Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Biff the unclean · 12-11-2002, 09:36 PM

I do understand what you are saying here however one does not require evidence to justify a personal belief to oneself...

Well, I had not wanted to use the word irrational because it seemed too harsh, and Amie seems so nice (with just a touch of snippiness added for spice). But Keith is right, it is the most accurate word to use here.

If you do not require evidence to support a personal belief then you have fooled yourself plain and simple. And even worst than that�you know quite well that you have done so. I cannot imagine what your motives must be for doing such an awful thing to yourself.

Have you ever believed in anything without evidence of it?

Like most people I did until I was three or four years old. By that time I realized that the world did not revolve around me and that things were not so simply because I wanted them to be so.

The great Edward Abbey once wrote, "The supernatural is a failure of the human imagination and an insult to the majesty of the real."

Amie · 12-11-2002, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
I cannot imagine what your motives must be for doing such an awful thing to yourself.

I do not consider believing in God to be doing an awful thing to myself.

Biff the unclean · 12-11-2002, 09:51 PM

That's the part where you have fooled yourself

Amie · 12-11-2002, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
That's the part where you have fooled yourself

you are impossible

12-11-2002, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
That's the part where you have fooled yourself

*tsk tsk* biff. You should know by now how very little difference God makes.

Vorkosigan · 12-11-2002, 11:39 PM

Vorkosigan�s argument that miracles are impossible seems to me as utterly silly.

Glad to have your expert opinion on the matter. No doubt you will be able to...

Clearly, in the case of a single event that he describes there is much room for doubt. But it takes more that the analysis of this single case to justify the conclusion that miracles are impossible.

...give me three cases that differ fundamentally from the one I've proposed. Also it is not my analysis, but that of Pinch and Collins.

Assuming that God is a logically possible being and assuming that God as an omnipotent being can cause events then it follows that he can perform miracles.

Assuming that Aiken Drum exists, it is certain he can levitate. Assuming Glenstorm the Centuar exists, it follows he can foretell the future. Assuming Ben Reich exists, it is clear he can block out mind probes with a simple commercial jingle. Assuming Gandalf the Gray....

To argue that miracles are impossible is to argue either that the existence of God as an omnipotent being is logically impossible. As far as I know this argument has never been successfully offered in print.

Maybe in your hometown. The Christian diety is logically impossible. Other kinds of deities may not be.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting Vorkosigan�s argument. Perhaps he is merely arguing that as fallible human beings we are never warranted in believing that miracles occur.

No, I am arguing that once you toss out natural law, you naturally end up in the situation where the universe is entirely a fiction of your own mind. There is no way around that problem, and there is no "genuine" miracle situation where that analysis does not apply.

If that is all he is arguing he must do more than present his one single case.

No need, all supernatural events suffer from this problem. That is why ESP research is basically dead. You should track down Collins and Pinch's book on ESP research.

The sort of case that Polar Bear suggests when he refers to all the internet infidels given the power to heal in the name of Jesus Christ seems to be the sort of example that falsifies Vorkosigan�s position.

ROTFL. Right. (1)HOw would you know WHO gave them the power? (2) How would you know if they actually had the power, or someone else simply made them think they had it? (3) How would know whether the healings were real or illusory? (4) How would you know...if the world was real anymore?

There is no case that can escape this analysis. Once you get rid of natural law, you're screwed. The world breaks down in an anarchy of miracles.

Clearly this would not prove that miracles occur nor prove that the Christian God is responsible for miraculous events but it is that sort of event that might well convince reasonable people.

<shrug> Some reasonable people have incredibly low standards of evidence.

The idea of replication applies here as well as in science. One reason we accept scientific claims is because we can replicate the experiments that led to them. In Polar Bear�s example we have something similar to replication. The miraculous healing occur more than just one time�infidels (plural) go out and replicate the healings.

Replication cannot save you. The basic issue, trapped inside every supernatural event, is that consciousness is operating on reality outside the body by pure act of Will. Ultimately supernaturalism resides in mind/body dualism that cognitive science has utterly discredited.

I can imagine many other cases in which reasonable people would conclude that God exists.

So can I. But their conclusions would be incorrect. Reasonable people can err if their premises are false or if they have assumptions that they are not aware of.

Suppose we could travel back in time and witness the resurrection of Jesus. Suppose we could travel with him into to hell for three days and accompany him into heaven. None of this would PROVE anything but if enough reasonable people could replicate the experience then we might reasonably conclude that the Christian God is responsible for the resurrection�which I take it a paradigmatic case of a miracle.

Now that's an interesting argument, but alas, we suffer from the same issues that the others do. Now that reality has ceased to have rules, how can we come to conclusions? Suppose we are not seeing Jesus resurrected, but our own wishful thiking projected into reality, using the idea of Jesus as a talisman? How would we know we were really in Heaven, and met God, and not some projection of our mind, or a joke of Loki's, or a manifestation of the cosmic Chi? No way to know, once you toss out the rules...there's no escape from this analysis, O-T.

Vorkosigan

Selsaral · 12-12-2002, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amie:

I don't see any harm in believing in miracles nor do I think it is silly.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amie ]

This sounds a lot like Pascal's Wager. That even if there isn't a god you don't lose anything by believing in him, in fact you might gain a lot of psychological well-being etc. I would dispute this. I think you lose a lot by living your entire life in a lie, basing all your actions and thoughts on a superstition. I think it is far superior to live a realistic and pessimistic life of truth, than to live a happy, delusional life of fairies and spirits.

Amie · 12-12-2002, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Selsaral:
 I think you lose a lot by living your entire life in a lie, basing all your actions and thoughts on a superstition. I think it is far superior to live a realistic and pessimistic life of truth, than to live a happy, delusional life of fairies and spirits.

Thats just it though. You simply believe its a lie...
I do not base all of my actions and thoughts on a "superstition"

Biff the unclean · 12-12-2002, 07:44 AM

you are impossible

How ironic that you should choose to call me that in the very conversation where you are attempting to validate your belief in the impossible.

Way back when, when I was attending graduate school I was also taking magic lessons from "Zorvelo The Great." Z had been a magician on TV in the early 50"s (The Bonomo's Magic Circus) I learned more about the scientific method from him than I did at University.
Miracles are no different from stage magic. One of the oldest tricks there is, is a variation of pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
The Magician waves his magic wand, shouts "Abracadabra!!!", reaches into a previously empty hat and pulls out a bunny. The impression you are left with is that the Magician, by only using a magic word as an extension of his will, made the rabbit appear out of nothing. We all know that this is just a trick, the Magician is fooling us. The bunny was actually in the hollow tabletop and the hat has a removable top. We are looking at nothing more that an ordinary person taking an ordinary rabbit out of a box--but we are seeing a miracle.
Early Magicians were so good at this trick -or their less sophisticated audiences were so poor at seeing through it- that it is the first thing that happens in the Bible. 'And God said, Let there be light and Presto Chango there was light.' Applause, applause. God's will makes light appear. It's a description of the rabbit in the hat trick only with light subing for the lagomorph .

What science does is it looks for the hollow tabletop. There is always a "hollow tabletop." Usually you don't see it because it's right in front of your face while you are trying to figure out how magic words work.

Magic words work because they misdirect you from the actual mechanics of what is happening. The Bible is nothing but magic words designed specifically to misdirect your attention from the people who are picking your pockets.

When you see a miracle you are either fooling yourself or someone else is fooling you. It's either a delusion or an illusion. There is no real magic. The effect always has the appropriate cause. If it appears otherwise then look closer.

Some people find it fun to be fooled, they actually get angry at those who explain the tricks to them. And worse; they try to convince other people that they should let themselves be fooled along with them.

thebeave · 12-12-2002, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
 you are impossible

When you see a miracle you are either fooling yourself or someone else is fooling you. It's either a delusion or an illusion. There is no real magic. The effect always has the appropriate cause. If it appears otherwise then look closer.

Some people find it fun to be fooled, they actually get angry at those who explain the tricks to them. And worse; they try to convince other people that they should let themselves be fooled along with them.

What's even more mind blowing is that occassionally a skeptic-in-disguise will demonstrate some "psychic ability" to an audience (like cold reading a la John Edwards) and every one in the audience goes "ooh!" and "aah!". Then after its over the skeptic admits that it was all just a trick, and shows how its done. Even after boldly admitting he was a fraud, occasionally some audience members will whisper among themselves, "Well, I still think he has some psychic abilities".

I'm convinced that as long as there are people that gullible and closed minded out there, a skeptic can only conclude that You...just...can't...win.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2002, 09:36 PM	#101
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I do understand what you are saying here however one does not require evidence to justify a personal belief to oneself... Well, I had not wanted to use the word irrational because it seemed too harsh, and Amie seems so nice (with just a touch of snippiness added for spice). But Keith is right, it is the most accurate word to use here. If you do not require evidence to support a personal belief then you have fooled yourself plain and simple. And even worst than that�you know quite well that you have done so. I cannot imagine what your motives must be for doing such an awful thing to yourself. Have you ever believed in anything without evidence of it? Like most people I did until I was three or four years old. By that time I realized that the world did not revolve around me and that things were not so simply because I wanted them to be so. The great Edward Abbey once wrote, "The supernatural is a failure of the human imagination and an insult to the majesty of the real."

