Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2012, 03:16 PM
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
I think it's safe to say based on your responses above that you're severely deluded, and I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. I really do want to help you out in any way that I can and foster and open and respectful dialogue, so let's go over each of responses one by one so that I can address them:


No, that's the peer review process, which is part of the "profession" of science.

Here: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N...node6.html



It's just that only someone that's deluded would link to a page that restates almost verbatim what I described (e.g. "A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable." & "There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.").


So either you failed to read all the way down to the bottom of the page your linked to and failed to see these and other key elements, or you read them and your religious doctrine prevents you from being able to comprehend and/or consciously accept them, or your intentionally being dishonest. The first is just an honest human mistake (I do it too from time to time) while the second two are fairly common behaviors exhibited by theists.


I'd be curious to know which of the three apply to you in this particular case.
[font='Times New Roman']
[/font]
Logic
Artistic expression
Mahtematics
Revelation
Precognition
et. al.

But your wild card will be "every legitimate field of knowledge " And everyone knows atheists shove their head in the sand when it comes to anything they can't answer from an atheistic perspective. [font='Times New Roman']
[/font]



I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I can only assume that you're not overly familiar with the concept of logic, because if you were, you would realize that logic can and often is faulty (e.g. it does not work and/or does not accurately reflect reality) and that the primary way that logic is verified/justified is via the usage of evidence. This is the case whether we're talking about logic in programming code or logical statements regarding day-to-day reality or observation. If you'd like to discuss this particular aspect in more detail, I'd be happy to do so via DM, email, my blog, your blog, or in a more appropriate thread here on thethinkingatheist.com. It's definitely interesting, though not as interesting as observable, falsifiable, repeatable stuff like this .

I'm a huge fan of art and artistic expression, but it is definitely not a path to knowledge or understanding about the physical world. That said, it can have a serious impact on emotional and intellectual development and even directly impact neurological pathways, and so I'm a huge fan and try to play the guitar, write, and produce short films on a daily basis if possible.

Mathematics is often referred to as the only pure science and definitely requires a skeptical approach, and I'm a huge fan of it by the way. However, I encourage you to try and contact mathematicians and theoretical physicists to get their take on whether or not math is a pathway to knowledge about anything other than math itself. Typically, theoretical math remains theoretical until it is observed in the physical universe.

Revelation is one of those unfalsifiable, subjective claims that I've already addressed (and that is addressed in the link you provided). Revelations, by their very definition and nature, cannot be distinguished from fantasy, imagination, delusion, or in some extreme cases , outright mental illness.

Precognition falls into the same boat as revelation.

et al.

Law
Theology
Mathematics
The interpretation of art
Music
Counseling Psychology and psychoanalysis
Psi
et. al.



I'm not going to re-address the ones I already addressed above (e.g. math and music which is a specific art form). Law is another fascinating discipline, but it only provides knowledge about the domain itself and not the nature of physical reality (e.g. studying law only provides knowledge of the domain of law).

Same thing applies to interpretation of art.

Same thing applies to theology (e.g. studying theology only gives you knowledge into the domain of theology itself, not the objective nature of reality. Moreover, it has never been responsible to providing knowledge into how anything actually works and instead requires an almost heroic amount of figurative interpretation in order prevent prominent theist doctrines from appearing utterly and completely incoherent).

Psychology and psychoanalysis where one of my first true loves (I initially majored in psychology and love disciplines like transactional analysis). Therefore, I know based on direct experience that any claims to knowledge about the human psyche are derived from from rigorously stringent studies that are, you guessed it, based on the scientific method of inquiry.

Moreover, the majority of study in the field of psychology has shifted from more subjective pursuits (e.g. talking to people and/or having them fill out questionnaires) and into more scientifically rigorous disciplines like neurology, genetics, and biology.

PSI is yet another field filled with either unfalsifiable or unreplicated assertions.

Well then you're biased. You might want to take your arm from around science now--the photo op is over.

No further questions, Your Honor.
[font='Times New Roman']
[/font]


Not sure how you could take a sentence that starts with "I suspect..." and then assert that I'm being biased. The very usage of the root word "suspect" denotes a skeptical assertion (e.g. that's my current hypothesis but I recognize that I could be wrong). And your final hubris-filled final sentence (e.g. "No further questions, Your honor.") kind of gives you away.

You seem like one of these people that thinks the point of life is to win debates or arguments. I'm actually not trying to argue with you, much less trying to win any debating points.

Instead, I'm simply trying to express my point of view in hopes of potentially impacting your point of view and perhaps gaining some new perspective of my own. I know of some theists like Tom Larsen that are willing to do this in an open and honest manner , but my experience suggests that those types are few and far in between.

Again, I don't expect you to budge at all anytime soon or perhaps ever. In fact, one of my hypotheses is that adult theists rarely if ever deconvert, and in some cases, deconverting could actually result in serious psychological damage. That's I'm much more focused on reaching the youth and creating a society that treasures skepticism, scientific inquiry, and critical thinking and instills this in the youth at a young age.

As for you, as mentioned, I do personally believe that you are deluded and that the only way to have a meaningful and constructive conversation would require that you first reassess your current subjective opinion of the scientific method of inquiry (and the skeptical critical thinking skills required to properly apply said method). If you ever find yourself questioning your current beliefs or approaches to thinking, you know where to find me.

Take care and thank you for the conversation. Though we clearly don't even come close to seeing eye to eye, I appreciate the dialogue.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like lightninlives's post
27-04-2012, 03:36 PM
 
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
I'm not addressing anyone in particular here, but I just have to say that you know you've spent too much time around atheists when all you can think to say is "Go fuck yourself."
    "Prove God exists and provide peer reviewed papers on it."
    "Go fuck yourself."
    "You're deluded"
    "Go fuck yourself"
    "Seek help"
    "Go fuck yourself"
    "Would you like tea or coffee?"
    "Go fuck yourself."
    "Hey, Ed! How's it going!"
    "Go fuck yourself."

Another way you know you've spent too much time around atheists is when you're thankful the weekend is here so you can get back to the normalacy of taking care of the lunatics at the hospital--and the patients, too.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 03:43 PM
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
(27-04-2012 03:36 PM)Egor Wrote:  I'm not addressing anyone in particular here, but I just have to say that you know you've spent too much time around atheists when all you can think to say is "Go fuck yourself."
    "Prove God exists and provide peer reviewed papers on it."
    "Go fuck yourself."
    "You're deluded"
    "Go fuck yourself"
    "Seek help"
    "Go fuck yourself"
    "Would you like tea or coffee?"
    "Go fuck yourself."
    "Hey, Ed! How's it going!"
    "Go fuck yourself."

Another way you know you've spent too much time around atheists is when you're thankful the weekend is here so you can get back to the normalacy of taking care of the lunatics at the hospital--and the patients, too.

Haha, this made me chuckle. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 09:51 PM
RE: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief (Scientific American)
Well, I came up with the right answer to the widget question, and I'm an atheist... so I guess they're on the right track.

I've also observed this correlation to be true in the real world, but in my case, it was subject to confirmation bias. I'm glad someone can back up my observation with science.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: