"...but intelligent people believe in God" Analysis, Discussion, and Debate

[Polymath257]

Yes, and my personal favourite is simple observation. One can create all the Zeno-like paradoxes that they like (Mount Everest can't be that tall because first it would have be half as tall, plus half and that and half of...and etc.), but one look tells you, "by gum, there's a darn mountain there." You could, if you had to get the glass to your mouth as Zeno suggests Achilles moves -- by halves, quarters, eighths, etc. -- never take even a tiny sip of that beer.

But go ahead and try it -- and while you're enjoying your beer, try to figure out where the flaw is. (Which you've done, by the way. This wasn't aimed at you -- just using your post for support.)

Yep. The actual existence of motion shows Zeno was wrong. That math can easily deal with motion shows no radical assumptions need be made.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, and my personal favourite is simple observation. One can create all the Zeno-like paradoxes that they like (Mount Everest can't be that tall because first it would have be half as tall, plus half and that and half of...and etc.), but one look tells you, "by gum, there's a darn mountain there." You could, if you had to get the glass to your mouth as Zeno suggests Achilles moves -- by halves, quarters, eighths, etc. -- never take even a tiny sip of that beer.

But go ahead and try it -- and while you're enjoying your beer, try to figure out where the flaw is. (Which you've done, by the way. This wasn't aimed at you -- just using your post for support.)

Thanx. And I used to be able to run a mile all the way to the end. So now as I get older, maybe Zeno becomes right.... Hmmm, think I'll try that beer experiment, then maybe a gin, and see if there's any difference, after 3 or 4.

Edit: I'm happy to report success with every attempt so far, and with no halfsies.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yep. The actual existence of motion shows Zeno was wrong. That math can easily deal with motion shows no radical assumptions need be made.

Well, this isn't a contest, and I'm not looking for any sort of admission from you.....except to yourself.....hopefully.....someday. And just so ya know, been there, done that.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, this isn't a contest, and I'm not looking for any sort of admission from you.....except to yourself.....hopefully.....someday. And just so ya know, been there, done that.

I have admitted to myself that Zeno was wrong and that his arguments are flawed. Have you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, and my personal favourite is simple observation. One can create all the Zeno-like paradoxes that they like (Mount Everest can't be that tall because first it would have be half as tall, plus half and that and half of...and etc.), but one look tells you, "by gum, there's a darn mountain there." You could, if you had to get the glass to your mouth as Zeno suggests Achilles moves -- by halves, quarters, eighths, etc. -- never take even a tiny sip of that beer. But go ahead and try it -- and while you're enjoying your beer, try to figure out where the flaw is. (Which you've done, by the way. This wasn't aimed at you -- just using your post for support.)

Agreed.

In the end, the final arbiter of truth is what's out there. Even true belief such as the belief that the Higgs particle could be found if a sufficiently powerful collider were built isn't knowledge until it is confirmed empirically.

Incidentally, my working definitions for truth, fact, and knowledge are these: Truth is the quality facts possess, facts being linguistic strings that accurately map a portion of the world. Knowledge is the collection of facts. This definition ignores a priori and analytic truth, which can also be called fact and an element of knowledge, but appears to be discovered without appealing to the external world. I'm not sure that that is correct, however. I'm not sure that we could have come up with 2+2=4 without the experience of combining pairs of pairs into tetrads

This discussion reminds me of a poster who calls himself a rationalist, and who has said, "Evidence is pointless,” “Evidentialism is false,” and “Empiricism is a philosophical dead end." He seems well educated and articulate, but he has somehow divorced himself from physical reality in his musings.

And surprisingly, I have seen this once before on another discussion site. The poster there has said, "Studies are not science. Neither is an experiment," "Facts need not even refer to anything real or truthful in any way," "You cannot confirm, prove, or make more legitimate any theory using supporting evidence," and "Science does not treat any observation as reliable. It doesn't use them."

Strange phenomenon. Both of these people are theists, but almost never discuss their religious beliefs. Their posting is all more or less an assault on science and empiricism rather than a defense of any alternative. Both have been told that they are empiricists whether they realize it or not, a fact they demonstrate when they look before crossing the street.

This second guy would surely have accused you of committing an argument of the stone fallacy:

"The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Dr. Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, 'I refute it thus.' "

The fallacy there is that Berkeley is arguing about the fundamental nature of the stone beyond perception, which is being refuted by perception. Your discussion is about whether something that can be experienced, like being able to walk an infinite number finite distances in a finite time is impossible because a mathematical illusion suggests that it should be.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Why do you state such a dichotomy between 'rational' and 'empirical?' You belive empirical arguments to be irrational? That observation can not lead to rational reasoning?

