Gus-I'm still figuring out the controls of this thing. I wouldn't know what to quote.
Atheists have faith in things too.
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
And if faith in God has brought someone, relief, understanding, they quit drugs, they repeatedly feel 'His' presence when they pray...ie. inductive evidence that having faith in God works for them
why should they stop?
I can see where none of this is evidence FOR YOU. And I can see why it would be odd to grant a tax free status to a group of them, but we all work on faith.
The friend who has helped in the past may in fact be evil - but most people do not IN REALITY place an asterisk beside their friend's character. They have faith that the experiences they have had indicate this person is good. They do not think in terms of statistics and inductive processes. They have drawn conclusions. In fact most people tend to think in terms of conclusions, whatever they say
in those very special types of conversations where one takes a metaposition towards oneself.
Most of the atheists I know - many friends, one parent - have morals that do not have asterisks, even if in a philosophical conversation - which makes up what .0000001 % of their lives - they might admit that logically their position is merely subjective.
i'll grapple with the rest later
this however....
the presumption is one of rationality
are those incidents the norm or exceptions to the rule?
how much reasoning do you think went into that conclusion?
i mean .... spare the rod and spoil the child?
surely that has been thoroughly debunked as a viable and productive method in child rearing practices?
do you really think one could advocate that and not fall foul of other laws that safeguard freedoms for the individual?
is that not goddamn child abuse?
will we not lock these people up if social services are privy to the beatings?
twist all you want
it is deviant thought and aberrant behavior
the will be consequences and penalties meted out
here is a somewhat similar situation where social customs are blindly accepted and practiced without any question of relevance or rationale
"Balikci (1967: 623) has discussed the various cultural strategies, including child betrothal, adaption, and importation of wives, that were employed to ensure satisfactory recruitment of females into the adult population. Interestingly, such practices existed alongside female infanticide, the very practice that contributed above all others to the shortage of women!"( Freeman, Milton M. R. (1971) A social and ecological analysis of systematic female infancide among the Netsilik Eskimo. American Anthropologist 73, 5: pp. 1013)
"There is reason to believe, however, that these explanations are post facto rationalizations, consequences of, rather than contributory to, female infanticide. For example, Rasmussen himself reports :the Netsilik never think of reasoning with themselves" about their beliefs, "but simply react to what some event or other may force upon their notice" (Ibid:206); and again, "It is said that it is so, and therefore it is so" (Ibid.: 207). A similar conclusion is reached by Steenhoven, who writes, with regard to the delay in conceiving while nursing: "But the Eskimo do not usually rationalize along these lines; they have just accepted the practice of infanticide as a custom" (Steenhoven 1962: 50). (Freeman, Milton M. R. (1971) A social and ecological analysis of systematic female infancide among the Netsilik Eskimo. American Anthropologist 73, 5: pp. 1014)[/i]
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I believe there is one country in the world where it is illegal. It is widely practiced and if you start a thread here people will defend it. I think this has happened.
I think it is in fact rational to argue that hitting children is good. I do not think you can find a logical flaw. You can throw some studies at people. And they will come back with others.
I know it is wrong via intuition.
Not if they ritualize it. Kid over knee, hand brush or belt, admonishment....
It is not my position. It is a postion opened up by 'do unto others....'. I believe these people are quite honest that they think they are preventing their children from having pain later in life - by becoming criminals, by lacking discipline.
I am not Gustav, making a case for corporal punishment. (a hint about where I live)
lets assume we give kids and adults the same fundamental rights
a sanctity of person
ask the kid if it is good being beaten
ask an adult the same
never mind intuition
poll every kid
they will all say no
surely that feedback outta account for something, ja?
or should we formulate laws without considering who exactly we are formulating these for?
as for the golden rule ...... what do you give so much weight to exceptions? do we have to disregard that it works in most instances simply because of a masochistic few?
sorry simon
i am aware that you are not making the case
a sanctity of person
ask the kid if it is good being beaten
ask an adult the same
never mind intuition
poll every kid
they will all say no
surely that feedback outta account for something, ja?
or should we formulate laws without considering who exactly we are formulating these for?
as for the golden rule ...... what do you give so much weight to exceptions? do we have to disregard that it works in most instances simply because of a masochistic few?
sorry simon
i am aware that you are not making the case
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
No prob.lets assume we give kids and adults the same fundamental rights
a sanctity of person
ask the kid if it is good being beaten
ask an adult the same
never mind intuition
poll every kid
they will all say no
surely that feedback outta account for something, ja?
or should we formulate laws without considering who exactly we are formulating these for?
as for the golden rule ...... what do you give so much weight to exceptions? do we have to disregard that it works in most instances simply because of a masochistic few?
sorry simon
i am aware that you are not making the case
Actually I think you find problems all over the place. I just hit on two off the top of my head.
general problems
1) many people OBVIOUSLY do not know what is good for them, they will then use the GR to do these things to other people
2) we are all different, what you want done to you does not always, regularly, usually match what I want done to me
3) many people will assume a kind of implicit, if I were confused like you are (or evil, etc.)
??
ok
what then?
what are the implications of those facts and how do we as a society deal with them?
They certainly have evidence that the act of "having faith" provides benefit - but that in itself is no evidence for the truth of the tenet of that "faith".
The evidence they have is not rationally attributable to the tenet of their faith (i.e. belief in God), but rather their "faith" is a focal for assisting with psychological matters that may in turn lead to benefit in physical matters (e.g. providing focus/reason for giving up drugs).
Why stop? Why indeed, if it is the only way they have found to assist in helping their life. But this does not make the tenet of the faith correct.
I miss the point of the asterisk, sorry.
You are also flinging "faith" around to cover both religious faith (zero evidence rationally attributable to the tenet of the faith) and colloquial faith (probability of accurate assessment of outcome given evidence attributable to the matter).
Yes, everyone has "faith" if you use the term to cover both - but there is this distinct difference that needs to be stated, else people use the term inappropriately.
"Faith" in the existence of God is based on no evidence that can be rationally attributable to that tenet.
"Faith" in such things as the behaviour of friends is based on vast amounts of evidence that can be rationally attributed to the matter - such as interactions with that person, and interactions with people in general etc.
Do you see the difference?
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
And the same could be said for the friend's goodness. Further, my main point was, their faith is working for them.
Well, that is a hypothesis. Even if true it might not be in their best interests to think so. And last, it is merely a hypothesis, especially when describing what is happening to this or that individual. I would guess, also that you decided this was true via intution, especially since you present is as a general description, implying all cases - ie. not one of these people could possibly be correct. So you feel you sensed a pattern in human behavior/cognition, based on your experiences of people and perhaps some reading in psychology. You decided that from this evidence that potentially relates to many people, no individual is actually relating to God and drawing a correct conclusion from their own experiences. (which, by the way, makes you a hard atheist, rather than simply someone who lacks a belief in God). So you have posited the existence an entity or a process in the minds of all believers. I cannot see how this is any less faith based or intution based than a believer positing the existence of his or her entity based on a pattern they feel they recognize both within their private experience of themselves and God's presence, but also in reaction to existence as a whole. (again, do not confuse this with an argument for God's existence. I am not saying that their experiences and intuition IN ANY WAY AT ALL constitutes evidence or proof for you. I am saying that as far as I can tell people throw around their intuition ALL THE TIME, everyone. They just tend not to notice it because 'THEY ARE RIGHT')
That is another issue. And from a constructivist perspective, perhaps not an important one.
There is, often, an assessment of probablity based on faith. We all do this.
I tend to prefer the term 'intuition' to cover both.
Again, the person who feels the presence of God when they pray and has had good as promised experiences has evidence ONLY FOR THEMSELVES, but there it is, evidence. Unless you want to assert that in every event where we cannot determine something via empirical testing that other people can verify, then I, personally, should not believe, I see no reason not to consider this evidence. Only for that particular person. Not as evidence to convince others.
I am so intimate with your position, it is almost not worth having the discussion unless something new comes up soon.
Do you really think that none of your cherished beliefs were arrived at via mere intuition?
How did you come to the conclusion that animals have feelings and intentions? For a long time this was considered impossible to know by scientists. Now it is generally accepted in science.
Me, I formed my belief that animals have these qualities via intution. Did you form yours via careful study of scientific research? Did you draw the conclusion via intution, despite scientific opinion until perhaps the 70's that it was ok to assume this?
Do you see what I am getting at?
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Well, it's a bit off topic, but we certainly do not assume that the Golden Rule, even if agreed upon by a majority, is full protection or anything near that.
