|
 |
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> No, its true from the evidence. Viewpoints are **opinion** not fact.
>> Facts rise or fall based on what works, and is feasible. Opinions rise
>> and fall based **solely** one how many people hold them.
>
> But how people view and experience the world is the thing that matters to
> a lot of people. I don't dispute that facts are important, but opinions
> are important as well, because the way one sees the world shapes how one
> interacts with it. Even someone with your point of view interacts with
> the world based on the opinions you have formed from the facts you've
> determined are true. Arguably, someone who holds your particular set of
> beliefs (for lack of a better word) is more likely to adjust based on new
> evidence than someone who has a very strong faith-based view of the
> world. But who's to say that that faith-based view of the world is
> invalid for someone for whom it works for?
>
True enough. But one can conclude, for example, based on facts, that the
risks of allowing slavery are too high, and the benefits insufficient,
to hold that its a valid behavior. This concept, when based on
"opinions", was both defended at part of the natural order of the
universe and gods plan, and as something that god wouldn't accept, due
to the other sides opinions of equality of justice and unreasonable
cruelty (none of which was, at that time, equality of ability,
intelligence, or race), by those who "had no" fact based position to
derive their views from.
The problem I have with opinion is not that it isn't an important part
of how societies work, its that it ***is*** an important part of how
societies work, and, unfortunately it doesn't take much to derail
opinion into complete idiocy using emotional appeals, and a lot of wild
spinning. Its rather more difficult to do that when you have "empirical"
grounds for forming such opinions. I.e., not all opinions are equal.
Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the dogmatic view of
"equality", "fairness", and, "respect" in the US goes like this: "All
ideas are equal, to be fair we have to listen to all of them and judge
them in their own context, and we need to respect when people's ideas
differ." Often, this is now seen as, but "is" as bad as giving equal
credence to the theory that the sky if really blue coolaid, vs. the
traditional, but now hotly challenged, idea that it is made up of "air".
What matters isn't who is right, its whose opinion "wins". Think about
much of the early history of this country, ranging from just
"traditional" concepts of proper 'plural' and 'arranged' marriages,
which where the most common in the early colonies, to many basic
concepts of justice, to slavery, women's rights, etc. What if, in all
those cases, the most popular "opinion" won, instead of people fighting
for the less popular ones, and **showing**, until people's minds
changed, that they worked better..
>>>> True, but again, they are almost totally pointless interpretations,
>>> See my above comment about stepping out of your own frame of reference.
>>>
>> No, I can see how they come to those conclusions, I just can't agree
>> with them.
>
> Agreement isn't required. Understanding isn't either, for that matter,
> but I have found that understanding how someone with an alternative
> viewpoint arrived at that conclusion leads to an understanding of how to
> interact with that person in a constructive way. I've found this to be
> an incredibly valuable skill to use given that many of the people I work
> with professionally have strong personal religious faith. Even for those
> whom I don't discuss religion with (which is most of them), knowing the
> common set of experiences that they go through every week when they go to
> church (for example) helps me understand how to motivate them and get
> what I need from them.
>
Ok, to an extent, you are correct. But, there are obvious limits to such
"understanding". Most of the things the hardline atheists go on about
are cases where they fully understand, often due to once "sharing" those
views, how someone reached a conclusion, and they see both how its
"incorrect", but how much effort is put into not seeing, intentionally
ignoring, excusing, or finding "good things" in the very negative
consequences of "reaching" those conclusions in the first place, or,
sometimes, due to even how they reach them.
I mean, do you honestly think there is no consequence to, to use slavery
as an example again, concluding that someone should be treated nearly
equal, like a really smart animal, but still not accepted as equal in
all ways, vs seeing them **as** "equal" in all ways to you? Of course
not. The end result, in the short term, may be the same, when an
injustice exists. In a more contemporary example, gay "separate but not
quite equal secular rules", vs. "defending marriage". The later isn't
even under any real threat, and the former is pure bullshit. You can't
have separate but equal. The result is "never" equal, pretty much by
definition. The moment you say "separate", you start already applying a
"special rule", that says one gets to be seen, treated, or acted on,
differently than the other. Its pretty much down hill from that point.
So, sure.. Understanding how to motivate someone is one thing. But..
