the first cloned babies: 1) a baby girl named Eve, 2) a daughter and clone of a Dutch lesbian, 3) a son and clone of a Japanese male. The small parade event began at Hiroshima Station and ended at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. In the article, figures by the observers and a representative of the movement suggest that one percent of Japan's Raëlians participated in the event.[41]

In August 6, 2003, the first day of Raëlian year 58 AH,[42] a tech article on the USA Today newspaper mentions an "unlikely ally" of the Monsanto company, the Raëlian Movement of Brazil. The movement gave vocal support in response to the company's support for genetically modified organisms particularly in their country. Brazilian farmers have been using Monsanto's genetically engineered soy plant as well as the Roundup herbicide to which it was artificially adapted. The Raëlians spoke against the Brazilian government's ban on GMOs.[43]

The Raëlian Movement promoted 2004 as the "year of atheism".[44] In December 11, 2004,[45] Raëlians marched in the Atheist Convention in Rome. One of them said, "[Just as] children need to understand that there is no Santa, people need to realize there is no God."[46] In YouTube, Raëlians have posted videos in denial of the Holy Spirit in response to the Blasphemy Challenge. Despite their anti-religious leaning, Raëlians—who are philosophical materialists—believe that a trained mind can achieve telepathic communication with extraterrestrial Elohim.[47]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ra%C3%ABlism

So let's see. We have Raelian support for: materialism, cloning, geneticially modified organisms, and a Raelian bishop in charge of a biotech company.

But they don't beleive in science. Am I right? :rolleyes:

athon

10th December 2008, 08:29 PM

Hell I could probably create a coherent Empedoclean philosophy, to grab one example at random. Yet clearly I favour modern sciences reading of reality to those of Aristotle or say Anselm, or to give a better example of a systematic thinker, Aquinas. As I suggested before, I think rationality is the property of an argument not the arguer - so Aquinan theology is almost mahematically logically coherentin many ways, if one accepts the premises.

I agree, which is why I feel simply relying on rationality (which relies on an internal consistence within the argument) and reason (which relies on what is currently accepted as 'true' by the arguer) is not good enough to demonstrate a relationship between potential cause and observation.

Often one can change a paradign to incorporate new data, and find logical ways to amend it. Yet if, as i think is the case, Aristotles or Aquinas basic premises were flawed, the whole structure while internally coherent remains flawed. A better paradigm often to me seems to arise from a reexamination of the premises, rather than the data, but I could be talking bilge. I often do. Is this waht happened with General Relativity? I am reasonably aware of the 1909 revolution in Cosmology, but I lack the real knowledge to work this example through... Coherence however can be illusory.

Actually, it is often a reexamination of the data that demonstrates a premise is flawed. That was chiefly what prompted Bacon to underscore the role of inductive reasoning over Aristotle's syllogisms. Deductive reasoning relies on assuming that the premises are sound. Inductive logic also has its flaws, but we need it to constantly review those original ideas. When a new observation arises, we can overturn a premise and rework a deduced rules.

Coherence is not (given partial data) necessarily equal to truth, sadly, though I believ it is a very strong indicator of such.

I'm still not convinced that there is any predictive utility in religious beliefs, however. It might be internally consistent, but so are many of the fantasy fiction series I read. I could (and have done) invent a system of magic that is internally consistent within a fantasy world. That does not give any further cause to believe it's possibly a real world.

The history of science is the history of successive models refinement and increasing utility, but also a serach for improved coherence.

True, however observations take precedence over that coherence. If a new observation, which can be demonstrated as likely to be accurate, were to contradict an existing theory, that theory would have to give way, even if there was no replacement. Now, some (such as Lakatos) argue that this does not in effect happen...and I agree. But that's a result of our social tendency to reluctantly move on from past paradigms, more than a feature of science's ideals.

Here we disagree: apart from my inclusion of human culture as a part of nature, I also believe religious beliefs can have predictive and utilitarian value.

I haven't yet read your other responses. I'll wait until I have a better understanding of this position of yours before I comment on it.

If you exclude teleology and supernatural imoacts upon nature by default from a bosy of knowledge, and predicate rationality, materilaim and internal physical causality, it is unsurprising if your science excldes the possibilities of deities - it is written in to the assumprions after all...

Excluding teleology and supernatural impacts isn't done on a whim, however. I realise that the tenets of symmetry and parsimony are both assumptions, yet they are not without reason. Parsimony is an act of economy - going on the notion that reality is 'that which causes us to observe what we do', ideas that aren't reflected in our observations offer nothing of value. Symmetry is simply an extension of induction - it appears that sets of fundemantal rules persist regardless of time and space.

hose events still had natural causes through. Much of this will depend on wher eone draws the limits of scince, but history clearly si abody of knowledge for example which stands outside Popperian science - something I frequently think causes issues here, or when say Dawkins suggest the evidence in the New Testament for the Resurrection s a scientific question. Science within the usual frameworks is a valid, useful and very productive way of knowing -- but not the only way.

I don't think anybody here will argue it is the only way. But the endeavour of science is clearly the most useful one at explaining why we observe what we do.

You're correct in saying we cannot falsify history. I think you'll find not even Popper felt that falsification was the only way to declare something as 'true'. Like many things in science, falsification is a useful tool. If it can be falsified, it makes for a stronger case in favour of an idea proving useful. There are many similar tools in science which contribute to an increase in our confidence. And in the end, that's all we can do.

Athon

Silentknight

10th December 2008, 08:31 PM

I apply agnosticism to everything equally. I once gave an argument to show that idealism has a leg up on dualism and materialism, but I'm not convinced by it, and that hardly qualifies as "staunch support". For all I know, the world is materialistic. I think you think that my repeated questioning of reality somehow makes me a "staunch" supporter of something. I have faith in God, but by definition, that means my belief goes beyond the available evidence.
Yet idealism forms the basis of practically all of your objections. Why is that?

But all that rests on an assumption that reality is such that every empirical claim is capable of being tested in a lab. How do you know reality is like this? Are you privy to some special knowledge?
Were you even reading the part of my post you were responding to? I was talking about skepticism as a demand for evidence. You can hardly get away with claiming that the evidence for God, an article of faith regardless, is on equal footing with the evidence for the state of reality or whatever you want to call it. Different people can make repeatable observations about reality. The same is not true about God or even the various beliefs in God.

"not simply doubting the opposite of what you believe in" Huh? Skepticism is doubting WHAT you believe. Doubting the opposite of what you beleive is non-sensical. Of course you would doubt what you don't believe. That's tautologically true. Since people here are almost all scientific materialists, there's precious little doubting going on.
You were the one using skepticism as a justification to doubt the opposite of what you believe in. This however ties into the first thing you said above. Besides, you're confusing arbitrary faith in something with acceptance of an idea based on evidence.

Show me evidence of materialism.
Then you should have no problem letting me hit you in the head with this hammer. Whenever you're ready. Just let me spread some newspaper around so that it doesn't make a mess. No? How come? It's for science!

Besides, you missed the point twice in the same response. First, you're the one making the claim of immaterialism, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Second, I was actually saying that I would accept something if shown evidence for it, so twisting the request back around actually shoots your argument in the foot.

Never said it did. My point was that it's kind of strange that a skeptical forum would be composed almost entirely of materialists. Kind of suggests there's a prevailing mind-set going on that's not being examined.
I agree. The paranoia and persecution complex I see among theists must have some kind of pathology that ought to be investigated.

Never said it wasn't. Materialism may be true. Idealism may be true. In the absence of any evidence, the best thing to be is agnostic. Anything else is taken as a leap of faith.
Fine, make me spread out all this newspaper on the floor for nothing.

For what, agnosticism? An agnostic doesn't have to supply evidence; they merely have to discredit others'. If I were making a direct appeal to theism or idealism, you would have a point. I'm not and you don't. My claim is that atheists have faith-based beliefs about reality that they SHOULD be agnostic about, but AREN'T.
So first you said you weren't making an appeal to idealism, then you go right back to a claim based on-- your appeal to idealism.

If it's a true claim, then that IS evidence. If the only thing you can be sure of is that you're a thinking being, then you must be an agnostic about everything else. No refutation of Descartes has been forthcoming, nor do I expect one.
Sure, except there's just the minor detail of how modern medicine has been forced to treat the brain as an organ inseparably linked to the rest of the body. It's kind of dangerous to treat the mind as a separate entity that bodily health and environmental factors have no effect on. The contingency runs only one way.

...Hammer experiment? Sorry, just checking again.

Just what I would expect a hallucination to say ;) What, did you think YOU exist?
This is your brain on drugs.

Maybe, if I hadn't seen CJ, the most patient person I've ever seen on a message board, be on the receiving end of some vicious attacks. Regardless, anyone who questions science or materialism invariably gets ganged up on. True skeptics would be agreeing with people who question reality, not attacking them.
*sigh*

Attacking the argument is not the same as attacking the arguer. It's a very basic concept, one that the MA is based on. Having to defend your claims is a burden every single member, regardless of their beliefs, has to shoulder. If I were to say something spurious, I'd expect someone to correct me. In fact, I've actually relied on this tendency a few times when I wasn't sure about a particular topic.

We won't convince each other of this. My experience of atheists has been nearly exclusively a fanaticism about science, and a loathing of all things paranormal or religious.
Or maybe it's your projection based on personal prejudice. Do you even question your own perceptions at all? I don't go around assuming all theists are like Fred Phelps, and I'd have no justification in treating them as such. It would be, well, downright stupid.

So let's see. We have Raelian support for: materialism, cloning, geneticially modified organisms, and a Raelian bishop in charge of a biotech company.

But they don't beleive in science. Am I right? :rolleyes:
They believe in intelligent design by aliens. They claimed to have cloned a human. You might want to work those facts into your considerations.

athon

10th December 2008, 08:44 PM

Religious beliefs being complex structures are bound to possess some ideas that can be empirically verified, and as much early religion f'rinstance included astronomical data for example many religious claims have subsequently been empirically verified. You can say "hey they were not really religious ideas" - sure, but that si because you are defining religious beliefs as those not empirically demonstrable or with predictive value.

I would define 'religious belief' as any belief that subscribes to a system of dogma arising from belief in a supernatural force or power. So, I do agree that religious claims by this very definition cannot be empirically demonstrated.

If you have another definition, I'm open to discussing it. We might find we don't have an argument at all, if you're using a different definition than me.

The prediction the universe came in to existence, as opposed to having a steady state, and time with it, is a classic example of a prediction that can be made from a religious belief.

It would be if that 'came into existence' is born out of a faith in a supernatural origin.

Many of us will, of course, speculate on the origins of the universe. I tend to favour the concept of universes 'budding' off one another ad infinitum in some infinite megaverse. Why? I like it. It's a pretty concept. Yet I wouldn't invest anything more in it than wild speculation. I wouldn't interact with it, rely on it for support, or ask it to heal my sick child.

Religion means far more than some 'pretty idea' in a strictly inaccessible realm. People do believe they're interacting with supernatural forces and realms all the time.

Most religious beliefs however revolve around relationships with entity X, a deity -and relationships predictability, as psychology has shown, is complex. Hell it's not so long ago we finally were able to empirically demonstrate that the concept of personality is meaningful!

That's true. And if we only defined religion as being the sense of relating to another entity - whether external or internal to one's mind - then I'd have no issue with that. But again, there is more to it. I wouldn't say a relationship with an imagined being is supernatural. I would if that being was defined by more than just the perceived interactions.

From my limited interaction with say yrreg, yourself, athon, soapy sam, fls and arthwollitpot I might make limited judgments as to how you might respond - frequently in error. It's the same thing with deities really. Allow me to illustrate...

This is simply begging the question, though. We've moved past the notion that a deity could be an imagined figure, and assumed it actually transcends one's own imagining of them.

(nice dialogue, though :))

Athon

Malerin

10th December 2008, 08:54 PM

I'll get back to cj's response and other comments later, when I have more time. I thought this might be a quick one to comment on.

It's not at all 'equally likely'. Having two mutually exclusive options and denoting each the same possibility of occurring is obviously ludicrous.

It's true that we have no way of defining a deeper reality, simply because a) the act of defining something requires a more fundamental context, and b) we have no way of verifying anything with absolute certainty beyond the act of perceiving it. However, to make any sense, we can only therefore describe reality as being that which causes us to perceive what we do.

The methods of reality description which science aims to use have a massive advantage over others - the fact that they have predictive power means they relate better to whatever causes these perceptions. That is what distinguishes it above the rest. I might pull events out of a bag, invent it based purely on what seems reasonable at the time, rely on myth and legend...but none of those have a scale of evaluation which can determine how likely it is that some underlying cause is related to the observation.

Ah, I love the capitalised 'KNOW'. Really seems to drive that strawman home, yeah?

Nobody claims to KNOW. Yet, it's irrelevant. Believing in the efficacy of prayer as a means of describing what we see is useless. How do you know if you're praying in the right way? To the right deity? With the right words? How do you know the difference between a response and random events? Of course, you might be able to concoct an ad-hoc response after each event, however this does nothing to demonstrate any inherent worth. I could do the same for any process, and declare it 'equal' to prayer.

Athon

You're either assuming science is materialistic (in which case, you're using materialistic science to support materialism- fallacious)...
Or you're assuming science isn't materialistic, in which case its compatible with idealism, solipsism, and any number of competing theories of reality.

At best you've gotten nowhere, and at worse, you're committing a fallacy.

Malerin

10th December 2008, 09:27 PM

Then you should have no problem letting me hit you in the head with this hammer. Whenever you're ready. Just let me spread some newspaper around so that it doesn't make a mess. No? How come? It's for science!

Oh God, not the hoary old "hit yourself in the head if you don't believe in materialism" :rolleyes: Go rent The Matrix, please, or read "The Experience Machine" by Robert Nozick (no, he's not a SF writer). As you read it (and the objections to it), you will notice that no one ever objects that a person in the experience machine would somehow be able to prove they were in the machine by hitting themselves on the head :rolleyes:

I think that's the problem- you're neck-deep in philosophy without any grounding in the actual field. Basic concepts elude you.

They believe in intelligent design by aliens. They claimed to have cloned a human. You might want to work those facts into your considerations.

So human cloning is anti-science? Bio-engineering (they're in favor of that too)? Existence of aliens is unscientific? In the vastness of the universe, I have no doubt there are aliens capable of genetically engineering a planet. The Raelians may be wrong in their claim that it happened here, or that they've cloned a human, but there is nothing unscientific to their claims. Human cloning is right around the corner. I fully expect it in my lifetime.

The point is that the Raelians were portrayed as anti-science by some atheists here. They're not. They're obsessed with the idea of genetic manipulation, cloning, bio-engineering and are outspoken materialists.

athon

10th December 2008, 09:34 PM

You're either assuming science is materialistic (in which case, you're using materialistic science to support materialism- fallacious)...
Or you're assuming science isn't materialistic, in which case its compatible with idealism, solipsism, and any number of competing theories of reality.

At best you've gotten nowhere, and at worse, you're committing a fallacy.

1) Science is materialistic, as I understand the term to mean. By its nature it does not refer to rules which are external to our ability to directly or indirectly affect our observations.

2) I think what you meant (correct me if I'm wrong) was that by referring to science in describing our perceived universe, I'm assuming that our observations arise from purely materialistic sources. If so, what do you understand the word 'materialism' to refer to these days?

Athon

Skeptic Ginger

10th December 2008, 09:38 PM

And people who do not believe in God discount evidence which supports the theistic hypothesis based on that preexisting conviction. Agreed, it's what belief structures do, they lead to interpretation of subsequent perception data in the light of the existing framework. no one is immune.

Millions, if prayer works for them, because they have constantly self-reinforcing feedback for their belief. If however prayer never works for them, they will very soon abandon the experiment, and come to believe prayer simply does not work.

Now prayer is not thaumurturgy - (or even theurgy) - prayer is a petition, to a "person". The god of theists is a person, not a force. If I ask Malerin to lend me a fiver till payday (Malerin, care to help out?) he may or may not respond. If sometimes he does, and sometimes he does not for reasons known only to Malerin, then I will not be able to predict a suiccess rate. So prayer to theists may not be demonstrable in this way.

A theist can of course also shif the goal posts of what constitutes an answer to prayer, or conclude the failure of their prayer to be answered is god telling them something. Prayer is a request, not a final demand for payment or else... So prayer as understood by theists is not amenable to scientific testing, any more than I cna predict every time I ask Malerin for a fiver my paypal account will recieve a cash injection. :(

A god who always creates a 2.5% increase in the recovery rate of neuralgia patients would be an odd sort of bunnny. I'm not sure it would be worthy of worship -- any repeatedly demonstrable cosnsitent effect found in an experiment of this sort, like my mustard seed experiment i palyfully suggested a couple of days back (and boy was I disappointed by the low take up rate - I mean it's hardly onerous to try it! - but kudos to the few who said they would) would to me indicate a hidden but entirely natural variable, not the hand of a benevolent deity concerned with mustard growth - well unless tryng to show the experimenter something at a personal level. :)

I personally find it almost impossible to seperqate what might be a prayer result from what might be a DMILS result - but both would be of great interest to thepeople on this forum. Bad Scince? nope, I think not. I can make a strong case for some kind of effect in very good studies. Is there laready a thread on this susbject? If ther eis point me to it and i will play. I happen to have access to a rather vast collection of studies, and i might even attempt an Ersby style metanalysis, or simply provide the data so others can so the stats? I'm not convinced it proves the efficacy of prayer, but I can make a decent statistical case -- I need to think how one was experimental quality to see if that is a factor though, but there are a lot of studies and many appear scientifically sound to me.

ot in my part of the world they aren't! OK, if ther eis no thread i'll start one. I don't think though as i said we can differentiate prayer from DMILS- the bloody psi hypothesis is to my mind unfalsifibale, and can be used to explain away any interesting result as down to psi. (I'm not a fan of the unlimited psi hypothesis...)

I'll have a lok for a thread, and if one does not exist, start one. As I have studied this issue in depth I may be able to contribue a little. :) I'm still not convinced prayer studies prove much about the theistic hypothesis, but I'm interested...

cj xI understand where you are coming from here and have considered many times why am I instantly rejecting X and so readily willing to believe Y? I am very much aware of my own brain sorting preferences.

That leads me back, however, to the principles I have developed in assessing the evidence. While no one is a perfect assessor of incoming data, I am confident that some people are closer to perceiving evidence and correctly evaluating it than others. If you can present convincing evidence I am capable of changing my existing beliefs.

Someone is right. Someone isn't. There is a reality out there and it appears consistent. I know what the elements of critical thinking are. I know what the elements are in good scientific process. I know I rely on evidence, not pre-existing convictions to draw conclusions about the reality around me. Show me the evidence and I will reconsider my beliefs if the evidence is there.

So the question becomes, how good am I at critical thinking? How good am I at deciding whether or not evidence is of scientific standard? Will I always draw the correct conclusions? Of course not. But am I confident I recognize good science over bad? Yes. And if someone shows me convincingly where I have the science wrong, I never stop learning.

Taking research in the effectiveness of prayer, I have looked at literally every single study I could find on the effectiveness of prayer because there have been many claims made that there is scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of prayer. The evidence is not there. I await some study that contradicts that fact. But if I discount a study claiming the effectiveness of prayer, it is based on the same standards I reject bad science of any kind, it is not based on arbitrarily rejecting prayer studies with positive outcomes because they do not fit with my current conclusions the evidence supports prayers have no effect.

And that is the difference. If you tell me you have a study supporting the effectiveness of prayer or anything else which I have previously investigated and drawn a conclusion about, I may indeed make an assumption that I doubt you really have any evidence. But show it to me, and I will consider it using the same standards I use to consider any evidence.

Either the evidence is there or it isn't. All of our conclusions are not automatic dismissals of evidence that doesn't support our previous conclusions.

I doubt any of us are prefect in this neutral objectiveness. I am not perfect. I consciously consider when I am searching the literature for evidence supporting other issues I have a conviction about, for example evidence supporting the effectiveness of certain medical interventions. But should equivocal evidence become clearly defined with further research in favor of the position I did not hold, I will change positions. And once again, the criteria I use to accept or reject research results remains the same whether the conclusion supports my beliefs or not.

Skeptic Ginger

10th December 2008, 11:04 PM

....
The point is that the Raelians were portrayed as anti-science by some atheists here. They're not. They're obsessed with the idea of genetic manipulation, cloning, bio-engineering and are outspoken materialists.So really bad science or lying about the evidence doesn't count as 'anti-science'?

Malerin

11th December 2008, 12:01 AM

So really bad science or lying about the evidence doesn't count as 'anti-science'?

I don't think so. A kid with no clue playing around with a chemistry set is probably doing "really bad science". That doesn't make him "anti-science". Anti-science, to me, is tossing women in the drink to test if they're witches. When a Bishop of your "church" is the CEO of a bio-tech firm, and your organization supports a country's effort to genetically modify its food, it's kind of hard to make an anti-science label stick.

Einstein made mistakes rejecting quantum physics and joining with the steady-state crowd. That was "bad science". Did that make him anti-science?

Darat

11th December 2008, 12:16 AM

Nick, you seem really fascinated by the brain. Do you think that if we could make a mechanical facsimile identical to an organic brain (e.g., microchips in place of neurons), it would experience consciousness?

Folks many of us have keen interests in certain topics however lets try not to derail what has been a very interesting, friendly and educational discussion about the topic raised in the opening post with those. You can always start a new thread if you wish to discuss your particular area of interest.

Dancing David

11th December 2008, 05:16 AM

I never claimed Prozac or psychiatry didn't work. I claimed prayer DID work. You assumed the two are mutually exclusive. They're not.

The data on the fficacy of prayer are rather underwhelming, what do you have in mind?

I can think of a host of examples that demonstrate prayer is not effective on action at a distance.(As a way of ending drought for example) Now if you are saying prayer has a cognitive/emotional effect, that I can agree to.

cj.23

11th December 2008, 05:22 AM

An hypothesis is not evidence. Nice speculating, show us the evidence.

Well Nick only very reasonably pointed out that placebos work best if the patient believes in them, so we might deduce from that a positive result will be more likely from God than a pint of milk in a prayer experiment based upon placebo effect alone. Personally though, why not try it? It can't be hard ot get that past a research ethics committee - you lot pray to the milk jug, you lot to God, self report your success rate? :)

cj x

cj.23

11th December 2008, 05:27 AM

Maybe, if I hadn't seen CJ, the most patient person I've ever seen on a message board, be on the receiving end of some vicious attacks.

Thanks Malerin! Owing to time pressures I rarely reply to people like you and Nick etc who I am often in agreement with, so I apologize for that. I don't feel I am viciously attacked though, or that patient - i you want to see me being patient have a look at the first year I spent on richarddawkins.net forums where i post as Jerome. That was a wild ride! :) Eventually however I came I think to be perceived there as not a troll: it just takes consistent posting and being reasonable, and well, yeah patient. The problem with posting on boards where you are in an extreme minority is while you learn a lot, its quite demanding as many people will raise excellent objections (and some not so excellent from time to time) and you have to find time to respond lest you be accused of termigivating or whatever that word was! :D

Hey, it's fun, or we would not do it!
cj x

cj.23

11th December 2008, 05:44 AM

I'm going to reply to athon properly alter - I vaguely promised myself i would do some work today!

It might be internally consistent, but so are many of the fantasy fiction series I read. I could (and have done) invent a system of magic that is internally consistent within a fantasy world. That does not give any further cause to believe it's possibly a real world.

No, I agree. This is sort of my line of work actually - I write for supplements for roleplaying games, particularly Ars Magica. Ars has a fictional Order of Hermes who practice an ahistorical Hermetic Magic, and the game is set in the 13th century, but where the medieval paradigm is actually true. Whether Hermetic Magic reflects Aristotlean or Neo-Platonist versions of truth is in the game hotly disputed, but the game is really about the history and philosophy of Science as much as anything (with the odd dragon, politics, intrigue, romance, theology etc, etc.) Hardly surprpisng considering that is Line Editor David Chart's field of academic expertise. Ryan & Shirley's Ars Magica game supplement Art & Acadame is an excellent depiction of medieval science in game terms. I guess you can see why I keep joking about having a Scholastic theological sensibilities now! :)

Of course i write for other game companies - unsurprisingly Chaosium's Lovecraftian game Call of Cthulhu being one - but my interest in Biblical Criticism is so far not reflected ina ny rpg. Maybe I should write Werewolves & Wellhausen, in whiich our square jawed blue eyed all American Dispensationalist heroes pursue pulp adventures against the evil Higher Criticism goons of the sinister Adolf Von Harnack? Er, well maybe not...

A few possibly amusing links --

http://www.atlas-games.com/arm5/

The 4th edition is a free legal pdf download here for anyone interested in tabletop rpg. the 5th is much better though! -- http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=AG0204

Here is the Call of Cthulhu quickstart, just in case anyone interested in Lovecraftian rpg. You'll need some polyhedral dice or a computer though.
http://www.chaosium.com/article.php?story_id=87

Hope amuses!

cj x

Malerin

11th December 2008, 06:38 AM

1) Science is materialistic, as I understand the term to mean. By its nature it does not refer to rules which are external to our ability to directly or indirectly affect our observations.

2) I think what you meant (correct me if I'm wrong) was that by referring to science in describing our perceived universe, I'm assuming that our observations arise from purely materialistic sources. If so, what do you understand the word 'materialism' to refer to these days?

Athon

1. Not sure what you mean by this. For example, science speculates on what happens inside a black hole, where not even observation is possible.

2) Materialism refers to a model of reality where the world consists of physical matter (atoms, rocks, trees, etc.). You could use the term "physicalism", also.

Darat

11th December 2008, 07:09 AM

1...snip...

2) Materialism refers to a model of reality where the world consists of physical matter (atoms, rocks, trees, etc.). You could use the term "physicalism", also.

There are some threads on here that have examined this definition of materialism and quite conclusively demonstrated that it is not how it is used today.

ETA: See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103081 and http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112097

Malerin

11th December 2008, 07:44 AM

Then they're using some other term.

"1 a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter b: a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress c: a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused — compare historical materialism" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism

"Materialism, as philosophy, has two major positions. The first position states that physical matter is the only reality. Materialism rejects any conclusion that relies on the existence of supernatural or non-physical reality. The second major position states that everything can be explained through physical means, including such seemingly unphysical phenomena such as thought, emotions, and will."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_materialism

"Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales's thesis that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical -- items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are wholly physical.

Physicalism is sometimes known as materialism."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Dancing David

11th December 2008, 09:00 AM

Yet malerin, there is no discernable difference between materialism/physicalism or any other ********-ism you care to name. So the belief system does not effect the outcome of the events in the 'world' , whatever that maybe. The belief system will impact the 'choices' that 'beings' make in that 'world'.

Again I ask, although it goes in the other thread.

What difference would there be ? If we define it as not being able to reduce all to some physical component, then that is dualism.

Silentknight

11th December 2008, 11:29 AM

Oh God, not the hoary old "hit yourself in the head if you don't believe in materialism" :rolleyes: Go rent The Matrix, please, or read "The Experience Machine" by Robert Nozick (no, he's not a SF writer). As you read it (and the objections to it), you will notice that no one ever objects that a person in the experience machine would somehow be able to prove they were in the machine by hitting themselves on the head :rolleyes:
The Matrix? I've seen all three movies as well as the Animatrix, which does include a case where a teenager self-substantiates (he's the kid who appears in the second and third movies). I've read numerous interviews with the Wachowski brothers about where their ideas were derived from and what ideas they were trying to convey with the movies. They were not making literal arguments against materialism. Did you miss all the symbology and themes taken from religions such as Christianity and Buddhism, or Plato's allegory of the Cave? Did you ignore the plot completely? Did you miss the fact that, well, the real world actually exists in the movie? One could make a much stronger argument against mainstream religion based on the movie, where people are brainwashed into a set of religious beliefs from birth, and only a few manage to break free and see reality for what it is.

A computer simulated world would have internal inconsistencies. Several major plotlines focus on this idea. The machines tried to work around this by compensating for glitches in the system, and this incidentally includes the way they anticipated the arrival of The One and recalibrated the Matrix to compensate for his presence. It wasn't a perfect illusion, and neither would any simulated reality be.

Furthermore, you ignored what I said about how modern medicine has had to learn to treat the mind as part of the body. When the body gets sick, the mind suffers, and the normal thinking process is affected. Traumatize your physical brain by subjecting it to drugs, alcohol, improper diet, or yes, blunt force trauma, and the same thing will happen. If you've ever watched a person waste away from Alzheimer's disease, you'd realize that changes in brain function can completely change who a person is, all the way down to their memories and personality. If you've ever suffered from or known anyone who has a mental illness, you'd realize that internal thoughts are not the most reliable thing in the world.

If solipsism or idealism were true, then the body would be contingent on the mind, not the other way around, and sick people could cure themselves just by thinking about it. Many of them would have done so a long time ago. Life is difficult for many people and the world isn't always fair. If thoughts were capable of altering this "illusion" of reality, someone would have already discovered how to do so. Why would any individual, let alone everyone in the world, deliberately cause suffering for him/herself or others?

I think that's the problem- you're neck-deep in philosophy without any grounding in the actual field. Basic concepts elude you.
I've taken several courses in it and have studied it independently for several years. I was keeping my responses simple so that there'd be no excuse for further deliberate misunderstandings on your part. Now that you've resorted to mind-reading again, I can tell that I wasted my time taking your claims seriously.

So human cloning is anti-science? Bio-engineering (they're in favor of that too)? Existence of aliens is unscientific? In the vastness of the universe, I have no doubt there are aliens capable of genetically engineering a planet. The Raelians may be wrong in their claim that it happened here, or that they've cloned a human, but there is nothing unscientific to their claims. Human cloning is right around the corner. I fully expect it in my lifetime.

The point is that the Raelians were portrayed as anti-science by some atheists here. They're not. They're obsessed with the idea of genetic manipulation, cloning, bio-engineering and are outspoken materialists.
Again, intelligent design by aliens forms the foundation of their beliefs, and all their other obsessions stem from that. Belief in intelligent design, in spite of the billions of bits of evidence that shows otherwise, is unscientific. Their belief in UFOs, despite the total lack of evidence, is also unscientific. There's a huge difference between what SETI does and outright claiming that aliens have already visited and done X, Y, and Z.

The fact that they ascribe to certain aspects of legitimate science, for all the wrong reasons, does not change the fact that their core belief is unscientific. It would be the same as if you were to take up marine biology solely because you're convinced that the Loch Ness Monster exists.

Nick227

11th December 2008, 12:01 PM

An hypothesis is not evidence. Nice speculating, show us the evidence.

Fair point. I should have provided some cites. Here's one (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561425). If you google "placebo effect, dopamine, NAC" there are more, but I didn't have time to see if they're all referencing the same paper.

Basically, the article proposes that for pain relief placebos work in this manner. Thus praying to a deity with the expectation that pain would be relieved should stimulate dopamine production simply through the presence of the belief, the expectation.

Nick

Nick227

11th December 2008, 12:03 PM

Nick, you seem really fascinated by the brain. Do you think that if we could make a mechanical facsimile identical to an organic brain (e.g., microchips in place of neurons), it would experience consciousness?

OK, Strong AI! I think the first thing you need to justify is the notion that you experience consciousness, because from a strict materialist perspective (which to me is the model you're proposing) I would dispute this!

Nick

Malerin

11th December 2008, 12:31 PM

The Matrix? I've seen all three movies as well as the Animatrix, which does include a case where a teenager self-substantiates (he's the kid who appears in the second and third movies). I've read numerous interviews with the Wachowski brothers about where their ideas were derived from and what ideas they were trying to convey with the movies. They were not making literal arguments against materialism. Did you miss all the symbology and themes taken from religions such as Christianity and Buddhism, or Plato's allegory of the Cave? Did you ignore the plot completely? Did you miss the fact that, well, the real world actually exists in the movie? One could make a much stronger argument against mainstream religion based on the movie, where people are brainwashed into a set of religious beliefs from birth, and only a few manage to break free and see reality for what it is.

The point of bringing up the Matrix and "Experience Machine" is that nobody got out of the matrix by hitting themselves on the head. Nobody makes the sense-data objection to Nozick's "Experience Machine". Hitting yourself only proves that you are experiencing something. It doesn't tell you anything about what that something is. The sensation of pain could come from a computer program, be thought up in a dream, given to you as a brain-in-a-vat, sent by nerves to a physical brain, etc.

A computer simulated world would have internal inconsistencies. In the Matrix or are you making a generalization about all possible computer simulations?

Several major plotlines focus on this idea. The machines tried to work around this by compensating for glitches in the system, and this incidentally includes the way they anticipated the arrival of The One and recalibrated the Matrix to compensate for his presence. It wasn't a perfect illusion, and neither would any simulated reality be. OK, so I think you're making the claim about any simulated illusion. Are you basing this on the movie?
1) How do you know a simulation would have glitches at all? If it did, how do you know those glitches be noticeable? Maybe they would occur only at the sub-atomic level.
2) By claiming all simulations would have glitches, you're assuming you're in a "glitch-free" reality. How you prove this without resorting to circular reasoning?
3) Even granting that all simulations would not be perfect, it doesn't follow that reality is materialistic. I don't see why an idealistic reality (reality as a projection of mind or God) couldn't be error-free.

Furthermore, you ignored what I said about how modern medicine has had to learn to treat the mind as part of the body. When the body gets sick, the mind suffers, and the normal thinking process is affected. Traumatize your physical brain by subjecting it to drugs, alcohol, improper diet, or yes, blunt force trauma, and the same thing will happen. If you've ever watched a person waste away from Alzheimer's disease, you'd realize that changes in brain function can completely change who a person is, all the way down to their memories and personality. If you've ever suffered from or known anyone who has a mental illness, you'd realize that internal thoughts are not the most reliable thing in the world. This could still all be true in a simulation, dream, experience machine, etc. Replace "physical brain" with "idealistic brain" (or lines of code relating to a brain) and you would have the same effect. Again, you're assuming materiastic cause and effect relationships are true.

If solipsism or idealism were true, then the body would be contingent on the mind, not the other way around, and sick people could cure themselves just by thinking about it. Not necessarily. It could be solipsisism and you have limited yourself out of fear that the truth (that only you exist) would be too much to handle. Curing yourself or performing miracles might reveal the truth of things.

Many of them would have done so a long time ago. Life is difficult for many people and the world isn't always fair. If thoughts were capable of altering this "illusion" of reality, someone would have already discovered how to do so. Why would any individual, let alone everyone in the world, deliberately cause suffering for him/herself or others? Why do people drink, kill themselves, commit robberies or do all other sorts of stupid things? People are conflicted. It doesn't follow that if idealism is true the world would be a paradise. Also, if reality is theistic, God may have reasons we can't fathom for allowing the world to be the way it is.

I admit that the overall ********** of the world is a problem for the idealist or theist (who believes in an all-loving powerful God). I don't think it's an insurmountable one, or changes the odds, but it does have to be addressed (and the poor quality of the world would go well with the idea of an evil genius running things). I don't think it's a problem for solipsism because you'd have to be crazy to make all this up and then hide the fact from yourself.

I've taken several courses in it and have studied it independently for several years. I was keeping my responses simple so that there'd be no excuse for further deliberate misunderstandings on your part. Now that you've resorted to mind-reading again, I can tell that I wasted my time taking your claims seriously. Oh, I bet I'll see a reply to this.

Again, intelligent design by aliens forms the foundation of their beliefs, and all their other obsessions stem from that. Belief in intelligent design, in spite of the billions of bits of evidence that shows otherwise, is unscientific. Their belief in UFOs, despite the total lack of evidence, is also unscientific. There's a huge difference between what SETI does and outright claiming that aliens have already visited and done X, Y, and Z. This belongs in a different thread. I think we had different definitions of anti-science. I took it to mean Raelians had a belief in witchcraft and rejected science like some weird medieval cult. In fact, their worldview is based on science (cloning, bio-engineering, genetic modification, etc.)

The fact that they ascribe to certain aspects of legitimate science, for all the wrong reasons, does not change the fact that their core belief is unscientific. It would be the same as if you were to take up marine biology solely because you're convinced that the Loch Ness Monster exists.What about a marine biologist who believes in God? Are they anti-science?

Please review your Membership Agreement regarding unacceptable words - what you had written was unacceptable for the forum. (Replaced word with asterisks)

Malerin

11th December 2008, 12:42 PM

OK, Strong AI! I think the first thing you need to justify is the notion that you experience consciousness, because from a strict materialist perspective (which to me is the model you're proposing) I would dispute this!

Nick

I don't think I can justify it to anyone. I can only self-report what I feel. Do you yourself experience "consciousness"? I have the feeling of self-awareness, my choices seem freely made, I feel certain emotions, and I don't feel like I'm following a program.

Even if we created a computer that was self-aware and conscious, we might never be sure of it. We could only go by what it could tell us. But then I'm reading Forever Peace and maybe there would be a way to "jack-in" to a computer and experience what it's experiencing.

Nick227

11th December 2008, 02:15 PM

I don't think I can justify it to anyone. I can only self-report what I feel.

Yes. But how do you know that this act of self-reporting really refers to an actual self? Can you be sure that it is not merely this act that creates a self? Without this reporting, without this thinking, is there any longer a subject of experience?

My point is that, in order to really start to grasp Strong AI, you need to grasp that this notion of selfhood which is created by thinking and language does not actually refer to anything. The word "I" is a reference, but it has no actual referent.

If this is appreciated then I think it can be seen that perhaps this so-called "consciousness" is actually not such a complex phenomenon after all, that maybe it doesn't even really exist. It is rather that humans have developed a means to infer it exists even though there is actually no one who makes the inference.

eta: So, I would say, this "I" that is the apparent subject of experience is an illusion. It's an illusion with a couple of important biological functions - forming social bonds and integrating thinking with bodily processes - but it's still an illusion.

When one contemplates creating a machine that can replicate what we call "consciousness," all that is needed to start to get over the "hard problem" is a couple of features - 1. that it can replicate thinking and 2. that it can create from thinking a sense of selfhood. It does not need an actual self, because there is anyway no such thing, in the materialist sense, it just needs to behave as though there is, because that is anyway all we actually do. We, as the products of evolution, have a biological need for the illusory self. It wouldn't have these needs.

Nick

athon

11th December 2008, 02:37 PM

1. Not sure what you mean by this. For example, science speculates on what happens inside a black hole, where not even observation is possible.

Ah, but indirect observations are possible, and it is based on these that speculation arises. We use observations to create laws from which we deduct what is happening within a black hole. We also can't observe inside the Earth, but we can use a range of other observations to come to a conclusion in a similar way.

2) Materialism refers to a model of reality where the world consists of physical matter (atoms, rocks, trees, etc.). You could use the term "physicalism", also.

Interesting that you say this. If we were in the 19th century, I might nod and agree with your definition. Fortunately we understand that matter is comprised of more than just (or rather, isn't at all) hard bits of stuff, but that all matter is a manifestation of energy, and an interaction of forces between units which we describe with inherent properties.

By this account, anything we observe must therefore arise from something that a) has properties which affect our universe in an observable fashion, and therefore b) interacts with the laws as we currently understand them.

Athon

plumjam

11th December 2008, 03:29 PM

Nick, regarding the "I", "I" think "you" would find this interesting reading.
http://www.discoursesbymeherbaba.org/v2-59.php

Silentknight

11th December 2008, 06:30 PM

The point of bringing up the Matrix and "Experience Machine" is that nobody got out of the matrix by hitting themselves on the head. Nobody makes the sense-data objection to Nozick's "Experience Machine". Hitting yourself only proves that you are experiencing something. It doesn't tell you anything about what that something is. The sensation of pain could come from a computer program, be thought up in a dream, given to you as a brain-in-a-vat, sent by nerves to a physical brain, etc.
My point was that your analogy was false, since you obviously aren't referring to the same movies I saw, or the same themes the writers themselves had intended for it. The character known as "Kid" or Michael Karl Popper, was featured in the Animatrix short "Kid's Story" as one who liberated himself from the Matrix. In the same series, the track runner character Dan Davis in the short "World Record" temporarily freed himself from the Matrix reality by ignoring the pain in his muscles, which were not really experiencing pain. Your analogy fails even further when you consider that there were people living outside the Matrix reaching in all the time.

Why did you bring up The Matrix at all? Just to argue that a simulated reality is a possibility, while disregarding all the other factors that it was based on? I hope you know that the Wachowski brothers made their millions by marketing it as fiction. Check out the official website (http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_fr_intro.html) for explanations of the philosophical themes.

1) How do you know a simulation would have glitches at all? If it did, how do you know those glitches be noticeable? Maybe they would occur only at the sub-atomic level.
If we're still talking about the movies, the glitches were identified as anything that broke the normal rules. Based on that, your arguments that we can't truly "know" anything about reality fall apart when you consider that knowing the basic physical laws of the world, even the Matrix world, would be necessary to identify any potential glitches. If this is about some hypothetical perfect simulation, then my point about knowing the physical laws within that simulation still stands, as it would be necessary for one to function within it. In a hypothetical perfect simulation, the hidden, secondary, outside, or real world would actually have no influence on our lives whatsoever, therefore the argument that we can't "know" anything about said outside world is rather moot.

2) By claiming all simulations would have glitches, you're assuming you're in a "glitch-free" reality. How you prove this without resorting to circular reasoning?
Easy, just give me another reality to compare it to. I'm sure that if you're basing an argument on the possibility of an external reality, in order to draw conclusions about this reality, then you should have no problem fleshing out the details. Go ahead, I'll wait.

3) Even granting that all simulations would not be perfect, it doesn't follow that reality is materialistic. I don't see why an idealistic reality (reality as a projection of mind or God) couldn't be error-free.
This presupposes God / that reality is contingent on the mind, but that's probably beside the point. See what I said about the perfect simulation. If this were really the case, then the outside reality would have no effect on us whatsoever, therefore there's no reason not to treat the "illusion" as reality for all intents and purposes. Similarly if God existed entirely outside the universe, then he wouldn't be anything that concerns us, since he'd have no impact on our lives at all. It's not really a problem for materialism if you claim that reality is a flawless simulation, because you've provided nothing meaningful about the theoretical outside world.

This could still all be true in a simulation, dream, experience machine, etc. Replace "physical brain" with "idealistic brain" (or lines of code relating to a brain) and you would have the same effect. Again, you're assuming materiastic cause and effect relationships are true.
I'm not assuming, I'm saying they're demonstrable. You haven't provided any evidence that the reverse is true. Mistreat your body and your mind suffers. Change your mind and, well, the effects on your body are limited to the relationship between positive thinking and long term health. Mind you, the latter is a scientific finding based on studies of how brain chemistry influences the body (you know, materialism).

Not necessarily. It could be solipsisism and you have limited yourself out of fear that the truth (that only you exist) would be too much to handle. Curing yourself or performing miracles might reveal the truth of things.
Again with the mind-reading. But I digress. You're basing your hypothetical statement on speculation and a possibility that has zero evidence to back it up. If you're looking for what might be true, wild guesses aren't usually a good place to start.

Why do people drink, kill themselves, commit robberies or do all other sorts of stupid things? People are conflicted. It doesn't follow that if idealism is true the world would be a paradise. Also, if reality is theistic, God may have reasons we can't fathom for allowing the world to be the way it is.
You're analogizing making temporary mistakes / lapses in judgment to deliberately causing suffering for oneself and all others in all places at all times. That's a lot like saying that because people make mistakes sometimes, we're all evil sinners from birth who can't redeem ourselves. Also, if you're making a theistic argument for theodicy, the only way to avoid special pleading is to avoid drawing any moral conclusions about God at all, but that's a different topic.

I admit that the overall ********** of the world is a problem for the idealist or theist (who believes in an all-loving powerful God). I don't think it's an insurmountable one, or changes the odds, but it does have to be addressed (and the poor quality of the world would go well with the idea of an evil genius running things). I don't think it's a problem for solipsism because you'd have to be crazy to make all this up and then hide the fact from yourself.
I don't see how what you just said demonstrates that the problem of evil isn't a problem for solipsism. Did you mean to say one could be crazy and then made it up and hid the fact? It sounds more like one would need to be crazy to create all the evil and suffering in the world and then hide the fact from oneself.

On an unrelated note, solipsism seems a lot like Christianity, in that there's only one true member at any given time.

This belongs in a different thread. I think we had different definitions of anti-science. I took it to mean Raelians had a belief in witchcraft and rejected science like some weird medieval cult. In fact, their worldview is based on science (cloning, bio-engineering, genetic modification, etc.)
Probably. I consider them anti-science because the basis for their beliefs, as well as their obsession with various scientific fields, is an idea that flies in the face of established scientific facts. It would be like someone who is obsessed with the fields of immunology, hematology, and phlebotomy only because he's convinced he's really a vampire.

What about a marine biologist who believes in God? Are they anti-science?
Didn't I say that one can believe in God and accept the conclusions of science, such as evolution? Didn't you say there's no way I'd ever change your mind? To echo the sentiment of Michael Shermer, what greater tool than science could God have bestowed upon us to understand and appreciate the splendor of his creation?

cj.23

12th December 2008, 04:56 AM

To echo the sentiment of Michael Shermer, what greater tool than science could God have bestowed upon us to understand and appreciate the splendor of his creation?

Empathy. And after that History. Both trump Science as ways of knowing.

cj x

Prometheus

12th December 2008, 12:03 PM

Empathy. And after that History. Both trump Science as ways of knowing.

cj x

We'll have to get to work informing medical researchers around the world that they're taking the wrong tack in looking for new cures. :rolleyes:

plumjam

12th December 2008, 12:51 PM

We'll have to get to work informing medical researchers around the world that they're taking the wrong tack in looking for new cures. :rolleyes:

If there wasn't empathy there'd be no medicine in the first place, except perhaps for the remedies we each individually invented as and when our own individual ailments arose.

paximperium

12th December 2008, 12:52 PM

Empathy. And after that History. Both trump Science as ways of knowing.

cj x
Now, that's just silly. Empathy is actually a nice little way for people to con you. Nothing beats Appeals to emotion.

The Hubble Space telescope, LHC, experimentation and research are very empathetic indeed:rolleyes:

Silentknight

12th December 2008, 01:40 PM

Empathy. And after that History. Both trump Science as ways of knowing.

cj x

We've been over this. Historical investigation employs the methods and techniques of science, such as evidence gathering and analysis, so they're not two different things, and certainly not mutually exclusive. As for empathy, you're comparing apples to, well, durian. Emotions help us communicate with others, surmise their states of mind, and treat them a certain way for better or worse. What you're claiming is like saying that science and singing are at odds with each other.

We can certainly sing about science. (http://www.emeraldrose.com/archivesages/wecomefrommonkeys.htm) :D

Prometheus

12th December 2008, 02:46 PM

If there wasn't empathy there'd be no medicine in the first place, except perhaps for the remedies we each individually invented as and when our own individual ailments arose.

If there wasn't cognition there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't reason there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't memory there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't life there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't infirmity there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't communication there'd be no medicine in the first place....

You've heard the term, "necessary but insufficient"? How about, "trivial"?

PixyMisa

12th December 2008, 03:10 PM

If there wasn't empathy there'd be no medicine in the first place, except perhaps for the remedies we each individually invented as and when our own individual ailments arose.
Money.

Skeptic Ginger

12th December 2008, 03:31 PM

I don't think so. A kid with no clue playing around with a chemistry set is probably doing "really bad science". That doesn't make him "anti-science". Anti-science, to me, is tossing women in the drink to test if they're witches. When a Bishop of your "church" is the CEO of a bio-tech firm, and your organization supports a country's effort to genetically modify its food, it's kind of hard to make an anti-science label stick.

Einstein made mistakes rejecting quantum physics and joining with the steady-state crowd. That was "bad science". Did that make him anti-science?It's either a fine line here or a bad analogy, I think it's the latter.

Are the ID promoters or the YECs who distort actual science in order to falsely claim there is scientific evidence supporting their beliefs pro or anti science?

Skeptic Ginger

12th December 2008, 03:33 PM

...

What about a marine biologist who believes in God? Are they anti-science?

Pro science with a blind spot.

cj.23

12th December 2008, 05:10 PM

Skeptic Ginger

13th December 2008, 04:05 AM

Fair point. I should have provided some cites. Here's one (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561425). If you google "placebo effect, dopamine, NAC" there are more, but I didn't have time to see if they're all referencing the same paper.

Basically, the article proposes that for pain relief placebos work in this manner. Thus praying to a deity with the expectation that pain would be relieved should stimulate dopamine production simply through the presence of the belief, the expectation.

NickYou missed the point. Believing the thing you are praying to is the variable, but the thing you are praying to is not. In other words if you believe praying to the milk jug will affect your pain then whether or not you pray to a nebulous entity somewhere overhead or an inanimate milk jug the result will be no different.

athon

13th December 2008, 04:20 AM

I still fail to see how History is Science - but I tend to take a Popperian line. If Science = ways of knowing, then Economics, History, Theology, Philosophy, Parapsychology are all sciences, yeah?

cj x

It depends on the context one uses the term 'science'. Science might well be the methodology or the resulting knowledge. In my view, history can be assessed scientifically. The resulting science might not be as concrete and reliable as the results of science being applied to other observations, but so long as the same objectives are kept in mind, history can be a 'science'.

Technically, in which case, economics, theology and even parapsychology could have scientific methodology applied to observations relevant in those fields. Whether this is applied as honestly and thoroughly in all cases is another matter.

Athon

Nick227

13th December 2008, 04:57 AM

You missed the point. Believing the thing you are praying to is the variable, but the thing you are praying to is not. In other words if you believe praying to the milk jug will affect your pain then whether or not you pray to a nebulous entity somewhere overhead or an inanimate milk jug the result will be no different.

It might help if you read my post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4262602#post4262602) again, perhaps a little more slowly.

Nick

westprog

13th December 2008, 05:07 AM

Pro science with a blind spot.

Belief has nothing to do with science. Scientist who believe in God are not doing anything unscientific.

Dancing David

13th December 2008, 05:26 AM

Empathy. And after that History. Both trump Science as ways of knowing.

cj x

Right, history, uh huh, sure, whatever.

I wonder how much history is accurate and how much is convinient political nonsense?

Dancing David

13th December 2008, 05:28 AM

Just to clarify my point above - I was responding to "To echo the sentiment of Michael Shermer, what greater tool than science could God have bestowed upon us to understand and appreciate the splendor of his creation?"

I still fail to see how History is Science - but I tend to take a Popperian line. If Science = ways of knowing, then Economics, History, Theology, Philosophy, Parapsychology are all sciences, yeah?

cj x

No, only if you use the method and critical evaluation.

When science is applied to things like parapsychology, then the 'effect' disappears.

Science is a method of observation, replication and elimination or measurement of confounding factors.

Dancing David

13th December 2008, 05:30 AM

Funny, people are still avoiding talking about delusions.

PixyMisa

13th December 2008, 06:20 AM

I still fail to see how History is Science - but I tend to take a Popperian line.
If you take a Popperian line, then you will understand that the key concept is falsification. You can't prove that a hypothesis is true (though you can support it with evidence), but you can prove that a hypothesis is false.

You can certainly apply this approach to history.

If Science = ways of knowing, then Economics, History, Theology, Philosophy, Parapsychology are all sciences, yeah?
Falsification is applicable to economics, history, and parapsychology, certainly. (And as has been pointed out, it is particularly effective in respect to parapsychology.)

It can be applied to philosophy and theology only insofar as those fields make coherent statements about the real world. In other words, not very far.

cj.23

13th December 2008, 06:37 AM

Funny, people are still avoiding talking about delusions.

I love talking about delusions, in a DSM IV medical kind of sense. What was the question?

cj x

plumjam

13th December 2008, 07:10 AM

If there wasn't cognition there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't reason there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't memory there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't life there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't infirmity there'd be no medicine in the first place....
If there wasn't communication there'd be no medicine in the first place....

You've heard the term, "necessary but insufficient"? How about, "trivial"?

Nice try, but none of the above could be considered one of the (probably the) main motivating factors behind medicine and its improvement. Empathy, as a way of knowing, enables us to know that something like medical research is something worth pursuing.

RandFan

13th December 2008, 07:59 AM

I can dispute it. Culturally, God is far better established as a suitable vessel to pray towards. Thus, if we say that the belief in a positive outcome can stimulate the release of beneficial brain chemicals it is obviously necessary to have a suitably regarded entity to pray towards. Most people would likely regard praying to a milk-jug as ridiculous, and so I imagine that studies to monitor, say, dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens or whatever, would reveal that praying to God would release more dopamine than praying to the milk jug. The only thing you are demonstrating is the placebo effect. In other words it is only effective at making you feel better. The point that you are missing is that the the active ingredient (for lack of a better term) is the belief not the act. I've no doubt that we could convince people that praying to a jug of milk is effective and therefor it would be as effective. Your point is only one of technicality.

RandFan

13th December 2008, 08:03 AM

Well, the first part is clear, and that's enough really. You have a faith-based belief, just like all the other atheists here (getting them to admit to a belief in anything is like pulling teeth for some reason). Oh, you can make an appeal to your senses, like others here, but I don't think you're dumb enough to believe that maneuver works. If you do that, then I have to bring up my spiritual experience as proof that God exists and both of us end up sounding like idiots.

See how easy it is to believe in something without any evidence? No evidence? I see my wife every day. How can you say that there is no evidence? You are being disingenuous. You are abusing skepticism again.

You really need to figure that one out.

And I'm not the one sounding like the idiot. Just because your internal experience is proof that you are Napoleon doesn't mean that it is a rational belief.

I've admitted that I have beliefs. What's like pulling teeth is getting you to acknowledge that fact. Also what's like pulling teeth is getting you to acknowledge that not all beliefs are equal. Some are based on evidence and some are not (abuse of skepticism notwithstanding).

RandFan

13th December 2008, 08:09 AM

Belief has nothing to do with science. Scientist who believe in God are not doing anything unscientific. Scientists who are superstitious are not doing anything unscientific. Well, actually, beliefs not supported by evidence are in fact unscientific. So, sorry. That said, I think most theistic scientists would be honest enough to admit that.

cj.23

13th December 2008, 11:29 AM

Prometheus

13th December 2008, 11:37 AM

Nice try, but none of the above could be considered one of the (probably the) main motivating factors behind medicine and its improvement. Empathy, as a way of knowing, enables us to know that something like medical research is something worth pursuing.

Whether they are motivating and/or primary factors is completely irrelevant. They, like empathy, are both necessary and insufficient for the development of medicine to occur. All the empathy in the world produces zero medicine without at least the rudiments of science. This makes your point true, but only trivially so.

Prometheus

13th December 2008, 11:42 AM

Plumjam has neatly summarised exactly why I put empathy first. :)

cj x

Plumjam has, ironically, epitomized exactly why I put reason first. ;)

plumjam

13th December 2008, 12:35 PM

Prometheus, your whole championing of medical research via science, is founded on your belief that helping other people via medicine is a good thing.
You only believe it's a good thing from the kind of knowledge which empathy brings to you.
So, not only is empathy the practical motivating force, but it also supplies the moral standard by which something such as medical research, as an enterprise, is to be judged.
Even if medical research could be done without empathy (which is highly doubtful), without empathy we'd have no way of knowing whether it was a worthwhile thing to do or not. You're saying it's a worthwhile thing, and this belief of yours is arrived at only via the kind of knowledge that empathy brings.
Effectively you're arguing against yourself.

paximperium

13th December 2008, 12:45 PM

Nice try, but none of the above could be considered one of the (probably the) main motivating factors behind medicine and its improvement.
Wait? So a motivation is enough for knowledge? Am I getting you right?
Not science or research but empathy alone?

We're not talking about motivation(which you have derailed this claim into) we're talking about a TOOL:
To echo the sentiment of Michael Shermer, what greater tool than science could God have bestowed upon us to understand and appreciate the splendor of his creation?

So what better tool do we have?

So, why are the woo-mongering alternative medicine peeps so "successful"? They seem empathetic(or fraudulent) but are completely and utterly useless at their treatment despite their "research".

Empathy, as a way of knowing, enables us to know that something like medical research is something worth pursuing.
No. Self interest and profit are good enough reasons. Great reasoning behind why we have iPods and TVs, no empathy involved. Empathy plays one part but not the only part. Your claim is falsified.

I don't get why some woo-believers seem to believe that empathy alone somehow gives them greater insight into reality than science. Probably intellectual laziness, "I feel for ya, I don't need to learn."

Prometheus

13th December 2008, 01:52 PM

Prometheus, your whole championing of medical research via science, is founded on your belief that helping other people via medicine is a good thing.

Yes.

You only believe it's a good thing from the kind of knowledge which empathy brings to you.

No. There's also my memory of my own pain being alleviated by medicine, and my interest in having future infirmities effectively treated.

So, not only is empathy the practical motivating force, but it also supplies the moral standard by which something such as medical research, as an enterprise, is to be judged.

So what? How (or whether) some given enterprise is to eventually be judged has exactly as much relevance to the problem of how (or whether) said enterprise can actually be achieved in the first place as the 'practical motivating force' behind it does: Zero.

Even if medical research could be done without empathy (which is highly doubtful), without empathy we'd have no way of knowing whether it was a worthwhile thing to do or not.

Gosh, I thought perhaps you might have heard the phrase, "necessary BUT insufficient," somewhere before. No? Never heard that one?

You're saying it's a worthwhile thing,

Yes.

and this belief of yours is arrived at only via the kind of knowledge that empathy brings.

No. There's also my memory of my own pain being alleviated by medicine, and my interest in having future infirmities effectively treated.

Effectively you're arguing against yourself.

Apparently I'm the only one of us paying attention, at any rate. :p

Skeptic Ginger

13th December 2008, 04:19 PM

Belief has nothing to do with science. Scientist who believe in God are not doing anything unscientific.Some people hold that view. I however, do not. I find the claim that faith based beliefs are somehow different from non-evidence based beliefs to be specious and contrived. As well, I find the claim that god beliefs fulfill some 'need' that science does not to also be specious and contrived. One can belong to a community and gain all the benefits which are attributed to religion without god beliefs and irrational thinking.

Belief in gods requires the suspension of critical thinking.That is most definitely unscientific.

cj.23

13th December 2008, 04:31 PM

Belief in gods requires the suspension of critical thinking.That is most definitely unscientific.

Why? I believe in gods simply because of my critical thinking. Or to be clearer, i do not disbelieve in Gods for that reason. I find it hard to know anything definitely, beyond my doubt, but I have doubted long enough to doubt even that.

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty, I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong. In this universe, that suggests to me gods are a distinct possibility. :)

cj x

Silentknight

13th December 2008, 04:58 PM

Nice try, but none of the above could be considered one of the (probably the) main motivating factors behind medicine and its improvement. Empathy, as a way of knowing, enables us to know that something like medical research is something worth pursuing.