I am talking about the terms as used in philosophy not in general use.

Empirical arguments talk about things observed outside the mind and rational arguments talk about things observed inside the mind.

 

[stevevw]

Indoctrination can be more subtle. Even without any formal teaching, children are able to pick up abstract beliefs that the society in general perpetuates. They look at why a person is doing what they are doing, and saying what they are saying, to grasp what is behind the actions and the words. That includes divine concepts and the belief that inspires this "looking behind" process, the belief that they are intelligent people who have to fit in.

That may be the case but some of the research actually shows that even when a child is brought up in an atheist environment they still have these natural divine concepts in them. I think the research has factored things like that in anyway and are saying that these are just inbuilt natural cognitive processes that people have and it is easier and more natural for them to think along those lines. That's not saying that they believe in any particular God or religion just out of this world ideas about there being something beyond what they see. I think this is also seen in the fact that whether its father Christmas, Alice in wonderland, UFO;s, ghosts, angels, tarot cards, crystals, fortune telling, and all the other thousands of gods, idols and things that people believe in that it is something we find fascinating and consume a big part of our thinking. It may all be a myth but there is something in our natural makeup that causes us to look beyond this world for something and I think it is more than an evolutionary influence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That may be the case but some of the research actually shows that even when a child is brought up in an atheist environment they still have these natural divine concepts in them. I think the research has factored things like that in anyway and are saying that these are just inbuilt natural cognitive processes that people have and it is easier and more natural for them to think along those lines. That's not saying that they believe in any particular God or religion just out of this world ideas about there being something beyond what they see. I think this is also seen in the fact that whether its father Christmas, Alice in wonderland, UFO;s, ghosts, angels, tarot cards, crystals, fortune telling, and all the other thousands of gods, idols and things that people believe in that it is something we find fascinating and consume a big part of our thinking. It may all be a myth but there is something in our natural makeup that causes us to look beyond this world for something and I think it is more than an evolutionary influence.

I do not think that these notions are "more than an evolutionary influence." I think rather that they are entirely the result of evolution. We are thinking, problem-solving beings because problem-solving lets us adapt to many environments. But along with that, we are social beings -- we can't solve major problems alone but only with the assistance of others, both present and those who have gone before.

We have two faculties that I think lead to the kind of thinking that you are talking about: the first, in order to become social beings that can cooperate, we have developed the ability to intuit the existence of other minds with whom we communicate. It's not much of a leap from there to intuiting other minds in beloved pets, and from there to other animals and eventually things. And as humans observed their loved ones die, they could just as easily intuit the continuance of mind in some other "realm."

The second faculty is that a lot of our problem solving is the result of a kind of informal reasoning by analogy. Things that seem similar might behave in a similar way. You can find this idea everywhere in our history, including such nonsense as homeopathy and sympathetic magic.

Thus, we have tools that help us survive as a species, but while they work admirably for that purpose, there are "side effects." And mystical thinking is, in my view, one of those side effects.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Agreed.

In the end, the final arbiter of truth is what's out there. Even true belief such as the belief that the Higgs particle could be found if a sufficiently powerful collider were built isn't knowledge until it is confirmed empirically.

Incidentally, my working definitions for truth, fact, and knowledge are these: Truth is the quality facts possess, facts being linguistic strings that accurately map a portion of the world. Knowledge is the collection of facts. This definition ignores a priori and analytic truth, which can also be called fact and an element of knowledge, but appears to be discovered without appealing to the external world. I'm not sure that that is correct, however. I'm not sure that we could have come up with 2+2=4 with experience of combining pairs of pairs into tetrads

This discussion reminds me of a poster who calls himself a rationalist, and who has said, "Evidence is pointless,” “Evidentialism is false,” and “Empiricism is a philosophical dead end." He seems well educated and articulate, but he has somehow divorced himself from physical reality in his musings.

And surprisingly, I have seen this once before on another discussion site. The poster there has said, "Studies are not science. Neither is an experiment," "Facts need not even refer to anything real or truthful in any way," "You cannot confirm, prove, or make more legitimate any theory using supporting evidence," and "Science does not treat any observation as reliable. It doesn't use them."

Strange phenomenon. Both of these people are theists, but almost never discuss their religious beliefs. There posting is all more or less an assault on science and empiricism rather than a defense of any alternative. Both have been told that they are empiricists whether they realize it or not, a fact they demonstrate when they look before crossing the street.

This second guy would surely have accused you of committing an argument of the stone fallacy:

"The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Dr. Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, 'I refute it thus.' "

The fallacy there is that Berkeley is arguing about the fundamental nature of the stone beyond perception, which is being refuted by perception. Your discussion is about whether something that can be experienced, like being able to walk an infinite number finite distances in a finite time is impossible because a mathematical illusion suggests that it should be.

I agree, and would add that I think the same limitations are being used with socialism, which I think is an exact parallel--especially the one most blatantly necessary to both, blind faith. But neither side will ever see it in itself. Indoctrination in government schools or church schools at such an early age is very hard to throw off, especially with the reinforcements they're surrounded with.

If we're here for a reason, say as part of some grand design, then there can only be one reason, to be tested. For that we need a constant supply of evil and strife--and sure enough, they appear to be never-ending. If we ever did overcame them, then what? But never fear, there will always be a Hitler or an earthquake or a supernova in the wings.

 

[JustWondering]

I would like to see people of a variety of viewpoints analyze and discuss this video by DarkMatter2525.

I agree with the video. Kids are hardwired to emulate their parents and other authority figures. After childhood most turn into sheeple that go with the flow and don't make waves. Not big on thinking for themselves.

 

[rabkauhallA]

Sometimes I think people are into "skepticism" just for the fashion. I mean shouldn't a real skeptic be skeptical about everything and not just religion?

Not necessarily. But of course a naturally skeptic mind will wonder and be, most likely skeptical, about the myriad unknowns. I was pushed through confirmation (parents) at the church we rarely attended. I was young, had a semi-open mind and gave it the best chance I could. But the question I couldn't shake was, Why??
What purpose does this serve. And then I became fascinated in the cosmos. The size. How miniscule our planet is in the Milky Way, and how unbelievably insignificant we are to the universe as a whole. The Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field blew my frickin' mind. I think (maybe earlier, but that cemented my thinking) that we humans, just one of 100s of millions of life forms on Earth, have the arrogance and audacity to believe we are the mother important things in a universe so big even theoretical physicists and astrophysicists can't even fully comprehende. Furthermore, if any American Christian had been born in Saudi Arabia just by chance, it's almost certain you would be Muslim. And that's true for wherever people are born. Sure, there are minor religions everywhere, and including the U.S. where they are treated badly, if not downright exterminated. I argue with my own mom about her beliefs. But I find I am an unusual case. Many of my friends, no matter how they really think, feel it a betrayal to not outwardly embrace the church their parents are so involved with. At least for those with religious parents.

One thing I took from the video is the world we're born into. God is on our money. Churches look like monuments and they're everywhere. And if your parents teach you from a very young age that it's all because of God, much like politics.... it's very deep seeded. And most people dislike telling the people who brought them into the world and raised them, that all they believed and continue to, is a sham. I'm lucky my parents never took our belief/lack thereof and political leanings personally and are actually proud we studied topics and came to our own conclusions. Well, my ol' man still can't believe I'm a Democrat lol. My apologies for conflating politics and religion, but I believe the nature vs nurture applies to both in very similar ways.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I agree with the video. Kids are hardwired to emulate their parents and other authority figures. After childhood most turn into sheeple that go with the flow and don't make waves. Not big on thinking for themselves.

And you can prove any of this? Where is your evidence?

 

[DavidFirth]

And you can prove any of this? Where is your evidence?

Generation X

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I am talking about the terms as used in philosophy not in general use.

Empirical arguments talk about things observed outside the mind and rational arguments talk about things observed inside the mind.

Disagree. Observational arguments are rational even in those terms as all experience is within the mind. How do you propose one observes 'outside' the mind?

 

[JustWondering]

And you can prove any of this? Where is your evidence?

Below are a couple videos discussing the psychology of conformity. I see it in real life as well, all the time. Especially in today's PC culture. Not long ago I was at the store to pick up a couple things and there were only two registers open (and moving slowly) and ten other people waiting to pay for their stuff. Within the first minute of waiting myself I notice that to my left there is the jewelry counter that has a register and is attended by a bored employee with no customers and to my right there is a customer service counter with registers attended by two bored employees with no customers. I leave the line, go to the jewelry counter and she rings up my stuff. Of all the other people in line who saw me do this how many left line to go to the customer service or jewelry counter? One person. The rest stood in line like sheeple because they've been conditioned to wait in line at the registers at the front of stores.