Prayer and power

[Beth]

They’re not looking for ET’s talking to us, nice straw man though. They are looking for signals like the kind we’re constantly pumping out into space. These signals have nothing to do with communication with ET’s but with radio, television, etc. We’ve been sending them out into space as side effect. SETI is simply looking for the same side effects. There is absolutely no assumption that they are actively trying to communicate with us.

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the signals that SETI is listening for have an underlying assumption that the alien race sending them out is trying to communicate with us - or at least directing them towards us. But perhaps this is a wrong or outdated impression.

 

[drkitten]

What I said is that it's more rational to talk to something that you think likely exists than to spend millions listening for something that you don't think likely exists.

I stand by my analogies:

On planet Bri, it is more rational to spend the lottery prize that you believe you won than it is to check to see if you really did win it.

Bri, if you had entered this conversation with the avowed intention of proving that belief in petitionary prayer is irrational, you couldn't have provided a better example.

 

[Bri]

This is only because you seem to have a poor understanding of words. Praying and searching are in no way equivalent. Praying is speaking to God, searching has nothing to do with communication and it is therefore irrelevant if anyone is listening.

SETI has actively listened for ET's and sent messages to ET's who they believe are likely trying to communicate with us, so how can you say that searching for evidence of ET's has nothing to do with communication?

If they were speaking, not just searching, then I would agree it is more irrational to speak to something you don’t believe is listening than to speak to another thing you believe is. However, I keep speaking to you…

SETI is both listening for and sending messages to ET's. It would be far more rational for them to do so if they believed that such beings likely exist than if they don't believe it likely that such beings exist.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

SETI is both listening for and sending messages to ET's. It would be far more rational for them to do so if they believed that such beings likely exist than if they don't believe it likely that such beings exist.

Really? I have a smoke detector in my house, despite the fact that I don't believe it likely that such smoke exists.

Why? Because my belief might be right -- or it might be wrong. And whether it's right or it's wrong, I want to know, instead of just believe. Or at least, I want to have a better evidentiary basis for my belief.

Is it irrational to install smoke detectors?

 

[Bri]

First, the supernatural doesn’t exist until there is adequate evidence to prove otherwise, so that line of argument is irrelevant.

I certainly hope you didn't mean that as you worded it. I'll allow you to respond before I comment.

Second, the laws of physics are prescriptive. Only our understanding and definitions of those laws are descriptive. Remember, we don’t make up the laws of physics; we only discover and learn to understand them. The way matter and energy act is entirely constrained by the laws of physics, regardless of whether we know those laws or not.

The laws of physics are essentially a description of how we believe nature works. From Wikipedia:

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior.

Nature does not follow the laws of physics, but the laws of physics are descriptive of nature. If some natural phenomenon were shown to exist that defied the laws of physics, the laws of physics would have to change.

I am talking about the universe, not this galaxy. I never agreed to the shift in goal posts.

I believe you agreed that the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is rational. Please explain why it is rational, but other beliefs for which there is little evidence are not.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Really? I have a smoke detector in my house, despite the fact that I don't believe it likely that such smoke exists.

Why? Because my belief might be right -- or it might be wrong. And whether it's right or it's wrong, I want to know, instead of just believe. Or at least, I want to have a better evidentiary basis for my belief.

No, the reason you have a smoke detector is because you know the relatively high probability that your house will catch fire outweighs the minimal expense of a smoke detector.

Is it irrational to install smoke detectors?

No, of course not. Is it rational to install a million-dollar alien trap in your house because there is a minuscule chance that aliens will visit you?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I stand by my analogies:

On planet Bri, it is more rational to spend the lottery prize that you believe you won than it is to check to see if you really did win it.

Bri, if you had entered this conversation with the avowed intention of proving that belief in petitionary prayer is irrational, you couldn't have provided a better example.

Is that really your best argument to claim that I've proven your position by insisting that my argument is equivalent to your straw man?

Somehow I think you can do better.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the signals that SETI is listening for have an underlying assumption that the alien race sending them out is trying to communicate with us - or at least directing them towards us. But perhaps this is a wrong or outdated impression.

You're not mistaken. According to Wikipedia, "the generic approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet." SETI has also sent out transmissions and probes in order to communicate to the aliens.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Is that really your best argument to claim that I've proven your position by insisting that my argument is equivalent to your straw man?

Somehow I think you can do better.

I don't need to do better. You presented a clearly irrational statement. I didn't raise a straw man -- I ridiculed your self-demonstrated inability to think clearly.

 

[I less than three logic]

I believe you agreed that the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is rational. Please explain why it is rational, but other beliefs for which there is little evidence are not.

-Bri

I believe you are mistaken unless you can point out where I did such a thing. I also believe it is about time you dropped that particular straw man.

 

[I less than three logic]

I certainly hope you didn't mean that as you worded it. I'll allow you to respond before I comment.

There is nothing wrong with how it is worded. The discussion is within the realm of science, in which the supernatural is simply dismissed. As far as science is concerned, the supernatural does not exist, in the same manner as the universe beyond the theoretically observable universe doesn’t exist. If you allow the supernatural, all scientific understanding is completely and utterly useless.

The laws of physics are essentially a description of how we believe nature works. From Wikipedia:



Nature does not follow the laws of physics, but the laws of physics are descriptive of nature. If some natural phenomenon were shown to exist that defied the laws of physics, the laws of physics would have to change.

I can only assume you didn’t understand a thing I just said. Nature is the laws of physics, as they truly exist if we had a complete and total understanding of them. We continue to redefine our understanding of those laws to match how they truly exist, and to search for new laws we have yet to discover. All the energy and matter of the universe have been bound by those physical laws since the start of time, they are bound to them now, and will continue to be bound to them forever. Our descriptions of the laws are not the laws themselves, but we continue to strive to make an exact match. Also, if we found some natural phenomenon that defied the laws of physics as we understand them, the laws of physics wouldn’t change, our descriptions and understanding of them will.

 

[Tricky]

I believe you are mistaken unless you can point out where I did such a thing. I also believe it is about time you dropped that particular straw man.

Here is how Bri constructs this little straw man (and she has constructed them many times.)

Bri: Do you agree that it is rational to believe that extrasolar life is possible?

I<3&Others: Yes, anything is possible except logical contradictions, even if extremely unlikely.

Bri: So if you agree that belief in the existence of extrasolar life is not irrational...

I<3&Others: Hold on there, Bucko. I just said it was not irrational to believe it was possible, not that it existed.

Bri: Okay, I'll ignore that for now, then in a few posts, I'll make this same straw man again.

 

[I less than three logic]

You're not mistaken. According to Wikipedia, "the generic approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet." SETI has also sent out transmissions and probes in order to communicate to the aliens.

-Bri

No, Beth is mistaken, because according to wiki, "the generic approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet." Transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet? Where in that do you read active communications to Earth or directed at Earth? We send out transmissions constantly, the vast majority has nothing to do with trying to communicate with anyone but other humans here on Earth. We flood the space around us with them regardless. Yes, SETI has sent out transmissions, but those were generally done as some kind of celebration of some event, and were irrational as most celebrations are. Also, SETI has never sent its own probe anywhere as far as I’m aware of. We have put messages on other probes destined to exit the solar system after their actual mission, but that’s really more [rule8]s and giggles than anything else.

 

[Bri]

I don't need to do better. You presented a clearly irrational statement. I didn't raise a straw man -- I ridiculed your self-demonstrated inability to think clearly.

Then you might want to start with something that I actually said, rather than something you wish I had said.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I believe you are mistaken unless you can point out where I did such a thing. I also believe it is about time you dropped that particular straw man.

OK, well if you don't think that the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is rational, then you're in disagreement with most of the others on this thread who are arguing against me. Thanks for the help!

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

The cool thing is that when the left hand gets tired, you can switch to the right, or vice-versa.

 

[Bri]

Here is how Bri constructs this little straw man (and she has constructed them many times.)

Bri: Do you agree that it is rational to believe that extrasolar life is possible?

This appears to be your straw man, not mine. The very first statement is incorrect. We have already agreed that it is rational to believe that something is possible. The discussion on this thread has been whether the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is rational, not whether the possibility is rational. I believe that you and others have been arguing that the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is rational whereas belief in prayer is not.

If you are now saying that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational, then I can accept your argument that belief in prayer is also irrational. However, I think you're using a definition of "irrational" that most people don't use since most people wouldn't say that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

OK, well if you don't think that the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is rational, then you're in disagreement with most of the others on this thread who are arguing against me. Thanks for the help!