I would tend to place not wanting to get sick and not wanting to die ahead of empathy. Neglecting the sick and injured is not a good survival strategy for any society regardless. Mind you, the fear of sickness, injury, or death is also a motivating factor, not a tool or method.

PixyMisa

13th December 2008, 06:12 PM

Prometheus, your whole championing of medical research via science, is founded on your belief that helping other people via medicine is a good thing.
Not his whole reason, nor is it relevant.

The point is that scientific medical research works, and medical research based on empathy alone doesn't do anything at all.

Also, money.

PixyMisa

13th December 2008, 06:15 PM

Why? I believe in gods simply because of my critical thinking.
How did you get there from here?

Or to be clearer, i do not disbelieve in Gods for that reason. I find it hard to know anything definitely, beyond my doubt, but I have doubted long enough to doubt even that.
Active disbelief is not required. But a lack of evidence is sufficient for a lack of belief.

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty
Certainly.

I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong. In this universe, that suggests to me gods are a distinct possibility.
What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

I did see you post a list of reasons in another thread, but I thought it was a joke.

Skeptic Ginger

13th December 2008, 06:29 PM

Empathy. And after that History. Both trump Science as ways of knowing.

cj xHow are you valuing the resulting knowledge? Volume of knowledge gained, validity of knowledge gained, technological progress, quality of life improved by the knowledge gained?

I fail to see how you can state your conclusion here unless you define what it is you are valuing in the knowledge you speak of.

Skeptic Ginger

13th December 2008, 06:31 PM

If there wasn't empathy there'd be no medicine in the first place, except perhaps for the remedies we each individually invented as and when our own individual ailments arose.You seem to be mixing motivation to seek knowledge with cj.23's statement about means of knowing even if you were right.

Skeptic Ginger

13th December 2008, 06:34 PM

Just to clarify my point above - I was responding to "To echo the sentiment of Michael Shermer, what greater tool than science could God have bestowed upon us to understand and appreciate the splendor of his creation?"

I still fail to see how History is Science - but I tend to take a Popperian line. If Science = ways of knowing, then Economics, History, Theology, Philosophy, Parapsychology are all sciences, yeah?

cj xExamining historical evidence using the scientific process is going to provide you with knowledge that is closer to reality than just looking at historical evidence in an unsystematic way.

I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what people are talking about.

Skeptic Ginger

13th December 2008, 06:37 PM

Nice try, but none of the above could be considered one of the (probably the) main motivating factors behind medicine and its improvement. Empathy, as a way of knowing, enables us to know that something like medical research is something worth pursuing.Of course without evolution, empathy might not have been naturally selected as benefiting gregarious primates. So evolution gave us medicine, actually.

Skeptic Ginger

13th December 2008, 06:41 PM

Why? I believe in gods simply because of my critical thinking. Or to be clearer, i do not disbelieve in Gods for that reason. I find it hard to know anything definitely, beyond my doubt, but I have doubted long enough to doubt even that.

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty, I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong. In this universe, that suggests to me gods are a distinct possibility. :)

cj xWe have threads and threads on this topic. That's why I prefaced my post with, "Some people hold that view. I however, do not."

RandFan

13th December 2008, 06:48 PM

Why? I believe in gods simply because of my critical thinking. Or to be clearer, i do not disbelieve in Gods for that reason. I find it hard to know anything definitely, beyond my doubt, but I have doubted long enough to doubt even that. I've no problem with the philosophical realization that certainty is problematic at best.

Beyond the naval gazing aspect though I find most people are simply fooling themselves or playing games to justify their irrationality. If you really were so skeptical of everything then you would be tied up in knots unable to deal with the real world. But no, you get in your car and merrily go through life making assumptions living according to those assumptions because the assumptions are rational.

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty, I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong. In this universe, that suggests to me gods are a distinct possibility. Then everything is a "distinct possibility". Whatever it is you mean by that. It would then be a distinct possibility that you could lock yourself in a room without food or water or a toilet for a month. But you are not going to do that because it's NOT a distinct possibility that you would survive for any significant amount of time and do so comfortably and you know that. All your bluster and pseudo intellectual naval gazing won't change that fact.

People are perfectly happy to engage in philosophical flights of fantsy when it's flatering or it supports their world view but you put that to the test and suddenly they are pretty damn certain what is and isn't real.

I don't mind a philosophical discussion but when it comes to acting as if nonsense is a distinct possibility then I've got to call you on it. Believe in god if you want to but don't tell us it has anything to do with critical thinking. Or, or, have the honesty and consistency to let us lock you in a room.

Malerin

13th December 2008, 07:01 PM

I don't mind a philosophical discussion but when it comes to acting as if nonsense is a distinct possibility then I've got to call you on it. Believe in god if you want to but don't tell us it has anything to do with critical thinking. Or, or, have the honesty and consistency to let us lock you in a room.

You talk as if no one has ever put their religious beliefs to the test:

http://burmasitmone.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/burningmonk.jpg

RandFan

13th December 2008, 07:10 PM

You talk as if no one has ever put their religious beliefs to the test:

http://burmasitmone.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/burningmonk.jpg (http://burmasitmone.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/burningmonk.jpg) When you step out of a window you don't break the law of gravity. You confirm it. Your example proves my point.

But more importantly you are belittling an important historical event. The Monk didn't commmit self-immolation because he thought it wouldn't hurt him. On the contrary, he knew it would. That was the point. I think you need to learn more about the background of the protests by Vietnamese Monks before you misuse them.

Let me be perfectly clear. Of course people are willing to put their religious beliefs to the test. That doesn't obviate my point.

Malerin

13th December 2008, 08:35 PM

When you step out of a window you don't break the law of gravity. You confirm it. Your example proves my point.

But more importantly you are belittling an important historical event. The Monk didn't commmit self-immolation because he thought it wouldn't hurt him. On the contrary, he knew it would. That was the point. I think you need to learn more about the background of the protests by Vietnamese Monks before you misuse them.

The monk in the picture was protesting S. Vietnam's treatment of Buddhists. I would say his faith was essential to what he did. Did any atheists protest the war in such a way?

Let me be perfectly clear. Of course people are willing to put their religious beliefs to the test. That doesn't obviate my point.

Then what was your point? You were asking CJ to lock himself in a room with no food and water. Presumably as a test of faith. History is replete with examples of people sacrificing themselves because they had faith in what they beleived in.

RandFan

13th December 2008, 08:48 PM

I would say his faith was essential to what he did. Never said it wasn't. His "faith" is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. The monk didn't self-immolate because of an irrational belief that all possibilities are equal.

Then what was your point? That all beliefs are not equal. That reality lacking consequences ISN'T a distinct possibility.

You were asking CJ to lock himself in a room with no food and water. Presumably as a test of faith. No. Let me repeat that NO!

Ok? Are we clear on that?

The purpose of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that rational people are capable of figuring out what is a distinct possibility and what isn't in spite of their nonsensical abuse of skepticism.

History is replete with examples of people sacrificing themselves because they had faith in what they beleived in.Entirely irrelevant to my point. My purpose is to attack his abuse of skepticism.

The idea that all things are equally possible because we can't know anything with certainty is nonsense and easily demonstrated to be nonsense.

SKEPTICISM:
Bob: I can jump out of a window and flap my arms and fly.
John: I doubt that.

ABUSE OF SKEPTICISM:
John: The law of gravity obviates your ability to jump out of a window and fly by flapping your arms.
Bob: I doubt that.

Can you see the difference?

Malerin

13th December 2008, 09:09 PM

No evidence? I see my wife every day. How can you say that there is no evidence? You are being disingenuous. You are abusing skepticism again.

Here's a simple rule of evidence: if X is consistent with theories A,B,C, then X cannot be evidence for theory A, B or C. For example, suppose the police have three suspects for a murder. Carpet fiber evidence comes in, and wouldn't you know it, all three suspects have the same brand and color of carpet. Because the evidence is consistent with all three suspects, it cannot be used as evidence to single out any of the three suspects. They can each point to the other when confronted by the "evidence".

Likewise, the information you get from your senses when you look at your wife is consistent with countless competeing theories of reality (a vivid dream, an experience machine, a computer simulation, an actual person, etc.). Yet you continue to cling to the idea that your sensory evidence is proof your wife is an actual person (and proof of materialism, overall). Since your sense-data is consistent with other competing realities, I could just as validly say that you seeing your wife every day is evidence of her being a dream figure (actually, that would be invalid, since the sense-data couldn't support any model of reality, but you get the point).

I see this in a lot of atheists- materialism is assumed from the get-go and evidence is then made to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. You continue to say "abuse of skepticism", but you are the one who can't seem to question your core beliefs. As I said, it's a curious intellectual blindspot I've noticed in strong theists/atheists.

PixyMisa

13th December 2008, 09:16 PM

I see this in a lot of atheists- materialism is assumed from the get-go and evidence is then made to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. You continue to say "abuse of skepticism", but you are the one who can't seem to question your core beliefs. As I said, it's a curious intellectual blindspot I've noticed in strong theists/atheists.
No.

All you have demonstrated here is that whatever the fundamental nature of reality is, it is indistinguishable from materialism.

Therefore materialism is a correct assumption, for all rational purposes.

Malerin

13th December 2008, 09:21 PM

Never said it wasn't. His "faith" is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. The monk didn't self-immolate because of an irrational belief that all possibilities are equal.

That all beliefs are not equal. That reality lacking consequences ISN'T a distinct possibility.

No. Let me repeat that NO!

Ok? Are we clear on that?

The purpose of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that rational people are capable of figuring out what is a distinct possibility and what isn't in spite of their nonsensical abuse of skepticism.

Entirely irrelevant to my point. My purpose is to attack his abuse of skepticism.

The idea that all things are equally possible because we can't know anything with certainty is nonsense and easily demonstrated to be nonsense.

SKEPTICISM:
Bob: I can jump out of a window and flap my arms and fly.
John: I doubt that.

ABUSE OF SKEPTICISM:
John: The law of gravity obviates your ability to jump out of a window and fly by flapping your arms.
Bob: I doubt that.

Can you see the difference?

Where do you think CJ claimed all possibilities are equal? Here?

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty, I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong.

That's an appeal to belief in the most probable thing.

Anyway, it's true that all possibilities are equal, though I think idealism has a slight advantage. No doubt you would ask me to test this by standing in the middle of a busy street, which would prove nothing other than that I have a phobia of standing in busy streets (or I could claim that I've done the test a hundred times and erased your memory of it each time). How we act, and whether something's true or not are often two different things.

Malerin

13th December 2008, 09:23 PM

No.

All you have demonstrated here is that whatever the fundamental nature of reality is, it is indistinguishable from idealism.

Therefore materialism idealism is a correct assumption, for all rational purposes.

Fix that for ya.

plumjam

13th December 2008, 09:43 PM

Let me be perfectly clear.
I thought you didn't believe in the efficacy of prayer.

athon

13th December 2008, 09:46 PM

Malerin - simple request for you: define 'physical'.

Athon

Skeptic Ginger

13th December 2008, 11:09 PM

The monk in the picture was protesting S. Vietnam's treatment of Buddhists. I would say his faith was essential to what he did. Did any atheists protest the war in such a way? That is the difference between rational thought and irrational thought, not the difference between theist and atheist per se. There are examples of irrationally thinking atheists. I don't think the methods of the Weather Underground, for example, were particularly effective in ending the Vietnam War. John Lennon, OTOH, with songs like "Imagine" was effective in motivating large numbers of young people to speak out against the war which did have an impact.

Then what was your point? You were asking CJ to lock himself in a room with no food and water. Presumably as a test of faith. History is replete with examples of people sacrificing themselves because they had faith in what they beleived in.That includes examples of atheists who for causes they believed very strongly in, made personal sacrifices in other ways. Take Rachel Cory, for example. Whatever her god beliefs, it was her belief in an injustice being done that led her to sacrifice herself under an Israeli bulldozer.

RandFan

13th December 2008, 11:47 PM

Likewise, the information you get from your senses when you look at your wife is consistent with countless competeing theories of reality (a vivid dream, an experience machine, a computer simulation, an actual person, etc.). Yet you continue to cling to the idea that your sensory evidence is proof your wife is an actual person (and proof of materialism, overall).No. I don't "cling" to anything. A brain in a vat or an experience machine would still render the same results so who cares? I experience love and my wife seems real. I care and believe that she is real. However I don't really have a choice. Pretending that she isn't real won't solve anything. In fact it is irrational and would likely cause me a lot of heartache and headache.

....but you are the one who can't seem to question your core beliefs. This is dishonest on your part because you already know that I've questioned my core beliefs. I'm fine with idealism. No clinging. No dogmatic beliefs. I'm just honest enough to admit that I can't beat the locked room test. You on the other hand, well, you are the one who can't question your core beliefs because if you did you would have to admit that your internal feelings or experiences aren't worth squat. You use cars and computers and the rest because you, like me, have no choice. God? Well, we have a choice about that and there is no evidence. Unlike my wife who I can see every day and pretending she isn't there won't make it true.

RandFan

13th December 2008, 11:53 PM

Where do you think CJ claimed all possibilities are equal? Here?It's the only way he can make his conclusions.

That's an appeal to belief in the most probable thing.His argument is incoherent. Stating anything about "probable" is nonsense given that god is a distinct possibility based solely on an abuse of skepticism.

How we act, and whether something's true or not are often two different things. Nonsense. Try acting like you don't need to eat for a month. It's a silly and absurd supposition that it's not real. You can navel gaze all you want but why bother trying to convince people who don't exist that your solipsism is real? Curl up in a ball and stop posting your crap if you truly believe it.

You are not fooling anyone.

RandFan

13th December 2008, 11:56 PM

I thought you didn't believe in the efficacy of prayer. ? I don't think this follows from anything in my post.

In any event, I've already stated that it is demonstrable that prayer is as effective as belief in horse shoes and rabbits feet.

I believe in the evidence and that is a rational belief.

paximperium

13th December 2008, 11:57 PM

That's an appeal to belief in the most probable thing.
Yes. Because that is the rational thing to do.

Anyway, it's true that all possibilities are equal,
Besides this being complete and utter garbage and downright absurd, yeah sure.

though I think idealism has a slight advantage.
Besides being completely and utterly wrong, yeah right.

No doubt you would ask me to test this by standing in the middle of a busy street, which would prove nothing other than that I have a phobia of standing in busy streets (or I could claim that I've done the test a hundred times and erased your memory of it each time).
Your "mind-wipe" excuse is the ultimate cop-out.
How we act, and whether something's true or not are often two different things.
No. It just shows your complete and utter hypocrisy and cowardice in testing out your so-called belief. You belief and make claims in things with no repercussions but act contrary to what would happen if materialism is true. Dishonesty and cowardice to the max.

Not surprising at all.

