4 ms·

what else would you call them? them : "who doesn't see presented/available evidence and just think that no matter what, their beliefs are true." edit: Forgot t

what else would you call them? them : "who doesn't see presented/available evidence and just think that no matter what, their beliefs are true." edit: Forgot to mention that, sometime these are the people who govern us, make law, treat us and in process of doing these things they try to enforce their belief OR have strong opposition towards anything which contradicts their belief.

Tichy 15y ago
spiritually challenged?
0x12 15y ago
The ability to see presented/available evidence depends to some extent on your frame of reference and how much time you've spent believing something and how deeply that belief is ingrained in your psyche. Lots of scientists go to their graves defending pet theories in spite of lots of available evidence to the contrary. This behavior has more to do with how much of the ego is invested in something than the ability to see or evaluate evidence as such.
- princeverma 15y ago
  In reply, i will just leave this quote from Carl Sagan: "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
  - 0x12 15y ago
    Yes, and that is the way it is supposed to go. But here is another quote to illustrate the counterpart: "Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus." Rough translation: The truth never triumphs, its opponents simply die out. That's by Max Planck.
    - zdw 15y ago
      Considering the focus on bountiful procreation that many religions advocate, I doubt they're going to die out. There was a paper a while back focusing on abortion, which combined a bunch of statistics on who got them and what their political views were - the conclusion being that in the US, the Democratic party's ranks had been reduced as a result of their support for the policy. The flip side for religious groups (who are generally anti-abortion) could easily be true.
      - 0x12 15y ago
        I propose an atheist breeding program ;) Anyway, what with HN and humor it is probably good that this has been flagged off the homepage, but you may very well be right. The religions we observe today are the result of - heavy irony here - an evolutionary struggle to survive, and simply because of that the religions that remain are pretty good at what they do, to spread and to remain. An atheist movement capable of competing with religion on sheer numbers alone would probably have to borrow bits and pieces from those very same religions in order to be successful in that competition.
brlewis 15y ago
How about unscientific? You're still going to run into problems applying and adjective to people, since they can think scientifically in one area and unscientifically in another. For example, Dawkins, presumably thinks scientifically in genetics. However, when it comes to religion being a cause of wars and other violence versus a pretense for wars and violence, Dawkins hangs onto the "cause" hypothesis despite data pointing to the "pretense" hypothesis. The difference is important. If you get rid of a cause, you solve the problem. If you get rid of a pretense, people find another pretense. Robert Pape's data is consistent with the pretense hypothesis. Nonetheless, Dawkins devotes himself wholeheartedly to propagating the cause hypothesis. If he took a scientific approach, he would devote himself wholeheartedly to testing his hypothesis instead. It's Dawkins "who doesn't see presented/available evidence and just think that no matter what, their beliefs are true."
- Tichy 15y ago
  So you think religion does no harm at all?
  - brlewis 15y ago
    I don't see how that relates to what I posted, but to answer your question, I think all human activities do some form of harm at some time.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      You wrote that religion is merely a pretense, which I interpreted as religion being not harmful, since it never really causes anything. Dawkins presumably is convinced that religion is harmful. Even if it is not the root cause for wars (which I can't comment on), I suspect it still enables wars, for example by paying soldiers with empty promises. Therefore I personally would have to agree with Dawkins.
      - brlewis 15y ago
        You're certainly free to suspect what you like -- it's impossible to rigorously test every opinion. I would hope, though, that if you were considering making it your life's work to campaign for eradicating religion, you would do so based on more than a suspicion. My suspicion is that if religion were eradicated, people who want to compel others to do war or terrorism would quickly find other pretenses and other empty promises. This suspicion is consistent with Robert Pape's finding controlling variables for increasing/decreasing terrorism that are not connected to religiosity.
jules 15y ago
One could say that they are rational reasoners who have prior probability distributions that are not nonzero everywhere, if we rule out those with self-contradictory beliefs.

Tichy 15y ago

spiritually challenged?

0x12 15y ago

The ability to see presented/available evidence depends to some extent on your frame of reference and how much time you've spent believing something and how deeply that belief is ingrained in your psyche. Lots of scientists go to their graves defending pet theories in spite of lots of available evidence to the contrary. This behavior has more to do with how much of the ego is invested in something than the ability to see or evaluate evidence as such.

princeverma 15y ago
In reply, i will just leave this quote from Carl Sagan: "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
- 0x12 15y ago
  Yes, and that is the way it is supposed to go. But here is another quote to illustrate the counterpart: "Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus." Rough translation: The truth never triumphs, its opponents simply die out. That's by Max Planck.
  - zdw 15y ago
    Considering the focus on bountiful procreation that many religions advocate, I doubt they're going to die out. There was a paper a while back focusing on abortion, which combined a bunch of statistics on who got them and what their political views were - the conclusion being that in the US, the Democratic party's ranks had been reduced as a result of their support for the policy. The flip side for religious groups (who are generally anti-abortion) could easily be true.
    - 0x12 15y ago
      I propose an atheist breeding program ;) Anyway, what with HN and humor it is probably good that this has been flagged off the homepage, but you may very well be right. The religions we observe today are the result of - heavy irony here - an evolutionary struggle to survive, and simply because of that the religions that remain are pretty good at what they do, to spread and to remain. An atheist movement capable of competing with religion on sheer numbers alone would probably have to borrow bits and pieces from those very same religions in order to be successful in that competition.

brlewis 15y ago

How about unscientific? You're still going to run into problems applying and adjective to people, since they can think scientifically in one area and unscientifically in another. For example, Dawkins, presumably thinks scientifically in genetics. However, when it comes to religion being a cause of wars and other violence versus a pretense for wars and violence, Dawkins hangs onto the "cause" hypothesis despite data pointing to the "pretense" hypothesis. The difference is important. If you get rid of a cause, you solve the problem. If you get rid of a pretense, people find another pretense. Robert Pape's data is consistent with the pretense hypothesis. Nonetheless, Dawkins devotes himself wholeheartedly to propagating the cause hypothesis. If he took a scientific approach, he would devote himself wholeheartedly to testing his hypothesis instead. It's Dawkins "who doesn't see presented/available evidence and just think that no matter what, their beliefs are true."

Tichy 15y ago
So you think religion does no harm at all?
- brlewis 15y ago
  I don't see how that relates to what I posted, but to answer your question, I think all human activities do some form of harm at some time.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    You wrote that religion is merely a pretense, which I interpreted as religion being not harmful, since it never really causes anything. Dawkins presumably is convinced that religion is harmful. Even if it is not the root cause for wars (which I can't comment on), I suspect it still enables wars, for example by paying soldiers with empty promises. Therefore I personally would have to agree with Dawkins.
    - brlewis 15y ago
      You're certainly free to suspect what you like -- it's impossible to rigorously test every opinion. I would hope, though, that if you were considering making it your life's work to campaign for eradicating religion, you would do so based on more than a suspicion. My suspicion is that if religion were eradicated, people who want to compel others to do war or terrorism would quickly find other pretenses and other empty promises. This suspicion is consistent with Robert Pape's finding controlling variables for increasing/decreasing terrorism that are not connected to religiosity.

jules 15y ago

One could say that they are rational reasoners who have prior probability distributions that are not nonzero everywhere, if we rule out those with self-contradictory beliefs.