|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jun 11, 2009 11:55:49 GMT -5
Well, I think that goes to human desire for stability, for one thing. To know something beyond all doubt is firm ground to stand on. To think that there might be lots of other conditions or possibilities can be an unsettling feeling, especially to someone who really is critically thinking for the first time about the world around them. My son has asked similar questions recently (and I just expect them to get more complicated), and he seems to want to respond to everything with "Yes, but how do we know?" He wants certainty. Most knowledge is more a case of "Well, under these circumstances or with these conditions this is so." My nearly-12-year-old wants more stability than that. But accepting that conditions change, that things are in flux, I think is critical to really developing as a thinker.
The process of testing information and figuring things out is more valid sometimes than the product. What we think of as good ideas can often change rapidly (eugenics programs, anyone?); but the method of trying to figure things out tends to always keep us actively looking and testing to make sure what we thought was right really is right.
I find such questions to be a sign of an active mind. I don't think it's a "trollish" thing to ask at all.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Jun 11, 2009 14:03:27 GMT -5
Yes it obviously goes without saying that modern events for which we have living witnesses, documentation, and film footage as evidence for, in fact did happen.
I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here, which events are you questioning? As far as "recorded history" goes we have a pretty accurate idea of events going back to the era of the Egyptians. Yes, that only covers a little more than 5000 years, but that is pretty much when the written record disappears. Still the written record to that time either contradicts or fails to support the theology of the Christian faith.
Before that all we have is archaeology to supply evidence as to how people lived. The point I would like to make foremost is that it does not matter how much of that is supposition or how much is logically supported by the facts because the evidence alone goes back over 100,000 years. The simple fact that mankind was around for more than 10 times as long as any creationist theory supports automatically invalidates creation theory as held by both the Y.E.C. and O.E.C. crowd.
If you are talking about how can we know about events even before humans existed then we have a whole host of sources of evidence. These include biology, archaeology, geology, astronomy, radiology, and geneticists. There is truly overwhelming evidence to support our contention that the bible is wholly a myth and that it should be lended no more credence than any other god myth. Evolution theory is strongly supported by all of them, in fact contrary to how the Y.E.C. supporters try to say that there is a crisis in the evidence it only grows stronger every day.
The ONLY "evidence" those of religious belief have is their "feeling" that there must be something more, something greater. They cite as evidence religious hysteria, mass belief, historical precedence of belief in "feelings" going back 2000 years. They cite as miracles everyday occurrences that are as easily explained by natural events, they profess faith in the large miracles of the past confirmed only by oral history, yet they call people who claim miracles today "nuts" when they are scrutinized.
Back any person with "faith" into a corner concerning modern day miracles and that is all the proof you need that they are wrong. Even they do not honestly believe what they are saying, when any modern event is subjected to investigation they will not claim it as a miracle.
They have no proof, no evidence, nothing other than the way those with strong religious beliefs claim to feel gods presence and the ability to "hear" god. There are hundreds of other beliefs currently and thousands in the past that can claim exactly the same. They all believe(d) in the existance of their particular god and cite(d) the same reasons as their proof, are they to be believed too?
The more we learn the less reason there is to believe that gods are necessary to explain the universe around us. I look forward to the day that we can with some degree of certitude explain the origin of the universe and of life. I do not believe that we are very far away now, but I am also faced with the knowledge that irregardless we will never be rid of superstitious beliefs.
Science and knowlege is not the enemy of belief no matter how much the church claims it is. Rather the enemy of belief is doubt, that doubt afflicts even the most ardent of believers, it always has. The evidence provided by science has simply increased the number of reasons for doubt, the growing knowlege of our origins gives those already seeking other answers better reasons to disbelieve.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jun 11, 2009 17:16:43 GMT -5
To go along with science and knowledge and religious belief bit, it isn't even so much as doubt sometimes as it is asking questions. What was once certain religious belief can often be disproven by just asking questions and investigating how things work. Some cultures, for example, believed that children with what we know now was epilepsy were getting messages from the gods, being inhabited by them. That was considered common "knowledge" then. But critical thinking, testing, exploring, curiousity, etc. has proven that is not correct knowledge. We build on the knowledge that comes before, we refine it if it's wrong, try to keep what we know is right. It's a shifting process, but that doesn't mean that it was true, for example, that children back then "caught the spirit" -- it still meant they had epilepsy, whether people knew what that was or not. Lots of things in the Bible and about other religious dogma are disproven in just the same way. Think of how fundamentalists say that because knowledge about evolution has changed, that must mean it isn't true. They're used to having a prescribed dogma that never changes. "God says do X." No questions asked. And so they interpret competing theories and refined explanations as "proof" that the entire concept of evolution must be wrong. But that isn't how knowledge and inquiry work. I don't think there are any questions that the critical thinking process can't try to work up an answer to that would mean resorting to "God says so."
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 11, 2009 18:52:05 GMT -5
I know I'm right when the voices in my head go quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 12, 2009 21:13:17 GMT -5
Admiral Lithp: a troll? I've had a(n) FSTDT account(s) since the middle of last year. For me, asking questions in order to incite a critical response (and then responding to those responses) is what makes a forum interesting. Damen, lonelocust: indeed, I'm flirting with fallacious arguments. But consider that one purpose of my musing is to extract what conclusions I can out of fundamentalism, if any exist. (Another is to gauge how similar the viewpoints of other people on FSTDT are to mine). Rest assured that I know better than to actually extend the argument so far as to give extreme religious beliefs more credence than they deserve. ausador, dantesvirgil: maybe that's what separates `us' from `them'—we believe the most `correct' mindset is the one that survives the most criticism, whereas they feel that the best one is the one to which the most sentiment is attached. This, of course. --- Some of what I was trying to emphasise was the apparent disconnect between tests that can be done in one's own lifetime with equipment in existence, and methods of ascertaining history, and how it relates to modern fundie attacks. In a sense, a different `definition' of time is being used—one based on inference, not direct observation—which is possibly more difficult to grasp. For example, when one estimates time based on radioisotope decay, one is relying on the accuracy of the measured decay rate and the tacit (but justified) assumption that the laws of physics do not change with time. I think those instances where the operational definition of a quantity requires extension are prone to attack by fundamentalist arguments from ignorance. Also, historiography can be a slippy subject: our understanding of history is often revised in light of new evidence, and historians have conflicting views and biases on various events. This permanent controversy, too, most likely allows for arguments from ignorance. @canadian mojo: there is more depth to your statement than is more apparent. I would `karma++;', if not for the already gargantuan number.
|
|
ldm
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by ldm on Jun 13, 2009 6:35:30 GMT -5
I don't know if I'm right, all I know is what feels right to me. That some giant ghost just clapped his hands and poof, here we are, just doesn't make sense to me. Nor does the idea that one day certain selected people are just going to shoot up into the sky for some big eternal bash. And that those people will be chosen simply by sucking up to some man who's been dead for 2000 years, and doing nothing else with their sad pathetic lives.
I also have problems with people being forced to live a lie just because someone they don't even know can't bear to face the truth about them, or a woman being forced to carry a parasite feeding off her body for 9 months when she is not physically or emotionally able to do so, or when it's already dead or dying.
And forcing me to say words that mean nothing to me is not religious freedom, it religious dictatorship. Forcing me to read a book I read years ago, or enter a building once a week, where for years I felt nothing but boredom will only make me feel trapped, and harbor resentment towards those forcing this on me. When and IF the day ever comes that all of this starts to make sense to me, it will be because I thought it through and decided for myself that it felt right and is right for me, and not just because the fundie down the street needed to fill his soul winning quota for the week.
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Jun 13, 2009 9:23:58 GMT -5
How can anybody know what knowledge is correct? It's easy to say something like "my beliefs are correct because they're backed up by evidence," but then how can one know what degree of evidence is sufficient "proof" of a correct belief? - How do people on this site know that they're not suffering from a confirmation bias by habitually posting on sites where people agree with them?
- Why should scepticism be valued so much?
- How do we know that people from Rapture Ready or an equivalent community aren't really correct, and that scientific methods are the only test of knowledge?
I try to keep an open mind, but ultimately the only reasonable approach to understanding the universe is an epistemological approach: we have to base our conclusions on our observations of the universe and a logical analysis of those observations. The alternative is to paint a picture of the universe based on statements which can't be verified. What would be the point of that? They can't be answered or falsified, not even in principle, they can't add to the total sum of knowledge in the universe. Occasionally, a supernatural claim makes some kind of verifiable statement, but as of today, we've never been able to reliably observe a single supernatural event in a controlled setting. In all likelihood, they don't exist (more forcefully, they cannot exist). Fundies would argue that there's a worldwide conspiracy of evil atheist scientists who are trying to trick the world into believing in evolution for some reason. The argument is that scientists, whether they know it or not, are being controlled by demonic forces, deliberately suppressing evidence of divine creation, and fabricating proofs for evolution, the big bang, heliocentricism, germ-born illnesses, etc. How would fundies even know this? They aren't the ones digging up bones in the desert, living with primitive tribes in the amazon, crunching huge quantities of climate data with supercomputers, deriving mathematical equations, etc. They aren't making observations of the universe which contradict the scientific consensus -- they aren't making observations period. Whatever they say contributes nothing new or useful to the sum of knowledge in the universe Its rational to go with the scientific consensus, and right now the consensus paints a picture of the universe which is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from an atheistic universe.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Jun 13, 2009 10:14:57 GMT -5
Religiously, I have no way of knowing that I'm right. I believe that I'm right, but that's a much more spiritual, subjective thing. Truth be told, one one level I could almost be called an agnostic, I don't think there is any way to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. But I also have faith, which I think is different. And if that makes no sense to you, well, it doesn't have to.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jun 13, 2009 20:43:20 GMT -5
The truth of the matter is, the universe was created at precisely 11:40 pm on February 4, 1974. All of you with memories that "extend" prior to that time are hallucinating.
Prove me wrong. ;D
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Jun 13, 2009 22:53:25 GMT -5
The truth of the matter is, the universe was created at precisely 11:40 pm on February 4, 1974. All of you with memories that "extend" prior to that time are hallucinating. Prove me wrong. ;D I...I can't...I was born in 1980....
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jun 13, 2009 23:30:35 GMT -5
The truth of the matter is, the universe was created at precisely 11:40 pm on February 4, 1974. All of you with memories that "extend" prior to that time are hallucinating. Prove me wrong. ;D Easy. The universe was in fact created last Thursday. 1974 never happened, therefore the universe couldn't have been created then. QED.
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Jun 14, 2009 0:26:53 GMT -5
Wait...you mean the universe wasn't created three years ago by a young high school girl named Harhui?
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Jun 14, 2009 14:56:08 GMT -5
It was actually created at CERN.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 14, 2009 23:04:50 GMT -5
I give an the "Rookie Test". If I can successfully defend while a)drunk, b) stoned, AND c) not drunk or stoned, (but never all three at the same time) and the arguments themselves (that part's important as my various chemical states will cause me to use different words and at different speeds) don't change, then my idea must be right.
|
|