"My conviction that the Church is true isn't pertinent to this conversation. How I arrived at it is: I insist that I used the logical faculties available to any person who has a normal, functioning mind, and who is capable of independent thought."
We're in a different conversation now. I'm interested in the specifics of why you think that the Mormon church is true, using reason.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I had experiences; I studied the doctrine. The results I received after experimenting and study with the faith and the doctrine were the results predicted by prophets like Alma and Moroni. (An enlightened mind; an enlarged soul. A greater sense of kinship with God, and a changed heart. A desire to serve the people around me)
I'm not interested in giving specifics, Paul.
I am aware that not everyone has the same experiences as me. I think the experiment is repeatable, given a certain set of factors; but I'm not interested in judging any individual's success or failure with the experiment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you understand why, given your statements above, people persist in refusing to acknowledge the rationality of this "approach?"
You're saying "trust me; it meets this criteria" without explaining why it met the criteria, the ways in which the criteria were met, or even which specific criteria were met. Which is exactly the criticism people have of religious epistemology in general.
Your testimony in these threads, then, in which you state that you definitely had rational reasons but cannot share those rational reasons with anyone so they can evaluate your process for themselves, is emblematic of the entire problem with the religious process. It is, in other words, in a nutshell exactly why religious "knowing" is a massive failure.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Leaving aside the myriad reasons why Scott R might not wish to discuss the specifics of his personal experiences in such a warm, accepting environment, if he did so, he would be in violation of the TOS.
Classy thread. Poster says he doesn't wish to discuss his personal experiences, so you start a thread to harangue him about them!
Nice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: Or perhaps it could be indicative of Scott's desire not to give that which is of value to the dogs, or to cast pearls before swine. There's an enormous amount of difference between discussion between friends who trust one another, and a person putting their soul out there for every rake, fool, ignoramus, or average person. You wouldn't write down precious memories you have had with your wife and children, walk out to a public square, declare them loudly and then ask everyone around you what they thought about what you just did? No doubt there might be well meaning souls who appreciate the gesture, but there would also be those who take pleasure in railing on you. You don't need Scott's additional testimony of why he believes, the scriptures have been published, you've got the records of many closely documenting their conversion stories.
I doubt Scott could one up Joseph Smith's first vision, even if he was simply going for specificity. How could you even begin to test the veracity of Scott's statements when they would all deal with his perspective? Unless you've got some way to plug your brain into Scott's memories and experience them first hand you'd have a difficult time hammering out if there was anything different.
At best it seems all we can do is observe Scott's life and see if living his religion increases his happiness, intelligence, and wisdom. If it does, than perhaps it's worth looking into.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Your testimony in these threads, then, in which you state that you definitely had rational reasons but cannot share those rational reasons with anyone so they can evaluate your process for themselves, is emblematic of the entire problem with the religious process.
Well, the part in bold definitely isn't true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay. Anyone who matters to the conversation, then.
--------
quote:You wouldn't write down precious memories you have had with your wife and children, walk out to a public square, declare them loudly and then ask everyone around you what they thought about what you just did?
And yet, if someone scornful were to ask me to prove why I believed my wife loved me, or I loved her, I would have no qualms at all about sharing my most precious memories with that person. In fact, I would be more likely to do this than I would be likely to put on a black tie and go door to door to tell people about how wonderful it is that my wife and I love each other, whether or not they asked me.
Anyway, my point is this: whatever your reasons for not sharing, you have to understand that, by not sharing, you render your input useless. It's like you're just standing in the middle of the thread, mouthing words silently and miming a hurricane.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Okay. Anyone who matters to the conversation, then.
To which conversation? The one Scott didn't start?
quote:And yet, if someone scornful were to ask me to prove why I believed my wife loved me, or I loved her, I would have no qualms at all about sharing my most precious memories with that person.
I suspect you'd be somewhat less eager to do so if you had every reason to suspect that, regardless of the content of your message, the scorn, condescension, and ridicule would still be there and still be expressed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, I suspect he still would, Rakeesh. But, forgive me, Tom, I have long observed that Tom has very different notions of personal/private boundaries than many people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And yet, if someone scornful were to ask me to prove why I believed my wife loved me, or I loved her, I would have no qualms at all about sharing my most precious memories with that person.
...and I would walk away.
quote:whatever your reasons for not sharing, you have to understand that, by not sharing, you render your input useless. It's like you're just standing in the middle of the thread, mouthing words silently and miming a hurricane.
I disagree. The contention isn't about evidence-- it's about process. Normal humans interpret inputs in largely the same way. There's no significant difference between processing a religious belief versus scientific theory. The process can be aided by an understanding of logic and critical thought-- no argument there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: Why wouldn't you instead recognize that the person who is scornful likely isn't really interested in being persuaded that you love your wife, and instead leave them where they stand?
I understand your point is that a person who says they are converted, and rightly so, but they can't say what makes it "rightly" can't do anything to actively persuade anyone.
But do you act in such a manner that though you do not share somebody's belief, you treat it with the same sort of respect with which they hold it? Many times I feel like you do, but others it seems like you wobble. Would you say that no believer on these boards has ever tried to share their reasoning only to be laughed to scorn by somebody else even if it wasn't you? I confess I have tried to be talkative even with people accusing me of hiding base motivations behind a poorly constructed veil of kind words. Yet, I definitely reached a point where I felt, "The people you are discussing such important things with are not your friends, and they don't want to be either."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Anyway, my point is this: whatever your reasons for not sharing, you have to understand that, by not sharing, you render your input useless. It's like you're just standing in the middle of the thread, mouthing words silently and miming a hurricane.
You can certainly say this here where you feel you are able to dictate what is useful and what is not, IMO.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To which conversation? The one Scott didn't start?
Yes, but the one on the other thread he joined. If he wants to matter to that conversation, he has to offer things of value. It is not useful to say to people claiming that there is no rational reason for believing X that "actually, I have rational reasons for believing X, but I'm not going to give you examples."
-------
quote:Why wouldn't you instead recognize that the person who is scornful likely isn't really interested in being persuaded that you love your wife, and instead leave them where they stand?
Because there is no cost to me to assume good faith on their part. As a worst-case scenario, they might waste my time -- and if I were busy, I wouldn't be having that conversation anyway. Scorn does me no harm, and being wrong does them harm. If I can correct them at no risk to myself, more power to me.
---------
quote:You can certainly say this here where you feel you are able to dictate what is useful and what is not, IMO.
What, then, is the utility? Does anyone here think that the non-believers here aren't perfectly well-aware that most of the believers on this forum -- with some exceptions -- do believe their belief is perfectly rational and based on evidence? And that it is precisely the poor vetting of such evidence -- the complete lack of critical process applied to that evidence -- that is the non-believer's main quibble with those claims? Merely saying "no, really, I do have evidence" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the complaint.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: But you are leaving out the possibility that as they are not in the right frame of mind to be persuaded, you might cause them to believe that not only do you not love your wife, but it's just alittle bit more likely that nobody does, and nobody can.
I don't think you know what it's like to try to explain something like say God's existence, try your very best, and have the person you are talking to hate the idea of God more afterward. It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Classy thread. Poster says he doesn't wish to discuss his personal experiences, so you start a thread to harangue him about them!
Nice. "
Well, Rivka, Scott said his story was not pertinent to the originnal conversation, so I started a new one.
Maybe you should try being more careful in your reading before letting the bitch out?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Paul: While rivka was a bit 'warm' in her response to you making this thread, you don't need to say what you said that way. I think more than one person would appreciate you editing it to be a bit more mature.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Tom: But you are leaving out the possibility that as they are not in the right frame of mind to be persuaded, you might cause them to believe that not only do you not love your wife, but it's just alittle bit more likely that nobody does, and nobody can.
I don't think you know what it's like to try to explain something like say God's existence, try your very best, and have the person you are talking to hate the idea of God more afterward. It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.
Dear, maybe that's a problem with the god you worship, not a problem with you.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:What, then, is the utility? Does anyone here think that the non-believers here aren't perfectly well-aware that most of the believers on this forum -- with some exceptions -- do believe their belief is perfectly rational and based on evidence? And that it is precisely the poor vetting of such evidence -- the complete lack of critical process applied to that evidence -- that is the non-believer's main quibble with those claims? Merely saying "no, really, I do have evidence" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the complaint.
I have tried. I have on several occasions tried to get into the mechanisms of how I have arrived at my strongly held beliefs. I personally consider it very useful and quite transferrable. But just the mention of it has been met with "that is not a valid way to arrive at truth," and "you can't use that as evidence." End of discussion. I am personally not excited about trying it again. Those who control the playground here are waiting for a very narrowly defined presentation of evidence, and won't let any discussion outside of that get off the ground. Case in point, the existence of this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.
You're right; that's a potentially tragic possibility I hadn't considered. I don't really think that this is the concern at the front of the minds of the people reluctant to share here, but I could understand how it might be. The idea that casting pearls before swine might hurt the swine is one I can credit, even though I have to admit that it makes me slightly skeptical of the value of the pearls in that situation. I imagine this is a fairly common topic of conversation among missionaries...?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I have tried. I have on several occasions tried to get into the mechanisms of how I have arrived at my strongly held beliefs. I personally consider it very useful and quite transferrable. But just the mention of it has been met with "that is not a valid way to arrive at truth," and "you can't use that as evidence." End of discussion.
Have you considered the possibility that your reasoning is faulty?
(edited for brevity's sake)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Classy thread. Poster says he doesn't wish to discuss his personal experiences, so you start a thread to harangue him about them!
Nice. "
Well, Rivka, Scott said his story was not pertinent to the originnal conversation, so I started a new one.
Maybe you should try being more careful in your reading before letting the bitch out?
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? And on that topic, is your rabbinical mom the source of your deep and abiding faith?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Tom: But you are leaving out the possibility that as they are not in the right frame of mind to be persuaded, you might cause them to believe that not only do you not love your wife, but it's just alittle bit more likely that nobody does, and nobody can.
I don't think you know what it's like to try to explain something like say God's existence, try your very best, and have the person you are talking to hate the idea of God more afterward. It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.
Dear, maybe that's a problem with the god you worship, not a problem with you.
Perhaps, but it's not a phenomenon limited to just God. I'm reminded of the movie Patch Adams (spoilers incoming for those who are intend to watch it) where he convinces a woman that he falls in love with, that she needs to love and actively care for even those who are mentally ill. Later she ignores her misgivings about a certain person and the result is that she was murdered by the disturbed man. Dr. Adams feels personally responsible for getting her killed because he taught her "that medicine."
A woman I taught the gospel too was beaten so badly by her alcoholic abusive husband that he broke her arm among other things. He set afire many of her cherished possessions, including her Book of Mormon. I saw her one more time after that, and nobody heard from her again.
Another time as a missionary I was feeling very upset, and I should have checked myself before continuing, but I didn't, and while tracting door to door I encountered a minister in front of his church. He was hostile from the beginning and instead of calming the situation I took his bait and went into a two hour bible bashing session. In my memory how well I fared matters nothing compared to how I acted. That minister probably doesn't even let Mormon missionaries talk to him anymore and when he tells his congregation that Mormon missionaries are rude, argumentative, and poor representatives of the man the say they represent, who am I to say that's untrue? What does it matter that there were many other ministers that I got along famously with? There are still the people I spoke to, who now are more convinced they know what my God is all about, and they really don't.
----
Tom: It's not a topic that is given nearly enough emphasis, at least at my mission it wasn't. Missionaries are often regaled with stories of amazing prophets and missionaries who despite all the odds, managed to convert thousands to the truth by God's abundant power. They then think that when they encounter a prominent skeptic (like a minister) that by being bold they will invariably say what God expects them to say, and there will be much rejoicing. While that can and does happen, more likely they will get a rude rejoinder that knocks there feet out from under them. Then because the experience is not a pleasant one, they keep it to themselves when they hear other missionaries boasting about some person they outwitted in their proselyting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For what it's worth, none of your examples constitute a failure of evidence. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For what it's worth, none of your examples constitute a failure of evidence.
But we are talking about hostile environments. If a person has been led to believe that *I* am a dishonest person and nothing I say can be trusted, if I have something objectively true that can help them, sure I could attempt to share it with them. But it would probably be better if I don't, as by not doing it there is still a chance they will become aware of my objective truth through another means.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Speaking more specifically of Hatrack, now, I don't think there's a piece of evidence for this topic that KoM wouldn't accept from Scott that he'd accept from his own mother.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I have tried. I have on several occasions tried to get into the mechanisms of how I have arrived at my strongly held beliefs. I personally consider it very useful and quite transferrable. But just the mention of it has been met with "that is not a valid way to arrive at truth," and "you can't use that as evidence." End of discussion.
Have you considered the possibility that your reasoning is faulty?
(edited for brevity's sake)
Reasoning according to whom? Everybody has their own definition of it, and those whose definitions prevail get to tell everyone else what's up.
In any case, my attempts at discussion have never gotten to the point where I can write out my reasoning for my faith. Not on Hatrack. It's not a question of whether it's faulty, it's a question of whether it's admissible.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Robots: Invalid postulates lead to invalid conclusions.
All Unicorns are Purple I have a Unicorn Therefor, I have a Purple Unicorn.
2 invalid premises lead to a wrong conclusion.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Bonus logic lesson: the cost of entering this thread. Any mention of purple unicorns: priceless!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
....
I like unicorns...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is no way on earth I would ever discuss my personal religious convictions and experiences on Hatrack again. Pearls before swine indeed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.
Reminds of a quote circulating, attributed to Isaac Asimov, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
Interestingly, my mother went to a religious school in Hong Kong for pragmatic reasons. These were schools that were setup in an attempt to spread the Christian faiths in return for education. While the whole setup was dubious in light of cultural differences, the thing that turned her off the most was actually reading the Bible.
I guess it depends on your definition of worse Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Or perhaps it could be indicative of Scott's desire not to give that which is of value to the dogs, or to cast pearls before swine. There's an enormous amount of difference between discussion between friends who trust one another, and a person putting their soul out there for every rake, fool, ignoramus, or average person.
Yet mormons go door to door to spread their message. Are there some things they are not allowed to say? A point at which members only get access? Actually, I've observed that there sometimes comes a time in religious discussions when the LDS members seem reluctant to elaborate. It may simply be that these conversations get tiringly circular after a while. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Does anyone here think that the non-believers here aren't perfectly well-aware that most of the believers on this forum -- with some exceptions -- do believe their belief is perfectly rational and based on evidence?
Oo...ooo...that't me! The "some exceptions". At least for a scientific use of the word "evidence".
ETA: I don't think that Asimov was reading the Bible "correctly" as far as I was concerned.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Missionaries do not knock doors in order to explain how their beliefs are valid from a scientific standpoint. They would most likely consider a prolonged discussion in this vein a waste of their time. Their primary purpose is to introduce the Church and the gospel of Christ, and they move on if the person is not genuinely interested in investigating these things.
I don't think any Mormon here would be reluctant to sit down and discuss their beliefs and the reasons for their faith with anyone--as long as the environment was respectful. Hatrack has proven to be fairly hostile to starting such discussions, and is a poor environment to do it in for several reasons, one being the TOS.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure what "respectful" means in this context. Is it exclusive of "skeptical?"
