A "perfect" world. Can it exist?

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

In the way you imagine it, you are right, the owrld is not perfect. But it perfectly fullfils its purpose. In reference to you it is changing.

We seem to be closer in our opinion than before. Who says that there can be no good dialog between people with differing world-views?

adamlsp:

But realisticly you do not use a moving object to reference the speed of another moving object. If you want to know its true speed you pick the thing that does not move to reference it against. This would be God.

I am not sure about the relevance of this, but it is true that linear, non-accelarating motions are equivalent (Einstein’s special relativity).

adamlsp:

Humanity evolves and as we evolve new challenges are required that would best test us for our particular state.

Our evolution is evident, although I am not sure that it is fast. If you consider not just our techincal advancement, but all of our attributes, I don’t think we change a lot.

adamlsp:

Humanity is different from its past self. One example is IQ. In the past hundred years a dramatic increase in the average human’s IQ has lead science to believe it has been ncreasing all along.

Measuring IQ is a very tricky subject. I have participated in an IQ test about 15 years ago (it was a prerequisite for a job application), and achieved a respectable score of around 140. Not too bad, but it was not really measuring IQ, which is not something that can be easily defined. Many of the questions assumed that the tested person was brought up in the States. I still recall a set of questions of “if A is to B, then C is to E or F or G or H” where the questions involved American vice-presidents of yesteryears. Needless to say, I had no idea how to answer these questions. I did not know anything about those vice-presidents.

And of course there were no IQ tests a hundred or so years ago. The point is that we certainly have changed, but basic human nature is probably the same as it was a thousand years ago. Human nature is still a bell-curve, a few very good people, a few sociopaths and many average, nice, but not too nice people. (Of course we are in the 3+ standard deviation from the mean value… ahem, ahem… )

Also you should notice the differences between modern and ancient society and how surely different tests are valuable. Even from a hundred years ago to now there is significant change. And from ten years ago. Rapid change in subjects means rapid change in methods.

Yes, I agreed to this, but are there really rapid changes in human nature during ten years or even less? I don’t think so.

adamlsp:

And on a side note TB still affects millions of people the world over.

Well, I could have used the bubonic plague as an example. It sure was a “successful” way of spreading pain and misery. I am happy that it was “withdrawn” from the testing repertoire.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

We seem to be closer in our opinion than before. Who says that there can be no good dialog between people with differing world-views?

I am not sure about the relevance of this, but it is true that linear, non-accelarating motions are equivalent (Einstein’s special relativity).

Our evolution is evident, although I am not sure that it is fast. If you consider not just our techincal advancement, but all of our attributes, I don’t think we change a lot.

Measuring IQ is a very tricky subject. I have participated in an IQ test about 15 years ago (it was a prerequisite for a job application), and achieved a respectable score of around 140. Not too bad, but it was not really measuring IQ, which is not something that can be easily defined. Many of the questions assumed that the tested person was brought up in the States. I still recall a set of questions of “if A is to B, then C is to E or F or G or H” where the questions involved American vice-presidents of yesteryears. Needless to say, I had no idea how to answer these questions. I did not know anything about those vice-presidents.

And of course there were no IQ tests a hundred or so years ago. The point is that we certainly have changed, but basic human nature is probably the same as it was a thousand years ago. Human nature is still a bell-curve, a few very good people, a few sociopaths and many average, nice, but not too nice people. (Of course we are in the 3+ standard deviation from the mean value… ahem, ahem… )

Yes, I agreed to this, but are there really rapid changes in human nature during ten years or even less? I don’t think so.

Well, I could have used the bubonic plague as an example. It sure was a “successful” way of spreading pain and misery. I am happy that it was “withdrawn” from the testing repertoire.

Hitetlen,

I liked your post.

I don’t think there was a rapid change in human nature, that’s not what I meant. I think because of our freewill we found ways to alieviate the suffering of past evils. Because past evils disappeared new ones arose.

I see what your saying about there being less of a certain type of evil in the world today. We live longer and have higher standards of living and everything. A plague on modern man may be an increase in disbelief, at least from a believer’s perspective; lack of a sense of community and closeness to others is another thing that many feel exist in the world today; liberality and disregard for tradition; relativism; the rush and lack of patience of the capitalistic world; less dedication. These all appear to be things that hurt our world today that weren’t as prominent in the past. You could even say ours are more difficult tests because ours are harder to discover whereas physical pain is very tangible and evident. Our problems look mostly psychological and sociological. I’m sure you could think of more examples.

