Glider

Ahh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant he could have taught that: 'whilst the Adam and Eve story was once widely accepted, these days it isn't'. My bad, I got the wrong end of the stick. As I said, I got the wrong end of the stick. If Dak had meant the teacher could have taught 'whilst the Adam and Eve story was once widely accepted, these days it isn't', then the teacher could not have presented that, not because of any question of whether or not the belief is reasonable, but simply because the statement is not true (at least, in the US). But as i said, I understand that it's not what Dak meant.

He couldn't have taught that because it's untrue and as a teacher, he has a professional responsibility not to teach anything he knows to be untrue. The results of a 2006 CBS poll shows the following: "A late 2006 poll by CBS showed that: "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. ... Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all. Poll results: Creationist view: 'God created humans in [their] present form.' 55% Theistic evolution: 'Humans evolved, [but] God guided the process.' 27% Naturalistic Evolution: 'Humans evolved [but] God did not guide [the] process.' 13%" These values vary according to the source, but a consistent finding is that the proportion of the population believing that humans were created in their current form has remained stable at around 44% - 47% between 1982 and 2006. So the teacher could not have taught the class that "the current historical oppinion is that [the adam and eve story is] bs....[and] the fact that most people did, and several people still do, believe itbecause it's patently not true (and nearly half the population is more than 'several').

I don't think this is true. Teachers have a responsibility to be respectful towards their students, true. But a significant part of being a teacher is to challange student's beliefs. Respecting the student and respecting the beliefs of the student are entirely different things. I agree with this absolutely. It is the teacher's responsibility to control the teaching environment and if it breaks down into a slanging match, for whatever reason, it's down to the teacher. Moreso if the teacher has allowed themselves to become personally involved in it.

The ancient Egyptians weren't savage and unruly despots, neither were the Ancient Greeks (inventors of democracy), or Mesopotamians nor ancient (or current Chinese) nor Indians etc. etc.. If you check the activities of people like Godfroi de Boullion, Richard I (Coeur de Lion), Ferdinand II of Aragon, Pope Lucius III, I don't think Christianity deserves any particular credit. I think reason deserves more.

Acomplia, according to the site, should be taken in conjunction with a healthy diet and exercise, which makes me wonder what the acomplia is actually for given that healthy eating and exercise alone is sufficient and does not open one up to the risk of such side effects as are listed for acomplia: "Acomplia Side Effects Acomplia’s most common side effects are known to include: anxiety, insomnia, disorientation, nausea, hallucinations, headache, hypertension, kidney and heart damage, heart attack, palpitations, strokes, fatigue psychosis, and hyperphagia, dizziness and gastrointestinal discomfort." As an aside, I note that all three of the threads you have started include links to the same online pharmacutical sales site (DrugDelivery.ca) which puts you in breach of forum rules (section 2:7) banning advertising. Consider this an informal warning.

I agree with that. We've been crying wolf with language for too long. It's like a self-inflicted ceiling effect stemming from a persistant overuse of hyperbole. If people grow up considering new MP3 players or cell phones 'awsome', they are going to be buggered for words if they come across something that truly inspires awe. The only option left is emotional display and volume. It's the linguistic version of the (bad) hospital practice of ticking the 'urgent' box on every blood test request form you complete. When a genuinely urgent test appears you're stuffed, and have to write 'really, really urgent' on it in big red crayon. Every mundane thing everybody has said has for so long been so 'important' that there's now no way to let anybody know when we actually have something important to say, unless we accompany it with some kind of emotional display to flag it. That's going to get old soon too (as this thread indicates).

Sebum and water mainly.

I'm getting the feeling that we're talking about entirely different things. I have never used the term 'reasonable faith' (as far as I'm concerned, that's an oxymoron anyway). I used the word 'reason' (in reason to believe) in its dictionary sense of 'a cause or explanation' i.e. 'a good cause to do something', as opposed to 'reasonable]', which means 'fair or sensible'.

