Saying that these terms were put in place to help parents brainwash their children is, by almost anyone's standards, going to be viewed as 'making a statement' on the veracity of those beliefs. People are brainwashed into bad, awful things, not true, honorable things. That's one statement. The time wasting remark is certainly indicative, but wouldn't be enough without the brainwashing remark.
Riiiight. Forgot you were the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Pardon me master.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Riiiight. Forgot you were the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Pardon me master.
So when you used the term 'brainwash', you didn't mean to convey your belief that brainwashing children into religious belief is awful and a forcing into false belief?
Because if you did, that's the ballgame. If you did, you most certainly were making a statement about the 'veracity of any religious beliefs'. If you didn't, then quite simply you chose your words very poorly.
I also note that in your sarcastic response, you don't actually deny my criticism.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: I don't think anyone will ever know the total mass of every person in China, but it is still a knowable thing. There isn't any mystery or supernatural element involved, simply because we don't know.
What sort of unanswered questions would you suggest require a supernatural answer, and how can we figure out which religion has the right one?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: First off, I don't believe that there are that many things we'll never know. We know more each day, I don't see why that should stop.
Secondly, I don't mind some of the "life is fun, be nice to people" parts of religion, although you can certainly get all that stuff without invoking some higher power or another.
What I think is silly is saying, "I don't know something, so I'll just consult my local myth, and then feel better about not knowing, because I can fool myself into thinking that I kind of know, as long as I don't examine that belief in the slightest."
For every thing we find out we realize 3 things we don't understand. I don't think that we will ever be able to know everything.
Really, for every new thing we learn? I don't think this is true. There must be some subjects where we know just about everything. Besides, that doesn't mean we are incapable of knowing. It's a matter of scientific advancement.
Edit: Or what MightyCow said.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I also note that in your sarcastic response, you don't actually deny my criticism.
I've already denied it. You didn't like my denial, so you ignored it, and now apparently it doesn't exist. This is an issue with you- it's as if anything you disagree with is so beyond the pail that it doesn't even exist to you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For every thing we find out we realize 3 things we don't understand. I don't think that we will ever be able to know everything.
So much the better, if true. It means our children will never run out of things to learn. In any case, what has that got to do with the truth of religion?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've already denied it. You didn't like my denial, so you ignored it, and now apparently it doesn't exist. This is an issue with you- it's as if anything you disagree with is so beyond the pail that it doesn't even exist to you.
My criticism was that you had very poor self-awareness about your own post, in that you claimed not to to be doubting the veracity of religious beliefs, and that you didn't need to, while in fact making pretty clear statements about both. In fact you went ahead and did so while still claiming you didn't need to! Your response to this was to state that I was not the master of the English language.
I didn't like your denial, because it frankly wasn't a real denial-you simply said it was. That's not at all the same thing as saying it didn't exist. I acknowledge you denied it. I dispute whether you really denied it, that is, responded to the criticism. But maybe I don't need to say your reasoning was crappy?
------
KoM,
quote:There's such a thing as an externality. Every time someone affirms something without giving evidence, the public thought-space is polluted a little bit more with the idea that this sort of thing is ok.
I'm not sure I grant this premise. I mean, it sounds good as a system of belief, but hardly empirical. How do you measure the 'public thought-space'? Anyway, my personal stance on people affirming claims without giving evidence is neutrality, absent any considerations of that person's integrity, and the likelihood of the particular claim. I don't really think some nebulous concept of the public thought space ought trump what seems to me to be a pretty reasonable outlook.
quote:Conversely, belief in the likes of transubstantiation gives familiarity support to such things as faith healing; the whole class of religious ideas is, even in a secular society, available as a category that needs to be given serious thought. This is the purpose of such constructions as Russell's teapot, the IPU (blessed be Her hooves), and the FSM: They are examples of ideas which everyone dismisses as wacky even though they have as much evidence in their favour as transubstantiation. (To wit, someone told you about them.) Ideas have consequences, even when they're not experimentally testable.
Well, my problem here is that you're examining religion only from a 'what problems does it cause' angle. When taken to extremes, religion can be quite dangerous and detrimental to society. Framing the entire discussion in those terms, though, doesn't seem very reasonable to me, because put simply the 'faith-healers' is not an accurate representation of the way in which people live their faiths.
Furthermore, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I believe in the religion I do is not, in fact, 'somebody told me to'. Or at least not ultimately. I was almost completely unfamiliar with the tenets of Mormonism until actually attending church that morning, and no other human being told me to attend. And when I did, while other human beings were telling me things, I didn't believe them because I was told. I asked myself. I'm really not a very credulous person, particularly when it comes to other human beings telling me to believe things.
quote:I observe that you say "attend Church" as though there were only one option; this suggests to me - although perhaps it's only a quirk of language - that you were, so to speak, a "Mormon atheist". When you had a spiritual experience, you interpreted it in terms of Mormonism.
Nope. As I said above, I was almost completely unaware of Mormonism in any substantial way. Perhaps one of my friends, and not a very close one at that, none of my close friends, none of my family, and no coworkers that I knew of at the time were Mormon. My only exposure to any actual Mormons had been in high school where I viewed it more as an oddity - I distinctly recall thinking they were quite nice people who believed in some really strange, nutty stuff, in fact - and Orson Scott Card, who I didn't even know was a Mormon until well after I began reading his work.
There were ideas in his fiction that resonated with me, but I was as likely to disagree as agree with him, particularly about things like social politics. I didn't interpret my spiritual experience in Mormon terms. Prior to that experience, I didn't have any Mormon terms, though of course now I see things differently.
quote:You cannot simultaneously take something as evidence for an established doctrine built on others' experience, and say that you ignore the experience of others!
But I can take something to be evidence for an established doctrine without saying that I use the experience of others as evidence for believing in that doctrine. It doesn't have to be circular, and certainly wasn't in my case. I ignore the experience of others as evidence in support of my own personal faith. I don't think you've really made your case here, because it seems to me you're setting up some false dichotomies. It's not a matter of either you only use internal evidence as support for your faith and thus have an entirely new religion, or you buy into other people's experiences meaning your faith is not entirely internal. A third possibility is that my faith is internal the way I mean it: between myself and God, and the evidence for it comes from that relationship, and not any other human being.
quote:But that's a spiritual experience which you didn't have yourself. It follows, then, that your entire interpretational framework is founded on precisely the thing which you say you discard! That is, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent.
Have I addressed this objection above? Lemme know if not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: My criticism was that you had very poor self-awareness about your own post, in that you claimed not to to be doubting the veracity of religious beliefs,
Ah, I see. No, I did not claim not to be doubting anything. I claimed to have made no statements about their veracity up to that point. I made it entirely clear I didn't believe in them myself.
Once again, you believe you know *everything* about what other people are saying, and you don't. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. Perhaps you should just drop it for once.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah, I see. No, I did not claim not to be doubting anything. I claimed to have made no statements about their veracity up to that point. I made it entirely clear I didn't believe in them myself.
That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. Not one that is supported by your posts, though.
quote:Note, I have made no claims about the veracity of any religious belief here, and I don't need to. Why atheists waste their time arguing with religious people on their own terms is beyond me. The terms were set up by religious people to help them brainwash their children.
That's two big old contradictions right there. And as for not having made statements about the 'veracity of religious belief'...
quote:It's part of the victim complex you've clearly established around your religious beliefs...
&
I just assume between 60% and 80% of the population is mildly loopy, and another smaller portion have full blown bat****itis.
...but rather that god is a construct specifically designed to elude empirical testing...
&
I find all people who believe in God in any religious sense to be delusional, or else just foolish, or possibly simply misguided. Deism on its own is not crazy, just wrong in my opinion.
This is not the sort of language used when someone 'doesn't want to make a claim about the veracity of religious belief'. Someone brainwashed into something doesn't really believe it, it's a trick, they've basically been compelled to believe it. True belief cannot be a product of brainwashing.
quote:Once again, you believe you know *everything* about what other people are saying, and you don't. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. Perhaps you should just drop it for once.
I don't know everything about what other people are saying. I can recognize, however, when someone quite plainly contradicts themselves and then doesn't respond to criticism about it. I can see that sunlight from the shade quite fine, thanks. As for dropping it, well, neither of us are good droppers of things, Orincoro. I was at least attempting ineffectively to do so, but you decided to dig in.
------
Tom,
I'm getting hung up a bit on framing my experience in my previous outlook, I think. In retrospect I can say I prayed about it, but at the time I was thoroughly agnostic. I had a pretty serious personal problem that I'm not going to go into detail here about, and was thinking very deeply about it. My framework for this thinking wasn't religious, it never had been. I didn't have that framework, beyond knowing it existed for others. That knowledge about other people was never particularly important to me at that time, either. It was simply something that some people did, some badly, some well, most rather half-assed.
Anyway, while thinking about this problem, out of nowhere (I thought at first), I 'got some advice' for lack of a better word. This advice was so unexpected and so contrary to my usual approach to dealing with this sort of problem, and also so effective as it turned out, that I asked myself the question, "Where did that come from?" and got an answer. In my present outlook, while I was asking myself, I was answered by the Holy Ghost.
------------
quote:I’m glad to hear you say that, Rakeesh. I often find myself in a similar situation, and sometimes feel like I’m missing something. Well heck, maybe I am, but I guess I’m all right with that if it’s the price I pay for my upbringing. I liked my upbringing. Not at the time of course … [Wink] I’ve been a member about 6 years (including a 2 year mission) and I still find myself speaking a different language from the rest of the parishioners much of the time. Growing up the son of a physicist in a non-theist household, my speech is much less couched in the spiritual even when speaking of spiritual topics, and my ability to consider someone else’s testimony as part of my own is … limited.
I just realized I hadn't responded to that-while obviously many of our particulars differ, Hobbes's description resonates with me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
" Someone brainwashed into something doesn't really believe it, it's a trick, they've basically been compelled to believe it. True belief cannot be a product of brainwashing."
Wait, why not? Someone cannot be brainwashed into believing the Earth goes around the sun without being presented plausible evidence for that belief? Or would you not call that a true belief, as in, a belief in something that is true, because the person who believes it does so without good reason?
And why doesn't the person "really" believe it? Do you say that because you know something I don't about brainwashing victims? Are you really as psychic as you constantly present yourself? No, I think you would like to believe that brainwashing victims don't "really" believe in things because if they could, then that might mean you could make someone believe anything, and that might mean you're wrong, and true belief can be a product of brainwashing.
Now, personally I agree, a belief with any sort of depth and robustness to it is probably not the product of brainwashing, and brainwashing mostly produces nothing but a shallow surface reasoning. But nevertheless I don't think that stops millions of religious followers from being unable to tell the difference. I was talking about children. The parents, who knows. They live their whole lives in a church, gain a lifetime of experiences with friends and neighbors, and maybe they have a real belief in the stuff they teach their kids. Their kids though? They're the victims of lies and distortions and nonsense. It's a bunch of lies and distortions and nonsense perpetrated onto the nth generation of victims, but it's still that. Now, maybe technically that isn't "brainwashing," maybe it's just indoctrination. I don't care. My parents did not indoctrinate me in a religious belief system, and I thank them silently every day. Now, excuse me for having negative views of religious indoctrination, but I do. I find it despicable. Now, please, read my mind and tell me what I really think, since you were so insistent that I claim my opinion. I am not afraid to share it, and not embarrassed by it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going off the technical and oft-misused definition of brainwashing, when you're brainwashed to believe something, you really, really actually do believe it, to every extent that 'belief' is defined.
Going off the pop-psy interpretation of brainwashing, that's belief too. It's not fake-belief any more than a child who has grown up fully indoctrinated into a cult is not experiencing 'real belief' just because it was in all ways coerced.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, why not? Someone cannot be brainwashed into believing the Earth goes around the sun without being presented plausible evidence for that belief? Or would you not call that a true belief, as in, a belief in something that is true, because the person who believes it does so without good reason?
You wouldn't call a brainwashed belief that the Earth orbits the sun to be a good belief, would you? You would claim that belief to be fundamentally and hopelessly flawed, however much the actual thing it believes in happens to be true.
And that's going entirely off a very technical definition of 'brainwash', not at all the way it's commonly used. When someone talks about brainwashing, they almost invariably mean believing in something foolish and/or wicked and evil, that if only they could be taught true beliefs, they might be saved from. If you don't want to be thought to be making statements about the veracity of belief, you shouldn't use terms like brainwash.
I don't think you actually do want to not make statements about it, though, but I'm not claiming to read your mind-just your language.
quote:And why doesn't the person "really" believe it? Do you say that because you know something I don't about brainwashing victims? Are you really as psychic as you constantly present yourself? No, I think you would like to believe that brainwashing victims don't "really" believe in things because if they could, then that might mean you could make someone believe anything, and that might mean you're wrong, and true belief can be a product of brainwashing.
Heh, is this supposed to be another 'not making a statements'? I can see it pleases you to suggest that there is some deep-seated, desperate discomfort with religion that religious people such as myself cower from, shying like a vampire from sunlight. That's fine. I don't have a problem with thinking that, as long as you cop to it. It's when you start saying you're not making statements that I chime in.
And by all means, please continue to suggest you know the inner workings of my mind, that I think I'm psychic, while complaining about my supposedly doing that to you. Definitely not another contradiction.
quote:Now, excuse me for having negative views of religious indoctrination, but I do. I find it despicable. Now, please, read my mind and tell me what I really think, since you were so insistent that I claim my opinion. I am not afraid to share it, and not embarrassed by it.
Here's the thing: these opinions rang through loud and clear from your posts in this very thread, to say nothing of your other posts on religious topics on Hatrack. Not really caring whether you think I'm a deluded nutjob or not, having long embraced that I too think plenty of people are deluded nutjobs, I'm fine with that belief.
But I don't go around crowing about 'not making statements' about it. If you're not embarrassed about it, and you're going to post in language that makes your feelings quite clear, don't expect to be able to claim you're not making statements about it when you plainly are. At least not without being called on it.
---------
quote:Going off the technical and oft-misused definition of brainwashing, when you're brainwashed to believe something, you really, really actually do believe it, to every extent that 'belief' is defined.
Going off the pop-psy interpretation of brainwashing, that's belief too. It's not fake-belief any more than a child who has grown up fully indoctrinated into a cult is not experiencing 'real belief' just because it was in all ways coerced.
Going off the definition of 'belief' being bandied about here, there are two kinds of belief: the kind one has to be brainwashed or indoctrinated into, and the other kind, the kind arrived at by strictly logical, empirical thinking. One kind of belief is obviously to be praised, the other shunned and criticized. One kind of belief relies upon getting at them while they're helpless kids, and the other upon a good solid education and then leaving someone alone to come to the proper conclusions.
That's what I mean when I talk about really believing something. In the one case, it's really believed in like crazy people believe in things. In the other, it's really believed in because that's the way things really are. Two quite different kinds of belief.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised you are able to recognize them as different in quality, and yet not recognize the poor reasoning associated with your own belief system.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at least now you're choosing your words more carefully. 'Associated with'. That's a start. Though the fact that a) you don't know what I recognize or don't recognize about my own belief system, and b) you don't necessarily have a good grip on what my belief system is makes me wonder: how exactly are you qualified to judge here? On what basis, that is, do you have grounds to be surprised, really? I'm not surprised when a subject I know next to nothing about turns out in a given way.
Or is questioning before presuming something only religious people aren't allowed to do?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made a safe presumption, I think. That you haven't been willing to share your reasoning here indicates to me that you don't have a lot of confidence in it being relatable to others. Sound reasoning is by its nature relatable.
Not being a religious person, I don't have faith in things I can't observe for myself, or for which the reasoning is not at least apparently valid. That includes having faith about your reasoning. When presented with next to nothing, I can safely assume I'm right- suffice it to say that of all the reasoning I have ever heard, or read, none of it has been strong. None. And I am not naive about the subject- I have read and discussed widely.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I made a safe presumption, I think. That you haven't been willing to share your reasoning here indicates to me that you don't have a lot of confidence in it being relatable to others. Sound reasoning is by its nature relatable.
