GameBanshee Forums

Re: Re: Re: Re: My friends and family

Originally posted by Aegis
But that would still be living a lie. He would not be living true to his feelings and perceptions, thus making them untrue.

If he doesn't believe in a god now, then changes his perceptions on this, neither his old, nor his new opinions would be absolutely "untrue." Instead, they would be *relatively* untrue--that is, untrue relative to a particular state of mind. When he believed in a god, his "godless" state of mind of mind will be perceived as having been untrue. When he was an atheist, his "godly" state of mind will be perceived as untrue.

Surprising as it may seem, I don't think of myself as an atheist, but rather an agnostic. If a vision of God were to appear in front of me then I would freely admit that I am wrong in so far not believing in his/her/it's existence. So far I have seen many things I consider beautiful, and incredible, however I have not seen anything that has convinced me that God exists, rather that the life we lead is an oft-wondrous thing, no more, no less.
As ever, this view of mine may change, as new experiences unfold.

I suppose it depends on how one defines, or rather attempts to define, God--or whatever. Can't say I've seen much that gives evidence of a simple, straightforward influence on the surface from an anthropomorphic deity, but I figure that any deity worthy of creating a universe is going to be so far beyond my comprehension that it isn't funny--it's hysterical. So I withhold judgement, hoping that if I listen closely enough, I'll hear the pauses in civilization and nature.

Originally posted by fable
So I withhold judgement, hoping that if I listen closely enough, I'll hear the pauses in civilization and nature.

To be honest, that's one of the best philosophies I've seen in quite a while. Simple yet elegant.
They're nice when you find them, aren't they?

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
They're nice when you find them, aren't they?

Indeed they are.

Re: Re: Why do people believe?

Originally posted by fable


And one hundred years ago, many doctors (not to mention laymen) were discussing psychoanalysis as either preoposterous magic, or quackery. Sound-on-film had been invented by Dic!son working in Edison's Labs in the early 1890's (they even made a short film to demonstrate it), but major investors refused to take the time to go to New Jersey to hear it. They knew it was a lie and a fraud in advance.

Louis Pasteur was greeted as a liar by nearly all the newspapers and scientific establishments of his day, in France and abroad, when he alleged that diseases were caused by tiny, unseen beasts--hence the word, "microbes." He declared that different microbes caused different diseases, and that a weakened form of a microbe, easily fought off, provided immunity against a disease. This initally made a laughingstock--as did his work on crystallography, which developed into the science of stereochemistry.

Mind, I'm not saying that crystals, faith healing, auras, fairies, astrology or anything else of a similar nature works. I'm only suggesting that it's well to keep an open but not credulous mind, remembering that the main reasons some fully accepted ideas and inventions in modern Western culture were initially rejected were 1) they were thought ridiculous from the first, or 2) a means of scientific verification had yet to be developed. "False and strange" is a label that's too easily accepted. Good science consists in maintaining, not that something is false, but that it is not proven. Credulity is bad, but one has to be careful to avoid falling into the opposite trap.

Aromatherapy is a good example of a "quack science" that has only recently been accepted as a small branch of chemistry. It is still burdened by the bulk of non-scientific and sometimes silly material that has been promulgated in its name over the centuries, but scientists have finally acknowledged that yes, just as topical treatment on or within the body of herbs (or their medically distilled ingredients; the modern science of pharmacology) can produce a wide range of beneficial results, so the vaporization of some herbs, distilled in oils, can have a profound effect on various areas of the body. The scientific community refused to accept aromatherapy for a long time simply because they refused to test the action of vapor molecules on the body, despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence of its success.

sorry for the late reply

It is true that you have to remain open minded but as you say yourself you don't think that "crystals, faith healing, auras, fairies, astrology or anything else of a similar nature works.". You use the example of Louis Pasteur as someone who was greeted with ridicule and scorn. But people, especially the scientific community, were quickly won over when presented with the evidence. And that is the difference - there is no evidence for any of the things you mentioned.

Recently the British government did a quite thorough study on a large number of alternative medicines and found that almost all of it was completely ineffective. There have been similar studies in the past and by now you would think that people know it doesn't work but many persist in believing against the overwhelming evidence. It is very important of course that such studies take place so we find out both what doesn't work but also what does, the British study found that there were reason to investigate homeopathy further.

Many of the things you mention fable have been thoroughly discredited but people still spent their money on it. You haven’t said why you think this is - mistrust of experts and scientists?

Just a note on agnosticism. There are degrees of agnosticism - you can hold the belief that you have not seen sufficient evidence to decide either way. You can take the stronger position that there IS not enough evidence to decide either way and so everybody ought to be agnostics. And finally you can take the extreme and rare view that it is in principle impossible to ever know about the existence of god.

