are you an atheist?

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.

lab readings and/or a scientist's interpretation of them are not foolproof, would be my assumption. Rather than ok they're must be supernatural forces at play here. Occam's Razor.

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?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:59 PM (4 minutes ago)

we should neither accept nor deny, imo. if folks come up to me and say, "we feel the presence of THE LORD!", who am i to tell them they're wrong? what the fuck do i know about what they feel or don't, whether or not THE LORD exists? i'm perfectly happy to accept that the lord might exist in some manner imperceptible to me - and science.

but until there's evidence that has a stronger pull on me than that pattern, I see no reason to think otherwise.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:04 PM (2 minutes ago)

sure, you're under no obligation to think otherwise. nor is anyone else. there's no single right answer.

there are participants in herbalife who genuinely feel benefits from using their products, being involved with their system, but does their personal truth trump the larger truth that herbalife is a scam?

it might exist, seems unlikely. seems even more unlikely that The Lord is making his presence known, but only in those who are prone to believe in the 1st place. who are you to say people don't feel Lord Zogronov telling them to wear a tinfoil hat?
people can hold any sort of irrational belief they wish, and I can hold the belief that they're silly.

well in the case of herbalife, the fight over belief is an existential one (where the determination of whether its a scam or not will bring down the wrath of gov't intervention), but in a larger sense, that's so with any such system, no?

xp to granny on herbalife etc:

sure, you can hold any old belief you want, just as they can. thing is, you're claiming the high ground in this thread, condescending to beliefs that don't square with yours. the benefits of the herbalife program are claimed scientifically, and can thus be evaluated scientifically. that's the crucial, as i see it. benefits or truths that claim no basis in science or even the material world can't be dismissed in quite the same manner. sure, one can simply deny the existence of that which science can't observe, but i see no rational reason to do so. frankly, i see no scientific reason to do so, either. instead, i do what science itself does. i put such things aside. if someone else's mind grapes are stomped by the foot of jesus, then more power to them. it's no concern of mine.

as I said, people are free to hold any sort of belief they wish, whether it's irrational or not. I'd just like more to admit that there is no repeatable verifiable evidence, that the pattern of spiritualism's grasp declining actually points in the opposite conclusion, and that the only evidence is subjective experiences of vague ~feelings~ they experience due to their brain activity and structure. there's still a LOT of "yes but you never know!" in there. It'd just be nice...not planning on burning at the stake anyone who doesn't acquiesce.

thing is, you're claiming the high ground in this thread, condescending to beliefs that don't square with yours.

ah that's the thing that really bugs people, isn't it. If I say someone's beliefs are irrational, how condescending, right? Well, aren't they irrational? Am I saying that being more rational makes me a better person? Absolutely not. More logical? Probably, but who really cares.

Everything about Christianity can be justified within the context of Christian belief. That is, if you accept its terms. Once you do, your belief starts modifying the data (in ways that are themselves defensible, see?), until eventually the data begin to reinforce belief. The precise moment of illogic can never be isolated and may not exist. Like holding a magnifying glass at arm's length and bringing it toward your eye: Things are upside down, they're upside down, they're right side up. What lay between? If there was something, it passed too quickly to be observed. This is why you can never reason true Christians out of the faith. It's not, as the adage has it, because they were never reasoned into it—many were—it's that faith is a logical door which locks behind you. What looks like a line of thought is steadily warping into a circle, one that closes with you inside.

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/music/200401/rock-music-jesus#ixzz1c1OcexJ6

but if you go "hmm I can't quite explain this...must be something supernatural at play" or "this subjective experience...it feels SO real, it must be real what I'm feeling here" while I go "maybe this is another in the countless ways in which spiritual answers were positied, but then discarded once more knowledge was gained" or "hmm maybe this is yet another of the countless ways the brain can trick itself"...then your thought processes need some work. Call it condescending, don't really care.

condescending to beliefs that don't square with yours

cause you never do this, right? all beliefs are exactly equal in your eyes, right? you wouldn't be trying to pretend otherwise just to feel superior to me and my condescension, would you?

well, one of the illuminating things about the herbalife case to me is the idea that belief itself doesn't matter with regards to any kind of system of beliefs. Icahn's position in the herbalife fight is based on the balance sheet, not whether herbalife works or not, and thus one of the larger actors in the saga is someone whose belief in it is irrelevant.

In this sense I think it would have been more interesting for Nye's opponent to say, "I don't believe in this stuff, anyway, therefore any evidence you present me makes no difference."

xxxp You are implying that the modifying your line of belief of from within that very same line of belief is a simple matter and/or desirable for most people which is a bit naive.

You are assuming that, I am not implying that.

"your thought process needs work"

and how does that imply I think those people wish or could easily change it?

but if you go "hmm I can't quite explain this...must be something supernatural at play"

If you swap "supernatural" for "unknown variable" this is a perfectly response to an unknown phenomenon, and is the basis of all scientific inquiry.

ah that's the thing that really bugs people, isn't it. If I say someone's beliefs are irrational, how condescending, right? Well, aren't they irrational? Am I saying that being more rational makes me a better person? Absolutely not. More logical? Probably, but who really cares.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:18 PM (10 minutes ago)

what bugs is the completely unsupported claim that beliefs that can't be scientifically evaluated must be "irrational". you haven't even provided a definition of the rational. myself, i'd say that science (good science) is eminently rational, sure. i'd also say that good logic is rational, but not necessarily scientific. the logical, the rational and the scientific have a lot of overlap, but aren't interchangeable terms. it is even possible for beliefs to have seemingly sound scientific and logical support and yet to be irrational. science and logic aren't foolproof, after all.

like, if i lived every day with the clear and undeniable awareness of the presence of the divine in the world - the same way that i'm undeniably aware of my own emotions and physical senses - then it would be perfectly "rational" for me to accept that there might be some value in this awareness. especially if my awareness (spiritual perception, whatever) consistently helped me make sense of the world, and squared with the expressed perceptions of others, and found support in religious doctrine. putting faith in my own perception of reality would, in this case, be quite rational. it would remain rational even if i could find no outside support for my beliefs in science.

thanks for posting that quote tsrobodo - one i've thought about frequently since first reading that essay (it was in a de capo iirc)

then wtf are you talking about if u have personal experience? it feels like someone splashing acid against the inside of your chest.

― Mordy , Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:42 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

dude stfu it was a goddamn cornball joke do you overanalyze everything omg douse your face in acid please

xxxxxp
It implies that you think people confronting the irrationality of their beliefs boils down to modifying a thought process, which greatly oversimplifies the matter.

thanks guys its been too long since i dusted off the old "oh good an atheist thread" comment

this makes me miss a. nairn

irrational believes are those which can't be scientifically verified. better? or you could consult a dictionary.

that there might be some value

might be. might. not must. not the default response.

i'm sure you have beliefs that can't be scientifically verified.

there's all kinds of situations where irrational play is the profit-maximizing solution (in this pascal's wager doesn't seem so bad after all)

If you swap "supernatural" for "unknown variable" this is a perfectly response to an unknown phenomenon, and is the basis of all scientific inquiry.

yes and? don't see your point here.

i'm sure you have beliefs that can't be scientifically verified.

this again? really?

A god that invented 'god exists! no he doesnt' threads doesnt deserve defending

thanks for posting that quote tsrobodo - one i've thought about frequently since first reading that essay (it was in a de capo iirc)

― Mordy , Wednesday, 12 February 2014 00:41 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I can understand why, though I read the essay around the time I lost my faith so there is something of a bias there

granny, i'm not saying you need recourse to supernatural hypotheses to defend things like moral or aesthetic judgments but you also don't use the scientific method.

there are interesting emergent properties of evolving game robots that have the potential of explaining morality/ethics

once more...

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.

re morality: like one of the most stable strategies is "tit for tat + forgive" which seems like golden rule + jesus in a nutshell.

i scanned this conversation for common ground and granny + i are def on the same page re the ridiculous of this god's son thing

like faith, a strong commitment to "reason" or rationality is itself a rather intense calling that can't really justify itself in its own terms. locking the door behind you is how any kind of systemic thinking basically works, i think:

Are we obeying the principle of reason when we ask what grounds this principle which is itself a principle of grounding? We are not—which does not mean that we are disobeying it, either. Are we dealing here with a circle or with an abyss? The circle would consist in seeking to account for reason by reason, to render reason to the principle of reason, in appealing to the principle in order to make it speak of itself at the very point where, according to Heidegger, the principle of reason says nothing about reason itself. The abyss, the hole, the Abgrund, the empty "gorge" would be the impossibility for a principle of grounding to ground itself.

what's uniquely advantageous about holding on to "transcendental" or religiously derived forms of thought in a "secular age" is, i think, just the ability to confront questions like the above, which in turn allows for the construction of different forms of rationality.

defend things like moral or aesthetic judgments but you also don't use the scientific method.

actually, morality can be explained by scientific method. so can beauty, eg the golden ratio. that does not mean while judging morality or beauty one uses the scientific method. the brain has created shortcuts for us. thanks, brain!

i'm totally a skeptic on that golden ratio thing -- seems fishy man.