Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2012, 09:33 PM
 
RE: Evidence
(02-06-2012 06:42 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Erbody.

Quote:What we call "science" is only one particular science, a style of filtering experience that has been designed by and for a culture of uniformity and central control. It accepts only experiences that can be translated into numbers, that are available to everyone, and that can be reproduced on command. This is what scientists mean when they demand "proof." But this is only a tiny thread of all possible experiences, most of which are unique, not quantifiable, not reproducible, and not the same for all observers.
-Ran Prieur

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Now I'm a fan of science as much as the next guy. I dig me some empirical evidence and I, more than a lot of people, base what I know off of what has been proven. I do jive with what Prieur is saying and I do feel that there are other ways of experiencing the world. I am a subjectivist after all Cool

We all know that many people look to things other than evidence to form their beliefs. They trust experience, feeling, revelation, the spiritual journey, spiritual awakening, miracles, omens, a whole host of other things including, most notably, faith.

The thing that seems weird to me is that we all know that when it comes to talking to them about those beliefs, we already know that not only do they not have scientific evidence, but that they don't give a rat's ass that they don't have scientific evidence.

I'm having trouble wording this point of mine, so please bear with me.

Why do we tell them things like, "You don't have evidence, don't you see that that invalidates your belief?" Basically, we ourselves put such a high value on evidence and for some reason, expect those that do not place the same value on it to do the same even knowing that they don't. It strikes me that that sort of approach will never yield results. It strikes me as square peg, round hole. To do it over and over again, well, seems insane.

Thoughts?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I have moved toward a type of atheism. It's difficult to explain but when one considers God to be the monistic fundamental consciousness, they are basically stating an atheist position. I would go into it, but I'm so sick of hearing myself talk about religion that even the bit I've just done makes we want to blow chunks and aspirate them.

I have come to hate religion, and that grows deeper every day for me. I hate it so much that I don't even want to think about anything related to it.

What brought me to this point is not the atheistic arguments you all make, because you don't make any arguments that are at all convincing. The more you babble on, the more religious you sound. Every time I hear something like, "We don't have a clue what dark energy is, but one day science will show us! No God needed!" You might as well be speaking in tongues to me. Every time I hear an atheist talk about how people should or shouldn't act this or that way, all I see is someone coveting the social power the Church has--they might as well be wearing a mozetta and zuchetto.

No, what brought me to this point was the modern state of Christianity, televangelists, scandals, bigotted rhetoric, and their lust for social power--and then there was the book, "The Shack," where we are expected to realize God is a serial killer because he loves us.

You think you can convert the religious, but you can't. It doesn't work that way. There is no "atheist" argument. There are only competing definitions of God. I am 180 degrees out from an atheist, but I'm only a hair's width from it.

A monist, such as myself, is forced to say:

There is no God, because God doesn't have a God.

I find myself becoming more and more angry at the religious. I suppose for every year I was one I feel cheated and conned.

I am no longer a religious person--Christian or Atheist.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Egor's post
03-06-2012, 11:11 PM
RE: Evidence
(02-06-2012 12:15 PM)Dom Wrote:  
Quote: They trust experience, feeling, revelation, the spiritual journey, spiritual awakening, miracles, omens, a whole host of other things including, most notably, faith.



Even atheists take a lot of things on "faith" if that's what you want to call it. Everyone does, or you'd never get anywhere in life.

I take it on faith that I'll wake up tomorrow and that I will want food tomorrow, or I would not bother going to the supermarket. Of course I could die in my sleep, or have the stomach flu and not want to eat. But, I believe I will be eating tomorrow. So off to the market I go.

When I order something online, I take it on faith that I will actually get it, that my identity won't be stolen and that I will be here to enjoy/use it.

And so on and so on.

You take many things on faith every day, do things based on experience, and you trust your "gut feelings" all the time when deciding whether you want to approach a person, agree to meet them, do a business deal with them etc.

It's when you depart from experience and act on ideas and dreams of supernatural stuff etc. that you go astray.

Sorry, Dom, gotta call you out on this one.
Re-write your post with the word "trust" (the legally acceptable word) instead of "faith" and I'm with you all the way.
And for "gut-feelings", replace with "instant risk assessments".
Ghost,
For me, an approach is to turn the tables and ask to be convinced (rather than trying to convince) with the stipulation that evidence that is based on hot air (FART) is no evidence.
[And for those who have forgotten an earlier thread:
FART = Faith, Authority, Revelation, Tradition.]
If those debating rules are not accepted, I ask why should anyone be persuaded or what kind of person could be persuaded by those four "proofs"?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
03-06-2012, 11:14 PM
RE: Evidence
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.
--Thomas Henry Huxley

"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact."
--Thomas Henry Huxley

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
― Thomas Paine, The Crisis

The first 2 quotes are great but are meaningless given the third. Someone who does not value evidence cannot be reasoned with. Probably in a very similar way that someone of faith would say that arguing with someone who has forgone the use of faith is pointless. There is no point in arguing over the existence/non-existence of god with someone whose only "evidence" come from a book written by man and not from the very universe that surrounds him that is independent of his existence.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2012, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2012 12:55 AM by ahoy.)
RE: Evidence
(03-06-2012 08:13 PM)Ghost Wrote:  ...

Or maybe am not looking for evidence… am looking for results.

If a belief will give someone sense of fairness, love, peace and joy translated into action of helping others… then am OK with it.

Truth is subjective… Morality is subjective.

We are all students of life.
We choose our teachers… or authors… or popular quotes.

I agree with Erxomai's Repeat, repeat and repeat…

Building a Faith works that way: pray continually or continuous propaganda.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2012, 01:32 AM
RE: Evidence
(03-06-2012 08:13 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Morondog.

Now that you've identified all those different ways that Theists view the world, how, if at all, do you engage with that; accepting that you think one way and they think another?

The following is a digression: I like that you recognised that all world views have many unchallenged assumptions. Hegemony naturalises ideology and sutures contradictions. I would argue; however, that religious doctrine does in fact leave room for debate and is not the absolutist inviolable position you make it out to be. It might not have the same mechanisms as science to explore change, but it is not without mechanisms. But as I said, this is a digression from the topic at hand.


How I engage? I debate with close friends - not to change their minds, but to understand where they're coming from. It's incredible how I can see things one way simply because I've spent a long time building my own particular viewpoint, and my Christian friend can see the same event completely differently. Other than that... people change themselves. A Christian would say "it's not up to me to convert you, that's God. I'm just the messenger." In a similar way, I'm happy to for example, link to a science article through facebook, or to post some picture - but all that's intended to do is shake people up a bit.

Religion is not inviolable, my point is merely that it's somewhat engineered so that ... well let me say an *incorrect* worldview can be difficult to see past. (Showing my own bias Tongue ). I remember years ago watching an anthropological documentary where various tribes in ... I forget where ... were having trouble because they had nearly hunted out their game in their local area (they used to be nomads but had settled down after contact with sillivization). The anthropologists asked them why they thought the game had run out. Without exception they all answered something along the lines of "the ancestors / spirits / gods are angry". Now you could say that for them, this was true, but the underlying truth is simply that they'd hunted out the game. In that sense, their religion is getting in the way of a solution - namely, hunt a bit less, don't take *as much*, and you'll have game for later. Their religion might even offer a solution, that says something like "when the gods are angry, move away from where you live because the area is cursed", which would then allow the game to recover, but still, for my money it was not the *truth*. This does not in any way preclude some guy from making the connection "hey maybe the gods aren't angry, maybe we've just hunted the game out", but when you think of game as a magical gift from the gods sent to send their approval, even if that thought occurs it's not likely to be accepted as a correct interpretation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2012, 04:39 AM
RE: Evidence
(04-06-2012 01:32 AM)morondog Wrote:  In a similar way, I'm happy to for example, link to a science article through facebook, or to post some picture - but all that's intended to do is shake people up a bit.

Am shaken a little bit with your example : )
Just to clarify, my “truth is subjective” and “morality is subjective” is just how I relate to people.

My personal belief: I like to call myself a Christian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2012, 05:11 AM
RE: Evidence
(04-06-2012 04:39 AM)ahoy Wrote:  
(04-06-2012 01:32 AM)morondog Wrote:  In a similar way, I'm happy to for example, link to a science article through facebook, or to post some picture - but all that's intended to do is shake people up a bit.

Am shaken a little bit with your example : )
Just to clarify, my “truth is subjective” and “morality is subjective” is just how I relate to people.

My personal belief: I like to call myself a Christian.
And more power to you... um... for myself I have my ideas as to what is true, right and wrong. Saying that they are subjective just means that I accept that other people have different ideas and values and that mine are not necessarily objectively right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2012, 06:40 AM
RE: Evidence
I think that the biggest problem with evidence, within the scope of the scientific method, is that of misunderstanding.

Many people, atheist and theist alike, think that evidence is meant to "prove" things or provide 100% certainty.

It's not. There's no such thing.

And that's beautiful in my opinion.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like lightninlives's post
04-06-2012, 06:44 AM
RE: Evidence
(03-06-2012 11:11 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Sorry, Dom, gotta call you out on this one.
Re-write your post with the word "trust" (the legally acceptable word) instead of "faith" and I'm with you all the way.
And for "gut-feelings", replace with "instant risk assessments".


I did add "if that's what you want to call it" (on faith) because it related better with what the OP said.

Using terms that anyone can assimilate easily is second nature to me, stems from a stunt as foreign language teacher. So I tend to keep language on the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) level.

So, I agree with you, I just substituted words. It still means the same to people.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: Evidence
Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful responses.

Hey, Erxomai.

Yeah, I meant what you used to consider evidence.

It strikes me that that would be the sort of thing someone demanding evidence would encounter and then dismiss because it wasn't evidence. But how is that a logical approach if the person demanding evidence had foreknowledge that they weren't going to find it?

A silly analogy just popped into my head. It's like going to an almond plantation and demanding oranges. You knew full well that they specialised in almonds so how does it make sense to be like, "See! Silly almond farmers don't have oranges. Their almonds are meaningless!"

Hey, DLJ.

Sorry, but I gotta call you out on that one. Trust is something that occurs between people, it has to do with interpersonal relationships and the outcomes of those relationships. Faith is a much broader term and has much more to do with beliefs.

I can understand wanting to distance oneself from the word faith, but I think it's somewhat silly myself. I find it silly because we know that all humans rely on faith. That's not a question, it's a fact. Placing primary importance on science doesn't eliminate that.

Also, what I'm specifically asking is about why one demands evidence from people we know for a fact do not believe in the primacy of evidence and who we know for a fact divine their truths from other sources. You're seeming to say that your approach to that is to demand evidence. How do you respond to that?

Hey, BD.

Love the Huxley. Hate the Paine.

I'm not looking for reasons for why people cannot engage, especially those reasons I spoke to in the OP. I'm looking for ways to engage.

Hey, Morondog.

Wicked. Can you elaborate on how you approach the discussion and how you come to understand how they view things?

Worldviews are memeplexes; complex webs of co-evolved interdependent parts with contingent articulations. Most importantly, they are resistant to invasion. But I'm not so much interested in invasion as I'm interested in how people that host these different memeplexes can actually engage in a meaningful way, beginning with the assumption that demanding evidence from people who one knows don't have it is not a meaningful form of engagement. But you seem to have gotten around that and that fascinates me.

Another quick digression: I like your hunter story. I personally have no interest in the capital-T Truth. I am greatly interested in small-t truths. So I see what you mean when you say The Truth, but I think their story illustrates the idea of truths quite nicely.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: