Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News3 mins ago
How do cherry-picking believers decide what to believe?
168 Answers
One would think that a person who could think rationally would be consistent about it. But this seems not to be so. Below is a thread about a chap who rejects God but believes in an afterlife, even though both beliefs have a similar irrational status.
How many other cases are there? People who, for example, reject astrology but believe in Tarot cards; who reject dowsing but accept ouija boards; who reject crystal balls but accept ESP; who reject weeping statues but accept alien abductions; who reject fairies but accept angels…..and so on. How do they discriminate between one lot of nonsense and another? What criteria do they use?
I anticipate one possible answer: a believer (naomi perhaps?) might say that she believes in ghosts because she has seen one. But this cannot always be the answer, surely. What is?
How many other cases are there? People who, for example, reject astrology but believe in Tarot cards; who reject dowsing but accept ouija boards; who reject crystal balls but accept ESP; who reject weeping statues but accept alien abductions; who reject fairies but accept angels…..and so on. How do they discriminate between one lot of nonsense and another? What criteria do they use?
I anticipate one possible answer: a believer (naomi perhaps?) might say that she believes in ghosts because she has seen one. But this cannot always be the answer, surely. What is?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//"I have no reason to believe it unless and until those laws are found to be inadequate or that evidence appears."
pretty much? not sure what difference you are really trying to portray. //
Not quite Ankou. I think when chakka makes that description above (or many sceptics - I don't wish to pick on him) that's actually just his way of saying 'File under nonsense'.
When I say - file under decision pending, that's what I really mean - I don't know, so I'm reserving judgement.
pretty much? not sure what difference you are really trying to portray. //
Not quite Ankou. I think when chakka makes that description above (or many sceptics - I don't wish to pick on him) that's actually just his way of saying 'File under nonsense'.
When I say - file under decision pending, that's what I really mean - I don't know, so I'm reserving judgement.
//
"However, I'm in no hurry to classify it, so I'll stick it in the pending for now, and wait to see if any evidence does turn up."
isn't that the same as....
"I have no reason to believe it unless and until those laws are found to be inadequate or that evidence appears."
pretty much? not sure what difference you are really trying to portray.
//
Not quite Ankou. I think when chakka makes that description above (or many sceptics - I don't wish to pick on him) that's actually just his way of saying 'File under nonsense'.
When I say - file under decision pending, that's what I really mean - I don't know, so I'm reserving judgement.
(Just thought I'd repost the above with all the bits I intended to include)
"However, I'm in no hurry to classify it, so I'll stick it in the pending for now, and wait to see if any evidence does turn up."
isn't that the same as....
"I have no reason to believe it unless and until those laws are found to be inadequate or that evidence appears."
pretty much? not sure what difference you are really trying to portray.
//
Not quite Ankou. I think when chakka makes that description above (or many sceptics - I don't wish to pick on him) that's actually just his way of saying 'File under nonsense'.
When I say - file under decision pending, that's what I really mean - I don't know, so I'm reserving judgement.
(Just thought I'd repost the above with all the bits I intended to include)
Ludwig, that is precisely my point and I would have thought it simple enough - and rational enough - for anyone to understand - but apparently not. The sceptics here loftily file the subject under 'nonsense' when in fact they know no more about it than anyone else. Chakka thinks I suffer delusions (and worse) but he can rest assured they aren't delusions of grandeur. Unlike him, if I don't know I'm not too conceited to say I don't know.
That's interesting Woofgang.
So tell me if I'm wrong but you would make a conscious decision to believe in the existence of (for example) god if you thought it would make you a better person/improve your life whether or not you had evidence to support the belief.
As you say, that's a new category, which I suppose in a nutshell summarises religious belief.
So tell me if I'm wrong but you would make a conscious decision to believe in the existence of (for example) god if you thought it would make you a better person/improve your life whether or not you had evidence to support the belief.
As you say, that's a new category, which I suppose in a nutshell summarises religious belief.
I admire Ludwigs objectivity - I think it unlikely that most humans can genuinely claim to reach that position. The way we process information as humans means that you almost always impart some negative or positive feeling to a particular proposition or hypothesis - we are a species that requires a satisfactory narrative to explain the world - and of course the scientific method recognises that weakness and attempts to compensate through observation, hypothesis, experimentation, repetition and falsifiability.
Much of what happens in the world is understandable and explainable by any number of theorems and hypotheses, backed up by decades of observation, experimentation, repetition and falsifiability. These are mundane by now.
There are occasionally events, manifestations - phenomena - that apparently fall outside that worldview ,and it is here that the sceptic differs from the faithful.
What irritates me is that people will latch onto a particular hypothesis that might explain such phenomena and usually fits into that persons worldview which has no credible evidence, no credible observations, no credible experiments, no credible measure of falsifiability to support it - and these theorems are presented -and defended -on the grounds of faith.The anecdotal evidence must be accepted, because to do otherwise means that you are calling the observer a liar. The lack of repetition or observation should be accepted because those who don't see the phenomena are somehow close-minded, or too rational - as if being rational should ever be considered a handicap!
Carl Sagans comment that extraordinary claims require exceptional evidence holds just as true today as when he first said it.For instance, claims that telepathy happens, or that homeopathy works, or that ghosts exist / manifest need to demonstrate convincing, repetitive evidence and a plausible, testable, falsifiable scientific hypothesis if they expect to be taken seriously
Much of what happens in the world is understandable and explainable by any number of theorems and hypotheses, backed up by decades of observation, experimentation, repetition and falsifiability. These are mundane by now.
There are occasionally events, manifestations - phenomena - that apparently fall outside that worldview ,and it is here that the sceptic differs from the faithful.
What irritates me is that people will latch onto a particular hypothesis that might explain such phenomena and usually fits into that persons worldview which has no credible evidence, no credible observations, no credible experiments, no credible measure of falsifiability to support it - and these theorems are presented -and defended -on the grounds of faith.The anecdotal evidence must be accepted, because to do otherwise means that you are calling the observer a liar. The lack of repetition or observation should be accepted because those who don't see the phenomena are somehow close-minded, or too rational - as if being rational should ever be considered a handicap!
Carl Sagans comment that extraordinary claims require exceptional evidence holds just as true today as when he first said it.For instance, claims that telepathy happens, or that homeopathy works, or that ghosts exist / manifest need to demonstrate convincing, repetitive evidence and a plausible, testable, falsifiable scientific hypothesis if they expect to be taken seriously
Yes Naomi. I don't know anything about what you have experienced, but I know you
to be an intelligent and rational person - quite sceptical on a number of subjects,
which makes you a potentially reliable witness in my book.
I'd never dream of telling you that you must have been hallucinating because ghosts don't exist - especially when I don't actually know for sure ehether ghosts exist or not.
That would be quite illogical.
to be an intelligent and rational person - quite sceptical on a number of subjects,
which makes you a potentially reliable witness in my book.
I'd never dream of telling you that you must have been hallucinating because ghosts don't exist - especially when I don't actually know for sure ehether ghosts exist or not.
That would be quite illogical.
Comming somewhat late to the discussion admittedly but I thought I would put my twopence worth in too.
"One would think that a person who could think rationally would be consistent about it."
To think this would be a false assumption.
The Human animal has an innate ability to simultaniously hold as true two opposing and contradictory beliefs/opinions.
Psycologists have a word for it. ( but I can't remember what it is)
Once we can understand the mechanism of this trait we could be a long way towards answering the original question. On the otherhand we could be even further from understanding.
"One would think that a person who could think rationally would be consistent about it."
To think this would be a false assumption.
The Human animal has an innate ability to simultaniously hold as true two opposing and contradictory beliefs/opinions.
Psycologists have a word for it. ( but I can't remember what it is)
Once we can understand the mechanism of this trait we could be a long way towards answering the original question. On the otherhand we could be even further from understanding.
LG, since I do not believe that anything is supernatural, I don't claim that my experiences emanated from any such cause, and therefore I do not number myself amongst 'the faithful' as you put it. Everything must have a logical explanation - even if that explanation currently eludes us. Carl Sagan's quote (which I believe was actually originally coined by Marcello Truzzi) is, in my opinion, a very convenient get out, and I believe its continual repetition by those who, in reality, have no rational argument to offer, hampers serious investigation. "We see no evidence, therefore we won't look" - and suddenly we're back to Theland's flat-earthers! A lack of curiosity coupled with the arrogant and insulting attitude of people who think they know what no one else on earth knows is nothing to be proud of.
Ludwig, thank you. Exactly.
Groupie, I like your joke. :o)
Ludwig, thank you. Exactly.
Groupie, I like your joke. :o)
I was going to repost about my belief criteria saying that actually there was also a spiritual and emotional content to it as well...and maybe on some level, there is but actually to me, having given it more thought today, that is the initial basis for what i believe in...or rather the spiritual aspects of the universe that I choose to interact with.
I didn't have a road to Damascus conversion, although twice there have been personal phenomena that i can't explain. The first belief attempt was an act of purely objective will but when you see and feel change then act of will becomes active belief. Anone who thinks its an easy route has never tried it or at least not tried my way.
I didn't have a road to Damascus conversion, although twice there have been personal phenomena that i can't explain. The first belief attempt was an act of purely objective will but when you see and feel change then act of will becomes active belief. Anone who thinks its an easy route has never tried it or at least not tried my way.
ludwig, you don't have to file ESP (for example) under 'pending for now' especially as you confess to knowing little about it. There is plenty of information about the controlled tests done on alleged ESP, all of which show that there is no such thing. Isn't it better to empty your 'pending' tray rather than be lazy about it?
naomi's view is that if we 'don't know' then we must keep an open mind. I don't know that there aren't invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden who come out at night and paint the lilies. But the probability is so low that I prefer "This idea is worth dismissing until someone produces the first bit of evidence for it." That is not a closed mind as she seems to think, but a mind that is ready to work given something to work on.
I think I'll have to give up hoping for an answer to my question. I had hoped that pixi (who rejects weeping statues but accepts alien abductions) would elaborate, but, alas, no.
I'll start something else perhaps.
naomi's view is that if we 'don't know' then we must keep an open mind. I don't know that there aren't invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden who come out at night and paint the lilies. But the probability is so low that I prefer "This idea is worth dismissing until someone produces the first bit of evidence for it." That is not a closed mind as she seems to think, but a mind that is ready to work given something to work on.
I think I'll have to give up hoping for an answer to my question. I had hoped that pixi (who rejects weeping statues but accepts alien abductions) would elaborate, but, alas, no.
I'll start something else perhaps.
Chakka, if your manners were such that you were gracious enough to show a modicum of respect for people who think differently to you, you would have plenty to work on. I've given you at least one example that you haven't been able to explain, but rather than continue to consider it, you insult not only my intelligence, but me personally, dismissing the potential project as a 'delusion' simply because it doesn't fit your preferred world-view. That, I strongly suspect is the real truth of the matter. As I said before wanting it to be so doesn't make it so - and if you think it does, you're deluding yourself.
As for your question, how can you possibly compare alien abductions to ESP? I can't make any sense of it, but clever Woofgang seems to have dunnit. I await your response to her with eager anticipation.
As for your question, how can you possibly compare alien abductions to ESP? I can't make any sense of it, but clever Woofgang seems to have dunnit. I await your response to her with eager anticipation.
Chakka, I tend to agree with others here that you have been provided with answers to your question albeit implicitly if not conclusively. Ultimately we all draw our own conclusions based on our consideration and interpretations of the evidence and experiences given our understanding of the process of and the consequential ability to reason. Some think reason is whatever they feel and believe it is and have never taken the time to consider the possibility that reason is a phenomenon that too must be understood to arrive at a subsequent explicit understanding of our conscious experience.
I suppose it should come as no surprise that while there are no valid rational explanations for these phenomena which some people choose to believe might, (and in some cases are in fact convinced do) exist, many of these same people are extremely reluctant to consider the possibility that there might be an explanation as for why they are not and can not be what they at first appear to be and in some cases are clearly offended by the suggestion that such explanations might exist or are even possible. I know from experience what it's like, when the safe haven in which one has placed their entire egg basket of cherished beliefs has been undermined and the lack of a firmly established foundation has been exposed by the questions we face and ones house of cards comes crumbling down.
I suppose it should come as no surprise that while there are no valid rational explanations for these phenomena which some people choose to believe might, (and in some cases are in fact convinced do) exist, many of these same people are extremely reluctant to consider the possibility that there might be an explanation as for why they are not and can not be what they at first appear to be and in some cases are clearly offended by the suggestion that such explanations might exist or are even possible. I know from experience what it's like, when the safe haven in which one has placed their entire egg basket of cherished beliefs has been undermined and the lack of a firmly established foundation has been exposed by the questions we face and ones house of cards comes crumbling down.
It’s simply not enough to believe in something from which we derive a fuzzy sense of certainty and security. Reality has a way of coming around to turn such beliefs on their head. When such beliefs are exposed by virtue of their inherent weakness, it matters not whether those beliefs are entirely without merit or do in fact have a basis in reality if the essential foundation on which they rest has not been firmly established. One is no less vulnerable to the impact and no less made aware of the need to rebuild ones world view on whatever foundation remains.