Another possibility is that God wanted people at the end of the time pipe to be punished and soul built in purgatory rather than on earth. Again, to God he didn’t “change” his methods he just decided to use different ones at different points in time.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

That is an interesting take on the subject.

adamlsp:

I see what your saying about there being less of a certain type of evil in the world today. We live longer and have higher standards of living and everything.

In other words, some king of pain and suffering is on the decline, while others increase. I can see one problem immediately.

The pain and suffering from physical causes is an objective one, no one can deny the results of a bubonic plague.

The “evil” you enumerate in the next paragraph is somewhat subjective, at lease in some of your cases. Another objection is that some of what you enumerate as evils are definite advancement in my eyes (and other atheists as well).

Also, I recall the famous saying from the Roman times: “O tempora, o mores” (what horrible times, what horrible morals - loosely translated). So to complain about the “modern” times as compared to the “virtuous” past is nothing new, every generation engages in the same condemnation of the “new” generation.

adamlsp:

A plague on modern man may be an increase in disbelief, at least from a believer’s perspective; lack of a sense of community and closeness to others is another thing that many feel exist in the world today; liberality and disregard for tradition; relativism; the rush and lack of patience of the capitalistic world; less dedication. These all appear to be things that hurt our world today that weren’t as prominent in the past. You could even say ours are more difficult tests because ours are harder to discover whereas physical pain is very tangible and evident. Our problems look mostly psychological and sociological. I’m sure you could think of more examples.

Increase in disbelief is wrong from your perspective, and good from mine. Sense of community is changing, that is for sure, since the community is changing. We are not an agricultural society any more, the ties to one place are looser or nonexistent. Closeness to others? I don’t see any significant changes there. Liberality and disregard for tradition can be bad or good, depending on the circumstances. I am sure you agree that it is good to get rid of some kind of tradition (slavery comes to mind). Then comes relativism - not all that is traditional is automatically good… and so on.

So the picture is not that dark - at least for me. I understand it is not the same for you. At least we can talk about it in a civil manner, and understand each other a little better. I think we exhausted this topic, but if you want to add something new, I will be happy to read it.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

That is an interesting take on the subject.

In other words, some king of pain and suffering is on the decline, while others increase. I can see one problem immediately.

The pain and suffering from physical causes is an objective one, no one can deny the results of a bubonic plague.

The “evil” you enumerate in the next paragraph is somewhat subjective, at lease in some of your cases. Another objection is that some of what you enumerate as evils are definite advancement in my eyes (and other atheists as well).

Also, I recall the famous saying from the Roman times: “O tempora, o mores” (what horrible times, what horrible morals - loosely translated). So to complain about the “modern” times as compared to the “virtuous” past is nothing new, every generation engages in the same condemnation of the “new” generation.

Increase in disbelief is wrong from your perspective, and good from mine. Sense of community is changing, that is for sure, since the community is changing. We are not an agricultural society any more, the ties to one place are looser or nonexistent. Closeness to others? I don’t see any significant changes there. Liberality and disregard for tradition can be bad or good, depending on the circumstances. I am sure you agree that it is good to get rid of some kind of tradition (slavery comes to mind). Then comes relativism - not all that is traditional is automatically good… and so on.

So the picture is not that dark - at least for me. I understand it is not the same for you. At least we can talk about it in a civil manner, and understand each other a little better. I think we exhausted this topic, but if you want to add something new, I will be happy to read it.

Hitetlen,

I think we’ve pretty much covered this. Our different perspectives stop our agreement on certain issues. And you are right, these challenges are subjective. I think that’s what makes them more interesting.

I was wondering what your criteria are to be fulfilled before you think something is believable. When do you think it is OK to believe in something?

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I think we’ve pretty much covered this. Our different perspectives stop our agreement on certain issues. And you are right, these challenges are subjective. I think that’s what makes them more interesting.

Yes, indeed. I sure agree with you.

adamlsp:

I was wondering what your criteria are to be fulfilled before you think something is believable. When do you think it is OK to believe in something?

That is another very interesting question. The answer will be subjective again. We all have some specific internal set of criteria, which allows us to declare something “believable” and other things “not believable”.

I think that the level of “believability” (if there is such a word) depends on a lot of things; among these: our upbringing and our inclination of skepticism. Some people are just more skeptical than others. For me, the level of skepticism is very high (as you can see it from our conversations).

Still, there are many things I believe, and those things have some kind of foundation. For example, I strongly believe that my marrige is very stable. There is no “purely logical” reason for it, “only” 26 years of steady experience.

