The paradox of faith

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=begbert2]

“It’s better to be intellectually honest and just figure out a purpose that’s consistent with actual reality, and not ‘wishful thinking internal dream reality’.” Again, assuming that there’s any way to subjectively compare answers to big questions, which I think there is, this is falsifiable. And I’d say it’s pretty obviously true - nobody thinks you should base your decisions on delusion instead of reality. Religions just (unjustifiedly) claim to be reality, is all.
How is this a value judgement again? (Which is the only basis you give for dismissing it out of hand.)
[/QUOTE]

Is it better to be intellectually honest or emotionally honest? Is a balance of the two good or bad? Necessary or not?

142

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Is it better to be intellectually honest or emotionally honest? Is a balance of the two good or bad? Necessary or not?
[/QUOTE]

What does it meant to be emotionally honest?

If it’s what I think it is (something along the lines of “to oneself be true”) then intellectual honesty is far better because it aids in survival, to wit: “I have carved this spear carefully and critically to ensure it will fly straight” can get you a meal. “I have carved this spear until it feels right” means a miss and an angered mastodon stomping you into the ground.

143

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
What do you mean by “justified”? If you mean something like “supportable with objective evidence”, then you’re merely restating that religion is based on faith.
[/quote]
I mean supported by anything at all besides people’s unsupported word, in contradiction of observed reality; something that there is simply no reason to believe. “Faith” is just a pretty word for lie or delusion.

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
The uncertainty principle and the speed of light concern the acquisition and transmission of information, not the existence of information.
[/quote]
The uncertainty principle forbids that some information be accessible at all. And you can’t access information FTL.

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
And that assumes God is within our spacetime.
[/quote]
And you prove my point; in order to justify God even being possible, you need to flee the world. To postulate a place we have no evidence of, operating according to rules we have no evidence of, in order to justify even the possibility of a being we have no evidence of. It’s ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
You’re arguing against positions no one here espouses.
[/quote]
Oh, yes they are.

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Really? Which laws of nature address whether or not souls exist? The laws of physics certainly don’t.
[/quote]
Really. And what is a soul made of ? How does it hold together without matter ? How does it store information ? How does it interact with the brain without being detected ? How to you reconcile the effects of brain damage or drugs and the existence of a soul ? And so on.

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Again, you’re arguing against positions no one here has claimed.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong. I am arguing your false attempt to pretend that science and mathematics are just as baseless as religion. To pretend that religion is something else than a contradictory collection of lies and delusions with no evidence and contradictory to known facts, not to mention illogical.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
The problem is that the descriptive power of statistics assumes a rational universe: if the universe is irrational, statistical theory is useless for providing theories. In an irrational universe, that compelling evidence is nowhere near compelling. You can’t assume that which you’re trying to demonstrate.
[/QUOTE]
But we don’t live in an irrational universe. That’s why science works in the first place. It’s “assumed” that the consistency of reality won’t go out the window tomorrow because it never has. Unlike the empty guesses of religion, it’s an assumption based on millennia of working, without exception.

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I’m not suggesting that things will start going completely random: I’m suggesting that they’re going completely random right now, and that it’s sheer chance (or else some strange alien unreason that our brains are ill-equipped to comprehend) that has resulted in our belief that things operate according to reason.
[/QUOTE]
But they simply aren’t. We have billions of years of evidence that the universe isn’t random; that’s an “assumption” with a lot of evidence, and shows just how silly it is to compare it to the assumptions of religion that have zero or negative evidence.

The universe IS operating according to rules, not chance. We know what chance looks like, and this isn’t it. And “strange alien unreason” would just be another set of rules.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
We’ve talked about the provisional thing before. I agree that the nature of religious beliefs should be provisional. I’d say even the believers who cling to beliefs as absolute actually hold them provisionally.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you’d be wrong. Believers ignore outright disproof of their beliefs all the time.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
There is a difference between a *real *spiritual being and an *objectively real *being.
[/quote]
Yes. “Objectively real” is a term with meaning; “spiritually real” is meaningless gibberish.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Most believers would say God is *real *but I think if you asked if God was objectively real , such as had a physical form, was measurable in some way as far as height and width and weight etc. very few would agree. If you have some other definition of objectively real then please elaborate.
[/quote]
Existing as something other than a fiction, lie or delusion. You are using a definition of God that I seriously doubt anyone, even you actually takes seriously. It’s just another example of how foolish belief in God is, that you have to retreat so far from reality to claim he’s even possible.

