Beliefs: how do they work?

[paximperium]

Nice try, but none of the above could be considered one of the (probably the) main motivating factors behind medicine and its improvement.

Wait? So a motivation is enough for knowledge? Am I getting you right?
Not science or research but empathy alone?

We're not talking about motivation(which you have derailed this claim into) we're talking about a TOOL:

To echo the sentiment of Michael Shermer, what greater tool than science could God have bestowed upon us to understand and appreciate the splendor of his creation?

So what better tool do we have?

So, why are the woo-mongering alternative medicine peeps so "successful"? They seem empathetic(or fraudulent) but are completely and utterly useless at their treatment despite their "research".

Empathy, as a way of knowing, enables us to know that something like medical research is something worth pursuing.

No. Self interest and profit are good enough reasons. Great reasoning behind why we have iPods and TVs, no empathy involved. Empathy plays one part but not the only part. Your claim is falsified.

I don't get why some woo-believers seem to believe that empathy alone somehow gives them greater insight into reality than science. Probably intellectual laziness, "I feel for ya, I don't need to learn."

 

[Prometheus]

Prometheus, your whole championing of medical research via science, is founded on your belief that helping other people via medicine is a good thing.

Yes.

You only believe it's a good thing from the kind of knowledge which empathy brings to you.

No. There's also my memory of my own pain being alleviated by medicine, and my interest in having future infirmities effectively treated.

So, not only is empathy the practical motivating force, but it also supplies the moral standard by which something such as medical research, as an enterprise, is to be judged.

So what? How (or whether) some given enterprise is to eventually be judged has exactly as much relevance to the problem of how (or whether) said enterprise can actually be achieved in the first place as the 'practical motivating force' behind it does: Zero.

Even if medical research could be done without empathy (which is highly doubtful), without empathy we'd have no way of knowing whether it was a worthwhile thing to do or not.

Gosh, I thought perhaps you might have heard the phrase, "necessary BUT insufficient," somewhere before. No? Never heard that one?

You're saying it's a worthwhile thing,

Yes.

and this belief of yours is arrived at only via the kind of knowledge that empathy brings.

No. There's also my memory of my own pain being alleviated by medicine, and my interest in having future infirmities effectively treated.

Effectively you're arguing against yourself.

Apparently I'm the only one of us paying attention, at any rate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Belief has nothing to do with science. Scientist who believe in God are not doing anything unscientific.

Some people hold that view. I however, do not. I find the claim that faith based beliefs are somehow different from non-evidence based beliefs to be specious and contrived. As well, I find the claim that god beliefs fulfill some 'need' that science does not to also be specious and contrived. One can belong to a community and gain all the benefits which are attributed to religion without god beliefs and irrational thinking.

Belief in gods requires the suspension of critical thinking.That is most definitely unscientific.

 

[cj.23]

Belief in gods requires the suspension of critical thinking.That is most definitely unscientific.

Why? I believe in gods simply because of my critical thinking. Or to be clearer, i do not disbelieve in Gods for that reason. I find it hard to know anything definitely, beyond my doubt, but I have doubted long enough to doubt even that.

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty, I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong. In this universe, that suggests to me gods are a distinct possibility.

cj x

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Nice try, but none of the above could be considered one of the (probably the) main motivating factors behind medicine and its improvement. Empathy, as a way of knowing, enables us to know that something like medical research is something worth pursuing.

I would tend to place not wanting to get sick and not wanting to die ahead of empathy. Neglecting the sick and injured is not a good survival strategy for any society regardless. Mind you, the fear of sickness, injury, or death is also a motivating factor, not a tool or method.

 

[PixyMisa]

Prometheus, your whole championing of medical research via science, is founded on your belief that helping other people via medicine is a good thing.

Not his whole reason, nor is it relevant.

The point is that scientific medical research works, and medical research based on empathy alone doesn't do anything at all.

Also, money.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why? I believe in gods simply because of my critical thinking.

How did you get there from here?

Or to be clearer, i do not disbelieve in Gods for that reason. I find it hard to know anything definitely, beyond my doubt, but I have doubted long enough to doubt even that.

Active disbelief is not required. But a lack of evidence is sufficient for a lack of belief.

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty

Certainly.

I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong. In this universe, that suggests to me gods are a distinct possibility.

What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

I did see you post a list of reasons in another thread, but I thought it was a joke.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Empathy. And after that History. Both trump Science as ways of knowing.

cj x

How are you valuing the resulting knowledge? Volume of knowledge gained, validity of knowledge gained, technological progress, quality of life improved by the knowledge gained?

