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

[CogentPhilosopher]

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

 

[YmirGF]

Overall, I thought it was fairly good. What I have found in this short life, thus far, is that people tend to not think too deeply about the nature or veracity of the things they believe. Why explore things that are self-evident, unless they aren't as solid as we prefer to pretend. That said, the truth will indeed set you free, but that doesn't mean that it comes without a cost. Muahahahaha.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Intelligence is a tool. Owning a tool doesn't necessarily mean you'll use it correctly or when you should.

 

[viole]

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

Obviously.

I used to believe in God most of my life.

And I do not believe that my cognitive abilities changed significantly in the meantime.


Ciao

- viole

 

[pearl]

There comes a time when children reach the level of critical thinking. I don't think its a given that they blindly continue their parents tradition but is led by their own reasoning to follow or choose another path. At least I hope so.

 

[sun rise]

From one perspective it's psychologically accurate in terms of indoctrination and confirmation bias. That applies to many different spheres of life.

But it is also narrowly stated in that it assumes a priori that the claim is ridiculous. There are claims which are in theory true but presented by flawed human beings using unfortunate propaganda techniques and worse, for example.

Then there are claims which have elements of truth without being wholly true. And there are statements which are simplified or not meant to be taken literally such as teaching Newton's laws without also emphasizing Einsteinian physics or referring to "sunrise".

The video also ignores an important stage of growth, adolescence, where part of what is going on is the questioning and even rejection of what parents and the community have asserted.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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

Is this based on anything other than DarkMatter's personal opinion?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

From one perspective it's psychologically accurate in terms of indoctrination and confirmation bias. That applies to many different spheres of life.

But it is also narrowly stated in that it assumes a priori that the claim is ridiculous. There are claims which are in theory true but presented by flawed human beings using unfortunate propaganda techniques and worse, for example.


Then there are claims which have elements of truth without being wholly true. And there are statements which are simplified or not meant to be taken literally such as teaching Newton's laws without also emphasizing Einsteinian physics or referring to "sunrise".

The video also ignores an important stage of growth, adolescence, where part of what is going on is the questioning and even rejection of what parents and the community have asserted.

I think you missed the point.

The point was to show how an intelligent person can believe in a ridiculous claim in certain circumstances and then open you to question why most religions use these circumstances.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Is this based on anything other than DarkMatter's personal opinion?

Did you watch the video?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Did you watch the video?

Yes, I did. It flashed "religious claim" at the end.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Yes, I did.

Then you know it's a rational argument using thought experiments not an empirical one.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Then you know it's a rational argument using thought experiments not an empirical one.

That is a long way to say "no".

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

That is a long way to say "no".

Congratulations.

You do not know how philosophy and/or logic works and I doubt you watched the video.

Rational arguments are based on concepts and thought experiments.

In other words:

Argument A is supported by Thought Experiment A.

Empirical arguments are based on empirical observations.

In other words:

Argument A is supported by Chemistry Experiment B.

I recommend taking Intro to Philosophy 1301 or looking at some online resources. If you have a good teacher in Composition then they often will teach that as well.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The points made in the video are good, and I agree that the hypothetical progressions displayed are very much representative of the way religion has reached its level of prevalence. However, I feel as though it loses just a bit of effect by (even if only slightly) implying that "the truth" is known, or can be known by a given person. Granted, "the truth" is something, obviously. But (at least in the current day and age) it is not possible to know "the truth" in totality.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

The points made in the video are good, and I agree that the hypothetical progressions displayed are very much representative of the way religion has reached its level of prevalence. However, I feel as though it loses just a bit of effect by (even if only slightly) implying that "the truth" is known, or can be known by a given person. Granted, "the truth" is something, obviously. But (at least in the current day and age) it is not possible to know "the truth" in totality.

I must have missed that.

Where does he say that the truth is known in full?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Congratulations.

You do not know how philosophy and/or logic works and I doubt you watched the video.

Rational arguments are based on concepts and though experiments.

In other words:

Argument A is supported by Thought Experiment A.

Empirical arguments are based on empirical observations.

In other words:

Argument A is supported by Chemistry Experiment B.

I recommend taking Intro to Philosophy 1301 or looking at some online resources. If you have a good teacher in Composition then they often will teach that as well.

It is the classic nature vs nurture argument, and if it is just some random person's opinion it does not really add anything new. That is why I wanted to know if there was anything else to it.

"You do not know how philosophy and/or logic works and I doubt you watched the video."

I am well aware that many "philosophers" think they can know everything just by thinking about it.

"I doubt you watched the video."

I don't care.

"Rational arguments are based on concepts and though experiments"

That does not mean it is right.

In stats we use math to do something we call extrapolation or, "the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable." Which is exactly what that video is doing, but in stats we are smart enough to realize that just because something sounds good on paper that does not mean it is the correct.

I know this is targeted at religious beliefs, but it is also a wide sweeping claim about how beliefs are formed and how they can or cannot change. So before I go agreeing willy-nilly just because I like the way it sounds, I still have some reservations about the effect and relationship of "nature" in the forming and development of beliefs.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

It is the classic nature vs. a nature argument, and if it is just some random person's opinion it does not really add anything new. That is why I wanted to know if there was anything else to it.

"You do not know how philosophy and/or logic works and I doubt you watched the video."

I am well aware that many "philosophers" think they can know everything just by thinking about it.

"I doubt you watched the video."

I don't care.

"Rational arguments are based on concepts and though experiments"

That does not mean it is right.

In stats we use math to do something we call extrapolation or, "the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable." Which is exactly what that video is doing, but we are smart enough (unlike you apparently) to realize that just because something sounds good on paper that does not mean it is the correct.

I know this is targeted at religious beliefs, but it is also a wide sweeping claim about how beliefs are formed and how they can or cannot change. So before I go agreeing willy-nilly just because I like the way it sounds, I still have some reservations about the effect and relationship of "nature" in the forming and development of beliefs.

Thank you.

You just proved my point.

Since you just made an argument without using empirical evidence you apparently do believe that rational arguments are valuable.

By the way, I never said you can think out everything.

 

[sun rise]

I think you missed the point.

The point was to show how an intelligent person can believe in a ridiculous claim in certain circumstances and then open you to question why most religions use these circumstances.

I got that but you missed that my reply was to challenge the simplistic view presented by that video.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Thank you.

You just proved my point.

Since you just made an argument without using empirical evidence you apparently do believe that rational arguments are valuable.

By the way, I never said you can think out everything.

I never said rational arguments are not valuable, but actual research is valuable as well and even more so when you combine it with reason.

Btw, do you know what a strawman is?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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?