Faith vs Logic

[barbad0s]

We don't know everything, but we don't know nothing. And that's a fact. We DO know some things beyond a doubt. For instance we can be reasonably sure that she will not be walking through any walls ever. Unless she can find a way to scientifically stop all forms of matter and anti matter from interacting with the particles and atoms that make up her physical body. I am forced by my own intellectual consistency to say that that MAY be possible 1 day when we know enough about particles and physics. But even then, the amount of power and energy it would require to literally tune every single atom and particle in your body to vibrate in such a way to not interact with other fields of energy, like the Higgs field would be astronomical. Its beyond what we can do as a technical civilization, possible forever. Either way, we most certainly wont be making those advances in the next 70 years, so her chances of walking through walls like Kitty in Xmen is probably way less than .01% esp if she is planning to do it on faith.

Are you going to join in the crowd and tell me that is HOW I am saying things that matters as opposed to what? You are half way there already, I figure go all in for good measure.

If you stop doubting, you're doing it wrong.

I know what you're saying. We have super strong, reasonable theories that have survived all tests of truth so far and it would seem reasonable to think they will ever more. But still.

 

[Kmal]

This is simply not true. There is only 1 objective truth. You are mixing up Objective truth with Subjective truth.

Oh Lord! Preach the Gospel of the One Lord! Tell us about GOD! The Truth of Existence! I certainly doubted you Billy, you did indeed come around

edit: Since we want clarification: Islam calls God, or Allah, the Ultimate Reality, or Ultimate Truth. So, that's just what it sounded like to me. I'm just poking fun, but semantics play a large role in misunderstandings.

 

[Billy]

If you stop doubting, you're doing it wrong.

I know what you're saying. We have super strong, reasonable theories that have survived all tests of truth so far and it would seem reasonable to think they will ever more. But still.

But still what? For all intents and purposes we can basically prove certain theories with evidence and mathematics. They are much more than reasonable theories, they are facts. There is such a thing as being too agnostic. Funny side note, since you've all got me pigeonholed here, you will find all over this forum where I have discussed these issues that I self label for practical reasons an atheist, but strictly speaking I am of course an Agnostic as Science is yet unable to disprove sky fairies and other made up creatures.

But I will say this, as far as science goes... IF a theory is wrong, it will be eventually replaced by better science. Faith will never be the correcting force. Never.

 

[Quiet]

This is simply not true. There is only 1 objective truth. You are mixing up Objective truth with Subjective truth.

Its fine to say something like "Oh well, if you think Eugenics is wrong thats true for you, but not for me" thats subjective truth.

but you cannot say

"I can walk through walls and you cannot because we have somehow different realities." That is just patently false, we live in the same universe with the same rules and as such there are laws that we must obey as physical matter. There MAY be a walk around to those laws, but that would lie in the domain of science, observation and testing to perfect. Not faith.

I will raise you "Neither you or I see things as they are, we can only see things as we are"

for

-Carl Sagan

I think that your idea of the 'objective' truth is different from mine. But i do agree that there is an objective truth. I do not believe that your truth is objective and i dont believe that mine is objective either. I think that we are both biased based on what we know and have seen. Beliefs are the eyelids of the mind for everyone including myself

I know what I've seen. I dont have a problem with you disagreeing. I dont think your perspective is invalid- its just not true to me. And I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. But ive seen what ive seen. And ive experienced what ive experienced. All things are possible. There are many truths that science has not yet grasped or proven, there is so much that we do not grasp or understand. I will not put all my faith in the current scientific understanding when i know that we dont have all the information and our understanding will evolve further one day. The information we hold today is the 'best fit'. The information i hold in my beliefs is the 'best fit'. It is always evolving, growing and changing. I know this as 'truth'. I completely agree with the quote -It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. That is exactly what i am trying to do, athough it is extremely hard at times.

 

[Billy]

I think that your idea of the 'objective' truth is different from mine. But i do agree that there is an objective truth. I do not believe that your truth is objective and i dont believe that mine is objective either. I think that we are both biased based on what we know and have seen. Beliefs are the eyelids of the mind for everyone including myself

My idea of objective truth cannot be different than yours by definition. You are confusing subjective for objective again.

I know what I've seen.

This is why I asked you if you had considered it was imagination, you were after all quite young.

I dont have a problem with you disagreeing.

This goes without saying, why would you be offended that we disagreed on anything at all? Just because we disagree on something doesnt meant I dislike you personally.

I dont think your perspective is invalid- its just not true to me.

What perspective is that?

And I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. But ive seen what ive seen. And ive experienced what ive experienced.

I do not doubt the sincerity of what you're saying, truly... I cannot make that clear enough. I am not saying you are lying... but again I have to ask, have you considered that what you saw was a delusion, hallucination, medical condition, etc?

All things are possible.
There are many truths that science has not yet grasped or proven, there is so much that we do not grasp or understand.

All things are possible, except the things that are not.Yes there is much to learn, but just because science cannot prove point A, does NOT, I repeat does NOT mean religion/faith can. That is patently wrong.

I will not put all my faith in the current scientific understanding when i know that we dont have all the information and our understanding will evolve further one day. The information we hold today is the 'best fit'. The information i hold in my beliefs is the 'best fit'. It is always evolving, growing and changing. I know this as 'truth'. I completely agree with the quote -It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. That is exactly what i am trying to do, athough it is extremely hard at times.

You know it as belief, its not true, ergo it cannot be truth. (this is based on the wall walking etc)

As for Best Fit, as I said to Niffer... Science may not be able to explain point A today, but that doesn't mean Faith is right in its absence. All science is corrected by better science. Never has science been proven wrong and then religion right. This is a flaw of thinking. As niffer was pointing out, its better to say "I dont know" about some stuff than it is to persist in delusion.

 

[Kmal]

Science is attempting to explain the outside world and religion is attempting to explain the inside world and the infinity within. It's an ideology, a way of thinking, metaprogramming, a how to guide to program your mind and shape your reality. It just depends on what your interested in, it takes all to make the world go 'round. As @niffer said, if you stop doubting, you're doing it wrong. Though, I'd say questioning to be more concise. Neither believe nor disbelieve, but keep an open mind and surely you will be guided--

Your subconscious mind doesn't know the difference between truth and fiction, so what you feed it will manifest. An old native american parable:

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.
"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

 

[barbad0s]

But still what? For all intents and purposes we can basically prove certain theories with evidence and mathematics. They are much more than reasonable theories, they are facts. There is such a thing as being too agnostic. Funny side note, since you've all got me pigeonholed here, you will find all over this forum where I have discussed these issues that I self label for practical reasons an atheist, but strictly speaking I am of course an Agnostic as Science is yet unable to disprove sky fairies and other made up creatures.

I obviously meant: But still... staying skeptical/doubtful and open to revisions of even the most solid theories is part of the foundation of a scientific mindset. They are considered facts, but "fact" is kind of a label, one that does not signify "unshakeable objective truth that will never ever change" when taking the scientific method into consideration.

I don't have you pigeonholed, though this does probably go back to what you mentioned earlier regarding the way you deliver your information. I was simply only able to pick up what you were putting down here.

But I will say this, as far as science goes... IF a theory is wrong, it will be eventually replaced by better science. Faith will never be the correcting force. Never.

I'll give you that, but only in terms of the definition of faith as being in opposition with objective proof... I mean of course you can't expect faith to ever replace a theory that comes from a system that is built for rejecting it.

 

[Billy]

I obviously meant: But still... staying skeptical/doubtful and open to revisions of even the most solid theories is part of the foundation of a scientific mindset. They are considered facts, but "fact" is kind of a label, one that does not signify "unshakeable objective truth that will never ever change" when taking the scientific method into consideration.

Am I to assume you believe that I have abandoned my logical quibbles in favor of just espousing a view? Tsk tsk. Untrue. And that's what I got to say about that point. And that is a very loose definition of what Fact means in a scientific sense. And facts don't really change, just the causes that produce them. Gravity would still be a fact even if somehow gravity ceased to be, because gravity still exists in reality somewhere in time, even if it does not presently. In its absence we would not say, the facts changed, we would simply need a new set of facts to describe the new data sort of like how people like Michio Kaku are trying to unify physics with the string theory. The old facts remain but become part of a larger vehicle of understanding.

I don't have you pigeonholed, though this does probably go back to what you mentioned earlier regarding the way you deliver your information. I was simply only able to pick up what you were putting down here.

Really? Because you didn't seem to be picking anything up at all, you were just making personal comments. I don't pretend to be an angel, but I definitely put down a lot of info, all you picked up from it was what you chose to address, personal stuff. Can we be real about that at least?

I'll give you that, but only in terms of the definition of faith as being in opposition with objective proof... I mean of course you can't expect faith to ever replace a theory that comes from a system that is built for rejecting it.

But isn't it incredible how many people DO think faith replaces facts? As though there was only 2 probabilities in the universe. Fact or Faith and if Fact ever breaks down faith wins by default. That is essentially the current Creationist argument by the way. And its rampant on this forum as well, in this very thread. Scroll up and read for proof. So while I may be wasting my breath telling you that personally, it is in fact good to get it out there. People need to hear it.

 

[Quiet]

My idea of objective truth cannot be different than yours by definition. You are confusing subjective for objective again.

It is your idea of objective truth. Just because you say it is true doesnt mean that i also believe that it is true. I do believe in an objective truth- i am yet to completely grasp this truth and i do not claim to have a monopoly on it

This is why I asked you if you had considered it was imagination, you were after all quite young.

Its possible but i dont think i imagined it. I do have a brilliant imagination but the way the 'auras' appeared was natural. it wasnt something i was trying to see. It took me a little while to stop seeing them

This goes without saying, why would you be offended that we disagreed on anything at all? Just because we disagree on something doesnt meant I dislike you personally.

Excellent and likewise

What perspective is that?

Your perspective that faith is not important and that our current scientific understanding of chemistry and physics is true.

I do not doubt the sincerity of what you're saying, truly... I cannot make that clear enough. I am not saying you are lying... but again I have to ask, have you considered that what you saw was a delusion, hallucination, medical condition, etc?

I appreciate that. And no i dont think i was hallucinating or experiencing delusions or suffering from a medical condition. One of the main reasons i studied psychology was to check to see if i was infact suffereing from some kind of disorder. At that stage i wouldnt have minded even if i learned i had a disorder. I would have been grateful because than atleast i would have understood why i saw things that other people werent seeing. All i wanted was to understand and know, if i was, infact crazy. As you can imagine, it was very easy for me to start thinking that i was crazy because i was seeing things. But i couldnt understand how i could be so lucid and yet still experience such bizzare things. At that stage of my life id never heard of auras. And when i did first hear about auras i felt a sense of familiarity yet i still didnt know what to believe then. At that stage i was pretty disgusted and disturbed by the new age movement. Alnd repulsed by any kind of religion. And all culture. And i hated the concept of faith. As far as i could see- faith was the antithesis of critical thought. I prided myself on my ability to think rationally. I blamed blind faith for most of the subjectation and problems around the world. I tried really hard to convince my family and other people that faith and all religions were false. I still think that faith can be a very very dangerous and harmful thing, and does prevent us from further critical thought.
I only started changing my perspective when i realised how much faith i myself had that certain ideas were wrong and how this was preventing me from being able to think openly and critically. I then tried to break my mind from all my old beliefs. I saw that fear played such a strong role in my lack of open mindedness. And i was shocked to learn that i wasnt really that open minded because i really did believe i was back then. This has been a really hard process and i still havent finished being able to break free from all my held beliefs to see things in a clearer and less biased perspective

All things are possible, except the things that are not.Yes there is much to learn, but just because science cannot prove point A, does NOT, I repeat does NOT mean religion/faith can. That is patently wrong.

I disagree. I do believe that all things are possible, no matter how ludacris they seem.

You know it as belief, its not true, ergo it cannot be truth. (this is based on the wall walking etc)

As for Best Fit, as I said to Niffer... Science may not be able to explain point A today, but that doesn't mean Faith is right in its absence. All science is corrected by better science. Never has science been proven wrong and then religion right. This is a flaw of thinking. As niffer was pointing out, its better to say "I dont know" about some stuff than it is to persist in delusion.

I am not advocating religion. Religion isnt faith. science isnt faith. Faith is a concept. It is a measure of our stength of conviction toward ideas, thoughts, beliefs, institutions etc. Things discovered by science have been proven wrong by science. There is much contention within science. Science is not about creating 'facts'. The idea of a fact in itself is misleading. A fact implies an end point. It becomes dogma. And dogma is annoying and prevents us from seeing possibilities. This is dangerous. Best fit is the most adaptive approach. Science is about exploring, discovering, learning, constructing and deconstructing. It is always evolving. The body of knowledge is always evolving. And it is possible that religion will be proven right although it does not seem likely. I dont know. Neither do you. That is the point.

 

[gd65h8as7]

Pray tell, Billy, are you not seeing the similarities in vitriol and fervor between you and the religious fundamentalists you're supposedly the opposite from?

Heh, exactly.

I notice that a lot of atheists tend to harbor a great deal of resentment towards religion. Most of the times it isn't simply "I'm an atheist" it's usually "I'm an atheist how the fuck could you expect me to believe in fairy tales/wizards/magic and the rest of that bullshit." For me at least, all of the atheists I know are actually angry people.

I would probably still be an atheist as well if I didn't come across some very interesting information about reincarnation. I'm not talking about urban legends, I mean a man by the name of Dr. Ian Stevenson who spent his whole life doing factual, scientific studies on reincarnation. He's dealt with toddlers that've talked about past families, mistresses, pets etc. And I'm talking about kids that are 2-3 years old. There's a pretty famous interview on youtube about a boy named James Leininger, who in his toddler years, recalled being a World War II pilot and being shot down by the Japanese. His family eventually fact check his 'supposed' story and found out that every thing added up. There's another man named Dr. Brian Weiss who has a fascinating story as well. He was a typical, academic psychiatrist but he eventually started hypnotizing his patients. One of the patients he hypnotized started recalling a bunch of past lives. One day, she called him by his original Jewish name (that she would have no way in knowing) and told him that his son (who had passed away when he was 2 weeks old) was with her right now and that he's okay.

If you take the time to do your research and see that there are actually legitimate cases of reincarnation, I don't think that accepting that there is a God is that difficult. I think bashing on Christianity/Islam/Judaism as a way to disprove God is bullshit. Those books have been reworded, fictionalized, edited, and translated so many times (although they're still very enlightening and contain many fundamental truths) that to interpret them literally is pretty absurd. I don't see God as a bearded man that grants and denies wishes, I see Him as the system that sustains my existence. So if I do good by Him, He'll do good by me, and if I do bad by Him, he'll make even with me (which is basically karma).

 

[Trifoilum]

Absolutely false. You keep equating a faith based system with an information and objective evidence system... they do not equate each other in terms of probability or rightness. 1 is right, the other is a pack of horrible lies that relies on human gullibility.

....."we are right and you are wrong"....

You saying Atheism or Science is just another religion and equations are scripture is wrong...

Nope. To clarify, I'm saying that some people are treating science and rationality as religion. That's different than calling the entire science and rationality a religion.
It's a bit like, Jesus =/= Christianity, even when Jesus is supposedly the basis of Christianity. I hope I explained myself more clearly this time...

1. Rational people don't worship. Period.

Dig under the nature of worship, Billy. What defines a worship? A worshiper?
I honestly think presence or lack of objective, quantifiable evidence does not play in whether someone -chose- to worship or not. Perhaps we are differing here.

However, I'm getting it a bit back on track; faith does. Logic does. They both give something worthy of worship.

2. It doesn't require faith to know that 2 + 2 = 4, Nor do I know a single rational person who worships that equation. Saying Equations and formulas are our holy words is nuts, science is not a system of belief, its a system of learning. Do you have any idea how many Science based things there are in the world?

It does not, but you're generalizing the whole complex world of science. (Because as far as I know, even religious people believes 2 + 2 = 4 is true. If there are people you met who believed that 2 + 2 = 6 because God Says So, then I apologize and my deepest sympathies).
And the rest, I wholly agree. It's a system of learning. What makes it (completely) incompatible with faith the way you seemed to insinuate, then? .___.; I don't understand...the strength of your statement. The black-and-whiteness.
But I'm afraid my point is also missed. I'm sorry, I'm bad at debating >___<;

What I'm saying in effects works like people of old age who turned Jesus' words and virtues into a religion on their own.
Bear with my explanation for a second :

SO are combustion engines our Helios Chariots? Is Chemical reduction our prayers? When we split atoms, is it religion? No. No it is not. My car is not holy. The Erl I smoke (Chemically reduced THC) is not magical.
Saying that Science = our religion would be like saying Bald is Vin Diesels hair color. It doesn't make sense.

Helios' chariots are real life objects (chariots) used as an explanation about something else; it could very well be Helios' Doves or Helios' Nipples for all its worth.
Prayers are previously songs, chants; something used as a recreation, something used as a meditation and something that's used to, again, explain.
Magics are....not part of religion, at least mainstream ones (Wiccan and such, well, yes, but.); Miracles are. In that aspect, a miracle is used to again, explain something unexplainable at that time; something that was good and beneficial for a person and/or community at large.

It is not that scientific mechanism -is- religion, but remember that religions are ultimately social constructs.
People are turning them into a certain form of heightened consciousness.
Chariots are useful. Kindness is useful. Prayers or rather songs and chants are useful and entertaining. Old religions turned them into something 'holy'.
Now it's both Logic and Rationality which are being upheld the way religiously virtuous people were glorified, once. The way Christians were flourishing over Greek and Roman followers.
From my perspective, what is being worshipped is this particular chain of belief: that science will lead people to a better age by killing religion / spirituality and rendering it obsolete. By helding to science as indelible proof.

Only that.

Huh? Uhh no... there is no "master to bow to" in Science, there is no worship, there is no reason for any of it. There is only slavery in Religion.

.....Straw men
Ungh, Mengele?
Again, I think we're seeing different things with the word worship. See above question.

And this is my personal opinion.....I was talking about enlightenment; in my own understanding, is that it requires both faith (or at least, conscience) and logic (or at least, awareness). I found science ultimately helped religion (or at least, the spiritual belief in God) a lot. By shedding falsehoods and things that were unable to understand back then, by creating shifts in paradigms, we moved away from dogma. And start walking towards the truth.

(A bit digression here: I found dogmas to be essentially sociohistorical in element; a rule was made because what happened during that time. A power was given in reaction to events. You mentioned below that religion doesn't evolve. I would say that dogma doesn't evolve.)

And before one can go anywhere, one must know, believe, feel that the truth exist; that there are answers for everything. That nothing is ultimately unexplainable.
That is faith.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but science evolves with time and method. Religion doesn't really. The die-hard scientist upon being proven wrong will usually adjust his system to the correct data. Thats the backbone of science. Astrology, divination and souls dont exist in reality. They are just words with no backing.

...Is your reaction proving my words? >___>;

Again, I personally believe dogma doesn't evolve. Religious belief on the other hand....The fact that in the present we have so many denominations and their own peculiar beliefs -are- proofs of evolution to a certain degree, I think.
But the fundamentals doesn't change. Yes, I agree, and I do agree that the backbone of science -is- the openness to change.
But notice the scientific standard.
That openness to change only when they are speaking the same language is the Catholic equivalent of decrees and stuff. You know, 'updates' within the church...but rarely 'beyond' that.
They are both ultimately inclusive. A case of 'speak our language or forever be banished'.

