P
pocaracas
Guest
hmm… I was under the impression that time was being equivalent to marbles…
- Status
P
pocaracas
Guest
Hi MPat,
Then I go for the one that I feel has greater likelihood of being right.
I avoid assuming the conclusion that something exists, prior to that something being evident.
I also avoid looking repeatedly for the same immaterial thing, as I may come to “find” it in my own mind. That’s what makes it a self-delusion.
1mm isn’t very easy to tell just by looking, but 1cm is, provided those sticks are, at most, 10x that size, or a bit larger, and aligned on one side.
Remember that, here, I’m just referring to the human factor of the beliefs - how people come to their beliefs, how people pass on those beliefs. The beliefs themselves and the rituals are obviously different.
Take a very old book, claimed to be a description of actual events, no clue whatsoever to a fictional origin of that text… say, Plato’s Socratic dialogues.
Certainly, we have little trouble in accepting that Socrates was an actual person who said some (or all) of the things that Plato recorded. But he could as well have been just a figment of Plato’s imagination, a character in a story in which Plato is recording his own thoughts, but presenting them through someone else… certainly, this is a common literary style where a character in he story represents the author’s point of view on a particular subject.
How can we tell if it’s fiction or reality?
Why would we bother in this case? Why should we definitely bother in some other cases?
The working assumption is when I really have to take a bet. I can’t escape life as easily as I can escape a casino…OK, that harmonises those two. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to work that well with the fact that you have called atheism your “working assumption”… That does seem to be a kind of judgement - especially, given that I fail to see any practical difference between this “working assumption” and holding the belief… It is not like you are going to Mass with probability of, let’s say, 0.001…
Then I go for the one that I feel has greater likelihood of being right.
I’d have no problem in accepting a statement the may bring me closer to belief in God… I just can’t imagine what that statement could be.
I avoid assuming the conclusion that something exists, prior to that something being evident.
I also avoid looking repeatedly for the same immaterial thing, as I may come to “find” it in my own mind. That’s what makes it a self-delusion.
I hope I made that a bit clearer above ^ ^
The evidence is a bit irrelevant (being all immaterial), when the methodology applied to foster the belief is pretty much equivalent among the several religions.
Very similar, indeed, depends on how accurate you want that similarity to be…
1mm isn’t very easy to tell just by looking, but 1cm is, provided those sticks are, at most, 10x that size, or a bit larger, and aligned on one side.
Remember that, here, I’m just referring to the human factor of the beliefs - how people come to their beliefs, how people pass on those beliefs. The beliefs themselves and the rituals are obviously different.
I like to make you think about these things…
Take a very old book, claimed to be a description of actual events, no clue whatsoever to a fictional origin of that text… say, Plato’s Socratic dialogues.
Certainly, we have little trouble in accepting that Socrates was an actual person who said some (or all) of the things that Plato recorded. But he could as well have been just a figment of Plato’s imagination, a character in a story in which Plato is recording his own thoughts, but presenting them through someone else… certainly, this is a common literary style where a character in he story represents the author’s point of view on a particular subject.
How can we tell if it’s fiction or reality?
Why would we bother in this case? Why should we definitely bother in some other cases?
P
pocaracas
Guest
So… you’re telling me that there’s not enough time in time to count all the time up to now (or up to the event that somehow caused the big bang, which set a t=0 for us)?Sure. Try to think in reverse.
The logic still works.
You count from how many you have today and go backwards.
If it’s an infinite number, you’ll never get to the beginning.
But you know that you have already counted the marbles (because they’re on display)…so that means…it CAN’T be an infinite number of marbles you have.
Voila!
You don’t even have to assume there’s a first marble.
#logic
#italwaysworks
M
MPat
Guest
Very good! That (both impossibility to avoid the “bet” and the need to try to “win by truth”), by the way, is the first part of Pascal’s Wager. Of course, the second part, talking about “tiebreakers”, when “likelihood of being right” is equal, is more famous…
I’m afraid it is too late for you to pretend being open-minded about this. That has been checked and you already admitted that much:
The facts also agree with this admission. Now, of course, sometimes closed-mindedness is good (for example, it is good to be closed-minded about “2+2=5”). Thus I’m moving to investigation of support of this closed-mindedness.
