@lillycoyote wrote: That, obviously, is the nature of “belief” and of “faith.” You should perhaps refresh yourself on the definition of the term belief or use another word in your arguments. Many people who believe, many people of faith actually understand that it is a belief, that it requires “a leap of faith”. It is you who do not seem to understand that about believers and people of faith.
These things are so tricky. I don’t believe in belief. Seems like a contradictory statement, doesn’t it? Yet I am using believe in two different ways. The first “believe” is a conclusion based on evidence I have seen. The second “belief” refers to a position taken on the basis of no scientific evidence.
So when Collins uses his leap of faith to believe in God, it discredits his thinking process for me. I don’t understand belief. I don’t see how people could use something so precarious and unsupportable (scientifically speaking) as a way to make decisions about life. It seems wrong to me and poorly thought out.
Now a gazillion people probably wouldn’t engage in a practice if it didn’t offer some benefit. Clearly it doesn’t offer a benefit in understanding how the world works. So it must offer some other benefit. I think it offers a psychological benefit. I think it comforts people when they don’t know things. In other words, it is a kind of placebo. It helps people believe they know something about the world, when that something is of dubious practical value.
However, there is evidence it has a psychological value. On the other hand, there are other practices that do not require belief that have the same value.
The problem, as @CWOTUS suggests, is that people want to make public policy based on their beliefs, and this is a serious problem. It is dangerous. It hurts a lot of people. It leads to cuts in science budgets. It leads to the watering down of science education in public schools. It causes people to make statements about God punishing gays or various peoples who are hurt in Hurricanes and other such events and it prevents us from planning properly for future problems.
These things are hard to see because we can’t see alternative futures. Still they are logical conclusions when one looks at history.
It is very frustrating to talk to people who don’t know how science works. We seem to end up talking right past each other. People don’t want to deal with the issues. They say if you compare God to the tooth fairy you are insulting them. With that kind of reaction, how can you have a conversation? What imaginary creature can you compare God to in order to have the conversation without insulting someone?
If you say God isn’t imaginary, then you have to define it so we can talk. Once we define God, we can then talk about evidence to support the idea, unless of course you deny the idea that evidence matters. If you posit an idea, but offer no evidence for it—no scientific evidence, then either you don’t think science is useful, or you must have some other reason for not providing evidence.
If we don’t agree on the same standards for judging the reliability of knowledge, what is there to talk about? We should be talking about standards, but we never do. We keep going back to the ostensible argument. This is the willfulness that upsets me. Why can’t we talk about how we gain knowledge instead of arguing about things where we are talking right past each other? What motivates people to avoid this conversation?
@WillWorkForChocolate I don’t think I have claimed to be intelligent very often. In fact, I think that I have claimed just the opposite far more often. Indeed, look back at any discussion about intelligence and about IQ, and I’ll think you’ll find I state that I am probably below average. Would you care to dispute that?
Clearly, there needs to be a way to say what we think without insulting people. Yet, it seems to me that people will read an insult into what I say no matter what I say. You’ve heard me say something that sounds insulting before, so why would I change?
Someone mentioned me being moderated for intemperate remarks before. They question why I continue to talk about this topic. I do admit that I was intemperate, but it was hard for me to resist the provocation. There are people here who seem to attribute the worst to me at all times. They seem to assume I am the worst person ever, and hope I will go away. That’s fine.
I believe I have the right to make judgments even on fluther. I know that other people feel free to make judgments about me. You can just look at this discussion to see that. I have tried very hard not to make judgments about anyone, and to discuss people’s ideas, as our community manager has suggested. I’m not perfect and surely will be moderated a gazillion times over, but I honestly don’t know how to convey my thinking without insulting people who take my criticisms personally. I can’t control how other people think or behave. I don’t even want to.
I am sorry for hurting people’s feelings. I’m sorry if I said things in ways that people felt were insulting. I really do respect people, but I really hate some of their ideas. I have a problem, though, when I think someone is dangerous. It’s hard to separate a person from their ideas and hard to keep my feelings about their ideas to myself. So I don’t know what to do. I could stop talking about anything that raises this kind of controversy if people would prefer.
There is no reason why anyone should care about what I say. Certainly, no one is being forced to pay attention. These are things I care about passionately, and also where I don’t think I am going to change anyone’s mind. I learned that ages ago. So, as always, I write to see what I think, as much as to try to share my ideas, which so many people can’t stand. I am willing to censor myself if people like, though. In any case, I’m not complaining about the responses. Makes my back get all tense, and I get a little headache. I guess that’s what they call seeing red, but it’s my choice. I don’t have to pay attention, either.
And I’m perfectly willing to admit that I am highly ignorant, too, if that helps. I know I’m ignorant. I know I’m not very smart. I make lots of mistakes when it comes to other people and relating to them. I’ve been socially inept all my life. The world doesn’t run the way I think it should, and I hurt more people than I ever wanted to because of my ignorance. Sigh. I’m sorry I’m such a clunky guy. I’m trying to learn, but obviously I’m not very good at it. Again, my apologies, and I beg your indulgence as I try to learn, and to understand it is difficult for me, since I am so stupid I have to ask questions like this that no one takes at face value. I will say this: it’s hard to learn how to be nicer if no one will talk about practical things, and insist on talking about what they think is my secret (or not-so-secret) agenda. But then, I suppose, no few have any good will for me (all my own fault, I’m sure), so I shouldn’t be surprised. Well, I remain unrepentant about my own stupidity. I’m doing the best I can.
Composing members:
0
