Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

By telling him that it's illegal and he's going to be imprisoned for the rest of his life.

Really, that's what secular states are for. There will never be any "evidence" that I can show him that would make him think otherwise. Really, people changing their beliefs because of "evidence" are hard to find outside the scientismic community.

Andir: see way back in the topic when scientism was discussed. You summarily use the word twice while I just said there's no sense in using it. Religions do not "prove" anything, nor does any evidence or lack thereof "prove" the existence of (a) God.

[Andir]

Andir: see way back in the topic when scientism was discussed. You summarily use the word twice while I just said there's no sense in using it. Religions do not "prove" anything, nor does any evidence or lack thereof "prove" the existence of (a) God.

Then why change your life for something you can't "prove" is even there?  Why follow a religion if it doesn't answer beyond doubt via "proof"?

We are getting back into that pink unicorn theory again.  Just because you don't want something to exist doesn't mean the pink unicorn / flying spaghetti monster / evil alien race isn't out there poking and prodding us.  So why don't you follow all these belief systems because they have as much in common as modern day religion.

Going back to the universal god theory, why would God place us on a planet so far away from other stars that it would take us (given set speed limit of light/mass) more than a lifetime (cellular decay, et al) to get to something else resembling our own planet?  Are you sure we aren't here as prisoners because we are viral infections of the universe and some alien race decided this planet would be the best place for us instead of killing us off?

How can you "disprove" that theory?  Why not have faith in that scenario?

[Siquo]

Why, why, why... Why not?

I have no interest in proof or "disproof". Out of the unlimited scenarios including pink and beige unicorns I chose mine because this one (well, one, it changes a lot as well) makes me feel good, makes me feel good about myself and the universe around me. If you think proof is a better reason for belief than feeling good, I pity you.

[Andir]

If you think proof is a better reason for belief than feeling good, I pity you.

Trust me, this isn't an attack as it's so commonly used, but I guess ignorance is bliss.  I'm victim to this as well.  I'm happy thinking I'm random bits of goo that all have their millenia of evolutionary traits passed on.  There's nothing to pity in that, unless your idea of pity is making everyone think that they need some ideal of a grand creator in control of all this.  Randomness and astronomically natural behavior explains so much more than religion in my eyes.  I'd feel like I was shutting the door to opportunities of discovery if I sat on the idea that something or someone created all this.  Part of me feels like there's even more to be explored outside the visible universe and that the big bang might only be a localized event in the grand scheme.  That's freaking cool to me.  Confining myself to the idea that all this was intentional and we are prisoners on this rock by design is pretty saddening if you ask me but it's no less believable than God.

[Micro102]

Why did you automatically assume that proof brings sorrow?

[G-Flex]

Why, why, why... Why not?

I have no interest in proof or "disproof". Out of the unlimited scenarios including pink and beige unicorns I chose mine because this one (well, one, it changes a lot as well) makes me feel good, makes me feel good about myself and the universe around me. If you think proof is a better reason for belief than feeling good, I pity you.

A worldview isn't about "feeling good", or at least shouldn't be. One's view of the universe around them should be useful; it should serve as a tool to explain and, more importantly, predict the things that go on around them. That's pretty much the point of science.

If the model in your head of how the world works doesn't actually serve to accurately gauge real-world cause-and-effect, or serve to predict events in any suitable way, it's just going to cause you to make bad decisions and get confused on a regular basis, and will useless for anything but deluding yourself.

[Siquo]

Should, should, why should a view be useful? You again confuse science with belief. Yes, science is useful, in a utilitarian way. Some human beings have a need for more explanation though, something that science can probably not ever answer. That can be unuseful, but fills a need that gnaws inside. Of course, when taken too far, it can also be harmful, which generates the excesses and abominations some religions have produced. Those few mistakes are not enough reason to "throw away the child with the bathwater".


And don't feel so attacked, Andir and Micro, I said:

If you think proof is a better reason for belief than feeling good, I pity you.

To elaborate: It's better to be wrong and happy than to be right and miserable. If you're right and happy, good for you.

[G-Flex]

Should, should, why should a view be useful?

Okay, I guess it doesn't need to be useful, if you never interact with the world around you at all. If you're constantly stuck in VR, or the Matrix, or a sensory deprivation tank, then I guess what I said doesn't apply very much.

However, since predicting which actions will cause which reactions, gauging what will happen if a certain action takes place/is done by us, and trying to ascertain the causes of actions compose the majority of human decision-making, it might be important to have a worldview that actually allows you to do this.

Some human beings have a need for more explanation though, something that science can probably not ever answer.

Yes, but every human being has the need to be able to make decisions and judgements that actually respect some form of predictive model. This is what human decision-making and understanding is founded upon.

Those few mistakes are not enough reason to "throw away the child with the bathwater".

I didn't say to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I said that the other baby is at least as important and the two weren't born for entirely the same purpose and thereby are not interchangeable.

Some people need faith, but everyone needs evidence. Coming to a workable understanding of the world by establishing patterns is the foundation of human knowledge and decisions.

[Micro102]

There you go again,

You again confuse science with belief

I'm pretty sure i don't confuse the 2. You are either making a mistake while reading the posts, or are stereo typing us in your mind, as I didn't see anything in G-Flex's post that said that.

[dreiche2]

Well, in this case Siquo is just saying that there are certain things that science doesn't give you, and I'm inclined to agree. Or, that it is possible to have a certain meaning in your life that is independent of science. Simply because science isn't concerned with meaning itself

To elaborate: It's better to be wrong and happy than to be right and miserable.

I'm inclined to agree with this as well, at least in principle, as long as there are no further negative consequences for you or others because of being wrong. For me, knowingly being wrong and being happy just wouldn't work 

I do not agree however with that "evidence is overrated".

Okay, I guess it doesn't need to be useful, if you never interact with the world around you at all. If you're constantly stuck in VR, or the Matrix, or a sensory deprivation tank, then I guess what I said doesn't apply very much.

However, since predicting which actions will cause which reactions, gauging what will happen if a certain action takes place/is done by us, and trying to ascertain the causes of actions compose the majority of human decision-making, it might be important to have a worldview that actually allows you to do this.

Well, I guess it really depends on what exactly his view is. If he really accepts that his faith is one out of many arbitrary ones one could chose, if he doesn't impose his view on others and doesn't let his decision be too much influenced by it (other than when the options are more or less arbitrary to begin with), and if it makes him happy simply because it gives him some spiritual home, then I don't think there's a problem.

[G-Flex]

Right; the point is that, if it doesn't inform all of his decisions, then obviously he's using other methods in addition. So yeah, evidence-based reasoning is still incredibly vital.

[dreiche2]

Agreed.

[Siquo]

Right; the point is that, if it doesn't inform all of his decisions, then obviously he's using other methods in addition. So yeah, evidence-based reasoning is still incredibly vital.

Agreed. I'm merely trying to point out that there are some areas where evidence-based reasoning makes no sense. The fact that it works in 90% of life does not mean that it works in 100% of life. Of course you can throw scientific falsification blabla at it now, but that's just more of the same.

There is a subset of logic where "if A is not provable with the current rules, it is assumed to be true". That means all colours of invisible unicorns, all spaghettimonsterflavours, everything that cannot ever be proven is actually true. I'd like that. 

[Neruz]

There is a subset of logic where "if A is not provable with the current rules, it is assumed to be true". That means all colours of invisible unicorns, all spaghettimonsterflavours, everything that cannot ever be proven is actually true. I'd like that. 

I am quite certain that Logic assumes everything to be false unless it can be proven true. This is because it is extremely difficult to prove things false, but quite easy to prove things true.

[G-Flex]

Yes. It's rather pointless and fruitless to assume that every single non-falsifiable/unprovable thing in the world (or, for that matter, every thing that simply hasn't been able to be proven YET) is true, because then you have to say you think that an infinite number of ideas, an infinite number of which you've never heard before, and an infinite number of which are mutually-exclusive, are all definitely true.

That's how burden of proof works. If someone brings you to trial for murder, and there's no evidence one way or the other, they don't assume that you're guilty. There's a reason for this.