Really, it gets pretty silly when the first thing people do when trying to justify God is to throw out reality. “He’s outside of spacetime !” “You can’t prove the world exists either !” It helps underline just how silly and unjustifiable the whole idea of God is.

144

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
But we don’t live in an irrational universe. That’s why science works in the first place. It’s “assumed” that the consistency of reality won’t go out the window tomorrow because it never has. Unlike the empty guesses of religion, it’s an assumption based on millennia of working, without exception.
[/QUOTE]

Well, that’s a bit circular, isn’t it? “The past has always been a good guide to the future in the past; therefore, the past shall continue being a good guide to the future in the future”, by way of the past being a good guide to the future…

I think inductive reasoning makes for a fine system, but I don’t think your argument succeeds in externally establishing its validity (which is fine, explanations come to an end somewhere).

145

[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Well, that’s a bit circular, isn’t it? “The past has always been a good guide to the future in the past; therefore, the past shall continue being a good guide to the future in the future”, by way of the past being a good guide to the future…

I think inductive reasoning makes for a fine system, but I don’t think your argument succeeds in externally establishing its validity (which is fine, explanations come to an end somewhere).
[/QUOTE]
My point is that first, it’s a simpler explanation than assuming billions of years of coincidence. And second, that it works, and working is pretty good justification for the validity of a system until someone comes along with something better. And third, that it’s better than religion has ever achieved.

The consistency of the universe IS proof of it’s existence in the way scientists ( and usually other people ) use the term. In arguments like this one, the religious believers try to drag in the mathematical/logical definition of proof, which is much more stringent ( and really unachievable outside of such abstract systems ), in order to claim that “science is just as unprovable as religion”. That’s what is really going on; it’s another attempt by the believers to drag science down to their level.

146

[QUOTE=begbert2]
I dunno about Der Trihs (who tends to go somewhat further than I do in his assertions) but I’d say that the specific possibility that human behaivor is controlled or strongly influenced by some sort of undamageable, eternal, noncoporeal soul is strongly argued against by the observable effects of changes on one’s brain chemistry (or physical brain structure) on one’s personality and behavior. That is, one would not expect a soul to get drunk just because a little chemical alcohol is sloshing around the physical grey matter.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t expect a soul to drink alcohol or anything else. While the soul is still attached to the body I might expect something else.

147

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Keep a civil tongue, or I’ll whip you with my flagella.

I heard Ed Fredkin talk about the universe as a simulation in 1973. This is nothing new, though I haven’t heard the odds before. I’m suspicious of them also - I didn’t read the paper, but if my skimming was accurate, instead of 1 in 4, if every posthuman kid is playing Sim Universe, the odds of our being a simulation might be 99.999%. If, that is, there is any reason for anyone to do this detailed a simulation in the first place.
[/QUOTE]

That is a great question. I’ve wondered plenty of times. If we are really eternal spiritual beings then why are we here at all?

Perhaps it’s just the experience. Perhaps we come into a world of duality to learn to appreciate the light. I don’t know.

The up side is that we don’t need to answer that question to use a belief system live in the moment and make it better.

148

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

Well, you’d be wrong. Believers ignore outright disproof of their beliefs all the time.

Yes. “Objectively real” is a term with meaning; “spiritually real” is meaningless gibberish.

Existing as something other than a fiction, lie or delusion. You are using a definition of God that I seriously doubt anyone, even you actually takes seriously. It’s just another example of how foolish belief in God is, that you have to retreat so far from reality to claim he’s even possible.

Really, it gets pretty silly when the first thing people do when trying to justify God is to throw out reality. “He’s outside of spacetime !” “You can’t prove the world exists either !” It helps underline just how silly and unjustifiable the whole idea of God is.
[/QUOTE]

And now we’ve entered that area where there won’t be any interesting discussion
You made the statement that most believers believe in an objectively real supreme being. I’ve tried to point out that isn’t necessarily so. According to your own rules, that you’ve stated many times, when someone makes a factual statement it is their responsibility to back it up. Evidently you can’t and this is how you avoid admitting it. That’s fine. If you can’t back it up we’ll just end the discussion here.

149

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
What does it meant to be emotionally honest?

If it’s what I think it is (something along the lines of “to oneself be true”) then intellectual honesty is far better because it aids in survival, to wit: “I have carved this spear carefully and critically to ensure it will fly straight” can get you a meal. “I have carved this spear until it feels right” means a miss and an angered mastodon stomping you into the ground.
[/QUOTE]

Are you sure? Does that mean all those people who believed they could do something that has never been done before should have been intellectually honest and never tried?
I think it’s possible to be both or at least find a pretty reasonable balance. Believing things that are contrary to very clear strong evidence may be intellectually dishonest. Believing something that objective evidence doesn’t even apply to is not.

