Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Lazybones 
'Tis true, but you didn't need to spell it out.
*Kicks pebble*
'Tis true, but you didn't need to spell it out.
*Kicks pebble*
Ask a Christian
- Thread starter puglover
- Start date
Is you analogy any different than my experience that when I wear my special logoed blue tarheel shirt, the UNC Tarheels usually win their basketball games and when I wear a green or other colored shirt they don't? So now I make sure that I wear the blue shirt every game so they win, especially when they play an unknown opponent. I've also noted that if I have a bowl of popcorn next to me during the last 5 minutes they win 75% of the time, but the popcorn is less reliable than the shirt.
True, but alongside the correlation we can also explain the causation, so it's not necessarily like that.
And your "experience" is no less valid if we had no information whatsoever on the causation factors (but we do in your case).
Indeed, but it is the most universal tool that yields the best results on average. Thus, when facing an unknown, it is the most likely to be correct.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
BirdJaguar, give me an example of something that we know is true (ie. The Earth is round, the universe is made up of atoms, light travels faster than sound, etc.) that was deduced using illogical means.
Well, plenty of things can be deduced to be true when they are indeed true, using illogical means. For example, my head is round, therefore the Earth is round. That is an alternate method of obtaining the truth of "Statement: The Earth is round", and it just happens to be correct in this case. The issue is that logic is correct about more things than anything else, and thus is more likely to be correct about things where we know nothing.
Not true at all. It is only useful in limited situations. If it were such a universally beneficial tool, then why hasn't illogical behavior been bred out of us over the past 7 million years? The fact that people are fundamentally irrational would lead one to believe that rationality is of limited value in our lives as humans.
That is like me asking you to provide me an example where logic has proved that god exists. Using the wrong tool for a job is a poor use of resources.
As you well know Warpus, I have never disputed the value of reason in figuring out things about the physical universe, infact I am a firm believer that it is the best tool for such matters. Now if you believe that the physical universe is all that there is to existence and that everything has physical properties of some sort that can me measured with the right tool, then reason should be able to solve all our problems. The paradigm of science, reason and logic is based on the notion that physical evidence can be found and found again such that 'truth' can be determined. It is dependent upon the assumption that outside of the physical universe, nothing exists. Atheists are stuck in this way of thinking and usually closed off from thinking outside of this box.
I happen to believe that existence includes more than the physical universe. Therefore there are things that science cannot fathom and must be experienced rather than studied. That is my assumption.
That's a bit of a mischaracterization of Evolutionary Theory.
Irrationality surfaces when cognitive resources aren't sufficient to examining a task. It will always exist whenever an intelligence evolves, because an intelligence is capable of acting with limited information.
Emotions are mostly a type of sensory perception, but we give them a larger subjective value because of their ephemeral feeling.
I am not a christian and tend to favor the mystical elements of sufism, hinduism and buddhism. I like to post in defense of theism
Probably, but the point is, if rationality is such a valuable trait, why hasn't it become more dominant?
So you are saying that lack of cognitive resources causes irrational behavior? which resources are you talking about here? So my obsession for Bach and the Counting Crows is caused by my lack of cognitive resources? Or are you saying that I love them because I have thoughtfully concluded that they are appropriate to enjoy?
BTW, I thought we always acted with limited information. When has anyone ever known everything about a situation before they acted?
Please explain further.
Because it doesn't matter if a trait helps, if you don't pass it on. And babes tend to like the guys with big muscles more than the guys who are extremely rational, if you're following me.
Joking aside, this isn't a "discuss evolution" thread; we've got tons of those. Can we please change the subject, or at least direct it vaguely back towards Christianity? Maybe one of you guys has a question, or something.
No need to appologize. Just repeat your question and direct it at someone specific, like Elrohir who is a christian.
Sorry, I missed your post. I was referring to BirdJaguar and El Mac in mine.
I think there's a couple of different answers here.