Some things either work or don't, and if you can motivate someone out of
doing them right, there are 50 other people, far better equipped, to
motivate them to do it wrong, or not at all.
>>>> And, such people, when they find their ideas being sidelined, get
>>>> really pissy about it,
>>> That happens even with rationalists, too. The "punishment" tends to be
>>> ridicule rather than more the extreme punishments you outline for the
>>> "modern fundies", but the reaction is quite similar.
>>>
>> That is because, quite frankly, discussion has been *tried*, and its
>> either been undermined, often with the complicity of the people
>> supposedly providing the forum of discussion, usually against hard
>> liners from the other side, who are "impervious" to factual information,
>> and moderates, of the sort that "might" be swayed either a) refuse to
>> see how ridiculous the people they defend make **them** look, or b)
>> don't think the issues matter enough to do anything about them.
>
> Sometimes yes, people who have strong religious faith react badly when
> they're told that they're not being rational. How do you react when
> someone tells you you're talking nonsense when you're talking about
> something that you have a strong personal investment in it? What I find
> is that the presentation coming from someone with a point of view often
> is not handled very tactfully. Understand that for people of strong
> religious faith, when you start trying to prove that their view is wrong,
> that is often perceived as an attack on the foundations of everything
> they have built their life upon.
>
Well, I admit, I don't react "that" well. But I react worse when their
reason for making the claim has no basis at all. There is a saying,
something to the effect, "If you react badly to someone's comment about
you, its because you recognize something of truth in it.", or something
like that. Someone says I am not being rational about something, then
either I admit it, I accept that I may be, after its explained, or I
reject it, because their own "evidence" amount to not sharing my view,
and therefor concluding that they are being rational, but I am not, for
failing to agree with them. The later I have no sympathy or patience
with. I would never tell someone they where being irrational without
"attempting" to explain why. Neither would the vast majority of other
atheists I know (well, except when the person is being persistent, or
keeps showing up, and does nothing but tell "us" we are wrong, without
any other argument, then people get.. snippy.) But... Well, lets just
say that for people who have been told all their lives that X view is
right, and believing it makes them right, and you shouldn't really
question these things, its real hard to get them to reflect at all on
whether or not they are being rational, never mind actually get them to
admit they are not.
Watched some clips today of various comics, and the strongly religious
one was precisely like that. His absolute 100% position was, "I believe,
I know I am right, so therefor 'everything' I say about non-believers or
sinner **has to be funny**. You get the definite sense that the guy
hadn't have a single moment of internal reflection in his life. And,
more to the point, his "jokes" showed precisely the sort of "humor" I
see from such people. Which is to say, sarcasm would be lost on the guy,
he wouldn't "understand" jokes at his beliefs expense as anything but
attacks, and his idea of a 'good joke' consisted of locking his
fictitious atheist in his house and... basically doing the same stupid
BS they always imagine doing - spend hours babbling about god and the
truth of their religion, while the atheist is too stupid, stumped, or, I
don't know.. brain dead? to reply to any of it.
It wasn't so much a joke as mental masturbation. "Here is what I
'imagine' would happen, if I taped the guys mouth shut, locked them in a
room, and read the Bible for hours at them." My only reaction to this
was, "You don't have a clue how wrong you are, since you never talked to
one.", or, alternatively, "Then again, after 5 minutes of what I imagine
is even 'worse' BS than your comedy routine, I would jump out a window,
preferably a from the 20th floor." lol
> But I'd also point out that "discussion has been tried" doesn't equate to
> "discussion has been tried with all of them" - some people it's futile to
> discuss with, others are more receptive. Each situation is unique.
>
True enough. But... its a bit like carpet bombing. There isn't much
point going after them one at a time, when a) you can't get most of them
alone to start with, b) they have people nearby to "reinterpret" it all
so you where wrong, and/or c) they outnumber you 50:1. You need both
people willing to use ridicule to "prevent" then doing what they
normally do, which is shout you down, refuse to give you time to rebut
their endless list of fallacies, and misrepresent your position. You
also need the "nice" members, who are willing to sit down and explain
why the aggressive ones are being so obnoxious. Problem is.. Until
fairly recently, all we really had was the later, and they have entire
TV networks dedicated to shouting down, misrepresenting and burying our
side under a deluge of fallacies.
Or, as someone put it. How do you "fairly" explain away the "problems"
presented in 20 minutes by someone, with only 20 minutes to rebut them,
when *each* so called problem is a 20 minute lecture, and they just gave
you 500 things to "respond to". You can't. And, its how "they" stack the
game.
>> http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif
>
> I like the comic; it explains something I've been saying for a long time
> for a very long time. What's considered "reputable news sources" (ie,
> broadcast news media, newspapers, etc) tend to try to do the thinking for
> us. I prefer my news unfiltered, because I'm an intelligent human being
> capable of forming my own opinions based on the facts.
>
> That said, I don't think the problem is not failing to trust the first
> person in the cycle. The problem is the mutations to what the first
> person in the cycle discovers by all the intermediate steps. It's like
> the telephone game all over again. Somehow in the US (and I might go so
> far to say "in western society"), we've shifted to believing the loudest
> voice, and the loudest voice tends to be the one with the most coverage
> (based on distribution, Nielsen ratings, etc).
>
Ah, but.. There is a rising tide of people in the US that not only fall
for everything said, starting at the "blogged about it" stage, and
presents "everyone" prior to that, including news agencies that don't
present "both sides", or actively promote the "big
science/pharma/government/whatever" side of things, as being "part of a
vast conspiracy to hide the truth.
And, well.. If you believe in one conspiracy, like say, religion, then
its easier to believe in the "war one Christmas", and once you get that,
you find it that much easier to imagine the "war on religion", etc. The
most "conspiracies" you willingly accept, the more you believe, since
many of them are "underpinned" by the same assumptions, starting with
the idea that you have found the one true path, and those that haven't
are, to one degree or another, out to get you.
Again, to be fair, this is not "all" of them. But, the problem isn't
that some believe differently, its that the ones that "do" believe this
BS have 90% of the news coverage, 90% of the political power, 90% of the
mega-church type support, 90% of the "faith based" funding illegally
given to them by the government, etc. And, like some big corporations,
they have no problem "attempting" to obfuscate what they intend via
sub-groups, charity organizations, which funnel funds into the wacko
stuff, etc. Its all masks, mirrors, and smoke screens, when it comes to
the "money" end, and blind crazy on the political side.
Why is this a problem? Well, why is people funneling millions to PETA,
so they can take live animals, drive them to another state, kill them,
then bury them in a mass grave, instead of the ASPCA, and other "real"
animal organizations, bad? Same issue. Its not what they "seem to be
like" that is the issue, its what actually then gets "done" with the
money and unearned support they get from those who go faith based
organization = good thing = good works = something I should support, but
**never** look below the surface. Or worse, deny it, like some of the
PETA supporters I know, who refuse to even admit that the organization
does, thinks, has said, or has tried to pass legislation to achieve. To
them, PETA = animal rights = pet rights = good things = worthy of
support. All evidence to the contrary is, well...
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/denialists_deck_of_cards_the_2_1.php
> But this is a bit of a shift in the discussion we're having as well,
> because it doesn't really tie into religious faith - it's more closely
> related to generic belief. Not that the two are entirely dissimilar,
> mind.
>
Well. I don't exactly agree. How do you separate them, really? Because
one sort of belief is old, and handed down, sort of, while others are
not? You could call almost anything, by that standard, "religion",
including patriotism. Then, what.. all ideas that you get yourself,
instead of learning from parents, or organizations, are "not"? Where is
the line drawn?
And, to be clear. Critical thinking causes people to think critically
about more and more things, the more often they apply it. Faith based,
conspiracy based, etc. types of thinking generate "more" of the same,
the more "those" are applied. Since the later are both highly flawed,
and generate responses that self confirm, instead of challenge, the more
things you use them for, the more mistakes you make. For "most" people
this isn't a big deal, simply because they may find 3-4 cases in "there
entire lives" where making a choice matters that much, and, for most of
them, picking the "wrong" solution doesn't have that "huge" a
consequence. For those that it does... Well, one things religion does do
is cover its own mistakes by helping people it fowled up to survive,
even when *it* caused them to fail in the first place. Its not self
correcting, just.. self medicating. And, the ones whose consequences
where "even more serious", well.. They are not around to object at all
when someone else interprets the mistake as "gods will", "part of gods
plan", "a challenge for the survivors", or... usually just about
anything other than, "Heh stupid. It doesn't work, so stop doing it!"
>> Well, if/when it happens, its probably someone fed up with the need to
>> point out all 50,000 things that fall into that category. At the least,
>> some places won't let you post more than one of them.
>
> The counter to that "individual things" often ends up being "you have to
> take the whole thing". Part of the reason for that is that you're trying
> to change the opinion of someone who doesn't want their opinion to be
> changed. They're just as frustrated as you - again, it comes back to
> that point about "attacking" the foundation of the something they've
> built their entire life around. That's not something that should be seen
> to be being treated lightly or with ridicule - you might as well be
> calling them "stupid" or worse - and we all know where that leads.
>
Irrational responses, or.. if you are lucky, someone wondering, "Could I
be wrong." Another "trend" in recent years seems to be the insane, and
often ***specifically worded*** this way, idea that, "One should have a
right to not be offended." Bullshit! If anything, religion is so
shielded from offense as it is that the courts can't even keep a church
from robbing its parishioners blind, if it chooses to, as a matter of
"internal church policy". Now, if they hire, make a contract with, or
promise something to someone "outside" the church, they are SOL. But,
they could tell you almost anything, promise nearly anything, make you
do stuff that would be abuse/child abuse if someone did it in a secular
setting, in some cases (like most really hard line Baptist baptisms),
etc., and not only could they, in many such cases, argue that you
breached trust by telling anyone about it, refuse to give you anything
they promised (having "changed their mind") or.. well.. If its religion,
everyone expects the right to "not be offended, challenged or ridiculed"
for it. But, choose to join the wrong gym, cross dress, wear hats inside
a building, or 100 billion other things, and, that is all fair game.
Sorry, but "religion" is just another object in the world to me, and its
either mild, and therefor safe, but don't "dare" do something stupid,
like supporting something that isn't, or its insane rubbish, and I
**will** call them on it. To ask be to do otherwise is to disrespect
others who fight against the excesses and willing/unwilling support of
those excesses, and everyone that has ever been hurt by such. They
deserve it more than than some believer's personal ego.
That said. Not stopping long enough to find out what I *am* arguing
against, but just concluding that it is a personal attack, is, imho, at
least as good a reason for calling someone an irrational fool as
"actually" belonging to, or supporting, what ever it is I *am* arguing
about.
>> Again, there is a reason for using ridicule. Its the last resort when
>> dealing with people you realize will **never** play fair, in the hopes
>> that embarrassing them enough will get them to rethink their position.
>
> That never, in my experience works. The last resort when dealing with
> people who won't play fair is to walk away. Logically, upon being
> ridiculed, the vast majority of deeply religious people aren't going to
> suddenly say "gee, you're right, I've been stupid". They're going to dig
> in their defenses. At the point at which they become defensive, they
> have stopped listening to what you're saying, and you're just wasting
> your time trying to change their view.
>
Hmm. Ok, then how is this, "Its not the one its directed at that is at
issue, since they are unlikely to change, its those watching, who see
that the only response they can give is incoherent, or non-existent."
For the most part, such people are not listening to what you are saying
to start with. Your only option is, "don't play the game at all", or,
"make sure someone else sees how **they** wanted to play it, and why
that is stupid."
>> Mind, this is hardly needed, since all you have to do is look at
>> interviews by people like Casey Luskin to realize that they embarrass
>> themselves more than we ever could.
>
> Sure. Why do you think I walked away from two recent discussions here
> after one response to the initiator of the thread? ;-) It's the same
> principle. I'm not going to change that individuals mind, and ultimately
> it's my opinion that that person does more damage to themselves than I
> could ever do by continuing to respond in kind. Add to that that I
> honestly don't care if he makes a fool of himself or not, what exactly is
> my motivation to *try* to make him look foolish again? He's already
> doing a far better job than I ever could do.
>
Well. Here it is different. But, go to one of these radical sites some
times and look at the content... Unchallenged, they can **claim** you
are a) afraid to challenge them, b) don't have any answers to their
imaginary issues, or c) you ran away, because you know you would lose.
On their own sites they "bolster" this opinion, by deleting anything
that "remotely" disagrees, or fails to praise them. Part of the point of
making them look even more foolish is to show fence sitters that the
issue isn't your "unwillingness" to face them, but that you can't stop
laughing while doing so. ;)
>> How would you suggest dealing with the radicals who, over the last 50
>> years, have grown in size, influence and power, while the rationalists
>> opted to use discussion, science publishing, and catering to the
>> "moderate allies", to fight back? The old way lost us ground.
>
> That's a harder question to answer. When it comes to religious beliefs
> in politics, ultimately it comes down to money. Religious organizations
> have an immense power to pull in money. The LDS Church more or less
> demands a 10% tithe every year, or you fall out of the good graces of the
> church. TIME Magazine did an analysis a few years ago of the LDS
> Church's holdings, and it was quite incredible.
>
Some of them though.. Like the Catholic League, thankfully just "lie"
about how many they have. Someone worked out that, based on their public
records, and the dues needed to "be a member", either each one "claimed"
only actually put in about 30 cents, or the numbers where "exaggerated",
by like.. 10,000 times the actual number, and there where less than a
few hundred "actual" people in the entire organization.
>> And the
>> key reason is that the middle grounders may, this week, insist that
>> there isn't anything wrong with evolution, but there **is** some huge
>> problem with cosmology. Next week, as soon as we imagine that is cleared
>> up, some other moderate we get as an ally turns out to be a firm
>> defender of astrophysics, but thinks Intelligent Design is a plausible
>> replacement for Evolution. Such "allies" have, in the past, done nothing
>> so much as stick a foot out to trip the scientific world,
>
> Logically, if the scientific principles are sound, then it shouldn't trip
> the scientific world up too badly. Either that or the premise has a flaw
> in it, no?
>
Right.. Because no one can come along and just declare, by fiat that
Stem cells are useless, or, like in India, we should be using Vedic math
and science, including alchemy, instead of "western" ideas...
This principle is only true if science is "allowed" to seek the correct
answers. A lot of people would like it to "start" with what they think
are the right answers, then throw out anything that doesn't fit.
Strangely, when the Islamic world does this, its a sign of the
corruption of Islam, while Christians doing the same thing are "trying
to save the US from communist and atheistic views". o.O
>> So, if the guy in the clown suit screams, "Heh, stop taking about how
>> silly my shoes are!", every time you point out that squirt flowers don't
>> explain plate tectonics.. What is the point of not just saying, "OK,
>> have it your way. Not only are you wrong about your squirt flower
>> theory, but those shoes make you look like an idiot!"
>
> More to the point, what is the point of saying it? It accomplishes
> nothing - those who think the clown looks ridiculous will still think the
> clown looks ridiculous, those who think the clown is sane will continue
> to think the clown looks sane, and both groups are likely to think that
> you're a mean-spirited person who couldn't remain civil. The clown wins
> (by being able to count on sympathy), the believers win (because their
> belief that the rest of the world is a messed up place is reinforced),
> the non-believers win (arguably because you've pointed out the emperor
> has no clothes, but to them that was bloody obvious already so you
> haven't shown them anything new), and you've lost by tarnishing your own
> reputation by behaving in an uncivilized manner.
>
> That's why often walking away is the best option. As someone wise once
> said, "it's sometimes better to be silent and be thought a fool than to
> open your mouth and remove all doubt."
>
No it isn't. Walking away lets them *claim* that you refused to
challenge their views, where afraid to, didn't have answers, or knew you
where wrong. It doesn't matter if they "look" silly when prancing around
with floppy shoes. If all anyone sees is, "Bozo the creationist has a
presentation at so and so place.", they are not going to see the "Bozo",
part, all they are going to see is the "sub-headline" which says,
"circus claims scientists had to evidence against controversial theory."
You "do" have to show people that they are silly. Because, well.. They
gave up the nose and shoes two years ago, and while they still where the
poka-dot underwear, they figured out that keeping it "under" a business
suit gave them more "apparent" credibility. Your only option at that
point is, sadly, to go there and pull their pants down, while hoping
they didn't change tactics "yet again", in the mean time.
Thankfully, most such seem to lack imagination as much as humor. Comes
from having a mind focused to much on "one view", that you can't "see"
anything else. Thus, the idea that red noses are high comedy, while
thinking George Carlin is a boring loud mouth. ;)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
rr