5 ms·

but it is relevant in the scientific community.. if you are religious/spiritual, then you have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable, as they are performe

by stopmi 16y ago

but it is relevant in the scientific community.. if you are religious/spiritual, then you have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable, as they are performed/commanded by some entity we cannot comprehend it just doesn't usually encourage the kind of inquisitive/iconoclastic/skeptical attitude that scientists need and if you are doing research, it could also result in confirmation bias why do you think it is not relevant? you could explain that instead of condescendingly accusing the OP of being condescending.

rosser 16y ago
if you are religious/spiritual, then you have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable Do I? Because, if so, I'm doing it wrong.
- stopmi 16y ago
  creation-myths, souls etc.
  - mckoss 16y ago
    It's funny, though.
  - rosser 16y ago
    (You rewrote your comment while I was drafting mine, so it looks like I'm replying to something I'm not.) I don't have to believe anything's inexplicable; in point of fact, I don't. That's not to say I think our puny little monkey brains are (presently) capable of understanding everything, but that's a completely different claim than that those things are inexplicable. As for assertions, I'm not the party making one. You asserted that religious/spiritual folk "have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable". That's a universal claim, which can be refuted by any existential quantifier to the contrary. In simple predicate logic: ∀: All believers hold that some phenomena are inexplicable. ∃: I don't. ∴: Not all believers believe so. As for specific examples, name any old thing you'd think a believer would hold as inexplicable. That. I believe it's explicable. Granted, I believe that because I believe the divine wants us to understand our world — to the extent we can anthropomorphize and attribute intent to it, of course. Indeed, it's one of my highest moral duties, according to my beliefs, to learn and understand as much as I possibly can. To do anything less with the incredible, indescribably precious gift of having a mind is to piss it away. So, net, in a lot of ways, we probably actually agree. I decry ignorance and superstition and the like pretty strongly, too. What I don't do is condescend, or paint with a brush broad enough to cover everyone in a class of humanity I seem not to have taken the time or effort to understand.
    - stopmi 16y ago
      sorry, decided to give examples instead. *i had originally asked for examples of phenomena i don't think i need predicate logic notation to get that :D the reason i said phenomena-inexplicable was because there are a lot of claims made by religions that were later found to be from other natural causes. ex. in christianity: - diseases were supposed to be curses and punishments till the germ theory was discovered - creation story does not hold with modern evidence - there are contradictions between biblical incidents and historic records(bethlehem census, great flood, etc.) - the nature of heaven, hell, souls are supposed to be unanalysable - without an understanding of astronomy, there are implications that heaven was located above the clouds(angels with wings, looking down from heaven, etc.) - jesus had conducted exorcisms in the bible, they are considered silly now so, professing to be religious and accept scientific discoveries at the same time seems difficult.. "What I don't do is condescend, or paint with a brush broad enough to cover everyone in a class of humanity I seem not to have taken the time or effort to understand." there is a reason the debate _has_ to happen: - accepting religious opinions as respectable has led to a majority of americans to consider evolution as untrue. - education policies are being influenced to paint evolution as just-a-theory with undertones that it is a fringe group with a political agenda - religious people who believe in and look forward to an armageddon have been in charge of a massive number of nuclear warheads - stem cell research has been set back by almost a decade - abortion clinic doctors have been shot - the representative of god on earth has said 'child-molestation is bad, condoms are worse' - the catholic church has systematically protected child-molesters under them - the islamic world has become more extremised because the clever american government thought it would be a machiavelli move against the ussr. we know how that turned out if the result is that people think atheists are condescending, small price to pay if we can get fewer people to blow each other up because their imaginary friend says so.
pak 16y ago
"Why was the universe created?" Do you think science will ever answer this question? The universe as a whole is on some level inexplicable, unless we somehow manage to transcend our existence in it... Saying that a scientist's belief in God causes confirmation bias in his research results is more ad hominem and less productive criticism. Einstein believed in God, and in fact wrote extensively about the relationship he felt between God and his theories of the universe. Likewise many scientists lead productive careers without an iota of their religion (or family, or culture, or whatever have you) impacting the rigor of their work.
- stopmi 16y ago
  einstein-god relationship has been proven false repeatedly. it has stuck around because people keep mass-forwarding stuff like that.. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." from http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691023689?ie=UTF8&tag=savedbygracemini&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0691023689 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691023689?ie=UTF8&tag=... and a letter in which he wrote about his disbelief was auctioned a couple of years back: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscienc... i said "_could_ result in confirmation bias". that is, make confirmation bias more probable, not absolute.. ""Why was the universe created?" Do you think science will ever answer this question?" hopefully, some day, if we work towards it.. should we instead give up and resign ourselves to the fact that a wizard did it?
  - pak 16y ago
    I didn't say he believed in a personal god. He believed in a more abstract sort of god, one that reflected the mysteries that humans will never penetrate; he also said this concept defined his sense of being religious. "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
doorhammer 16y ago
I think it's clear why the OP comes off as sounding condescending. Just as I think it's clear why I come off as condescending in that post. I also think the implied definition of what is religious and spiritual is pretty narrow, and seems to lend itself to monotheistic and/or abrahamic traditions. A lot of what people might say is 'spiritual' can end up being a lot more philosophical than mystical. The terms always end up being muddy, so I'm not saying that as a personal dig. I would say that being human results in the confirmation bias. A marked understanding of it's psychological mechanism can perhaps reduce your susceptibility, but I'd need to see good research on the topic ;). It's a pretty fundamental heuristic. I don't think the ideas of coding and Religion are by necessity parallel and intertwined. Perhaps one can draw a more distinct parallel between hard-line, rigorous Computer Science (Capital CS), and a complete inability to be 'spiritual' but I've been mostly referencing folks who show creativity in more peripheral areas, or at least in areas not directly related to Formal Research. I also think that people who are heavily involved in sciences, and still subscribe to Christianity, tend to deemphasize the parts of the bible that seem like fairy-tales, being much more liberal in cutting them out (see the bible Jefferson edited) while focusing on the interesting philosophical and ethical implications of the portions they deem more legitimate. I'm not 100% familiar with Larry Walls interpretation, but it seems pretty darn flexible. I also don't know that a religious confirmation bias is going to translate into his coding ("My algorithm is fast. God must have made it that way"? ;) I don't mind people disagreeing with theism, or talking about it. What I don't like is the implicit attitude, which can often be, "you believe in something other than pure hard science, and I don't, so I'm smarter." I'm not saying that's the only version of the general sentiment, just that it's frequent enough. But you're probably just too self-righteous to even read this inspiring post
- stopmi 16y ago
  "I don't mind people disagreeing with theism, or talking about it. What I don't like is the implicit attitude, which can often be, "you believe in something other than pure hard science, and I don't, so I'm smarter."" unfortunate, because the usual representation of the believers in media are tea-partiers/creationists etc. or the ones who voted for bush because "he prays and asks god for his decisions, so he's good" but it could also be because, to become a non-religious person from a religious person requires a _lot_ of reading/searching for answers(evolutionary biology, reading about other religions, cognitive-biases etc) "But you're probably just too self-righteous to even read this inspiring post" assertion without proof. ad-hominem. delusional.

by stopmi 16y ago

rosser 16y ago

if you are religious/spiritual, then you have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable Do I? Because, if so, I'm doing it wrong.

stopmi 16y ago
creation-myths, souls etc.
- mckoss 16y ago
  It's funny, though.
- rosser 16y ago
  (You rewrote your comment while I was drafting mine, so it looks like I'm replying to something I'm not.) I don't have to believe anything's inexplicable; in point of fact, I don't. That's not to say I think our puny little monkey brains are (presently) capable of understanding everything, but that's a completely different claim than that those things are inexplicable. As for assertions, I'm not the party making one. You asserted that religious/spiritual folk "have to believe some phenomena are inexplicable". That's a universal claim, which can be refuted by any existential quantifier to the contrary. In simple predicate logic: ∀: All believers hold that some phenomena are inexplicable. ∃: I don't. ∴: Not all believers believe so. As for specific examples, name any old thing you'd think a believer would hold as inexplicable. That. I believe it's explicable. Granted, I believe that because I believe the divine wants us to understand our world — to the extent we can anthropomorphize and attribute intent to it, of course. Indeed, it's one of my highest moral duties, according to my beliefs, to learn and understand as much as I possibly can. To do anything less with the incredible, indescribably precious gift of having a mind is to piss it away. So, net, in a lot of ways, we probably actually agree. I decry ignorance and superstition and the like pretty strongly, too. What I don't do is condescend, or paint with a brush broad enough to cover everyone in a class of humanity I seem not to have taken the time or effort to understand.
  - stopmi 16y ago
    sorry, decided to give examples instead. *i had originally asked for examples of phenomena i don't think i need predicate logic notation to get that :D the reason i said phenomena-inexplicable was because there are a lot of claims made by religions that were later found to be from other natural causes. ex. in christianity: - diseases were supposed to be curses and punishments till the germ theory was discovered - creation story does not hold with modern evidence - there are contradictions between biblical incidents and historic records(bethlehem census, great flood, etc.) - the nature of heaven, hell, souls are supposed to be unanalysable - without an understanding of astronomy, there are implications that heaven was located above the clouds(angels with wings, looking down from heaven, etc.) - jesus had conducted exorcisms in the bible, they are considered silly now so, professing to be religious and accept scientific discoveries at the same time seems difficult.. "What I don't do is condescend, or paint with a brush broad enough to cover everyone in a class of humanity I seem not to have taken the time or effort to understand." there is a reason the debate _has_ to happen: - accepting religious opinions as respectable has led to a majority of americans to consider evolution as untrue. - education policies are being influenced to paint evolution as just-a-theory with undertones that it is a fringe group with a political agenda - religious people who believe in and look forward to an armageddon have been in charge of a massive number of nuclear warheads - stem cell research has been set back by almost a decade - abortion clinic doctors have been shot - the representative of god on earth has said 'child-molestation is bad, condoms are worse' - the catholic church has systematically protected child-molesters under them - the islamic world has become more extremised because the clever american government thought it would be a machiavelli move against the ussr. we know how that turned out if the result is that people think atheists are condescending, small price to pay if we can get fewer people to blow each other up because their imaginary friend says so.