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Scott- If you aren't willing to talk about this here, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say privately. I'm not actually trying to start a debate with you about whether your beliefs are rational or not, I'm trying to find out the thinking processes you used.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Yet mormons go door to door to spread their message. ... Actually, I've observed that there sometimes comes a time in religious discussions when the LDS members seem reluctant to elaborate.
However, no one currently posting on Hatrack is on a mission; and even if they were there definitely comes a point when going further would be (as pointed out above) violating the terms of service for this site. As has been said, why a person believes that the LDS Church (or almost any Church) is "true" (the meaning of which I suppose would be a whole other discussion) often does tie back into very personal, very emotional memories and experiences. I don't deny that there are some, including Tom, who wouldn't mind sharing these in a public forum even when they (he) knew those experiences would become the object of ridicule; however not everyone feels that way. And I present for logic and evidence of this position, many have said that they don't and then proceeded to not share those experiences here. I'm not sure what is being demanded, or was being demanded in this thread. It's quite possible you could find out what you wanted without forcing what is clearly a very personal story out of anyone. For instance I don't mind telling you that my experiences at no point involved any auditory, or visual experiences nor was the physical world around me changed as a result of anything but my direct actions. It's true without a story if I said yes to certain questions you might doubt my word, but this is an Internet forum where most of us don't even know each other's names anyways. You'd have to take a person's word if they told a story too...
Hobbes Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure what "respectful" means in this context. Is it exclusive of "skeptical?"
No. And certainly not one-sided either way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Christine: As advice for robots pointed out missionaries don't go door to door specifically spelling out their own personal conversion stories. The intent is to meet the members of a household, establish a friendship, introduce the basic doctrine, and ask if they'd like to investigate further. If they'd rather not the missionaries move on (or help out in some other way if possible).
Mucus: I went to a Lutheran private school, and I had quite a few hangups about their manner of worshiping God. If your mother's school did indeed do a poor job of communicating Christianity you could say it's a positive from your perspective as she didn't convert to a false belief system, but it's still a negative from the perspective of actually understanding a belief system.
I personally have always valued understanding things accurately, even things that I do not find particularly pertinent to my life.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Christine: As advice for robots pointed out missionaries don't go door to door specifically spelling out their own personal conversion stories. The intent is to meet the members of a household, establish a friendship, introduce the basic doctrine, and ask if they'd like to investigate further. If they'd rather not the missionaries move on (or help out in some other way if possible).
Thanks for clearing that up. I've never actually had anyone knock on my door from any religious order, so I really don't know what goes on when they show up.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I had the Jehovah's Witnesses come by a coupla times... once I got them to agree with the statement "Religion is just to keep otherwise unethical people in line."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I went to a Catholic private school from grades 7-12, although the school made itself progressively more secular in the time I was there. I attended many "chapels" (not mass--more like a gathering with religious and moral overtones) and tried to participate in ceremonies when I could, like Ash Wednesday. I took comparative religion classes and tried to listen. In return I learned quite a bit about my own beliefs and gained more respect for others' beliefs. But treating it as an opportunity to learn and see things from other perspectives was good for me. It could have been very different if I had been hard-nosed about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If your mother's school did indeed do a poor job of communicating Christianity ...
Luckily they did an excellent job of both communicating and understanding Christianity, so the "if" does not apply. (Indeed, their excellence in all areas of education was among the pragmatic reasons for choosing the school)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Really, Pixiest? "Just"? Do you think they really believed or agreed with that statement or is there the possibility that they gave up on you and you stopped having a real conversation? I suspect the latter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "My conviction that the Church is true isn't pertinent to this conversation. How I arrived at it is: I insist that I used the logical faculties available to any person who has a normal, functioning mind, and who is capable of independent thought."
We're in a different conversation now. I'm interested in the specifics of why you think that the Mormon church is true, using reason.
Advice to peeps:
1. Don't tell people that you came to your religion through rational processes because this sets you up for failure when you are invariably unable or unwilling to demonstrate this through a logical framework when confronted by someone with a sufficient understanding of what 'rational processes' entails
2. If you goad yourself into this trap and it doesn't work out for you, don't explain your later unwillingness to explain yourself using any metaphor that implies that the people who take the time to explain the non-rationality of non-rational arguments to you are swine and/or simply ignorant to your blessing/offering/truth/thetan-cleanse/magick
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
#1: I showed the framework-- experience, study, prior research, and critical thought. I did not show evidence. No one has complained, as far as I know, that the framework I specified is faulty as relates to rational processes. They DID complain that I'm reluctant to show evidence.
Tom noted that he thinks that people who believe the way I do may not have the same definition of rational or reasonable that he does.
#2: I certainly didn't do this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Better advice:
Don't let people make you discuss faith in terms of science. Don't let them define your terms and push you into trying to define God as smaller than God is.
Faith isn't science and doesn't need to be.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This isn't about science, per se-- it's about rationality, kmboots.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No one has complained, as far as I know, that the framework I specified is faulty as relates to rational processes.
Although it's also not possible for us to evaluate how well you adhered to that framework, or how critically you applied those processes, without knowing the specifics. It's like you've said, "No, really, I measured the wood! It's ten feet long exactly! I measured it with a thing! You know, the thing you measure things with! And I measured it the way you measure things, by measuring!"
Without specifics, we have no way of knowing what those words mean to you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you have any reason to believe that he is using a different meaning from yours except a desire that he is?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The answer to the initial question in this thread should be obvious. A very, very wide variety of stories, belief systems and other paraphenalia can be used to achieve:
"An enlightened mind; an enlarged soul. A greater sense of kinship with [a] God [or Godlike being or sensation; or oneness with the Earth, nature, mankind etc.], and a changed heart. A desire to serve the people around us."
When we read or hear stories that we imbue with emotional importance (and they can be almost any kind of story, although myths are by far the most powerful, because of the universality), we frequently take away greater understanding of the world. Charismatic characters (either within stories or in real life) can speak pearls of wisdom that may strike a chord with our experience, or appeal to us. The incredibly common power of coincidence can have that understanding applied or repeated in the same week. Suddenly, the world opens up to us a little-- who has not experienced that, atheist or theologian?
A natural side effect of opening even the smallest of doors is a greater sense of connection. For atheists, this might be with the world. For a religious person, this exact same sensation links them with God as well as with the world/fellow men.
Being more emotionally committed to humanity has another side effect: wanting to do things for people.
I was at a book fair once with a stack of books. A stranger gave me a book that he told me had changed his life. It was not a religious book, merely something that had struck him in a very personal way.
Had that book been more universal, had it changed my life the same way it evidently changed his, I would have experienced this kind of revelation. Imagine if it had been a religious text! Stranger approaches me (in a church, no less ) and gives me a book that changes my life! A religious experience if there ever was one!
Religion is extremely powerful. Stories, charisma and everyday coincidence mix together in a deadly combination. We're human, we make connections. I think to the minds of many people, these connections are more rational than the chaos they truly are. They feel so good! They open doors! They make us feel connected to something bigger than ourselves-- the very thing most of us long for!
For the way most of our minds are wired, it's more of a challenge to say: it's a coincidence, he's just a guy, it's just a story. What I take from it, however good or useful or inspiring, isn't magic. Heck, I'm still waiting for that book to change my life. Perhaps it will, but it won't be magic. It'll just be a story that works for me, that I got in an interesting way.
Which, I'm afraid, is what it is for everyone.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Really, Pixiest? "Just"? Do you think they really believed or agreed with that statement or is there the possibility that they gave up on you and you stopped having a real conversation? I suspect the latter.
Nah, the guy wasn't really listening to what I was saying, he was trying to get his talking points in.
And I don't think the guy was very bright. I mean, I hate to judge people by their oral hygiene but I was surprised he could enunciate as well as he could with so few teeth.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:[I]t won't be magic. It'll just be a story that works for me, that I got in an interesting way.
Which, I'm afraid, is what it is for everyone.
QFT.
Except, ya know, without the afraid. I kind of like that it's like that. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Better advice:
Don't let people make you discuss faith in terms of science. Don't let them define your terms and push you into trying to define God as smaller than God is.
Faith isn't science and doesn't need to be.
the overlap notwithstanding, if a person elects to put god to a scientific test because they really think they can pull it off, they should not be surprised if the results come up short for god, and they should not be surprised when people tell them they don't have a rational explanation for believing in god. It's god we're talking about here. religion.
there is a reason why religions have responded to a modern era of skeptical empiricism by shying away from claims that are meaningfully testable. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you have any reason to believe that he is using a different meaning from yours except a desire that he is?
Absolutely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Better advice:
Don't let people make you discuss faith in terms of science. Don't let them define your terms and push you into trying to define God as smaller than God is.
Faith isn't science and doesn't need to be.
the overlap notwithstanding, if a person elects to put god to a scientific test because they really think they can pull it off, they should not be surprised if the results come up short for god, and they should not be surprised when people tell them they don't have a rational explanation for believing in god. It's god we're talking about here. religion.
there is a reason why religions have responded to a modern era of skeptical empiricism by shying away from claims that are meaningfully testable.
Sure. Because (in the big picture) we have gotten better at both science and religion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"#1: I showed the framework-- experience, study, prior research, and critical thought. I did not show evidence. No one has complained, as far as I know, that the framework I specified is faulty as relates to rational processes. They DID complain that I'm reluctant to show evidence."
You didn't show the framework. You made a claim. Showing involves demonstrating. In order for you have to shown the framework you used, you would have had to explain the way youapplied the processes you claim are part of your framework.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I once took part in an argument about prayer. One guy in particular was committed to the assertion "prayer is always irrational." He said that because (in his opinion) some of the premises you have to accept in order to pray in faith were irrational, the act of prayer itself was irrational. Always. No exceptions.
Others in that argument, including me, argued that prayer can be a rational act. My own take on it was rather simple: 1) Person A does X 2) Person A then feels good 3) Person A does X again 4) Person A then feels good again 5) Person A stops doing X 6) Person A doesn't have the good feeling anymore 7) Person A resumes X 8) Good feeling returns
Assumptions: Person A likes the good feeling that comes after doing X. There's no cost of X that for Person A outweighs the good feeling.
In this case, I argued, it was rational to go ahead and do X. It had a desirable result! It wasn't too expensive! If there was no good feeling, though, and absent some other benefit of doing X, it would be irrational. (Not necessarily bad, just irrational.)
Of course, Person A might not be able to come up with a true explanation for why X leads to a good feeling.
This thread I think helps me understand why "prayer is always illogical" guy was so frustrated. What he meant to say is that the rationale for prayer is not true, and that as long as Person A holds an untrue rationale in mind, there's a justification for calling his behavior irrational.
I believe that someone can believe in a religion for rational reasons, in the same way that I think doing activity X can be rational for Person A: because they like it, because it works for them, because they think it's true and haven't been convinced otherwise.
Of course, what Person A doesn't know is if he's found the only or best activity that leads to the outcome he wants. He hasn't tried everything, and importantly he can't prove why X leads to A without what swbarnes would call rigorous reality testing. He might have what he feels is a pretty darn good explanation in mind, but if there's nothing outside of Person A's mind that can demonstrate it to others, it's suspect from a scientific point of view.
I think the claim that Scott was making is that he didn't set aside rationality when he tested his beliefs about his religion. What other people are trying to point out is that to decide the rationale for the belief is true, you need to examine the assumptions and evidence, and devise (and perform) tests that might prove it false.
I respect Scott's right to say "good enough for me, and I'm reasonably sure that I didn't make any mistakes." Obviously it's not good enough to convince everybody else, and Scott knows it.
Going back to what Scott said:
quote:Generally, though, I think that people come to religious faith the same way they come to scientific knowledge: they have experiences or come across accounts of other people's experiences and something ignites within them. Depending on their personality and environment, they may choose to learn more. What they learn affects their knowledge and attitude toward the system they're studying.
I'm not sure why the process is so sacrosanct to science; it's reasoning and logic, and it's available to all human endeavors. What I suspect makes people object to this line of thinking isn't the process, but the evidence.
If Scott meant to equate his process of believing in his religion and the process of deriving scientific knowledge - he made a mistake. I think several of us thought he was drawing this equivalency. It doesn't work; there are no accepted scientific theories where a scientist presents his conclusion and says "I came to this conclusion by the application of reason and weighing of evidence" and everybody else says "oh, OK." The scientific method MUST include making the evidence and reasoning explicit, and "rigorous reality testing."
But, after review, perhaps Scott meant something else. Perhaps he meant to equate how he came to believe in his religion with how he came to believe in gravity. He didn't necessarily need to use the scientific method to achieve belief in gravity. Most of us don't, we just accept things that make sense to us and that seem reasonable based on what we've observed. We might drop a ball to see whether it falls; we might pray with sincere intent and see what happens next.
But when this is a response to a criticism of the epistemology of religion, it's not of very much use. Just because most people don't actually use the scientific method when deciding what to believe doesn't answer for the differences between the scientific method and religious methods of knowing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Do you have any reason to believe that he is using a different meaning from yours except a desire that he is?
Absolutely.
I mean one that doesn't start with the premise that he's wrong. If you start with the premise that he's wrong, then you can justify anything to yourself, including the laughable assumption that he speaks a different language.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I mean one that doesn't start with the premise that he's wrong.
I know. I absolutely have reason to believe he's using a different meaning.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Because (in the big picture) we have gotten better at both science and religion.
I can see how one would determine that we are better at science...there are more accurate predictions that we can make, more things that we can claim to do which reliably work. I think that's a fair measure.
By what measure can you determine that we are "better" at religion? I think lots of people would argue that we as a country would be "better" at religion if we lived under a fundamentalist theocracy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I mean one that doesn't start with the premise that he's wrong.
I know. I absolutely have reason to believe he's using a different meaning.
Then your meaning is wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't know if you can ever argue that someone's definition of a given word -- or, more narrowly, what they mean by the specific use of a given word in a given situation -- is wrong, depending on your definition of "wrong." But I will certainly agree that what Scott means by "process" and what I mean by "process" differ hugely. Since that's been my claim from the beginning, I'm actually grateful for the assist. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your distinctions are all false because you start with the assumption that ANY process that led ScottR to his conclusion must be illegitimate. That's where you are wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
By what measure can you determine that we are "better" at religion? I think lots of people would argue that we as a country would be "better" at religion if we lived under a fundamentalist theocracy.
Well, for the most part, we don't expect it to be science.
This is, of course, a very big generalization. There are ebbs and flows in our getting better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your distinctions are all false because you start with the assumption that ANY process that led ScottR to his conclusion must be illegitimate.
I know what's what you think, I'm afraid. As I've said, though, that's not the case.
Unlike ScottR, I am perfectly willing to discuss with you the details of why I think what I think, and the process I used to decide. But I have to admit that I was interested to see whether you'd take my word for it or not. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I didn't realize that you held dear such sacred and personal experiences with Scott. I don't think he knows about them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
By what measure can you determine that we are "better" at religion? I think lots of people would argue that we as a country would be "better" at religion if we lived under a fundamentalist theocracy.
Well, for the most part, we don't expect it to be science.
