Side-effects of Faith

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Confirmation bias is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even within confirmation bias beliefs are formed based on evidence and justification. The failure lies in the refusal to entertain opposing viewpoints, evidence against, and counter-arguments, not whether or not it is possible for beliefs to be formed in the absence of evidence and justificatio ...[text shortened]... is for claiming that the embrace of faith necessarily involves the refusal to exercise reason.

Until you can establish conclusively that belief in God is unreasonable (i.e., not based on evidence or rational justification), you have no basis for claiming that the embrace of faith necessarily involves the refusal to exercise reason.

There is a strange shift in what is to be demonstrated, here. It may be that an "embrace of faith" is more, or other, than an epistemic position based on evidence or rational justification, and it may be that nothing can be demonstrated either way about an embrace of faith. Who can say what the role of evidence or rational justification is, in an "embrace of faith?"

The belief that, say, dolphins exist in the Caribbean, may not be the same as an "embrace of faith" that dolphins exist in the Caribbean. Perhaps your challenge should be couched in more mundane terms.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]you are making the dreadful all-to-common fallacy of probability here of completely confusing and completely failing to make the distinction between two DIFFERENT types of probability; specifically, the probability of a process occurring that inevitably gives an unlikely outcome and the probability of that unlikely outcome being whatever it is.

remain, etc., etc.

Your case against faith is misguided and muddled.[/b]

“..There is no confusing of the two different probabilities because I only ever referred to one of them, the probability of the outcome. Of course the probability of the process of picking the lottery numbers is virtually guaranteed to provide an improbable outcome, but for my purposes that is irrelevant. ...”

but it is relevant! To see why, lets see what you say next:

“...What matters is that the news reporting the exact set of numbers P had picked is extraordinary considering the odds against. ...”

-which is totally irrelevant since just such an unlikely outcome of this kind was expected -unless you confuse the two probabilities so as to THINK it is relevant.

“...From P's perspective, the fact that the lottery is virtually certain to have picked some improbable number doesn't factor in; according to Hume's in principle argument, based on the improbability of P's number being the winning number, P is right to require enough evidence of the news agency's reliability to counter-balance that improbability. ...”

no it isn't! Because nobody made a prediction that P would win BEFORE he won ( that WOULD require a lot of evidence to justify ) and we KNOW that whomever wins will INEVITABLY have had a low probability of winning -so no need to think you need additional evidence to counter-balance that improbability of THAT PARTICULAR person winning.

“...If verifiable evidence were the standard in terms of past events, we might as well disregard as false much of world history. ...”

that is simply not true. Where did you get that from? We have verifiable ( physical ) evidence of, for example, evolution, even though we have no current eye witnesses of species change.

“...verification is not the issue. What is at issue is the irrational standard of evidence for miracles you've proposed; namely, that no eye-witness account (e.g., the NT) is sufficient to establish the occurrence of a miracle. ...”

but verifiable ( preferably physical but can be verifiable by some other means ) evidence WOULD be sufficient to establish the occurrence of a miracle -so where is this evidence?

“...Again, how does one "make" oneself believe in something? ...”

rationally or irrationally?

“...how does that make it possible to believe in God? I don't think anyone really has a choice concerning what they believe or don't believe. ...”

that would only be true if everybody was rational. But they are not. Irrational people CAN choose what to believe by whatever twisted logic they employ for such a function.

“...I see here that you consider God's existence "absurd". Did you choose to believe this? ...”

No, because I am rational. Not everyone is rational.

“...Could you likewise choose to believe in God's existence despite its being absurd to you? ...”

only if I was BOTH irrational AND wanted there to be a God. But I am not irrational so I cannot. Some people ARE irrational so CAN convince themselves that there is a God.

“...IF SO, you'd have to commit yourself to the notion that evidence and justification play no part in your current beliefs, ...” (my emphasis)

But it ISN'T “SO”, is it!

“...Otherwise, you are simply presenting a slipper slope fallacy (if you believe in God, this will lead to hatred, which will lead to violence, etc.). ..”

did I say this? Answer no. and that is simply false; there is no “slipper slope” as you claim above.

“...It is not AT ALL the case that faith inevitably leads to any of the horrible, terrible outcomes you cite. ..”

If you read my posts you will see I never claimed this so that point is irrelevant to my argument and so all my assertions still stand.

“...I understand that you may believe that religious faith, in itself, is dangerous. The problem is, you have no evidence of this. ...”

I have already presented evidence for this in the form of an argument which you have yet to invalidate.

“...If all faith disappeared from the face of the Earth, borders would still remain, supply and demand would remain, wealth inequalities would remain, hatred would remain, conquest would remain, racism would remain, etc., etc. ...”

-and there would almost certainly be less evil actions for evil people would find it harder to convince themselves that such action is excusable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think it is difficult to determine whether people of faith are more likely to be irrational about things other than their religion than the average person - and even harder to determine whether or not the religion is to blame.
I think that most people believe some irrational things, and to what extent they do varies from person to person. I do know tha ' is way too common.
We should have a more active focus on logical thinking in school too.

"We should all have a more active focus on logical thinking in school too."
I just picked that up on the end of your post.
I really dont see what you are driving at with this point and would appreciate any further clarity you could shed on the matter.

I would've thought that school was filled with logical thinking. I would thought that some more meditation or more arty classes would've balanced out an otherwise logical procession of classes , teachers, etc. that make up each school day.
In fact I remember my (then) 15 yr old daughters comments about how cool her math teacher was because he used to have 5 min meditation before his class.
Apparently near everyone in the class liked the idea.

edit: and after having re-read your entire post I can see some new-hitler in there waving the flags.
What on Earth are you on about? "well if you believe it , then I wont say anything".
What do those words mean? Do you mean "you cant think along those lines" or "thinking in that fashion is counterproductive and therefore should be eliminated " ?

What are your true colors,twitehead?

Originally posted by humy
“...If verifiable evidence were the standard in terms of past events, we might as well disregard as false much of world history. ...”

that is simply not true. Where did you get that from? We have verifiable ( physical ) evidence of, for example, evolution, even though we have no current eye witnesses of species change.

Sorry just have to pull you up on that point.

We DO emphatically have observed and recorded examples of Speciation (by even the most rigourus definitions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"We should all have a more active focus on logical thinking in school too."
I just picked that up on the end of your post.
I really dont see what you are driving at with this point and would appreciate any further clarity you could shed on the matter.

I would've thought that school was filled with logical thinking. I would thought that some more ductive and therefore should be eliminated " ?

What are your true colors,twitehead?

[/i]“....I would've thought that school was filled with logical thinking. ...”

I don't know why you would think that. Yes there is demonstration of some logical thinking asp in maths classes, but most of it is about just giving knowledge rather than thinking logically.
They should teach how to think logically without the all-to-common fallacies such as the fallacy of equivocation etc.
They should also teach epistemology and scientific method. It always appals me that they often teach science knowledge but without any proper teaching of scientific method.
It is even possible for you to become a qualified scientist without any understanding of scientific -which is a professional sin.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"We should all have a more active focus on logical thinking in school too."
I just picked that up on the end of your post.
I really dont see what you are driving at with this point and would appreciate any further clarity you could shed on the matter.

I would've thought that school was filled with logical thinking. I would thought that some more ...[text shortened]... ductive and therefore should be eliminated " ?

What are your true colors,twitehead?

Actually logic, rationality, skepticism, critical thinking, and science are dramatically under-taught in schools.

Certainly around here.

In fact apart from vague references in some science classes they are not taught at all.

Originally posted by humy
[/i]“....I would've thought that school was filled with logical thinking. ...”

I don't know why you would think that. Yes there is demonstration of some logical thinking asp in maths classes, but most of it is about just giving knowledge rather than thinking logically.
They should teach how to think logically without the all-to-common fallacies such ...[text shortened]... me a qualified scientist without any understanding of scientific -which is a professional sin.

Sure. They should teach that stuff, too.

I have found very different types of "school" in my experience. The schools in Hungary were real full-on with huge amounts of homework.In Australia it is much more relaxed unless you goto a specific private school.

I suspect the general use of technology (especially the net) will come into the school curriculum more and more, to reflect the realities of the society.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually logic, rationality, skepticism, critical thinking, and science are dramatically under-taught in schools.

Certainly around here.

In fact apart from vague references in some science classes they are not taught at all.

Aye.
I cant disagree with you there.
Perhaps schools should be more pro-choice, and our school courses be more flexible to acomodate more personal and custom-fitted classes for the student , and more "reality-reflected" designs for the administrators.

Originally posted by humy
“..There is no confusing of the two different probabilities because I only ever referred to one of them, the probability of the outcome. Of course the probability of the process of picking the lottery numbers is virtually guaranteed to provide an improbable outcome, but for my purposes that is irrelevant. ...”

but it is relevant! To see why, lets see what yo ople would find it harder to convince themselves that such action is excusable.

No, because I am rational. Not everyone is rational.

In the history of Philosophy Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) is classified as a Rationalist. Do you realize that ? Descartes argued for the existence of God.

Spinoza (1632-1677) is also defined in the history of Philosophy as a Rationalist. He too argued for God's existence.

Gottfried Leibniz (1642 - 1716) is also classified as an exponent of Rationalism. Leibniz argued for the existence of God.

I think some of you Internet skeptics are using terms of the history of Philosophy in a loose way.

Stuart Hackett is a modern Christian philosopher called an exponent of Theistic Rationalism.

Gordon Clark is called an exponent of Revelational Rationalism.

I think a few of you fellas are trying to corner the market on a type of thinking which is by no means the sole property of Atheists.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sorry just have to pull you up on that point.

We DO emphatically have observed and recorded examples of Speciation (by even the most rigourus definitions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

I stand corrected 🙂
I was certainly wrong about that.

Originally posted by humy
[/i]“....I would've thought that school was filled with logical thinking. ...”

I don't know why you would think that. Yes there is demonstration of some logical thinking asp in maths classes, but most of it is about just giving knowledge rather than thinking logically.
They should teach how to think logically without the all-to-common fallacies such ...[text shortened]... me a qualified scientist without any understanding of scientific -which is a professional sin.

sorry -misprint.

that should have been
"...It is even possible for you to become a qualified scientist without any understanding of scientific method -which is a professional sin...."

i.e it is possible for you to become a qualified scientist without any understanding of scientific method and it is a professional sin for a qualified scientist to not understand scientific method.

Originally posted by jaywill

No, because I am rational. Not everyone is rational.

In the history of Philosophy Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) is classified as a [b]Rationalist. Do you realize that ? Descartes argued for the existence of God.

Spinoza (1632-1677) is also defined in the history of Philosophy as a Rationalist. He too argued for God's e ...[text shortened]... to corner the market on a type of thinking which is by no means the sole property of Atheists.[/b]

“...In the history of Philosophy Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) is classified as a Rationalist. Do you realize that ? Descartes argued for the existence of God. ...”

being a “rationalist” philosopher does not equate with being “rational” .
This fact makes you above comment along with the rest of your post irrelevant to my comment of “No, because I am rational. Not everyone is rational.” because of this thus your whole post is flawed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

“...Rationalism should NOT be confused with rationality, nor with rationalization. ...” (my emphasis)


-and I am not a rationalist but I am still rational.

Originally posted by humy
“...In the history of Philosophy Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) is classified as a Rationalist. Do you realize that ? Descartes argued for the existence of God. ...”

being a “rationalist” philosopher does not equate with being “rational” .
This fact makes you above comment along with the rest of your post irrelevant to my comment of “No, because I am rational ...[text shortened]... ationalization. ...” (my emphasis)


-and I am not a rationalist but I am still rational.[/b]

This fact makes you above comment along with the rest of your post irrelevant to my comment of

I think you meant to write, it makes me beneath comment. That sounds more like a rational retort.

Originally posted by jaywill

This fact makes you above comment along with the rest of your post irrelevant to my comment of

I think you meant to write, it makes me beneath comment. That sounds more like a rational retort.

“...I think you meant to write, it makes me beneath comment. ...”

No

Originally posted by humy
“..There is no confusing of the two different probabilities because I only ever referred to one of them, the probability of the outcome. Of course the probability of the process of picking the lottery numbers is virtually guaranteed to provide an improbable outcome, but for my purposes that is irrelevant. ...”

but it is relevant! To see why, lets see what yo ople would find it harder to convince themselves that such action is excusable.

-which is totally irrelevant since just such an unlikely outcome of this kind was expected...

I think you are proving my point for me.

Here's another example: P hears on the news that his best friend was struck by lightning and killed. The odds of being struck by lightning are 1/1,000,000 -- an improbable event. According to Hume's in principle argument, P must have evidence sufficient to counter-balance the intrinsic improbability of the event occurring. But you say that anyone being struck by lightning is an improbable event, and therefore we don't need additional evidence of its occurrence. Doesn't this show that there isn't an in principle argument against believing a testimony?

Let's apply this to Christ's resurrection.

Granted, it is not reasonable to think that Jesus would have naturally come back to life. Corpses, generally speaking, stay dead. But, of course, this is not what is claimed in the NT; the claim being that God raised Jesus supernaturally from the dead. And what are the odds that God (assuming God exists) would raise someone supernaturally from the dead? There's no reason to think the odds are small, but let's say they are and P, who believes in God's existence, hears a report that Jesus was raised from the dead. According to you, P should require no additional evidence for Christ's resurrection, since any case of someone being resurrected by God must already be considered an improbable event.

Thus, the in principle argument fails. Right?

You'll probably insist on the verification of a miracle occurring, but all that we must consider here, as long as we assume that God exists, are the odds of God supernaturally raising anyone from the dead. Even if the odds are extraordinarily low, we shouldn't, as you have argued, require extraordinary evidence.