Not really. 1 your claim that belief is irrational isn’t factual. Once again that is a part of your particular belief system.
IMO every human has a belief system that is a mix of our experience, our culture, our personality, and contains elments of faith and facts. Hard realities we can measure, our reasoning minds that elvaluate evidence and experiences, and our emotions. I’m speaking of faith as a common element of the human makeup, not just religious faith. Sam Harris said they should have equal footing and I agreed.
It’s not actually. It’s relevant that believers have no evidence and that’s why it seems obvious to me that they shouldn’t be sure , but the thread is not about one convincing the other.
Not my intention.
I happen to think religious and spirtual beliefs are a very valid and useful path of self discovery and by extension ,personal and societal growth. Not for everyone to be sure, and not for everyone all the time.
Because I think that I tend to bristle at the slight smugness and implied superiority I find in some non believers, and the downright antagonism and venom I find in a few others. Like I said, I hang out on the SDMB.
Like I keep saying, you are continuously attempting to put the irrational on par with the rational and that’s what you’re trying to do again here. Of course my claim is factual. Belief in incredible claims without evidence is irrational by definition.
Sam Harris said what should have equal footing? All types of faith? Do you have a cite for what Sam said?
I’m not going to defend points I never made. I explained my intention and the misunderstanding. If you don’t think I’ sincere that’s fine.
Let’s put it this way.
Believers have reasons they believe. Most of those are subjective experiences and emotions, probably influenced by the culture and whatever tradition they grew up in.
I think non believers are influenced by emotions as well but let’s say their beliefs or lack of beliefs are based on the realities that the available evidence indicates and does not indicate. Even a complete lack of evidence for extraordinary claims.
All that indicates is that believers have to way to prove their belief system is correct, but when you get right down to it, on some basic points, neither do you.
You consider your rationalism superior. Of course. Believers consider their gut feeling and religious experiences more convincing. And that’s where it dead ends until some event or information alters someones beliefs.
so you say.
I don’t know if there is a something more that believers refer to as god or a universal consciousness, or whatever. I don’t know if any part of us survives after our physical body dies. I’m also fairly certain you don’t know either. If I tend to believe it’s more likely than not because of my personal experiences I only have to defend that if I want to convince anyone else.
If you happen to not believe in anything beyond this life that’s okay. I have no problem with that. If you try to convince me to change my beliefs that’s when we encounter your version of “because I believe it’s so” that is unconvincing.
Not by the defnition I find in every dictionary. You sure you’re not expanding it a bit?
I was being a smart ass. I really liked the End of Faith and I agree that religious beliefs should not have any untoucable privilage , especially when they clearly affect the lives of others as they often do.
After the book got so much attention I noticed that non believers , while promoting Sam’s principle , were still placing faith in a special catagory that applied only to relgious faith. That seemed to be a violation of Sam’s principle to me. I think we need to look at what mechnism we have in us as humans that allows us to accept things are true without proof or evidence. It happens all the time in believers and non believers and IMO it’s the same emotional mental function in all people. If that’s true then non believers have less grounds for pissing all over relgious faith when they ignore their own acts of faith.
There is a big difference between the proposition that each person should be able to choose his or her beliefs and the proposition that all beliefs are equally valid. I’m not about to try to force a creationist to accept evolution (it’s pointless, and it annoys the creationist) but if he stands up in a meeting and says that evolution and creationism are both just beliefs, I’m going to try to shoot the idiot down. Afterlife and non-afterlife isn’t quite as well determined (though it is close) and no one is trying to cram anything down the throats of kids. But the principle is the same.
The inability of most people to evaluate beliefs is a big problem today, in areas far more important than the afterlife. Global warming, the economy, vaccines, to name three.
Well, no-I’m not. I’m saying that what you perceive as an overabundance of non-believers pushing their agenda might be in reality a decent number of non-believers feeling comfortable enough in this environment to not let religious claims slide by without comment as they usually do in the outside world. They are not pushing their agenda-they are holding their own.