When don't you think you've made a safe presumption is my question? Basically your answer to my question of how are you qualified to make such judgments is, "You haven't shared your reasons yet." When the truth is, I am sharing my reasons, right now, in this thread, I am just not going into complete details.
Your suggestion that this indicates anything other than my not wanting to share deeply personal details frankly doesn't pass the laugh test. Are you married? Do you have a girlfriend? Then tell me all about the most intimate details of your last fight with her, so your love and intimacy can be judged. Go into explicit detail about your feelings about the opposite sex, so that your sexuality may be judged. If you don't, that indicates you aren't confident in your sexuality. Etc. etc.
quote:That includes having faith about your reasoning. When presented with next to nothing, I can safely assume I'm right- suffice it to say that of all the reasoning I have ever heard, or read, none of it has been strong. None. And I am not naive about the subject- I have read and discussed widely.
Well, if your self-awareness about your own naivete is as good as your self-awareness about when you are and aren't making a statement about something, frankly I question whether you're really a good judge of that.
ETA: It's of interest to me that your answer to my last question in my previous post was obviously 'yes'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: With your girlfriend analogy, I think it's safe to say that you view your religious beliefs in terms of feeling and emotion, much more than reason and evidence.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't use that comparison to say it's the same as science vs. religion. I used it to highlight the ridiculousness of the argument, "You haven't shared the reasons, so they must be bad," argument. It's a profoundly stupid argument to make, and it's especially funny considering it's coming from someone who claims to speak from strictly logical, rational, empirical grounds.
If you look at the question/demand, "Share the most important, intimate details of your life with me so I can evaluate them," is, "If you don't, they must be bad reasons," really the most reasonable assumption to arrive at? Really?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my point still stands. Why would it be so personal to share religious beliefs if they weren't so emotional? It isn't especially personal to share one's understanding of the Pythagorean Therom, or locations one has lived.
Religious beliefs are tied intimately with emotion and personal values and identity. It can make one feel exposed and vulnerable to share them, which is precisely the same reason it can be so difficult for people to look at them objectively, or honestly consider changing them based on someone else's view of facts or evidence.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think my point still stands. Why would it be so personal to share religious beliefs if they weren't so emotional? It isn't especially personal to share one's understanding of the Pythagorean Therom, or locations one has lived.
Religious beliefs are tied intimately with emotion and personal values and identity. It can make one feel exposed and vulnerable to share them, which is precisely the same reason it can be so difficult for people to look at them objectively, or honestly consider changing them based on someone else's view of facts or evidence.
Can be. Not must be. I freely grant that these kinds of experiences are tied up in emotions and subjective experience, thus ought to be suspect. I suspect them myself, even when I am the one experiencing them.
But Orincoro was not saying, "You might be wrong about this," and, "Because you won't share with me, perhaps your reasoning is not sound." He has said, repeatedly in this thread and other religious discussions, that if they aren't shared, well then, they aren't good. That they aren't shared because there is some secret awareness that they're poor reasons.
And MightyCow...you didn't answer my question, either. Is, "If you won't share them, they must be bad," really the most reasonable assumption to make when faced with an unshared religious view? Particularly when the one asking for something to be shared is, to put it mildly, a hostile listener?
No. It's not. The most reasonable assumption when faced with that situation is not to make an assumption at all. I'm struggling to remember where in the scientific method there's a step for, "In the absence of evidence, reach a conclusion." There's a word for what you've got before you've got evidence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is, "If you won't share them, they must be bad," really the most reasonable assumption to make when faced with an unshared religious view?
I think, frankly, that it is. The only people I know who believe in a "pearls before swine" philosophy are, perhaps understandably, the people who believe in the book it's from.
quote:There's a word for what you've got before you've got evidence.
Specifically, you're on the stand, claiming to have evidence -- and when asked to produce that evidence, you're pleading the Fifth. Is it really wrong to conclude that your evidence is self-incriminating?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think, frankly, that it is. The only people I know who believe in a "pearls before swine" philosophy are, perhaps understandably, the people who believe in the book it's from.
Those aren't the only people you know who believe in that sort of thing, Tom. I can say that with a pretty good level of confidence because I very much doubt everyone you know shares the most intimate and important details of their lives with you.
quote:Specifically, you're on the stand, claiming to have evidence -- and when asked to produce that evidence, you're pleading the Fifth. Is it really wrong to conclude that your evidence is self-incriminating?
Is that a serious question? Because I could've sworn that pleading the Fifth, if we're going to stick to legal comparisons, was not in and of itself either an admission or evidence of guilt. Second, I'm not on the stand - that assumes an amount of 'right' that you would quite rightly object to if coming from a religious person towards you.
And finally, I have not said I won't share all details, and I have shared some. I note without surprise, however, that those have been all but completely ignored in favor of latching onto the absurd argument that if I won't share, it must be self-incriminating.
Coming from folks who claim to believe in rationality and science over, y'know, crazy witchdoctor superstition and emotion, well, it's pretty funny.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I won't speak for Orincoro, but from my perspective, when a religious person doesn't want to share something about their beliefs, I assume that it probably isn't something that I would find convincing, either because it's so personal to them that it isn't something I can really examine for truth value, or because it's all tied up in feelings and emotions, which are fine, but certainly don't prove anything.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it should prove anything. Remember, I'm the person who doesn't think other people's faith should be evidence for mine. But I certainly don't think it should disprove anything, either. If a scientific, empirical approach is truly the watchword, that is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't think it should prove anything. Remember, I'm the person who doesn't think other people's faith should be evidence for mine. But I certainly don't think it should disprove anything, either. If a scientific, empirical approach is truly the watchword, that is.
The fact that a thing cannot be disproved does not speak strongly of its truth value.
I have some stones to sell you, by the way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that a thing cannot be disproved does not speak strongly of its truth value.
First of all, that's not quite what's happening here. What's happening here is that you are completely ignoring the details I have shared, latching onto the things I have not, and now you get to conveniently claim, "If you don't answer all of my questions, well, it's reasonable to presume your reasons are bad." But it's not, it's one of the things it is reasonable to presume.
The fact that something cannot be disproven speaks strongly only that it cannot be disproven. No more, no less. If you would stop going further than that into making the kinds of ridiculous psychic claims that you so huffily object to, this conversation would've been over a dozen posts ago.
And please, Orincoro, continue to avoid addressing specific questions and criticisms while sticking to pithy one-liners. It really highlights your commitment to objectivity and rationality!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's happening here is that you are completely ignoring the details I have shared...
Because you have not provided the details that would enable us to, for ourselves, ascertain the quality of your evidence. You have said, "Oh, yeah, I went into a lab-like building somewhere and ran some tests -- and let me tell you, I definitely achieved cold fusion."
That's why people are dismissing your "evidence;" because we started out thinking that, yes, you had wrongly concluded that you have evidence for the existence of God. And all you've done is confirm that, yes, you believe you have evidence for the existence of God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because you have not provided the details that would enable us to, for ourselves, ascertain the quality of your evidence.
Even if I did, it would still be meaningless or at least not quality evidence, to you. It would be to me if I heard it from someone else-other people's experience not being a motivator to me personally, remember?
quote: That's why people are dismissing your "evidence;" because we started out thinking that, yes, you had wrongly concluded that you have evidence for the existence of God. And all you've done is confirm that, yes, you believe you have evidence for the existence of God.
[b]Exactly.[/i] "...because we started out thinking that..." That's what I've been saying from the beginning. Finally, at least someone is acknowledging it! As for only having confirmed that I believe I've got evidence, well, sure, I was never interested in using my experience as evidence for you. All I say to others is what worked for me: ask the question.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might have more luck getting a good understanding of a person's evidence for religion if you don't go into the conversation assuming that the person is wrong and if you don't approach it as a trial.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should we begin assuming that the evidence is right? If you start out wanting to believe something, and accept personal experiences as evidence for whatever they would like you to believe, then alien abductions, big foot, ghosts, psychic power, astral travel, and every religion are all equally real.
By most standards of truth, you don't get to just make claims and have them automatically accepted.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if I did, it would still be meaningless or at least not quality evidence, to you.
I believe this is likely to be the case, and that's actually the reason I think people refuse to share their experiences -- not because it's too "special" to share, but because when exposed to the light of day it appears roundly unconvincing.
quote:All I say to others is what worked for me: ask the question.
I have asked the question.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the big problem with trying to share "evidence" in a situation like this beyond the usual scepticism* is the necessary deficiencies of language when it comes to not only subjective experiences but in trying to describe that which is infinite. Language can only approximate various tiny bits of God and that shortcoming of language tends to be exploited by those who feel that all experience should be, if not quantifiable, than at least concrete.
* Orinoco is not going to believe that my parents didn't brainwash me despite the fact that I am more religious than my parents, my siblings and I have a variety of religious beliefs or none at all, and I choose a different religion than I experienced as a child.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The fact that something cannot be disproven speaks strongly only that it cannot be disproven. No more, no less. If you would stop going further than that into making the kinds of ridiculous psychic claims that you so huffily object to, this conversation would've been over a dozen posts ago.
Chill out please. I said it doesn't speak strongly of its truth value, and it doesn't. End of story. I got the sense you were thinking it might, or at least implying that it might. I want you to understand why I think it doesn't. That's all.
Now, as to you answering "every single question." I don't recall asking you anything of substance on the subject, but I do recall you vehemently denying anyone's right to ask you questions. I hope you understand why that doesn't come off as you might like it to. I think it speaks volumes about the quality of your thinking, that you are on the side of the debate where one must be careful *not* to ask certain questions. You may ask me anything you like. I may not have adequate answers at all times to all questions, but I don't resent them being asked.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: You might have more luck getting a good understanding of a person's evidence for religion if you don't go into the conversation assuming that the person is wrong and if you don't approach it as a trial.
Yeah, and we might get different results if we went into trials assuming the person on trial was indeed guilty. That's what you're talking about. You're talking about something like a jury going into a case being told to not assume a person is innocent. We build in such assumptions to stop the jury from being overly credulous of the prosecution's arguments.
The scientific method directs us towards attempting to disprove postulates, not to prove them. Logic also directs us towards attempting to nullify arguments, not to enhance them. The advancement of reason is found in the act of oppositional thinking, not in "open-mindedness." True open mindedness is the ability to accept when one's own beliefs are shown to be inadequately reasoned or stated.
A sensible approach to such claims as religious people make is skepticism, not credulity. That is, in my view, how people are converted to religions, because they are overly credulous of others, and they lack the self-assurance or confidence in themselves and their thinking to skeptically examine what others have to say about them, and the world around them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should we begin assuming that the evidence is right?
Honestly, if this kind of thing continues to be said, it's going to be hard to think that you're not being deliberately obtuse.
I am not suggesting the evidence should be assumed to be right. There are three basic assumptions that can be made in the face of not having the evidence described to you. One, that it's likely true, with all the shades of meaning for 'likely'. That's not a reasonable assumption to make, because if it's not told to you, you can't evaluate it. The second is to remain neutral, to make no presumptions because you have no evidence for or against. The third possible assumption is to assume that it's probably not true. This is just as unreasonable as the first assumption, and for the same reason.
quote:By most standards of truth, you don't get to just make claims and have them automatically accepted.
By most standards of logical thinking that I've ever heard of, and I'm a layman, you don't get to automatically reject them, either.
------------- Tom,
quote:I believe this is likely to be the case, and that's actually the reason I think people refuse to share their experiences -- not because it's too "special" to share, but because when exposed to the light of day it appears roundly unconvincing.
I shouldn't be surprised that you're assuming a great degree of importance that you simply don't possess. If you think I'm not sharing because I'm worried it appears unconvincing to you, well, there's really nothing I can do about that. I demand you inform me in explicit detail about the last disagreement you had with your wife, or the last time you were angry with your child. If you won't share it, well, that's just because you're probably just worried I'll think you were wrong or something.
quote:I have asked the question.
Good for you. Shall I do as you do, and insist that you didn't really ask the question? How do I know you've asked the question, just because you say so? Or are claims like this only to be viewed with automatic skepticism when they come from religious people?
---------
Orincoro,
quote:Chill out please. I said it doesn't speak strongly of its truth value, and it doesn't. End of story. I got the sense you were thinking it might, or at least implying that it might. I want you to understand why I think it doesn't. That's all.
I'm certainly no less chilled out than you are, Orincoro. Your assumption of the cool, rational stance would be much more convincing if it didn't come coupled with sneering disdain every third or fourth post. Put another way, I really don't know why you're clinging to your high horse.
Anyway, you go further than thinking 'it doesn't speak strongly of its truth value' in this thread at least. Multiple times. And if you think I believe that it does speak strongly of its truth value, you haven't been listening.
quote:I don't recall asking you anything of substance on the subject, but I do recall you vehemently denying anyone's right to ask you questions.
Where, please. I realize it'd be a change of pace to substantiate your claims, but humor me.
quote:You may ask me anything you like. I may not have adequate answers at all times to all questions, but I don't resent them being asked.
Yes, a lack of resentment is surely one of the hallmarks of your posting style. But, OK, anything you like. In an effort to get to know the sort of person you are better, I would like to know in total detail about the biggest, nastiest dispute you've ever had with a loved one. And after your description, I'll be asking lots of probing questions which you must also be equally candid about. And you should know that if you don't, I reserve the right to assume you're secretly ashamed of your behavior and convinced, somewhere, that you were completely in the wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I am frustrated when people claim their experiences as "proof" of God is that they are entirely unconvincing, unless one suspends all disbelief (something that religious people are themselves generally unwilling to do for other religions).
If I told you that I had a fantastic time watching Get Smart, that it's indescribable with language, but that because of that experience I am convinced that Get Smart holds supernatural Truths, would you believe that Get Smart is actually a supernatural movie, with say, the power to heal and that it makes the universe stable?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: * Orinoco is not going to believe that my parents didn't brainwash me despite the fact that I am more religious than my parents, my siblings and I have a variety of religious beliefs or none at all, and I choose a different religion than I experienced as a child.
I believe you. Brainwash was far too strong a term, obviously. I think your parents didn't prepare you adequately to deal with the influence of others, or perhaps there is some aspect of your essential nature which causes you to be influenced negatively by other people in this way. Or maybe you *were* brainwashed by someone. That I don't know for certain, though I wouldn't assume it.
We are all, by the way, victims of that phenomenon in varying degree and quality. Emotionally my parents did a rather poor job of preparing me for life, or else there was some essential aspect of me that remained unshaped for too long in my life. Judging from what I know and have experienced both of them and of the many other people I have known, I think it's a bit of both- I think that's more than often the case. We are all unwhole- I am happy to be one who accepts that fact.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. As I said above, I was almost completely unaware of Mormonism in any substantial way. Perhaps one of my friends, and not a very close one at that, none of my close friends, none of my family, and no coworkers that I knew of at the time were Mormon. My only exposure to any actual Mormons had been in high school where I viewed it more as an oddity - I distinctly recall thinking they were quite nice people who believed in some really strange, nutty stuff, in fact - and Orson Scott Card, who I didn't even know was a Mormon until well after I began reading his work.
Ok, I sit corrected on this point.
quote:But I can take something to be evidence for an established doctrine without saying that I use the experience of others as evidence for believing in that doctrine. It doesn't have to be circular, and certainly wasn't in my case. I ignore the experience of others as evidence in support of my own personal faith.
Ok. This is in some sense consistent. But if that's so, then you are resting the entire structure of Mormon doctrine, or at least whatever parts of it you personally believe, on one man's experience, merely because that man happens to be yourself. Consider just how much Shannon information is contained in the Book of Mormon's account of pre-Columbine America, absolutely none of which is supported by archeology. You can do Bayes: What is the probability that these huge civilisations should have existed, and left utterly no trace in the record? What is the prior probability of an angel appearing to a random grifter and giving him gold plates which, mysteriously, disappear a few years later? Surely this is an enormous amount of implausibility to rest on one experience, or even a series of experiences. On the other hand, what is the probability of someone saying to themselves "Is X true?" and finding an inner conviction that it is indeed so? This happens all the time, as you must well know, without any apparent regard for the actual truth value of X. Your faith is an upside-down pyramid; you rest a mountain of stone on its tip!
