On 25-4-2011 23:11, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 12:28, andrel wrote:
>> That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)
>
> That seems odd to me. You're saying that if someone came up with
> scientific-quality evidence that we're all living in a computer
> simulation being run by someone else, or that the big bang was actually
> initiated and structured on purpose by someone trying to survive the
> previous Big Crunch, you simply wouldn't believe that? Even if one
> gathered as much evidence in favor of one of those as there is in favor
> of evolution?

Yes

> That's weird to me.

Oh no, not again!


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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If I open my eyes and say "I believe the sun is up already", and then I get 
> out of bed and open the curtain and it's all bright and blue sky out, would 
> you really say "I no longer believe the sun is up"?

  Basically you are stating that there are only two options: Belief and
disbelief. However, it's not a dichotomy. The third option is what you
yourself stated in your post: Certainty (which can be either positive or
negative, so technically speaking there are actually four options).

  Of course in practice is even more fine-grained than that, as there are
many degrees of belief. Even worse, there can be many degress of certainty
(for example gravity and your spouse's love for you are two things you
usually are pretty certain of, even though the first case is physically
testable while in the latter case you just have to take your spouse's word
for it, and there's actually no way to prove it definitely).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:16:52 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 25-4-2011 23:11, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/25/2011 12:28, andrel wrote:
>>> That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)
>>
>> That seems odd to me. You're saying that if someone came up with
>> scientific-quality evidence that we're all living in a computer
>> simulation being run by someone else, or that the big bang was actually
>> initiated and structured on purpose by someone trying to survive the
>> previous Big Crunch, you simply wouldn't believe that? Even if one
>> gathered as much evidence in favor of one of those as there is in favor
>> of evolution?
> 
> Yes
> 
>> That's weird to me.
> 
> Oh no, not again!

Hey, it's not just me. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 21:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:28:06 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 25-4-2011 18:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human, no
>> real evidence for that)
>
> Well, I am,

I have only your word for it.

> but I also am secure in knowing that I don't know (or need to
> know) everything there is to know.  I guess maybe that makes me unusual,
> as the reason many invent (or believe) in a deity is to explain things
> that can't be explained - which would stem from not being able to cope
> with having things that can't be explained.
>
> But I think I am starting to see what you're saying.

More or less that we all think we are rational, but that is only true as 
long as the information is not in conflict with our deepest believes.
What seems to make me unusual here in this group that I freely admit it 
and grand others the right to be so too.

>> Anyway a long time ago I found my own way to figure out what to do and
>> what not. Being an atheist meant that I had to do most of the work
>> myself. At first I thought that if it didn't work out I could always
>> fall back on an imaginary God, then I realized that I couldn't for among
>> others the reason mentioned above. That is why if there would turn out
>> to be a God after all, I have a severe philosophical problem.
>> Essentially an existential one.
>
> That makes sense to me.  It isn't about "some superior being created all
> tihs" but that whole idea of morals and ethics.  OK, I'm with you now,
> both in understanding and in agreement with the concept.

If it didn't create it, it has no business telling us what to do. If it 
does not have a plan for it that we can use to know how to behave, why 
create it in the first place?

>>> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?
>>
>> Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense
>> without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a
>> coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.
>
> True, but I would suspect that this idea (a theistic religion with a
> coherent world view that doesn't contradict the observable universe)
> might be something you'd accept as a possibility, without the moral/
> ethical entanglements.

Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe. 
(my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't 
you missing a negation', but where to put it?)

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

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 23:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:16:52 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 25-4-2011 23:11, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2011 12:28, andrel wrote:
>>>> That is exactly the sort of evidence I would refuse to believe ;)
>>>
>>> That seems odd to me. You're saying that if someone came up with
>>> scientific-quality evidence that we're all living in a computer
>>> simulation being run by someone else, or that the big bang was actually
>>> initiated and structured on purpose by someone trying to survive the
>>> previous Big Crunch, you simply wouldn't believe that? Even if one
>>> gathered as much evidence in favor of one of those as there is in favor
>>> of evolution?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>> That's weird to me.
>>
>> Oh no, not again!
>
> Hey, it's not just me. ;)

Can someone extract the main points from our discussion and put it on a 
blog as a reference, please?

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0200, andrel wrote:

>>> Because that is what humans do. (I am just guessing you are a human,
>>> no real evidence for that)
>>
>> Well, I am,
> 
> I have only your word for it.

Touché. ;)

>> but I also am secure in knowing that I don't know (or need to know)
>> everything there is to know.  I guess maybe that makes me unusual, as
>> the reason many invent (or believe) in a deity is to explain things
>> that can't be explained - which would stem from not being able to cope
>> with having things that can't be explained.
>>
>> But I think I am starting to see what you're saying.
> 
> More or less that we all think we are rational, but that is only true as
> long as the information is not in conflict with our deepest believes.
> What seems to make me unusual here in this group that I freely admit it
> and grand others the right to be so too.

In thinking about it, I'm not sure that I really have 'deep beliefs'.  I 
probably do, but I can't think of anything that I'm so certain of that I 
can't be persuaded that I'm wrong.  There are things, certainly, that it 
would take a lot to convince me of (like the existence of a deity), but I 
like to think I have an open mind and am willing to learn new information 
even if it contradicts something I think I'm pretty sure of.

So maybe I'm the weird one after all. ;)

>> That makes sense to me.  It isn't about "some superior being created
>> all tihs" but that whole idea of morals and ethics.  OK, I'm with you
>> now, both in understanding and in agreement with the concept.
> 
> If it didn't create it, it has no business telling us what to do. If it
> does not have a plan for it that we can use to know how to behave, why
> create it in the first place?

I guess I'm separating the 'did something create all this' from the 'does 
that something presume to tell us how to behave', but not being clear 
that I am doing that.

I'm open to discovering that there was a supreme creator of the 
universe.  I'm not open to that supreme creator telling me how to live my 
life, because for me, doing the right thing is reward enough - I don't 
need to be bribed with a promise of eternal life in heaven (for example).

And let's face it, that *is* bribery.

>>>> So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?
>>>
>>> Not only, it also has to do with the fact that the world makes sense
>>> without a God, whereas I have yet to see a theistic religion with a
>>> coherent world view that is not contradicted by simple facts.
>>
>> True, but I would suspect that this idea (a theistic religion with a
>> coherent world view that doesn't contradict the observable universe)
>> might be something you'd accept as a possibility, without the moral/
>> ethical entanglements.
> 
> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe.
> (my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't
> you missing a negation', but where to put it?)

Maybe try saying it a different way - I think I understand, but I want to 
be sure before I comment. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:36:06 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Can someone extract the main points from our discussion and put it on a
> blog as a reference, please?

I'd like to see that, too - this has been (and is) a fascinating 
discussion. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-4-2011 23:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe.
>> (my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't
>> you missing a negation', but where to put it?)
>
> Maybe try saying it a different way - I think I understand, but I want to
> be sure before I comment. :)

I am prepared to accept any deity if and only if it has never had any 
influence on my universe and it will never have, and as long as it's 
existence can be rigorously and scientifically proven by an experiment.


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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:05:31 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 25-4-2011 23:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe.
>>> (my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh,
>>> aren't you missing a negation', but where to put it?)
>>
>> Maybe try saying it a different way - I think I understand, but I want
>> to be sure before I comment. :)
> 
> I am prepared to accept any deity if and only if it has never had any
> influence on my universe and it will never have, and as long as it's
> existence can be rigorously and scientifically proven by an experiment.

So a deity that has no past, present, or future influence over the 
universe?  I'm not sure what purpose that would serve.

But that is how I read what you wrote the first time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/25/2011 14:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But if I were to describe the change in state, it would be "I no longer
> need to believe that the sun is up - I know it is."

So if evidence obviates belief, and evidence obviates faith, what is the 
difference between the two?

> IOW, it's not that finding out causes disbelief, it removes the need for
> belief because it's demonstrably true.

We're just using the words differently. Knowledge is justified true belief. 
It can be demonstratively true yet not believed (a creationist and 
evolution) and it can be demonstratively true and believed (a scientist and 
evolution).

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

Post a reply to this message