Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 159

Thread: Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

  1. #31
    Pessimistic Philo Writer Mr Hyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kansas, United States
    Posts
    155
    Blog Entries
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    Delusion sets in when one refuses to see anything other than one's own cherished belief.
    You've just described every human belief structure going by that definition.

    I think a important question for this thread is to answer the question: What is delusion?
    Last edited by Mr Hyde; 10-11-2008 at 01:34 PM.
    Life is a sadistic joke with no pun line.

  2. #32
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by islandclimber View Post
    You speak of testing and observation.. observing things we cannot see, testing with instruments we created to detect and observe things we thought might exist.. so little faith needed there... to say science requires no faith is absurd...
    No, but to claim that shows a complete lack of understanding of science. The proposition goes with your post - you clearly don't understand it. That's fine, but attacking something you don't understand is generally not all that clever.

    Quote Originally Posted by islandclimber View Post
    ... it requires the astonishing presumption that human language is correct in it's definitions of the universe, that these instruments we created to detect things we had already presupposed to exist do actually work on detecting something real, and not a bunch of imaginary things that scientists created long before we even had the instruments to detect them..
    Please refer to this paragraph occasionally. It makes no sense whatsoever. Language is completely irrelevant; what things are called and whether words are made up to describe them has no bearing on anything. You're at a literature forum - you should know that already.

    Quote Originally Posted by islandclimber View Post
    ...but to tell the truth i have argued this same thing in this part of the forum so many times now, that it has become kind of pointless to do so again...
    I can understand exactly why that is.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,481
    I perfectly agree with islandclimber and think he's thought about those things in a very intelligent way, with the necessary detachement.

    observing things we cannot see, testing with instruments we created to detect and observe things we thought might exist.. so little faith needed there... to say science requires no faith is absurd... we create the language used to describe the things we see... we create the instruments used to dissect these things, to tear them apart and see what is supposedly behind.. anything in science requires a huge degree of faith to believe in if you think about it... it requires the astonishing presumption that human language is correct in it's definitions of the universe, that these instruments we created to detect things we had already presupposed to exist do actually work on detecting something real
    This is at the core of what he says and it is so so true. Not to admit this is really being blind. It is easy for humans to say that this or that exists by measuring it with instruments they themselves created! Of course science requires faith: scientists must accept and believe that the instruments they created are actually accurate to prove things. What if the instruments were not accurate? And about things that peope claim do not exist, what if it just meant that those things just cannot be measured with instruments created by humans? That's what he meant. If you cannot understand this or accept the possibility that instruments have been created and might not be the accurate tools, then it means that your faith in science blinds you. Just like the faith in God blinds people who are absolutely sure that God exists. That's where science and religion meet.

    I find it pretty ironic that you think Islandclimber is not clever...
    Last edited by Sweets America; 10-11-2008 at 02:13 PM.

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,309
    Ok, so you two just managed to say that faith on the knife being able to cut an animal open is equal to human faith on God or all set of believes. I am amazed, but language is just wonderful.
    Either you are awfully unable to describe faith or you just described science as experimentation.

  5. #35
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Sweets America View Post
    I perfectly agree with islandclimber and think he's thought about those things in a very intelligent way, with the necessary detachement.
    No.

    What he's done is perfectly describe why solipsism is such an ugly position to hold.

    If we can be said to have "faith" that the we, the world around us and the universe actually exist, then claim it as faith, but as JCamillo points out, that's either a complete twisting of the word, or a refusal to accept that reality exists.

    I don't think he's thought about them at all. The statements are a meandering rendition of a solpsist universe where all perceptions are just perceptions. Children of 8 or 9 can see that that's silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sweets America View Post
    Just like the faith in God blinds people who are absolutely sure that God exists. That's where science and religion meet.
    Just like islandclimber, this statement is actually self-contradictory.

    Those of us, who in your decription, have "faith" in it are binded by science as our god. We refuse to see that science that can be wrong.

    How is it then that those of us who worship the science-god change our beliefs so often? Although he couldn't point to any specific examples, islandclimber did point out that scientific theories often arise and are later changed or debunked.

    That proves beyond any question that science requires no faith, otherwise the challenges to theories wouldn't exist! You can't have it both ways.

    QED!
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  6. #36
    Pessimistic Philo Writer Mr Hyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kansas, United States
    Posts
    155
    Blog Entries
    21
    It is interesting how people have this mentality that anything can go or be real yet at the same time also acknowledge that other people's perspectives can be delusional if not real at all. Sounds hypocritical if you don't mind me saying so.
    Last edited by Mr Hyde; 10-11-2008 at 04:14 PM.
    Life is a sadistic joke with no pun line.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    No.

    What he's done is perfectly describe why solipsism is such an ugly position to hold.
    That's not because you disagree that it's "ugly". I am sorry that I accused you of being blind because maybe you're right, I just don't know.

    If we can be said to have "faith" that the we, the world around us and the universe actually exist, then claim it as faith, but as JCamillo points out, that's either a complete twisting of the word, or a refusal to accept that reality exists.
    How can you be sure that you exist and that you're not the product of someone else's mind?

    I don't think he's thought about them at all. The statements are a meandering rendition of a solpsist universe where all perceptions are just perceptions. Children of 8 or 9 can see that that's silly.
    I think he did think about them. I did too. You just think differently, that's all, not a problem. Now if you think it's silly, that's your problem. Islandclimber and I are just not afraid to admit that we just don't know anything for sure.


    Just like islandclimber, this statement is actually self-contradictory.

    Those of us, who in your decription, have "faith" in it are binded by science as our god. We refuse to see that science that can be wrong.

    How is it then that those of us who worship the science-god change our beliefs so often? Although he couldn't point to any specific examples, islandclimber did point out that scientific theories often arise and are later changed or debunked.

    That proves beyond any question that science requires no faith, otherwise the challenges to theories wouldn't exist! You can't have it both ways.
    I see what you mean, but you still have faith in the fact that the world exists and in many bases which are the starting point of how you analyse the world. You change your theories and perhaps adapt your instruments but you still believe in your ability to understand and make sense of the world with tools.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,309
    It is silly because the argument is silly, old, outdated and the way it is presented here lacks a lot of reference with the history of philosophy and shows a lot of misuse of therminology (As for example, you may believe in something which does not mean the same as having faith on something).

    Individual perceptions are not what define reality and this argument is only about what one person perceive as reality. Yet you can conceive that ideas or objects (the ideas of objects since I do not want to take sides) can be perceived by anyone more than you. Almost in a crude way, I can poke you not matter how much you are unsure of your existence.
    The argument that you defend was presented in such ways that one could not stop but call it ugly. It seems to not know the difference between knowing what an object is, what Faith is, basic tenets of religion... It is just not a matter of what you think or not, it is just wrong. Both sides (religion and science would find it).
    It may be shocking, but reality and knowledge are not prone to anything is possible. Just because you can think something, that something does not turn in possible, plausible or real. It does not hurt your freedom hearing it is wrong and it is just silly to defend it by relativism and trying to input the other sides that they are not tolerant of your view because they blind instead of considering the possibilty : there is more people who know more than you and that is why those people are relutant to accept anything goes.

  9. #39
    Bibliophile Drkshadow03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    My heart lives in New York.
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Hyde View Post
    It is interesting how people have this mentality that anything can go or be real yet at the same time also acknowledge that other people's perspectives can be delusional if not real at all. Sounds hypocritical if you don't mind me saying so.
    Why? It is perfectly possible for phenomena X, Y, or Z to be real; however, only for Z to be actually real. The keyword here being "possible." It basically relies on understanding the difference between imagination, possibility, and what I believe to be correct based off my own experiences, reasoning, and observations.

    I can perfectly entertain Plato's ideas, understand how his thinking works, even see that their is a kind of logic to them within their own argument, while ultimately thinking Aristotle is mostly correct and Plato is mostly wrong (though occasionally useful).

    This is exactly the kind of thinking I found distasteful in the article and the website you linked to. It presumes that just because multiple perspectives or answers have been put forth that the existence of these multiple perspectives somehow negate each other, so the universe and the various philosophies people believe in must all be wrong since there is so many. They can't all be right, after all. So none of them must be. Except this fails to consider that one of them may in fact might be right.
    "You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus

    https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
    Feed the Hungry!

  10. #40
    Not politically correct Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains, SW VA
    Posts
    21,250
    Blog Entries
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Hyde View Post
    You've just described every human belief structure going by that definition.
    Yes. I fail to see a problem. Tell me measuring things too small to even see at all doesn't take faith in man-made science.
    Some of us laugh
    Some of us cry
    Some of us smoke
    Some of us lie
    But it's all just the way
    that we cope with our lives...

  11. #41
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Hyde View Post
    It is interesting how people have this mentality that anything can go or be real yet at the same time also acknowledge that other people's perspectives can be delusional if not real at all. Sounds hypocritical if you don't mind me saying so.
    It's not though.

    When the perceptions are consistent through a variety of replicators, I think we can say for certain that it happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sweets America View Post
    How can you be sure that you exist and that you're not the product of someone else's mind?
    This is really Philosophy 101.

