4 ms·

Why Do We Believe Impossible Things?

7 points by robg 18y ago

Herring 18y ago
Wolpert is an atheist, but he says he isn't trying to convert anyone to atheism. If so, he may be the only person on the planet who is willing to share his deeply held beliefs without caring whether he can convince anyone to believe the same way. Atheism is a "deeply held belief" now? Learn something new every day..
- litewulf 18y ago
  As a Christian, let me just say I have met very ardent atheists... Atheists can preach just as much as any other religion. Perhaps you are confusing the belief in NO god with simple indifference towards religion?
  - Herring 18y ago
    And I've met some very ardent math professors. Passion doesn't turn you into a believer. There are layers of irony here.
    - Herring 18y ago
      Additionally, claiming X doesn't exist and not being able to prove it doesn't make you religious. Common counterexamples being X = invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters. It's a surprisingly simple concept, considering how few people get it. I wonder whether there's a more effective way to communicate it.
      - run4yourlives 18y ago
        The issue though is that because a notion of god as existed as long as we have, writing it off as pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters belittle's it to a meaningless degree; it's a weak counter. There is clearly something very human in a god belief. To suggest that this type of belief is simply a meaningless may in fact be correct, but it leaves a big part of the equation blank. It's like answering math questions without showing your work. I think that's what reasonable people have issues with.
        Herring 18y ago
        To be precise, I wasn't suggesting anything. I was arguing that those reasons for labeling atheism a belief are wrong. To answer your post, I think the lack of evidence for all religions is a perfectly good counter. I think it shouldn't matter how long some idea has been around, or whether it appeals to our innate human instincts. But clearly both matter to a lot of people. As I'm not one of those people, I have no idea how to address this need.
maxklein 18y ago
We HAVE to believe impossible things. Many things have been deemed impossible in the past, but the world changed and they became possible. Flying used to be impossible, speaking to someone across the world used to be impossible, hell, facebook used to be impossible! But there were people who thought it was possible, and it's because of them that we can have It's complicated relationships on facebook. I always encourage people to believe in anything they want, so long they do not try to make others believe in too, and so long they do not insist that their way is the only way.
Shamiq 18y ago
Thanks for using the print version of the article. I was dreading having to wade through ads to get to the content
jonmc12 18y ago
"People tend to look out for people of like faith, as in churches, and that support can make them stronger, thus improving the chances that they will live long enough to see their genes passed along." Its kind of a stretch as an argument. Common identity is what brings people together, thus enabling social support structures. If people are brought together by ideas, true or not, its because those ideas are core to identity. Ideas themselves have their own selection criteria for being passed on - http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMSELC.HTML http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMSELC.HTML If I were to re-phrase the thesis, it would be something like this - 'Humans have the ability to infer cause/effect relationships based on the most relevant information available. Often, the perceived relevancy of ideas is heavily influenced by ideas that are held to be true in present cultural belief system. Over time, as more information is available to the culture, there may be a disparity between observed information (facts) and cultural ideas (beliefs). In this scenario, relevancy of ideas will still be influenced by cultural ideas, sometimes to the point of necessitating the dismissal of observed information.'
run4yourlives 18y ago
No other animal has the mental framework for understanding cause and effect, Wolpert says. Yeah, um, okay. Dude has obviously never owned a pet. This article is junk science and not really up to the standards that should be required for this forum. Regardless of his thesis, his evidence is woefully weak.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
boredguy8 18y ago
"Extraordinary claims, he said, demand extraordinary evidence." The single worst statement to happen to epistemology. Extraordinary claims require the same type of evidence as ordinary claims. Ignoring for now the category problem of delineating extraordinary claims from ordinary ones, we find a deeper issue: It seems to be the case that asserting a certain category of truth-value statements require a different level of verification than another category is itself an extraordinary claim. Yet there is no extraordinary evidence that this claim is true. Hence the argument is self-referrentially absurd.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  I disagree, the whole point of the statement is that ordinary claims don't require verifiable evidence because they're ordinary and we expect them to happen. If I say it rained yesterday, my word is evidence enough to satisfy most inquires about the weather. If I say it rained and God reached down and protected me with his hand, well, I better have some serious evidence if I expect anyone with a rational mind to believe a word I'm saying. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence is a well known and well accepted self evident fact.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    I disagree, the whole point of the statement is that ordinary claims don't require verifiable evidence because they're ordinary and we expect them to happen Therefore, popular opinion belays fact? I get what you are saying but your counter argument is not the best. The parent seems to have a good point about the nature of evidence, to suggest that ordinary claims though should be accepted at face value because they are ordinary is the reason heavier than air vehicles could never fly, for instance.
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      No, popular and ordinary are entirely different things. Ordinary claims are ordinary because they are well proven and well known and don't need re-evaluated every time. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence precisely because because they haven't been proven. Claiming the Earth was round was at one time extraordinary, it no longer is. Claiming you met God however, is still an extraordinary claim and as such still requires extraordinary evidence. Stating that the same level of proof is required for each one ignores the reality of the history of the claim.
qqq 18y ago
> Why Do We Believe Impossible Things? I don't.

7 points by robg 18y ago

Wolpert is an atheist, but he says he isn't trying to convert anyone to atheism. If so, he may be the only person on the planet who is willing to share his deeply held beliefs without caring whether he can convince anyone to believe the same way. Atheism is a "deeply held belief" now? Learn something new every day..

litewulf 18y ago
As a Christian, let me just say I have met very ardent atheists... Atheists can preach just as much as any other religion. Perhaps you are confusing the belief in NO god with simple indifference towards religion?
- Herring 18y ago
  And I've met some very ardent math professors. Passion doesn't turn you into a believer. There are layers of irony here.
  - Herring 18y ago
    Additionally, claiming X doesn't exist and not being able to prove it doesn't make you religious. Common counterexamples being X = invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters. It's a surprisingly simple concept, considering how few people get it. I wonder whether there's a more effective way to communicate it.
    - run4yourlives 18y ago
      The issue though is that because a notion of god as existed as long as we have, writing it off as pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters belittle's it to a meaningless degree; it's a weak counter. There is clearly something very human in a god belief. To suggest that this type of belief is simply a meaningless may in fact be correct, but it leaves a big part of the equation blank. It's like answering math questions without showing your work. I think that's what reasonable people have issues with.
      - Herring 18y ago
        To be precise, I wasn't suggesting anything. I was arguing that those reasons for labeling atheism a belief are wrong. To answer your post, I think the lack of evidence for all religions is a perfectly good counter. I think it shouldn't matter how long some idea has been around, or whether it appeals to our innate human instincts. But clearly both matter to a lot of people. As I'm not one of those people, I have no idea how to address this need.

maxklein 18y ago

We HAVE to believe impossible things. Many things have been deemed impossible in the past, but the world changed and they became possible. Flying used to be impossible, speaking to someone across the world used to be impossible, hell, facebook used to be impossible! But there were people who thought it was possible, and it's because of them that we can have It's complicated relationships on facebook. I always encourage people to believe in anything they want, so long they do not try to make others believe in too, and so long they do not insist that their way is the only way.

Shamiq 18y ago

Thanks for using the print version of the article. I was dreading having to wade through ads to get to the content

jonmc12 18y ago

"People tend to look out for people of like faith, as in churches, and that support can make them stronger, thus improving the chances that they will live long enough to see their genes passed along." Its kind of a stretch as an argument. Common identity is what brings people together, thus enabling social support structures. If people are brought together by ideas, true or not, its because those ideas are core to identity. Ideas themselves have their own selection criteria for being passed on - http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMSELC.HTML http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMSELC.HTML If I were to re-phrase the thesis, it would be something like this - 'Humans have the ability to infer cause/effect relationships based on the most relevant information available. Often, the perceived relevancy of ideas is heavily influenced by ideas that are held to be true in present cultural belief system. Over time, as more information is available to the culture, there may be a disparity between observed information (facts) and cultural ideas (beliefs). In this scenario, relevancy of ideas will still be influenced by cultural ideas, sometimes to the point of necessitating the dismissal of observed information.'

run4yourlives 18y ago

No other animal has the mental framework for understanding cause and effect, Wolpert says. Yeah, um, okay. Dude has obviously never owned a pet. This article is junk science and not really up to the standards that should be required for this forum. Regardless of his thesis, his evidence is woefully weak.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

boredguy8 18y ago

"Extraordinary claims, he said, demand extraordinary evidence." The single worst statement to happen to epistemology. Extraordinary claims require the same type of evidence as ordinary claims. Ignoring for now the category problem of delineating extraordinary claims from ordinary ones, we find a deeper issue: It seems to be the case that asserting a certain category of truth-value statements require a different level of verification than another category is itself an extraordinary claim. Yet there is no extraordinary evidence that this claim is true. Hence the argument is self-referrentially absurd.

gnaritas 18y ago
I disagree, the whole point of the statement is that ordinary claims don't require verifiable evidence because they're ordinary and we expect them to happen. If I say it rained yesterday, my word is evidence enough to satisfy most inquires about the weather. If I say it rained and God reached down and protected me with his hand, well, I better have some serious evidence if I expect anyone with a rational mind to believe a word I'm saying. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence is a well known and well accepted self evident fact.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  I disagree, the whole point of the statement is that ordinary claims don't require verifiable evidence because they're ordinary and we expect them to happen Therefore, popular opinion belays fact? I get what you are saying but your counter argument is not the best. The parent seems to have a good point about the nature of evidence, to suggest that ordinary claims though should be accepted at face value because they are ordinary is the reason heavier than air vehicles could never fly, for instance.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    No, popular and ordinary are entirely different things. Ordinary claims are ordinary because they are well proven and well known and don't need re-evaluated every time. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence precisely because because they haven't been proven. Claiming the Earth was round was at one time extraordinary, it no longer is. Claiming you met God however, is still an extraordinary claim and as such still requires extraordinary evidence. Stating that the same level of proof is required for each one ignores the reality of the history of the claim.

qqq 18y ago

> Why Do We Believe Impossible Things? I don't.