For those who do find themselves sitting once more in the rubble of the consequences of chance placed cards I urge you, as one who has been there and knows your pain, to reassess the basis on which you adopt and accept what it is you choose to believe so as to avoid falling once more to the fate of the WTC. What’s even sadder is when we refuse to learn from our mistakes only to find ourselves wondering time and again and then once more why we find ourselves back in the same predicament for which there is only one way out, assuming you are not content to simply succumb to or furthermore wallow in it.
For those who do find themselves sitting once more in the rubble of the consequences of chance placed cards I urge you, as one who has been there and knows your pain, to reassess the basis on which you adopt and accept what it is you choose to believe so as to avoid falling once more to the fate of the WTC. What’s even sadder is when we refuse to learn from our mistakes only to find ourselves wondering time and again and then once more why we find ourselves back in the same predicament for which there is only one way out, assuming you are not content to simply succumb to or furthermore wallow in it.
While we should never presume that someone knows more than we do, nor should we presume the opposite, that no one knows more than we do. None of us would have anywhere near the knowledge we possess without the benefit of the discoveries of those who down through history sought to understand what others had learned and thereby made that knowledge their own. We owe an incalculable debt to those who dared to suggest that something new that threatens the existing paradigm has been discovered, and this is what it is and how it can be confirmed. But ultimately it is ones own choice whether to consider the possibility that they don’t already ‘know’ that which cannot be known until it is fully understood.
I’ve offered the observation many times before in this forum that one can not know anything with any degree of certainty without knowing explicitly what knowledge is, where it comes from, how it is acquired, and the means by which its validity is established. Reason is the means, but before you can use reason you must first know what the process is and how and why it works. But rather then enquire into the nature of this process they prefer to go on believing in that which they do not understand. This is what I find perplexing, but as I persist in seeking an understanding of this phenomenon, the answers slowly but surely are being revealed. But of most value to me in this quest is the benefit of gaining the ability to better understand myself, an understanding none of us should be afraid to acquire no matter how troubling and frightening the prospect of discovering whatever it is we might be hidinge from ourselves.
I’ve offered the observation many times before in this forum that one can not know anything with any degree of certainty without knowing explicitly what knowledge is, where it comes from, how it is acquired, and the means by which its validity is established. Reason is the means, but before you can use reason you must first know what the process is and how and why it works. But rather then enquire into the nature of this process they prefer to go on believing in that which they do not understand. This is what I find perplexing, but as I persist in seeking an understanding of this phenomenon, the answers slowly but surely are being revealed. But of most value to me in this quest is the benefit of gaining the ability to better understand myself, an understanding none of us should be afraid to acquire no matter how troubling and frightening the prospect of discovering whatever it is we might be hidinge from ourselves.
When we perceive reality as the enemy, it becomes an enemy, not by virtue of pure chance but by our own design. In conforming to reality it may at first seem we lose friends but one soon discovers who our actual friends really are, those willing to confront reality head on and question the basis on which they formulate and determine what can be justifiably believed and therefore what should be believed. Our friends are not those who support our world view without questioning what that world view entails. Our true friends are those with the courage to question, examine and evaluate each others world view in an effort to understand it and thereby themselves and each other better.
In this world we live, troubled largely by a lack of mutual understanding, I submit that I am not here solely for the entertainment value regardless or any preconceptions not refuted by the unreasonable and unjustifiable way my views have been dismissed out of hand by some in this thread. The fact is I see not only room for improvement in this world and in ourselves but have reason to believe that such is possible and essential to our well-being and further progress . . . even if you do not consider yours truly as irrefutable proof of the fact. ;o)
Can’t wait to see your next question Chakka. For some this question may have been answered to their satisfaction, for some, maybe not, and for others still, maybe they’re resolved that it never be answered to their own satisfaction.
In this world we live, troubled largely by a lack of mutual understanding, I submit that I am not here solely for the entertainment value regardless or any preconceptions not refuted by the unreasonable and unjustifiable way my views have been dismissed out of hand by some in this thread. The fact is I see not only room for improvement in this world and in ourselves but have reason to believe that such is possible and essential to our well-being and further progress . . . even if you do not consider yours truly as irrefutable proof of the fact. ;o)
Can’t wait to see your next question Chakka. For some this question may have been answered to their satisfaction, for some, maybe not, and for others still, maybe they’re resolved that it never be answered to their own satisfaction.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Home & Garden10 mins ago
T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV10 mins ago
Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News11 mins ago
Crosswords22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.