RandFan

14th December 2008, 12:11 AM

Fix that for ya.Even if we assume that is true it still won't prove god and it doesn't justify your beliefs based on your internal experiences which are as rational as the voices in the head of a schizophrenic. Arguing that we can't disprove idealism does nothing to prove that you can fly simply by flapping your arms.

paximperium

14th December 2008, 12:28 AM

Even if we assume that is true it still won't prove god and it doesn't justify your beliefs based on your internal experiences which are as rational as the voices in the head of a schizophrenic. Arguing that we can't disprove idealism does nothing to prove that you can fly simply by flapping your arms.
As I've mentioned in the past. Malerin's position and arguments are one of ultimate dishonesty.

Like Creationists, he is unable to provide evidence or rational justification for their superstitious belief so he goes about attempting to tear down the opposing idea. Of course it does nothing to support his beliefs or claims, just an excuse to not have to provide any evidence. He just takes this strategy to the ultimately level by denying reality itself.

What I find most hypocritical is that none of these believers live their lives as if their claims are true, they just talk big and act as if the world was materialistic anyway.

PS: I always find it funny how solipcistic/idealistic/post-modernist believers use logic to support their illogical beliefs where if their claims are true, logic would not apply in their fantasies at all. More hypocrisy.

PixyMisa

14th December 2008, 02:59 AM

Fix that for ya.
Fail.

We know that mind is a product of matter. The evidence that this is so is overwhelming.

Perhaps the fundamental nature of reality is something that could come under the label of idealism. It's certainly possible. But we can't ever know, because everything in the Universe is material. Everything we can observe is material.

So any form of idealism that could possibly be true is indistinguishable from materialism, and any form of idealism that is distinguishable from materialism is false.

PixyMisa

14th December 2008, 03:02 AM

Anyway, it's true that all possibilities are equal, though I think idealism has a slight advantage. No doubt you would ask me to test this by standing in the middle of a busy street, which would prove nothing other than that I have a phobia of standing in busy streets (or I could claim that I've done the test a hundred times and erased your memory of it each time). How we act, and whether something's true or not are often two different things.
Again, you demolish your own argument.

You argue that idealism is true, while acting in all ways as though materialism were true.

Thus, by your own experience, even if some form of idealism is true, it is indistinguishable from materialism.

cj.23

14th December 2008, 03:51 AM

Again, you demolish your own argument.

You argue that idealism is true, while acting in all ways as though materialism were true.

Thus, by your own experience, even if some form of idealism is true, it is indistinguishable from materialism.

And you can imagine the experiment. Therefore if materialism is true, it is indistinguishable from idealism? :)

I think the argument both ways here is flawed?

cj x

cj.23

14th December 2008, 03:54 AM

As I've mentioned in the past. Malerin's position and arguments are one of ultimate dishonesty.

Like Creationists, he is unable to provide evidence or rational justification for their superstitious belief so he goes about attempting to tear down the opposing idea. Of course it does nothing to support his beliefs or claims, just an excuse to not have to provide any evidence. He just takes this strategy to the ultimately level by denying reality itself.

What I find most hypocritical is that none of these believers live their lives as if their claims are true, they just talk big and act as if the world was materialistic anyway.

PS: I always find it funny how solipcistic/idealistic/post-modernist believers use logic to support their illogical beliefs where if their claims are true, logic would not apply in their fantasies at all. More hypocrisy.

Hey isn't this just an attack on Malerin, not his position? A major ad hominem? Can't you rewrite it to make it less so?

And why would logic not apply in idealism? Logic is presupposed in most theistic belief systems after all - say Aquinan theology. The idealist universe would still have laws of physics for example?

cj x

PixyMisa

14th December 2008, 05:43 AM

And you can imagine the experiment. Therefore if materialism is true, it is indistinguishable from idealism? :)

I think the argument both ways here is flawed?
Nope.

There are forms of idealism that are axiomatically equivalent to materialism (such as the idea that, since all we can know is not what matter is but what it does, there's no substance, just information).

And there are forms of idealism that are only equivalent because of special pleading. The idea that the fundamental existent is "mind", for example, explains neither our observations of the material Universe nor our observation of minds as they actually are. It merely adds a second, unncecessary, unfalsifiable layer of assumptions.

A lot of armchair philosophers like this form of idealism because, since it is so ill-defined, it allows for such things as parapsychological phenomena, reincarnation, various forms of deities and so on. In the end, though, it is equivalent to materialism because none of those things actually exist.

PixyMisa

14th December 2008, 05:48 AM

Hey isn't this just an attack on Malerin, not his position?
No.

A major ad hominem?
No.

Can't you rewrite it to make it less so?
No, since it's not.

And why would logic not apply in idealism?
You tell us. We merely observe.

Logic is presupposed in most theistic belief systems after all - say Aquinan theology.
And then abandoned by the roadside when it becomes inconvenient.

The idealist universe would still have laws of physics for example?
Why would the idealist universe have a universe?

plumjam

14th December 2008, 08:12 AM

? I don't think this follows from anything in my post.

In any event, I've already stated that it is demonstrable that prayer is as effective as belief in horse shoes and rabbits feet.

I believe in the evidence and that is a rational belief.

It was a joke.

Dancing David

14th December 2008, 08:43 AM

I love talking about delusions, in a DSM IV medical kind of sense. What was the question?

cj x

I think that they point out some interesting aspects to beliefs, other than what I call opinions, stereotypes and conclusions (common beliefs like democrats are free spenders).

That along with memory tricks and damage is an interesting part of what makes for beliefs, not of the 'I believe that Newton’s law accurately describes the falling of an object in the earth's gravitational field.' sort of beliefs.

But the core biological basis what we perceive, have memories of and really believe to be reality.

People with delusions seem to have memories of events that did not happen, say they believe that they served in Europe in World War II, even though photographs, signatures, letters, companions and overwhelming amounts of evidence would indicate other wise. These beliefs are help firmly, confronting them has no effect on them, people may learn not to share them but they hold them to be true and valid experiences which they had.

Now this does lead to some interesting possibilities:

-that memory and experience are biological in nature and therefore subject to malfunctioning and spurious events. So perceptive events occur for the individual which are not related to actual events in the external world. Only in the brain.

-that somehow multiple realities exist and that a person may have a body but receives information from another reality (unlikely), but a correlate of the 'consciousness as TV signal' sort of theory.

And as intriguing as the second is the first seems more likely, in that in head trauma, memories are often confabulated, the person knows they were in the car but they believe they were headed to the store when they were heading home. (Beliefs countering evidence.)

Or in memory deficits such as dementia or Alzheimer’s, where consolidation of new memories do not occur, the individual has experiences that may no longer perceive as memories.

And this is where I think that the evidence for personhood as a biological process lies.

Dancing David

14th December 2008, 08:50 AM

You talk as if no one has ever put their religious beliefs to the test:

http://burmasitmone.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/burningmonk.jpg

Um, so Thich Quang Duc (Thich Naht Hahn's mento) chose to imolate himslef as a way of publicizing the damage to Viet Nam perpetrated by the Viet Nam war (by Americans, Viet Cong and the French).

That is a social act, does it really say anything about the belief in the buddha as a transcendent being born of his mother mating a white elephant in a dream.

Dancing David

14th December 2008, 08:51 AM

Thus, by your own experience, even if some form of idealism is true, it is indistinguishable from materialism.

But only materialists ever make a point of it!

:D

Dancing David

14th December 2008, 08:53 AM

And you can imagine the experiment. Therefore if materialism is true, it is indistinguishable from idealism? :)

I think the argument both ways here is flawed?

cj x

Nope it is true, until there is a meaningful distinction we can act as though quanta of energy, butterfly dreams and godthought are all equivalent.

there is no privileged place, no privileged perspective, objectivism still applies as a way of predicting the behavior of reality.

RandFan

14th December 2008, 09:32 AM

PS: I always find it funny how solipcistic/idealistic/post-modernist believers use logic to support their illogical beliefs where if their claims are true, logic would not apply in their fantasies at all. More hypocrisy. I couldn't agree more which is why I asked Malerin why he would bother to convince others of his solipsism. None of us exist but he gives a damn about what we think. Go figure.

RandFan

14th December 2008, 09:39 AM

Hey isn't this just an attack on Malerin, not his position? A major ad hominem? Can't you rewrite it to make it less so?No. It's an attack on his position.

And why would logic not apply in idealism? Logic is presupposed in most theistic belief systems after all - say Aquinan theology. The idealist universe would still have laws of physics for example? It's the whole using doubt to justify any belief you want.

Premise: We can't prove that what we percieve as a material world is in fact material or that what we know of as reality didn't start 5 minutes ago.
Conclusion: All beliefs are equally justified and god is a distinct possibility.

If you use this argument then the laws of physics and logic don't apply.

In other words, you don't get to have your cake and argue that logic and reason only apply when you want them to.

RandFan

14th December 2008, 09:41 AM

A lot of armchair philosophers like this form of idealism because, since it is so ill-defined, it allows for such things as parapsychological phenomena, reincarnation, various forms of deities and so on. In the end, though, it is equivalent to materialism because none of those things actually exist. Bingo.

paximperium

14th December 2008, 11:19 AM

Hey isn't this just an attack on Malerin, not his position? A major ad hominem? Can't you rewrite it to make it less so? It is an attack on his position and a statement concerning his actions and hypocrisy.

It isn't an ad hom because it doesn't attempt to undermine his entire argument just by throwing insults.

It undermines his argument by showing his dishonesty and how he does not act or live his life as as someone who believes what he spews. It undermines his argument by contrasting his thought process with other similar woo-believers. It undermines his argument by showing how the is completely inconsistent with applying his "philosophical claims" to his pet theistic belief but hypocritically does not do so with reality itself. In other words, it undermines his argument by showing he is all talk and no action.

And why would logic not apply in idealism? Logic is presupposed in most theistic belief systems after all - say Aquinan theology. The idealist universe would still have laws of physics for example? Because his position that the universe/reality based on his vague solipcistic version of idealism somehow allows his to make this illogical claim that "All possibilities are plausible/equal." is as illogical as the thought process of a schizophrenic.

Monkey jumps making a star eat fish, magic pixies or I can fly because I'm Zeus is as logical a premise as a+b=c, I could get into a car crash tomorrow or god is possible.

Prometheus

14th December 2008, 11:32 AM

It is an attack on his position and a statement concerning his actions and hypocrisy.

It isn't an ad hom because it doesn't attempt to undermine his entire argument just by throwing insults.

It undermines his argument by showing his dishonesty and how he does not act or live his life as as someone who believes what he spews. It undermines his argument by contrasting his thought process with other similar woo-believers. It undermines his argument by showing how the is completely inconsistent with applying his "philosophical claims" to his pet theistic belief but hypocritically does not do so with reality itself. In other words, it undermines his argument by showing he is all talk and no action.

Because his position that the universe/reality based on his vague solipcistic version of idealism somehow allows his to make this illogical claim that "All possibilities are plausible/equal." is as illogical as the thought process of a schizophrenic.
<snip>

To be fair, actually Pax, your response to Malerin is an Ad Hominem. I agree that his arguments in this thread thus far are hogwash, and what you say about his character may even be true. Nevertheless, your response is about him and his behaviour--not about flaws in his actual arguments. This is the heart of the Ad Hominem fallacy; no matter how bad a person or a pattern of behaviour is, there's always the possibility that his arguments are correct--until you actually look at those arguments.

RandFan

14th December 2008, 11:37 AM

This is the heart of the Ad Hominem fallacy; no matter how bad a person or a pattern of behaviour is, there's always the possibility that his arguments are correct--until you actually look at those arguments. The behavior goes to the argument. If you argue that I don't exist and then you carry on an argument with me it's kinda difficult to buy your argument.

I understand what you are saying but the point is, if you don't believe your argument then why should I?

Prometheus

14th December 2008, 12:11 PM

The behavior goes to the argument. If you argue that I don't exist and then you carry on an argument with me it's kinda difficult to buy your argument.

I understand what you are saying but the point is, if you don't believe your argument then why should I?

That may well be a useful approach to dealing with people IRL. In terms of logical argument, however, it's still a fallacy.

paximperium

14th December 2008, 12:16 PM

Nevertheless, your response is about him and his behaviour--not about flaws in his actual arguments.
I understand your point. However, unfortunately this goes into the heart of his claim.
I did not refute his "arguments" because they have been dismantled multiple times even in many other threads and see no need to jump into it.

There is no known way to "prove" Idealism since the cosmos acts for all intent and purpose to be materialistic. An unfalsifiable claim is nothing more than naval gazing semantic juggling. Therefore we can only judge the actions of the claimant to determine the underlying purpose of the claim or whether this person actually believes in his/her claim to determine the sincerity of the claimant.

We can easily see that he repeats his claims and arguments ad nauseum despite them being refuted multiple times.
We can easily see that he refuses to "test" his claim but always finds some cop-out excuse.
We can easily see he selectively applies his "philosophy" only to things with zero repercussion.
eg. If he wants to prove his belief to himself, he just needs to jump out a window, but he doesn't instead he always finds some silly excuse.

We can CONCLUDE that he does not believe in his own argument and instead has some other agenda.

RandFan

14th December 2008, 12:33 PM

That may well be a useful approach to dealing with people IRL. In terms of logical argument, however, it's still a fallacy. As one who leaps to his feet constantly to yell "fallacy" I have to take your admonition with some degree of humility. If person A make an argument and person A acts contrary to the argument then the behavior of person A doesn't render the argument incorrect and to say so is fallacy.

I'm not doing that.

As humans we have adrenal glands that are too big and frontal lobes that are too small to permit us to only make decisions based on reason and logic sans all emotion and intuition. It's unreasonable to think that rhetorical devices should never be used to persuade.

"If you don't accept your argument then why should I even consider it" is an appropriate use of rhetoric so long as one does not state, you don't accept your argument therefore it is wrong. Further, the rebuttal, you are only making and ad hominem argument misses the mark. If you are trying to persuade me that shaving my head will make me virile and rich and you don't shave your head and you lack any argument other than to state, you can't disprove idealism then I've got wonder why you don't shave your head.

The question still holds, if you don't believe your argument then why should I?

Prometheus

14th December 2008, 12:36 PM

I understand your point. However, unfortunately this goes into the heart of his claim.
I did not refute his "arguments" because they have been dismantled multiple times even in many other threads and see no need to jump into it.

There is no known way to "prove" Idealism since the cosmos acts for all intent and purpose to be materialistic. An unfalsifiable claim is nothing more than naval gazing semantic juggling. Therefore we can only judge the actions of the claimant to determine the underlying purpose of the claim or whether this person actually believes in his/her claim to determine the sincerity of the claimant.

We can easily see that he repeats his claims and arguments ad nauseum despite them being refuted multiple times.
We can easily see that he refuses to "test" his claim but always finds some cop-out excuse.
We can easily see he selectively applies his "philosophy" only to things with zero repercussion.
eg. If he wants to prove his belief to himself, he just needs to jump out a window, but he doesn't instead he always finds some silly excuse.

