mrburns2012 Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Then why do you believe them? Why not believe that paper clips created the universe? Also, how are we to distinguish between the beliefs you rationally concluded, like belief in gravity, and the ones you irrationally concluded? I don't believe that paper clips created the universe because I believe that god created it. My "rationality" isn't justified by modern scientific standards, but it is a belief nonetheless. And the difference, in my opinion, is this: rationally concluded "beliefs" e.g. theories and hypothesis are justified by its predictive potential, whereas irrationally concluded ones are "justified" by faith until there is evidence to the contrary. Obviously, modern science does not consider faith sound evidence.
padren Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 If parents indoctrinated their children that paper clips created the universe, then you know darned well that this is what they'd believe. It would explain why it seems that if there is a Creator, he never seems to understand what it is we want to do:
DrDNA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Second, when you mention the fact that Thor does not have many worshipers, that sounds like an appeal to a logical claim that there is a logical reason why believing in Thor would be silly, but Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and many other mainstream religions is different due to the number of followers. Incorrect you are about my intention Actually, I thought he was making the argument that it wasn't likely that anyone on here would actually be a follower of Thor just due to the odds, since it isn't popular by a long shot. Not an appeal to majority to legitimize the belief, but an appeal to minority to explain the lack of honest "Yes" votes. Correct you are And better than I at stating my argument you did . Edited February 10, 2009 by DrDNA Consecutive posts merged.
padren Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Incorrect you are about my intention My Bad - thanks for the clarification.
DrDNA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) I'll tell you. It's because we indoctrinate our children and they far too often are locked into these mistaken worldviews for the rest of their lives. If parents indoctrinated their children that paper clips created the universe, then you know darned well that this is what they'd believe. To counter, my parents indoctrinated me to be many things that I am not; including an atheist. Maybe I am the exception which makes the rule? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt would explain why it seems that if there is a Creator, he never seems to understand what it is we want to do: I'm getting close to the line.... But, hypothetically speaking, the whole premise of some religions may be based on a belief that what WE want is, to a large extent at least, irrelevant; except as it fits into the larger scheme of things. On the other hand, these hypothetical people may believe that what a hypothetical Creator wants or intends to do is often completely beyond our ability to comprehend. Edited February 10, 2009 by DrDNA Consecutive posts merged.
Baby Astronaut Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Oh, rationalists also have faith, but might not know it. Don't we believe the universe is all explainable? But no amount of evidence will be able to conclusively verify this. And don't we at some level have faith (even if only a wee sliver) that all the experiments we read about in scientific journals have been verified? In the end, we take many people's words for it (some more, others less). That's how research is so efficient. If we had to prove for ourselves every bit of information we came across, it would blunt the growth of knowledge. For example, we agree that it'd be highly illogical to claim that most peer-reviewing scientists often lie about the content of a submission, especially because all the peer reviewers would have to be in on the lie. So of course it's illogical...and highly, highly improbable in an open process -- yet it's never been tested or proven scientifically. Heck, even infinity can never be proven -- we just accept that beyond the highest ever counted number there won't be anything unexpected. My point is we put various degrees of faith in probability. And believers in God do so too. Now, if someone's belief in a certain faith makes them *better* than unbelievers, what's the probability they'll be duped by a charismatic fanatic? (rhymes )
DrDNA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Sorry I pulled the trigger too soon Para. And Baby As has a valid point along similar lines. I think that it is critical to this discussion to come to an understanding of what is the benchmark for a rational vs an irrational belief. Well, what is it? Surely someone has an answer or they wouldn't be claiming that some things are completely irrational, while others are rational.
Baby Astronaut Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 I think that it is critical to this discussion to come to an understanding of what is the benchmark for a rational vs an irrational belief.Well, what is it? Provable vs unprovable, observable vs not, intellect vs faith, etc. My guess...if it doesn't fit one, it's the other.
padren Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Oh, rationalists also have faith, but might not know it. Don't we believe the universe is all explainable? But no amount of evidence will be able to conclusively verify this. And don't we at some level have faith (even if only a wee sliver) that all the experiments we read about in scientific journals have been verified? I fear this takes us close to the event horizon from which no thread returns unclosed, and it has been discussed at length in the long since discontinued Philosophy and Religion board. All I'll say is I disagree emphatically with the above as has been documented many closed threads in that board, but won't personally discuss it here as I don't want to contribute to what I see as a risk of this thread getting out of hand and thus closed. If my fear turns out to be unwarranted then I'd happily discuss it.
DrDNA Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 7 Thor believers and 3 Thor agnostics vs 7 Thor non-believers? Oh come now. Liars, liars, pants on fires. Or, by the power of Oden, could this be a Nordic god reawakening?
iNow Posted February 10, 2009 Author Posted February 10, 2009 Oh, rationalists also have faith, but might not know it. Don't we believe the universe is all explainable? But no amount of evidence will be able to conclusively verify this. And don't we at some level have faith (even if only a wee sliver) that all the experiments we read about in scientific journals have been verified? The difference is rather simple. One is faith in the knowledge that evidence exists to support the position, that it could be checked, validated, and further... discarded if wrong. Another is faith in the total absence of evidence (and worse yet, faith in the face of the impossiblility of evidence to support it). I have "faith" that the sun wil come up tomorrow morning because that's what's happened everyday, and I have a chance to test it. That's rational. To have faith that some guy was born of a virgin, then died, and came back to life...and that he is the master of entire universe like all of the other sky pixies... Sorry, that's irrational. It's important not to equivocate here on that term.
mrburns2012 Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Originally Posted by DrDNA View PostWho or what is the judge of rational vs irrational? We are After all' date=' we invented the words, didn't we? Surely someone has an answer or they wouldn't be claiming that some things are completely irrational, while others are rational. Even without going too far, even in this very thread in fact, there posts validating whether or not some conclusions are rational.
SkepticLance Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 A rational belief is one based on objective, empirically derived evidence. An irrational belief is one that derives from something that lacks credible evidence - such as an extreme statement (meaning well removed from what objective and empirically derived data shows) that comes from something someone said. If I claim that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden - that is irrational, since there is no empirical objective evidence to back up that claim. If I say that polarising one photon here, can change the polarised state of an associated photon there, that is equally weird, but still rational, since the objective and empirically derived evidence can be shown.
mrburns2012 Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) The difference is rather simple. One is faith in the knowledge that evidence exists to support the position, that it could be checked, validated, and further... discarded if wrong. Another is faith in the total absence of evidence (and worse yet, faith in the face of the impossiblility of evidence to support it). I have "faith" that the sun wil come up tomorrow morning because that's what's happened everyday, and I have a chance to test it. That's rational. To have faith that some guy was born of a virgin, then died, and came back to life...and that he is the master of entire universe like all of the other sky pixies... Sorry, that's irrational. It's important not to equivocate here on that term. To add, rational conclusions don't always lead to correct conclusions. For instance, my conclusion from the poll that there are as many people who believe in Thor as there are those who don't is perfectly valid and rational, but is highly likely to be incorrect. Other examples include beliefs that the earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, etc... The idea is that conclusions drawn from rationality, although unlikely, may not be any more true than one from irrationality. The reason some people are stirred up by your seemingly condescending post about god and unicorns is likely that you somehow suggested they are without a doubt wrong about their beliefs when we in fact don't know because we can neither prove nor disprove them. In fact, claiming that unicorns don't exist is also one of those science facing "the impossibility of evidence." Edited February 11, 2009 by mrburns2012
DrDNA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Do WE exist? And if so, what proves our existence?
iNow Posted February 11, 2009 Author Posted February 11, 2009 Do WE exist? And if so, what proves our existence? Cogito ergo sum
SkepticLance Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Cogito ergo sum!! Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Sorry iNow - we both gave the same 'proof' and posted at the same time by coincidence.
mrburns2012 Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Do WE exist? And if so, what proves our existence? Cogito ergo sum René Descartes exists. Therefore, I do too.
DrDNA Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) René Descartes exists. Therefore, I do too. Interesting train of logic. Rene Descartes is dead. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCogito ergo sum Perhaps, but Sum, ergo Deus est and Deus cogito ergo sum Are just as likely or unlikely What proof do you have that you're not just part of one of my weird dreams (not normally what I would dream about btw.....)...some remnant effect of a bad piece of meat that I had for dinner last night or a mushroom that I ate back in 1982? PS: for a group of people with an aversion towards the philosophical, your foundation is sure smelling ....uh hmmm....like philosophy. Edited February 11, 2009 by DrDNA Consecutive posts merged.
SkepticLance Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 If we are a figment of your imagination, you are one sick dude!
iNow Posted February 11, 2009 Author Posted February 11, 2009 What proof do you have that you're not just part of one of my weird dreams (not normally what I would dream about btw.....)...some remnant effect of a bad piece of meat that I had for dinner last night or a mushroom that I ate back in 1982? This has zero relevance on whether or not god Thor exists. You, like most people who try rationalizing their belief in an ethereal cosmic dictator, are merely displacing the subject of conversation to irrelevant tangents because ALL you have to show for your belief in god Thor is a personal conviction in the face of the complete absence of evidence or reason.
Moontanman Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Every time a thunderstorm blows through I hear his thunder, how could you doubt such a display
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Ah, yes, the good ol' "He exists" "no He doesn't" "yes He does!" "you're stupid!" debates. No thanks.
Recommended Posts