Beliefs: how do they work?

[Frozenwolf150]

It's not taking the OPPOSITE position. It's taking the MIDDLE position. The opposite position of theism is stong atheism. That's not agnosticism. In the middle is agnosticism, which is the belief that a belief in EITHER side is untenable.

I was referring to your use of the term agnosticism to defend your staunch support for idealism as opposed to materialism. Your application of agnosticism was to reject the side you happened to disagree with. You certainly weren't arguing that your own side was untenable as well. It's special pleading.

Now I'm "mangling" skepticism? I've also been accused of "abusing skepticism", which is quite funny on a skeptical forum. I don't know how you can either mangle or abuse skepticism. If something can be doubted, then doubt it, as Descartes would say. Since nearly everything can be doubted, I find it equally funny that atheists just sort of assume the physical world exists, and then rake theists over the coals for belief in God. Double standard, anyone?

That only works if you're defining skepticism as arbitrarily doubting everything to the point where nothing useful can be determined. If however skepticism is defined as demanding evidence for a claim, as it is around here, then yes, there is justification for questioning assertions based on a belief in God. It's hardly on equal foundation as the notion that the physical world exists, which is an idea that even the majority of theisms hold as implicit.

Um, shouldn't you all be skeptics? I've looking right at the banner above and it says "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking..." Or is it just all talk? Very few people here strike me as skeptics. The vast majority are materialists who can't conceive of science being wrong or religion being right.

I meant "everyone" as in people all around the world, from different walks of life, with different beliefs and motivations, including those not on this forum. I did not say, "everyone on JREF." Stop deliberately misinterpreting my words. You missed my point anyway. I said that skepticism is not simply doubting the opposite of what you believe in. Otherwise all people who hold beliefs of any kind would be considered skeptics. Understand?

It depends on which version you're using, and anyway, my claim was that atheists have faith-based beliefs. They do. I finally teased one out of Randfan. I suppose it's possible there are atheistic skeptics around here, but I haven't seen any. Like Plumjam observed (and I have to agree with him), whenever materialism is questioned, about 50 people jump all over the person. There are no immaterialists here, or idealists, or solipsists. There are a few theists, like CJ and myself, but the vast vast majority are materialists. That should tell you something. It certainly tells me something.

Very funny. Show me some evidence of immaterialism. Please note that attacking materialism, appealing to pity, or appealing to a group do not count as evidence for immaterialism. Additionally, just because there are two sides to a belief does not mean that the truth lies somewhere in between. It's possible for one side to be flat out wrong.

Again, where's your evidence? Descartes' claim that we can only be sure of our own thoughts is not evidence. I can come up with numerous examples from psychology that prove this wrong. Also, if solipsism were true, then I'd have made all the people I disagree with shut up a long time ago.

Oh, if only it were that simple. Unfortunately, it's also a worship of science and materialism, where core beliefs languish, never seeing the light of day. I learned that months ago with my first post "Does the World Exist?". It was like poking an anthill with a stick.

Did it ever occur to you that it was the way you presented your arguments that provoked the reaction? The fact that your claims were put forth in a crude manner that depended heavily on strawmen and confirmation bias had a lot to do with it. This says more about your arguments than about the people who criticized them. Attacking those who disagree with your beliefs doesn't make your position true and it hardly proves "worship."

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world? No. Every atheist I've talked to, here and in RL, is invariably a staunch materialist, evolutionist, and worshipper of all things science. Pointing to Raelism as proof of diversity of atheistic belief is pathetic and even they are materialistic and pro-science.

Do you honestly not know the difference between worship and agreement / acceptance? Or is it that you see everything in terms of worship, therefore you assume everyone you meet thinks the same way? One can certainly believe in God and accept the conclusions of science.

Also, referring to Raelism as pro-science doesn't help your case.

 

[Malerin]

There seems to be an unfair predictive standard based on prayer. I think some of you believe prayer is valid if and only if a person can pray and cure a disease or move a boulder (miraculous recoveries do actually happen). That would be like me saying Prozac only works if the person taking it can fly around like superman. It’s an unfair standard. That’s not what Prozac is designed to do.

This problem arises because prayer is lumped in with science and is expected to give the same type of predictive results. That’s all well and good, but that rests on an assumption that prayer is the sort of thing that CAN be scientifically tested. It is entirely possible that God exists and deliberately chooses NOT to reveal (her)himself in obvious ways (perhaps it would be too threatening to us).

This raises the familiar objection that it can’t be tested empirically, so there’s no justification in believing in it. That’s fine if reality is such that all empirical claims can be tested in a laboratory. Since none of us know what the true nature of reality is, it’s equally likely that reality consists of testable claims and claims that can’t be reliably tested (such as personal spiritual experiences). Dismissing prayer out of hand because it fails to work in the lab assumes that you KNOW reality is a certain way. That is hubris, to say the least.

 

[paximperium]

There seems to be an unfair predictive standard based on prayer. I think some of you believe prayer is valid if and only if a person can pray and cure a disease or move a boulder (miraculous recoveries do actually happen). That would be like me saying Prozac only works if the person taking it can fly around like superman. It’s an unfair standard. That’s not what Prozac is designed to do.

A False analogy.

There is nothing that's unfair at investigating any claim even a religious one especially if some claim that it has some power. Unless you're into double standards.

Prozac has a measurable affect. Prayer's affect is no better than meditating and random chance.

This problem arises because prayer is lumped in with science and is expected to give the same type of predictive results. That’s all well and good, but that rests on an assumption that prayer is the sort of thing that CAN be scientifically tested.

So what affects does prayer have on reality if it cannot be tested, seen, smelt, touched or have any measurable affect at all?

It is entirely possible that God exists and deliberately chooses NOT to reveal (her)himself in obvious ways (perhaps it would be too threatening to us).

So god is hiding evidence from us of its existence and yet demanding on blind faith in its existence or else suffer the consequences? You truly have an evil god.

This raises the familiar objection that it can’t be tested empirically, so there’s no justification in believing in it. That’s fine if reality is such that all empirical claims can be tested in a laboratory. Since none of us know what the true nature of reality is, it’s equally likely that reality consists of testable claims and claims that can’t be reliably tested (such as personal spiritual experiences).

No. Untestable claims are completely and utterly useless and irrelevant. An untestable claim is an unjustified fantasy.

This would mean that the claim of Mr. Bob down the street who thinks he is Jesus and flies off to the Jupiter every night when no one is watching is as likely as your fantasy.

I can see Planet Zoomba using my mind powers. It is located 50 billion light years away. It cannot be tested therefore it is entirely plausible.

In fact any Buddhist claims of reincarnation or any other theistic claims from any other gods that can never be tested is apparently as plausible as your grand belief.

You logic is silly and a blatant double standard.

Dismissing prayer out of hand because it fails to work in the lab assumes that you KNOW reality is a certain way. That is hubris, to say the least.

Claiming that something that does not have any measurable affect and yet works because you say so, is hubris to the highest degree.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

There seems to be an unfair predictive standard based on prayer.

Oh yes, a standard based on what people commonly claim prayer to be capable of doing. How unfair is that?

I think some of you believe prayer is valid if and only if a person can pray and cure a disease or move a boulder (miraculous recoveries do actually happen).

Right, and all those doctors who work tirelessly to save people's lives, or the scientists who spent years developing the treatments, did absolutely nothing.

That would be like me saying Prozac only works if the person taking it can fly around like superman. It’s an unfair standard. That’s not what Prozac is designed to do.

If prayer was designed for as specific a purpose as any given modern drug, by all means tell me what it is that prayer was invented to treat. (I think we can rule out gullibility, ignorance, and hypocrisy.)

This problem arises because prayer is lumped in with science and is expected to give the same type of predictive results. That’s all well and good, but that rests on an assumption that prayer is the sort of thing that CAN be scientifically tested.

Then how would you propose testing it? By asserting its veracity over and over again until everyone gives up and agrees? Hey, sounds like a plan!

It is entirely possible that God exists and deliberately chooses NOT to reveal (her)himself in obvious ways (perhaps it would be too threatening to us).

It's equally possible that God is incapable, unwilling, or that he doesn't exist. Or maybe he's just sick of all the whining, especially over lottery numbers. I know I'd be.

This raises the familiar objection that it can’t be tested empirically, so there’s no justification in believing in it.

Oh I dunno, I think the fact that nothing fails like prayer half the time (and I'm being generous) has a lot to do with disbelief in it.

That’s fine if reality is such that all empirical claims can be tested in a laboratory. Since none of us know what the true nature of reality is, it’s equally likely that reality consists of testable claims and claims that can’t be reliably tested (such as personal spiritual experiences).

Argument from ignorance. Seriously, read up on these.

Dismissing prayer out of hand because it fails to work in the lab assumes that you KNOW reality is a certain way. That is hubris, to say the least.

Not at all. Like Voltaire, I once prayed for God to make all my opponents ridiculous, and he granted my prayer.

 

[athon]

This raises the familiar objection that it can’t be tested empirically, so there’s no justification in believing in it. That’s fine if reality is such that all empirical claims can be tested in a laboratory. Since none of us know what the true nature of reality is, it’s equally likely that reality consists of testable claims and claims that can’t be reliably tested (such as personal spiritual experiences).

I'll get back to cj's response and other comments later, when I have more time. I thought this might be a quick one to comment on.

It's not at all 'equally likely'. Having two mutually exclusive options and denoting each the same possibility of occurring is obviously ludicrous.

It's true that we have no way of defining a deeper reality, simply because a) the act of defining something requires a more fundamental context, and b) we have no way of verifying anything with absolute certainty beyond the act of perceiving it. However, to make any sense, we can only therefore describe reality as being that which causes us to perceive what we do.

The methods of reality description which science aims to use have a massive advantage over others - the fact that they have predictive power means they relate better to whatever causes these perceptions. That is what distinguishes it above the rest. I might pull events out of a bag, invent it based purely on what seems reasonable at the time, rely on myth and legend...but none of those have a scale of evaluation which can determine how likely it is that some underlying cause is related to the observation.

Dismissing prayer out of hand because it fails to work in the lab assumes that you KNOW reality is a certain way. That is hubris, to say the least.

Ah, I love the capitalised 'KNOW'. Really seems to drive that strawman home, yeah?

Nobody claims to KNOW. Yet, it's irrelevant. Believing in the efficacy of prayer as a means of describing what we see is useless. How do you know if you're praying in the right way? To the right deity? With the right words? How do you know the difference between a response and random events? Of course, you might be able to concoct an ad-hoc response after each event, however this does nothing to demonstrate any inherent worth. I could do the same for any process, and declare it 'equal' to prayer.

Athon

 

[Malerin]

I was referring to your use of the term agnosticism to defend your staunch support for idealism as opposed to materialism. Your application of agnosticism was to reject the side you happened to disagree with. You certainly weren't arguing that your own side was untenable as well. It's special pleading.

I apply agnosticism to everything equally. I once gave an argument to show that idealism has a leg up on dualism and materialism, but I'm not convinced by it, and that hardly qualifies as "staunch support". For all I know, the world is materialistic. I think you think that my repeated questioning of reality somehow makes me a "staunch" supporter of something. I have faith in God, but by definition, that means my belief goes beyond the available evidence.

That only works if you're defining skepticism as arbitrarily doubting everything to the point where nothing useful can be determined. If however skepticism is defined as demanding evidence for a claim, as it is around here, then yes, there is justification for questioning assertions based on a belief in God. It's hardly on equal foundation as the notion that the physical world exists, which is an idea that even the majority of theisms hold as implicit.

But all that rests on an assumption that reality is such that every empirical claim is capable of being tested in a lab. How do you know reality is like this? Are you privy to some special knowledge?

I meant "everyone" as in people all around the world, from different walks of life, with different beliefs and motivations, including those not on this forum. I did not say, "everyone on JREF." Stop deliberately misinterpreting my words. You missed my point anyway. I said that skepticism is not simply doubting the opposite of what you believe in. Otherwise all people who hold beliefs of any kind would be considered skeptics. Understand?

"not simply doubting the opposite of what you believe in" Huh? Skepticism is doubting WHAT you believe. Doubting the opposite of what you beleive is non-sensical. Of course you would doubt what you don't believe. That's tautologically true. Since people here are almost all scientific materialists, there's precious little doubting going on.

Very funny. Show me some evidence of immaterialism.

Show me evidence of materialism.

Please note that attacking materialism, appealing to pity, or appealing to a group do not count as evidence for immaterialism.

Never said it did. My point was that it's kind of strange that a skeptical forum would be composed almost entirely of materialists. Kind of suggests there's a prevailing mind-set going on that's not being examined.

Additionally, just because there are two sides to a belief does not mean that the truth lies somewhere in between. It's possible for one side to be flat out wrong.

Never said it wasn't. Materialism may be true. Idealism may be true. In the absence of any evidence, the best thing to be is agnostic. Anything else is taken as a leap of faith.

Again, where's your evidence?

For what, agnosticism? An agnostic doesn't have to supply evidence; they merely have to discredit others'. If I were making a direct appeal to theism or idealism, you would have a point. I'm not and you don't. My claim is that atheists have faith-based beliefs about reality that they SHOULD be agnostic about, but AREN'T.

Descartes' claim that we can only be sure of our own thoughts is not evidence.

If it's a true claim, then that IS evidence. If the only thing you can be sure of is that you're a thinking being, then you must be an agnostic about everything else. No refutation of Descartes has been forthcoming, nor do I expect one.

I can come up with numerous examples from psychology that prove this wrong. Also, if solipsism were true, then I'd have made all the people I disagree with shut up a long time ago.

Just what I would expect a hallucination to say What, did you think YOU exist?

Did it ever occur to you that it was the way you presented your arguments that provoked the reaction? The fact that your claims were put forth in a crude manner that depended heavily on strawmen and confirmation bias had a lot to do with it. This says more about your arguments than about the people who criticized them. Attacking those who disagree with your beliefs doesn't make your position true and it hardly proves "worship."

Maybe, if I hadn't seen CJ, the most patient person I've ever seen on a message board, be on the receiving end of some vicious attacks. Regardless, anyone who questions science or materialism invariably gets ganged up on. True skeptics would be agreeing with people who question reality, not attacking them.

Do you honestly not know the difference between worship and agreement / acceptance? Or is it that you see everything in terms of worship, therefore you assume everyone you meet thinks the same way? One can certainly believe in God and accept the conclusions of science.

We won't convince each other of this. My experience of atheists has been nearly exclusively a fanaticism about science, and a loathing of all things paranormal or religious.

Also, referring to Raelism as pro-science doesn't help your case.

Advocacy
In December 26, 2002, Brigitte Boisselier, a Raëlian Bishop and CEO of a biotechnology company called Clonaid, announced the birth of baby Eve, a human clone, which at that point ignited much media attention, ethical debate, doubt, critics, and claims of a hoax. Spokespeople for the movement, such as Claude Vorilhon, have suggested that this is only first step in achieving a more important agenda, saying that that accelerated growth process and mind transfer, in combination with cloning are mechanisms by which eternal life may be achieved.[39][40]

According to the Japan Today of February 10, 2003, that Sunday, about sixty Raëlians celebrated with banners the purported birth of the first cloned babies: 1) a baby girl named Eve, 2) a daughter and clone of a Dutch lesbian, 3) a son and clone of a Japanese male. The small parade event began at Hiroshima Station and ended at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. In the article, figures by the observers and a representative of the movement suggest that one percent of Japan's Raëlians participated in the event.[41]

In August 6, 2003, the first day of Raëlian year 58 AH,[42] a tech article on the USA Today newspaper mentions an "unlikely ally" of the Monsanto company, the Raëlian Movement of Brazil. The movement gave vocal support in response to the company's support for genetically modified organisms particularly in their country. Brazilian farmers have been using Monsanto's genetically engineered soy plant as well as the Roundup herbicide to which it was artificially adapted. The Raëlians spoke against the Brazilian government's ban on GMOs.[43]

The Raëlian Movement promoted 2004 as the "year of atheism".[44] In December 11, 2004,[45] Raëlians marched in the Atheist Convention in Rome. One of them said, "[Just as] children need to understand that there is no Santa, people need to realize there is no God."[46] In YouTube, Raëlians have posted videos in denial of the Holy Spirit in response to the Blasphemy Challenge. Despite their anti-religious leaning, Raëlians—who are philosophical materialists—believe that a trained mind can achieve telepathic communication with extraterrestrial Elohim.[47]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Raëlism

So let's see. We have Raelian support for: materialism, cloning, geneticially modified organisms, and a Raelian bishop in charge of a biotech company.

But they don't beleive in science. Am I right?

 

[athon]

Hell I could probably create a coherent Empedoclean philosophy, to grab one example at random. Yet clearly I favour modern sciences reading of reality to those of Aristotle or say Anselm, or to give a better example of a systematic thinker, Aquinas. As I suggested before, I think rationality is the property of an argument not the arguer - so Aquinan theology is almost mahematically logically coherentin many ways, if one accepts the premises.

I agree, which is why I feel simply relying on rationality (which relies on an internal consistence within the argument) and reason (which relies on what is currently accepted as 'true' by the arguer) is not good enough to demonstrate a relationship between potential cause and observation.

Often one can change a paradign to incorporate new data, and find logical ways to amend it. Yet if, as i think is the case, Aristotles or Aquinas basic premises were flawed, the whole structure while internally coherent remains flawed. A better paradigm often to me seems to arise from a reexamination of the premises, rather than the data, but I could be talking bilge. I often do. Is this waht happened with General Relativity? I am reasonably aware of the 1909 revolution in Cosmology, but I lack the real knowledge to work this example through... Coherence however can be illusory.

Actually, it is often a reexamination of the data that demonstrates a premise is flawed. That was chiefly what prompted Bacon to underscore the role of inductive reasoning over Aristotle's syllogisms. Deductive reasoning relies on assuming that the premises are sound. Inductive logic also has its flaws, but we need it to constantly review those original ideas. When a new observation arises, we can overturn a premise and rework a deduced rules.

Coherence is not (given partial data) necessarily equal to truth, sadly, though I believ it is a very strong indicator of such.

I'm still not convinced that there is any predictive utility in religious beliefs, however. It might be internally consistent, but so are many of the fantasy fiction series I read. I could (and have done) invent a system of magic that is internally consistent within a fantasy world. That does not give any further cause to believe it's possibly a real world.

The history of science is the history of successive models refinement and increasing utility, but also a serach for improved coherence.

True, however observations take precedence over that coherence. If a new observation, which can be demonstrated as likely to be accurate, were to contradict an existing theory, that theory would have to give way, even if there was no replacement. Now, some (such as Lakatos) argue that this does not in effect happen...and I agree. But that's a result of our social tendency to reluctantly move on from past paradigms, more than a feature of science's ideals.

Here we disagree: apart from my inclusion of human culture as a part of nature, I also believe religious beliefs can have predictive and utilitarian value.

I haven't yet read your other responses. I'll wait until I have a better understanding of this position of yours before I comment on it.

If you exclude teleology and supernatural imoacts upon nature by default from a bosy of knowledge, and predicate rationality, materilaim and internal physical causality, it is unsurprising if your science excldes the possibilities of deities - it is written in to the assumprions after all...

Excluding teleology and supernatural impacts isn't done on a whim, however. I realise that the tenets of symmetry and parsimony are both assumptions, yet they are not without reason. Parsimony is an act of economy - going on the notion that reality is 'that which causes us to observe what we do', ideas that aren't reflected in our observations offer nothing of value. Symmetry is simply an extension of induction - it appears that sets of fundemantal rules persist regardless of time and space.

hose events still had natural causes through. Much of this will depend on wher eone draws the limits of scince, but history clearly si abody of knowledge for example which stands outside Popperian science - something I frequently think causes issues here, or when say Dawkins suggest the evidence in the New Testament for the Resurrection s a scientific question. Science within the usual frameworks is a valid, useful and very productive way of knowing -- but not the only way.

I don't think anybody here will argue it is the only way. But the endeavour of science is clearly the most useful one at explaining why we observe what we do.

You're correct in saying we cannot falsify history. I think you'll find not even Popper felt that falsification was the only way to declare something as 'true'. Like many things in science, falsification is a useful tool. If it can be falsified, it makes for a stronger case in favour of an idea proving useful. There are many similar tools in science which contribute to an increase in our confidence. And in the end, that's all we can do.

Athon

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I apply agnosticism to everything equally. I once gave an argument to show that idealism has a leg up on dualism and materialism, but I'm not convinced by it, and that hardly qualifies as "staunch support". For all I know, the world is materialistic. I think you think that my repeated questioning of reality somehow makes me a "staunch" supporter of something. I have faith in God, but by definition, that means my belief goes beyond the available evidence.

Yet idealism forms the basis of practically all of your objections. Why is that?

But all that rests on an assumption that reality is such that every empirical claim is capable of being tested in a lab. How do you know reality is like this? Are you privy to some special knowledge?

Were you even reading the part of my post you were responding to? I was talking about skepticism as a demand for evidence. You can hardly get away with claiming that the evidence for God, an article of faith regardless, is on equal footing with the evidence for the state of reality or whatever you want to call it. Different people can make repeatable observations about reality. The same is not true about God or even the various beliefs in God.

"not simply doubting the opposite of what you believe in" Huh? Skepticism is doubting WHAT you believe. Doubting the opposite of what you beleive is non-sensical. Of course you would doubt what you don't believe. That's tautologically true. Since people here are almost all scientific materialists, there's precious little doubting going on.

You were the one using skepticism as a justification to doubt the opposite of what you believe in. This however ties into the first thing you said above. Besides, you're confusing arbitrary faith in something with acceptance of an idea based on evidence.

Show me evidence of materialism.

Then you should have no problem letting me hit you in the head with this hammer. Whenever you're ready. Just let me spread some newspaper around so that it doesn't make a mess. No? How come? It's for science!

Besides, you missed the point twice in the same response. First, you're the one making the claim of immaterialism, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Second, I was actually saying that I would accept something if shown evidence for it, so twisting the request back around actually shoots your argument in the foot.

Never said it did. My point was that it's kind of strange that a skeptical forum would be composed almost entirely of materialists. Kind of suggests there's a prevailing mind-set going on that's not being examined.

I agree. The paranoia and persecution complex I see among theists must have some kind of pathology that ought to be investigated.

Never said it wasn't. Materialism may be true. Idealism may be true. In the absence of any evidence, the best thing to be is agnostic. Anything else is taken as a leap of faith.

Fine, make me spread out all this newspaper on the floor for nothing.

For what, agnosticism? An agnostic doesn't have to supply evidence; they merely have to discredit others'. If I were making a direct appeal to theism or idealism, you would have a point. I'm not and you don't. My claim is that atheists have faith-based beliefs about reality that they SHOULD be agnostic about, but AREN'T.

So first you said you weren't making an appeal to idealism, then you go right back to a claim based on-- your appeal to idealism.

If it's a true claim, then that IS evidence. If the only thing you can be sure of is that you're a thinking being, then you must be an agnostic about everything else. No refutation of Descartes has been forthcoming, nor do I expect one.

Sure, except there's just the minor detail of how modern medicine has been forced to treat the brain as an organ inseparably linked to the rest of the body. It's kind of dangerous to treat the mind as a separate entity that bodily health and environmental factors have no effect on. The contingency runs only one way.

...Hammer experiment? Sorry, just checking again.

Just what I would expect a hallucination to say What, did you think YOU exist?

This is your brain on drugs.

Maybe, if I hadn't seen CJ, the most patient person I've ever seen on a message board, be on the receiving end of some vicious attacks. Regardless, anyone who questions science or materialism invariably gets ganged up on. True skeptics would be agreeing with people who question reality, not attacking them.

*sigh*

Attacking the argument is not the same as attacking the arguer. It's a very basic concept, one that the MA is based on. Having to defend your claims is a burden every single member, regardless of their beliefs, has to shoulder. If I were to say something spurious, I'd expect someone to correct me. In fact, I've actually relied on this tendency a few times when I wasn't sure about a particular topic.

We won't convince each other of this. My experience of atheists has been nearly exclusively a fanaticism about science, and a loathing of all things paranormal or religious.

Or maybe it's your projection based on personal prejudice. Do you even question your own perceptions at all? I don't go around assuming all theists are like Fred Phelps, and I'd have no justification in treating them as such. It would be, well, downright stupid.

So let's see. We have Raelian support for: materialism, cloning, geneticially modified organisms, and a Raelian bishop in charge of a biotech company.

But they don't beleive in science. Am I right?

They believe in intelligent design by aliens. They claimed to have cloned a human. You might want to work those facts into your considerations.

 

[athon]

Religious beliefs being complex structures are bound to possess some ideas that can be empirically verified, and as much early religion f'rinstance included astronomical data for example many religious claims have subsequently been empirically verified. You can say "hey they were not really religious ideas" - sure, but that si because you are defining religious beliefs as those not empirically demonstrable or with predictive value.

I would define 'religious belief' as any belief that subscribes to a system of dogma arising from belief in a supernatural force or power. So, I do agree that religious claims by this very definition cannot be empirically demonstrated.

If you have another definition, I'm open to discussing it. We might find we don't have an argument at all, if you're using a different definition than me.

The prediction the universe came in to existence, as opposed to having a steady state, and time with it, is a classic example of a prediction that can be made from a religious belief.

It would be if that 'came into existence' is born out of a faith in a supernatural origin.

Many of us will, of course, speculate on the origins of the universe. I tend to favour the concept of universes 'budding' off one another ad infinitum in some infinite megaverse. Why? I like it. It's a pretty concept. Yet I wouldn't invest anything more in it than wild speculation. I wouldn't interact with it, rely on it for support, or ask it to heal my sick child.

Religion means far more than some 'pretty idea' in a strictly inaccessible realm. People do believe they're interacting with supernatural forces and realms all the time.

Most religious beliefs however revolve around relationships with entity X, a deity -and relationships predictability, as psychology has shown, is complex. Hell it's not so long ago we finally were able to empirically demonstrate that the concept of personality is meaningful!

That's true. And if we only defined religion as being the sense of relating to another entity - whether external or internal to one's mind - then I'd have no issue with that. But again, there is more to it. I wouldn't say a relationship with an imagined being is supernatural. I would if that being was defined by more than just the perceived interactions.

From my limited interaction with say yrreg, yourself, athon, soapy sam, fls and arthwollitpot I might make limited judgments as to how you might respond - frequently in error. It's the same thing with deities really. Allow me to illustrate...

This is simply begging the question, though. We've moved past the notion that a deity could be an imagined figure, and assumed it actually transcends one's own imagining of them.

(nice dialogue, though )

Athon

 

[Malerin]

I'll get back to cj's response and other comments later, when I have more time. I thought this might be a quick one to comment on.

It's not at all 'equally likely'. Having two mutually exclusive options and denoting each the same possibility of occurring is obviously ludicrous.

It's true that we have no way of defining a deeper reality, simply because a) the act of defining something requires a more fundamental context, and b) we have no way of verifying anything with absolute certainty beyond the act of perceiving it. However, to make any sense, we can only therefore describe reality as being that which causes us to perceive what we do.

The methods of reality description which science aims to use have a massive advantage over others - the fact that they have predictive power means they relate better to whatever causes these perceptions. That is what distinguishes it above the rest. I might pull events out of a bag, invent it based purely on what seems reasonable at the time, rely on myth and legend...but none of those have a scale of evaluation which can determine how likely it is that some underlying cause is related to the observation.



Ah, I love the capitalised 'KNOW'. Really seems to drive that strawman home, yeah?

Nobody claims to KNOW. Yet, it's irrelevant. Believing in the efficacy of prayer as a means of describing what we see is useless. How do you know if you're praying in the right way? To the right deity? With the right words? How do you know the difference between a response and random events? Of course, you might be able to concoct an ad-hoc response after each event, however this does nothing to demonstrate any inherent worth. I could do the same for any process, and declare it 'equal' to prayer.

Athon

You're either assuming science is materialistic (in which case, you're using materialistic science to support materialism- fallacious)...
Or you're assuming science isn't materialistic, in which case its compatible with idealism, solipsism, and any number of competing theories of reality.

At best you've gotten nowhere, and at worse, you're committing a fallacy.

 

[Malerin]

Then you should have no problem letting me hit you in the head with this hammer. Whenever you're ready. Just let me spread some newspaper around so that it doesn't make a mess. No? How come? It's for science!

Oh God, not the hoary old "hit yourself in the head if you don't believe in materialism" Go rent The Matrix, please, or read "The Experience Machine" by Robert Nozick (no, he's not a SF writer). As you read it (and the objections to it), you will notice that no one ever objects that a person in the experience machine would somehow be able to prove they were in the machine by hitting themselves on the head

I think that's the problem- you're neck-deep in philosophy without any grounding in the actual field. Basic concepts elude you.

They believe in intelligent design by aliens. They claimed to have cloned a human. You might want to work those facts into your considerations.

So human cloning is anti-science? Bio-engineering (they're in favor of that too)? Existence of aliens is unscientific? In the vastness of the universe, I have no doubt there are aliens capable of genetically engineering a planet. The Raelians may be wrong in their claim that it happened here, or that they've cloned a human, but there is nothing unscientific to their claims. Human cloning is right around the corner. I fully expect it in my lifetime.

The point is that the Raelians were portrayed as anti-science by some atheists here. They're not. They're obsessed with the idea of genetic manipulation, cloning, bio-engineering and are outspoken materialists.

 

[athon]

You're either assuming science is materialistic (in which case, you're using materialistic science to support materialism- fallacious)...
Or you're assuming science isn't materialistic, in which case its compatible with idealism, solipsism, and any number of competing theories of reality.

At best you've gotten nowhere, and at worse, you're committing a fallacy.

1) Science is materialistic, as I understand the term to mean. By its nature it does not refer to rules which are external to our ability to directly or indirectly affect our observations.

2) I think what you meant (correct me if I'm wrong) was that by referring to science in describing our perceived universe, I'm assuming that our observations arise from purely materialistic sources. If so, what do you understand the word 'materialism' to refer to these days?

Athon

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And people who do not believe in God discount evidence which supports the theistic hypothesis based on that preexisting conviction. Agreed, it's what belief structures do, they lead to interpretation of subsequent perception data in the light of the existing framework. no one is immune.



Millions, if prayer works for them, because they have constantly self-reinforcing feedback for their belief. If however prayer never works for them, they will very soon abandon the experiment, and come to believe prayer simply does not work.

Now prayer is not thaumurturgy - (or even theurgy) - prayer is a petition, to a "person". The god of theists is a person, not a force. If I ask Malerin to lend me a fiver till payday (Malerin, care to help out?) he may or may not respond. If sometimes he does, and sometimes he does not for reasons known only to Malerin, then I will not be able to predict a suiccess rate. So prayer to theists may not be demonstrable in this way.

A theist can of course also shif the goal posts of what constitutes an answer to prayer, or conclude the failure of their prayer to be answered is god telling them something. Prayer is a request, not a final demand for payment or else... So prayer as understood by theists is not amenable to scientific testing, any more than I cna predict every time I ask Malerin for a fiver my paypal account will recieve a cash injection.

A god who always creates a 2.5% increase in the recovery rate of neuralgia patients would be an odd sort of bunnny. I'm not sure it would be worthy of worship -- any repeatedly demonstrable cosnsitent effect found in an experiment of this sort, like my mustard seed experiment i palyfully suggested a couple of days back (and boy was I disappointed by the low take up rate - I mean it's hardly onerous to try it! - but kudos to the few who said they would) would to me indicate a hidden but entirely natural variable, not the hand of a benevolent deity concerned with mustard growth - well unless tryng to show the experimenter something at a personal level.



I personally find it almost impossible to seperqate what might be a prayer result from what might be a DMILS result - but both would be of great interest to thepeople on this forum. Bad Scince? nope, I think not. I can make a strong case for some kind of effect in very good studies. Is there laready a thread on this susbject? If ther eis point me to it and i will play. I happen to have access to a rather vast collection of studies, and i might even attempt an Ersby style metanalysis, or simply provide the data so others can so the stats? I'm not convinced it proves the efficacy of prayer, but I can make a decent statistical case -- I need to think how one was experimental quality to see if that is a factor though, but there are a lot of studies and many appear scientifically sound to me.




ot in my part of the world they aren't! OK, if ther eis no thread i'll start one. I don't think though as i said we can differentiate prayer from DMILS- the bloody psi hypothesis is to my mind unfalsifibale, and can be used to explain away any interesting result as down to psi. (I'm not a fan of the unlimited psi hypothesis...)



I'll have a lok for a thread, and if one does not exist, start one. As I have studied this issue in depth I may be able to contribue a little. I'm still not convinced prayer studies prove much about the theistic hypothesis, but I'm interested...

cj x

I understand where you are coming from here and have considered many times why am I instantly rejecting X and so readily willing to believe Y? I am very much aware of my own brain sorting preferences.

That leads me back, however, to the principles I have developed in assessing the evidence. While no one is a perfect assessor of incoming data, I am confident that some people are closer to perceiving evidence and correctly evaluating it than others. If you can present convincing evidence I am capable of changing my existing beliefs.

Someone is right. Someone isn't. There is a reality out there and it appears consistent. I know what the elements of critical thinking are. I know what the elements are in good scientific process. I know I rely on evidence, not pre-existing convictions to draw conclusions about the reality around me. Show me the evidence and I will reconsider my beliefs if the evidence is there.

So the question becomes, how good am I at critical thinking? How good am I at deciding whether or not evidence is of scientific standard? Will I always draw the correct conclusions? Of course not. But am I confident I recognize good science over bad? Yes. And if someone shows me convincingly where I have the science wrong, I never stop learning.

Taking research in the effectiveness of prayer, I have looked at literally every single study I could find on the effectiveness of prayer because there have been many claims made that there is scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of prayer. The evidence is not there. I await some study that contradicts that fact. But if I discount a study claiming the effectiveness of prayer, it is based on the same standards I reject bad science of any kind, it is not based on arbitrarily rejecting prayer studies with positive outcomes because they do not fit with my current conclusions the evidence supports prayers have no effect.

And that is the difference. If you tell me you have a study supporting the effectiveness of prayer or anything else which I have previously investigated and drawn a conclusion about, I may indeed make an assumption that I doubt you really have any evidence. But show it to me, and I will consider it using the same standards I use to consider any evidence.

Either the evidence is there or it isn't. All of our conclusions are not automatic dismissals of evidence that doesn't support our previous conclusions.

I doubt any of us are prefect in this neutral objectiveness. I am not perfect. I consciously consider when I am searching the literature for evidence supporting other issues I have a conviction about, for example evidence supporting the effectiveness of certain medical interventions. But should equivocal evidence become clearly defined with further research in favor of the position I did not hold, I will change positions. And once again, the criteria I use to accept or reject research results remains the same whether the conclusion supports my beliefs or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
The point is that the Raelians were portrayed as anti-science by some atheists here. They're not. They're obsessed with the idea of genetic manipulation, cloning, bio-engineering and are outspoken materialists.

So really bad science or lying about the evidence doesn't count as 'anti-science'?

 

[Malerin]

So really bad science or lying about the evidence doesn't count as 'anti-science'?

I don't think so. A kid with no clue playing around with a chemistry set is probably doing "really bad science". That doesn't make him "anti-science". Anti-science, to me, is tossing women in the drink to test if they're witches. When a Bishop of your "church" is the CEO of a bio-tech firm, and your organization supports a country's effort to genetically modify its food, it's kind of hard to make an anti-science label stick.

Einstein made mistakes rejecting quantum physics and joining with the steady-state crowd. That was "bad science". Did that make him anti-science?

 

[Darat]

Nick, you seem really fascinated by the brain. Do you think that if we could make a mechanical facsimile identical to an organic brain (e.g., microchips in place of neurons), it would experience consciousness?

Folks many of us have keen interests in certain topics however lets try not to derail what has been a very interesting, friendly and educational discussion about the topic raised in the opening post with those. You can always start a new thread if you wish to discuss your particular area of interest.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Dancing David]

I never claimed Prozac or psychiatry didn't work. I claimed prayer DID work. You assumed the two are mutually exclusive. They're not.

The data on the fficacy of prayer are rather underwhelming, what do you have in mind?

I can think of a host of examples that demonstrate prayer is not effective on action at a distance.(As a way of ending drought for example) Now if you are saying prayer has a cognitive/emotional effect, that I can agree to.

 

[cj.23]

An hypothesis is not evidence. Nice speculating, show us the evidence.

Well Nick only very reasonably pointed out that placebos work best if the patient believes in them, so we might deduce from that a positive result will be more likely from God than a pint of milk in a prayer experiment based upon placebo effect alone. Personally though, why not try it? It can't be hard ot get that past a research ethics committee - you lot pray to the milk jug, you lot to God, self report your success rate?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Maybe, if I hadn't seen CJ, the most patient person I've ever seen on a message board, be on the receiving end of some vicious attacks.

Thanks Malerin! Owing to time pressures I rarely reply to people like you and Nick etc who I am often in agreement with, so I apologize for that. I don't feel I am viciously attacked though, or that patient - i you want to see me being patient have a look at the first year I spent on richarddawkins.net forums where i post as Jerome. That was a wild ride! Eventually however I came I think to be perceived there as not a troll: it just takes consistent posting and being reasonable, and well, yeah patient. The problem with posting on boards where you are in an extreme minority is while you learn a lot, its quite demanding as many people will raise excellent objections (and some not so excellent from time to time) and you have to find time to respond lest you be accused of termigivating or whatever that word was!

Hey, it's fun, or we would not do it!
cj x

 

[cj.23]

I'm going to reply to athon properly alter - I vaguely promised myself i would do some work today!

It might be internally consistent, but so are many of the fantasy fiction series I read. I could (and have done) invent a system of magic that is internally consistent within a fantasy world. That does not give any further cause to believe it's possibly a real world.

No, I agree. This is sort of my line of work actually - I write for supplements for roleplaying games, particularly Ars Magica. Ars has a fictional Order of Hermes who practice an ahistorical Hermetic Magic, and the game is set in the 13th century, but where the medieval paradigm is actually true. Whether Hermetic Magic reflects Aristotlean or Neo-Platonist versions of truth is in the game hotly disputed, but the game is really about the history and philosophy of Science as much as anything (with the odd dragon, politics, intrigue, romance, theology etc, etc.) Hardly surprpisng considering that is Line Editor David Chart's field of academic expertise. Ryan & Shirley's Ars Magica game supplement Art & Acadame is an excellent depiction of medieval science in game terms. I guess you can see why I keep joking about having a Scholastic theological sensibilities now!

Of course i write for other game companies - unsurprisingly Chaosium's Lovecraftian game Call of Cthulhu being one - but my interest in Biblical Criticism is so far not reflected ina ny rpg. Maybe I should write Werewolves & Wellhausen, in whiich our square jawed blue eyed all American Dispensationalist heroes pursue pulp adventures against the evil Higher Criticism goons of the sinister Adolf Von Harnack? Er, well maybe not...

A few possibly amusing links --

http://www.atlas-games.com/arm5/

The 4th edition is a free legal pdf download here for anyone interested in tabletop rpg. the 5th is much better though! -- http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=AG0204

Here is the Call of Cthulhu quickstart, just in case anyone interested in Lovecraftian rpg. You'll need some polyhedral dice or a computer though.
http://www.chaosium.com/article.php?story_id=87

Hope amuses!

cj x