We can CONCLUDE that he does not believe in his own argument and instead has some other agenda.

I think the claims you make here are essentially correct. However, as you point out yourself, Idealism is an unfalsifiable position. That being the case, there's no need--nor even any possibility--of going 'into the heart of his claim'. The sincerity (or lack thereof) of his claim is irrelevant. I fear that by attempting to argue against such a position, you're just falling victim to classic trolling.

RandFan

14th December 2008, 12:42 PM

I fear that by attempting to argue against such a position, you're just falling victim to classic trolling.Welcome to the forum. Yeah, that's what we do. I've no problem with it so long as someone is acting more like a human being than a spam bot. So long as that person is contributing something of substance. The idealism vs materialism discussion is a valid one and I think it can be enlightening for those who are following along. By pointing out the inconsistency of someone like Merlin you expose the vapid notion of idealism as anything that should be acted on or used to justify any other beliefs.

Hell, perhaps Pax and I are wasting our time but then, you can't disprove idealism. So there. :)

paximperium

14th December 2008, 12:50 PM

Welcome to the forum. Yeah, that's what we do. I've no problem with it so long as someone is acting more like a human being than a spam bot. So long as that person is contributing something of substance. The idealism vs materialism discussion is a valid one and I think it can be enlightening for those who are following along. By pointing out the inconsistency of someone like Merlin you expose the vapid notion of idealism as anything that should be acted on or used to justify any other beliefs.

Hell, perhaps Pax and I are wasting our time but then, you can't disprove idealism. So there. :)
I think that Prometheus is confusing a logical philosophical argument and a debate/rhetorical argument.

The philosophical argument on an unfalsifiable claim is worthless and goes no where, so all we have left to really argue about is whether Idealism has any relevance to reality or to our lives.

We can conclude that that idealism is only useful as a theistic cop-out and has little relevance to anything else.

Prometheus

14th December 2008, 01:18 PM

I think that Prometheus is confusing a logical philosophical argument and a debate/rhetorical argument.

Not confusing the two, but aiming for the former. If your actual intent is to engage in the latter, then I have no problem with that. Apologies. :)

The philosophical argument on an unfalsifiable claim is worthless and goes no where, so all we have left to really argue about is whether Idealism has any relevance to reality or to our lives.

We can conclude that that idealism is only useful as a theistic cop-out and has little relevance to anything else.

Very good. Carry on. :D

Silentknight

14th December 2008, 06:43 PM

For the record, it's not a personal attack to challenge someone to cough up something to support his or her claims. Nor is it considered a personal attack to question a person's credibility if it's relevant to the discussion, to point out that a person doesn't live according to his or her professed beliefs (since it's more an attack on said beliefs) or to state contempt for the tactics a person uses in a discussion, again if it's relevant. There was a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129519) about this in Forum Management. My reply (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4247228#post4247228) on page 6 sums up my take on this.

Anyway--
Here's a simple rule of evidence: if X is consistent with theories A,B,C, then X cannot be evidence for theory A, B or C. For example, suppose the police have three suspects for a murder. Carpet fiber evidence comes in, and wouldn't you know it, all three suspects have the same brand and color of carpet. Because the evidence is consistent with all three suspects, it cannot be used as evidence to single out any of the three suspects. They can each point to the other when confronted by the "evidence".
Your analogy is failing already. We do not have evidence that is equally consistent with the suspects, rather we have your postulating the mere possibility of alternate realities. Possibility does not equal plausibility, especially if that's all you have to go on, and you can't reasonably draw any conclusions about our current reality from purely speculative alternatives.

Again, if we had already discovered "glitches in the system" like in The Matrix then you'd have good reason to hold these outside realities on equal footing. If however the illusion of reality were absolutely flawless, then it's really not a problem for materialism because this reality is all that's ever going to concern us, and the outside reality is never going to affect our lives in any meaningful way. Furthermore, the evidence we gather and conclusions we draw could only apply to the reality we live in, regardless of the illusion.

What you are essentially doing is insisting that we consider alternate suspects who happen to be intangible ghosts with ghost carpets, and then suggesting the fibers could have come from them as well.

Likewise, the information you get from your senses when you look at your wife is consistent with countless competeing theories of reality (a vivid dream, an experience machine, a computer simulation, an actual person, etc.). Yet you continue to cling to the idea that your sensory evidence is proof your wife is an actual person (and proof of materialism, overall). Since your sense-data is consistent with other competing realities, I could just as validly say that you seeing your wife every day is evidence of her being a dream figure (actually, that would be invalid, since the sense-data couldn't support any model of reality, but you get the point).
You didn't substantiate your countless competing theories of reality, you just asserted that they're possible without demonstrating how sense data could be consistent with them. By your logic, creationism and evolution are equally likely to be true and the evidence could fit either one, just because creationism has been brought up as a 'possible alternative.'

I see this in a lot of atheists- materialism is assumed from the get-go and evidence is then made to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. You continue to say "abuse of skepticism", but you are the one who can't seem to question your core beliefs. As I said, it's a curious intellectual blindspot I've noticed in strong theists/atheists.
You continue to appeal to your personal Pyrrhonic skepticism while failing to grasp that most skeptics around here regard skepticism as the demand for evidence, whether it concerns God, alternate realities, or whatever. Might the conclusions I currently accept be wrong? Of course they could. However it would take evidence to convince me, not the mere suggestion of the possibility of alternate realities, or the assertion that they somehow deserve an equal share of the same evidence.

If solipsism were true, then you'd better hope that the one true existent is an atheist. After all, an atheist would be far less likely to believe in his or her godlike powers and use them to wish you into the cornfield. :D

Dancing David

15th December 2008, 05:22 AM

Certain arguments are used to defend a lack of evidence, the greatest of these came in a plasma cosmology thread where a poster claimed:

"I am an agnostic on fusion in stars." and this is the way it runs, you claim that you are an agnostic on something that has a reasonable data base to explain it in a hypothetical sense. This then allow you to claim that therefore all sorts of nonsense should be tolerated that does not have a reasonable data base to explain it. (Like how the Electric Star model explains the Hersprung-Russell diagram.)

Then you act as though you are on the moral high ground because you are an agnostic, it is a great defense for lack of evidence.

Malerin

15th December 2008, 07:50 AM

::Munches popcorn::

This is getting entertaining.

So if a smoker claims that smoking is bad for your health, he's lying?

Props to Prometheus (and CJ) for pointing the fallacy out, even though he doesn't agree with me. On anything.

Malerin

15th December 2008, 08:27 AM

No. I don't "cling" to anything. A brain in a vat or an experience machine would still render the same results so who cares? I experience love and my wife seems real. I care and believe that she is real. However I don't really have a choice. Pretending that she isn't real won't solve anything. In fact it is irrational and would likely cause me a lot of heartache and headache.

So you believe she is real, not because of any evidence, but because the negation of that belief would cause "a lot of heartache and headache". Oh, and she "seems" real. "Seems" an odd way to justify a belief.

This is dishonest on your part because you already know that I've questioned my core beliefs.

Not really

I'm fine with idealism. No clinging. No dogmatic beliefs.

:rolleyes:

I'm just honest enough to admit that I can't beat the locked room test.

:rolleyes:

You on the other hand, well, you are the one who can't question your core beliefs because if you did you would have to admit that your internal feelings or experiences aren't worth squat.

As evidence, they're not. I've been saying that countless times. Sense-data, internal feelings, and experiences are consistent with countless models of reality. I think you're becoming confused about what the argument is.

You use cars and computers and the rest because you, like me, have no choice. God? Well, we have a choice about that and there is no evidence. Unlike my wife who I can see every day and pretending she isn't there won't make it true.

More appeals to sense-data and how things "seem". Because it seems a certain way, it must be true! The sun goes around the Earth, am I right? :rolleyes:

And why does how I act have anything to do with the argument I make? I'm a little surprised you would commit such an obvious fallacy.

For the record, I have not stated that I am a solipsist or idealist. The most I have claimed here is that idealism has an epistemological advantage over other "isms", and that I lean towards theism (out of personal experience, which I have admitted is a faith-based belief). Arguing that solipsism and idealism are possible (or as likely as anything else) does not make one a solipsist or idealist. It makes one an agnostic and skeptic, qualities which are sorely lacking here.

And, as CJ pointed out, an idealist or solipsist does not have to behave in any different way if they believe the solipsist or idealist reality they find themselves in has certain rules and is internally consistent. Getting hit by a "dream" truck might hurt just as bad as getting hit by a "real" truck.

Nick227

15th December 2008, 09:19 AM

The only thing you are demonstrating is the placebo effect. In other words it is only effective at making you feel better. The point that you are missing is that the the active ingredient (for lack of a better term) is the belief not the act. I've no doubt that we could convince people that praying to a jug of milk is effective and therefor it would be as effective. Your point is only one of technicality.

Actually, the active ingredient is the expectation. Whether the point is a technicality depends on how you're looking at things. One could also state that natural selection inevitably chooses our gods as it works on our genes.

Anyway, you asked the question.... "To date no one has disputed the argument that prayer to god works no better than prayer to a jug of milk. Can you?".....and the answer is Yes, whether it destroys a pet theory or not, I'm afraid.

Nick

Nick227

15th December 2008, 09:46 AM

Likewise, the information you get from your senses when you look at your wife is consistent with countless competeing theories of reality (a vivid dream, an experience machine, a computer simulation, an actual person, etc.). Yet you continue to cling to the idea that your sensory evidence is proof your wife is an actual person (and proof of materialism, overall). Since your sense-data is consistent with other competing realities, I could just as validly say that you seeing your wife every day is evidence of her being a dream figure (actually, that would be invalid, since the sense-data couldn't support any model of reality, but you get the point).

I'm not a major expert on brain chemistry, Malerin, but my understanding is that the whole brain-in-a-vat argument is not really on such strong ground anymore. So I don't agree that there are "countless competing theories of reality." We are not watching a movie show.

Dan Dennett points out the issues with complexity, which are staggering. Susan Blackmore disputes the existence of a "stream of consciousness," and afaik to date no one has managed to find the hardware in the brain to create more than transitory representations.

This is not to say that it's impossible but that it seems unlikely.

Nick

RandFan

15th December 2008, 09:52 AM

So if a smoker claims that smoking is bad for your health, he's lying? ?

Random.

And if a bear ***** in the wood he is lying?

RandFan

15th December 2008, 10:02 AM

So you believe she is real, not because of any evidence, but because the negation of that belief would cause "a lot of heartache and headache". Oh, and she "seems" real. "Seems" an odd way to justify a belief."heartache and headache" justify why I care not why I believe.

Not reallyThen you are willfuly ignorant as I've said over and over I don't know if I'm correct and I can't disprove idealism.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Hint: Not an argument.

:rolleyes:See above.

As evidence, they're not. I've been saying that countless times. Sense-data, internal feelings, and experiences are consistent with countless models of reality. But your experiences that lead you to a belief in god are not themselves consistent. just because we can't disprove materialism doesn't justify a belief in god.

More appeals to sense-data and how things "seem". Because it seems a certain way, it must be true! The sun goes around the Earth, am I right? :rolleyes: Not simply "seems". It's empirical. It works every time. It's predictable. Persistent and consistent. A properly conducted scientific experiment works the same for me as it does for you.

None of your "seems" like god is real is empirical and just because we can't disprove materialism doesn't justify a belief in god. And this is the salient point that is your fatal flaw. Idealism might be true but still can rely on empiricism.

And why does how I act have anything to do with the argument I make? I'm a little surprised you would commit such an obvious fallacy. I'm not making a fallacy. I'm demonstrating that you don't believe in your argument. A smoker can believe smoking is bad for him but smoke nonetheless he can also quit without effecting his belief.

You can only commit suicide to quit. Big difference.

For the record, I have not stated that I am a solipsist or idealist. But the logical conclusions of your argument dictate that you must. Sorry. Not my fault here.

And, as CJ pointed out, an idealist or solipsist does not have to behave in any different way if they believe the solipsist or idealist reality they find themselves in has certain rules and is internally consistent. Not true, a solipsist who argues with others is irrational. As is your continued reliance on the material world and interaction with others all the while appealing to idealism to justify an irrational belief.

RandFan

15th December 2008, 10:06 AM

.....and the answer is Yes, whether it destroys a pet theory or not, I'm afraid. Can you do so with logic and reason? If "expectation", as you say, is the active ingredient (and that's wrong but I'm going to give it to you for the sake of argument) then one can expect a jug of milk to heal him or her (there are no strict requirements on placebos).

So, I was hoping when I asked if you could dispute the claim that you understood I meant with logic and reason and I wasn't talking about simply gainsaying. But thanks for playing.

Nick227

15th December 2008, 10:53 AM

Can you do so with logic and reason? If "expectation", as you say, is the active ingredient (and that's wrong but I'm going to give it to you for the sake of argument) then one can expect a jug of milk to heal him or her (there are no strict requirements on placebos).

What the active ingredient actually is, or whether there is such a thing, is determined, not just in part, by the level of examination. This aside, my point was, and still is, that there is inevitably a cultural context here. Only certain forms are likely to be venerated, given our history as evolved species. Archetypes and mysterious entities who control destiny predominate and this is predictable, because we are the products of a process defined by certain criteria.

Thus, on a theoretical level, your statement about the milk-jug having a parity with God as a placebo agent might be considered correct. I would consider it correct on this level. But on a real, practical level it simply and quite obviously is not. People inevitably turn to God or archetypal forms in crisis rather than milk-jugs and this is not random.

So, I was hoping when I asked if you could dispute the claim that you understood I meant with logic and reason and I wasn't talking about simply gainsaying. But thanks for playing.

I can gainsay, but I don't think that's what's happening here. It would help me if you could articulate exactly where I am not using logic or reason.

Nick

paximperium

15th December 2008, 11:09 AM

So if a smoker claims that smoking is bad for your health, he's lying?
Your analogies border on the retarded and is as dishonest as always.
Your analogy is more along the line of if said smoker claims that the smoke is magic and if you eat the cigarette while jumping off a cliff it cures all the diseases that you have and brings you back to life as an immortal. (Great gains with great repercussions based on zero evidence.)

You are that smoker that refuses to eat that cigarette and jump off the cliff. It just shows that the claimant does not believe in his own tripe and is justifying his addiction to smoking with some delusional logic. Sound familiar?

Props to Prometheus (and CJ) for pointing the fallacy out, even though he doesn't agree with me. On anything.And has been pointed out, no fallacy at all since your argument is useless, untestable and asinine, I have found it way more useful and interesting to criticize the hypocrisy of the claimant. Since there is no way to ever prove idealism, we can only observe if the claimant even believes in the BS he is spewing and we can all conclude that Malerin doesn't.

It is kinda like criticizing a priest who uses drugs, alcohol or drives a Ferrari or a politician who claims to be an environmentalist while driving a Hummer and burning forest down for fun. Or some wannabee armchair philosophizing theist who is attempting to find a way to justify his faith by claiming some idealism, anti-materialism BS to weasel out of providing any evidence to support his fantasies.