This is, of course, a very big generalization. There are ebbs and flows in our getting better.
I think you're missing the point there. If you say 'we' (meaning theists, presumably) have gotten better at religion (and actually I agree that 'we' meaning humans have done so; the percentage of atheists is likely at its all-time high) then you must have some standard of what is good, and some measurement against that standard. It needn't be scientific, but if you don't feel you have such a measurement then your statement is just noise. So, what is your standard?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Isn't it clear that kmbboots thinks that pointed contradictions between science and religion are bad? If a religion is projecting itself into the same spheres of knowledge in which science asserts dominion, THUR DOIN IT RONG.
(I present cheeks for smack in case I got kmbboots wrong here. Whichever you prefer.)
e.g. young earth creationism: not good at religion. Belief in a meaning for life that transcends mortal existence: better!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I spent a decade of my life in frequent argument with a good friend of mine, who insisted that he had rational reasons for an absolute, unshakable belief in God. For 9 years he danced and dodged around the actual reasons why. Whenever I started to press the issue of what his actual logical reasoning was, he'd revert back to an argument based on emotion or metaphor, or complain that I was forcing him to "play the game by my rules."
Finally I said "I have no problem with you believing in God. I don't even have a problem with you telling other people they should believe in God. What I take issue with is when you make the claim that you have rational, logical reasons for doing so, without explaining what those reasons are."
Finally, he spelled out his reasoning. And as it turned out, his rational reasoning was in fact, completely flimsy, and he withdrew his statement from "this is why you should believe" to "this is why I believe, it's good enough for me."
So it is with Scott. He's entitled to his views. He's entitled to have reasons for those views that might not fit the scientific method. And he's entitled to try and get other people to share his experience, because he feels it has made his life better.
But when he makes the claim that his beliefs have survived rational scrutiny, he must either explain what that process was, or accept that he will not be taken seriously.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Isn't it clear that kmbboots thinks that pointed contradictions between science and religion are bad? If a religion is projecting itself into the same spheres of knowledge in which science asserts dominion, THUR DOIN IT RONG.
Says you. Lots of other religious people explicitly believe the opposite...if science makes a claim that religion disagrees with, science must be in the wrong.
Why is it that you know more about true religion then they do? Why is your opinion better than theirs?
If kmmboots had said only that she thought it as to religion's benefit that it had retreated from making claims about the physical universe, that woud have been one thing. But to state it as if it's a given is something else. Its not a given to a lot of people, and it's not obvious why their opinion about what religion is and should be is inferior to anyone else's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, anyone can say "I believe, it's good enough for me." But when you make the claim that you have rational, logical reasons why you believe, you're willingly stepping into a ring where you are making falsifiable, testable claims. And there's no shortage of people who try, but in the end they just prove they really don't have as good an understanding of logic as they thought they did.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Isn't it clear that kmbboots thinks that pointed contradictions between science and religion are bad? If a religion is projecting itself into the same spheres of knowledge in which science asserts dominion, THUR DOIN IT RONG.
Says you. Lots of other religious people explicitly believe the opposite...if science makes a claim that religion disagrees with, science must be in the wrong.
Why is it that you know more about true religion then they do? Why is your opinion better than theirs?
Says me? I was trying to restate what I think kmbboots meant. And I made it explicit in the part of my post that you didn't quote that some religions don't live up to the standard of "don't attempt to contradict and overrule science."
But yes, I do think to some extent that religions that take care not to set themselves in opposition to science are better than ones that do. They are less certain to be wrong, after all. I myself am not religious, if that helps you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying MY religion wins because it harmonizes with science. I'm saying from an agnostic point of view that anti-scientific religions seem wronger.
As to what makes my opinion better than theirs, I have no idea what you are getting at. Isn't your opinion better than other opinions? If not, why don't you hold those other opinions? Of course my opinion seems better to me than opinions that I don't hold.
(In general, not that you've earned this from just this one post, but I'm talking about a general pattern here: you are too hostile. You should try to talk to people like you don't think they are stupid.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I remember a time when swbarnes was not always this hostile. He's kind of JohnBindered over the years.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I once took part in an argument about prayer. One guy in particular was committed to the assertion "prayer is always irrational." He said that because (in his opinion) some of the premises you have to accept in order to pray in faith were irrational, the act of prayer itself was irrational. Always. No exceptions.
I read an article by Ramachandran recently where he said that when he found out that prayer works(in the sense that it makes you feel better) even when you KNOW that it's a placebo, that he started praying again.
I'm not about to start praying, but i thought that was interesting.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If a child grows up believing in the power of prayer and receives evidence that points to the efficacy of prayer in her life, and gets consistent positive results when she prays, it is NOT irrational for her to continue to pray.
It would be irrational for her to stop praying.
If a normal, healthy, emotionally and mentally stable boy grows up hearing what he believes is the voice of God, which comforts him when he suffers tragedy, which helps guide him into making wise decisions and chastises him when makes foolish ones, and continues to receive consistent and clear good advice from this voice, it would be irrational for him to reject the voice.
Now, they may be wrong about why they feel good; it may be coincidence that good things happen to the girl when she prays, and the boy may be delusional.
But irrational they ain't.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If a child grows up believing in the power of prayer and receives evidence that points to the efficacy of prayer in her life, and gets consistent positive results when she prays, it is NOT irrational for her to continue to pray.
It would be irrational for her to stop praying.
It would be just as irrational for you to not by my 100% effective wild-elephant repellant. It works, I've got years and years of proof, not one elephant has ever tried to run me over.
Animal behavioralists would put pigeons or the like in cages, with a button they'd push to get food. But the button would only work randomly. So what would happen is the animals would associate whatever it had just done before the button worked with getting food, so the aniamls would spin around or bob their heads, or whatever before pushing the button.
This behavior, of course didn't actually make the food come any faster. Do you really wish to argue that it was rational anyway?
Im sorry, but if this is what you call "rational", I'm afraid that knowledgeable people call it "logical fallacy". This is why no one takes you at your word when you say that you have reason and logic behind you, because you just demonstrated that you don't recognize logical fallacies when they bite you on the face.
quote:If a normal, healthy, emotionally and mentally stable boy grows up hearing what he believes is the voice of God, which comforts him when he suffers tragedy, which helps guide him into making wise decisions and chastises him when makes foolish ones, and continues to receive consistent and clear good advice from this voice, it would be irrational for him to reject the voice.
Why don't these emotionally healthy people ever hear the voice of God telling them how to synthesize the next blockbuster malaria drug drug? Why do they only hear things that they already knew?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Is it really still Irrational, though? What about pseudo-rational? Or semi-rational? Or RationalLite?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Scott's claim was that his belief that the Mormon church is true is based on reason. If his reasoned approach to how it is true is reflected in the above statements, than his claim is false.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: If a religion is projecting itself into the same spheres of knowledge in which science asserts dominion, THUR DOIN IT RONG.
Says you. Lots of other religious people explicitly believe the opposite...if science makes a claim that religion disagrees with, science must be in the wrong. Why is it that you know more about true religion then they do? Why is your opinion better than theirs?
And I made it explicit in the part of my post that you didn't quote that some religions don't live up to the standard of "don't attempt to contradict and overrule science."
Lots of religious people don't think that they have to "live up" to that standard at all. They think it's a condition to be despised. That's my whole point. Don't you think it's stupid to tell religious people that they are doing religion wrong by failing to meet your standard of what religion is, when they don't share that standard?
quote:But yes, I do think to some extent that religions that take care not to set themselves in opposition to science are better than ones that do. They are less certain to be wrong, after all.
Less certain to be wrong? How can people who believe unerring scriptures be more likely to be wrong? Ah yes, but anyone who believes in their scriptures differently from the way you think they should is doing things wrong, right?
quote:I myself am not religious, if that helps you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying MY religion wins because it harmonizes with science. I'm saying from an agnostic point of view that anti-scientific religions seem wronger.
Perhaps as an agnostic, you are a poor judge of what proper religious belief is, and should be. I consider myself a bad judge too, which is why I refrain from saying that religious people are doing their religions wrong. I think its more sensible to say that religious belief is whatever self-described religious people are doing (and that includes contradicting the heck out of what they say they should be doing), then I don't have to worry about whether people who keep faithfully to their 2000 year old sacred innerrant texts are doing things more rightly than people who interpret those texts to suit 21st century morality, for example.
quote: Isn't your opinion better than other opinions?
Only when my opinions consist of claims that are backed up by reason and evidence. If you are looking for me to say "My opinion on which Star Trek movie was the best is better than your opinion", well, I don't think that. Because I lack an objective way to determine which framework for judging such a thing is better than any other, I can't conclude that your framework for judging is worse than mine, so I am in no place to judge if you are judging movies rightly or wrongly.
quote:You should try to talk to people like you don't think they are stupid.
Prove me wrong, and I will be suitable chastened. You want to convince me that you understand what correct religious belief is better than millions and millions of believers, go right on and try. But I'm not going to take your bare assertion, or anyone else's, even though you think your opinion is the best in the world.
If you can't, then I'll stick to my stance that it was a stupid claim for you to have made.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
LOL, swbarnes.
quote:Don't you think it's stupid to tell religious people that they are doing religion wrong by failing to meet your standard of what religion is, when they don't share that standard?
Again, "doing it wrong" was my attempted restatement of kmbboots's meaning, as a religious believer, that shying away from empirically testable claims was a way of getting better at religion.
I don't claim to be able to speak for any religion about the right way to practice their religion, silly person. That you think I was doing this supports my belief that you think you're talking to stupid people.
quote:Perhaps as an agnostic, you are a poor judge of what proper religious belief is, and should be. I consider myself a bad judge too, which is why I refrain from saying that religious people are doing their religions wrong.
I'm in a position to have an opinion about which religions are most likely to be wrong about their claims. You haven't been shy about your opinion that most/all religious beliefs are mistaken, so you're doing it too. Again, this is different from attempting to specify the correct expression of a particular religion, which I generally don't do either (perhaps aside from noting gross hypocrisies from time to time...not often).
quote:Prove me wrong, and I will be suitable chastened.
You've said this before, as if being right is full justification for being rude. Whatever. I don't want you to be chastened. I'd love it if you tried to give people slightly more benefit of the doubt going forward, whatever state of mind might lead to that is fine with me.
Edit: if you'd like, I'll grant that "THUR DOIN IT RONG" was an imprecise way to state what I thought kmbboots meant. It was actually meant to be kind of funny, which I suppose might explain why you misinterpreted it, since you're consistently humorless. At any rate, I'm not interested in further defending my word choice, now that I've explained it. I'll stand by my opinion that religions that make provably false claims are more likely to be wrong (i.e. making false claims).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought it was funny, scifibum. And a not-wrong approxmation of what I meant as far as it went.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If a child grows up believing in the power of prayer and receives evidence that points to the efficacy of prayer in her life, and gets consistent positive results when she prays, it is NOT irrational for her to continue to pray.
It would be irrational for her to stop praying.
If a normal, healthy, emotionally and mentally stable boy grows up hearing what he believes is the voice of God, which comforts him when he suffers tragedy, which helps guide him into making wise decisions and chastises him when makes foolish ones, and continues to receive consistent and clear good advice from this voice, it would be irrational for him to reject the voice.
Specious reasoning is irrational.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How is this behavior irrational?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Imagine a Scientologist saying thus:
"I grow up believing in the power of thetan cleanses and I receive evidence that points to the efficacy of thetan cleansings in my life. I get positive results and am praised when I get thetan cleansings.
"It is not irrational for me to continue to sign up for thetan cleansings."
replace the specifics with anything. Yog-Sothoth chanting sessions. Master Cleanses. The ritual consumption of peyote for spirit journeys. Specious reasoning. I fully believe that this rock I am carrying wards off tigers. I have evidence of it. In all the years I have carried this rock, I have never once been attacked by tigers. I fully believe that this rabbit's foot I am carrying gives me good luck. I have evidence of it. Since I have carried it I have noticed some lucky things happening to me! Why is none of this logical. Why, if I try to explain the "evidence that points to the efficacy of prayer/auditing/blood sacrifice" do people never feel like I have come to this belief rationally when I try to explain the details of this rational process, and why do they REFUSE to accept my proposition that it is rational when I opt not to provide my supposed evidence?
Think about this.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I thought it was funny, scifibum. And a not-wrong approxmation of what I meant as far as it went.
I'm glad. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually do think there's a significant difference between "This rock wards away tigers, and I've never run into a tiger" and "When I pray, I feel good." Praying (or otherwise participating in a religious lifestyle) DOES improve some people's lives, whether that's the placebo effect or not. It produces a measurable outcome that disappears when you stop doing it. Whereas the Anti-Tiger rock doesn't produce anything. The only question is whether any one of a million different other things could also have improved their lives.
I don't think it's wrong for people to stick with what's been working for them, or for encouraging others to try it out. There's so many different ways to think positively and improve your life that it's silly to try and test them all out scientifically.
However, when you're making claims about truth (as oppose to "this makes me happy, it might make you happy too").
I'm actually not sure what Scott's original statement was. I'm also not quite positive on the definition of rational. I think it could be considered rational NOT to bother testing out every other possible way of thinking when all you want is to improve you own quality of life. However, whatever the precise definition of rational is, it is DEFINITELY not scientific. (Not sure if Scott made that particular claim though)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Whereas the Anti-Tiger rock doesn't produce anything.
Not necessarily true. A tiger-repelling rock/lucky charm/etc can produce comfort, reduce stress, even reduce blood pressure! They can accomplish lots of things, just like a sugar pill can create good effects.
Believing in the tiger-repellant qualities of the rock, or the luck-producing capacity of the rabbit's foot, etc, is where the irrationality comes into it. If you think you have a logical proof that they are effective at what you claim they can do, you are being irrational. If you carry them under these pretenses, you are being irrational.
I have plenty of superstitions. plenty. I am also religious! Arguably 'being religious' can be fit in under the former as following an established religion is technically adhering to a very large, organized superstition. I am not under any circumstances going to claim that my assorted superstitions — any of them — were come to as the product of 'logical faculties.'
Most importantly, I am not going to make the mistake of pretending that I can assert that these beliefs are logical. And if I presented anything even remotely approximating the contents of post #2 of this thread, I would not confuse it as a defense of any such statement. In plenty of ways pertaining to religion, we are not rational creatures. I could be an adherent to any religion, from christianity to zoroastrianism to scientology to wicca to the New Zealand Jedi Order and I would be able to replicate very cynical-sounding effects emulating 'success' from these tests. Scientologists fresh from their auditing sessions, for instance, are usually always going to be convinced that their auditing sessions have made them healthier, because it's been reinforced by their religion that that's what they're supposed to be as a result of these sessions. They will be convinced that its because they've been purged of the influence of thetans.
It ain't because there's such a thing as a thetan.
It's because of what the process has been seeded and mentally reinforced to them as. What they have been conditioned to think it is supposed to do.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote: A tiger-repelling rock/lucky charm/etc can produce comfort, reduce stress, even reduce blood pressure! They can accomplish lots of things, just like a sugar pill can create good effects.
