Two questions -- I'll explain soon

[Subduction Zone]

You have a TB or RAM?? Or a TB hard drive? If the former, you have a serious computer.

The T is in hard drive of course. Ram is in the Gigabyte range. So I guess it was not quite a fair comparison. In fact it has 12 Gigabytes of ram. Only 12 million times the capacity of that very early computer, that was also programmed with switches.

 

[dfnj]

Question 1 -- a baseball bat and ball cost $110 together, but that bat costs $100 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

Question 2 -- do you have a faith belief in a deity, or are you atheist or agnostic?

I'm not sure being good algebra word problems matters when it comes to having intelligence over issues of faith.

If I get the answer to question 1 wrong then that means I'm an idiot and not qualified to answer question 2. But if you are asking question 1 along with question 2 in the same context then you probably think anyone who answers question 2 is an idiot unless they answer question 2 in way that agrees with your own opinion on the subject.

I will decline to answer and just let myself be judged as a worthless idiot in your eyes.

 

[blü 2]

Question 1 -- a baseball bat and ball cost $110 together, but that bat costs $100 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

Let B be the bat and C the ball.
[1] B + C = 110
[2] B - C = 100
Add [1] and [2]
[3] 2B = 210
So B = 105
So C = 5​

Authentically elementary, my dear Watson (and when are you doing Jeopardy again?).

Question 2 -- do you have a faith belief in a deity, or are you atheist or agnostic?

Technically I'm ignostic. I think the idea of a real god, one with objective existence, is incoherent. You could call me a nonbeliever, but I don't know what I don't believe in.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, I started this thread after reading in another (I should say "yet another") thread challenging science from the point of view of religion (or the other way about in reverse...who cares) called The rEvolving Doorway, though of course there are others on evolution, planetary motion, miracles and on and on and on. And in all of those arguments, the common denominator is whether science, or history or other evidence-based knowledge is the decider, or whether scripture, revealed truth is the final arbiter.

I haven't posted in that thread, as I no longer post in so many such threads...simply because there's nowhere to go. Nobody ever steps out of their entrenched position, possibly because there's no way that they can.

And the reason for that is the subject of this thread. It has been shown that most people approach a problem like the first question (about the cost of baseballs and bats) in one of two ways...through "intuition" or through a tendency to analyze, and these are two very different ways of thinking. And those who rely on their gut are demonstrably more likely to hold religious beliefs, while those who rely on analysis are significantly less likely to.

What I am trying to understand is "why." Why do you stick to one side of the argument or the other, without giving consideration to the other? From where comes your reluctance to consider all presented arguments and evidence and make an assessment of truth based only on those? Why are those religious people with sufficient mathematical skill able to resolve the cost of baseballs and bats easily, and yet unable (frequently enough) to accept the accumulated and very real science behind evolution, cosmology and so forth, in order to defend an obviously faulty and completely uninformed position based on scripture?

Is it really your belief that scripture is to be accepted as literal truth, even when you know (or can easily know) that it is completely wrong? It certainly seems to me that absolutely nothing useful can ever come from such a position.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not sure being good algebra word problems matters when it comes to having intelligence over issues of faith.

If I get the answer to question 1 wrong then that means I'm an idiot and not qualified to answer question 2. But if you are asking question 1 along with question 2 in the same context then you probably think anyone who answers question 2 is an idiot unless they answer question 2 in way that agrees with your own opinion on the subject.

I will decline to answer and just let myself be judged as a worthless idiot in your eyes.

I'm not judging...I'm asking a question, for reasons which I've just explained.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Question 1 -- a baseball bat and ball cost $110 together, but that bat costs $100 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

Question 2 -- do you have a faith belief in a deity, or are you atheist or agnostic?

1) $5 (duh)
2) agnostic (tend to believe in some type of first cause of the universe, not necessarily a god)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

1) $5 (duh)
2) agnostic (tend to believe in some type of first cause of the universe, not necessarily a god)

Not sure the (duh) was really necessary...there's enough contentiousness everywhere without us adding more.

 

[blü 2]

What I am trying to understand is "why." Why do you stick to one side of the argument or the other, without giving consideration to the other?

In fact I routinely give consideration to arguments that disagree with my position.

But it seems to me that believers tend to have an idea of what 'truth' is, that's very often unexamined hence only vaguely defined. Without agreement on that, how can either side agree with the other?