I see. I thought that by “self-delusion” you meant something like “self-deception”, while in fact you meant something like “self-caused psychiatric disease”. OK, so, have you investigated if actual diseases are caused in such way?
So, now evidence is irrelevant?! You know, your atheism seems to become more and more fideistic…
Not to mention that you already had to admit some evidence is not “immaterial”. That also makes “The evidence is a bit irrelevant (being all immaterial)” clearly false.
Also, it looks like “the methodology applied to foster the belief” is “pretty much equivalent” among “several religions” and your atheism. You have said that you are reluctant to accept any statement that might lead you away from atheism, you have said you “avoid looking repeatedly for the same immaterial thing”…
Perhaps it’s time for you to update the probabilities of truth of different religions and your atheism so that they would be equal? Or would you prefer to get just two options in such case?
(After all, contrary to the claims of the atheists, atheism does not become more likely to be true, if it gets more competing options.)Finally, you have claimed that evidence for each religion is very similar:
If, as it looks, you have no evidence for that, I think you should take those baseless claims back. And then, of course, the claims supported by them.
That is still a type of measurement of all sticks. And I do not see how that corresponds to anything you might have done with evidence for different religions.
Yes, you do. Let’s stay on topic.
P
PRmerger
Guest
If I’m understanding your summary correctly, yep.
P
pocaracas
Guest
Win by truth? What is that?
Haha, close-minded! Hilarious!
Good luck!
errr… disease? wow… talk about extrapolation going wrong!
Self-delusion means that a person deludes herself (or is it himself? I don’t know how these things work in English)… of course, that only works if the person is unaware of the possibility for that delusion.
Myself, being aware of it, my mind has naturally shielded itself from such phenomena… I’m sure the shield is not perfect, but it seems adequate.
A delusion is exactly like a deception… you see, the two words are synonyms: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/delusion?s=t.
However, deception is usually used when a negative outcome is intended on the person being deceived.
Delusion is usually used when a benign outcome is intended.
The action is similar (or even equal), while the intention is different.
Sigh… “is irrelevant” to the point I was making…So, now evidence is irrelevant?! You know, your atheism seems to become more and more fideistic…
So… I attribute a low probability to the possibility of existence of any extra-corporeal conscious entity, hence my working hypothesis for life is that no such things exist… and that, somehow, becomes a belief?!Also, it looks like “the methodology applied to foster the belief” is “pretty much equivalent” among “several religions” and your atheism. You have said that you are reluctant to accept any statement that might lead you away from atheism, you have said you “avoid looking repeatedly for the same immaterial thing”…
Perhaps it’s time for you to update the probabilities of truth of different religions and your atheism so that they would be equal? Or would you prefer to get just two options in such case?
I get the feeling you’re not following the line of reasoning…
Buhahaha!!! LOL! ROFL!!
Dude, baseless?
It’s even present in the corporate world!
academia.edu/5061091/Decision_Making_Under_Uncertatinty_Psychological_Pitfalls_bound_to_Usage_of_Heuristics
Your brain is faulty. It’s far from perfect. It is open to a wide range of faulty decisions. Imagine how many more you have to make based on faulty data, or incomplete data, or faulty and incomplete data!
Knowing that, I avoid anything that feels like it exploits those faults. And religion does that.
Notice, I say religion.
The religious experience and how people are induced to believe is something that can be detached from the actual existence of a god.
Here’s some actual research done on the matter: apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx, researchnews.osu.edu/archive/religdes.htm
And it seems that it’s been a field of research for quite a while: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion
You’re the one who brought the sticks in… I’m not very fond of analogies… PRmerger already knows this.
P
pocaracas
Guest
My summary doesn’t make sense.If I’m understanding your summary correctly, yep.
How can there not be enough time in time to account for all that time?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think this speaks volumes.
Logic is based upon analogies.
Higher level (and heck, even lower level) Logic Course have analogies in their lesson plans.
If one isn’t fond of, doesn’t really like, understand, or get analogies, one really can’t be fond of, like, understand or get logic.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Egg-zactly.
That proves that you can’t have an infinite past.
Thank you for proving my point that it “doesn’t make sense”.
P
pocaracas
Guest
Methinks you missed the “not” I snuck in there in my last post, huh?Egg-zactly.