What similarities? There really are none.

.....Not in belief (at least generally speaking), but in behavior.
I went around logic online courses, and there's always the topic about existence of God like this. And the behavior expressed there....I feel like entering a more cerebral version of Yahoo! news and Huffington Posts.
And again, this is just my observation. I probably should not put that out there, but I'm half rambling, soooo~!

I know that's your point. I understand that, its still wrong.

So you disagree that both science and religion ultimately seeks answers?

It does... is it a wonder that something like 90% of all elite scientists are atheists or nonbelievers. Science and religion IMO are fundamentally incompatible. Yes I am focusing in on faith as in religion, but really, that's where its used. Can you tell me which religions don't lack facts?

Faith at other people, faith at yourself...
faith can be used in other things other than religion, and people can have faith for other things aside from a divine being.

Again; Christianity has been historically pretty advanced in developments of certain science.
Buddhism and Hinduism developed an eloquent system of logic; I'm quite sure they were also good scientists considering the advanced cultures during that time.
Islam philosophers and scholars have developed a great understanding of medicine, logic, and biology that were ultimately also used in medieval Europe at that time;
And presently, the existence of the supposed 10% of the religious scientist tells that religion can still be compatible with science.
That does not mean religions has never refuted certain theories that goes against their understanding (and really, where does their understanding of the world came from?); but on the other hand, refuting things that doesn't fit with the previous, established theory had also happened within the scientific world...

Status quo exists everywhere.

I would not say anything about your statement that most scientist are atheists / unbelievers, mainly due to a) I feel it's quite a generalization, b) matters of beliefs are ultimately personal choices, and c) I admit I have no idea beyond generalization and stereotypes.

Yeah, they lived during a time when atheism was considered heresy and they were put to death by the Church or stripped of their assets and wealth and arrested. Furthermore After the fall of Rome we entered the period known as "The Dark Ages" DO you know why they called it that? Its because there were very few central governments and all the power, armies, and wealth were controlled by the Church, that's not why they called it that. They called it that because under the Church education, research, literacy, all died. They burned people alive for practicing anything like science or as the religious called it at the time "Witchcraft"

The Dark ages were dark because the light of science had not come yet, Western Europe was under the yoke of the pope.

As for the Renaissance and later when Science etc blossomed, many of the scientists were secret atheists who were church members, why? Again because the Church owned everything. And if you wanted to learn anything, it was at the church behest. At the time it was actually secular pagans in Egypt and Asia - Asia Minor who kept the old greek and roman sciences alive. At least until the Christians took control in Alexandria and murdered all the pagan leaders and burned the Library of Alexandria down.

..... slippery slope.
I'm not going to respond to the "They are SECRET ATHEISTS that were forced to hide themselves!" part unless you can give further citations because there's no way to know the truth of that statement.
Because I can use the same logical pattern of 'they are there, they were only hiding and you just don't know it' to claim that aura, energy etc is just God's work that science has not been revealed at this time....that logic train is a tad problematic, I think? :| :| :|

And....as far as I know, the Dark Ages were called dark because of the lack of historical writings. Not necessarily due to 'light of science'; there are also a noticable lack of art, culture, and other writings. Now you can argue that the church secretly oppressed all that and such, but I suspect this is a complex matter. The Church's power grows together with the expansion of Roman Empire -AND- its destruction, and the resulting powerplay that results. I shall refrain from making further judgment beyond my understanding. I sincerely doubt the church controls the people; if anything the people are working to appease the Church; some for the genuine need for 'divine right', and other for the political protection. From my perspective they are less the stealthy oppressor and more of the lazy fatass only thinking about their own self-importance.

For the other side of your arguments.....I'm sure historical situation played a part, and I'm sure there are people who are questioning their beliefs and are secretly refuses to believe in God, and that might be good. But the point is, science and rationality and logic still able to shine through. And they are able to shine in a way that gets accepted by the Church.

Its not my job to don kid gloves for peoples irrational beliefs. Get with the program or accept that we all laugh at religious peoples beliefs for a VERY good reason. They're silly.

WHOA. Billy. I hope you're aware of how black-and-white this particular view is.

If your point is that I am like a religious person because I will not lay down and listen to all the silly ideas about sky wizards, then yeah, ok fine... your grasping at straws has finally paid off.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

So for you, HOW something is said is more important to you than WHAT is said? I guess that's your choice, I am the opposite.

This matter goes twofold, and importance only plays in one of them:

one is a personal concern. I still respected you as a person. And in this aspect, the how is important.
This one has zero relation to the topic in question. I noticed that while seeing you being all argumentative is something usual, there's always this....burning flame, whenever religion is within the equation. It appears to be your hot button, and you..almost always...had an extra oomph whenever you're arguing about this topic. More dismissive, more sense of superiority. And slowly it seemed to burn you more for some reason. I'm all for you being atheistic or anti-religion, and I'm not exactly the religious type either.

I don't even disagree with some of your points, just the intensity / the scope of it.

but...let's just say I'm concerned about your mental state, your scars and its effect to you.
How we believe affects how we live. At the very least, we can agree with that, can't we?

two is that how something is said affects what is said.
These has two effects : First is... Biases, clarity, and all that. It does not change the elements inside your argument, but it changed the strength of the argument.
Essentially, the more attached someone is, the less clarity they have? I just applied my particular view on that to you.

ETA:
If you are writing this to state your opinion / feelings / beliefs / thoughts; you did it well, the point was received and I can see the contents.
But you are doing nothing to convince others reading your post. Nor are you giving the people responding against you proper respect, and notice how I said à find your words hard to believe and/or listen. I don't say your words are invalid, or you're giving lies and nonsense. I just found it hard to be told to believe something I was supposed to believe in such a patronizing, dismissing way.

By the way, if you're going to put faith and spirituality above science and logic. Please stop using all your technology. Because you're probably going to use it for the wrong reasons.

black and white thinking, coupled with straw men.

 

[barbad0s]

Am I to assume you believe that I have abandoned my logical quibbles in favor of just espousing a view? Tsk tsk. Untrue. And that's what I got to say about that point. And that is a very loose definition of what Fact means in a scientific sense. And facts don't really change, just the causes that produce them. Gravity would still be a fact even if somehow gravity ceased to be, because gravity still exists in reality somewhere in time, even if it does not presently. In its absence we would not say, the facts changed, we would simply need a new set of facts to describe the new data sort of like how people like Michio Kaku are trying to unify physics with the string theory. The old facts remain but become part of a larger vehicle of understanding.

OooOOOok that's ok

But isn't it incredible how many people DO think faith replaces facts? As though there was only 2 probabilities in the universe. Fact or Faith and if Fact ever breaks down faith wins by default. That is essentially the current Creationist argument by the way. And its rampant on this forum as well, in this very thread. Scroll up and read for proof. So while I may be wasting my breath telling you that personally, it is in fact good to get it out there. People need to hear it.

Yeah some people get freaky with it.

Really? Because you didn't seem to be picking anything up at all, you were just making personal comments. I don't pretend to be an angel, but I definitely put down a lot of info, all you picked up from it was what you chose to address, personal stuff. Can we be real about that at least?

Unless you can clarify and provide proof for this interpretation of yours because I don't agree so far. Maybe it looked that way because I only addressed what stood out to me that seemed off. And I didn't think it was that personal; it was in response to how I perceived your viewpoint there.

 

[Billy]

OooOOOok that's ok



Yeah some people get freaky with it.

Unless you can clarify and provide proof for this interpretation of yours because I don't agree so far. Maybe it looked that way because I only addressed what stood out to me that seemed off. And I didn't think it was that personal; it was in response to how I perceived your viewpoint there.

So you weren't getting personal when you said I was never wrong? Really?

 

[NazFarmer]

After finishing reading the whole thread, it seems as though, in large part, this has turned into a debate about whether faith (understood as religious belief) and scientific thought/pursuit can co-exist in the same person. There are many points that have been brought up on both sides that I disagree with, as there are many points on both sides that I agree with, but I think in order to allow this conversation to go anywhere productive we need to re-evaluate how we are using the terminology, specifically the word 'faith.'

Yes, faith is a word that is used to describe religious beliefs and the different institutions that hold different beliefs. But it is also more basic than that. If I say that I have faith in my friend Bob, what do I mean by that? I mean that I believe that Bob is qualified, either professionally or personally, to perform some duty and I trust him to carry it out well. The only way that I get to the point of having this faith in Bob is by experiencing his qualifications in said area. We can have faith in a person when we come to know them over a period of time.

However, faith is not merely interpersonal, either. I will readily admit that I do not know how the internet works or how what I am typing right now will appear on this forum for everyone to see when I press the 'submit reply' button once I am done, but I trust, aka have faith, that it will post for everyone to see if everything works as it should even though I do not understand it. Could I learn how it works so that I have scientific evidence of why clicking the submit reply button will post my response for everyone to see? Of course I could: all I'd have to do is perform the corresponding google search or ask a qualified person and I'd have an answer.

But that's just the thing. I'd have to go outside of myself in order to find the answer. By going outside of myself, I would have to trust that the answers google or the person I asked give me are not wrong. I would have to trust the person who posted that information online, that they were not posting it simply to deceive some little old fool like myself, and I'd have to do the same thing for a person in RL. Descartes talks about this very necessity for trust in his Meditations on First Philosophy.

Faith is more than religious beliefs: it is a mental function that allows us to react to events in a timely manner. Scientifically speaking, you can never know 100% that something will work out the way that it has in past experiences. Can you be fairly certain? Of course. But as many people have brought up before, science is constantly evolving, and what one day is considered scientific law can the next day, by the discovery of something which contradicts that law, be considered completely incorrect because the context in which it was originally understood was wrong. BUT if one were to go through life with that mentality always at the forefront of his/her mind, how would anyone be able to do anything at all? When I get out of bed in the morning, I have faith that my legs will be able to carry me to the bathroom to take a shower. If every morning I had to go through the entire process of learning how to walk again in my mind, because I wasn't 100% sure that my legs would be able to carry me, how would I possibly make it to work on time? Faith is that which allows us to put into practice that which we currently have reason to believe is true, even though we are not 100% certain of it.

Religious faith performs the same purpose, but for a different reason. Instead of having faith that my legs will carry me to the bathroom to take a shower, religious faith trusts that there is a higher purpose to life than simply what we can sensually, intellectually, and emotionally experience. There is a deeper answer to why we are here than because certain elements came together in just the right way to produce life. Religious faith allows a person to put into practice the belief that there is a deeper purpose to life, just as faith in the truths that science has taught us allows us to move farther along the path to greater scientific discovery.

Religious faith cannot be proven by using the scientific method, but that does not negate its validity. Academically speaking, religion and science are two different disciplines, and just as one would not use the scientific method to write a literature paper, or use literary criticism to conduct a science experiment, neither would you use the scientific method to conduct research into matters of religious faith. Religious faith teaches a person how he/she should live his/her life and, more importantly, WHY. Scientific faith teaches a person how the universe functions and why it functions the way it does in purely physical matters. Why those specific physical properties function the way they do is when you start traveling into the area of philosophy

I sincerely hope what I wrote makes sense. It is really late where I am, and I am sure my brain is not functioning at full capacity, but it was when I started and I thought I should finish a post before going to bed. I also hope that it is still relevant: the topic has been a lot more active than I thought it would be when I started writing, so the conversation may have moved in an entirely different direction. If that is the case, I apologize for my terrible timing

 

[Quiet]

Some information about the placebo effect


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-sense/201201/the-placebo-effect-how-it-works
The Placebo Effect: How It Works
This thought experiment demonstrates how the placebo effect works.
Published on January 10, 2012 by Faith Brynie, Ph.D. in Brain Sense


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3035442.stm
'Fake alcohol' can make you tipsy
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

Simply the belief that you are drinking alcohol can impair judgement and dent memory, say researchers.

 

[Billy]

It is your idea of objective truth. Just because you say it is true doesnt mean that i also believe that it is true. I do believe in an objective truth- i am yet to completely grasp this truth and i do not claim to have a monopoly on it

There is no personalized version of something objective. There is something that is objective and measurable in a tangible or quantifable way and there is subjective. The part you keep confusing with objective. You understand what those terms mean correct? You understand that multiple moral truths = subjective right? And 1 unified truth of reality would = objective.

Its possible but i dont think i imagined it. I do have a brilliant imagination but the way the 'auras' appeared was natural. it wasnt something i was trying to see. It took me a little while to stop seeing them

I would say its more than possible but the most likely answer. (without me calling you a liar and I wont, I don't think you are, I think you might just be confused.)

Your perspective that faith is not important and that our current scientific understanding of chemistry and physics is true.

