Simple question...What do YOU believe?

[Tricky]

Celtic Warrior
Muscleman and Interesting Ian will occupy your attention for about the same length of time.

To be fair, Double-I will at least have you reaching for your dictionary. You'll learn some vocabulary, if nothing else.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I believe that I and the universe around me is real.

What would it mean to say that you were unreal? More specifically, if a person came to the conclusion that she was "unreal", what exactly would she be asserting precisely?

What would it mean to say that the Universe were unreal?

That it has a material existence perhaps?

 

[CWL]

Hey, thanks. I think I owe Q-Source some money though. Looks like I finally did lose the bet....

Regardless, what do I believe?

I believe that I and the universe around me is real. I believe that anything that is real is ultimately knowable and that anything that is truely unknowable is not real. I believe that it behaves in a certain manner that doesn't change over time. I believe that people are basically good when and because they choose to be. I believe that I am still growing as a person and that the above beliefs will probably change as a part of that growth.

Greetings Upfunkalistico-Bombastico!

You have been missed.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Simple question...What do YOU believe?

You touch upon an interesting point here. The belief in the paranormal is more of an emotional response than a logical one and on other threads posters have asked why there are more male skeptics than female skeptics. This has probably been brought up before, but is it possible that women seem to have a higher rate of belief in the paranormal because they are more likely to make decisions based on emotion?

Before Lisa, Girl 6, and the other skepchicks jump on me, I'm speaking of tendencies not absolutes, the are exceptions to every rule, including this one.

Do you actually have any evidence that woman are more emotional than men? Seems from my experience that men get more enraged generally speaking than woman over comparatively trivial things (road rage etc etc). Possibly woman may cry more, but maybe men tend to cover it up?

Anyway, I don't know if woman have a greater propensity to believe in the paranormal, but if they do might it not be somehow connected to the fact that the left and right hemispheres of the brain in woman have more fibres connecting them allowing great information flow?

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Re: Re: Re: Simple question...What do YOU believe?

Emotions form an integral part of everyday decisions. What is wrong with that?

I made a slight disclaimer in my previous post that said emotions could not be totally brushed aside. However, things usually turn out for the best when you realize whether the decisions you are making are based on emotions rather than rational thought.

The only way to be sure that nothing unpleasant happens after death is to reject life after death. BTW almost certainly the reason why you believe it is more rational not to believe in "life after death" is because you have been "brainwashed" into relatively unthinking acceptance of the modern common western metaphysic ie materialism.

Why would it be more rational to believe in life after death? There is no evidence for it. I have believed for most of my life that there would be a place to go when I died, but I finally came to realize the whole idea seems pretty ridiculous. I do not want to delude myself with fantasies that make me unafraid of the inevitable, so I stopped believing.

Also, if any brainwashing is going on, it is through the perpetuation of centuries old myth as reality. Several religions have no concept of an afterlife. Do you think they are all brainwashed because they do not believe what you do? Don't you think that if something like an afterlife were real, then it would be self-evident across many cultures?

My conversion was based on rational analysis of the evidence, or lack thereof. I no longer felt the need to cling to the unreal in order to make myself feel more significant. I guess if I take brainwashing to mean "cleaning out the garbage from my brain", then you would be correct.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple question...What do YOU believe?

Do you actually have any evidence that woman are more emotional than men? Seems from my experience that men get more enraged generally speaking than woman over comparatively trivial things (road rage etc etc). Possibly woman may cry more, but maybe men tend to cover it up?

This is a good point. Men are conditioned by society to hide their emotions. This does not necessarily mean that they do not have them but are influenced by them.

Women, to all outward appearances, are more emotional. And anger is certainly not something men have a monopoly on. We tend to focus on masculine anger for two reasons : anger is the one powerful emotion that men are allowed to display without losing face, and men have the potential for more physical damage when anger takes control.

 

[Upchurch]

Q,

Do you take checks or only cash?

Ian,

What would it mean to say that you were unreal? More specifically, if a person came to the conclusion that she was "unreal", what exactly would she be asserting precisely?

Well, I never used the term "unreal". However, if I were to define "unreal", I'd say that it is something that is not real. Okay, so what do I mean by "real". Well, in my belief statement, I was speaking in terms of physical existance. I was counting anything that has physical existance as being "real". Therefore, anything that does not have physical existance is "unreal".

Of course, now that I think about it, this ignores the existance or reality of ideas and concepts, which I suppose I should have included. But that is a different kind of existance or "real". Conceptual reality is subjective, in my opinion. It is only as real as the conceiver chooses to make it. For example, the Christian God has as much reality as the Easter Bunny to me, but to a Christian, God is quite a bit more real than the Easter Bunny. It's subjective.

(I can already see the counter arguments being put together that some folks believe that physical reality is also subjective, but I'm talking about my beliefs. This is what I mean by "I believe the Universe is real". I believe that physical reality is objective reality.)