My main issue with his raising of the Golden Rule as an apriori valueless rule that does not require faith to KNOW that it is right
does not work.
Wow. Say more words. It sounds like Simon is winning, but it's close. I think he has something up his sleeve.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
And this is where they are ahead of the game compared to people who do not realize they are masochists, like Republicans or sexists.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Tucked into the bolded portion, I would argue, is faith. Implicit in it - and correct me if I am wrong - is the idea that it would be better if something more rational could serve the purpose of weaning them from drugs, etc., but, if they that is the last resort, so be it.
Now I bolded my 'better'. Why because it has within it an objective good. It would be better, in general.
I think, when pressed, or even merely asked, most atheists - or 'rationalists' - would say, 'Oh, yes, my moral judgments are subjective.' But I do not experience them as functionally believing this. It seems to me they think they can recognize the good, in this case in general. Note the definitive form 'the' good.
So to me there is faith in
1) what would be best for everyone - ie. it would be better if some you consider more rational worked for him
and
2) you know that in fact a certain psychological process is creating the illusion that all people - like our hypothetical ex-addict and other never having been addicted believers - who claim to be experiencing God are wrong. Which actually means two articles of faith in one:
a) none of them are in contact with God
b) you know what the actual thing they are experiencing is. ('thing' being a reification of the psychological process you are positing)
2)
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
A large parallel drawn: (a true story)
A woman feels weak and has muscle aches and has had these symptoms for several months. She goes to her doctor and tells him she is sick. He tests her and then refers her to a hospital where she sees some specialists and has more tests. Everything is negative. Her doctor tells her that it is psychological and recommends a psychiatrist.
She refuses to go to the psychiatrist. She knows she is sick.
She goes to a doctor of Chinese medicine. In Chinese medicine they treat the patient and not the illness. He gives her herbs and after a few weeks she feels quite a bit of improvement but still feels quite sick.
Let's see what we've got.
A person with a private experience of _____________(something)
Experts tell her there is no ___________ but it is really a psychological _________(something).
She sticks to her belief (faith/intuition) that she is sick.
Years later she is tested for Epstein barr virus and the test is positive. Both the public health phenomenon and the testing developed after her initial visits to the doctors, though it does take years after the discovery of the virus for her doctor to admit that she was, in fact, sick.
The herbs she was given by the Chinese doctor included herbs that stimulate the immune system and one of them is antiviral - as shown in tests by Western medical professionals, but it was not these tests that led Chinese doctors to prescribe these herbs to people with her symptom and temperment type.
Was she rational all the way through? Yes.
Should the doctors have simply believed her self-evaluation? No. They made understandible mistakes, though perhaps could have been more open to the possibility they were missing something.
How can both sides be rational?
Because the evidence she had, only she had access to in its full form.
There was evidence she was ill but it was not good evidence for some people at that time, in that culture.
The same can be said for intuition based on pattern recognition, expecially in cases where empirical testing is either hard or not done.
The intuition that something cannot exist and intutions where one guesses the liklihood of things existing tend to be faith based.
A woman feels weak and has muscle aches and has had these symptoms for several months. She goes to her doctor and tells him she is sick. He tests her and then refers her to a hospital where she sees some specialists and has more tests. Everything is negative. Her doctor tells her that it is psychological and recommends a psychiatrist.
She refuses to go to the psychiatrist. She knows she is sick.
She goes to a doctor of Chinese medicine. In Chinese medicine they treat the patient and not the illness. He gives her herbs and after a few weeks she feels quite a bit of improvement but still feels quite sick.
Let's see what we've got.
A person with a private experience of _____________(something)
Experts tell her there is no ___________ but it is really a psychological _________(something).
She sticks to her belief (faith/intuition) that she is sick.
Years later she is tested for Epstein barr virus and the test is positive. Both the public health phenomenon and the testing developed after her initial visits to the doctors, though it does take years after the discovery of the virus for her doctor to admit that she was, in fact, sick.
The herbs she was given by the Chinese doctor included herbs that stimulate the immune system and one of them is antiviral - as shown in tests by Western medical professionals, but it was not these tests that led Chinese doctors to prescribe these herbs to people with her symptom and temperment type.
Was she rational all the way through? Yes.