Believers or non believers thinking their own feelings and preferences don’t influence their definition of intellectually honest, are not being honest. :slight_smile:

150

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Are you sure? Does that mean all those people who believed they could do something that has never been done before should have been intellectually honest and never tried?
[/quote]

I don’t understand the disconnect. Experimentation is based on a hypothesis and a test of that hypothesis (if I mix these two chemicals, then I’ll observe an effect). Intellectual honesty would be noting the results correctly. Intellectual dishonesty would be ignoring unfavourable results or altering the conditions to get desired results while not admitting such alteration has taken place.

I’d go a little further and say claiming things that are contrary to very clear strong evidence is intellectually dishonest, i.e. one tries to speak with authority about things one knows (or should know but won’t admit) are untrue. Simply keeping these opinions to yourself would, I guess, qualify as emotional dishonesty, but I’m still waiting for a definition of that term.

In any case, let’s say Concept A cannot have objective evidence applied to it. Concept B, also, cannot have objective evidence applied to it. Are Concept A and Concept B interchangeable, then?

151

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You made the statement that most believers believe in an objectively real supreme being. I’ve tried to point out that isn’t necessarily so.
[/quote]
And I’ve pointed out how silly that claim is. People claim all the time that God does this or God wants that; they make claims that God is this way or that way - claim one makes of something objective. There MAY be somewhere a few weird types who actually believe in your subjective God; but I doubt you could fill a good sized room with them.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
According to your own rules, that you’ve stated many times, when someone makes a factual statement it is their responsibility to back it up. Evidently you can’t and this is how you avoid admitting it.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m backed up by all the believers who make it clear that they DO believe that God is a real being. You are the one claiming that all those millions of people are using your personal bizarre definition of God, and apparently lying about it in some vast conspiracy. I’m just taking people at their word about what they believe.

152

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
The God I believe in does not violate the laws of nature. But the laws of nature do not address the soul. Any persistence of the soul, or God’s interaction with, does not violate nature, since nature doesn’t cover that.
[/QUOTE]

If the soul has thoughts, then it processes information, and that takes energy. Where does this energy come from, and how is it processed by an immaterial thing? I’d say that souls definitely violate the laws of nature as we know them.

Though if they are outside of nature they cannot interact with things within nature, so I don’t know how you have any knowledge of them, never mind evidence of them. You can make up anything you want to, but it is more at the level of fantasy than belief.

153

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I wonder if that’s true. I see a gradual shift in beliefs. Didn’t the Mormon church start ordaining black priesthood members in recent years? The church I used to belong to went through some major changes a few years back and began ordaining women. I heard a priesthood member say from the pulpit that a gay church member had asked for help and years later he believed he was saved and still gay, indicating a shift in beliefs about homosexuality.

[/quote]

To paraphrase Mr. Dooley, the Mormon Church follows the election returns. I’m certainly not denying that churches change some views - the Catholics even believe that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe anymore. :slight_smile: But I don’t see any changing the fundamental views. Most of Christianity, anyway. Now Christianity splinters so often perhaps a change creates a new church, not a change in the old one.

I was okay up until the last sentence. All true facts are universal, so if you believe something is a true fact, then it must be universal. But John appears to be just asserting a truth. I’d say truths always effectively start from scratch, though we may build on truths found by others. An atheist making an OP just saying that there obviously is no God, so grow up, would get jeered by the atheist side as much as the theist side. We all need justifications.

True, but it would also be harder for some religious leaders to bully everyone else based on a God they can’t claim knowledge of. Then where would we be?

154

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I don’t understand the disconnect. Experimentation is based on a hypothesis and a test of that hypothesis (if I mix these two chemicals, then I’ll observe an effect). Intellectual honesty would be noting the results correctly. Intellectual dishonesty would be ignoring unfavourable results or altering the conditions to get desired results while not admitting such alteration has taken place.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t mean just in science although I’d say scientists can skew results based on ego and emotion. That doesn’t change the principle though.
I mean anyone who has conceived of doing something that’s never been done and taken the steps to accomplish it, in spite of being told they were wasting their time. They believed in something. Emotional honesty IMO is an essential part of the thing that makes us strive to understand and accomplish.

To thine own self be true is not a bad take on it. I think emotional honesty is equally important to intellectual honesty. Are belief systems are made up of our analysis of the world around us using the intellect and our emotions.
I’d agree with that first sentence although the average joe may not take time to

No.