If you are really saying that you only take your own experience as evidence for Mormon doctrine, then I have to say, you're doing it wrong. This is not evidence, it's wishful thinking and special pleading.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: if you were less obtuse, you would have realived that I was responding to the post directly above mine.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Where, please. I realize it'd be a change of pace to substantiate your claims, but humor me.
The girlfriend analogy. I was thinking of this particular point:
You said:
quote: Do you have a girlfriend? Then tell me all about the most intimate details of your last fight with her, so your love and intimacy can be judged.
Read for sarcasm, I'm assuming.
That reads to me like a vehement defense of your right not to answer questions you consider personal. Now to me your right to answer questions that are too personal comes with the limitation that you are essentially unable to participate in a conversation on this topic if it centers around logic and reason. Reason and logic are not too personal. They are philosophical questions, and if you can't find a way to answer them without feeling you have exposed yourself to ridicule, and you are unwilling to engage, then you I think you have forfeited the debate.
quote: Yes, a lack of resentment is surely one of the hallmarks of your posting style. But, OK, anything you like.
I have composed myself, and am calm. You don't seem to be. Perhaps you should take a break before answering.
Now to answer the point:
quote: In an effort to get to know the sort of person you are better, I would like to know in total detail about the biggest, nastiest dispute you've ever had with a loved one. And after your description, I'll be asking lots of probing questions which you must also be equally candid about. And you should know that if you don't, I reserve the right to assume you're secretly ashamed of your behavior and convinced, somewhere, that you were completely in the wrong.
In that particular case I *do* feel uncomfortable talking about the subject, and I think the reason for that was that I *was* at least partly to blame for what happened.
In particular it had to do with my Mother constantly lying to me about small things over a period of many years, which eventually led up to a rather painful argument in which I stated that I had lost faith in her as an honest person. I recognized in that situation the profound effect her behavior had had on me throughout my life.
But why would I go into a description of that situation with the necessary assumption that I was right? Why would I tell you the story and then defend myself against all possible attacks on my point of view? The fact is that I was never self-assured enough or strong enough to confront her with her lies before the situation became untenable. And I was also too credulous of her, and emotionally dependent on her, for far too long to recognize how dishonest she could actually be. I didn't understand for a long time how her lying made me a victim of her social pathologies, and so I didn't protect myself from that, or try to stop it. Mostly I was a victim of it, but at a certain point I also failed to be responsible to myself, and to her. And in the end, I also hurt her out of defense of myself, and my ego. So that's conflict- it's still there. And on top of that, maybe I was wrong in the way I judged her in the first place. Maybe my personality and personal nature led me to judge her way too harshly- and maybe the was I saw her act was not really as abhorrent or even as abnormal or unhealthy as I grew to think it was. Maybe I criticized her for a fault I saw in myself, and had projected onto her, in order to blame her. Or 10 other possibilities. Why *would* my mind be made up if it tweaked me so much to discuss it?
So if I were to invite you to share that story with me, and I felt that very deep sense of anxiety and guilt that accompanies discussing such inner conflicts, I would hopefully recognize that this meant I was in some degree of doubt about my reasoning, and my actions. I still am, by the way, which is why I *won't* be offended intellectually if you offer an alternative viewpoint. Emotionally, it might be difficult. It's an incompletely healed wound.
So that, Rakeesh, is why your touchiness on this tells me you are sitting on an inner conflict. Because from my experience, that area that is too sensitive to probe too deeply is wounded, and you protect that for a reason.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, BTW, don't have any problem answering very personal questions about my faith as far as language will allow. I have my doubts on the efficacy of that conversation, but I don't mind having it. Ask away.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh: if you were less obtuse, you would have realived that I was responding to the post directly above mine.
Yes, well, first of all it's a big discussion, and it also tied into a disagreement we were having. Second, you have said things that indicate you do assume that I think a lack of evidence should serve as proof.
quote:The reason I am frustrated when people claim their experiences as "proof" of God is that they are entirely unconvincing, unless one suspends all disbelief (something that religious people are themselves generally unwilling to do for other religions).
I am only troubled by this in proportion to the insistence of the person claiming the experience as proof that I ought to take it as such also.
quote:
If I told you that I had a fantastic time watching Get Smart, that it's indescribable with language, but that because of that experience I am convinced that Get Smart holds supernatural Truths, would you believe that Get Smart is actually a supernatural movie, with say, the power to heal and that it makes the universe stable?
Nope. I wouldn't believe that about God, either, were you to say it. And I don't expect you to believe me just because I say it.
-----
KoM,
quote:But if that's so, then you are resting the entire structure of Mormon doctrine, or at least whatever parts of it you personally believe, on one man's experience, merely because that man happens to be yourself.
That's essentially true, yes, though I would of course dispute the 'merely'.
quote:Consider just how much Shannon information is contained in the Book of Mormon's account of pre-Columbine America, absolutely none of which is supported by archeology. You can do Bayes: What is the probability that these huge civilisations should have existed, and left utterly no trace in the record? What is the prior probability of an angel appearing to a random grifter and giving him gold plates which, mysteriously, disappear a few years later? Surely this is an enormous amount of implausibility to rest on one experience, or even a series of experiences.
I freely admit it's incredibly unlikely. I don't even know how much of that I believe actually happened. In all seriousness, if it weren't for the Mormon allowance for inaccurate translation, I might not have been able to convert. Some of the improbabilities would have been sufficiently high if I were compelled to either believe they happened or not be a Mormon.
quote:On the other hand, what is the probability of someone saying to themselves "Is X true?" and finding an inner conviction that it is indeed so? This happens all the time, as you must well know, without any apparent regard for the actual truth value of X.
The probably of 'someone' doing this is something well above zero, of course. The probability that I did this, out of almost nowhere? That I just willed myself to be a Mormon, absent any sort of social or familial conditioning? Absent, in fact, almost any experience of Mormonism at all up to that point? Well, the probability of that taken entirely alone seems to me to be pretty low. Certainly quite a bit higher than the probability I am secretly crazy.
quote:If you are really saying that you only take your own experience as evidence for Mormon doctrine, then I have to say, you're doing it wrong. This is not evidence, it's wishful thinking and special pleading.
My own experience includes questions asked, so I don't know how I am doing it wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That reads to me like a vehement defense of your right not to answer questions you consider personal. Now to me your right to answer questions that are too personal comes with the limitation that you are essentially unable to participate in a conversation on this topic if it centers around logic and reason. Reason and logic are not too personal. They are philosophical questions, and if you can't find a way to answer them without feeling you have exposed yourself to ridicule, and you are unwilling to engage, then you I think you have forfeited the debate.
It wasn't vehement, I just picked an exaggerated example to highlight my point. I don't actually want to know about the biggest fight you ever had, and even if I did, I would not presume to insist you share everything. But even if I did, and you refused to share everything, I wouldn't presume what you didn't share was kept hidden out of secret shame.
quote:I have composed myself, and am calm. You don't seem to be. Perhaps you should take a break before answering.
Why is it in these discussions with you, your own self-evaluations are the only ones that are valid?
quote: So if I were to invite you to share that story with me, and I felt that very deep sense of anxiety and guilt that accompanies discussing such inner conflicts, I would hopefully recognize that this meant I was in some degree of doubt about my reasoning, and my actions. I still am, by the way, which is why I *won't* be offended intellectually if you offer an alternative viewpoint. Emotionally, it might be difficult. It's an incompletely healed wound.
Well, perhaps this is at the heart of our disagreement. I am not offended when you express doubt at my faith. In fact, I expect people - not just you, but everyone - to have doubts about my faith. Actually that's about the only expectation I have for how other people view my faith. I am not offended, intellectually or emotionally, if another viewpoint is offered. I am intellectually offended when an alternative viewpoint is presumed to be true in the absence of an explanation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Well, the probability of that taken entirely alone seems to me to be pretty low.
On the other hand, Mormonism is still a flavour of Christianity in a largely Christian society. It isn't like you converted to Hinduism or Buddhism. IIRC, almost half of the US population has changed religions at one point or another, and the most common is from one flavour of Christianity to another.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I am intellectually offended when an alternative viewpoint is presumed to be true in the absence of an explanation."
It is unreasonable for you to be offended when others presume they are correct because you are unwilling to answer for yourself. It is unreasonable to require that every presumption of truth requires a complete explanation unbidden. Ask for a complete explanation, and you can expect it from a reasonable person. You have gotten *very* complete explanations, from many of these people, at many different times. Again, you just didn't agree with them. Why does that offend you?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QUOTE] IIRC, almost half of the US population has changed religions at one point or another, and the most common is from one flavor of Christianity to another.
For how many people does that mean a spiritual change and religious conversion, and for how many people a change in address and attendance at a new church? With all the denominations floating around, I think a lot of people probably convert without even realizing it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was this Pew forum poll. As a poll, I would assume that they would only keep track of conversions that people "counted", so change of address within what people thought was the same flavour wouldn't show up.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, Mormonism is still a flavour of Christianity in a largely Christian society. It isn't like you converted to Hinduism or Buddhism. IIRC, almost half of the US population has changed religions at one point or another, and the most common is from one flavour of Christianity to another.
While this is certainly true overall, I don't believe it applies to me. I was not even slightly Christian prior to my conversion. In fact, prior to my conversion I would roughly estimate I spent as much time being agnostic as I ever did theist, and even when I was a theist - I can recall this feeling distinctly, even today - my leanings were largely centered around 'I hope'. The holidays my family and friends did celebrate in common with Christians, we celebrated entirely in a secular way. Christmas was the time to decorate - with lights, tinsel, candy canes, and big bulbs, not crosses or nativities - and embrace the spirit of giving to one another and being kind to one another. Easter was a holiday where a really good breakfast could be expected, along with some candy. Even on Thanksgiving, when I think back I can recall...maybe two?...out of, say, the twenty-five thanksgivings I can remember that included prayer, and even those were for the benefit of those only slightly less secular than we were.
-------
quote: It is unreasonable for you to be offended when others presume they are correct because you are unwilling to answer for yourself. It is unreasonable to require that every presumption of truth requires a complete explanation unbidden. Ask for a complete explanation, and you can expect it from a reasonable person. You have gotten *very* complete explanations, from many of these people, at many different times. Again, you just didn't agree with them. Why does that offend you?
You're begging the question. I don't, in fact, believe it's unreasonable to be offended by an assumption in the absence of evidence. And that's what this is. The only fact you have is that I will not go into complete detail with you. That's all. Anything else is just speculation, and quite frankly just as likely to involve your own personal feelings and preconceived notions as any religious leanings you might choose to characterize as false. I also don't grant that a refusal to go into complete detail means one is being unreasonable, either, but I'm perfectly accepting that that's a difference of opinion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