I disagree. I accept the principle that nothing is certain. However I do think you are drastically overstretching that priciple to say (if I understand you correctly) that 'nothing is certain, therefore everything is faith'. This would be a false dichotomy as the key factor is the balance of probability and that is always an estimate based on known things. With the seed example, I have seeds from an acer palmatum, so I know they need cold stratifying in damp sand for 6 - 10 weeks before they germinate. I know that a period of warmth after cold stratification is the trigger for germination. Whether I bought the seed or harvested them from one of my trees, I have a reason to beleive they are viable. I accept that nothing is certain, but the balance of probability suggests they are (seed vendors check for viability, I do my own 'rule of thumb' tests). I also know that the damping off fungus exists and is a risk to seeds and seedlings, and I accept the possibility that this may kill them. But knowing this, I can provide prophylactic treatment. Given these known things, I have reason to believe that if I carry out these steps, most will germinate (I also accept that some may not). It is the reason to believe that denies faith, which is belief without a reason (i.e. evidence to suggest or in support of...). Knowing a little about evolution, I have absolutely no reason to suppose that the conditions required for the germination of acer palmatum seeds would suddenly change. The same thing applies. The consistent observation of the phenomenon that wherever one is on the planet, a ball thrown in the air comes down, provides a reason to believe that if I throw a ball in the air, it will come down. Thus I have a reason to accept the rule that balls thrown in the air will come down. I have absolutely no reason to suppose that priciple is false until one fails to do so, even though I accept that nothing is certain.

An interesting statistic is that four stories high seems to be the cutoff point for fatality. An odd fact is that in suicide by jumping, most people lack the courage to jump from higher than the fourth story of a building and by coincidence that height is just below what would be more certain to kill you. At the height of four stories (from which most jumping suicides are attempted), you are likely get smashed calcaniums, punctured acetabulums (where the head of the femur is pushed through), splayed pelvis and compression injuries to the spine, but rarely immediate death. At heights above four stories, death is much more certain, but many fewer people jump from such heights. (note that nothing is certain, you could die from hitting your head after tripping on the pavement, but it's not likely).

I don't really think that's faith. You know how seeds and plants work and so you know what conditions you have to provide to make them germinate (and also what conditions are likely to kill the seeds or stop them germinating) and using youre experience, you choose one over the other. So you have a reason to believe they'll germinate. Same this with the car example. You've been places in your car before and know what you have to do to avoid an accident (and the kind of driving that's likely to lead to an accident) and you choose the one over the other. So again, you have reason to believe you'll make it this time. If you had absolutely no reason to believe you'd survive the trip, I doubt you'd even get into the car (I wouldn't). Nothing is certain, but I think going with the balance of probability isn't really faith.

I see your point, but it is more like outright lying as opposed to subliminal manipulation, and as everybody knows, lying isn't considered unethical if you're in advertising (mind you, nor is subliminal advertising or any other method to get people to pay for crap they don't need).

Interesting question. If a person is having problems with the society in which they live, then the problem is not really a psychological one. It might be one of social ideals or politics or religion, but not psychology. If that person moved to a different culture or society, the problem would go away (or at least be reduced). If, due to an established pattern of thought, behaviour or emotion, the ability of a person to function adaptively in their daily lives was inhibited, then you have a psychological problem. Moving to a different culture or society would not solve this problem. In short, the basic features of a psychopathology are universal and would be a problem to an individual whether they were in Iraq, Australia, Britain, Japan, America (you get the idea).

Well, it's kind of right. In the UK it was banned for ethical reasons. Whether or not subliminal advertising works (and there's no real evidence that it does), it's considered unethical to attempt to manipulate the public in such a way.

No, it's not clear that the strategy works. All attempts to replicate Vicary's results have failed and a long time ago, Vicary admitted that he had made up his data and that his claims for the effectiveness of subliminal advertising were a marketing ploy in themselves.

I think if you take three basic proinciples: 1) Do no harm. 2) Ease suffering. 3) Preserve life (which you pretty much covered in your second paragraph), then practitioners probably do have to ask question that many currently don't. Have the substances I prescribe been through phase I trials for safety/side effects etc.? (remember the deaths from St. John's Wort?). Is the treatment I use actually effective/will it really ease suffering (do some good)? Is it the belief that this treatment is effective (when it may not be), denying somebody a treatment of more certain efficacy? If these questions aren't being asked by alternative therapists, I think there's an ethical issue. Yes. I was referring more to those people who seek alternative therapies first, as opposed to those who get referred.

I would agree with Lockheed, for these resasons: The hazard doesn't always come from the therapies themselves. Even if the 'therapy' is completely harmless, if it's being applied to someone who's genuinely sick, then in effect, they're being denied effective treatment.

Oi! Only as a subject of study. Emotion has nothing more to do with the process of study than in any other field.