155

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And I’ve pointed out how silly that claim is. People claim all the time that God does this or God wants that; they make claims that God is this way or that way - claim one makes of something objective. There MAY be somewhere a few weird types who actually believe in your subjective God; but I doubt you could fill a good sized room with them.
[/QUOTE]
If they say God opened the window that’s objective. If they say God moved in their heart that’s subjective. Even if they say God helped them get a job, or helped Uncle Bob stop drinking, it’s spiritual.

People do believe God heals the sick and the physical body is objective, but that doesn’t mean they think God is objective. It means they believe God can effect objective things.

I’ve already said they think God is real. That’s not the issue.
Here’s how it’s supposed to work. When I said believers are more likely to give to charity Kalhoun asked to see some statistics and I provided them. You’ve stated something about believers as fact that now you can’t or won’t back it up. That’s okay.

156

[QUOTE=Voyager]
To paraphrase Mr. Dooley, the Mormon Church follows the election returns. I’m certainly not denying that churches change some views - the Catholics even believe that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe anymore. :slight_smile: But I don’t see any changing the fundamental views. Most of Christianity, anyway. Now Christianity splinters so often perhaps a change creates a new church, not a change in the old one.
[/QUOTE]
No doubt that happens but I think it still reflects a gradual and persistent change. When the church I used to belong to changed its name and started ordaining women a couple of splinter groups broke off but the main body of the church accepted the change and moved on.

I phrased that poorly. I meant nobody’s concept of truth started from scratch. I suppose if you go back to infancy it did, but the point was that all people gather their belief system from their environment with it’s good or bad influences.
What do you mean John appears to be asserting a truth? I agree that true facts are universal. The truth will eventually sift the myth from fact.

better off?

157

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t mean just in science although I’d say scientists can skew results based on ego and emotion. That doesn’t change the principle though.
[/quote]

Well, what established something as “science” is that it can be repeated elsewhere, by different scientists, so while it is possible that some particular scientist can bias a result to his liking, other scientists can just as cheerfully contradict his work.

Okay, but that doesn’t get any closer to defining what emotional honesty is.

Why? One person devoutly believes in God. Another person devoutly believes in Zeus. For these beliefs to not be interchangeable, there has to be a distinct observable difference between them. Can you suggest one?

158

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If they say God opened the window that’s objective. If they say God moved in their heart that’s subjective. Even if they say God helped them get a job, or helped Uncle Bob stop drinking, it’s spiritual.
[/quote]
No, it’s objective. It’s the equivalent of claiming that the government is making people do things with mind control rays, the claim that an outside force is affecting you.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
People do believe God heals the sick and the physical body is objective, but that doesn’t mean they think God is objective. It means they believe God can effect objective things.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: Oh, please. Anything that can do that IS objective.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Here’s how it’s supposed to work. When I said believers are more likely to give to charity Kalhoun asked to see some statistics and I provided them. You’ve stated something about believers as fact that now you can’t or won’t back it up. That’s okay.
[/QUOTE]
No, you are simply ignoring the obvious, in order to push an incredibly distorted argument. I doubt that anyone has ever bothered to poll how many consider God to be objective, since the number would be 99.9+ %. You are the one making a bizarre claim about God and how people think about him, without evidence that anyone, anywhere actually buys into your idea. You are describing a God that has the characteristics of something objective, insisting that it be referred to as subjective, and deluding yourself that you’ve done something other than clumsy word games.

159

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, what established something as “science” is that it can be repeated elsewhere, by different scientists, so while it is possible that some particular scientist can bias a result to his liking, other scientists can just as cheerfully contradict his work.

[/QUOTE]
That happens in religion as well. People disagree about the nature of god and god’s relationship to us and our relationship to each other. One persons work contradicts the other. It’s just a longer harder process with religion because the subject matter isn’t as concrete.

Okay, Emotional honesty id being consciously aware of what you feel and being honest with yourself and others about it. The search for truth must include the truth about ourselves. Remember this started with a comment about the purpose of life.

A distinct difference to whom and on what level? For what purpose? The difference is within the believer.

160

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, it’s objective. It’s the equivalent of claiming that the government is making people do things with mind control rays, the claim that an outside force is affecting you.

[/QUOTE]
Ahhhh now the going in circles. Very productive. Who said it’s an outside force?

really? Perhaps you can explain how a placebo works.

Since I’ve asked you several times now to back this up and you’ve offered nothing, which sadly is par for the course for you, we are now officially done talking about this until you do.