Denying Physical Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2012, 06:20 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
Hey, Likos.

Reality, not as it is, but as we understand it, is a construct that we build over the course of our lifetime, the development of which is guided by our psychosocial development and through our memetics.

Humans require this construct as an absolute. The point of the construct is to allow us to interact with everything around us. We cannot function without it.

It has been proven by a study at Harvard (and this is very much in line with Darwinism) that the content of that model is irrelevant. It matters only that it works.

The construct is a complex system of interdependent parts. The single most important demand of that construct is internal consistency. Without that consistency, reality as we understand it becomes absurd and we cannot function under those conditions.

When we encounter something new, it needs to find a place in that construct. If it does not, it can lead to a crisis. Even simple inconsistencies can lead to very serious crises. Constructs based in science are exceptionally good at making room for new physical evidence. There is little appreciable change when it is introduced (not none mine you, the bomb that there are 11 dimensions is still being worked out). Religious systems have their own advantages, but many of them are less effective at integrating physical evidence. If not integrated properly, physical evidence can lead to internal inconsistencies that can cause not only crises, but catastrophic system collapses of the construct. The impact of a collapse of our reality construct cannot be overstated. It is devastating.

What your friend is doing is not ignoring the physical, she is just integrating it in a different manner than you (ahoy nailed that). You categorise it as physical evidence and divine understanding from it. She calls it evidence of God`s beautification of the planet. She doesn`t do it because she`s an idiot, she does it because she must.

It`s not how I approach things, my construct makes heavy use of science, but all of the science tells us that there is nothing wrong with it per-se. A dolphin is faster than a sloth but that doesn`t mean the dolphin is better. The sloth can climb trees. Every system has its advantages and disadvantages, the only thing that matters is if the aggregate of them works.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2012, 07:03 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
Unfortunately my sister is pretty much in the same boat. She is a young earth creationist and fully rejects science UNLESS it agrees with her point of view.

This state of argument is called confirmation bias where they are only willing to look at things that "agree" with their point of view. Your friend is real time googling things, cherry picking them to make it seem like it agrees with them without having bothered to go read things.

There is no "magical" logic as your friend mentions. I think you did fine making your points. You stated several times that science and the facts that are present disagree with your friend and can explain things, but your friend is unwilling to look at anything outside the bible.

You might want to bring up some interesting points to your friend regarding how awesome of scientists the dudes of the bible were.

- During that time it was mostly believed that we were the center of the universe.
- Astronomy sucked, we had little understanding of the universe. Many religions had very similar ideas and thoughts about it, the bible was not exclusive to this.
- Many religions adopted things into their religions due to safety and health. For instance, we know many various people believed back then that eating pork and certain foods would curse you because they were filthy and unclean creatures. We know now that it isn't the animal itself, but things like the bacteria and parasites carried through them because of what they eat. If they didn't know better, but we do now, isn't it silly to look at other things and take them seriously? (Like the age of the universe, they weren't astronomers or cosmologists by any stretch of means).
- The idea of evolution came very very later. The big bang came very very much later when modern day science came into play. These are things we have observable evidence for. Why does that immediately or necessarily dismiss "god"??

The reason I say these things as an atheist is because if I put myself in the shoes of the agnostic or the believer, I can still believe in the big bang or evolution.

Perhaps your friend should ponder this - What if "god used the big bang and evolution to create us?"

If your friend is incapable of considering this idea, if they are truly open minded, or perhaps if they think it is "ludicrous" and dismiss it without any idea or consideration then I would say that indeed, they are dealing with serious confirmation bias. If your friend were to consider this, this means they would have to consider that perhaps maybe we did evolve, and the big bang is how we got here and it directly disagrees with their previous notion. In which case, they may be one of those people that hates to admit, "Maybe you're right." or "Maybe I'm wrong." or even perhaps "That's a good point." because they feel it makes them "weak" or something along those lines.

The only science and confirmation for young earth creation is pseudo science. It is cherry picking to the fullest. Dishonest, sincerely distorted crap that people have pulled out of their ass. It is not peer reviewed, it is always laughed at by the scientific community and often times is in many ways it's own "god of the gaps" since people just quite simply do not want to consider the possibility that maybe we are really animals, the universe really is big and we aren't what we thought we were previously.

Anyway. Frustrating indeed. My sister is indoctrinated up to her eyeballs in YEC, confirmation bias and bigotry. I hope your friend can eventually listen to reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2012, 05:20 PM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(25-05-2012 01:13 AM)Jedah Wrote:  Ayame (definately a Japanese girl), learn to type proper English first, then check dictionary.com for definition of "logical".

How can you ask a person who cant even "type words logically" to "give logical argument" ?? Such attempt was basically illogical. Laughat


It is a bit annoying when people refer others to the dictionary as the dictionary usually gives a variety of meanings to words and is in no way 'the all and everything' in seeking how particular words are being used.While we need words of course they are inadequate conveyors of truth in any hard sense. Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2012, 02:52 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(25-05-2012 05:20 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(25-05-2012 01:13 AM)Jedah Wrote:  Ayame (definately a Japanese girl), learn to type proper English first, then check dictionary.com for definition of "logical".

How can you ask a person who cant even "type words logically" to "give logical argument" ?? Such attempt was basically illogical. Laughat


It is a bit annoying when people refer others to the dictionary as the dictionary usually gives a variety of meanings to words and is in no way 'the all and everything' in seeking how particular words are being used.While we need words of course they are inadequate conveyors of truth in any hard sense. Cool

Well, I suppose even giving a logic lecture wont help religious believers being more "logical" about their "faith".
So why bother?

Life is too important to be taken seriously.
- Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2012, 05:35 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(25-05-2012 01:13 AM)Jedah Wrote:  Ayame (definately a Japanese girl), learn to type proper English first, then check dictionary.com for definition of "logical".

How can you ask a person who cant even "type words logically" to "give logical argument" ?? Such attempt was basically illogical. Laughat



According to dictionary.com:

“Logical” is an adjective.

Adjective is always subjective. (do you agree or not…. if not, why?)

If you agree:
Therefore: what is logical to you will not mean it will be logical to others.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2012, 03:33 PM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(25-05-2012 04:46 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  'To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

Why, even though it's clear that your friend will not be swayed by reason, are you still trying to reason? We all think it's silly that someone can be in such deep denial of evidence and dismiss it so easily for their unevidenced belief, but this friend isn't going to change just because you keep presenting more evidence.

Nice.

Faith is a trust in, or acceptance of, something, as a truth, without reason; you can't reason with something that by definition lacks reason, and by applying a construct devised specifically to govern reason i.e. logic, you would just be properly "administering medicine to the dead".

Instead of just throwing in more and more reasons, you have to attack the main problem, which is faith.

Just because they accept something without reason, doesn't mean there isn't a reason why they are accepting something without reason.

I think the key would really be finding out why it is they have that faith and moving on from there.

It's kind of like getting lost and finding yourself going in circles and coming back the same location. After coming back to that same location a certain number of times, you should find it best to stop and think about why you're coming back to the same place. If you just keep following the same path, you are just going to continue back to the same location. Try a new path and you might find yourself on your way to the proper location. It could be that you find that the location you were looking for was not there to begin with, but it could be, if you find that one hidden turn you were continually missing, that it could lead you directly to where it is you were trying to go all along.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
26-05-2012, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2012 04:05 PM by Debzilla.)
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(26-05-2012 05:35 AM)ahoy Wrote:  According to dictionary.com:

“Logical” is an adjective.

Adjective is always subjective. (do you agree or not…. if not, why?)

If you agree:
Therefore: what is logical to you will not mean it will be logical to others.

and logic is a noun. Not following the logic, though i'm sure it is logical.

Your beliefs do not make you a better person, your behavior does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2012, 08:28 PM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(26-05-2012 03:56 PM)Debzilla Wrote:  
(26-05-2012 05:35 AM)ahoy Wrote:  According to dictionary.com:

“Logical” is an adjective.

Adjective is always subjective. (do you agree or not…. if not, why?)

If you agree:
Therefore: what is logical to you will not mean it will be logical to others.

and logic is a noun. Not following the logic, though i'm sure it is logical.
As an ESL, I am kinda confused...
I can be logical without following logic???????
Does it also mean I can be reasonable without reason?????

Life is too important to be taken seriously.
- Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2012, 07:36 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
One of the problems here with your friend is the understanding of what constitutes proof. Theists accuse atheists of denying all sorts of "proofs" of God's existence all the time. Many of them have been brought up and told since day 1 that because they can "feel the power of Jesus" that is "proof" God exists.

Your friend, from what I can see, doesn't even understand the definition of what constitutes proof. Until they do, you are just going to chase your tail with them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2012, 09:17 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(27-05-2012 07:36 AM)Superluminal Wrote:  Your friend, from what I can see, doesn't even understand the definition of what constitutes proof. Until they do, you are just going to chase your tail with them.

They are already talking about proof: caveman, paintings, fossils.
I think it is how she made conclusions as to how/what are those proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: