Conquer Club

Click here for context. (See pages 8 and 9 in the Mormons thread for more context.)


So, here's what I'm trying to illuminate:

(1) Anything can be falsifiable, if one assumes that it can become falsifiable at some time in the future. (and "everything causes everything," so in the meantime, what do? ... Let's continue)

(2) People argue about the acceptable standard of certainty.

(3) People use various standards for validating or testing the soundness of claims.
group (a) uses logic
group (b) uses logic and science, thus tests for cognitive bias (among other issues)

(But what about theologists? How far can they carry the burden experienced by group b? Do theologists test for cognitive bias? Or would such tests undermine their claims?)


and (4) people take the findings from group (b) and accept its standards for some claims but ignore such standards for other claims (e.g. Santa Claus v. God). This happens because consistently applying the standards of goup b's approach would underline the claims in other relevant arenas.



So, in conclusion, people view this inconsistent switching between the standards of both groups to be illogical, or irrational--perhaps a more acceptable word is arbitrary. In my opinion, many (perhaps all) theologians and theists tend to exhibit this switching behavior. They'll take up the scientific arms against Santa Claus, then lay them to rest against God.

I might accept that some atheists do this as well; however, if they accept group b's standard of certainty and continue to see the claims in the Holy Books as proven false, see lack of evidence for group a's claims (e.g. the purpose of prayer in regard to the belief that prayers are answered--cognitive bias much?), then these atheists are not really switching their standards to suit their preferences.


(tl;dr? Here ya go:)

The short story of history shows us that the waters of science/logic have eroded the many claims by the theists, who gradually edge up the island, toward the remnants of God, which is a concept that is continually refashioned into a more faith-based and unfalsifiable image.

What do y'all think?

you mean people make irrational belief based on their own self interest? NEVRAAAA

next you will say that governments do not fight wars for 'morality' but for their own economic interest and that their 'moral beliefs' are just a convenience

SOMEONE TOOK THE RED PILL I SEE

BigBallinStalin wrote: group (b) uses logic and science, thus tests for cognitive bias (among other issues)

Logic and science are in no way seperate entities. The "scientific method" is essentially a scheme to test using logic, but before you can get to that test, you have to have the ideas. Ideas ALWAYS involve logic, but also leaps that we sometimes call "intuition", sometimes call "art" ... or something else entirely. This is, quite truly, the difference between a great scientists and science "technicians", though a lot of knowledge is needed to make intelligent "intuitive" leaps. When this thing called "intuition" is studied, though, it turns out that it often is a logical process... just that the logic is so involved that the brain sort of skips the "aware thinking" bits and just leaps to present the conclusion. There is logic there, but the person might have a hard time putting his/her finger on it.

(sort of the way the character "Monk" can walk into a room and instantly notice details that you or I might skip... and thus come up with conclusions)

(

BigBallinStalin wrote:But what about theologists? How far can they carry the burden experienced by group b? Do theologists test for cognitive bias? Or would such tests undermine their claims?)

Depends on the theologist, of course. Even so, yes. They debate and argue over interpretations of text, interpretations of events. That they take into account a text and history doesn't make it illogical. In a sense, its not different at all from scientists because scientists also refer to texts and to historical thinking. (probably more than you think they do).

BigBallinStalin wrote:and (4) people take the findings from group (b) and accept its standards for some claims but ignore such standards for other claims (e.g. Santa Claus v. God). This happens because consistently applying the standards of goup b's approach would underline the claims in other relevant arenas.

No, its because you have a large group of people who have decided the idea of God is false, who don't care to even try to understand.. and so take pleasure in belittling anyone who disagrees.

Its really condescending sadism, not intelligent thinking.
(which is NOT to be confused with honest debate and questioning.. which happens within theology as well as without).

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, in conclusion, people view this inconsistent switching between the standards of both groups to be illogical, or irrational--perhaps a more acceptable word is arbitrary. In my opinion, many (perhaps all) theologians and theists tend to exhibit this switching behavior. They'll take up the scientific arms against Santa Claus, then lay them to rest against God.

There is an old saying "garbage in.. garbage out" You started with some false assumptions above, and now are adding a few others.

BigBallinStalin wrote: I might accept that some atheists do this as well; however, if they accept group b's standard of certainty and continue to see the claims in the Holy Books as proven false, see lack of evidence for group a's claims (e.g. the purpose of prayer in regard to the belief that prayers are answered--cognitive bias much?), then these atheists are not really switching their standards to suit their preferences.

You are stating the point that they wish the world to acknowledge. Unfortunately, the ideas are based on false assumptions of what theologians and religious individuals often do. (and yes, I am sure you will find a few religious individuals who do just about anything... that's called human diversity, not "religion").

BigBallinStalin wrote:(tl;dr? Here ya go:)

The short story of history shows us that the waters of science/logic have eroded the many claims by the theists, who gradually edge up the island, toward the remnants of God, which is a concept that is continually refashioned into a more faith-based and unfalsifiable image.

What do y'all think?

I think you need to go back and make sure your initial assumptions are correct before going further. As they stand, they are not.

allahuakbar wrote:you mean people make irrational belief based on their own self interest?

The thing is, this happens in any human endeaver, not just religion. And.. religion does sometimes step outside of that mold.

There's no rational argument against religion, and no rational argument for it either. It's pointless to discuss religion in terms of rationality, because it will lead nowhere.

That said rationality isn't the end-all be-all of human thought. There are certain things you know without rational explanation - such as that music X is superior to music Y. Everyone has truths that they know are right despite being unable to explain why. Same with religious people in regards to religion.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: group (b) uses logic and science, thus tests for cognitive bias (among other issues)

Logic and science are in no way seperate entities. The "scientific method" is essentially a scheme to test using logic, but before you can get to that test, you have to have the ideas. Ideas ALWAYS involve logic, but also leaps that we sometimes call "intuition", sometimes call "art" ... or something else entirely. This is, quite truly, the difference between a great scientists and science "technicians", though a lot of knowledge is needed to make intelligent "intuitive" leaps. When this thing called "intuition" is studied, though, it turns out that it often is a logical process... just that the logic is so involved that the brain sort of skips the "aware thinking" bits and just leaps to present the conclusion. There is logic there, but the person might have a hard time putting his/her finger on it.

(sort of the way the character "Monk" can walk into a room and instantly notice details that you or I might skip... and thus come up with conclusions)

(

BigBallinStalin wrote:But what about theologists? How far can they carry the burden experienced by group b? Do theologists test for cognitive bias? Or would such tests undermine their claims?)

Depends on the theologist, of course. Even so, yes. They debate and argue over interpretations of text, interpretations of events. That they take into account a text and history doesn't make it illogical. In a sense, its not different at all from scientists because scientists also refer to texts and to historical thinking. (probably more than you think they do).

BigBallinStalin wrote:and (4) people take the findings from group (b) and accept its standards for some claims but ignore such standards for other claims (e.g. Santa Claus v. God). This happens because consistently applying the standards of goup b's approach would underline the claims in other relevant arenas.

No, its because you have a large group of people who have decided the idea of God is false, who don't care to even try to understand.. and so take pleasure in belittling anyone who disagrees.

Its really condescending sadism, not intelligent thinking.
(which is NOT to be confused with honest debate and questioning.. which happens within theology as well as without).

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, in conclusion, people view this inconsistent switching between the standards of both groups to be illogical, or irrational--perhaps a more acceptable word is arbitrary. In my opinion, many (perhaps all) theologians and theists tend to exhibit this switching behavior. They'll take up the scientific arms against Santa Claus, then lay them to rest against God.

There is an old saying "garbage in.. garbage out" You started with some false assumptions above, and now are adding a few others.

BigBallinStalin wrote: I might accept that some atheists do this as well; however, if they accept group b's standard of certainty and continue to see the claims in the Holy Books as proven false, see lack of evidence for group a's claims (e.g. the purpose of prayer in regard to the belief that prayers are answered--cognitive bias much?), then these atheists are not really switching their standards to suit their preferences.

You are stating the point that they wish the world to acknowledge. Unfortunately, the ideas are based on false assumptions of what theologians and religious individuals often do. (and yes, I am sure you will find a few religious individuals who do just about anything... that's called human diversity, not "religion").

BigBallinStalin wrote:(tl;dr? Here ya go:)

The short story of history shows us that the waters of science/logic have eroded the many claims by the theists, who gradually edge up the island, toward the remnants of God, which is a concept that is continually refashioned into a more faith-based and unfalsifiable image.

What do y'all think?

I think you need to go back and make sure your initial assumptions are correct before going further. As they stand, they are not.

I take it you believe in Santa Claus.

*this goes on the record*

Upgrayedd wrote:There's no rational argument against religion, and no rational argument for it either. It's pointless to discuss religion in terms of rationality, because it will lead nowhere.

That said rationality isn't the end-all be-all of human thought. There are certain things you know without rational explanation - such as that music X is superior to music Y. Everyone has truths that they know are right despite being unable to explain why. Same with religious people in regards to religion.

I would argue what you are describing is opinions,not truths.Unless you subscribe to the idea that I have heard some apologists make that 'it is true for me',which effectively renders the word meaningless.We might never get to the absolute truth of the big questions religions attempt to answer but we have surely abandoned the search if we seriously admit that every individual has their own truth.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The short story of history shows us that the waters of science/logic have eroded the many claims by the theists, who gradually edge up the island, toward the remnants of God, which is a concept that is continually refashioned into a more faith-based and unfalsifiable image.

What do y'all think?

I think Haggis and I sufficiently addressed this in the Mormons thread.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174516&start=135#p3831837

Why isn't this thread locked yet?

chang50 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:There's no rational argument against religion, and no rational argument for it either. It's pointless to discuss religion in terms of rationality, because it will lead nowhere.

That said rationality isn't the end-all be-all of human thought. There are certain things you know without rational explanation - such as that music X is superior to music Y. Everyone has truths that they know are right despite being unable to explain why. Same with religious people in regards to religion.

I would argue what you are describing is opinions,not truths.Unless you subscribe to the idea that I have heard some apologists make that 'it is true for me',which effectively renders the word meaningless.We might never get to the absolute truth of the big questions religions attempt to answer but we have surely abandoned the search if we seriously admit that every individual has their own truth.

An opinion would be that chicken tastes better than beef.

But it's an absolute truth that Mozart is more talented than 50 Cent.

Upgrayedd wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:There's no rational argument against religion, and no rational argument for it either. It's pointless to discuss religion in terms of rationality, because it will lead nowhere.

That said rationality isn't the end-all be-all of human thought. There are certain things you know without rational explanation - such as that music X is superior to music Y. Everyone has truths that they know are right despite being unable to explain why. Same with religious people in regards to religion.

I would argue what you are describing is opinions,not truths.Unless you subscribe to the idea that I have heard some apologists make that 'it is true for me',which effectively renders the word meaningless.We might never get to the absolute truth of the big questions religions attempt to answer but we have surely abandoned the search if we seriously admit that every individual has their own truth.

An opinion would be that chicken tastes better than beef.

But it's an absolute truth that Mozart is more talented than 50 Cent.

Nope. Beef is, in fact, better than chicken.

chicken more efficient

Timminz wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:There's no rational argument against religion, and no rational argument for it either. It's pointless to discuss religion in terms of rationality, because it will lead nowhere.

That said rationality isn't the end-all be-all of human thought. There are certain things you know without rational explanation - such as that music X is superior to music Y. Everyone has truths that they know are right despite being unable to explain why. Same with religious people in regards to religion.

I would argue what you are describing is opinions,not truths.Unless you subscribe to the idea that I have heard some apologists make that 'it is true for me',which effectively renders the word meaningless.We might never get to the absolute truth of the big questions religions attempt to answer but we have surely abandoned the search if we seriously admit that every individual has their own truth.

An opinion would be that chicken tastes better than beef.

But it's an absolute truth that Mozart is more talented than 50 Cent.

Nope. Beef is, in fact, better than chicken.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.