are you an atheist?

Is that not true?

It's not true. Try again. Just 1 example. Shouldn't be hard, right?

you mean that thing that's unknowable and cannot be shown to have any interaction with the universe we inhabit? is it reasonable/rational to conclude elves all named Thomas are responsible for the night sky, so long as one perceives it to be so? pretty weak criteria for rational thought.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:15 PM (6 minutes ago)

you're misrepresenting my argument. if i perceive some kind of spiritual/metaphysical something and credit that perception with validity, then I've determined that the thing in question does have some interaction with the universe. q erat d.

if science, in turn, can find no evidence for the thing i seem to perceive, that does not necessarily mean either i or science must be wrong. it might be, as I've argued, that science simply cannot "see" what i do. as scientifically-minded, rational people, we must accept this possibility. we have no good reason to discount it.

if, in accepting it, we are forced to admit that we lack the ability to perceive whatever it is that the more spiritually-inclined among us claim to, well then, so be it. i don't see ghosts either, and nor does science. doesn't mean i have to assume that those who do are fools or liars. just another unknown in the great sea.

i think one important difference between science and religion that's often glossed over is that the predictive qualities of science are always local, provisional, irreversible, contextual etc. that is, the sort things that science can reveal are in each and every case a product of something like a willed partiality. this is the only way science can proceed.

science runs into trouble when it starts talking about "totality" because that concept implies things (eternity, immutability, the "whole") that cannot appear as scientific "truth." this is why i say religion doesn't really make claims about "reality"--that's science's job--religion makes claims about totality and that's why religious discourse can get hella crazy and weird and cool.

and so you rate all beliefs the same? all are equal in your eyes? so long as 1 person out there "perceives" it to be true, that's enough?

the arguments about subjectivity in this thread are an endless rabbit hole.

if i perceive some kind of spiritual/metaphysical something and credit that perception with validity, then I've determined that the thing in question does have some interaction with the universe. q erat d.

your thoughts can produce actions and other thoughts, and those can etc etc. so?

GD is gonna run the board and tell everyone what they think from now on. Good night, folks.

idgaf

noted. thx for showing yr hand

if science, in turn, can find no evidence for the thing i seem to perceive, that does not necessarily mean either i or science must be wrong. it might be, as I've argued, that science simply cannot "see" what i do. as scientifically-minded, rational people, we must accept this possibility. we have no good reason to discount it.

― CANONICAL artists, etc., etc. (contenderizer), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:33 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is where probability enters the picture...

re: big bang...you do realize there were certain observations (mainly, stars/galaxies were all moving away from each other) and that lead to a hypothesis being formed, and that hypothesis led to predictions, and those predictions were evaluated and shown to hold true, and that even still, if there's evidence to contradict this tentative theory, scientists would be THRILLED to have a new, better grasp on the origin of our universe.
still think that is exactly like religion?

and so you rate all beliefs the same? all are equal in your eyes? so long as 1 person out there "perceives" it to be true, that's enough?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:35 PM (5 seconds ago)

for that 1 person, sure, it ought to be enough. when presented with unverifiable but apparently more-or-less rational beliefs that don't square with my own, i generally stick with, "okay, sure, that's possible." anything more definitive strikes me as irrational. if i think the beliefs are pernicious, i'll oppose them on those grounds, but that's another discussion...

GD is gonna run the board and tell everyone what they think from now on. Good night, folks.

good night, drama queen. disagree with, even mocking, others' beliefs doesn't equate to telling them what they think (or what to think, if that's what you meant?). I could see how you would struggle with the distinction, though.

This is where probability enters the picture...

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:39 PM (5 minutes ago)

oh sure. i don't think it's likely that divinity exists. much less likely that any given religion gets the details right. after all, i seem to lack the apparatus for spiritual perception (wink). but that's a far cry from calling believers irrational.

that wasn't the question. do YOU think all beliefs are equally valid?

i generally stick with, "okay, sure, that's possible."

yes, I'm sure if people came up to you telling you how aliens stole the brain of Prez Clinton and are using him to do their bidding, you'd just go "okay sure that's possible" and file them in the exact some slot you file people who say "I love my dog, he's cute". gimmme a break, dude.

Science seeks explanations and reevaluates when new information presents itself.
Theism starts with a conclusion works backwards by relying on uncertainties to somehow assert that specific belief.

And once you've accepted that these are true statements, what conclusions do you draw from them?

― Aimless, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:20 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Which, those ^^^ two specific statements?

This is where probability enters the picture...

I would be fine with atheists making the claim that they find most religious beliefs to be improbable, if they stopped there.

It would, of course, help, if they showed much familiarity with those beliefs. In the western world, they mostly seem familiar with the most literalist of Christian fundamentalist beliefs and any attempt to shift the grounds of the discussion to other sets of beliefs falls into realms they would prefer not to explore, as it would require an effort they are not prepared to make.

Which, those ^^^ two specific statements?

Yes. I thought that was clear.

I find most religious beliefs to be improbable

I do, too.

your thoughts can produce actions and other thoughts, and those can etc etc. so?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:36 PM (9 minutes ago)

i was talking about perception in a much more simple sense. if i look outside and see that it's raining, i'm probably gonna place faith in the wetness of things out there. i'm habituated to placing faith in my perceptions (with a grain of salt, of course), and have a fair amount of experience w precipitation.

similarly, if i were to look outside one day and see (with my cosmic third eye or w/e) that it was godding out, then it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to at least tentatively credit this perception with some validity. i mean, if it were me, i'd wanna check myself for signs of lost marbles, but if everything else seemed okay and the perceptions of goddishness were persistent, consistent and in some sense useful, then i might well go with them. unfortunately, the lord hides himself from my sight...

improbable things can still be true, and the probability that some improbable things will end up being shown as true is pretty high, so probability can't be the whole story.

your thoughts can produce actions and other thoughts, and those can etc etc. so?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:36 PM (9 minutes ago)

no, absolutely not. but i don't categorically reject all beliefs i don't share - or all beliefs that can't be scientifically verified. some i scoff at, some i ignore, some i file for future study.

Which, those ^^^ two specific statements?

Yes. I thought that was clear.

― Aimless, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:51 PM (1 minute ago)

Well, that science is a better method for explaining nature.

like there's a cultural responsibility to affirm that global warming is real and people should get vaccinated not just because of probabilities.

Well, that science is a better method for explaining nature.

That seems like a fair conclusion and one I'd agree with.

yes, I'm sure if people came up to you telling you how aliens stole the brain of Prez Clinton and are using him to do their bidding, you'd just go "okay sure that's possible" and file them in the exact some slot you file people who say "I love my dog, he's cute". gimmme a break, dude.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:49 PM (7 minutes ago)

i'm not gonna tell you how to do your thing, but you might try being a little less cartoonishly reductive, a bit more open to subtleties. just a suggestion...

anyway, like i said, i don't hold all beliefs to be equal. some apparently crack-brained or dim-witted person comes up to me with some apparently crack-brained or dim-witted theory, then sure, i'll probably reject it out of hand. but i'm a little more open to the claim by some that they perceive the presence of the divine and/or supernatural in the world. i'm dubious by nature, but not automatically dismissive, especially if the person seems otherwise sensible. this is more a matter of taste than anything else.

similarly, if i were to look outside one day and see (with my cosmic third eye or w/e) that it was godding out, then it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to at least tentatively credit this perception with some validity. i mean, if it were me, i'd wanna check myself for signs of lost marbles, but if everything else seemed okay and the perceptions of goddishness were persistent, consistent and in some sense useful, then i might well go with them. unfortunately, the lord hides himself from my sight...

― CANONICAL artists, etc., etc. (contenderizer), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:54 PM (3 minutes ago)

It's still just an anecdote!

Science answers certain categories of objective questions better than theism -- "How likely is it that there will be snow tomorrow?" "How much fuel is needed to propel this rocket into space?" "How can we make sure that a human body does not reject a transplanted organ" etc. Theism isn't very good at answering these questions. Theism is better suited however to answer questions like "how can I find comfort when a loved one dies?" or "what's a good way to teach my children a system of morals?" (note: not saying it's the ONLY way to teach morals or comfort in grief). I think that in the modern world it's mainly the latter kind of questions that people turn to religion for, although there are certainly creationists and the like who use religion in lieu of science.

That seems like a fair conclusion and one I'd agree with.

― Aimless, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:02 PM (30 seconds ago)

cosine

And that latter category of question is something that just by its nature is not likely to be well-answered by science, much in the same way that it wouldn't be useful to answer someone's request for driving directions by giving them a series of coordinates

It's still just an anecdote!

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:04 PM (2 minutes ago)

sure, but so's life. we all operate from w/in a single frame of reference, after all.

that wasn't the question. do YOU think all beliefs are equally valid?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-u48QI5sL7os/T_MVjjtXHQI/AAAAAAAAdqM/MpmJC4nc4CQ/w500-h364-no/wile-e-coyote-business-card.png

What about a belief like "Cows are sacred." You can neither prove nor refute the scientific validity of that statement, yet it is objectively true in some sense within Hinduism. Cows are sacred because they are believed to be and treated as sacred. You could say it's "irrational" to believe that, but I'd say it's more a-rational, i.e. it's just a belief that exists outside the sphere of rational thought. FWIW, Americans won't eat dogs, and that seems equally irrational. Yet it probably seems gross and wrong to you to eat a dog.

what are the costs of these taboos vs costs of others?

What is the cost of a person believing in god?

your soul, if you believe the wrong one.

a reduced-headcount model (putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not god really exists):

two people exist.
person 1 perceives (what she takes to be) god with her cosmic wizard eye.
person 2, lacking such an eye, does not.
person 2 considers person 1 a fool or a liar.
person 1 considers person 2 a lost sheep.

they're both making rational, sensible use of their perceptions. only problem is that their perceptions differ. neither can be 100% sure that her perceptions are accurate & complete (no matter what they might like to pretend). nevertheless, even absent that certainty, each has reason to at least provisionally trust her own perceptions, especially if they seem generally reliable. what else, in the end, do any of us go on? even our sense that science is reliable and useful is ultimately just a conclusion drawn from within a single, potentially flawed frame of reference.

as i see it, both parties are "right" in their beliefs about the nature of reality. they're right in that they're drawing appropriate conclusions from what seems the best available evidence, even when they disagree.

this exercise takes no account of whether or not god does, in fact, exist, and it presumes that both parties are similarly rational and intelligent. it allows for the possibility of spiritual perception without necessarily endorsing it (which is my take on this whole thing). its not an argument that all beliefs are equally valid, or that disordered perceptions and cognition don't exist. it's simply an example of the limits of individual knowledge.

get out contenderizer

(jk)

what does this perception or non-perception gain either person?
the one who gains the most is the rational actor, and belief in this perception is somewhat unimportant, just as a bishop can accrue material benefits of his station whether be believes or not.

or maybe a better example is someone who doesn't believe in vaccination. this person benefits by everyone else getting vaccinated if enough of them do.

the one who gains the most is the rational actor

Perceptions of gain differ. Each actor will need to apply their own idea of "gain" to their actions. There's this famous quote about gaining the whole world, but losing one's soul. Not everyone views the wisdom of this quote in the same light, but they apply in according to their own view of it.

In which case, objectively determining who "gains the most" is not a slam dunk.

there's an implicit ceteris paribus assumption in that example, so their idea of gain is the same. in real world situations, you would average out the idea of gain, such as in the herbalife situation, where you measure the gain as perceived by those who have gained from herbalife to the gain (or loss avoidance really) of those from herbalife being abolished.

States of mind are difficult to measure, but I happen to find certain mental states to be extremely valuable and I try to maximize my chances of experiencing those states. For me, this is the most meaningful measurement of "gain" in the majority of life situations. I am not sure how herbalife fits into that reality, but I'll Ctl-F around and see what you're referencing.

herbalife is a company that sells nutritionally dubious products through a multi-level marketing scheme. I've once heard that the underlying principle behind law is to manage incentives/disincentives to optimize the welfare of the most people, and where the law tends to make the practices that embody herbalife illegal, I tend to agree that on balance, that principle is served, even if the minority of adherents who do perceive a gain from herbalife existing perceive it most profoundly.

In my own case, actual physical health is highly conducive to those mental states I spoke of. The anticipation of health, therefore, is also valuable. It would seem that herbalife was selling people the anticipation of health, without selling them the means to meet that expectation (apart from the marginal health benefits of lowered stress caused by the assurance of future health - a tricky bit there).

Going back to "whoever gains most" and averaging that gain among a group, I would also have to point out that such averaging must occur over time as well, in that short-term gains could quickly skew one's results in a direction that might not coincide with long term gains. So, you can't really arrive at a measurement until all the results are in.

(waits)

Nope. This could take a very long time. I guess we'll just have to settle for a heuristic approach at first and make mid-course corrections as new data arrive.

(knits brow)

This heuristic thing is good for actually getting on with living and getting some acceptable results, but it is a bear for arriving at Absolutely True Answers. Maybe there's a place for religion in the ongoing mess of just trying to get on with it.

don't categorically reject all beliefs i don't share - or all beliefs that can't be scientifically verified. some i scoff at, some i ignore, some i file for future study.

so your problem is the beliefs you scoff at isn't the exact same set of beliefs that I scoff at. And since you scoff at less beliefs than I do, you're ~open-minded~, while I'm condescending. Again, break, give me.

are you assuming I categorically reject all beliefs I don't share or can't be scientifically verified? cause I don't. spiritualism I scoff at to some degree. Not as much as alien-brained Clinton, but there's some scoff there. You don't. Goody for you! So open minded!