I fail to see how you can state your conclusion here unless you define what it is you are valuing in the knowledge you speak of.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If there wasn't empathy there'd be no medicine in the first place, except perhaps for the remedies we each individually invented as and when our own individual ailments arose.

You seem to be mixing motivation to seek knowledge with cj.23's statement about means of knowing even if you were right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to clarify my point above - I was responding to "To echo the sentiment of Michael Shermer, what greater tool than science could God have bestowed upon us to understand and appreciate the splendor of his creation?"

I still fail to see how History is Science - but I tend to take a Popperian line. If Science = ways of knowing, then Economics, History, Theology, Philosophy, Parapsychology are all sciences, yeah?

cj x

Examining historical evidence using the scientific process is going to provide you with knowledge that is closer to reality than just looking at historical evidence in an unsystematic way.

I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what people are talking about.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nice try, but none of the above could be considered one of the (probably the) main motivating factors behind medicine and its improvement. Empathy, as a way of knowing, enables us to know that something like medical research is something worth pursuing.

Of course without evolution, empathy might not have been naturally selected as benefiting gregarious primates. So evolution gave us medicine, actually.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why? I believe in gods simply because of my critical thinking. Or to be clearer, i do not disbelieve in Gods for that reason. I find it hard to know anything definitely, beyond my doubt, but I have doubted long enough to doubt even that.

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty, I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong. In this universe, that suggests to me gods are a distinct possibility.

cj x

We have threads and threads on this topic. That's why I prefaced my post with, "Some people hold that view. I however, do not."

 

[RandFan]

Why? I believe in gods simply because of my critical thinking. Or to be clearer, i do not disbelieve in Gods for that reason. I find it hard to know anything definitely, beyond my doubt, but I have doubted long enough to doubt even that.

I've no problem with the philosophical realization that certainty is problematic at best.

Beyond the naval gazing aspect though I find most people are simply fooling themselves or playing games to justify their irrationality. If you really were so skeptical of everything then you would be tied up in knots unable to deal with the real world. But no, you get in your car and merrily go through life making assumptions living according to those assumptions because the assumptions are rational.

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty, I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong. In this universe, that suggests to me gods are a distinct possibility.

Then everything is a "distinct possibility". Whatever it is you mean by that. It would then be a distinct possibility that you could lock yourself in a room without food or water or a toilet for a month. But you are not going to do that because it's NOT a distinct possibility that you would survive for any significant amount of time and do so comfortably and you know that. All your bluster and pseudo intellectual naval gazing won't change that fact.

People are perfectly happy to engage in philosophical flights of fantsy when it's flatering or it supports their world view but you put that to the test and suddenly they are pretty damn certain what is and isn't real.

I don't mind a philosophical discussion but when it comes to acting as if nonsense is a distinct possibility then I've got to call you on it. Believe in god if you want to but don't tell us it has anything to do with critical thinking. Or, or, have the honesty and consistency to let us lock you in a room.

 

[Malerin]

I don't mind a philosophical discussion but when it comes to acting as if nonsense is a distinct possibility then I've got to call you on it. Believe in god if you want to but don't tell us it has anything to do with critical thinking. Or, or, have the honesty and consistency to let us lock you in a room.

You talk as if no one has ever put their religious beliefs to the test:

http://burmasitmone.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/burningmonk.jpg

 

[RandFan]

You talk as if no one has ever put their religious beliefs to the test:

http://burmasitmone.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/burningmonk.jpg

When you step out of a window you don't break the law of gravity. You confirm it. Your example proves my point.

But more importantly you are belittling an important historical event. The Monk didn't commmit self-immolation because he thought it wouldn't hurt him. On the contrary, he knew it would. That was the point. I think you need to learn more about the background of the protests by Vietnamese Monks before you misuse them.

Let me be perfectly clear. Of course people are willing to put their religious beliefs to the test. That doesn't obviate my point.

 

[Malerin]

When you step out of a window you don't break the law of gravity. You confirm it. Your example proves my point.

But more importantly you are belittling an important historical event. The Monk didn't commmit self-immolation because he thought it wouldn't hurt him. On the contrary, he knew it would. That was the point. I think you need to learn more about the background of the protests by Vietnamese Monks before you misuse them.

The monk in the picture was protesting S. Vietnam's treatment of Buddhists. I would say his faith was essential to what he did. Did any atheists protest the war in such a way?

Let me be perfectly clear. Of course people are willing to put their religious beliefs to the test. That doesn't obviate my point.