I think that people ultimately believe in religion because it explains death. For centuries, religion was the science of the day; it explained how the world worked and gave a reason why. Over the millenia, science has explained many of the things that religion used to: why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, the seasons, tides, etc. However, the only thing science cannot explain is death, and what happens to us when our time on earth expires. And that's a scary thought because no one likes to think that when our life ends, we will be consigned to oblivion.

Regardless of which religion someone subscribes to, a common theme is the afterlife. Whatever you call it: Valhalla, Heaven, Sha-ka-ree, Nirvana or whatever, there is the promise of something greater. One common theme is that priesthoods of the religions have used this need that people have to explain death for social control. That is, if you act in a moral way, you will be rewarded in the afterlife and if you have not acted in a moral way, or are not repentant in your sins, you will be punished in death.

I think that religion comes basically down to self-centeredness. We want to think that we are part of something greater and most folks don't want to believe that their death will mean the end of their existence. People send their bodies to cryonics labs (or the bodies of their parents) because they don't want to be permenantly dead. Similarly, I think that people believe in God because they want to believe that there is something that will keep them from being permenantly gone.

As to why people believe in "snake charms" and other quack "sciences" (palm reading, Ouija boards, etc.), I think people need to believe in something more than what science tells them and what their religion says. I think that in some cases, they are looking for hope where there is none. For instance, many people with terminal illnesses either find religion or go out of their way to find a cure outside of modern medicine because when the doctor tells them that they have six months to live, they enter a denial mode that wants to refute that and live longer.

I also think that people want to have guidance in their lives because it absolves them of personal responsibility. For instance, if someone frequents a fortune teller, everything in their life is suddenly dependent upon fate or what the fortune teller has told them, not that person's actions or inactions. If bad things happen, they were "meant to be" not the result of incompetence, negligence or poor decisions.

I believe that it comes down to personal needs and upbringing. For instance, on an intellectual level, I do not believe in God. I have found no compelling argument nor empirical evidence that suggests that a God (of any name) exists. Still, I have grown up in a family environment that fosters faith and I consider myself a Presbyterian. Do I believe everything that the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA) says or publishes in the Book of Order or Book of Confessions? No; in fact my faith is very different from what it probably should be (if I were truly a decent and in order Presbyterian) but it is so ingrained in me, that I put my intellectual beliefs on hold. Can I explain it or rationalise this seeming conflict of belief? No; as our friend Maharlika said a few pages back, it comes down to simple faith, that is, by scientific standards, completely unsubstantiated yet still there.

In other words @HLD, it is blind faith, no?

No, I think blind faith is something that people just have. That is, they accept it without question. I have questioned my faith, much to the consternation of my parents, friends and pastors. It's a curious conclusion and balance I have, and some days I oscillate between the two ends constantly, and I am at a lack of properly being able to explain it in words.

I think blind faith (in both God or aethism) to be destructive because it does not cause someone to question their own beliefs. I think that many people have their faith (or lack of faith) handed to them; it's either the culture's, their parent's or otherwise given to them by someone else. In any event, a person who follows blindly has no ownership. It is only through questioning one's beliefs (or unbeliefs) that someone can claim ownership of a faith.

Now, the question is: how can someone believe in a being who's existence cannot be proven, and does not habitually intervene in the daily lives of human beings? I don't know. At some point, you just have to believe. At it's heart, I guess you could say I subscribe to blind faith because there's no other basis for my belief. However, I will be the first to admit that I do not know for sure whether or not I am right, and I will never say that someone else's beliefs or faith is wrong because that's not my place to say.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Now, the question is: how can someone believe in a being who's existence cannot be proven, and does not habitually intervene in the daily lives of human beings? I don't know. At some point, you just have to believe. At it's heart, I guess you could say I subscribe to blind faith because there's no other basis for my belief. However, I will be the first to admit that I do not know for sure whether or not I am right, and I will never say that someone else's beliefs or faith is wrong because that's not my place to say.

Apparently there is as much proof that Jesus Christ existed as there is that Julius Ceaser was the leader of Rome.

I am sure i have spouted it before but i keep hearing it so everyone else shall as well

Personally, i think whatever works for the individual and doesn't cause harm to another is alright by me, it's when the issue is forced upon another and they are emotionally damaged from that aggression that i think the line should be drawn.

Re: Re: Re: Why do people believe?

Originally posted by Tom
It is true that you have to remain open minded but as you say yourself you don't think that "crystals, faith healing, auras, fairies, astrology or anything else of a similar nature works."