For instance, I'm a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that Christian Scriptures are inspired by God, and that the Christian "worldview" or ideas and teachings, are good and useful. That's why I am a Christian today. However, it's arguable that I only because a Christian because I was raised in a Christian home. My family was, and is, a fairly conservative evangelical one. As for what age I was when I first became a Christian, I'm honestly unsure. I can't ever remember not believing in God. Maybe it kind of came over time. I don't know when I ever actually prayed for the first time, but I distinctly remember thinking on my own about God, heaven, and hell when I was about 5. (I worked out a very simplified version of Pascal's Wager: "Well, if I'm wrong, I don't lose anything, but if I'm right, then I win!" sort of thing
) So I imagine at some point before that.Did that answer your question? Feel free to ask follow up questions or any others that you might have.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That is like me asking you to provide me an example where logic has proved that god exists. Using the wrong tool for a job is a poor use of resources.
As you well know Warpus, I have never disputed the value of reason in figuring out things about the physical universe, infact I am a firm believer that it is the best tool for such matters. Now if you believe that the physical universe is all that there is to existence and that everything has physical properties of some sort that can me measured with the right tool, then reason should be able to solve all our problems. The paradigm of science, reason and logic is based on the notion that physical evidence can be found and found again such that 'truth' can be determined. It is dependent upon the assumption that outside of the physical universe, nothing exists. Atheists are stuck in this way of thinking and usually closed off from thinking outside of this box.
I happen to believe that existence includes more than the physical universe. Therefore there are things that science cannot fathom and must be experienced rather than studied. That is my assumption.
Ahh, I see you couldn't come up with any examples
Would you agree then, that all the things we know to be true have been deduced using logical means?
If you don't, you must have a counterexample in mind.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Regarding the whole expanded Pascal's Wager, I feel it's not only derailed the thread, but it's also ended up like this:
So I'm going to unilaterally drop that line of argument for now, also because I don't have the energy to go back over the last thirty posts or so. Back to normal questions.
(2) I understand that you're saying "whine" in a humorous manner, but it still makes the question unclear, and "when" is a confusing term when I consider God to exist outside of time in much the way that an author is outside of the timeline of a book. What I will suggest as an answer is that God made a value judgement that it was a negative thing for humanity to sin, and whether this translates to "unhappiness" is an unclear matter. One the one hand, no, because all other things being equal it's better to be happy than unhappy, and so God would be happy, but on the other hand, yes, because it's an appropriate response to seeing something so terrible.
Coincidentally, if someone convinces me that Christianity isn't true, I'll probably turn to Hinduism instead, which I've heard good things about as being the second most likely/reasonable/whatever from sources I consider reliable. (No, I haven't actually examined it in any great detail.)
Also, random thingy to spice up the thread:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/index.html
This image of what Jesus may
have looked like is on the cover
of Popular Mechanics this month.
Spoiler :
So I'm going to unilaterally drop that line of argument for now, also because I don't have the energy to go back over the last thirty posts or so. Back to normal questions.
Error: self-conditioning probability detected. This is like dividing by zero.Truronian said:
(1) I don't know. I hadn't really pursued that line of thought; it just seemed to be an answer to the POE by arguing out that if the POE can crop up in every created and changing world, then the POE is not a complaint against this one specifically. ("It could have been better!" "Yeah, but you'd still be saying that it could have been better.") I'll consider the issue.(1) Does this mean that it's never possible for the created entities to ever exist in a world without evil? (2) And did God whine
(2) I understand that you're saying "whine" in a humorous manner, but it still makes the question unclear, and "when" is a confusing term when I consider God to exist outside of time in much the way that an author is outside of the timeline of a book. What I will suggest as an answer is that God made a value judgement that it was a negative thing for humanity to sin, and whether this translates to "unhappiness" is an unclear matter. One the one hand, no, because all other things being equal it's better to be happy than unhappy, and so God would be happy, but on the other hand, yes, because it's an appropriate response to seeing something so terrible.
I was raised Christian. I began poking at it and being less certain around the ages of 12-14, whereupon I read a whole host of books about the subject. I became more convinced again a year or two later when I started a) seeing rebuttals to Roberts' "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" in the form of arguments that 'whittled' away other religions in a manner akin to playing Mastermind, and more generally finding that all the snippy remarks had been debated and rebutted and counter-rebutted a hundred years ago and weren't getting anywhere, b) noticing how humanity had so much potential for good which went unrealised and willingness to do evil unless conditioned away from it, c) doing what seemed like miracles and having prayers directly answered, d) hearing people argue that they'd rather pick Hell if they disagreed with God, which took a lot of force out of the complaints about Hell being so horrible, e) other stuff that I won't list because this is already getting overly long and I don't remember it very well.
Coincidentally, if someone convinces me that Christianity isn't true, I'll probably turn to Hinduism instead, which I've heard good things about as being the second most likely/reasonable/whatever from sources I consider reliable. (No, I haven't actually examined it in any great detail.)
Also, random thingy to spice up the thread:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/index.html
This image of what Jesus may
have looked like is on the cover
of Popular Mechanics this month.
It's important to not apply "just so" arguments when discussing evolution. It's tempting, but it should be avoided (or else you'll make mistakes).
A huge amount of animal behaviour is highly rational. Vast segments of ethology are predicted using Game Theory (rationality) and the sensory/motor limitations of the species.
Rationality IS heavily selected for: it's all over the place. Asking why there isn't 'more' is like asking why our skin is not photosynthetic, there are pathways in evolution that prevent the maximization of a certain trait.
All intelligence acts with limited information: it's almost a definition of intelligence. It's using sensory input to make a prediction, and then acts on that (imperfect) prediction. A rock doesn't use intelligence when falling, because the rock has full information on how gravity is pulling it. An animal chooses to look under a bush, however, because it's making an imperfect prediction about what's under the bush.
When predicting the pathway of a rock, you don't use Game Theory. When predicting the actions of an animal, you do
A lack of cognitive resources causes irrational behaviour. The more cognition you can apply ("cognition" being a combination of sensory information and processing/prediction) the less irrational behaviour will be.
Regarding your affection for music: the reason why don't know what causes your obsession is due to a lack of cognitive resources. If you had more insight into the 'music centers' of your brain, you would know why you like the music so much (as compared to now, where you merely know that you like the music*). Humans are capable of metacognition. We can know what we're thinking, but we can also know why we're thinking it.
*Of course, you probably have more insight into your affection that this black/white presentation, but I use it as an example.
Affection is a qualia, but one we're not very good at understanding. "Red" is also a qualia, but it's much, much easier to understand it. But emotions aren't magic (though many people treat them like magic), they're merely a sensory perception. This sensory perception is no more mysterious than vision, but we're not well equipped to understand it.
Wouldn't that be a matter of slow evolution? I do hold the belief that eventually we'll evolve better, in logic as well if we continue to use those brain functions.
Regardless, it's not only useful in limited situations. It is useful in nearly all situations. All truth is best gathered by using logic. Even irrationality inherent within humans can be evaluated using logic. Simply because we don't understand something yet doesn't mean that whatever methods we've used have failed.
And do you realize your argument is something akin to "See, this guy doesn't behave logically, thus not all things can be derived logically".
That is like me asking you to provide me an example where logic has proved that god exists. Using the wrong tool for a job is a poor use of resources.
As you well know Warpus, I have never disputed the value of reason in figuring out things about the physical universe, infact I am a firm believer that it is the best tool for such matters. Now if you believe that the physical universe is all that there is to existence and that everything has physical properties of some sort that can me measured with the right tool, then reason should be able to solve all our problems. The paradigm of science, reason and logic is based on the notion that physical evidence can be found and found again such that 'truth' can be determined. It is dependent upon the assumption that outside of the physical universe, nothing exists. Atheists are stuck in this way of thinking and usually closed off from thinking outside of this box.
I happen to believe that existence includes more than the physical universe. Therefore there are things that science cannot fathom and must be experienced rather than studied. That is my assumption.
We're not using science per se, only logic. My point still stands: do you use your best available method of evaluating the unknown, or do you use something less just because your best method may not apply (but the same might be true of every other method)?
Regarding the whole expanded Pascal's Wager, I feel it's not only derailed the thread, but it's also ended up like this:
Spoiler :
So I'm going to unilaterally drop that line of argument for now, also because I don't have the energy to go back over the last thirty posts or so. Back to normal questions.
I understand, but I would like for us to continue this line of thought sometime.
If you'll excuse me I'd like to poke holes through your reasons for Christianity, I hope that's OK
(not a sarcastic smiley)Actually that's still very true. If you could please read the following link (you can also watch the video after):
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/your-delusion.htm
I don't see how that has anything to do with God... maybe more with believing in your faith once you're already believing in it.
Unfortunately, that is not so. This link explains why (there are a few parts I slightly disagree with, but the main message is true):
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/superstition.htm
Well, it's more of a battle for freedom. Why do soldiers give their lives so that us and others like us may have freedom? Why are people willing to die to have freedom, when they already have an OK life? The similar is true with God. God enslaves us and forces us to go to hell unless we obey him (the Christian God that is), so we rebel because we want our freedom and to be free from oppression.
This gets into my response to you about Pascal's Wager, in which I challenge your need to actually believe in a God.
How do you reconcile a defensive belief with true faith? How do you manage to decide that a religion is most likely to be true, and then go and believe it with your entire devotion?
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
Not true at all. It is only useful in limited situations. If it were such a universally beneficial tool, then why hasn't illogical behavior been bred out of us over the past 7 million years? The fact that people are fundamentally irrational would lead one to believe that rationality is of limited value in our lives as humans.
That is like me asking you to provide me an example where logic has proved that god exists. Using the wrong tool for a job is a poor use of resources.
As you well know Warpus, I have never disputed the value of reason in figuring out things about the physical universe, infact I am a firm believer that it is the best tool for such matters. Now if you believe that the physical universe is all that there is to existence and that everything has physical properties of some sort that can me measured with the right tool, then reason should be able to solve all our problems. The paradigm of science, reason and logic is based on the notion that physical evidence can be found and found again such that 'truth' can be determined. It is dependent upon the assumption that outside of the physical universe, nothing exists. Atheists are stuck in this way of thinking and usually closed off from thinking outside of this box.
I happen to believe that existence includes more than the physical universe. Therefore there are things that science cannot fathom and must be experienced rather than studied. That is my assumption.
To prove that ilogical behavior is of value you attempt a conclusion that is based on logic. Logic may be flawed but it is still logic. I will move this think a step further. I consider you a clever individual who keeps speaking about irrationality. The fact is you keep thinking of ways to prove that Irationality is useful and that logic is not the basic thing in life.
However all thoughts you have ever made , to reach this flawed conclusion had a logical turn.
If they didn't you couldn't have written one line of text. You can use logic to speak about illogical things. Something i use for my next conclusion. To be absolutely not logical is to be insane. That's it. Any conclusion one's make even the ones that lead one into acknowledging that some kind of irrationality is the best is based on a form of logic.
I won't say that Logic is the most useful Truth searching tool. It is the only truth searching tool and even the ones who support the most irrational of ideas use some of it. Infact is the only tool which leads to conclusions.If you don't you are insane. You do so you are not insane. In fact even some Insane people use some logic so they are not totally insane. All Religions use Logic to justify their truth until a point. The fact that wre are able to understand anything regarding any religion means that there is logic involved.
So we come from using no logic at all making one unable to make any conclusions and using some logic making one able to make some conclusions.
The next step is that using only logic on something will lead us to more conclusions while irrationality will again lead us to no conclusions. How i can prove this ? I would like one to show me how he can evaluate anything by using only irrationality. It is impossible.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Mmkay.
Sure.If you'll excuse me I'd like to poke holes through your reasons for Christianity, I hope that's OK
No. The counterargument that I read started like this: "I am going to consider what properties the true religion, if there is one, would have." and then listed properties that disqualified various religions and groups of religions until Christianity was left. So there is reason to dismiss all the other possible gods for other reasons than the one set out there. (I don't remember it very well at the moment, I'm afraid. IIRC one of the steps was to disqualify polytheistic religions because "any god capable of creating half a universe can create a whole universe", if you want to try looking for it.)
It has to do with Christianity specifically, which makes predictions about how humans will behave, and then I see that reality matches it closely, rather than matching some other religion's claim that e.g. all flesh is evil.
"We take 1,000 cancer patients. We pray over 500 of them and we leave the other 500 alone."
I thought I answered this one already. Either the underlying prayer in such tests works out to "God, please make the people in Hospital A well, but keep the people in Hospital B sick", which I would expect to be answered "No", or it works out to "God, make all the 1,000 cancer patients well", and we're back to debating the Problem of Evil (and God's nonintervention) in general if you want to ask why God hasn't made the world as a whole better than it is.
Also, appearing at the /your-delusion page but better at home in this paragraph on prayer is the verses it lists where Jesus promises to answer prayer; I counter that Jesus told his disciples how to pray and also how not to pray.
That analogy seems very flawed.
First, soldiers in a war can hope to win. Usually their leaders tell them that they will win, too. People arguing "I hate God so much I'd rather go to Hell than Heaven with God" seem to have dropped this from the start.
Second, soldiers in a war are usually fighting on behalf of someone or something else, like 'my country' or 'my people' that is expected to reap benefits from their death. ("Unless some of us are willing to die, we will all die.") But going to Hell to protest doesn't seem to have any such effect.
Third, soldiers die and that's it, either way. Going to Hell doesn't end.
Fourth, the weighing of Hell against anything else should surely have Hell being worse, while death may be preferable to life under certain conditions (gulags and whatnot).
Pascal's Wager is largely incidental to me; it's aimed at quasi-utilitarians considering conversion and is little more than an interesting topic otherwise. I don't know because that's not what happened to me.
Also a general note about the WDGHA site: It assumes an omnipotent God, something I've already disagreed with, and a literalist reading of the Bible, which I also disagree with, and in general seems to be directed at a specific branch of Christianity. Do you agree with that assessment?
Long post over, going to go make hot dogs now.
A more generic question:
Has your conception of God changed as you learned more about the real world?
I see many people ask "how can you worship a God which wiped out most of humanity with a Flood?" and then great theological debates spring up with conceptions of God which are (mostly) logical and internally consistent with such an action from a loving being.
But once one realizes that the flood never happened, the question becomes entirely moot. One would then change their conception of God (hopefully).
There are many similar questions: "Why does God heal some amputees, but not others?" becomes moot if we decide that God doesn't actually heal amputees.
Of course, we always shift our explanations of reality as we learn new things, but has any obvious shifting occurred to you?
Has your conception of God changed as you learned more about the real world?
I see many people ask "how can you worship a God which wiped out most of humanity with a Flood?" and then great theological debates spring up with conceptions of God which are (mostly) logical and internally consistent with such an action from a loving being.
But once one realizes that the flood never happened, the question becomes entirely moot. One would then change their conception of God (hopefully).
There are many similar questions: "Why does God heal some amputees, but not others?" becomes moot if we decide that God doesn't actually heal amputees.
Of course, we always shift our explanations of reality as we learn new things, but has any obvious shifting occurred to you?
"How can you worship a God that wiped out humanity with a Flood?" is not an astonishingly different question from "how can you worship a God that allows hundreds of thousands of people to die in natural disasters?"
Similar threads
