| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2009 06:16:45 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
I wouldn't say all. Maybe you meant most? Personally, I wouldn't even go that far since I have no way of knowing that. Lucky for me my worldview doesn't force me to discount that fact. :) |
No, I think you can safely say "all" at least to some extent. Psychology studies have backed this up many times. I'd have to try to dig them up. It's our human nature as we process information to tend to discard data that doesn't fit with our view on things. It doesn't mean we always discard it, but it's the natural bias. Certainly it can tend to be a good thing as we would otherwise be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." as one author put it. |
That certainly sounds like religion ;D |
Right now it sounds like Wall Street to me... :P |
That too! |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:38:38 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey, Richard, you know I have you under my thumb right? :) If you say you disagree, then I just say, "See? I told you so." :P |
You know I'm just busting your chops right? But perhaps the proof is in the pudding by asking you to give the most recent time you changed your mind about something at least sizable? The more diametrically opposed the better.
(I misquoted the pudding phrase just to tick Bear off... ;)) |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:49:38 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
I think there is a difference between discarding information that hasn't been proven vs discarding information that has. The latter is what I think we are talking about here and in my experience the latter tends to happen when you are so heavily invested in your world views that you can't afford to change even if you wanted because you rely on it to survive personally, socially or financially. Not everyone is like this however. If you were able to prove god's existence today I would accept it because in my world view I am open to anything. The author you quote calls that a bad thing but I beg to differ. Change wouldn't happen unless people challenged their beliefs, conventional wisdom, societal norms. |
Well, perhaps I think you are deluding youself a bit with whether or not you discount new information that doesn't fit in your worldview. I think it's quite normal. Also, the information doesn't need to be "unproven". Proven data can be just as easily discarded. We see can see common everyday examples in fields such as politics (obviously) and science. Doctors, for example, have their way of thinking about specific disease states and may consciously or subconsciously hold on to that framework at the cost of ignoring possibly paradigm shifting information. I think the older we get the harder it is for a doctor to integrate new ways of thinking about diseases. For example, we used to think stomach ulcers were caused by stress or "Type A" personalities or too much coffee and caffeine. That has since been pretty well discarded in favor of an organism called h. pylori causing an infection. But the shift in thinking was MUCH slower than the rate at which the new evidence became available and I would wager there are still a number of docs in their 70s who have heard of h. pylori but don't buy all the hype.
I would wager that you are the same (as we all are, so I'm not pointing you out). Some people are more open to changing their schema than others, but we all are resistant on some level. The example of "if you were able to prove god's existence today I would accept" is always interesting. If I could, how exactly would I do that? Although it's obviously hypothetical, I bet God could really stand in front of a number of people and they would never believe, chalking their experience up to hallucination or something else that fits their schema.
Your differentiation between "proven" and "unproven" also is as simple as "proven to me" and "unproven to me". Many things in life can never be proven to a 100% level. We all have to weigh the evidence and decide when it is enough to accept. Most people don't discard "proven" evidence because this means "proven to me". If you do discard it, it is almost by definition "not proven to me". (That's not to say some people don't resist to the end with their fingers in their ears, but again, I don't think these people solely reside in the religious world. See: Global Warming) |
Well lets test this. Tell me something you can prove in which you think will conflict with my world view? :P Seriously, I don't think you can. I don't discard new information just because it conflicts with my world view. In fact I'm more likely to take an interest in it than anything else. Same thing with people. I find that I am most attracted to people who are different than me.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:52:16 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Well lets test this. Tell me something you can prove in which you think will conflict with my world view? :P Seriously, I don't think you can. I don't discard new information just because it conflicts with my world view. In fact I'm more likely to take an interest in it than anything else. Same thing with people. I find that I am most attracted to people who are different than me. |
The problem with this challenge lies in "prove". I can prove things to you to what I would consider a reasonable extent, but you may claim it is not proven to a reasonable extent for yourself. Both of us could be correct, but never the twain shall meet. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:55:43 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey, Richard, you know I have you under my thumb right? :) If you say you disagree, then I just say, "See? I told you so." :P |
You know I'm just busting your chops right? But perhaps the proof is in the pudding by asking you to give the most recent time you changed your mind about something at least sizable? The more diametrically opposed the better.
(I misquoted the pudding phrase just to tick Bear off... ;)) |
I don't know what would you consider to be as sizable? I didn't think the Red Sox were capable of winning a World Series but even as Yankee fan of 29 years clearly I've accepted that... I think. :P
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 19:19:38.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:19:11 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Well lets test this. Tell me something you can prove in which you think will conflict with my world view? :P Seriously, I don't think you can. I don't discard new information just because it conflicts with my world view. In fact I'm more likely to take an interest in it than anything else. Same thing with people. I find that I am most attracted to people who are different than me. |
The problem with this challenge lies in "prove". I can prove things to you to what I would consider a reasonable extent, but you may claim it is not proven to a reasonable extent for yourself. Both of us could be correct, but never the twain shall meet. |
Actually, I don't require that you prove anything to me. What I question is whether or not you can actually prove it at all let alone to me. How do you prove it to yourself? Have you tried? What methods did you use? I guess that's where faith comes which skips over the issue but in doing so you risk believing in anything. At some point you have to attempt to prove it to yourself (like you did with santa, tooth fairy, etc) and if that's the case how did you do it? A while back I asked you why you believe in the Bible and not some other religious book. I believe your answer was that you found it compelling. You went on to say that Christianity was different from other religions and that was important to you. That's great and all but that just speaks to a personal preference, not proof.
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 19:21:50.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:31:54 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Well lets test this. Tell me something you can prove in which you think will conflict with my world view? :P Seriously, I don't think you can. I don't discard new information just because it conflicts with my world view. In fact I'm more likely to take an interest in it than anything else. Same thing with people. I find that I am most attracted to people who are different than me. |
The problem with this challenge lies in "prove". I can prove things to you to what I would consider a reasonable extent, but you may claim it is not proven to a reasonable extent for yourself. Both of us could be correct, but never the twain shall meet. |
Actually, I don't require that you prove anything to me. What I question is whether or not you can actually prove it at all let alone to me. How do you prove it to yourself? Have you tried? What methods did you use? I guess that's where faith comes which skips over the issue but in doing so you risk believing in anything. At some point you have to attempt to prove it to yourself (like you did with santa, tooth fairy, etc) and if that's the case how did you do it? A while back I asked you why you believe in the Bible and not some other religious book. I believe your answer was that you found it compelling. You went on to say that Christianity was different from other religions and that was important to you. That's great and all but that just speaks to a personal preference, not proof. |
I think you've participated on these threads long enough to know that for years I've struggled to convince people that an absolute morality can only exist in the context of a Supreme Being. To me, the logic is sound and I've turned the issue over and over enough in my head that I feel comfortable it is a rational, logical conclusion. To me, it is proven. However, it's quite clear I haven't convinced everybody (or maybe even anybody) in the conversations that it is true. So what of that? It should be "provable" yet we still have a divide years later.
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same?
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 19:33:11. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:38:40 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same? |
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:56:27 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same? |
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
I'm not being obtuse here, but I really need to know what you mean by "tangible 'proof'"? Are we just talking about physical evidence you can hold in your hand?
Maybe I should say how I'm interpreting Richard's "proof". I am assuming he means something is proven when there is no reasonable argument that can be made against the case. He would believe God exists if there is no reasonable way he could conclude otherwise.
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 20:00:13. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:58:52 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same? |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
Gotta go with Ed here, Doc....Many, many?
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:09:03 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same? |
So you don't think some things should be held to more scrutiny than others? We can't technically prove things like love either but we can document its affects and therefore know something is going on between two people who experience it. Perhaps some call it a biochemical reaction while others will refer to it more poetically but regardless we know something is happening and we call it love.
Now I suppose you can argue that the world around us, its complexity, its beauty is evidence of a creator to which I won't argue. However, getting from the point where one suspects there might be something greater going on to actually believing in a specific God, with specific commandments for humans to follow, etc, etc is a bit hard to swallow. Surely you can relate after reading this stuff right? :)
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 20:10:50.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:15:18 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same? |
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
I'm not being obtuse here, but I really need to know what you mean by "tangible 'proof'"? Are we just talking about physical evidence you can hold in your hand?
Maybe I should say how I'm interpreting Richard's "proof". I am assuming he means something is proven when there is no reasonable argument that can be made against the case. He would believe God exists if there is no reasonable way he could conclude otherwise. |
My meaning of 'proof' is being able to duplicate the process/event so that it can be experienced by everyone, not just by those that believe in the process/event.
An example would be electricity. The processes behind electricity might not be PROVABLE so much as being mathematic/scientific theory, but I can bring anyone into my home, turn on a light, and show them that electricity does, indeed, exist. Even a blind man can feel that there is heat coming from that light. (substitute sound, vibration, etc, where applicable.)
Now god (or a god, or many gods), may exist to you in some way, but you cannot bring another person in and 'prove' that existence in a like way. No matter what you do. You can fake it, charlatan it, etc, but you cannot duplicate your experience to just anyone.
That is what I mean. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:15:57 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
People are basically good.
No two snow flakes are the same.
The universe is infinite.
Gravity is a fixed constant.
Time can only move forward.
All of what i see and think is a fever dream and I will wake up in a few more moments.
Plato is still stuck in that cave, and all he will ever see are those damned shadows.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:17:48 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same? |
So you don't think some things should be held to more scrutiny than others? We can't technically prove things like love either but we can document its affects and therefore know something is going on between two people who experience it. Perhaps some call it a biochemical reaction while others will refer to it more poetically but regardless we know something is happening and we call it love.
Now I suppose you can argue that the world around us, its complexity, its beauty is evidence of a creator to which I won't argue. However, getting from the point where one suspects there might be something greater going on to actually believing in a specific God, with specific commandments for humans to follow, etc, etc is a bit hard to swallow. Surely you can relate after reading this stuff right? :) |
Certainly all I can say is I think you know me well enough that I am not just blindly choosing to believe in God. The world makes more sense to me with God in it than without. Lots of bodies of "evidence" are incorporated in to this and ultimately I have decided that the Christian God is a reality. What can I say? |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:28:53 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The world makes more sense to me with God in it than without. |
Whoa.....
That's entirely subjective and a faith-based conclusion.
I have reasons why I believe in God, but it's entirely based on faith and belief with no valid proof whatsoever.
There's proof in my own mind that in spite of my best efforts to the contrary, God let me live, and I believe he/she has a plan for me, but I no more expect someone else to believe that than Santa Claus.
Going back to the Jesus thing......my church just last Sunday had a fascinating sermon discussing the contextual meanings of some phraseology such as "Son of mand" and "Son of God". The discussion really supported that Jesus was God's son, but so are you and I as well.
Therein lies so much of the problems with evangelism IMNSHO. If you have faith and belief, you simply will not have typical proof....you *must* have faith, and ironclad belief, but God also gave you the capacity to be human, with all its intelligence, and part of my belief system is that God wants me to constantly search for truth and meaning in life and my faith, and to never be 100% sure. That is not something you can sell someone, and neither should you try as I see it.
God called to me to search for my path to Him/Her, and that quest definitively does NOT include telling anyone else what to believe.......in fact, the further along my journey to God I get, the more I *know* that faith and belief are a deeply personal thing.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:38:57 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
People are basically good.
No two snow flakes are the same.
The universe is infinite.
Gravity is a fixed constant.
Time can only move forward.
All of what i see and think is a fever dream and I will wake up in a few more moments.
Plato is still stuck in that cave, and all he will ever see are those damned shadows. |
I'm not entirely sure that any of these are things that people would base an unshakable world-view on.
Well, maybe the first one. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:47:51 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
People are basically good.
No two snow flakes are the same.
The universe is infinite.
Gravity is a fixed constant.
Time can only move forward.
All of what i see and think is a fever dream and I will wake up in a few more moments.
Plato is still stuck in that cave, and all he will ever see are those damned shadows. |
I'm not entirely sure that any of these are things that people would base an unshakable world-view on.
Well, maybe the first one. |
Don't let the the people who are basically not good hear you. :P
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:49:26 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
People are basically good.
No two snow flakes are the same.
The universe is infinite.
Gravity is a fixed constant.
Time can only move forward.
All of what i see and think is a fever dream and I will wake up in a few more moments.
Plato is still stuck in that cave, and all he will ever see are those damned shadows. |
I'm not entirely sure that any of these are things that people would base an unshakable world-view on.
Well, maybe the first one. |
Don't let the the people who are basically not good hear you. :P |
I've never held the belief that people are basically good ;) |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:51:43 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Wait. Many, many? Can you really name one thing that is held in as high regard without any tangible 'proof' whatsoever, as a belief in a higher power? ONE thing, let alone many, many? This intrigues me. |
People are basically good.
No two snow flakes are the same.
The universe is infinite.
Gravity is a fixed constant.
Time can only move forward.
All of what i see and think is a fever dream and I will wake up in a few more moments.
Plato is still stuck in that cave, and all he will ever see are those damned shadows. |
I'm not entirely sure that any of these are things that people would base an unshakable world-view on.
Well, maybe the first one. |
Don't let the the people who are basically not good hear you. :P |
I've never held the belief that people are basically good ;) |
The first principle of Unitarian Universalism is the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
I buy that!......8>)
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:52:57 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I've never held the belief that people are basically good ;) |
The first principle of Unitarian Universalism is the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
I buy that!......8>) |
My life experiences don't agree, unfortunately, but good for you.
ETA: I don't mean 'good for you' sarcastically either.
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 20:54:00. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:52:59 PM · #171 |
Might does not always make right.
The Quality of Life is more important than the Sanctity of Life.
Absolute Morality does not exist.
Tolerance of other views is good.
Morality is fraught with "unprovables" and is often part of the framework of our worldview. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 08:56:31 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same? |
Everybody else does not do the same. There is a world of difference between accepting ideas on evidence and accepting them on belief. What's foolish is equating the two. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 09:23:06 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There is a world of difference between accepting ideas on evidence and accepting them on belief. What's foolish is equating the two. |
VERY interesting!
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 09:25:28 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I've never held the belief that people are basically good ;) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The first principle of Unitarian Universalism is the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
I buy that!......8>) |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
My life experiences don't agree, unfortunately. |
Neither do mine, but it's a nice idea to hope for in this world.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
ETA: I don't mean 'good for you' sarcastically either. |
Never occurred to me for one second that you did.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 09:44:11 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Proof" for Christianity is never going to exist in the way I am imagining you are using it. However, that "proof" does not exist for many, many things which we accept and incorporate into our worldviews. Why should I be held up as foolish for doing such when everybody else does the same? |
Everybody else does not do the same. There is a world of difference between accepting ideas on evidence and accepting them on belief. What's foolish is equating the two. |
My dinner is getting cold so I only made it 3:30 into it, but I have to say I don't think the video really applies. I don't disagree with what is being said, but it has no bearing outside the physical world. One cannot apply the principles learned in this video to the problem of whether or not female circumcision is morally acceptable.
The point of the video was combatting those who believe in the "supernatural", ie. that which is other than natural. This conflict doesn't apply to philosophical positions because they are not within the realm of the "natural".
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 22:01:52. |
|