I never said faith was unimportant, I just said that it is not objective. It isn't. Its anti-objective. Literally. And while I never said anything about chemistry, I will have to agree with the point. Physics and Chemistry IS true... at least until you get to the theoretical aspect of them. Like Cosmology or the beginning of life. At which point we draw a blank because we have no more data to analyze on those aspects. (yet).

I appreciate that. And no i dont think i was hallucinating or experiencing delusions or suffering from a medical condition.

This is an issue you seem to demonstrate. You skip right over the testing part and jump right into conclusions. How do you know you weren't hallucinating or imagining it or on some drug or suffering from brain damage? Those are MUCH more likely true than the aura thing... and yet you skip right over them... just like you skipped right over the objective reality of Physics and said you're gonna start walking through walls and redefining logic and physics with your faith.

One of the main reasons i studied psychology was to check to see if i was in fact suffering from some kind of disorder.

This doesnt make sense... you dont usually see colors because you are crazy, you see them because you are hallucinating or impaired in some way. (typically) What would psychology uncover? Psychology is the most unscience-y of all the sciences. Its why they call it a soft science. You would have been better served to be a neurologist or someone who runs the Scanners at the hospital if you wanted to delve into why you were seeing colors... Any psychologist would tell you that before you leap to psychology you have to exhaust the somatic possibilities 1st. For some reason I dont think you even tried doing that. But I admit I could be wrong.

At that stage i wouldnt have minded even if i learned i had a disorder. I would have been grateful because than atleast i would have understood why i saw things that other people werent seeing. All i wanted was to understand and know, if i was, infact crazy. As you can imagine, it was very easy for me to start thinking that i was crazy because i was seeing things.

I see 6 leprechauns dancing on my desk right now... they may not exist in reality, but I am projecting them there. The human brain is a marvel of nature in terms of processing power. We can literally see something that is not there, taste something that is not there. OUr brains are really interesting... you know how sometimes you can eat or smell something say like your mom used to cook or the smell of rotten fish guts instantly reminds you of a memory from a fishing trip... its because our brains produce connections in the neurons that leads from the part of our brain that registers taste and smell to the part that basically remembers things like memories.. So no matter how many years later, that connection is still there, so when you get that whiff, whamo, you remember. Even though you have nothing in your mouth, if I say lemon drop, you can imagine the flavor... if we can do this with smells and taste and memory... then it stands to reason that you can do it visually with memory as well. And Since color has to do with sight, it makes sense that you can make a similar kind of connection via emotions and thoughts and colors. You said you would see colors and then know what they felt...

well

what was happening is that you were likely experiencing some form of Ideasthesia

Like how we equate the color Red with hot. Or Orange with Autumn. We can do this with people and animals as well. You werent seeing colors with your eyes, you were seeing colors with your mind. I understand that that seems like a "yay im a psychic" moment... but the truth is that those colors werent there. You put them there.

But i couldnt understand how i could be so lucid and yet still experience such bizzare things. At that stage of my life id never heard of auras. And when i did first hear about auras i felt a sense of familiarity yet i still didnt know what to believe then. At that stage i was pretty disgusted and disturbed by the new age movement. Alnd repulsed by any kind of religion. And all culture. And i hated the concept of faith.

[h=1][/h]

As far as i could see- faith was the antithesis of critical thought.

It truly is.

I prided myself on my ability to think rationally. I blamed blind faith for most of the subjectation and problems around the world. I tried really hard to convince my family and other people that faith and all religions were false. I still think that faith can be a very very dangerous and harmful thing, and does prevent us from further critical thought.

uum ok

I only started changing my perspective when i realised how much faith i myself had that certain ideas were wrong and how this was preventing me from being able to think openly and critically.

Yes, faith stops you from thinking critically.

I then tried to break my mind from all my old beliefs. I saw that fear played such a strong role in my lack of open mindedness. And i was shocked to learn that i wasnt really that open minded because i really did believe i was back then. This has been a really hard process and i still havent finished being able to break free from all my held beliefs to see things in a clearer and less biased perspective

This is where you lose me... you went from being rational to irrational, but you don't say what your old perspective really was. The foundation for my skepticism is simple... its so simple its basic. Show me the evidence. If you were not doing that before when you were an atheist then you were a pretend atheist and it would explain why your atheism was more of a phase than anything. There are a lot of Christians around here with Atheists phases. I think its utter hilarity. Proverbially trying to piss off Dad (the old man in the clouds) But if you are naturally a person who requires proof before you accept, well... Atheism and agnosticism are as natural as breathing.

I disagree. I do believe that all things are possible, no matter how ludacris they seem.

Yeah well, you would have to BELIEVE this because
A. Its completely subjective and
B. Has nothing to do with reality.

I am not advocating religion. Religion isnt faith. science isnt faith. Faith is a concept. It is a measure of our stength of conviction toward ideas, thoughts, beliefs, institutions etc.

Umm no... Faith is not strength. It is a weakness. Its not surprising that most westernized people think of Faith as a strength... the Church beat that into our culture for the last 1500 years. The fact though, is that Faith is literally just blind belief. Thats ALL it is.. nothing more, nothing less. IMO it is an absurd concept, and harms our culture and dumbs down our civilization.

Things discovered by science have been proven wrong by science. There is much contention within science. Science is not about creating 'facts'. The idea of a fact in itself is misleading.
A fact implies an end point. It becomes dogma. And dogma is annoying and prevents us from seeing possibilities. This is dangerous. Best fit is the most adaptive approach. Science is about exploring, discovering, learning, constructing and deconstructing. It is always evolving. The body of knowledge is always evolving. And it is possible that religion will be proven right although it does not seem likely. I dont know. Neither do you. That is the point.

This entire paragraph is complete nonsense. No offense.

 

[Billy]

Heh, exactly.

I notice that a lot of atheists tend to harbor a great deal of resentment towards religion. Most of the times it isn't simply "I'm an atheist" it's usually "I'm an atheist how the fuck could you expect me to believe in fairy tales/wizards/magic and the rest of that bullshit." For me at least, all of the atheists I know are actually angry people.

I would probably still be an atheist as well if I didn't come across some very interesting information about reincarnation. I'm not talking about urban legends, I mean a man by the name of Dr. Ian Stevenson who spent his whole life doing factual, scientific studies on reincarnation. He's dealt with toddlers that've talked about past families, mistresses, pets etc. And I'm talking about kids that are 2-3 years old. There's a pretty famous interview on youtube about a boy named James Leininger, who in his toddler years, recalled being a World War II pilot and being shot down by the Japanese. His family eventually fact check his 'supposed' story and found out that every thing added up. There's another man named Dr. Brian Weiss who has a fascinating story as well. He was a typical, academic psychiatrist but he eventually started hypnotizing his patients. One of the patients he hypnotized started recalling a bunch of past lives. One day, she called him by his original Jewish name (that she would have no way in knowing) and told him that his son (who had passed away when he was 2 weeks old) was with her right now and that he's okay.

If you take the time to do your research and see that there are actually legitimate cases of reincarnation, I don't think that accepting that there is a God is that difficult. I think bashing on Christianity/Islam/Judaism as a way to disprove God is bullshit. Those books have been reworded, fictionalized, edited, and translated so many times (although they're still very enlightening and contain many fundamental truths) that to interpret them literally is pretty absurd. I don't see God as a bearded man that grants and denies wishes, I see Him as the system that sustains my existence. So if I do good by Him, He'll do good by me, and if I do bad by Him, he'll make even with me (which is basically karma).

Et Tu Brutus? C'mon dude... reincarnation? c'mooooonnnnnnnnnn

 

[Billy]

Maybe slightly off-topic, but have you ever heard of the Jefferson Bible?

Yes, I love Jefferson. It is my personal belief that he was an Atheist or an Agnostic living in a very Christian time frame where he would have been unable to be as free intellectually as he wanted. But he tore religion to shreds.

Even when I still considered myself a Christian (albeit a struggling one full of doubts), I couldn't stand Paul. The teachings of Jesus mostly made sense to me and felt in harmony with my natural moral sense. The teachings of Paul felt abhorrent to my natural moral sense. So the idea that Paul was a self-appointed apostle spreading false doctrine (which later became included in the Biblical canon because men raised in his church were the arbiters of Biblical canon) appeals to me and seems to explain a lot, though I haven't researched enough to verify that the claims are true.

Paul was a piece of shit. His claims were barking insane only to be embraced by illiterate peasants in the dark ages. I am ashamed to admit this includes my ancestors.

But what if, in some cases, what seems like blind faith is an instinctive understanding of truth? Or a discovery that has been made, and even though you can't explain why or how it works, it's scientifically true?

It cannot be scientifically true without verification of some sort. You cannot have an instinctive understanding if you are ignorant. And I choose these words carefully because I know there are people out there who are savants who pick it up really fast... but even a savant needs to be introduced to Data of some kind. If you are trying to equate Faith with Hypothesis I have to disagree... they are not compatible.

I was going to insert a quote here that I've quoted elsewhere on the forum before. But when I went through my old posts to find the quote, I saw that it was directed at you that time as well, and we've already had this whole conversation before.

Link me, lol I forgot.

When you harshly judge other people's beliefs as superstitious or naive, you're closing your mind to possibilities. Their "faith" could be certainty of a truth they've discovered, but just can't explain the workings of yet.

Nah, I mean... ok fine. In a universe of infinite existence the probability exists... but the probability is so low that its easier to say no. When I tell someone they cannot walk through a wall, I am not being closed minded. I am telling them something they NEEEEEEEEEEED to know urgently before they hurt themselves. And no, I dont have to be a physicist to know you cant walk through a wall, and I don't have to go to an Ashram and meditate on my naval to know they cant. There are some things in life that ARE certain a midst a cruel sea of Chaos. There is a quote I like it goes "Its good to have an open mind. But its bad to have a mind so open your brain falls out."

I find it hard to believe you're an intuitive type, with your insistence on concrete facts and objective reality. Of course, reasonable intuitive types see the importance of these things. But their primary mode of operating is more abstract, theoretical, and by its very nature un-empirical. In conjunction with other cognitive functions, they can be objective and empirical, but they wouldn't forcefully discredit subjective experience like you do. Intuitive philosophers usually argue that the subjective is just as real as the objective.

You can strip my N away if you want, I dont want it anymore. MBTI is complete bullshit. Fun, but bullshit.

I agree that's the most probable answer. But I don't share my personally perceived sense of your demonstrated superiority over people who disagree.

I edited this for corrections for you.

Especially because I find this knowledge to be VERY unsatisfying and depressing.

I am going for a 3fer! nice. Here is another Carl Sagan quote for this.

The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

It doesnt have to be depressing. It can be quite beautiful as it is for me, the gratitude I feel for being alive and having a shot to sense the universe is at times overwhelming. Life is meant to be bittersweet. Not sweet.

Why would I wish that upon others? I'm glad "building your own meaning" works for you, but that isn't enough for everyone. It's not for me. Would you rather people be depressed than hold onto a belief that helps them function?

This is a space we disagree. I think its better to pop the balloon of whats fake so we can appreciate whats real. I personally believe that anyone who chooses to open their mind and let go of God and all that crap we have been imprisoned with since birth will at 1st feel scared and very vulnerable. It is quite a humbling experience. When I was going through it as a very young age it was distressing, like I had just sucked everything I ever knew into a black hole and it was gone, I felt like I was swimming in chaos...

but you know what?

After a while those feelings eroded away. And all I was left with was gratitude and an intense desire to make THIS life count. Make THIS life have meaning. Not to die and go into the great black oblivion waiting for some absurd notion of an afterlife thats never to come. And you know what? NO PERSON ON EARTH would be happier than I to wake up in an afterlife after I die, and to literally say everything I thought was clearly wrong... but I dont think I am wrong. There are no pearly gates. How many people left this world thinking about one that was to come and promised to them? How many lived less full lives because they were told, the rewards are in the next life, not here? Yes its scary to let go of that eternal father figure and embrace the cold loneliness of the cosmos... but you know what? We're here... and fuck it! We're going for 4 posts with carl Sagan quotes. "For creatures as small as we, only love makes the vastness of space bearable" I 100% believe that.

At the end, losing your faith isnt so bad. Its like someone dying. At 1st its painful, you dont want to eat, you cant sleep, your eyes are hot with tears and worry... then eventually it goes away, you adjust. You remember the good time and strive to do better with the time you do have left. To me, that is so far from depressing. I still get to love everyone I want. I get to play with my nieces, and see the world through their eyes and hearts. Are you telling me that without God there, thats depressing? That we are mortal, and will die and grow old and suffer, makes my time with them more beautiful than any false promises of Gods or Fairies or any of that stuff.

Most people take their own interpretations from religion anyway. They selectively uphold the parts of their religion that they like and ignore the parts they don't like (of course, they're usually not aware they're doing this). With the exception of fundamentalists, most religious people are building their own meaning, just like you are.

Err no, they are not building their own meaning. They are building on the meaning that they inherited socially. Unless you are telling me morality exists individually from faith/religion.

Yes, they place faith in an idea that can't be proven. But ultimately that belief, in most cases, doesn't determine their values. More often, it's social pressure that taints their personal values (often at church).

really? And where did the Church get its values?

For example, these days most people who identify as Christians have sex before they're married and don't suffer enormous guilt from it (if any). This is even true where I live in the Bible Belt. Historically, most Christians did shame people (especially women) who had sex before marriage, and you still see this happen sometimes. But it was socially unacceptable back then, and now that it's more or less socially acceptable, most Christians do it. Hence my opinion that most people who identify as Christians ultimately don't hold themselves to a religious code, even if they claim they do. It functions more like a peace of mind; an idea to fall back on so they don't become overwhelmed with feelings of meaninglessness, isolation, despair.

Yes, Christianity is hypocritical and all Christians are hypocrites, I know. Its why they built the concept of atonement into the religion. No human could ever possibly be 100% perfectly Christian. Its a system designed to flunk everyone and make them dependent on them for salvation. Churches are like mad socialist yo!

I know you'll probably cite atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion, but I still think people would behave that way even without religion. Until people fundamentally change their nature, their self awareness, they can be manipulated into doing horrible things. They can become invested in many things, not just religion, to the point where they'd be willing to slaughter innocents. Religion is a tool which, like any other, can be used in a good way or a bad way.

I agree that people would still be violent assholes to each other. We are animals afterall. But as Christopher Hitchens used to say "Evil people will do evil things, but to get good people to do evil things, you need religion/faith.

You ignore the fact that religions contain wisdom.

For example?

Is scientific intelligence the only intelligence there is? I think not. My grandparents were the most wise, charitable, and loving people I've ever known.

I guess you will have to explain what you mean by intelligence.

They were Christians. I'm sorry, but I can't bring myself to spit in the face of their wisdom and say they were stupid because they had faith.

Who said you should spit in their face? And I am sure you meant that as a metaphor, can you tell me what slight we are equating to spitting?

They touched lives.

Everyone on earth touches lives, unless they have never seen another human being.Not to belittle your Grandfolks, I am sure they were awesome people. Its a shame to see their kindness being usurped by religious faith... I am willing to bet if your Grandfolks were unexposed to religion they would have been just as awesome.

Kindness is a higher virtue than intelligence,

According to you.

not that I believe people of faith are unintelligent anyway. My role model is Fred Rogers. He was a Christian and I believe he did more to spread love and empathy than probably anyone in recent history. I've met other religious people in real life who were able to obtain enlightenment and spread harmony. I don't really give a shit if they made a factual error. They produced more positive results than anyone I've ever known, and I think that matters more.

So your view is, "fuck the facts, this makes me feel good, im going with it!" is that basically right?

You act as if the pursuit of scientific knowledge is in and of itself a noble thing. I wouldn't entirely disagree with that, but I think it's important to consider the effect that certain knowledge and technological advancements will have on individual people. We're rapidly expanding our technology and our knowledge of the workings of the universe, but we're more emotionally distraught than ever.

On this we 100% agree. Technology is evolving faster than we are. It sucks we are stuck building Ipods and Mega churches so people can feel better as opposed to conquering that pesky (theres still starving humans on earth) problem. I wish we could drop all the Iron Age nonsense and just learn to appreicate life as it is and spend more time learning about science and technology, so we dont have a world full of scientifically ignorant and uneducated religious types who just know that you push the big red button to get your food pellet. I am vaguely reminded of the movie by Mike Judge "idiocracy" in which the future belonged to ignorant, mouth breathing knuckle draggers and all the educated elites died off. We live in a technological age with Iron age mythos as our social operating system... pathetic.

I'm not idealizing primitive cultures and saying we should go back to that. I was just making the point that they didn't have the burden of existential crises and lack of purpose;

No they just died at 35 when all their teeth rotted out, or during childbirth, or from starvation or exposure. You think its harder NOW with an existential crisis? For realz yo? Havent been to any 3rd world countries to see how the other 90% live I see. I assure you they would KILL to have your 1st world problems.

everyone had a purpose that was essential to the survival of the tribe. There was no sense in questioning the assumptions that they lived by in order to survive. To me, seems like nature intends it that way. If we're meant to reproduce and survive as a species, doesn't do much good to question why we should do those things or have the self awareness to think "maybe I don't want to do that..." or to get depressed at the idea, resulting in a decreased sex drive and zest for life.

This is an extremely erroneous paragraph, I am going to skip it because its making me want to really say mean things.

As far as human progress goes, I think contentment and harmony are much more important than scientific advancement. I will always value empathy and kindness over IQ.

Yeah, its a good thing you arent in charge of any of other people. Your civilization would collapse before it even begins with that kind of mentality. Meanwhile we have an explosion of population, we're eating through our natural resources, pollution is destroying our world... but you think the answer is self esteem camp and kumbaya over training a bunch of scientists who can actually solve tangible problems? Really dude? You would condemn us to the most brutal Darwinian civilization ever... because when the food ran out and all 8 billion of us were like, well now what, I spent all my time doing positive affirmations and skipping science class, well... lets just say that survival of the fittest will be getting a whole new meaning.

 

[Billy]

Some information about the placebo effect


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-sense/201201/the-placebo-effect-how-it-works
The Placebo Effect: How It Works
This thought experiment demonstrates how the placebo effect works.
Published on January 10, 2012 by Faith Brynie, Ph.D. in Brain Sense


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3035442.stm
'Fake alcohol' can make you tipsy
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

Simply the belief that you are drinking alcohol can impair judgement and dent memory, say researchers.

Oy vey... You go on to defend faith then start talking about the placebo effect? No irony bells going off in your head?

 

[Billy]

Lastly, I'd like to offer the idea of "if it works, why question it?" This is situational. I see it a lot in people who grew up in a very happy, loving, secure Christian family. They're full of faith and have an optimistic outlook on life because of their positive experiences in a religious family. So there's no real incentive to question it. They're inspired to use their parents as role models and pass the same values on to their kids.

Yeah but they arent happy because they are Christian, they are happy because they are well adjusted socially. I know plenty of not-well adjusted Christians. And I get what you mean about not questioning it, but some of us are incapable of living with blinders.

It boils down to that age old question...

If your significant other cheats on you, would you prefer to know, or not know. I choose to know every time. Because I will not live a lie.