On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> 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.

Why do you say that?

>> 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. 

OK, I agree with that - because when it comes to morality or ethics, the 
religions I've read about are pretty thin on both.

> 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).

So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?

>> 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.

Well, yes - things that could be an illusion or trick are different.  
Such a being would have to show how the trick was done.

> 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.'

LOL

>>>>>> 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.

I hadn't heard that about the Japanese before, that's why I'm not getting 
the reference.  Can you cite something that I can read to catch up on 
that idea in Japanese culture?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:38:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
> that backwards.

Quoting Douglas Adams:

"Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."

(From the debate between man and god about god's existence)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 9:08, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 4:03, andrel wrote:
>> - I don't see how I can base any ethics/morality on the existence of a God.
>
> I think if the god in question has scientifically-backed evidence, it's
> unlikely to be a god that has anything to do with human ethics or morality.
>
> I.e., I'd agree with you with the god of the bible, but I can't imagine what
> form scientific evidence in support of that god might be.

And by "scientific evidence" I'm implying evidence that doesn't contradict 
all existing scientific evidence, in the same way that a new Grand Unified 
Theory has to actually come up with answers significantly close to General 
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to be taken seriously.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:14:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/24/2011 21:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Either you are or you're not.  Belief doesn't come into this.
> 
> My belief and the reality of the two are technically orthogonal. Of
> course, my belief is causally caused by the reality of the fact that I
> am indeed sitting in a chair, along with the fact that my senses are
> brain functions are working pretty close to normal.
> 
> The fact that I *am* sitting in a chair does not in any way negate the
> fact that I believe I'm sitting in a chair. I'm not sure how you dismiss
> my belief that I'm sitting in a chair as unrelated to the discussion of
> whether that's actually a belief.

It isn't a belief, though - nor is it a matter of opinion.  It's a hard 
fact.

>> This is a much more complex statement, though - evidence suggests that
>> you (and Patrick, and everyone else here) is an actual person.  Belief
>> may play into this.
> 
> I'm not sure why you're arguing this.
> 
> "Do you remember what color car the suspect was driving?"
> 
> "I believe it was reddish, maybe orange."
> 
> How about "Do you recognize this composer?"  "I believe it's Bach." Does
> that mean if it really is Bach, you don't actually believe it's Bach?

In this instance "believe" = "think" (as in "I'm not certain if it is or 
not, but it sounds like Bach to me", or "I don't remember, it could have 
been reddish, it could have been orange").

Do you not remember if you are presently sitting in a chair or not?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 9:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It isn't a belief, though - nor is it a matter of opinion.  It's a hard
> fact.

It's a fact and a belief about a fact.

Or, as the philosophers would say, it is a true justified belief.

I don't stop believing I'm sitting in a chair just because I find out I'm 
right. I don't stop believing that song was by Bach just because you show me 
the CD and it has Bach written on it.

Would you say "I don't believe I'm using the keyboard to type"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 9:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:38:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
>> that backwards.
>
> Quoting Douglas Adams:
>
> "Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."

You are conflating "belief" with "faith".  "Faith" is unjustified belief. 
Belief can be justified or not, correct or not. It's a state of mind not 
necessarily indicative of the real world or not.

Is it still faith if you're right? If god really turns out to exist, would 
you say all those people with faith no longer had faith because they were 
right all along?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:30:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 9:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:38:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
>>> that backwards.
>>
>> Quoting Douglas Adams:
>>
>> "Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."
> 
> You are conflating "belief" with "faith".  "Faith" is unjustified
> belief. Belief can be justified or not, correct or not. It's a state of
> mind not necessarily indicative of the real world or not.
> 
> Is it still faith if you're right? If god really turns out to exist,
> would you say all those people with faith no longer had faith because
> they were right all along?

Actually, I was just making an amusing observation, or rather, pointing 
to one that was tangentially related. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 10:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Actually, I was just making an amusing observation, or rather, pointing
> to one that was tangentially related. :)

Sure, but it's an excellent example of my point.  If it doesn't stop being 
faith just because you're right, it doesn't stop being belief just because 
you have justification for the belief.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:29:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/25/2011 9:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It isn't a belief, though - nor is it a matter of opinion.  It's a hard
>> fact.
> 
> It's a fact and a belief about a fact.
> 
> Or, as the philosophers would say, it is a true justified belief.

Justified belief seems to me to come into play when dealing with 
scientific principles where you may not have enough evidence to support 
an absolute "yes/no" observation.  For example, "I believe the facts 
support the scientific principle of evolution."  I haven't studied it 
myself, but those who have studied it have explained it well enough that 
I trust their findings.

> I don't stop believing I'm sitting in a chair just because I find out
> I'm right. I don't stop believing that song was by Bach just because you
> show me the CD and it has Bach written on it.

Well, no, you wouldn't stop believing the song was by Bach just because I 
show you the CD and it says "Bach", because the CD could be incorrect 
(I've seen some like that myself).  But you have a justified belief that 
it is because it's a pressed CD and errors are extremely rare.

But if you listen to it and say "Ah, that's Partida #1 by J. S. Bach", 
you don't have to believe it is, because you know it is.

> Would you say "I don't believe I'm using the keyboard to type"?

No, I'd say either I was or I wasn't using a keyboard to type.  Belief 
doesn't play into it, because either I am or I am not - ie, it's an 
absolute.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:31:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> If it doesn't stop being
> faith just because you're right, it doesn't stop being belief just
> because you have justification for the belief.

But it does stop being faith when you have knowledge that you are 
correct.  Faith is by definition trusting rather than knowing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message