It looks like a very good opportuntiy to me. like Paralith says, breadth of experience is often just as valuable as a good education. I'd love to work somewhere like that (but I'm biased as a Psychologist )

Well, that's a difference between them, true, but I don't understand why this difference should halt conversation. I think the critical difference is the result of a long standing taboo that whilst it's ok to question all beliefs concerning reality, those based on religion are inviolable. And that's it, it's just a taboo that' these days, is extending into polical correctness. My point is that this is the only reason and so these beliefs are getting a free ride. I do understand your point. For myself I think the difference between the two positions is profound, but that does require a little thought. However, I don't think the fact that that extremists and others utilising a 'mob mentality' are likely to confuse the two means that the difference does not exist. Well, not just the physical sciences. I think that discourse and the application of critical evaluation is absolutely necessary in all areas of life. If we put religion to one side for a moment, I can't think of a single area of human existence that doesn't require it in some way and that would not benefit from it being used more rigorously. Can you?

A very good point. I agree with JohnB in the sense that most people do tend to be more resistant to evidence that challenges what they already accept (say, on the basis of older evidence), but I think if it only makes a person evaluate the new evidence more rigorously, then there's no real problem (nothing wrong with a bit of rigour). However, where it does become a problem is when people become unwilling to review their beliefs in the face of new evidence and begin rejecting new (contradictory) evidence out of hand. So I agree completely that making your baseline position 'nothing is certain' is the best way to prevent that problem from arising in the first place.

There are two points here. I’ll answer the lesser first. The phrase "taken leave of their intelligence" was never used. Although that phrase may sound very much like ‘taken leave of their senses’ it is not what was said or implied. The phrase under discussion is: ‘active process of non-thought’ which suggests that people actively choose to suspend intellectual processes that they would otherwise employ. Not that they actually become less intelligent. The other point, that "calling someone’s belief ‘ridiculous' is far from courteous" is more tricky. If a belief is ridiculous, what do you call it to avoid giving offence? Would calling such a belief ‘absurd’ be any better? Why can't people call a ridiculous thing, ridiculous if it is shown to be so? I think this comes down to the tradition of ‘respecting’ people’s beliefs. As I asked in post #131, is it reasonable to expect reasonable people to respect an absurd belief? As Sam Harris has said: “Just consider for a moment, this notion that you should respect other people’s beliefs. Where else in our discourse do we encounter this? When was the last time anyone…was admonished to respect another person’s beliefs about History, or Biology, or Physics? We do not respect people’s beliefs. We evaluate their reasons.”. We like to think that we respect the beliefs of others, but In reality we take those beliefs apart and examine their reasons for those beliefs. This is not done with any hostile intent, or with the intent to cause offence, this is simply what we do. Look at peer review. In fact you don’t need to go so far. Just look at these forums. Look at all such forums. Look at daily life. Say somebody believes that amethyst strengthens the endocrine and immune systems, or that Citrine can help with heart tissue regeneration, and makes these claims in the general medicine forum of SFN. They would immediately be asked to present evidence. Is that considered disrespectful or discourteous? If the person making these claims fails to adequately support them, the argument is rejected and so the acceptance of the argument (i.e. faith in the healing properties of these crystals) would be considered ridiculous. Is that considered disrespectful of discourteous? No. In these cases it is considered a normal part of the critical process of reason by which people evaluate the validity of information, theories and propositions. So, under normal circumstances, we don’t respect the beliefs of others. We always ask them to justify them or provide evidence in support of them. This process of critical evaluation is not only acceptable, it is absolutely necessary. How else are we to progress as a species? However, when you introduce beliefs that are based on religious faith or God, this process has to stop due to this largely political idea of ‘respecting the beliefs of others. Why? What gives these beliefs any special dispensation over any other beliefs? I agree fully with Harris’s argument that the only way forward for humanity is not a tolerance for all manner of absurdity, but a willingness to have our beliefs about reality updated and revised by conversation. This simply didn’t happen here (at least, not on my part). So I wouldn’t worry about it. I don’t think they have any evidence for themselves. I think the idea of having evidence for a faith is a contradiction in terms. That’s what faith means. However, I would say that if they want me to accept or respect their belief, then they do have to tell me what evidence they have, so I may evaluate it for myself (because I am willing to revise my beliefs about reality through conversation). Isn’t that fair? Why should beliefs based upon religion be exempt from the rules that govern all other human discourse? The position that beliefs concerning the nature of reality should not be discussed, because to do so may cause offence, is intellectually bankrupt and a clear case of special pleading. It halts conversation and discourages further discourse and so encourages unquestioning belief, which is never a good thing. In any event, I suppose in this case, evidence would be a reasoned argument that can withstand the scrutiny of logic and can stand on its own merit in the presence of, or without contradicting, the physical facts and observations concerning the nature of reality. I have absolutely no idea. However, as it has not happened, I won’t worry about it too much at this stage. I suppose that if my mother suddenly grew wings, webbed feet and a bill, I would have to conclude either that she had become a duck (or some kind of super duck/mother hybrid), or that I was hallucinating. As to how long it would take me to reach either of those conclusions, I have no idea. But again, it hasn’t happened, so I won’t worry about it. I wouldn’t get too hung up on things that haven’t happened.