I think it’s important to seperate what we have lots of evidence about and what that evidence clearly indicates from the things that are less clear. Call it a matter of priorities if you will. In those areas that are less clear I think it’s helpful for both sides to acknowledge “I really don’t know”
I agree again. That’s exactly where the priorities should come in. If someone has basic god belief or belief in an afterlife and we know we can’t really say one way or the other, let it go and focus on the more relevant beliefs that affect us more. We can encourage the principles of embracing facts and evidence on those issues we are stronger in and allow those principles to reshape spiritual beliefs over time. I seriously think that’s a more helpful strategy than chanting “belief in god is irrational”
Not only is it not true , it usually closes the door to an exchange of ideas.
I see the nuanced difference. Do you agree that in this enviroment non believers tend to be much more vocal than the believers in general, and included in that are the other things I mentioned. slight smugness and implied superiority. Not from everybody al the time, but fairly often.
You said you were “merely pointing out that non believers had their own version of “I believe it is so” and that there are real limits to what your evidence indicates.”
I showed what you really said. You said that we try to convince just by saying “I believe it is so.” That is not merely pointing out that we have our own version of “I believe it is so”, far from it.
What belief system of mine are you talking about and what 'basic points"? Everything I believe is based on evidence. You’re insistence on putting irrational beliefs on par with rational ones isn’t convincing.
It doesn’t matter if evidence or showing them they lack it can’t alter the way a believer thinks. Rationalism is superior regardless. Claiming that rational thought isn’t superior to irrational thought is pure crazy talk.
WTF? Didn’t you just try to convince me you really didn’t say that and now you’re saying it? NO ONE HERE has tried to convince you to change your beliefs just by saying “because I believe it’s so.” That’s not the way us rational people try to convince others something has evidence on its side. You didn’t tell me which of our beliefs or non-beliefs are unconvincing.
Dude, this conversation with you has been a little weird but this is just plain bizarre. You said, “I’m speaking of faith as a common element of the human makeup, not just religious faith. Sam Harris said they should have equal footing and I agreed.” When I ask you where Sam said this you claim you were being a smart ass? I was supposed to see that claim was sarcasm? What?
Of course. That’s because claiming other types of faith are the same as religious faith is equivocating. Which is something believers like to do to pretend we’re just as irrational as you.
Is it really less clear? We know what evidence of life after death looks like in fiction. We have Topper, we have Ghost, we have Betelgeuse, we have Harry Potter. In the real world we have tens of thousands of years of understandable wishful thinking that things don’t end when we die - and we have zippo repeatable or confirmable evidence. We have the evidence that the mind is tied to the body I mentioned before. If this is wrong, and soul does survive, there are two possibilities - it can contact us, or it cannot. If you hypothesize it can, then these thousands of years of no soul doing so strongly suggests there are no souls to do it. If it cannot, then you agree that there is not a shred of evidence for the afterlife - and there cannot be a shred of evidence. This is far different from “I really don’t know.” It is “I really want there to be one” which I certainly understand.
The problem with this is that we as a society can’t be rational about some issues and irrational about others. Say person X really wants there to be an afterlife, and rejects logical arguments against it - in fact says he believes, and doesn’t even consider them. This is fine with you. But person Y really wants to have more government services and less taxes, and believes in the magical Laffer curve, rejecting all evidence against. Or global warming, or whatever. How can you call person Y incorrect and person X correct? We don’t know global warming is really happening or that the Laffer curve is wrong anymore than we know that when we die we are dead.
If you think the difference is.that an afterlife won’t affect anything, we’ve got the problem of the immortal souls of fetuses. But really, isn’t it better for everyone to consider these issues rationally, whether or not it will affect anyone else? Because a lot of people have a big problem seeing the difference between just belief being valid for useless things and it being valid for important things.
no. That’s why I explained my intent and said the more correct word would be if. “If” does not imply someone has. A subtle but important difference.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I disagree with your assessment of religious beliefs being irrational. Unless you can show me you’re correct this assertion of yours doesn’t carry much weight with me.
I agree in principle but we obviously disagree on what constitutes rational or irrational thought.
WTF? didn’t I just explain
exactly why I didn’t do that and yet here you are accusing me again. I repeat , the reason for changing the phrasing from “when” to “if” is because if is not accusing anybody of doing something. It’s saying if {hence the choice of this word} you were to do X then Y would be the result. It doesn’t claim you did X. See the difference? I sure hope so.