Should the doctors have simply believed her self-evaluation? No. They made understandible mistakes, though perhaps could have been more open to the possibility they were missing something.
How can both sides be rational?
Because the evidence she had, only she had access to in its full form.
There was evidence she was ill but it was not good evidence for some people at that time, in that culture.
The same can be said for intuition based on pattern recognition, expecially in cases where empirical testing is either hard or not done.
The intuition that something cannot exist and intutions where one guesses the liklihood of things existing tend to be faith based.
What beliefs, specify. Or are you referring to the knowledge one acquires, during the course of their life.
Through knowledge, learnt.
That would only be true if you had NEVER encountered animals and how they react to certain stimuli. If you had encountered animals prior to this sudden epiphany then you could not call it intuition.
No, as it makes no sense.
When you do not distinguish between the types of faith (i.e. between faith based on rational evidence and faith not based on rational evidence) then, as I have said, all people have "faith".
What I am trying to explain is that there is a difference between these two "faiths" - but you seem not to agree.
Of course I can not lay claim to an objective truth of all cases - to think that that is what I am doing is disingenuous. I was making a point to explain that just because "faith works" does not mean the tenets of the faith are correct.
And it was not through intuition that I decided it was true for some people but because I am related to some of those people - and have witnessed it and talked to many people - most of whom don't question their faith precisely "because it works" - i.e. it gives them the psychological benefits they need, no matter how small or large.
I feel you need to understand what being a weak or strong atheist actually is. Just to put you straight, I am a weak atheist as opposed to strong atheist. Nowhere in these discussions have I laid claim that God does not exist, or either implied that God categorically does not exist. God might exist. But I am not going to start with the assumption he does unless there is evidence rationally attributable to that God. I have seen none, nor have I heard of any such evidence that would lead anyone rationally to believe in God before a more mundane answer (i.e. rationally not God).
I have evidence that at least one person fits my hypothesis - and from that I can apply it as a rational possibility to others.
The claim of an entity (God) has no such evidence to begin with.
You said you use "intuition" to cover both forms of faith (with or without evidence) - but unless you clearly differentiate between the two I feel this discussion will get nowhere - as whenever you use "faith" or "intuition" you could be describing either. Yes - everyone has "faith" or "intuition" in things when based on evidence.
Not when "faith" is based on zero evidence. We can only make probability assessments based on evidence.
"Faith" without evidence is irrational.
And this is the point of evidence that can be rationally attributed to the tenet of the faith / belief.
In your example given the evidence leads rationally to an obeyance of the laws of probability.
Further, the "power of prayer" - i.e. the positive mental attitude that stems from the act of praying can not be ignored.
To establish whether the "good things" are attributable rationally only to God one must remove all possibility of more rational explantions.
If one does not go through that exercise, and accepts the evidence as evidence for God (or whatever the tenet of their faith is) then they are acting irrationally.
If I pray to God for safe passage across the road, and duly arrive safely, is this evidence for God?
Or evidence of my ability to monitor traffic and to assess when it is safe to cross? Or a plethora of other more rational explanations than "God exists"?
People can consider what they want as evidence - but calling it evidence for X and it rationally being so are different things.
And yet your arguments seem to suggest otherwise.
You have already said that you use "intuition" to cover all forms of "faith" - i.e. those based on evidence and those not based on evidence - and I have already said that everyone has the former. I try not to have the latter - which is why I am an agnostic atheist.
You reached your conclusion through following the evidence - evidence that was there for anyone and everyone to see. I make no excuses for poor science in the past.
This is still very different to faith in such things as the existence of God - where there is no evidence yet provided that can rationally be attributed to God's existence.
If the point of your argument is that you think there is evidence that can rationally be attributable to God's existence...?
i personally don't criticise faith when its justifiable confidence in something, blind faith and leaps of faith are what i have a problem with. my faith in my gf has come about due to her consistent expressing of certain values etc, i like the odds.
perhaps more importantly, atheists don't use, or use less, faith to justify anything immoral or unintelligent.
Yet another desperate pathetic attempt to trap atheists into a GOTCHA.
Not really. I would like for Atheists to be precise, myself. Atheists have no faith in supernatural things. Ok. Atheists have no faith in anything. Not so. Even faith based on previous experience is still faith. I assumed that was the topic of conversation. No Gotcha. Just be more precise in your declarations.