In that case, it's not just a tiger-repellant, it's a Comfort-Inducing-Rock. And it does it's job just fine. The only thing to consider the opportunity costs (in the case of the rock it's carrying a rock around. In the case of scientology you pay money and lose a few hours of your life).
I don't think it's fair to say the placebo effect is meaningless. The placebo effect is measurable. (We had a thread about it, or more accurately it's evil twin, the nocebo effect, not too long ago). People who believe they are going to get better can physically improve from illnesses (and be just plain happier) in ways that have no obvious explanation other than "it just works," and I see no reason to deny them that unless you are prepared to replace their Placebo-that-has-a-cost-you-consider-unacceptable with something else with a lesser cost.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In that case, it's not just a tiger-repellant, it's a Comfort-Inducing-Rock.
Perhaps this is a consequence only of accidentally poor wording. Something that does not actually do what it purports to do now is not only what it purports to do but is also a provider of comfort?
No, that's absurd, the same way a sugar pill doesn't magically get upgraded to a real drug simply because it provides the placebo effect in trials.
quote:I don't think it's fair to say the placebo effect is meaningless.
Then, by all means, show me where I've said this.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Not necessarily true. A tiger-repelling rock/lucky charm/etc can produce comfort, reduce stress, even reduce blood pressure! They can accomplish lots of things, just like a sugar pill can create good effects.
This seemed like a pretty blatant comparison between the various bad-logic examples you were giving and the placebo effect. If you are taking a pill and the pill is making you better, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether that pill is made of sugar or not - it is perfectly reasonable (I am not quite certain enough of the definition of "rational" to use it here but I think it works fine) of you to keep taking it.
If you genuinely plagued by a fear of tigers that is deabilitating and someone gives you a rock that makes you feel better, I think that's also rational. It's NOT rational to start carrying around a tiger-repellant rock simply because someone told you to despite no evidence of tigers ever, and no correlation between the number of tigers you run into when carrying the rock and not carrying, nor a correlation between your overall happiness that didn't develop specifically because you carried the rock around for a long time until it felt weird to stop.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If you genuinely plagued by a fear of tigers that is deabilitating and someone gives you a rock that makes you feel better, I think that's also rational.
... I'm astounded I would see the day where this sort of statement was sincerely given.
Do you honestly feel that if you are cripplingly afraid of tigers, but you honestly believe that a rock wards away these tigers and this makes you feel better about tigers, that this is rational to use the rock in this way?
really?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If there is evidence that satisfies your reasoning, yes. If tiger attacks are frequent in your geographical area, and if you have seen tigers avoid you when you wear the rock, etc.
It's interesting that I chose a moderate example, and one that is a commonly held belief among a majority of religious people in America, and Samprimary chose an extreme belief that is held by a minority of people.
Do you feel that the examples are similar?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If there is evidence that satisfies your reasoning, yes. If tiger attacks are frequent in your geographical area, and if you have seen tigers avoid you when you wear the rock, etc.
And here we come to the word 'evidence.' This is (at least the biggest point) where you've tripped up and imagined a logical argument where none exists. "Evidence that satisfies my reasoning" is insufficient if I am being irrational about what I am going to mentally assume to be evidence. Specious reasoning is irrational. And if I am wearing the rock and saying "It keeps tigers away from me, I know this for a fact and I came to this conclusion using logical faculties" then why on earth would anyone be crazy enough to believe me if I said "Well, I don't feel like going into why."
I am .. amazed, really! We've reached the point where I can actually say that I have discussed the tiger-repelling rock with people, wherein people attempt to defend the act of carrying a rock as protection against tigers as rational as long as it makes you feel safer..
it profoundly reinforces the statement that 'if you think you have logical proof for god, you probably don't have as good an understanding about logic as you think you do.'
quote:It's interesting that I chose a moderate example, and one that is a commonly held belief among a majority of religious people in America, and Samprimary chose an extreme belief that is held by a minority of people.
ad populum, as well as any suggestions of the viability of communal reinforcement of other fallacies, are as much a fallacy as specious reasoning is, Scott. Carrying a rabbit's foot because I think it will give me a better shot at Keno games is equally as irrational regardless as to whether tens of millions of other people do it too as it would be if I were the only one on earth to do it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Despite evidence to the contrary?
You're allowing your assumptions to undermine your reason.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Despite evidence to the contrary?
You're allowing your assumptions to undermine your reason.
You keep saying evidence.
What evidence to the contrary are you talking about.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If a man carries a rabbit's foot with him to play Keno, and notes a marked increase in how often he wins vs. the amount of times he wins when he doesn't carry the rabbits foot, and the results are consistent, then he is justified in calling the rabbit's foot lucky, or at least he's justified in thinking that carrying it seems to produce more wins.
He may be wrong, and this all may be coincidence; but his conclusion is rational.
So now let's ask-- can a rational conclusion be reached and still be wrong?
I hope you'll answer this question, Samprimary. You've ignored the other ones I've posed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I hope you'll answer this question, Samprimary. You've ignored the other ones I've posed.
Before we continue with this, I'm going to point at this response from you, one I assume to be borne of frustration, and I am going to guide you patiently up to the post you made that said "How is this behavior irrational?"
Now, this seems to be a question from you. The post immediately following it, in response, is a response to your question and most certainly not "ignoring" your question.
See that?
Now, tell me whether or not you accept that this is me not ignoring your questions, or if you are going to stand by that last line of yours being a fair appraisal of me.
I'd just like to get that out of the way before I decide in what capacity I should continue to you.
I would dislike discovering that I would only be able to continue relating to you in a way specifically designed to accommodate that you are a person that not only cannot accurately assess whether or not I am ignoring all your questions, but perhaps is at risk of being the kind of person who assumes that answering questions with other questions or challenges to the logic inherent in those questions constitutes "ignoring" these questions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Scott R: of course, most people who note marked increases in luck when carrying rabbit's feet are deceiving themselves through sampling bias, and more exacting testing consistently reveals that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You're right, Samprimary. You did answer that question.
Would you like to answer the others? I'm especially interested in your reasoning for using an extreme example, as opposed to a moderate one.
This conversation may not be useful for you. Your tone indicates an aggressiveness that isn't usually compatible with civil discourse.
***
fugu: I did say "the results are consistent," implying that further experiences supported the initial observation.
However, let me answer your concern: yes. If on further observation, the man LOST more than he won while still carrying the rabbit's foot, and there was nothing else changed, then of course it would be unreasonable for him to claim that the rabbit's foot was still lucky.
Maybe he should switch to socks...or stop playing Keno altogether.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Maybe he should switch to socks...or stop playing Keno altogether.
Is this advocating conversion or atheism when exacting testing doesn't consistently provide evidence of the existence of God?
[ May 23, 2009, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No one has really brought this up, but there is a very large leap from "praying makes me feel happy," to "god exists." Making that leap is not rational, either, without some significant intermediate steps.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is this advocating conversion or atheism when exacting testing doesn't consistently provide evidence of the existence of God?
It's definitely advocating not spending money on Keno.
Like I said at the outset-- it's not up to me to judge the quality of others' experiences with God.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I am .. amazed, really! We've reached the point where I can actually say that I have discussed the tiger-repelling rock with people, wherein people attempt to defend the act of carrying a rock as protection against tigers as rational as long as it makes you feel safer..
Within the context of that person's understanding, I think the tiger-repelling rock is perfectly rational. That doesn't make their understanding correct or the rock effective.