I believe that humanity is not perfect (haha), but also it gets better. There are many wars today, too, but less than there used to be, say a few hundred years ago (even though the ferocity and destructive power is much larger today). The reason for my belief is simple: I don’t think that humanity is more peaceful, rather than with the increase of “earthly goods” the incentive to fight slowly decreases.

Those who are without any property, who are desperately poor, have nothing to lose (except their lives, which is miserable anyhow) and therefore they are more prone to fight. Just look at Germany and France today: they might not love each other, but the wars of past centuries are unlikely to break out again: they have much to lose and little to gain, so they will settle their differences in a peaceful manner. I believe that the problems of the Middle East will diminish as economic wealth will increase.

These are just two examples, but hopefully they show that I believe many things, not all of which are established in a firm fashion.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Yes, indeed. I sure agree with you.

That is another very interesting question. The answer will be subjective again. We all have some specific internal set of criteria, which allows us to declare something “believable” and other things “not believable”.

I think that the level of “believability” (if there is such a word) depends on a lot of things; among these: our upbringing and our inclination of skepticism. Some people are just more skeptical than others. For me, the level of skepticism is very high (as you can see it from our conversations).

Still, there are many things I believe, and those things have some kind of foundation. For example, I strongly believe that my marrige is very stable. There is no “purely logical” reason for it, “only” 26 years of steady experience.

I believe that humanity is not perfect (haha), but also it gets better. There are many wars today, too, but less than there used to be, say a few hundred years ago (even though the ferocity and destructive power is much larger today). The reason for my belief is simple: I don’t think that humanity is more peaceful, rather than with the increase of “earthly goods” the incentive to fight slowly decreases.

Those who are without any property, who are desperately poor, have nothing to lose (except their lives, which is miserable anyhow) and therefore they are more prone to fight. Just look at Germany and France today: they might not love each other, but the wars of past centuries are unlikely to break out again: they have much to lose and little to gain, so they will settle their differences in a peaceful manner. I believe that the problems of the Middle East will diminish as economic wealth will increase.

These are just two examples, but hopefully they show that I believe many things, not all of which are established in a firm fashion.

Hitetlen,

OK, yes. But why do you believe those things and not others? Would you say those things are more believable than others? Or do you think what you believe is equally as believable as a few others things (not all) that you do not believe but for some reason or another you just don’t believe them? Why do you have a hard time trusting these things?

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

But why do you believe those things and not others? Would you say those things are more believable than others? Or do you think what you believe is equally as believable as a few others things (not all) that you do not believe but for some reason or another you just don’t believe them? Why do you have a hard time trusting these things?

Well, first of all, I don’t know how my mind operates. Of course none of us do; moreover it is theoretically impossible to “know” it exactly. (This is an interesting corollary of Godel’s incompleteness theorem.)

But I have some hypothesis. I think that evey time a question comes up, I run some subconscious probability check, and based upon the result I “believe” something or not.

For example: if you would tell me that you just won 10 bucks on the lottery, I would believe you, since there is no reason not to, and winning 10 bucks is probable. Why would you lie to me, or be honestly mistaken about it?

However, if you would tell me that you just won a jackpot on the Powerball, I would not believe you. The reason: there are so few people who won the jackpot, that it is extremely unlikely that I would actually meet someone who did. (Not that I would call you a liar openly, but I would put it into a mild form.) It is quite possible of course, that you would tell me the truth, and my disbelief would be incorrect.

So there is this internal engine, that calculates probabilities, and based on the result we decide for or against believing something.

For all of us - I would think that - this engine is different. That is why some people believe and others do not. As I said, this is just a hypothesis, but I find it believable (based on my internal engine, of course!).

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Well, first of all, I don’t know how my mind operates. Of course none of us do; moreover it is theoretically impossible to “know” it exactly. (This is an interesting corollary of Godel’s incompleteness theorem.)

But I have some hypothesis. I think that evey time a question comes up, I run some subconscious probability check, and based upon the result I “believe” something or not.

For example: if you would tell me that you just won 10 bucks on the lottery, I would believe you, since there is no reason not to, and winning 10 bucks is probable. Why would you lie to me, or be honestly mistaken about it?

However, if you would tell me that you just won a jackpot on the Powerball, I would not believe you. The reason: there are so few people who won the jackpot, that it is extremely unlikely that I would actually meet someone who did. (Not that I would call you a liar openly, but I would put it into a mild form.) It is quite possible of course, that you would tell me the truth, and my disbelief would be incorrect.

So there is this internal engine, that calculates probabilities, and based on the result we decide for or against believing something.