That proves that you can’t have an infinite past.
Thank you for proving my point that it “doesn’t make sense”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Nope.
Saw the “not”.
You have proved my point that an infinite past makes no sense.
If you are here in time, at this moment, then there cannot have been an infinite number of moments prior to this.
Just like if you have a displayed marble collection, you cannot have had an infinite number of marbles.
See?
P
pocaracas
Guest
“logic is based upon analogies”… isn’t that a bit of a stretch?
I know there such a thing as an “argument from analogy” in logical discourse, but surely, it’s not the only one… is it?
And I’m not fond of analogies in this field of divinities and infinities, for they tend to break and not be applicable.
P
pocaracas
Guest
No, I didn’t…
I asked how can there not be enough time (blah blah)?
How can that happen?
Time has enough of itself to account for all of itself, no matter how infinite it is…
T
thenobes
Guest
Is morality a delusion?Win by truth? What is that?
Haha, close-minded! Hilarious!
Good luck!
errr… disease? wow… talk about extrapolation going wrong!
Self-delusion means that a person deludes herself (or is it himself? I don’t know how these things work in English)… of course, that only works if the person is unaware of the possibility for that delusion.
Myself, being aware of it, my mind has naturally shielded itself from such phenomena… I’m sure the shield is not perfect, but it seems adequate.
A delusion is exactly like a deception… you see, the two words are synonyms: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/delusion?s=t.
However, deception is usually used when a negative outcome is intended on the person being deceived.
Delusion is usually used when a benign outcome is intended.
The action is similar (or even equal), while the intention is different.
Sigh… “is irrelevant” to the point I was making…
So… I attribute a low probability to the possibility of existence of any extra-corporeal conscious entity, hence my working hypothesis for life is that no such things exist… and that, somehow, becomes a belief?!
I get the feeling you’re not following the line of reasoning…
Buhahaha!!! LOL! ROFL!!
Dude, baseless?
It’s even present in the corporate world!
academia.edu/5061091/Decision_Making_Under_Uncertatinty_Psychological_Pitfalls_bound_to_Usage_of_Heuristics
Your brain is faulty. It’s far from perfect. It is open to a wide range of faulty decisions. Imagine how many more you have to make based on faulty data, or incomplete data, or faulty and incomplete data!
Knowing that, I avoid anything that feels like it exploits those faults. And religion does that.
Notice, I say religion.
The religious experience and how people are induced to believe is something that can be detached from the actual existence of a god.
Here’s some actual research done on the matter: apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx, researchnews.osu.edu/archive/religdes.htm
And it seems that it’s been a field of research for quite a while: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion
You’re the one who brought the sticks in… I’m not very fond of analogies… PRmerger already knows this.
If so, do you accept it anyway?
If not, can you prove that it ultimately works for the good of the individual, without positing another system of morality (defn of good vs bad) by which you judge the first? (and run into any infinite chain of moral systems?)
peace
steve
P
PRmerger
Guest
Of course it’s not the only one.
My point is that you can’t have logic if you can’t understand analogies.
You seem to be a logical person, and that’s why whenever you claim to not understand analogies, I’m quite certain that this is a feigned inability.
What it demonstrates is that you actually DO understand the analogy, and that you can’t refute its premise, so you seek to divert by either claiming it’s false or you don’t understand.
LOL!
Since God is beyond our human comprehension, ALL dialogue in the field of divinities and infinities MUST be analogous.
So what you’re saying, really, is that you simply are not fond of trying to understand the Numinous.
And that, poca, I believe is a very true statement.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It can’t.
And that is why…
wait for it…
wait for it…
you can’t have…
an…
infinite…
past.
M
MPat
Guest
In the “bet” described by Pascal one can try to win by betting on the option that is more likely to be true (“Win by truth”, as I have called it) or by betting on the option maximising the gain (“Win by profit”).
It would have worked better with a smile.
I’ll also note that you haven’t given a different interpretation to the quotes I have given. You also haven’t given any example of your open-mindedness in action (no, ritual repetition that you give theism tiny positive probability does not really count). Thus your only evidence here is your words. Which leads me to a question: do you think people do notice, when they are closed-minded?