    Thousands of books have been written on the subject over a period of many centuries. I don't see any point arguing the subject, so I'll just stick at reality being real. If you doubt reality, why do you bother asking questions? It would all be pre-determined and pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sweets America View Post
    I think he did think about them. I did too. You just think differently, that's all, not a problem. Now if you think it's silly, that's your problem. Islandclimber and I are just not afraid to admit that we just don't know anything for sure.
    I don't claim to have 100% certainty on anything, but I do accept that when I switch a light on that it's going to work. (barring breakages, obviously) This does segue well into the OP, however, because I can't understand minds which find solipsism attractive enough to subscribe to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    Yes. I fail to see a problem. Tell me measuring things too small to even see at all doesn't take faith in man-made science.
    Certainly.

    Take bacteria and viruses as a classic example. We can't see them without help, but we can see the physical effects of them with simple observation - fruit rots, people get sick and sometimes die from bacterial and viral diseases. No faith at all is necessary to figure that they are real and that what we think we see in electon microscopy is real.

    Again, this shows the beauty of science. No one observation or method is accpetable. If we see something in an electron microscope, we don't claim to know what it is until we understand what it does, how it interacts with everything else and what causes those things to happen.

    I repeat - use your computer as an example. Every time you turn it on, it is invisible electrical impulses which drive it. Unless it's broken, it will behave the same way every time, connecting to the internet with invisible transmissions which turn up as written words at the other end. Another is atomic energy; we can't see any of the bits which create the chain reaction, but it works, every single time, which is why we build nuclear power stations. Those power stations, reuslting from an invisible, yet completely-understood reaction generates the electricity coming out of your wall socket - it is real, but invisible.

    I do not recommend testing this theory by sticking your fingers in the outet!



    Quote Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
    And then there's the scientist who believes in subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics and still believes in God.
    I'd been meaning to answer this.

    It's great evidence of one thing lots of people on both sides tend to overlook: science and religion can coexist quite nicely.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  12. #42
    Not politically correct Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains, SW VA
    Posts
    21,250
    Blog Entries
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    It's not though.


    I do not recommend testing this theory by sticking your fingers in the outet!

    No, I have been zapped by a 440 once and don't care to repeat the experiment! I was thinking more in terms of sub-atomic particle measurement, say a quark for example. Some one discovers these, and then it sounds a lot like "Horton Hears a Who." No one else knows about them or can see them and argument about their existence ensues. Measuring them is taking machines built by men, whom others must trust not to defraud them. So everything takes faith to some extent. Yes, science and religion can co-exist nicely.

    In a world like ours, of total wonder, everything that can help should. Go back to the final three points I made:

    One can be, as I am, a Minister, and still accept that few things will prove my faith, and not be rocked by it.

    The Philosopher will come to realize that not everything suits his or her philosophy and continue on.

    The scientist will recognize that theory is theory, but won't stop with his or her experiments to prove them.

    Add to that that each can borrow from the other if they choose. No Monopoly on the truth from anyone.

    You see for me to deny science or philosophy would be to deny natural process and creative thinking. I can't do this in good faith.

    Yet neither do I think that science disproves the existence of God, nor that creative thinkers can't come to a place where God just might be the best explanation.

    A good quote from Star Wars; "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." I could always be wrong.

    God Bless

    Pen
    Last edited by Pendragon; 10-12-2008 at 04:48 AM.
    Some of us laugh
    Some of us cry
    Some of us smoke
    Some of us lie
    But it's all just the way
    that we cope with our lives...

  13. #43
    Bibliophile Drkshadow03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    My heart lives in New York.
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    I'd been meaning to answer this.

    It's great evidence of one thing lots of people on both sides tend to overlook: science and religion can coexist quite nicely.
    Exactly!
    "You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus

    https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
    Feed the Hungry!

  14. #44
    Registered User Wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    284
    [QUOTE=Pendragon;629029Yet neither do I think that science disproves the existence of God, nor that creative thinkers can't come to a place where God just might be the best explanation.
    Pen[/QUOTE]

    Hi Dale,

    I'm kinda with you here my friend. You didn't specify a particular God, which I like. Science definately does not disprove a universal creator.

    However, basic logic kinda works against any of the Gods created by humanity thus far. Only speaking for my logic naturally, hehe.

    None of the explanations I've heard over my many years for why God created the universe about 14 billion years ago after existing for infinity makes any sense at all to me.

    And none of the explanations for why God needed to send a son to the planet to get nailed to a cross to fix a mistake that it made when creating our little planet has ever made any sense to me.

    The fact that we seem to exist is proof enough (for me) that something really amzing is going on. There should be nothing--yet here we are discussing fantastic things on an electronic bullitin board! As I've said before, I just don't think it gives a damn if I eat meat on Fridays, shave my beard, or prefer the intimate company of the same sex.

    Blessings,
    Doug
    “The air was soft, the stars so fine, the promise of every cobbled alley so great that I thought I was in a dream.” -Jack Kerouac

  15. #45
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    No, I have been zapped by a 440 once and don't care to repeat the experiment! I was thinking more in terms of sub-atomic particle measurement, say a quark for example. Some one discovers these, and then it sounds a lot like "Horton Hears a Who." No one else knows about them or can see them and argument about their existence ensues. Measuring them is taking machines built by men, whom others must trust not to defraud them. So everything takes faith to some extent. Yes, science and religion can co-exist nicely.
    I think you're still getting it wrong:

    Quarks are an excellent example, because they're highly misunderstood.

    You have it back to front in terms of their discovery, for starters. Nobody shouted "eureka" and asked his colleagues to come and see what he'd found, it was in fact a group of scientists observing subatomic particles and noticing that something was happened which they could neither quantify or qualify.

    Thus began the observation. When thousands of different methods of observation had been used by thousands of different scientists, a picture gradually started to appear as to what was really going on. These things aren't measurable by any kind of microscope we have, so we can't have a look at one. This is why observation is the mainstay of science; all matter interacts with other matter, and that interaction leaves results we can quantify. It's why we built the hadron collider.

    Arguments against the existence of quarks are few and far between nowadays, as far as I've seen, because scienctists ultimately don't need to argue too much once sufficient evidence has been presented. At that stage, opposition moves to the lunatic fringe. Because scientists don't trust each other as far as you clearly don't trust them, they repeat experiments rather than go, "oh goody, someone's discovered some quark things, I must believe in that now."

    This is replication and it really does emphasise the beauty of science. Anyone who disagrees with scientific findings only needs enough money to buy equipment to repeat the same observation with their very own eyes/ears/brains. It is that simple.

    And even better, do you like the way science is presented as "theory"? That's because science doesn't concern itself with absolutes.

    As a result, all the christian scientists I've ever known of are able to happily accept that science is almost always right, while not affecting their theology one iota. That's what I meant about religion and science co-existing. Not because they both require faith, but especially because one doesn't. With science not needing faith, christians able to understand the science don't find it interferes with their god and religion at all. YEC/creationists are the exception, and Behe himself was forced to admit it isn't science, so even that argument disappears.

    You do realise that many of the greatests scientists ever were confirmed theists, don't you?

    (And as a member of the atheist minority on the planet, I DO have to point out that lots more of them were atheists! )

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    :In a world like ours, of total wonder, everything that can help should. Go back to the final three points I made:

    One can be, as I am, a Minister, and still accept that few things will prove my faith, and not be rocked by it.
    As it should. You'd be a lousy christian otherwise!



    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    :The Philosopher will come to realize that not everything suits his or her philosophy and continue on.
    They never bother me. If you know the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams treats philosophy to the derision I am certain it deserves. A career for blokes with insufficient brains to be a scientist and insufficient balls to be an engineer. I really, really, really don't like philosphers!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    :The scientist will recognize that theory is theory, but won't stop with his or her experiments to prove them.
    Yep, that's what I keep saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    :Add to that that each can borrow from the other if they choose. No Monopoly on the truth from anyone.
    Only philosophers and theists try to deal in the truth. Scientists are happy just sitting and observing while the philosphers and theists argue the eternal verities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    :You see for me to deny science or philosophy would be to deny natural process and creative thinking. I can't do this in good faith.
    Oh I can!

    (As you may have guessed.)

    I can deny philosphy anytime and frequently do. I lost one of my most treasured possessions, a letter from a full professor of psychology at NYU. He was responding to my article, Philosophy - the Science of ******** (where ******** has the first four letters: bull....) He agreed with my premise that philosophies should result from real-world observations, not an empty bag, as most philosophers are wont to use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    Yet neither do I think that science disproves the existence of God, nor that creative thinkers can't come to a place where God just might be the best explanation.
    I don't think science disproves god either and have argued that very point against hundreds of other atheists. Science doesn't want to disprove god, and it can't anyway. As I said, science doesn't deal in absolutes, so only an idiot would try to disprove something as it requires an absoluteness just not available. What science does is produce results of observations. Those observations are used by people like myself (and hopefully yourself) to ask whether there's room in our knowledge for a god. I don't think there is, you do.

    That's fine by me, but if a theist's version of god requires that some science is wrong, fabricated or straight fantasy, then science and religion are about to have a head-on crash. This is why mainstream churches embrace science - because it's real and doesn't interfere with how they see god, because they realise that their god must also be a real-world god and the real world demands that science is pretty close to absolute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
    :A good quote from Star Wars; "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." I could always be wrong.

    God Bless

    Pen
    Whoever it was was right, anyway, although you could certainly add theists and philosophers into the Sith pot.

    As I just ended above, science can take us close enough that I'm comfortable in taking most of it for granted. The real world I inhabit allows the science I use 24 hours a day to work the same way every day, so until that changes, I'm not about to.

    Cheers.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •