are you an atheist?

It would be a better world if critical thinking were applied in not just religion but everywhere else.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:38 PM (9 minutes ago)

Agreed!

Does the knowledge of how a film is actually made prevent you from getting engrossed in the story? Like do you sit there going "that's an over-the-shoulder shot -- he's not even in the same room as Nicole Kidman and that's the back of a double's head"?

sometimes faith despite evidence to the contrary is praiseworthy, etc.

yep, it's a totally irrational way of thinking, we're in agreement

Are you saying you've never engaged in such?

where all my alchemy believers at!??!

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:23 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark

Feel like alchemists can look back at the US retitling the first Harry Potter film as "The Sorcerer's Stone" as the moment when they were truly relegated to irrelevancy

Are you saying you've never engaged in such?

Did I say that? Lemme check...nope, I didn't.
Sure I have. And I would hope that when such instances are pointed out to me, I would agree they were irrational.

we're in agreement that it's irrational, we're not in agreement about the exclusivity of rationality

Like the other day, I BELIEVED my brakes would allow me to stop from 75mph to make an exit. They, in fact, were not capable of such a thing. It was somewhat irrational for me to think they would. Next time that situation occurs, I will not believe the same thing again.

we're in agreement that it's irrational, we're not in agreement about the exclusivity of rationality

I think you're thinking I'm saying "apart from religious thought, no person ever acts irrationally". Obviously that is false (scientifically-proven to be!). However, religion is "safe" from the checks science can make on its claims. Studies can show how going outside in the cold while wet doesn't actually cause a cold...a mechanic or engineer could've presented me evidence beforehand that, dude, you're not gonna be able to stop. Thus, irrational behaviors made in the specific (ie by single persons, groups of people, acting in the real world) can be exposed as irrational under the glare of scientific inquiry.

it sounds like you're trying to argue that belief in god insulates itself against charges of irrationality by being unknowable (unlike whether you can stop your vehicle). being non-falsifiable maybe needs a term other than irrationality, but even if you say belief in god is irrational - who cares? so let it be irrational. god is also supposed to be paradoxical + ultimately unknowable so it's all cool.

like i have way more problem w/ some scientifically explicable god (or even the concept of it - i don't like the 'god particle' re hoggs boson for this reason) than a scientifically utterly knowable god

unknowable i mean in that final clause

it's irrationality, I have no problem with. How could I? people maintaining that it is rational, that I have a problem with.

the ether is supposed to be unknowable to. if it cannot be measured or observed, if it matters none whether one believes in it or not, then what's the point of it? oh, it provides emotional succor. Ok cool, but I find it a bit condescending to be a nonbeliever and view believers to be dependent on such a thing. "aww they're so cute with their irrational beliefs, but hey they'd be a total wreck without it." Sets the bar low for humanity imo.

its irrationality not it's

other means of explanation may not pass scientific scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they've failed on their own terms.

― CANONICAL artists, etc., etc. (contenderizer), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:50 PM (8 minutes ago)

Like what?

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:01 PM (2 hours ago)

depends on the means, right? if a spiritual belief system purports to describe purely supernatural (metaphysical, w/e) aspects of ostensible "reality", then the success or failure of that system can't be evaluated scientifically. science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural/metaphysical, with things that can't be observed and measured. science doesn't decisively deny such things, it simply ignores them as non-germane.

the belief system itself, however, can still be evaluated on own terms. does it seem to work? does it offer useful insight into spiritual matters (however such things might be constructed)? does it satisfy the needs & square with the perceptions of perceptions of those that employ it?

Or even, what does it tell about the culture that gave birth to it? What morals are most important? How are stories structured? Why do they decorate their houses the way they do?

by those criteria, a sugar pill is an effective treatment for a multitude of conditions. which in a way, it is...but it is not having any direct effect on any symptom or cause. same with religion.

bitcoins are a self-consistent thing, and can be thought of as a spiritual belief system, but once it interacts with our "real" world, we have something approaching a duty to debunk it.

i don't think the value of believing in god is that you get emotional relief. maybe it's true, but it's secondary. the value of believing in god is that you get to have a relationship w/ god.

the value of believing in smurfs is you get to have a relationship with smurfs.
uh ok?

yep u got it

"i've created this little thing in my head i call god, and we can chat"...how is this different from insanity?

very strong links in canonical texts between insanity + prophetic vision

smurfs are a race engineered by the evil scientist yakob gargamel!

if you really and truly did believe that smurfs existed and could be spiritually apprehended, then sure, by believing in them you might be able to gain access to some kind of relationship w them. ur hypothetical has unclear parameters tho.

like i try to stay pretty lucid so i can work + take care of my kids but it's not like i'm uninterested in extreme psychologically atypical religious experiences

it's not like i'm uninterested in extreme psychologically atypical religious experiences

by those criteria, a sugar pill is an effective treatment for a multitude of conditions. which in a way, it is...but it is not having any direct effect on any symptom or cause. same with religion.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:26 PM (6 minutes ago)

sugar pills can have a real & valuable effect. to elevate blood sugar or make things taste sweet or w/e. if you proceed from bedrock assumption that any belief that can't be scientifically validated is not worth having, then sure, the belief in god seems unsustainable. but i don't personally accept that intelligent, reasonable, "sane" people are obligated to proceed from that point.

well you're the one who got all worried about insanity + irrationality xp

ur hypothetical has unclear parameters tho.

there's something else similar that has "unclear parameters"

The entire history of human knowledge?

Or are you fine w ignoring all of the cranks and visionaries who produced batshit theories in the name of science? Do they not invalidate science?

yes sugar pills aren't totally inert, that is irrelevant. are you saying they can directly have effects on all the conditions they have been shown to improve? if not, I fail to see your point.

if you proceed from bedrock assumption that any belief that can't be scientifically validated is not worth having

I never said that. I just said it's an irrational one.

There can be no doubt that as a matter of fact a religious life, exclusively pursued, does tend to make the person exceptional and eccentric. I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohammedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct. These experiences we can only find in individuals for whom religion exists not as a dull habit, but as an acute fever rather. But such individuals are "geniuses" in the religious line; and like many other geniuses who have brought forth fruits effective enough for commemoration in the pages of biography, such religious geniuses have often shown symptoms of nervous instability. Even more perhaps than other kinds of genius, religious leaders have been subject to abnormal psychical visitations. (William James, Varieties)

Humans are irrational. It's not a case strictly limited to religion y'know.

Or are you fine w ignoring all of the cranks and visionaries who produced batshit theories in the name of science? Do they not invalidate science?

crazy guy comes up with batshit theory ---> others, presumably many not so crazy, are able to test it, try to get repeatable, verfiable results to see if it holds any validity
crazy guy has chat with/visions of God ---> others, presumably many not so carzy, believe him without any proof other than his own word.

I never said that. I just said it's an irrational one.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:43 PM (58 seconds ago)

i disagree. but, for the sake of clarity, define "rational".

I think you're thinking I'm saying "apart from religious thought, no person ever acts irrationally". Obviously that is false (scientifically-proven to be!).

But certainly even if the belief system is irrational, you can rationalize it by saying well they were born to Southern Baptists and the high school was next to a church, etc. economic factors, social factors, etc.

crazy guy has chat with/visions of God ---> others, presumably many not so carzy, believe him without any proof other than his own word.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:45 PM (16 seconds ago)

the thing you're missing is that religion seems to square with people's spiritual perception of the world. i know when i am in love not by application of scientific measurement or principle, but simply because i know. i perceive, become aware of that feeling within myself. by the same token, it may well be that some of us perceive the spiritual, the supernatural, the divine or whatever - and it may further be that religion helps these people make sense of that aspect of their apprehended reality. i'm willing to accept that possibility. why not? what irrational arrogance could possibly incline me to define the perceptions of someone who isn't me?

whichever definition of rationality allows you to disagree with me, let's go with that one

i know when i am in love not by application of scientific measurement or principle, but simply because i know. i perceive, become aware of that feeling within myself.

even though today we "know nothing about the brain", we can detect chemicals that produce the "love" feeling and other physiological states/activties that signify it. just because it feels nebulous and mysterios and metaphysical to you, doesn't make it so.

crazy guy has chat with/visions of God ---> others, presumably many not so carzy, believe him without any proof other than his own word.

And yet i believe every word that Macmillan/McGraw-Hill told me about world history without little further proof.

just because it doesn't feels nebulous and mysterios and metaphysical to you, doesn't make it not so.

just because it feels nebulous and mysterious and metaphysical to you, doesn't make it so.

Again, feel like I need to back it up with http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

say there's an alien who feels love whenever sunlight hits a sensor on its back. or maybe it has a "religious" experience whenever it ingests ammonia. (there's animals who are only fertile/in heat at a certain temperature...they are perhaps totally oblivious to the true reasons behind their subjective experience of "love"). because we are not aware of the exact machanisms (yet) that give rise to such subjective experiences in humans, then we should assume there are supernatural/divine/mystical factors at play? Sure, their COULD be, but why is that a default assumption?

just because it doesn't feels nebulous and mysterios and metaphysical to you, doesn't make it not so.

absolutely

where do you guys stand on the herbalife fight between ackman and icahn?
(the issues seem eerily analogous)

even though today we "know nothing about the brain", we can detect chemicals that produce the "love" feeling and other physiological states/activties that signify it. just because it feels nebulous and mysterios and metaphysical to you, doesn't make it so.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:52 PM (6 minutes ago)

if a smock-equipped scientist were to examine my brain during a period when i suffered from affections and told me, "you're not in love, you lack the requisite chemicals", i would find this scientific truth useless. the much more basic and usefultruth of my own emotional perception - you'd best believe i'm in LOVE L-U-V - would necessarily trump the lab readings.

I see the pattern (thanks, brain!) of grasp of spiritualism/mysticism retreading steadily as scientific knowledge progresses. That leads me to the conclusion that there likely isn't any sort of spiritualness/mysticness in the universe (think of a graph with sci knowlege on one axis, spiritualism on the other...once sci knowledge hits the theoretical top, spiritualism reaches zero). I could be totally wrong, but until there's evidence that has a stronger pull on me than that pattern, I see no reason to think otherwise.