What would it mean to say that the Universe were unreal?

That it has a material existence perhaps?

This I don't quite follow. By my premise that physical existance is real, these contradict. If the Universe were 'unreal" it wouldn't have material existance. If it had material existance, it wouldn't be unreal.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
What would it mean to say that the Universe were unreal?

That it has a material existence perhaps?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This I don't quite follow.

It's ok, I was just being flippant

 

[Dragonrock]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple question...What do YOU believe?

Do you actually have any evidence that woman are more emotional than men? Seems from my experience that men get more enraged generally speaking than woman over comparatively trivial things (road rage etc etc). Possibly woman may cry more, but maybe men tend to cover it up?

Anyway, I don't know if woman have a greater propensity to believe in the paranormal, but if they do might it not be somehow connected to the fact that the left and right hemispheres of the brain in woman have more fibres connecting them allowing great information flow?

I don't have any proof I can give you, it's in my psych textbook and I haven't looked for links. But, I think you accidentally made a statement that strengthens my point.

Yes, the hemispheres of a woman's brain are better connected. The highway between the hemispheres (corpus callosum) is larger and more fibrous in women. Because of this the different centers of a woman's brain communicate more than in a man. Woman make decisions based on a host of factors, including how something makes them feel. Men choose the factors that they feel are most important to the current situation. The tendency is that it is easier for men to make decision absent of emotion. On the down side is a difficulty for men to express what they feel because it's not easy to get info from the emotional center to the communications center.

The result of this is a greater tendency for women to make decisions based on emotional reasons and belief in an afterlife does serve to make some people feel better.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple question...What do YOU believe?

On the down side is a difficulty for men to express what they feel because it's not easy to get info from the emotional center to the communications center.

The result of this is a greater tendency for women to make decisions based on emotional reasons and belief in an afterlife does serve to make some people feel better. [/B]

I don't have any difficulty in expressing how I feel.

I recognised that the hemispheres having a better connection could be used to justify the belief that woman are more emotional. Depends what you mean by emotional. In my personnal experience woman aren't. Less emotional it seems to me.

 

[Dragonrock]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple question...What do YOU believe?

I don't have any difficulty in expressing how I feel.

I'm happy for you.

I'm speaking of tendencies. My belief is that in general, women express their emotions better than men do.

I recognised that the hemispheres having a better connection could be used to justify the belief that woman are more emotional. Depends what you mean by emotional. In my personnal experience woman aren't. Less emotional it seems to me.

My suggestion is not meant to encompass everyone, I'm speaking about on average a comparison between men and women. Let me give an example; In general men play better golf than women. The best male golfer is probably better than the best female golfer. However, the worst professional female golfer could still beat me without even trying. I'm speaking in general terms that are only really visible if you look at large populations.

 

[Q-Source]

The result of this is a greater tendency for women to make decisions based on emotional reasons and belief in an afterlife does serve to make some people feel better.

However, have you noticed that in our world's history, the majority of religious leaders and their herarchies are just men?.

So, we have that some men build their whole belief systems in emotions and wishful thinking and then recruit women because they assume that women are more emotional and delusional than them.

Q

 

[J3K]

Q-Source

This could just be because men urge for power more and through history have been the majority of all leaders.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm far from happy with this conclusion that woman are more emotional. First of all you need to define precisely what is meant by "emotion". Certainly in some senses men are more emotional. For example I believe that this is why the best singers tend to be male.

If you want my honest opinion, and subject to the caveat that we have not precisely defined "emotion", I get the impression that the most emotional people are males, and also the least emotional people are males. In other words men cover a greater range in their capacity to feel emotions.

As a matter of interest I also think that this is also the case with intelligence and also the case with how nice people are. So the people who tend to have the highest intelligence tend to be men, but also the people with the lowest intelligence tend to be men. The same goes with how nice people are. Just my personnal impressions. I know of absolutely no research in this area whatsoever, and I've never heard anyone else express this view before.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple question...What do YOU believe?

I made a slight disclaimer in my previous post that said emotions could not be totally brushed aside. However, things usually turn out for the best when you realize whether the decisions you are making are based on emotions rather than rational thought.

Oh absolutely. We should certainly be aware when decisions are based purely on emotions rather than rational thought. I wonder though why you think that emotions and a rational appraisal need be mutually exclusive?

Why would it be more rational to believe in life after death?

Well I could write many thousands of words on that!

There is no evidence for it.

You simply couldn't be more wrong. There is a huge collosal amount of evidence. The question of how consistent this evidence is, and how persausive it is, is of course an entirely different question. You also need to be aware that it's not simply a question of evidence either way. It is our underlying assumptions about reality which will heavily dictate our beliefs in this respect.

Anyway, for a very brief adumbration of the various types of evidence take a look here

Pertinent in this respect is where he states:

The evidence suggestive of life after death is considerable, daunting in its complexity and suggestiveness. Yet conclusive solutions elude us, and, as William James once said, nature seems determined in this department of knowledge to continually baffle us.

I have to say I absolutely concur whole heartedly with William James sentiments. Don't I just! I have the feeling that the more we delve into all the evidence the more perplexed and bewildered we shall become. It just reinforces my conviction that our lives and the Universe are wholly mysterious, and ultimately we know nothing at all. Maybe we're just not capable of doing so. Maybe we're just not intelligent enough. (BTW science ultimately just deals with predicting the course of our sensory experiences. Big deal!).

Anyway, later on the guy who wrote the article says:

When I look closely within myself, I feel pulled toward belief in probable extinction. This is due to what has been called the spell of the paradigm, the feeling that I do not inhabit the kind of universe where the leap into a new mode of existence after biological death is possible–or at any rate, probable. This has something to do with my educational experience. The model of reality that was in the air at Columbia University where I studied philosophy and classics in the 1960s was simply not congenial to belief in postmortem survival.

Absolutely! This is essentially what I was saying to you before. The reason why educated people do not believe, and even think the idea of survival is absurd, is largely due to the time and place they were born. We implicitly take on the beliefs of our prevailing culture. If you had been born in a different century on a different part of the globe, do you really sincerely belief you would have the same beliefs? No of course not! This idea that it is more rational not to believe in a "life after death" and paranormal phenomena is just a nonsense. To say the very least the emphasis on the rationality of humankind is greatly exaggerated! Nor, I believe, would it make much difference if we continually tried to be as rational as it is humanly possible to be. It is my opinion that reality is to baffling and intractable to be understood. Accept our limitations.

 

[Q-Source]

You simply couldn't be more wrong. There is a huge collosal amount of evidence. The question of how consistent this evidence is, and how persausive it is, is of course an entirely different question.

Ian,

I think the question whether or not the evidence is relevant and persuasive is ENTIRELy relevant to the matter of what you mentioned.

This is precisely why they are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

You also need to be aware that it's not simply a question of evidence either way. It is our underlying assumptions about reality which will heavily dictate our beliefs in this respect.

No, you are wrong. Assumptions do not determine or influence the outcome of our results.

If something is true, no matter which frame of reference you apply, the results will ALWAYS be consistent with reality.

Absolutely! This is essentially what I was saying to you before. The reason why educated people do not believe, and even think the idea of survival is absurd, is largely due to the time and place they were born.

You just said it. The reason why educated people do not believe in fairy tales is because they are educated!. They just don't look at the wrong way to find the answers.

However, it is true that Science does not give us all the answer we would like to hear. But, why should we look back in the past or believe in irrational explanations provided by our grandparents?

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple question...What do YOU believe?

I wonder though why you think that emotions and a rational appraisal need be mutually exclusive?

Again, I did not say they are mutually exclusive. I said that one should recognize where emotions play a part in decisions.

You simply couldn't be more wrong. There is a huge collosal amount of evidence.
...
Anyway, for a very brief adumbration of the various types of evidence take a look here

I did not see anything in that article that suggests they have more than anecdotal evidence of an afterlife. Near-Death experiences are inadmissable simply because of the unstable state of the human mind in such situations.

The reason why educated people do not believe, and even think the idea of survival is absurd, is largely due to the time and place they were born. We implicitly take on the beliefs of our prevailing culture. If you had been born in a different century on a different part of the globe, do you really sincerely belief you would have the same beliefs? No of course not! This idea that it is more rational not to believe in a "life after death" and paranormal phenomena is just a nonsense. To say the very least the emphasis on the rationality of humankind is greatly exaggerated! Nor, I believe, would it make much difference if we continually tried to be as rational as it is humanly possible to be. It is my opinion that reality is to baffling and intractable to be understood. Accept our limitations.

This argument actually works against you, Ian. First, I was raised as a Protestant Christian who was very active in his church throughout much of his life. I always had doubts, and they constantly grew. Eventually, my doubts reached "critical mass" and I realized that I was deluding myself. So, the time and place in which I was born worked to have to opposite effect on me.

Second, at no time in my education was I taught how to think critically. Our school system teaches us to accept what is given to us as true, so my education is not a factor.

Lastly, you say that I would not be an atheist in a different time and place. This is probably true. However, if I had been born in ancient Greece or Rome, I would have believed in many gods. Does this make it right? I would have believed that bleeding relieves fevers. I would have believed that demons cause disease. Does this validate those concepts? Is it more rational, then, to believe these things because they were once held as true?

 

[DrMatt]

I believe in the yumminess of chocolate.

 

[Franko]

j3k:
This could just be because men urge for power more and through history have been the majority of all leaders.

Well behaved Women rarely make history.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well behaved Women rarely make history.

...and Logical Deists never do.