Possibly not, but it is how people (e.g. nurses) work. Viewing what evidence is to hand in whatever (usually short) time they have to make a decision in order to estimate the balance of that evidence to decide a course of action that will most likely lead to the best outcome. Such decisions may be correct, or they may not (people are not perfect), but they are never made on no evidence. You are going to work on your best estimate of the balance of existing evidence that you are aware of (again, different from faith). See previous. It's still an evidence based estimation, whether or not it's correct. This happens, but when the full weight of evidence is shown, or when new evidence is added, and the result is different from the individual’s estimate, that individual will say 'I was wrong'. This, again, is very different from faith. Very little of what we have to work with in real life is 100% backed up by evidence. As I keep saying, we work to our best estimates of the balance of currently available evidence that we are aware of. That is not faith. That is a given. Not really.Anything can be included in these hypotheses; zeus, poseidon, ammon-ra, magic tulips, mystical sperm-whales, invisible, mouse riding elephants (Ganesha). None of these are necessary, so why include them? Are you proposing that choosing not to believe in a thing for which there is absolutely no evidence requires the same degree of faith as choosing to believe a thing for which there is absolutely no evidence? If so, I would disagree. In any event, I think not believing is simply the most acceptable position in the face of current evidence. H1 = God does exist. H0 = God does not exist. As the alternative hypothesis has, so far, absolutely no evidence in support of it, I accept the null position. I would be making a type I error by doing otherwise. There is simply no reason to accept that hypothesis and it would be unreasonable of me to say “H1 is not supported, but I’m going to accept it anyway.”. I think this is more or less equivalent to saying that science rejects this as a hypothesis, because it’s not a hypothesis (which it isn’t as hypotheses are, by definition, predictive statements).The problem is, that hypothesis doesn't preclude anything as a possibility (see the above list). No, this is a strawman. If you look back, you’ll find that the original statement that ‘faith requires an active process of non-thought’ is Dawkins’ statement, not mine. I was clarifying that statement as I thought that it, among other elements of what Dawkins was saying had been misunderstood earlier in the thread. The statement concerning the active suspension of intelligence, or more accurately, critical faculties, is a paraphrase of Dawkin's statement: ‘the active process of non-thought' required to maintain faith. No I don’t. I don't believe Dawkin's statement that faith requires an active process of non-thought to be ridiculous because this process can be observed (see below). Therefore, I don't consider my paraphrase of that statement ridiculous either. No, I don’t understand this at all. Firstly, it was not my statement. As I pointed out, I was paraphrasing for clarity. More important, Dawkins’ statement that ‘faith requires an active process of non-thought’ is an observation, not a value judgment so, no. I do not understand why you would find it offensive. As an observation, that statement is based in reality. It comes from Dawkin’s observation that, in order to maintain a faith in something that has absolutely no supporting evidence, one must suspend the critical faculties that one would normally use in other areas of life. That is to say, one has to deliberately not ask the questions that a reasonable person would normally ask. One also has (depending on the faith or the degree of faith) to ignore or even deny existing evidence. This is what makes it an ‘active’ process of non-thought. Do you understand why someone to whom reason is an important part of their life might find that process offensive (in effect the enemy of reason)? Another reason that I fail to understand your taking offence is that whilst the statement is a general observation concerning the underlying process involved in maintaining a faith, and thus aimed at nobody specific, it is you who chose to make it personal and aim your responses directly at me in post 126 “Quite frankly, your statement seems a blatant suspension of intelligence and insight in this thread so far.”. I chose not to take offence, but asked whether this was your honest belief (i.e. that my post showed no signs of reasoning or intelligence), to which you responded in post 135 “Yes it does. How can someone who claims that faith (in general terms) requires an 'active suspension' of intelligence and insight be regarded as having a sane point of view?”. You have taken offence at a general observation and responded with two personal attacks, so no, I really don’t understand why you should be offended. You may not agree with the observation. You may not like the observation. But that doesn’t alter the fact and so offence is not an appropriate response. I think this is a growing problem with faiths. There are so many, each clamouring for recognition and it’s own ‘space’ that the amount a person (particularly one who claims no faith) can say without ‘causing offence’ is shrinking. I think this is what forms the basis for Dawkins’ assertion of the increasing polarisation between the religious and the secular. The religious are claiming more special dispensations and the secular are starting to get fed up with it all. A good working example is my own University. Our main building is not big. We have limited space and, it almost goes without saying, limited funds. Nevertheless, recently, we have had to provide specific chapels and prayer