For all of us - I would think that - this engine is different. That is why some people believe and others do not. As I said, this is just a hypothesis, but I find it believable (based on my internal engine, of course!).

Hitetlen,

This hypothesis sounds pretty good. Do you believe some one’s internal engine can change? Do you belive people can become more skeptical and more trusting if they choose to?

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

This hypothesis sounds pretty good. Do you believe some one’s internal engine can change?

I am sure it changes all the time. As we gain new knowledge about the world, we take these new things into consideration.

adamlsp:

Do you belive people can become more skeptical and more trusting if they choose to?

I don’t think so, because this process does not happen in the volitional area of our mind, and I don’t think we can influence our sub-conscious. Suppose I would tell you that I am an alien from Mars. Your subconscious would immediately reject this (I bet), and no matter how hard you tried, you could not volitionally override it.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

I am sure it changes all the time. As we gain new knowledge about the world, we take these new things into consideration.

I don’t think so, because this process does not happen in the volitional area of our mind, and I don’t think we can influence our sub-conscious. Suppose I would tell you that I am an alien from Mars. Your subconscious would immediately reject this (I bet), and no matter how hard you tried, you could not volitionally override it.

Hitetlen,

Do you not believe people can lie to themselves then? Psychologists debate about self-deception but they debate over whether it is good for you or not, not whether or not it is possible. Empirically it has been observed.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

Do you not believe people can lie to themselves then? Psychologists debate about self-deception but they debate over whether it is good for you or not, not whether or not it is possible. Empirically it has been observed.

Ah, very interesting point. Yes, people can lie to themselves, no question about it. But, do they believe these lies? If some poor guy tries to convince himself that his chosen “sweetheart-to-be” (who does not give an iota about him) really just pretends that she does not care?

I have a hard time to beleive that this self-deception can really be effective. But I certainly don’t know. Maybe they can. But then again, is this lie a volitional act or instinctive? If they know that they lie to themselves, then they cannot really believe it. If their behavior is instinctive, then they do not really “lie”.

This question brings me back the time when I first read 1984 (I hope you read it! ) and I was in a quandry to imagine “doublethink”. I still am. I just cannot imagine that people are able to keep two contradictory ideas in their mind and believe both of them simultaneously. Maybe some seriously schizophrenic person can. I would not know.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Ah, very interesting point. Yes, people can lie to themselves, no question about it. But, do they believe these lies? If some poor guy tries to convince himself that his chosen “sweetheart-to-be” (who does not give an iota about him) really just pretends that she does not care?

I have a hard time to beleive that this self-deception can really be effective. But I certainly don’t know. Maybe they can. But then again, is this lie a volitional act or instinctive? If they know that they lie to themselves, then they cannot really believe it. If their behavior is instinctive, then they do not really “lie”.

This question brings me back the time when I first read 1984 (I hope you read it! ) and I was in a quandry to imagine “doublethink”. I still am. I just cannot imagine that people are able to keep two contradictory ideas in their mind and believe both of them simultaneously. Maybe some seriously schizophrenic person can. I would not know.

Hitetlen,

I suspect when people lie to themselves they are aware that they are doing it. However, they take a leap of faith to believe their lie is true contrary to appearances. They then genuinely believe it from then on out, even if their motives are less than honorable.

Pride is a good example of this. The prideful convince themselves that they are the best in some way or another contrary to reality. Many other examples are possible.

It is this instance of willingly believing a lie that trust in self-deception comes to fruition. They believe because they want to. They may “know” it is a lie but they believe it is truth. True, genuine belief because they feel they have to.

American psychologist William James describes that belief without sufficient evidence is permitted under the fulfillment of three conditions: (1) it is within your realm of belief (being able to jump 5 feet in the air is believable to me but jumping over my house is not); (2) failing to make a choice is equivalent to a negative choice (if I am deciding whether or not I should ask a question and I never decide that is equivalent to the negative choice, aka not asking the question); (3) if it is something of monumental importance (if my family is caught in a burning building and I do not know if the supports will hold long enough for me to save them it is worth believing they will hold that their lives might be spared). All three requirements must be met.

These people that lie to themselves must convince themselves that certain lies are within the realm of believability and that it is greatly important that they must believe it. And I believe that they believe.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I suspect when people lie to themselves they are aware that they are doing it. However, they take a leap of faith to believe their lie is true contrary to appearances. They then genuinely believe it from then on out, even if their motives are less than honorable.

I really don’t know if this is true or not.

adamlsp:

Pride is a good example of this. The prideful convince themselves that they are the best in some way or another contrary to reality.