12-11-2002, 09:51 PM	#103
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	That's the part where you have fooled yourself

12-11-2002, 11:39 PM	#106
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Vorkosigan�s argument that miracles are impossible seems to me as utterly silly. Glad to have your expert opinion on the matter. No doubt you will be able to... Clearly, in the case of a single event that he describes there is much room for doubt. But it takes more that the analysis of this single case to justify the conclusion that miracles are impossible. ...give me three cases that differ fundamentally from the one I've proposed. Also it is not my analysis, but that of Pinch and Collins. Assuming that God is a logically possible being and assuming that God as an omnipotent being can cause events then it follows that he can perform miracles. Assuming that Aiken Drum exists, it is certain he can levitate. Assuming Glenstorm the Centuar exists, it follows he can foretell the future. Assuming Ben Reich exists, it is clear he can block out mind probes with a simple commercial jingle. Assuming Gandalf the Gray.... To argue that miracles are impossible is to argue either that the existence of God as an omnipotent being is logically impossible. As far as I know this argument has never been successfully offered in print. Maybe in your hometown. The Christian diety is logically impossible. Other kinds of deities may not be. Perhaps I am misinterpreting Vorkosigan�s argument. Perhaps he is merely arguing that as fallible human beings we are never warranted in believing that miracles occur. No, I am arguing that once you toss out natural law, you naturally end up in the situation where the universe is entirely a fiction of your own mind. There is no way around that problem, and there is no "genuine" miracle situation where that analysis does not apply. If that is all he is arguing he must do more than present his one single case. No need, all supernatural events suffer from this problem. That is why ESP research is basically dead. You should track down Collins and Pinch's book on ESP research. The sort of case that Polar Bear suggests when he refers to all the internet infidels given the power to heal in the name of Jesus Christ seems to be the sort of example that falsifies Vorkosigan�s position. ROTFL. Right. (1)HOw would you know WHO gave them the power? (2) How would you know if they actually had the power, or someone else simply made them think they had it? (3) How would know whether the healings were real or illusory? (4) How would you know...if the world was real anymore? There is no case that can escape this analysis. Once you get rid of natural law, you're screwed. The world breaks down in an anarchy of miracles. Clearly this would not prove that miracles occur nor prove that the Christian God is responsible for miraculous events but it is that sort of event that might well convince reasonable people. <shrug> Some reasonable people have incredibly low standards of evidence. The idea of replication applies here as well as in science. One reason we accept scientific claims is because we can replicate the experiments that led to them. In Polar Bear�s example we have something similar to replication. The miraculous healing occur more than just one time�infidels (plural) go out and replicate the healings. Replication cannot save you. The basic issue, trapped inside every supernatural event, is that consciousness is operating on reality outside the body by pure act of Will. Ultimately supernaturalism resides in mind/body dualism that cognitive science has utterly discredited. I can imagine many other cases in which reasonable people would conclude that God exists. So can I. But their conclusions would be incorrect. Reasonable people can err if their premises are false or if they have assumptions that they are not aware of. Suppose we could travel back in time and witness the resurrection of Jesus. Suppose we could travel with him into to hell for three days and accompany him into heaven. None of this would PROVE anything but if enough reasonable people could replicate the experience then we might reasonably conclude that the Christian God is responsible for the resurrection�which I take it a paradigmatic case of a miracle. Now that's an interesting argument, but alas, we suffer from the same issues that the others do. Now that reality has ceased to have rules, how can we come to conclusions? Suppose we are not seeing Jesus resurrected, but our own wishful thiking projected into reality, using the idea of Jesus as a talisman? How would we know we were really in Heaven, and met God, and not some projection of our mind, or a joke of Loki's, or a manifestation of the cosmic Chi? No way to know, once you toss out the rules...there's no escape from this analysis, O-T. Vorkosigan

12-12-2002, 07:44 AM	#109
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	you are impossible How ironic that you should choose to call me that in the very conversation where you are attempting to validate your belief in the impossible. Way back when, when I was attending graduate school I was also taking magic lessons from "Zorvelo The Great." Z had been a magician on TV in the early 50"s (The Bonomo's Magic Circus) I learned more about the scientific method from him than I did at University. Miracles are no different from stage magic. One of the oldest tricks there is, is a variation of pulling a rabbit out of a hat. The Magician waves his magic wand, shouts "Abracadabra!!!", reaches into a previously empty hat and pulls out a bunny. The impression you are left with is that the Magician, by only using a magic word as an extension of his will, made the rabbit appear out of nothing. We all know that this is just a trick, the Magician is fooling us. The bunny was actually in the hollow tabletop and the hat has a removable top. We are looking at nothing more that an ordinary person taking an ordinary rabbit out of a box--but we are seeing a miracle. Early Magicians were so good at this trick -or their less sophisticated audiences were so poor at seeing through it- that it is the first thing that happens in the Bible. 'And God said, Let there be light and Presto Chango there was light.' Applause, applause. God's will makes light appear. It's a description of the rabbit in the hat trick only with light subing for the lagomorph . What science does is it looks for the hollow tabletop. There is always a "hollow tabletop." Usually you don't see it because it's right in front of your face while you are trying to figure out how magic words work. Magic words work because they misdirect you from the actual mechanics of what is happening. The Bible is nothing but magic words designed specifically to misdirect your attention from the people who are picking your pockets. When you see a miracle you are either fooling yourself or someone else is fooling you. It's either a delusion or an illusion. There is no real magic. The effect always has the appropriate cause. If it appears otherwise then look closer. Some people find it fun to be fooled, they actually get angry at those who explain the tricks to them. And worse; they try to convince other people that they should let themselves be fooled along with them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.