On 25-4-2011 6:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:00:05 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?
>>
>> yes
>
> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?

yes

> I still find that quite unusual.

Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.

>>> I find that *highly* unusual.
>>
>> I don't think it is, I just say it. No matter what evidence they come up
>> with (other than the person/thing itself, see below) I would always
>> assume that they made a mistake or used a false assumption, even if I
>> didn't see immediately what was wrong.
>
> I have to admit that for me it would take something pretty solid,
> something where I might be inclined to assume that there was a mistake or
> a false assumption, but until such was proven to exist, I wouldn't really
> have a reason not to rationally concede that God exists.
>
>>>> I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between
>>>> them and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So
>>>> I am defending the truth and they a fallacy.
>>>
>>> Then you're arguably just as religious as they are.
>>
>> I know some people in this group have trouble accepting that I am a
>> religious atheist, but that is what I think too.
>
> I can see that, but for my view, I see 'religious atheism' as being self-
> contradictory, because for me atheism has to do with rationality, and
> rationality is more or less the opposite of religion.
>
> So I find your position quite interesting, and am interested in hearing
> more. :)

Nothing new that I have not said in the past.
- I don't see how I can base any ethics/morality on the existence of a 
God. Admitting to the existence of one or more of these things would 
result in a few months of work in rewiring my brain to undo all traces 
of 4 decades of thinking. That is too much to ask.
- Almost everything in my working live as a scientist has been 
implicitly based on the notion that all life has a common origin. (I 
wonder if most creationist realise that when they visit a hospital they 
enter into a world that was impossible without Darwin). Again I will 
resist any concept that invalidates everything I have done.
- when I look at a tree I can see how it is related to me. (And also of 
course the obvious things that don't look like me). I don't want to give 
up that feeling for the idea that it is just an object that I can treat 
any way I like.

I think that many atheists have similar reasons for not believing in 
some God even presented with 'convincing' evidence. Luckily we don't 
have to fear that that moment will ever come. This in contrast to 
creationists that are confronted with being wrong everyday.
(and again they will think something similar).

>>> Otherwise, you'd
>>> have to be open to a rational explanation or evidence for God.  For me,
>>> I don't see it today, but if credible evidence were presented, I
>>> wouldn't just look away from it and say "no, that cannot be".  That
>>> doesn't mean I'd accept it unchallenged, either, though.
>>
>> I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it
>> existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.
>
> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of crackpots
> who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example).  That doesn't
> constitute proof of any kind.

I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things 
that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an 
infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an 
empty hat.
Besides even if such a thing would show to be able to create a universe 
I would probably say: 'well ok, now that you have seen what happened to 
this one, why don't you go back and try again and this time avoid the 
obvious bugs in the design.'

>>>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>>>
>>>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>>>
>>> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?
>>
>> When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started
>> with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking
>> not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then
>> were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the chauvinist
>> western view a couple of years ago.
>>
>> The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and
>> native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries whose
>> inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;) )
>
> I'm not seeing how this comes back to my comment above about the ability
> for students to think about problems in a rational way....

I had chosen deliberately a country where students for another reason 
were supposedly not trained in critical thinking.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message