That is not necessarily true. Some people take pride in their achievements, but they do not think that they are the “best”, only that they performed above their own expectations.

adamlsp:

It is this instance of willingly believing a lie that trust in self-deception comes to fruition. They believe because they want to. They may “know” it is a lie but they believe it is truth. True, genuine belief because they feel they have to.

That is possible, they want to believe something so bad that they are willing to lower their limit and accept something with a lesser amount of skepticism. Yes, that is possible, and to me that indicates some type of mental “disorder” - and I use this term very vaguely.

adamlsp:

American psychologist William James describes that belief without sufficient evidence is permitted under the fulfillment of three conditions: (1) it is within your realm of belief (being able to jump 5 feet in the air is believable to me but jumping over my house is not); (2) failing to make a choice is equivalent to a negative choice (if I am deciding whether or not I should ask a question and I never decide that is equivalent to the negative choice, aka not asking the question); (3) if it is something of monumental importance (if my family is caught in a burning building and I do not know if the supports will hold long enough for me to save them it is worth believing they will hold that their lives might be spared). All three requirements must be met.

These people that lie to themselves must convince themselves that certain lies are within the realm of believability and that it is greatly important that they must believe it. And I believe that they believe.

Yes, this looks like a good summary. The third criterion actually fulfills my assessment of some kind of mental “disorder” since extreme stress will change the subconscious process of “believing” something or not. If it were someone else’s house on fire, they would not reach the same result, since they would not be involved in the process as deeply as they are when it is their own family who is in danger.

 

[Ursastar]

lfood for thought here really i;nteresting like the subject about belief and kidding ourselves what wi wanna believe.
Proof about Jisus IS plentiful and masses of it whin we look at Hustory And whin we look at all the saints, theur witness and the miracls over thi millenia Aswell, it amazes me that so many atheists are around. I am also amazid at thi amount of nonsense the R.C. church receices from christians.
Whin we look at ourselces though, thats the orrible thing… for me antwat.y. Worse than my Typinfg! But arent we all deluded somewhat? Pride and our selves. The Trith woll set us free But do i abt like Jesus makes All thi difference to my life?
Before i silf destruct mat i remind that we are asked ti look not on our sins but thi faith of your Church as the priest says at Mass
Thankyou interestng thread.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

I really don’t know if this is true or not.

That is not necessarily true. Some people take pride in their achievements, but they do not think that they are the “best”, only that they performed above their own expectations.

That is possible, they want to believe something so bad that they are willing to lower their limit and accept something with a lesser amount of skepticism. Yes, that is possible, and to me that indicates some type of mental “disorder” - and I use this term very vaguely.

Yes, this looks like a good summary. The third criterion actually fulfills my assessment of some kind of mental “disorder” since extreme stress will change the subconscious process of “believing” something or not. If it were someone else’s house on fire, they would not reach the same result, since they would not be involved in the process as deeply as they are when it is their own family who is in danger.

Hitetlen,

For pride I meant the excessive, non virtuous version of it.

So then you believe people can “lower their limit and accept something with a lesser amount of skepticism” as you stated above?

I don’t believe the ability to do this is a disorder but the desire to and act of doing it may be. And it could only be disordered if the believers were engaging in the belief of a known lie. The belief in something not yet proven could not be considered disordered since everyone does this everyday. Unless everyone was disordered.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

So then you believe people can “lower their limit and accept something with a lesser amount of skepticism” as you stated above?

Yes, I think you are right. I think it can happen under extreme stress, which is an abnormal condition.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Yes, I think you are right. I think it can happen under extreme stress, which is an abnormal condition.

Hitetlen,

Extreme stress or what the person believes to be extreme stress. It is a very subjective thing. The individual decides how important the decision is. If he decides it is important that doesn’t mean that we would consider the same scenario important. And likewise he may not consider what is extreme stress to us very stressful for him. Some people are always under extreme stress, others are very relaxed. There are some people who share the same situation who exhibit different concern for it. It is all in how the individual chooses to respond to an inner state caused by an outer one.

You said earlier we could not control our emotions. I agreed partially. Our initial response is usually due to something like instinct. But people can learn to control their reflexes. How they respond to their intial reactions will affect their reaction. Like, if your intial reaction is to feel angry, you can learn to control your anger. Not only the outer expression of it but also to reach a peaceful inner state when you are tempted to do otherwise. I do not believe you can control the temptation. That is completely unchosen. But you can control your response to that tempatation both internally and externally.

Adam