So if I suspect that there may be aliens somewhere in the universe, I’m just as rational or as nutty as man who believes light fixtures speak to him?
If I am not thoroughly convinced that ESP is a crazy idea, I have no reason to doubt the existence of vampire mermaids with laser beam eyes?
Come on now. Let’s be fair. I mean, all natural events don’t have equal plausibility. It’s possible that the airplane carrying my sister could crash into my apartment building so that she would fall right into my bed, unharmed. But is this event as plausible as me going to the toliet sometime before midnight tonight? No. I don’t know why the same logic doesn’t apply to the supernatural realm.
I agree that debating about the plausibility of different religious beliefs is an exercise of futility. But that doesn’t mean we have to be relativistic when it comes to every belief system.
Just FTR, I’m not saying Poly’s a bad person, or even that he’s going to Hell for believing this. And I’m not “distancing” myself from him. I’m just saying that I’m surprised, and disappointed, to find him apparently being fitted for a tinfoil hat, especially within the context of this particular message board, with this particular group of people. If he had said this on one of my Tinfoil Hat Brigade message boards, I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. But in the context of the SDMB, it came as a greater shock. I get so used to thinking of everyone here at the Dope as hard-nosed skeptics, even the “religious” folks, that it’s always startling to find out that one of them also believes in, say, Bigfoot or the Abominable Snowman, or chemtrails, or homeopathy.
But hey, I’m okay with it, it’s just a shock, is all.
My next guess for the Famous Last Name is going to be “Kennedy”.
MrVisible, frankly, I’m not going to worry about that. I lay equal odds on his being right and on that neighbor actually being the Anti-Christ who’s managed to fool Poly; the possibilities (both extremely remote in my view) cancel each other out exactly.
There is no miscommunication and I don’t see what’s absurd about presuming, absent any empirical evidence, that one supernatural (or in the case of alien visitation, simply extraordinarily unlikely) belief has any more validity than another supernatural (or extraordinarily unlikely) belief.
My “impossible until…” postulate was used facetiously. What I meant was that if a belief requires a suspension in the physical laws of the universe it must be presumed to be impossible until some irrefutable evidence shows otherwise and all such beliefs must be presumed equally impossible.
To be more clear about my personal beliefs, I will state flat out that I think all supernatural beliefs are equally irrational because they are all equally impossible.
To Left Hand and Darkhold:
I would submit that any belief which contradicts what can be known through a systematic logical process based on axiomatic truths, is, by definition irrational.
When it comes to belief in impossible phenomena all such belief is equally irrational. Whether those beliefs are malignant or benign has no bearing on whether they are rational.
By that definition, Diogenes, I don’t see how Poly’s belief in the messianic nature of the Internet guy is irrational. While it’s not supported by logical processes or axiomatic truths, it doesn’t seem to me to contradict them, either.
You are missing the point that the existence of aliens is not a supernatural event.
DtC: I feel your pain, man. I know exactly what you are talking about wrt viewing various supernatural events with equal skepticism. We don’t agree very often on politics, but I’m with wou 100% on this. Christ coming on a blazing chariot with angels trumpetting his arrival vs Christ appearing as local jazz artist who happens to make the blind see but otherwise keeps a low profile. Same difference to me!
I think you might have missed something else I said in that post, monstro:
So, no, I don’t think a belief in the possibility of extraterrestrials is irrational. I do think a belief that aliens have already visited (absent a shred of empirical evidence) is irrational.
As to relative plausibility of supernatural events, from a purely objective standpoint no, supernatural event has any plausibility because from a scientific, empirical standpoint, they are all impossible. There is no logical way to ascribe values of plausibility to presumptively impossible phenomena.
Not yet, anyway. But if Poly believes (again, absent any empirical evidence) that this person is an incarnated God or that he has supernatural abilities (which he has not yet explicitly stated) then he would be expressing an irrational belief. It just wouln’t be any more irrational than the blazing Jesus in the sky scenario.
Yes, it is. I speak of “extraordinary claims” in the sense that Sagan used in his famous quip about extraordinary evidence. It is an extraordinary claim that(1) Jesus is the son of God, it is an axtraordinary claim that (2) Jesus will return in our lifetime, and it is an extraordinary claim (even if it’s just a “hunch”) that (3) Jesus is some unidentified blonde-haired guy with a defunct web page, a famous last name, and a dark-haired friend.
But while all three claims are extraordinary claims, (1) and (2) are at least normal beliefs, shared by millions upon millions of people. (3) is about as abnormal as you can get. Now that certainly doesn’t mean that Poly’s gone off the deep end–in fact, I rather doubt that’s the case–but it’s more than enough to give me pause and ask “Hey man, everything okay with you?”
Let’s separate irrational beliefs from a holistic judgement of the person. I think that all human beings probably hold at least some beliefs which are irrational. We are not Vulcans, after all. We are an animal ruled by emotions, personal prejudices, bad information and often inconsistent and self-contradictory thought processes.
Holding an irrational belief does not make a person “crazy” or mentally ill in any clinical sense. It just means they have an irrational belief. Sometimes an irrational belief can be a very good thing for mental health and social functioning. A belief in God would be an obvious example of such a belief.
So to answer your question, a per se belief in talking light fixtures is no more irrational than a per se belief in God.
I would say, though, that a belief in talking light fixtures has a good chance of indicating schizophrenia, not because that belief is inherently any more irrational but because it is so far outside the norm of enculturated irrational beliefs.
That’s a better way of phrasing it. But the point is not that only atheists can determine who is crazy, but that to an atheist there is little if any difference between the two beliefs. I think that’s all the DtC is trying to say, and I agree with that fully. No one is saying that either person is crazy. Just that there is an equal amount of empirical evidence (ie, zero) for both beliefs.
See, that’s just the thing though. If we swallow (1) and (2) as “normal” extraordinary beliefs, than rejection of (3) seems like straining at a gnat. Particularly when a direct consequence of (1) and (2), if they are indeed true, would be the actual physical reappearance of Christ in some way, shape or manner.
Although you’re quite correct that a suspicion such as Poly’s is abnormal in the sense of being unusual among sane and rational Christians, it’s certainly not out of place in the context of (1) and (2). In fact, I would find it a bit jarring to allow the expectation of Christ’s return at an unspecified date without accepting the notion that this expectation may about to be fulfilled.
Utterly ditto. I said this almost exactly in chat.
Given the far more bigoted, outlandish, misleading, ignorant claims made daily on these boards, it amazes me that one person’s profession of faith has sparked such a huge reaction.
(I mean did we spend this long on Mormon underpants?!)
No, I don’t think so. Sure, if all you’re concerned about is the truth or falsity of the claims, then yes, it’s rather pointless to quibble. But if you’re concerned about the mental state of the person making the claims, it’s highly relevant that (1) and (2) are perfectly normal beliefs, but (3) is way, way out there.
I know exactly what you are talking about wrt viewing various supernatural events with equal skepticism. We don’t agree very often on politics, but I’m with wou 100% on this. Christ coming on a blazing chariot with angels trumpetting his arrival vs Christ appearing as local jazz artist who happens to make the blind see but otherwise keeps a low profile. Same difference to me!