rooms on the lower levels (which used to be computer rooms). Also, we have had to provide further rooms and convert them to washing areas where people can wash their feet (this had to be done to stop them using the hand basins in the toilets for that purpose). These took over a part of our gym so other students lose out. The taxpayer pays for this and we lose teaching areas. Further, a recent edict is that tests and exams can no longer be set on Fridays, because people are preparing for Sabbath. By extension, nothing of any significance or that is critical to a module can be taught on Fridays, for the same reason. So, in effect, we have lost one day a week over the academic year (but enjoyed no such reduction in the overall amount that has to be taught). This is a secular institution, and yet it is being made to accommodate faith, giving up to it valuable space and funds that could be better spent on providing for student’s academic requirements. Examinations are coming under pressure as well. We have no dress code, and for the most part, I don’t care. But with an increasing number of half and full niqabs and burqas, I think exam regulations are being compromised, at least in spirit. I don’t really see that much of a difference between awarding full marks to a student for an answer that is probably correct, but that I can’t be certain is correct because I don’t know enough about the topic, and awarding full marks for an answer that I know is correct, but to a student who may probably be the candidate, but I can’t be certain because I can’t see enough of them to identify them (photo ID is completely pointless under these conditions too). If you think some undergraduate students are above trying to get substitutes to take their exams for them, you would be wrong. Do not misunderstand me. I am not targeting Islam or Judaism in particular, but to the expanding range of concessions secular institutions are required to make to accommodate faith based behaviours. Note the term ‘required’. The University[/i[] has no choice in these concessions, even though adherence to a faith and the behaviours it requires is entirely a matter of personal choice. The same principle applies to the NHS as Bascule notes in post 133 “Dawkins points out that it's okay if people believe crazy things, but then addresses NHS paying for homeopathic "cures" and how that isn't okay because it's taxpayer dollars funding pseudoscience which can't do any better than a placebo in clinical trials”. These are just some example of where secular institutions (and people) are making concessions to ‘faith’. Dawkins’ reference to the increasing polarisation between the religious and the secular is, as far as I understand it, due partly to an increasing number of secular people asking ‘why’? Why should we make concessions to people who choose to believe in made-up stuff? Under the increasing pressure of ‘political correctness’ more people are beginning to question faith and its basis (Dawkins et al. are just among loudest). People (like me) who once were quite content to ‘respect the beliefs of others’ are now beginning to question that position (cf post 131). For myself, every time faith requires an adjustment to the real, workaday world in order to accommodate it, I feel more sympathy for Dawkins’ stance, much of which I agreed with from the start, although I still had some reservations. However, these are eroding slowly, due not least to threads like this one. Now I think faith should be questioned. I actually think it is the duty of the holders of faith to question it, but that’s not going to happen due to the ‘active process of non-thought’ required to maintain faith. I don’t believe a person who holds a faith has the right to expect others to accept that faith, ‘on faith’ as it were, so I really don’t think those who hold a faith should be surprised or offended when others question that faith or make observations on the psychological processes required to maintain it. It seems inevitable that people who don’t hold a faith are going to ask these questions and as we’ve seen, Dawkins (among others) actively encourages people to do so more actively. In fact, I would go further. Where people hold a belief in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, I would question their right to take offence to other’s questions or observations, as long as those questions and observations are presented with courtesy and some consideration. After all, holding a faith is a personal choice. If one chooses to believe something in the absence of any evidence for it then, in the face of questions and observations that will inevitably follow, they have only three options: 1) Present some evidence to support their claims. 2) Abandon the belief. 3) Accept that those who do not share that belief are going to come up with questions and observations, and deal with it. As long as there is no personal abuse involved, I see no grounds for taking offence at all. It has been suggested (it may have been by Dawkins, but I can’t remember) that as there are no real grounds for offence at questions and observations that are expressed courteously, the claims of offence that is a common response to such questions and observations are therefore a method of trying to prevent others from asking the questions that the holders of these beliefs should be asking themselves, but won’t.

Good point, well made

I was using Wikipedia to provide a definition of snow blindness, not to support the contention that it exists as a condition. But I take your point, so here are some more reliable links. http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/byname/ultraviolet-keratitis.htm http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic759.htm http://www.basecampmd.com/expguide/snowblind.shtml