RandFan

15th December 2008, 11:18 AM

What the active ingredient actually is, or whether there is such a thing, is determined, not just in part, by the level of examination. This aside, my point was, and still is, that there is inevitably a cultural context here. Only certain forms are likely to be venerated, given our history as evolved species. Archetypes and mysterious entities who control destiny predominate and this is predictable, because we are the products of a process defined by certain criteria.

Thus, on a theoretical level, your statement about the milk-jug having a parity with God as a placebo agent might be considered correct. I would consider it correct on this level. But on a real, practical level it simply and quite obviously is not. People inevitably turn to God or archetypal forms in crisis rather than milk-jugs and this is not random.

I can gainsay, but I don't think that's what's happening here. It would help me if you could articulate exactly where I am not using logic or reason. Thanks Nick.

I'm really glad that you maintain your composure. I envy your even tone and I appreciate it.

I understand your argument and don't disagree with you except to state that I understand human nature well enough to know that veneration can change on a dime. I've watched Darren Brown use a number of objects as religious icons that have nothing to do with religion. Human gullibility is far too fluid to think that there is a significant portion of the populace who won't believe anything. Hell, people honestly believe ordinary water will heal them. Homeopathy is a multi-billion dollar industry. Given that a sucker is born every minute we only need a good narrative. I've no doubt whatsoever that we could conduct an experiment that would convince people that milk is sacred (BTW, cows are sacred in India).

Nick227

15th December 2008, 12:36 PM

Homeopathy is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Is it? Doesn't seem very big in the UK. At least not multi-billion dollar big. Are you sure about this?

Given that a sucker is born every minute we only need a good narrative. I've no doubt whatsoever that we could conduct an experiment that would convince people that milk is sacred (BTW, cows are sacred in India).

Quite possibly.

What one might also garner from such an experiment, aside from concluding that humanity is innately gullible, is that people may need things to believe in in order for certain neurological functions to operate. Not saying this is necessarily so, but it seems to me one valid conclusion to draw from such an outcome of such an experiment.

Nick

paximperium

15th December 2008, 12:55 PM

Is it? Doesn't seem very big in the UK. At least not multi-billion dollar big. Are you sure about this?

While the French remain the world's largest consumers of homeopathy (and also the biggest consumers of pharmaceutical products in the industrialized world, an apparent contradiction that is particular to the French), the U.S. homeopathic market is growing quickly. According to the National Center for Homeopathy, sales of homeopathic products in the United States increased from $170 million in 1995 to $400 million in 1999. Still, despite the colossal boom in alternative health care in America (a market estimated at $18 billion), homeopathy remains a mystery to many in this country.
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/16/homeopathy/print.html

And this is 2000 data. It is likely higher today.

paximperium

15th December 2008, 01:04 PM

Here's another:
With almost 1.5 billion euros (manufacturer’s price), the world sale of homeopathic drugs accounts for 0.3% of the world drug market. The growth potential for homeopathy is therefore considerable. Almost 70% of all homeopathic drugs are sold in Western Europe.
France, with over 300 million euros, is the largest homeopathy market in the world, followed by Germany (200 million euros). 40% of the French have already been treated with homeopathy* (http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/01_homeo_aujourdhui/realite_eco_homeo.htm#), and 74% of the patients stated that they are “inclined to follow a homeopathic treatment if prescribed by their doctor”.
Homeopathy has been making major advances in other regions such as the Mediterranean basin, South America, Eastern Europe or even India.
http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/01_homeo_aujourdhui/realite_eco_homeo.htm

RandFan

15th December 2008, 01:09 PM

Is it? Doesn't seem very big in the UK. At least not multi-billion dollar big. Are you sure about this?:mad::(

Pax beat me to it....

Ahh, yes, no doubt about it whatsoever.

Damn you pax. ;)

Nick227

15th December 2008, 01:12 PM

Here's another:

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/01_homeo_aujourdhui/realite_eco_homeo.htm

Wow, that does seem pretty big. Must admit that I hadn't realised it was so much. Thanks for posting that. Still, only 0.3% also seems quite small.

eta: Presumably, these remedies are being prescribed by registered practitioners. Is there a justification for the use of homeopathic treatments? Maybe there are studies that appear to demonstrate effectiveness. I imagine that self-reports for treatment outcome for many conditions are notoriously suspect, so it wouldn't surprise me that this could happen for placebos or otherwise. I also remember that in order to put a drug on the market there's no legal need to demonstrate mechanism of action.

Nick

paximperium

15th December 2008, 01:16 PM

Wow, that does seem pretty big. Must admit that I hadn't realised it was so much. Thanks for posting that. Still, only 0.3% also seems quite small.

Nick
Well 0.3% of a useless treatment is 0.3% too much.

Remember, unlike real medicines that require millions if not billions to develop, homeopathy requires no research, minimal ingredients and almost no regulatory fees. Profit all the way.

Malerin

15th December 2008, 01:26 PM

Your analogies border on the retarded and is as dishonest as always.
Your analogy is more along the line of if said smoker claims that the smoke is magic and if you eat the cigarette while jumping off a cliff it cures all the diseases that you have and brings you back to life as an immortal. (Great gains with great repercussions based on zero evidence.)

You are that smoker that refuses to eat that cigarette and jump off the cliff. It just shows that the claimant does not believe in his own tripe and is justifying his addiction to smoking with some delusional logic. Sound familiar?

And has been pointed out, no fallacy at all since your argument is useless, untestable and asinine, I have found it way more useful and interesting to criticize the hypocrisy of the claimant. Since there is no way to ever prove idealism, we can only observe if the claimant even believes in the BS he is spewing and we can all conclude that Malerin doesn't.

It is kinda like criticizing a priest who uses drugs, alcohol or drives a Ferrari or a politician who claims to be an environmentalist while driving a Hummer and burning forest down for fun. Or some wannabee armchair philosophizing theist who is attempting to find a way to justify his faith by claiming some idealism, anti-materialism BS to weasel out of providing any evidence to support his fantasies.

As long as you don't have an emotional investment in all this ;) I sometimes get a similar response from Christians when I question things in the Bible. People and their belief systems, ya know?

athon

15th December 2008, 02:15 PM

I know this question got lost in the mist somewhere, but it might help if it's answered;

Malerin - define in detail what you believe 'physical' means in relation to 'physicalism'.

Athon

paximperium

15th December 2008, 03:13 PM

As long as you don't have an emotional investment in all this ;) I sometimes get a similar response from Christians when I question things in the Bible. People and their belief systems, ya know?
Was that suppose to be an actual reply to your blatant hypocrisy and BS arguments? Red herring ya know?

BTW: Your arguments aren't even within the realm of "threatening" my beliefs since they are so bad. Your arguments are within the realm of disgust I get when someone goes about selling cancer cures made from urine claiming it is due to Quantum Theory or from certain UFO or Big footers who have exactly the same Idealism/solipcistic BS explanation as to why we can't find any evidence for their UFOs or Bigfoot which they use to justify their delusions.

I consider you at about the same level as them. Someone who weasels out of providing evidence by throwing out smoke.

cj.23

15th December 2008, 04:58 PM

OK, that attacked the argument, not the person. Unfortunately it did not actually really advance the argument, and I don't think it constitutes being "civil and polite." :)

Why not just actually refute Malerin's arguments? Because this is beginning to look like just sustained personal abuse of someone whose position you disagree with - and I disagree with Malerin as well I suspect, if he really is a radical solipsist, at the most fundamental level - I believe I exist. :) Still, be nice if we could all just have some seasonal "peace and goodwill"...

cj x

Silentknight

15th December 2008, 04:59 PM

By the way, based on what the mods explained to me, it's acceptable to call someone a hypocrite if it's relevant to the debate and demonstrable based on their arguments, since that would still fall under attacking the arguments and not the arguer. There's a huge difference between explaining that someone is a hypocrite because he's contradicted his professed beliefs, and simply making a blank accusation of hypocrisy. The same goes for terms such as "liar" provided you can demonstrate that false or misleading statements were made within the discussion. You can't just call someone a liar in order to avoid dealing with the arguments, in other words.

Getting back to something I said earlier, I find it interesting that when I claim that one can both believe in God and accept the conclusions of science, it's not the "militant atheists" who jump down my throat for including God in my arguments, but the theists who have a problem with my alleged exaltation of science. All I did was state a way that reasonable people can, and many have, reconciled the two ideas. Based on this, I don't think the problem is that atheists worship science, but rather that certain people are so virulently anti-science that they regard any attempt at reconciliation as a form of worship.

paximperium

15th December 2008, 05:32 PM

OK, that attacked the argument, not the person. Unfortunately it did not actually really advance the argument, and I don't think it constitutes being "civil and polite." :)
There really is no way to advance a discussion with someone who claims that no one else exist, evidence is irrelevant and that "all claims are probable."

Why not just actually refute Malerin's arguments? Because this is beginning to look like just sustained personal abuse of someone whose position you disagree with - and I disagree with Malerin as well I suspect, if he really is a radical solipsist, at the most fundamental level - I believe I exist. :) Still, be nice if we could all just have some seasonal "peace and goodwill"...
There isn't anything to refute and my "condescension"(I prefer bluntness) isn't purely just an issue with someone's position who I disagree with. I have many discussions with opposing ideas and still maintain a very civil discourse.

The issue is the honesty of the poster. Someone who continually post the same arguments despite these arguments being answered, corrected or demolished shows he/she isn't open to discourse at all and is now either preaching or mentally masturbating in public. There is no exchange of ideas in this case, just someone with an agenda using dishonesty to forward his point(whatever the hell that could be.).

The parallels between Malerin's arguments and Creationist arguments are strikingly similar. The same old roundabout abuse of philosophical arguments and facts to tear down everything else's so that they don't have to justify their own beliefs. Theist with such patheticly weak faith that they have bring down others to make their delusion seem more reasonable; to make themselves feel better. It is pathetic.

I'm civil to people who are willing to listen and honest even if I disagree with them. You are one such example since I don't recall being less than civil with you...yet...despite disagreeing with you on theistic topics.

I will however call a liar a liar or a fool a fool. I'm an impatient arrogant prick. I'm honest like that.

RandFan

15th December 2008, 06:20 PM

Why not just actually refute Malerin's arguments? That's been done.

Because this is beginning to look like just sustained personal abuse of someone whose position you disagree with... (emphasis mine) People see what they want to see. Malerin won't acknowledge the arguments made when the contrary isn't true. I have acknowledged his argument and I've given him his premise about idealism in spades. What I take issue with is Malerin's spurious conclusion that an inability to disprove idealism is justification for any and all beliefs.

Perhaps what you are asking is for us to pretend to agree with him or ignore him. I don't see the point in that.

I think your complaint, if you are sincere, should be directed at Malerin.

Dancing David

15th December 2008, 06:46 PM

I know this question got lost in the mist somewhere, but it might help if it's answered;

Malerin - define in detail what you believe 'physical' means in relation to 'physicalism'.

Athon

And why under idealism RandFan's wife would be any different than under materialism.

plumjam

15th December 2008, 07:05 PM

And why under idealism RandFan's wife would be any different than under materialism.

Under idealism she'd be equally as happy with the zircon ring, as with the diamond one.

Skeptic Ginger

15th December 2008, 08:54 PM

By the way, based on what the mods explained to me, it's acceptable to call someone a hypocrite if it's relevant to the debate and demonstrable based on their arguments, ....While I reserve the right to call certain public figures and groups hypocrites, I think even with this negative comment one can still frame it as, this [thing] is hypocritical because earlier you said [this other thing] or some comparable wording that doesn't attack the forum member.

But then I've had my share of posts relegated to the dungeon so I am in no way claiming I manage my own conversations well in every case.

Malerin

15th December 2008, 09:33 PM

Was that suppose to be an actual reply to your blatant hypocrisy and BS arguments? Red herring ya know?

BTW: Your arguments aren't even within the realm of "threatening" my beliefs since they are so bad. Your arguments are within the realm of disgust I get when someone goes about selling cancer cures made from urine claiming it is due to Quantum Theory or from certain UFO or Big footers who have exactly the same Idealism/solipcistic BS explanation as to why we can't find any evidence for their UFOs or Bigfoot which they use to justify their delusions.

I consider you at about the same level as them. Someone who weasels out of providing evidence by throwing out smoke.

Oh, I don't think we'd see this level of hostility unless something was being threatened. Maybe you and Rand have personal reasons for rejecting theism. Who knows. Like I said, I've seen the same reaction in religious fanatics. When it reaches this level of nastiness, you can usually put a fork in the thread.

I think we've at least nailed down a definition of belief, and the fact that people on both sides have faith-based beliefs. And even getting that far was like pulling teeth.

paximperium

16th December 2008, 01:36 AM

PixyMisa

16th December 2008, 02:17 AM

Oh, I don't think we'd see this level of hostility unless something was being threatened.
Ah, the old don't hate me because I'm beautiful ploy. One of Nick's favourites.

Take it elsewhere.

I think we've at least nailed down a definition of belief, and the fact that people on both sides have faith-based beliefs. And even getting that far was like pulling teeth.
Possibly because it's not true.

Dancing David

16th December 2008, 05:15 AM

Oh, I don't think we'd see this level of hostility unless something was being threatened. Maybe you and Rand have personal reasons for rejecting theism. Who knows. Like I said, I've seen the same reaction in religious fanatics. When it reaches this level of nastiness, you can usually put a fork in the thread.

I think we've at least nailed down a definition of belief, and the fact that people on both sides have faith-based beliefs. And even getting that far was like pulling teeth.

No that is undemonstrated conjecture, frustration with repeated evesions could produce the same effect.

here is what you appear to have done

1. Observe non-metric behior, in other words you have not shown your measure of hositility.

2. Made comparisons between two alleged sets of people.

3. Made assumptions about cause of behavior of one set of people.

4. Applied conjecture from assumption about behavior from one group to another group.

Alternative explanations that do not involve 'challenges to belief system':

-rudeness on part of poster, historical pattern or brief
-humor on part of poster, historical pattern or brief
-past history of posters in interactions with you (I find this most likely) leading to carry over from past exchanges
-past history of interaction with posters other than you (huge impact on this forum)
-assumption on your part about why people behave they way they do
-posters could be having a bad day and just post rudely to you
-perception on psrt of posters that you just assert your conclusions and then doing the 'sashy' to avoid discussing any actual implication of your ideas

So, you have conviniently just set up a straw justification for your belief with little or no sets of controls. You just assume that the pattern is 'challenge to beliefs' that creates the behavior, you have not demonstrated it , it is a nice hypothesis, as yet unproven with evidence.

If we compare your reception here over multiple threads and over time, will we find that the pattern is actualy comparable say to : someone challenging beliefs on a born again Xian forum?

That would be a static way of comparing responses.