pak 16y ago

"Why was the universe created?" Do you think science will ever answer this question? The universe as a whole is on some level inexplicable, unless we somehow manage to transcend our existence in it... Saying that a scientist's belief in God causes confirmation bias in his research results is more ad hominem and less productive criticism. Einstein believed in God, and in fact wrote extensively about the relationship he felt between God and his theories of the universe. Likewise many scientists lead productive careers without an iota of their religion (or family, or culture, or whatever have you) impacting the rigor of their work.

stopmi 16y ago
einstein-god relationship has been proven false repeatedly. it has stuck around because people keep mass-forwarding stuff like that.. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." from http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691023689?ie=UTF8&tag=savedbygracemini&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0691023689 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691023689?ie=UTF8&tag=... and a letter in which he wrote about his disbelief was auctioned a couple of years back: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscienc... i said "_could_ result in confirmation bias". that is, make confirmation bias more probable, not absolute.. ""Why was the universe created?" Do you think science will ever answer this question?" hopefully, some day, if we work towards it.. should we instead give up and resign ourselves to the fact that a wizard did it?
- pak 16y ago
  I didn't say he believed in a personal god. He believed in a more abstract sort of god, one that reflected the mysteries that humans will never penetrate; he also said this concept defined his sense of being religious. "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

doorhammer 16y ago

I think it's clear why the OP comes off as sounding condescending. Just as I think it's clear why I come off as condescending in that post. I also think the implied definition of what is religious and spiritual is pretty narrow, and seems to lend itself to monotheistic and/or abrahamic traditions. A lot of what people might say is 'spiritual' can end up being a lot more philosophical than mystical. The terms always end up being muddy, so I'm not saying that as a personal dig. I would say that being human results in the confirmation bias. A marked understanding of it's psychological mechanism can perhaps reduce your susceptibility, but I'd need to see good research on the topic ;). It's a pretty fundamental heuristic. I don't think the ideas of coding and Religion are by necessity parallel and intertwined. Perhaps one can draw a more distinct parallel between hard-line, rigorous Computer Science (Capital CS), and a complete inability to be 'spiritual' but I've been mostly referencing folks who show creativity in more peripheral areas, or at least in areas not directly related to Formal Research. I also think that people who are heavily involved in sciences, and still subscribe to Christianity, tend to deemphasize the parts of the bible that seem like fairy-tales, being much more liberal in cutting them out (see the bible Jefferson edited) while focusing on the interesting philosophical and ethical implications of the portions they deem more legitimate. I'm not 100% familiar with Larry Walls interpretation, but it seems pretty darn flexible. I also don't know that a religious confirmation bias is going to translate into his coding ("My algorithm is fast. God must have made it that way"? ;) I don't mind people disagreeing with theism, or talking about it. What I don't like is the implicit attitude, which can often be, "you believe in something other than pure hard science, and I don't, so I'm smarter." I'm not saying that's the only version of the general sentiment, just that it's frequent enough. But you're probably just too self-righteous to even read this inspiring post

stopmi 16y ago
"I don't mind people disagreeing with theism, or talking about it. What I don't like is the implicit attitude, which can often be, "you believe in something other than pure hard science, and I don't, so I'm smarter."" unfortunate, because the usual representation of the believers in media are tea-partiers/creationists etc. or the ones who voted for bush because "he prays and asks god for his decisions, so he's good" but it could also be because, to become a non-religious person from a religious person requires a _lot_ of reading/searching for answers(evolutionary biology, reading about other religions, cognitive-biases etc) "But you're probably just too self-righteous to even read this inspiring post" assertion without proof. ad-hominem. delusional.