I tried to. Let me try again. If your evidence is inconclusive and unconvincing then what you have is reasons for a particular conclusion that is essentially " I believe that it is so" The specific beliefs are the existence of something more beyond this physical life that believers refer to in many ways. God is one way.
Did you notice this very quote says your opinion is one of several and debatable? I did. Got anything else?
Dude . my particular choice of words was in a smart alec form but I just explained exactly what I meant and you are about to respond, so , dude, why even bring this up?
It isn’t in some cases and sifting them and seeing the difference is important.
that belief systems should be held and examined on equal footing. Wasn’t that his main thrust in that book?
If we really want to examine things on equal footing then we look at the human mental and emotional mechanisms that create a belief system for anyone, not just the religious. I find in examining those mechanisms that believers and non believers hold a lot in common.
Comon. tens of thousands of years with no evidence? Scientific method and the search for evidnce have barely begun. How can we realsitically say it’s clear in any way?
Well we can be because we are.
I didn’t say that. IMO believers need to recognize that their beliefs are in a process of change and that we can and must go forward on our belief systems as humans but it also behooves us to be open to new information and experiences and to alter the details of our belief system accordingly. We can have faith, and still recognize the uncertain nature of aspects of a belief system.
again that’s where priorities come in and dealing with the mechanism of belief we share in common.
I guess it depends in part about what you consider rational. Even then, how do we accomplish that. By telling people what they are alllowed to believe under the heading of rational? I think it’s better to try and undertand the internal mechanism, as well as prioritize which beleifs are the biggest problems in relatinship to what evidence is the clearest. I don’t think it’s inherently irrational to hold beliefs that have been handed down for generations and permeate the culture. I do think it’s a good idea to challange them.
The scientific method is important in creating theories to evaluate evidence and to predict things. You don’t have to be a scientist to collect data. If there were multiple independent and contemporary witnesses to the resurrection, that could be powerful evidence. Science would try to make sense of the observations, but anyone can make them.
You’re right - I should have said should, We can do all sorts of stupid stuff.
But we don’t, do we, and it is difficult to do when society - or large chunks of society - recognizes certain belief systems as immune from rational questioning. Let’s not even worry about religion - many papers run horoscopes, albeit on the comics pages, and a fair number of people believe in them. Those of us who don’t are boring old skeptics. Our society is awash with stuff like this. I suppose it isn’t surprising, considering we’ve only had science for 500 years.
I don’t get priorities, It is not like we have a limited capacity for rational analysis. We can consistently reject all these things, with no more effort than rejecting some of them. No doubt each of us have beliefs which will be hard to examine, but those are the ones most important to examine.
People can believe anything, as I’ve said before. We can avoid stepping on cracks to not break our mothers’ backs while understanding it is a silly habit. I know that you examine beliefs, but a lot of people don’t. What we need is a culture in which the process of examining beliefs and thinking rationally is important, no matter where that leads. Where everyone laughs at psychics, not just the intellectual elite. Wouldn’t it be nice if saying something irrational were just as gauche as chewing with your mouth open?
Czarcasm is asserting that existence without space or time is impossible. I have asked him to show some evidence for his assertion. What is it about this old-as-time Great Debates concept that you’re just not getting?
I have laid out in step by step detail why I believe what I do. Czarcasm’s rebuttal was to state that existence outside of space and time is impossible. As over a decade’s worth of precedent on this forum will support, I am entitled to ask him to provide some evidence for his claim.
Again, which part of these well-established debating concepts are you just not getting?
Excellent, so we agree that Czarcasm must show some evidence to support his assertion that existence without space and time is impossible.
This isn’t in disagreement with anything I have claimed, but rather, quite supportive. Very strange that you would frame it in such a way that you were challenging anything I have written.
You know, your assertion about a timeless God with no beginning dwarfs any counter-assertion Czarcasm might have made, so the way you’ve glommed onto “demanding evidence for his assertion” looks pretty disingenuous from where I’m sitting.
Yes, the onus is on Kelly to establish that something outside of time and space - wherever that is? - can actually influence things within time and space… we know where that is.