Personally, I find religion in general to be a bit irrational- or at least non-rational. I do not however find people believing in a religion similar to that in which they were raised to be irrational. Or perhaps that would be better stated as I think that is an understandable reaction that many, if not most, intellegent and reasonable people would also have. I don't even think it is necessarily rational to try and bring scientific rigor of the type required to publish papers to every single assumption one holds about the world. I believe that my family loves me. I can point to the reasons why I think this and I feel that my reasons are sufficient. I think little would be gained by truly seeking out the reasons why my assumption is not true and then trying to test that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: This conversation may not be useful for you. Your tone indicates an aggressiveness that isn't usually compatible with civil discourse.
If you choose to interpret my straightforwardness as personal aggression against you (as opposed to pointed criticism against views I consider quite mistaken) you are at liberty to feel assailed; it doesn't change my intent. I do not know you. My posts to you here are a response to the sum of the blocks of text compromising your arguments.
The text I am reading here demonstrates some fundamental misconceptions and falsehoods about the nature of logic. I am being very direct in stating why. I am not coaching my disagreements in friendly language. This does not make me incivil. If anything, it represents the fact that I respect you as adults who are not going to bruise when subjected to pointed criticism. If you wish to assume otherwise, that's really too bad in my opinion but you are free to make that choice.
Now.
quote:Would you like to answer the others? I'm especially interested in your reasoning for using an extreme example, as opposed to a moderate one.
The most direct question you posited, the easiest to address (conveniently) is when you ask in response whether a rational conclusion can be reached and still be wrong.
The answer, as you can anticipate, is yes. As should be noted, I have not asserted otherwise, so at best this is a misdirect. It misses the point that we are talking about: a demonstration of a fallacy. A demonstration of what specious reasoning is. When a person comes to a conclusion through the use of a fallacy, it does not matter if the person recognizes that their logic is fallacious. They may be completely unaware of it. Relative to themselves, their ideas may be internally valid but if they are based on fallacious premises, there is no logical soundness.
By the by, these words — reason, logic, validity, soundness — they are important, especially in how they differ from each other. Perhaps that's what we need to go into next.
But there needs to be some re-railing.
Essentially, where we're going with your last few points, is that you have missed a huge part of my posts, of my point.
The Tiger Rock was very pointedly and purposefully brought up as a demonstration of specious reasoning. By going into your counterpoint about evidence, you are (accidentally) making a silly point.
It essentially could be worded this way based on how you presented it in an attempt to tie it in as a defense of your reasoning:
"Yes, but what if your example of specious reasoning wasn't an example of specious reasoning? Then it wouldn't be an example of specious reasoning!"
Er.
Thankfully, the response to this is one that ties into the point on the whole. Unfortunately, it involves belaboring the Tiger Repelling Rock to death.
The tiger-repelling rock is a device from the simpsons. It is used as an example of exactly what specious reasoning is, because the tiger-repelling rock does not repel tigers, yet Lisa can 'prove' that it does to someone who does not understand logic well enough to not fall to specious reasoning.
You have a person wearing the tiger repelling rock and he has claimed that he came to the conclusion that his rock really does keep him safe. Let's say he takes a page from your playbook in this thread: he claims a logical deduction of this fact, and says that he has evidence of this fact. He declines to offer this evidence and — this is important — what he has said about his rock indicates that his reasoning is likely faulty.
Wearing a rock does not meaningfully impact the chance of being attacked by a tiger. Carrying a rabbit's foot does not meaningfully impact one's ability to be lucky or win games of chance. Both are used as examples; one is a ludicrous foil from The Simpsons and one is a real-life example of superstition.
If one claimed that they were luckier because they carried a rabbit's foot and they said they had evidence of this fact, the burden is on them to provide that evidence if they want me to believe them when they say they have come to this conclusion 'logically.'
Otherwise: it is entirely appropriate to assume that their conclusions are the result of illogical thinking. It is as valid, if not more so, than the validity claimed by a person who asserts the Withheld Evidence.
Let's say someone does chance across real evidence that their rock repels tigers. If they say "My rock repels tigers, I know this logically and I have evidence" it is entirely appropriate for me to ask them what their evidence is.
If they don't provide me with evidence, it's easy to guess that the evidence they think they have is far, far less conclusive than they are assuming. You don't accept that on faith. It is perfectly reasonable to challenge based on what constitutes evidence.
It is entirely reasonable for a person to tell you "I am not going to believe you without proof, and I'm not going to take you seriously if you assert proof but decline to offer it."
While your faith is something that should be considered far different than a comic foil on the Simpsons used preconclusively as a demonstration of specious reasoning, the reaction by others who intend to logically analyze the validity of your claim should be the same. A very straightforward one: you don't take the proof on faith. Onus, burden, etc.
And, I'll tell you right now, if you offered your proof, it would be analyzed and torn to shreds within a day by people who are proficient enough at logic to show why your argument is fallacious. If one cannot help but read into aggressiveness against a bad argument as somehow a hostile judgment upon one's person, though, I could EASILY see the reluctance to do so. This still fits into the expected response to someone who claims logicality where (presumably) none exists and they do not provide any means to test it. Burned, bitten, shy x2, perhaps.
Either that, or you could surprise us all and if upon reading it and testing the premises I found them demonstratively sound in a way that makes an actual logical argument for your faith, I would have to run downstairs and bust open the door and yell out after the last pair of bleary-eyed mormonaries to please come back and drop off the newsletter, because, baby, I'm sold.
Yet keep in mind that I am in no way demanding that you offer proof of the logicality of your belief. I am actually hoping that you'll do something quite different, which is to be comfortable enough in your belief that you don't make the mistake of defending it by asserting that you have evidence of your faith being true, just not evidence you are permitting us to view.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp:
quote:If you choose to interpret my straightforwardness as personal aggression against you (as opposed to pointed criticism against views I consider quite mistaken) you are at liberty to feel assailed; it doesn't change my intent. I do not know you.
How about a simple, "No personal offense is intended." I'm sure that would help Scott out quite a bit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That, um, would make an excellent response to being accused simply of making personal attacks. If my response seems more elaborate, keep in mind it is because it is in response to a larger implication involving my suggested 'incompatibility with civil discourse.'
yet at the same time if it's what is needed to make people feel better about my tude then by all means! It's absolutely correct! No personal offense is intended and one can take additional comfort in the fact that if you are not a Scientologist I am not attacking your religion either.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"I am not going to believe you without proof, and I'm not going to take you seriously if you assert proof but decline to offer it."
Sure. That's completely reasonable. I never argued the point when Tom first brought it up.
What I have been arguing is that religious people come to their beliefs in a reasonable, rational, way-- whether or not those beliefs are true. I have asserted that they use the same processes to gain their belief that one might use to gain knowledge about a scientific principle-- study, reference, and experience.
I'm glad to hear you agree that a person can be wrong and still rational. That should do a lot towards framing this conversation in a more civil way. Thanks!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What I have been arguing is that religious people come to their beliefs in a reasonable, rational, way-- whether or not those beliefs are true. I have asserted that they use the same processes to gain their belief that one might use to gain knowledge about a scientific principle-- study, reference, and experience.
.. but, you're showing that the 'reasonable, rational ways' you're talking about are, in the way you are framing them, exactly equivalent to how you could consider that a person can 'reasonably rationally' start carrying rocks to feel better about tigers.
This is like Behe admitting in court that his definition of the word "science" would include astrology. It does no credit — in fact, it actively harms — one's defense of their supposedly 'rational' process.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The man carrying the tiger rock, or the rabbit's foot, may perhaps be rational yet wrong. But when it is pointed out to him that there is such a thing as selection bias, and humans are very good at it; when he agrees that there are many other superstitions, which do not appear to produce good luck for their holders, yet have the same class of evidence going or them; and when he understands and agrees that his superstition will certainly fail if tested scientifically - then I think I no longer call him rational.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) and gives me a book that changes my life! A religious experience if there ever was one!![[Wink]](wink.gif)