Not quite. I've written that I'm not suggesting they work. I've also not suggested they're failures. Fairies, for example, sound completely preposterous. But let's remember that at the self-supporting nature colony of Findhorn, in Britain, a group of people who talk constantly to plants and spirits, believe a theory of a conscious Earth, and perform religious rituals among 'em grow 6' cabbages, strawberries as large as your fist, etc; and they've done this for more than 20 years. I'm sure much of this was a matter of intelligent planting and good soil, but not all; the question is, what among the non-traditional, seemingly frivolous New Age-y techniques of the Findhorn folks actually produces the remarkable results? And if the techniques are not capable of study through the scientific method, does that automatically mean these same techniques cease to contain any validity?

You use the example of Louis Pasteur as someone who was greeted with ridicule and scorn. But people, especially the scientific community, were quickly won over when presented with the evidence. And that is the difference - there is no evidence for any of the things you mentioned.

Quickly? It took Pasteur more than a decade to gain support. Dic!son's results required more than 30 years before anybody would give them a serious glance. Artistarchus of Samos, who developed a solar-centric theory of the solar system, was discredited among his fellow Greeks. It took the development of tools sufficient to observe the epicycles of planets more than a thousand years later before he was slowly given his due. Does a thousand years sound quick to you? On a geological scale, certainly, but for us humans...

In short, gathering evidence first requires possessing the tools to gain evidence. If we don't have the tools and out-of-hand completely dismiss the unprovable, we risk being the majority of doctors who called Freud a "quack," or the scientific community that claimed the earth was the center of the universe because it was, as so many ancient scientists maintained, physically demonstrable.

Recently the British government did a quite thorough study on a large number of alternative medicines and found that almost all of it was completely ineffective.

This is a blanket statement beneath which we could, with respect, sweep the world. What study? What medicines? I could counter by pointing out that many of the herbal alternative remedies used by folk cultures across the world, from the Mayans to the Watuzis, to the Lapps to the Medes, have formed the core of prescription medication to this day. If you doubt this, I strongly suggest you check out the Professional's Handbook of Complementary & Alternative Medicines--a publication that's highly respected, and used constantly in almost all US hospitals. Its editors and authors are both doctors of pharmacology; the entire editorial board and contributing staff (more than thirty in number) is, as well. The work is nearly 800 pages long in its last edition, from Acidophilus to Yohimbe, and includes discussions of alternative medicines according to chemical components, actions, reported uses, dosages, adverse reactions, interactions, contraindications, special considerations, references, and analyses.

In other words, it ain't no New Age gusher.

You'll find that it shows most alternative medicines have proven effectiveness of some sort, though usually without the broad application and ridiculous claims made by the modern equivalent of 19th century traveling hucksters and hysterical cure-all searchers. Even the old herbals (that is, the books that prescribed herbal remedies back in the early Renaissance, and largely reproduced an oral tradition going further back into the Middle Ages) often pointed accurately to herbal remedies for basic maladies.

Many of the things you mention fable have been thoroughly discredited but people still spent their money on it. You haven’t said why you think this is - mistrust of experts and scientists?

It's the same reason why people turn off all access to such things and trash it without investigating it further: a degree of faith. Whether the faith lies in science, in the visible world, or in unseen forces, people need something to form the basis of a system they can apply to the world, for it to make sense, and offer hope. Such, at least, is my understanding of it. For what that's worth.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Apparently there is as much proof that Jesus Christ existed as there is that Julius Ceaser was the leader of Rome.

I don't think it's a question of whether or not Jesus lived so much as whether or not he was the son of God. As you say, there are lots of people throughout history whose existence we simply accept without question, despite the fact that no one has ever seen their body or tomb. Ghengis Khan is another example, but the difference is that no religion sprung up around him, nor did he ever (to my knowledge) claim to be an incarnation of divinity.

Well said @HLD.
@Sleepo-I draw the line a bit earlier, I do not think that anyone should have a system of beliefs forced upon them or even attempted to be forced upon them.

Recently the British government did a quite thorough study on a large number of alternative medicines and found that almost all of it was completely ineffective.

I kind of remember this particular study, if i recall correctly it wasn't particularly thorough and it wasn't very large scale. Wasn't it something to do with vitamin pills and their lack of effectiveness. I would have to check back a few months but it mostly stated that the vitamin pills that we take do not have a benefit against certain conditions such as heart disease.

@HLD, that is the interesting thing, many christians i know think just because he did exist then that is proof enough that all of it is true. It is much the same as many of the thoughts about the evolution concept and other such theories/beliefs because one part can be prooved people are happy to just accept it all, strange really, of course that doesn't apply to everyone but i know some people who are happy to think like that.

@Ode, interestingly enough if one is to follow up on true Christianity then the Christian is not supposed to force their views on their children, in fact they are supposed to just put the facts (as they see them) in front of the child...apparently it has to be a natural acceptance, not coersion. Personally i would prefer to see some state of some belief instilled rather than a more anarchic ideal.

@Sleep-So far all the Christians I'm friends with haven't mentioned all the facts, and have waited until their children's beliefs were firmly cemented before introducing them to other possibilities. Thankfully the kids are intelligent enough to at least question and become thinking Christians.

I'd sooner everyone got the option to choose, even if it did lead to more anarchic ideals.

Great explanation, HLD...

...I share your thoughts 100%!

My parents and I DO question things when it comes to certain points in Catholicism. One good example is the use of contraceptives.

We don't go to church every Sundays.

But we do have our private morning prayers, and no, they're not your proverbial Our Fathers and Hail Marys... it's more like really talking to Him.

On another note, it is wrong to think that we only think of our God or religion when crises set in.

I've been told to always try to be aware of God's blessings and give thanks, no matter how small or seemingly trivial some of them may be.

Yes, I hate it when people "hard sell" their religion to others --- they are just eliciting the opposite effect of their intentions.

fable's comment is very rationally explained --- coming from (him as) a non-believer, I appreciate his objective viewpoints.

IMO, true believers can discern where one can stand and adapt to the changing world, adjust what is necessary, and still believes... because he has a PERSONAL relationship with God and not just because everyone around him says so.

So I withhold judgement, hoping that if I listen closely enough, I'll hear the pauses in civilization and nature.

I know how you love poetry and witty one liners etc @Fabman, but pray tell what does that mean?

it's more like really talking to Him.

I don't want to be cheeky, but has he ever said anything back?

Also; Is it only me who can't just chose what they believe? A common answer to the question 'Why do you believe in God?' is 'It gives me motivation to do right', and a common answer to the qestion 'Why does he believe in God' is 'He is frightened of dying/being meaningless' etc.
Even though I would love not to die, and to be meaningful and to have motivation to do right* I still can't just magically decide to believe in something because it suits me...

and something else (maybe this question should really be directed at me, but you can think about it too): If there is nothing else beyond what we see (as I believe). If God is just an instinctive creation by peoples imaginations, love is just a reflex to get people having sex and man is just an creation of evolution - Wherever did we evolve such a useless and destructive organ as a believing brain?


* Of course I do believe in my own ignificance, and am motivated to do right, just in case you were wondering.

So I withhold judgement, hoping that if I listen closely enough, I'll hear the pauses in civilization and nature.

I know how you love poetry and witty one liners etc @Fabman, but pray tell what does that mean?

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

I can't put it more clearly than Blake did, in that.

Hmmm, these are the threads that trouble is sown from

There is a great difference between personal belief and organised religion. To me, organised religion is just an older power structure to organise and control people as a society grows larger. Personal belief on the other hand, appears to me to mostly serve as a consolation for the fear of death and an easy explanation for all that is unknown. This personal belief can of course be inspired by others (usually your peers), thus all christians/hindu/neopagans/etc tend to have the same basic concepts.

Religion often claim to be the guardians of morality and upholders of codes of conduct, but I would argue that today these are integrated into our society with or without religion, and are surprisingly similar regardless of faith. Thus, any person going about his life in a civil manner, abiding by the laws of his land and behaving reasonably to others, will pass for a good person in any religion. That leaves ritual and some quirks specific to various faiths, such as having to go to church, praying five times per day or having a omnipotent deity taking notes about your sexlife. Personally, I think that if there is an omnipotent being in our vicinity, we are seriously overestimating our significance. I find the existence of such a being highly unlikely, but either way has no impact on my life. The meaning of life, as I see it, is to make the best of it while you have it.

Similarly, the beliefs in crystals and what not, could be explained by the simplified theories by which they are explained. Science today is seldom easy to grasp, usually with complex terminologies and based on a high degree of previous knowledge, which puts it out of reach for the general populace. Even scientists have difficulties understanding not-so-distant fields, and are as lost as the rest of us in unrelated areas.

@Sleep: Nope, not the vitamin study.

@Fable: The effects of something can be measured without understanding of the principles behind it. If I have 1000 persons with ulcers and I give 500 of them Horse radish as an ailment, if they get better as compared to the 500 that don't get Horse radish, then Horse radish has an effect. This doesn't say anything about how Horse radish works, why it works, etc, and how reliable the measurement is depends both on the number of subjects and the size of the effect.