Then what was your point? You were asking CJ to lock himself in a room with no food and water. Presumably as a test of faith. History is replete with examples of people sacrificing themselves because they had faith in what they beleived in.

 

[RandFan]

I would say his faith was essential to what he did.

Never said it wasn't. His "faith" is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. The monk didn't self-immolate because of an irrational belief that all possibilities are equal.

Then what was your point?

That all beliefs are not equal. That reality lacking consequences ISN'T a distinct possibility.

You were asking CJ to lock himself in a room with no food and water. Presumably as a test of faith.

No. Let me repeat that NO!

Ok? Are we clear on that?

The purpose of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that rational people are capable of figuring out what is a distinct possibility and what isn't in spite of their nonsensical abuse of skepticism.

History is replete with examples of people sacrificing themselves because they had faith in what they beleived in.

Entirely irrelevant to my point. My purpose is to attack his abuse of skepticism.

The idea that all things are equally possible because we can't know anything with certainty is nonsense and easily demonstrated to be nonsense.

SKEPTICISM:
Bob: I can jump out of a window and flap my arms and fly.
John: I doubt that.

ABUSE OF SKEPTICISM:
John: The law of gravity obviates your ability to jump out of a window and fly by flapping your arms.
Bob: I doubt that.

Can you see the difference?

 

[Malerin]

No evidence? I see my wife every day. How can you say that there is no evidence? You are being disingenuous. You are abusing skepticism again.

Here's a simple rule of evidence: if X is consistent with theories A,B,C, then X cannot be evidence for theory A, B or C. For example, suppose the police have three suspects for a murder. Carpet fiber evidence comes in, and wouldn't you know it, all three suspects have the same brand and color of carpet. Because the evidence is consistent with all three suspects, it cannot be used as evidence to single out any of the three suspects. They can each point to the other when confronted by the "evidence".

Likewise, the information you get from your senses when you look at your wife is consistent with countless competeing theories of reality (a vivid dream, an experience machine, a computer simulation, an actual person, etc.). Yet you continue to cling to the idea that your sensory evidence is proof your wife is an actual person (and proof of materialism, overall). Since your sense-data is consistent with other competing realities, I could just as validly say that you seeing your wife every day is evidence of her being a dream figure (actually, that would be invalid, since the sense-data couldn't support any model of reality, but you get the point).

I see this in a lot of atheists- materialism is assumed from the get-go and evidence is then made to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. You continue to say "abuse of skepticism", but you are the one who can't seem to question your core beliefs. As I said, it's a curious intellectual blindspot I've noticed in strong theists/atheists.

 

[PixyMisa]

I see this in a lot of atheists- materialism is assumed from the get-go and evidence is then made to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. You continue to say "abuse of skepticism", but you are the one who can't seem to question your core beliefs. As I said, it's a curious intellectual blindspot I've noticed in strong theists/atheists.

No.

All you have demonstrated here is that whatever the fundamental nature of reality is, it is indistinguishable from materialism.

Therefore materialism is a correct assumption, for all rational purposes.

 

[Malerin]

Never said it wasn't. His "faith" is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. The monk didn't self-immolate because of an irrational belief that all possibilities are equal.

That all beliefs are not equal. That reality lacking consequences ISN'T a distinct possibility.

No. Let me repeat that NO!

Ok? Are we clear on that?

The purpose of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that rational people are capable of figuring out what is a distinct possibility and what isn't in spite of their nonsensical abuse of skepticism.

Entirely irrelevant to my point. My purpose is to attack his abuse of skepticism.

The idea that all things are equally possible because we can't know anything with certainty is nonsense and easily demonstrated to be nonsense.

SKEPTICISM:
Bob: I can jump out of a window and flap my arms and fly.
John: I doubt that.

ABUSE OF SKEPTICISM:
John: The law of gravity obviates your ability to jump out of a window and fly by flapping your arms.
Bob: I doubt that.

Can you see the difference?

Where do you think CJ claimed all possibilities are equal? Here?

I therefore conclude that if I can never know anything with certainty, I must go where I feel the balance of probability lies, aware I may be wrong.

That's an appeal to belief in the most probable thing.

Anyway, it's true that all possibilities are equal, though I think idealism has a slight advantage. No doubt you would ask me to test this by standing in the middle of a busy street, which would prove nothing other than that I have a phobia of standing in busy streets (or I could claim that I've done the test a hundred times and erased your memory of it each time). How we act, and whether something's true or not are often two different things.