Thanks, that’s clearer. Yet in that case the conspiracy theorists would seem to be much better examples than the ones reporting near-death experiences (I’d expect you to think that they are misinterpreting real misleading perceptions - that would be just being mistaken).
Really…? Do you have any evidence to support this view (that self-delusion “only works if the person is unaware of the possibility for that delusion”)?
But doesn’t your confidence in this “shield from self-delusion” remove all benefits from such awareness?
That point was supposed to defend your claim that evidence for all religions is very similar. I’m afraid that the only way for this evidence to be irrelevant would be if your point was irrelevant.
As I have said, I do not see a practical difference between them. But OK, if you feel so strongly about that, I can reword it to “Also, it looks like ‘the methodology applied to foster the belief’ (or working hypothesis) is ‘pretty much equivalent’ among ‘several religions’ and your atheism.”.
As I have noted, you have said that you are reluctant to accept any statement that might lead you away from atheism, and you have said you “avoid looking repeatedly for the same immaterial thing”. Maybe you should explain how that is different from “the methodology applied to foster the belief” you see in different religions?
Oh, and let’s add one more quote for you to explain (from the point of view of open-mindedness as well):
Good luck.
Maybe. I think your argument goes a bit like this:
- Majority of the people accept their religions because of similar “bad” reasons (for example, authority) that are not based on evidence. (premise)
- It is OK to ignore evidence that is not used by most people. (premise)
- All that is left are the similar “bad” reasons. (from 1, 2)
- Evidence for all religions is very similar. (from 3)
And that’s why I pointed out that it is not a good idea to think that evidence is irrelevant. We do not ignore evidence for heliocentrism or QM just because Little Johnny’s belief in them is based on words of the teacher. So, why should we ignore evidence for Little Jonnhy’s religion, just because his belief is based on words of his teacher (or mother)?
[Part of text removed to shorten the post.]
All that would only be relevant if you could take “reasons for belief” instead of evidence.
So, I have offered an analogy, you have tried to defuse it with an analogy of your own, it didn’t work (looks like neither of us knows how your analogy was supposed to work), and now you think that’s a reason to drop my analogy? Um, I don’t think it works that way. Instead, you get to answer my analogy about sticks once again.You’re the one who brought the sticks in… I’m not very fond of analogies… PRmerger already knows this.
P
pocaracas
Guest
Hi thenobes. Welcome!
Isn’t morality that which enables a peaceful coexistence of humans in close proximity?
Not only humans, but many (if not all) other social animals…
How would that be a delusion?
Unless, you mean something akin to the illusion of free will that we all may operate under…
Sometimes, it requires the sacrifice of an individual… so I wouldn’t say “that it ultimately works for the good of the individual”. It usually works for the benefit of each individual in the social group, yes… but not always.
Morality… isn’t that a series of rules, or guidelines, of human behavior in a social setting?
Isn’t morality that which enables a peaceful coexistence of humans in close proximity?
Not only humans, but many (if not all) other social animals…
How would that be a delusion?
Unless, you mean something akin to the illusion of free will that we all may operate under…
It works for the good of the society in which the individual is found.
Sometimes, it requires the sacrifice of an individual… so I wouldn’t say “that it ultimately works for the good of the individual”. It usually works for the benefit of each individual in the social group, yes… but not always.
P
pocaracas
Guest
I say I don’t like them. Not that I don’t understand them.
I don’t like them precisely because they tend to seem poorly applied.
I’m all for understanding the Numinous… but I’d like that Numinous to be evident, before I move on to accepting it as part of reality.
Until then, I can understand it as much as I understand why Joffrey Baratheon was a bad king of Westeros… or how Dragons can be dormant in their eggs for millennia… or how you can share minds with other people… or how you can slingshot around the Sun for traveling through time… how anger can make your body increase in mass and strength and turn green, while not ripping your pants apart… etc… etc… etc…
But this is not the kind of understanding you’re interested in, is it?
P
pocaracas
Guest
Seems rather circular, now…It can’t.
And that is why…
wait for it…
wait for it…
you can’t have…
an…
infinite…
past.
oh wait, you said it can’t… there can’t “not be enough time in time to account for all the time”… so… there is enough time in time to account for all the time. QED.
- Status