-Bri

No, you simply attributed something to me that I did not do. However, I never said I was in disagreement with them.

Also, your straw man is constantly replacing intelligent life beyond this solar system with intelligent life elsewhere in this galaxy, they are not the same thing. Now, quit arguing as if they were.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, most Christians are of the opinion that God exists and responds to their prayers. I think this is very similar to those people who are of the opinion that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.

? How are the two even closely similar?

So, if a Christian told you that she or he believes that God likely exists and that God likely grants some prayers, but that she or he doesn't know for a fact whether God exists or whether God grants prayers, would that belief be rational?

So long as they didn't believe that he is likely listening I would place the irrationality as low. I know you don't care but while scientists don't have direct evidence of ET's they have much reason to base their belief that ET's are likely whereas those who believe in God have nothing.

God likely grants prayers & ET's likely grant prayers = Irrational.

You got any scientists who believe that aliens are likely listening and likely talking back?

If not, how is it different from a scientist who believes that intelligent life likely exists elsewhere in the galaxy? How about a scientist who believes that communicating life likely exists elsewhere in the galaxy and that they are likely attempting to communicate with us?

So long as they don't sing praises to the aliens or credit the aliens for finding their lost keys or wallets. So long as they don't say "I give all credit and glory to the aliens". That is easily irrational.

 

[RandFan]

Then it follows that belief that intelligent life likely exists elsewhere in the galaxy is indeed irrational.

I misspoke. My appologies. I should have said "is not irrational".

I'm sorry, but we all act on opinions all the time.

Give me an example. I act on opinions based on experience and probabilities. If there is someone living in the house on the east side of me then there is likely also someone living in the house on the west side. This is called induction and scientist use this all of the time to explore our world. It is something that you completly dismiss and it is unfortunate. There is nothing to base the likelyhood of god on. There is a hell of a lot to base the likelyhood of ET's on. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference.

Again, I find it more irrational to spend millions of dollars searching for something for which there is no evidence on just the "hope" that it's there.

But this is a serious mischarachterization of what is happening. Scientists have been able to figure out elements in the periodic table of the elements using induction. There was no direct evidence. In your world they were behaving irrationally. However the scientists were using logic and reason. Try as we might we can't get you to see this valuable and powerful tool. For you, any opinion that also lacks direct evidence is the equivelant of hope.

Thankfuly the scientists don't view the world the way you do.

No, I'm not trying to do that. You are trying to imply that scientists who believe that ET's exist are rational because they acknowledge that it is only an opinion (albeit an opinion that they're willing to spend lots of time and money on).

For the same reason some people are willing to invest money looking for oil. There is no direct evidence of the oil. We must use induction, reason, experience and our understanding of the natural world and drill where we think it is likely. Often the oil ISN'T there. The speculators waste their money. But because the speculators are willing to risk their money based on indirect evidence and reason we all benifit.

In your world such methods would be the same as praying.

If scientists viewed such methods as irrational we would never find oil or many other because such efforts often take such a large investment and a reliance on induction in the face of no direct evidence.

No more irrational than listening for evidence of the leprechaun with a very expensive stethoscope for an hour each night before you go to bed.

Is there any reason to beleive the leprechaun lives under my bed? See, this is where you go completly off the reservation. Scientists have been using inference and an understanding of the natural world for centuries to locate things that have no direct evidence. Inference is a powerful tool but it requires SOMETHING to base it on other than simply hope and faith.

Apparently, they both do.

You think that only because you don't know that scientists have used induction to discover so many things. You don't realise that by looking around us we can infer things that we can't see, touch, hear or smell.

No, I'm saying that it is more rational to talk to a leprechaun that you believe likely exists and listens than to spend millions listening for a leprechaun that you don't believe likely exists or communicates.

Again, you are misstating the facts.

You didn't answer my question.

Those that believe that it is merely coincidence won't be praying for long. Those that believe that it might just be coincidence are less rational than those who shout praise jesus and those who decare that all glory must be given to Jesus.

I personally don't know any milktoast christians who wonder if it is all just coincidence. I'm sure they exist but I'm certain they are the exception and not the rule. The reason is due in part to a little incident that happened ostensibly shortly after the resurection (see doubting Thomas).

Faith requires one to not doubt as Thomas did.

John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."