To me, a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms with / accurately reflects reality (and 'reality' is the set of all things with objective existence). This not only tends to give results that are useful and impartial (for example, photo or video evidence of traffic violations) but also falsifiable ─ the test for truth is objective.

However, that test is not very helpful for religious belief. So I'd guess that in a religious environment 'truth' is taught as conformity with, not the bible as such, but the view of the church community on the basis that this is taken to conform with bible teaching. Of course the bible is not 'true' in the objective sense: consider eg James 5:

14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
​

I can't comment on the forgiveness of sins, but the medical claims are false, and easily shown to be false.

(I'm aware that in my earlier post and in this one, my approach is essentially analytical. I've considered the different roles played by analytical and synthetic thinking regarding religion on many previous occasions over many years.)

​

 

[Polymath257]

So, I started this thread after reading in another (I should say "yet another") thread challenging science from the point of view of religion (or the other way about in reverse...who cares) called The rEvolving Doorway, though of course there are others on evolution, planetary motion, miracles and on and on and on. And in all of those arguments, the common denominator is whether science, or history or other evidence-based knowledge is the decider, or whether scripture, revealed truth is the final arbiter.

I haven't posted in that thread, as I no longer post in so many such threads...simply because there's nowhere to go. Nobody ever steps out of their entrenched position, possibly because there's no way that they can.

And the reason for that is the subject of this thread. It has been shown that most people approach a problem like the first question (about the cost of baseballs and bats) in one of two ways...through "intuition" or through a tendency to analyze, and these are two very different ways of thinking. And those who rely on their gut are demonstrably more likely to hold religious beliefs, while those who rely on analysis are significantly less likely to.

What I am trying to understand is "why." Why do you stick to one side of the argument or the other, without giving consideration to the other? From where comes your reluctance to consider all presented arguments and evidence and make an assessment of truth based only on those? Why are those religious people with sufficient mathematical skill able to resolve the cost of baseballs and bats easily, and yet unable (frequently enough) to accept the accumulated and very real science behind evolution, cosmology and so forth, in order to defend an obviously faulty and completely uninformed position based on scripture?

Is it really your belief that scripture is to be accepted as literal truth, even when you know (or can easily know) that it is completely wrong? It certainly seems to me that absolutely nothing useful can ever come from such a position.

One of my goals is to gradually shift my intuitions to be more in line with what analysis would show. So, for me, the answer to the first question was more intuitive because I have analyzed so many questions like it that intuition takes over.

Even in math, there are many results that are highly non-intuitive at first. The same is true of physics. And, often, it is good to be able to have a quick intuition when a longer analysis isn't warranted. Because that is ultimately what intuition is all about: finding quick and dirty answers when a deeper analysis isn't required.

 

[Gallowglass]

So, I started this thread after reading in another (I should say "yet another") thread challenging science from the point of view of religion (or the other way about in reverse...who cares) called The rEvolving Doorway, though of course there are others on evolution, planetary motion, miracles and on and on and on. And in all of those arguments, the common denominator is whether science, or history or other evidence-based knowledge is the decider, or whether scripture, revealed truth is the final arbiter.

I haven't posted in that thread, as I no longer post in so many such threads...simply because there's nowhere to go. Nobody ever steps out of their entrenched position, possibly because there's no way that they can.

And the reason for that is the subject of this thread. It has been shown that most people approach a problem like the first question (about the cost of baseballs and bats) in one of two ways...through "intuition" or through a tendency to analyze, and these are two very different ways of thinking. And those who rely on their gut are demonstrably more likely to hold religious beliefs, while those who rely on analysis are significantly less likely to.

What I am trying to understand is "why." Why do you stick to one side of the argument or the other, without giving consideration to the other? From where comes your reluctance to consider all presented arguments and evidence and make an assessment of truth based only on those? Why are those religious people with sufficient mathematical skill able to resolve the cost of baseballs and bats easily, and yet unable (frequently enough) to accept the accumulated and very real science behind evolution, cosmology and so forth, in order to defend an obviously faulty and completely uninformed position based on scripture?

Is it really your belief that scripture is to be accepted as literal truth, even when you know (or can easily know) that it is completely wrong? It certainly seems to me that absolutely nothing useful can ever come from such a position.

I think I'm the wrong kind of theist to answer your questions then. I don't feel theism and science have to be at odds. I always try to give both sides of a debate equal hearing. Then again, I'm the sort of theist who thinks denying evolution is stupid when we can watch lizards suddenly giving live birth. I find cosmology fascinating as well. I subscribe to the Baum-Frampton model of the cyclic universe, but I admit that the Penrose Conformal Cyclic is interesting, though I feel that they have to disclose more of their methods with WMAP data, and while I may have screaming matches over M-Theory vs Loop Quantum Gravity, I have to concede that both theories are valid for what they are. I recognize that I do have biases and emotional ties, however, and hate leaving a debate.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What I am trying to understand is "why." Why do you stick to one side of the argument or the other, without giving consideration to the other? From where comes your reluctance to consider all presented arguments and evidence and make an assessment of truth based only on those? Why are those religious people with sufficient mathematical skill able to resolve the cost of baseballs and bats easily, and yet unable (frequently enough) to accept the accumulated and very real science behind evolution, cosmology and so forth, in order to defend an obviously faulty and completely uninformed position based on scripture?

As a more analytical type (ex-engineer), for me it is basically down to the probability of any evidence being true or accurate, and although I often am intuitive too, the former tends to sway my belief or lack of belief. I just haven't come across any evidence that is solid enough for me to have any religious beliefs. I'm afraid any personal experiences, upon which many seem to base their beliefs, could be seen either way - as determined or simply accidental - and I have had plenty to challenge me. Two near-death experiences - a few seconds either way might have seen me dead - did nothing to provoke any religious feelings (my being saved), nor many others throughout my life. I suspect some people are just more affected by such things than others. And perhaps being more inclined to science (and psychology), I do tend to look for rational explanations a lot sooner than any other explanations.

 

[Katzpur]

Ball costs 10$...?

The ball costs $5. Maybe we Mormons aren't too awfully good at math, because I also thought the ball cost $10. But if it did, and if the bat cost $100 more than the ball, that would mean that the bat cost $110 itself. And we know it didn't, because the total of both items was $110. You have to take a while to think it through. I would have sworn the ball cost $10 until I finally stopped and figured out how everybody else was coming up with $5 (which is the actual cost of the ball).

I am Mormon if you or anyone have questions. Like seriously, even questions that might seem like they are attacking the Mormon faith, I am totally willing to answer anything and won't get offended by anything. Really.

Welcome to RF! I'm a Mormon, too and have been here for thirteen years. I noticed you're 21 years old. I'm assuming you recently returned from a mission. If so, where'd you serve?

 

[ecco]

Nobody ever steps out of their entrenched position, possibly because there's no way that they can.
...
What I am trying to understand is "why." Why do you stick to one side of the argument or the other, without giving consideration to the other?
...
Is it really your belief that scripture is to be accepted as literal truth, even when you know (or can easily know) that it is completely wrong? It certainly seems to me that absolutely nothing useful can ever come from such a position.

As you pointed out, and as can be seen from the responses, there are essentially two ways to solve the ball/bat problem. Those who did well in algebra and remember it, arrived at the answer using algebra. Those who didn't remember their algebra chose different methods.

But algebra isn't religion. Most people who post in forums are of an age where they have had many, many years of religious indoctrination. It's as hard to shake off early and constant religious training as it is to forget one's native language.


FWIW: Computers with only binary output capabilities would have given the cost of the ball as $101.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

FWIW: Computers with only binary output capabilities would have given the cost of the ball as $101.

Yes, and the cost of them both is 1101110. The bat costs 1101001.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and the cost of them both is 1101110. The bat costs 1101001.

And that brings up the old joke:

There are only ten sorts of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[gnostic]

Question 1 -- a baseball bat and ball cost $110 together, but that bat costs $100 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

$4.50

...here, there is 10% GST, plus we don’t have 1 and 2 cent coins.

 

[viole]

Question 1 -- a baseball bat and ball cost $110 together, but that bat costs $100 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

$1.

And if you do not agree, remember there are 10 different kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don’t. As already mentioned

Otherwise atheist. Or as agnostic as I am agnostic towards the universe having been created by Mickey Mouse.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

$1.

And if you do not agree, remember there are 10 different kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don’t. As already mentioned

Otherwise atheist. Or as agnostic as I am agnostic towards the universe having been created by Mickey Mouse.

Ciao

- viole

Wish I could rate this as both 'agree' and 'funny', so I chose one.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Wish I could rate this as both 'agree' and 'funny', so I chose one.

Quantum funny?