Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Fundy Logic



The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. --GB Shaw

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Delos B. McKown

47 comments:

  1. I've been viewing fundamentalism not as a delusion lately, but more of a fantasy.

    In a way, being a Christian is a lot like having a huge hero fantasy. After being redeemed for your sinful past, you go on a long journey to save not only others from certain death, but the entire world!

    When you're a Christian, you're a hero with super powers granted by God. It's up to you to sacrifice yourself to the greater good even if it means persecution or paying the ultimate price, martyrdom.

    Separating fantasy from reality can be difficult, and many people are quite stubborn about it. It all makes sense and why religion is compartmentalized within the life of the believer... it's a fixed fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaitlyn

    That's a nice way of looking at it.


    What's the difference between delusion and fantasy?

    ReplyDelete
  3. BSH,
    Not mine- From Motifake.com.
    It's down in the corner of the Image but kinda hard to see.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Benjamin, you asked...
    "What's the difference between delusion and fantasy?"

    Doing research to answer your question, I now realize... not much.

    However, it looks like a delusion is the result of a psychological illness (see Terry), where as a fantasy is the result of a psychological desire.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kaitlyn

    I was looking up definitions of delusion, and I came across this one at medicine.net-

    Delusion: A false personal belief that is not subject to reason or contradictory evidence and is not explained by a person's usual cultural and religious concepts (so that, for example, it is not an article of faith). A delusion may be firmly maintained in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is false. Delusions are a frequent feature of schizophrenia.

    I don't understand why this definition specifically excludes religion as a delusion, as opposed to virtually all the other definitions I have read. Is it perhaps because no religion can be proven that it is a false personal belief?

    Or is it that while all religions are an illusion, if enough of a culture believes in it, it is not a delusion?

    I do like the correlation between religion (as fantasy) and psychological desire. Perhaps mankind does have an inherant need (desire) for belief in the supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You guys ever heard of properly basic beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You guys ever heard of properly basic beliefs?"

    Brilliant! As long as my belief is basic, it doesn't need a justification based on other beliefs!

    Therefore... Atheismo exists!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Brilliant! As long as my belief is basic, it doesn't need a justification based on other beliefs!"
    well it also has to have enough warrant to overcome defeaters and be reasonably consistent with the world.
    It isn't an argument for anything- it is just a justification for belief and reason

    ReplyDelete
  9. Atheismo plays a hand in all things. It's quite obvious. There are an infinite number of Atheismos that direct every atom and every thought.

    In fact, our mind is just an expression of an Atheismo. This is where stories of fairies came from. There are no fairies, just Atheismo.

    My belief in Atheiso(s) has enough warrant to overcome defeaters and be reasonably consistent with the world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Clearly, there's no sign of any godly intervention anywhere in the universe. Most importantly, there's no sign of godly intervention in human development thanks to a rather complete understanding of Darwinian evolution.

    A belief in an intervening god is at odds with observable reality.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kaitlyn keeps up with her Futurama.

    Atheismo be praised.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MFT-

    It seems that you have landed in an alternate universe, similar to your own except that instead of science, they believe in crazy magic and superstition. So it's a lot like Ray Comfort's blog.

    Oh, and regarding proper Basic, it's best if spoken in a Coruscanti accent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Beamstalk, I'm glad I'm not the only one who got the Atheismo joke from the latest Futurama movie. :)

    People who follow Atheismo would be called Atheists. :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I guess you're not interested in proper basicality and warrant Kaitlyn. Whatever. (I wonder how you justify things like the existence of the past without proper basicality)
    "Most importantly, there's no sign of godly intervention in human development thanks to a rather complete understanding of Darwinian evolution."
    Kaitlyn , you are painting everything with a wide brush. What about NDE's and the nature of the mind or our cognitive faculties


    "A belief in an intervening god is at odds with observable reality."
    How did you come to this conclusion? What about all the instances that people claim are miracles?

    ReplyDelete
  15. MrFreeThinky wrote:
    "How did you come to this conclusion? What about all the instances that people claim are miracles?"

    Funny that you should bring this up in a thread discussing the difference between delusion and fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. MFT said...

    "What about all the instances that people claim are miracles?

    Exactly.

    Oh, and you forgot OBE's, ghosts and demonic possession.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MrFreeThinker,
    Obviously NDE (Near Death Experiences) are the result of a lack of oxygen to the brain causing the dying person to hallucinate.

    Your link about cognitive abilities attempted to derive philosophy from a scientific theory. That is a huge mistake unless you find Social Darwinism acceptable and rational.

    Here's what I want to know: If there's a God who created the Universe with humans at the center as the only sentient creatures, how do you explain alien abductions and crop circles?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kaitlyn,
    Not so fast there honey.

    We do, in fact, have a bigfoot that lives near my house.
    I never saw him or anything but all those people couldn't be wrong.

    Then, about two weeks ago I was walking through a field across from my house and lo and behold I walked up on a BigFoot napping.

    I ran home and got a can of that whipped creme stuff and went back. I filled his hand with whipped creme and then I tickeled his nose with a piece of grass. Of course, he went to bat away the tickling and got a face full of creme. He was really pissed and chased me all the way home.

    Just as I slammed the door behind me I could see him liking of the creme and he semed to enjoy it so I put a can on the back porch and sure enough, the next morning it was gone.

    I leave him a can or two about three nights a week now and he's caused me no grief.

    Yes, he is real, and he loves me, I think. He can take a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And I was talking aboout NDE where people had observed confirmed events that they could not have known otherwise..

    "Your link about cognitive abilities attempted to derive philosophy from a scientific theory."
    The basic idea was that there was no mechanism within a naturalistic worldview that could ensure our cognitive faculties are accurate. And evolution (alone) does not care whether beliefs are true, but whether they impact survival value.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mister,
    I am sorry that you are the only one that doesn't realize that you are outclassed my many magnitudes of order.

    I rather feel sorry for your inability to use logic and reason in your thinking process.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I rather feel sorry for your inability to use logic and reason in your thinking process. "
    I feel rather sorry for your inability to account for logic and reason in your worldview, your flimsy theory of epistemic justification, inability to account for the reliability of your cognitive faculties and the monster in your backyard.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I feel rather sorry for your inability to account for logic and reason in your worldview, your flimsy theory of epistemic justification, inability to account for the reliability of your cognitive faculties and the monster in your backyard."

    I feel rather sorry for you in general.

    The atheist DOES account for logic(reason is the same thing, kiddo), the reliability of cognitive faculties, and epistemic justification - they're human made and human processed constructs and tools.

    JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE OUR ANSWER DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE NOT GIVEN YOU ONE.

    We can provide mountains of evidence to bolster our case that these things are all human constructed and tended.

    You, on the other hand, have no way to account for anything you've mentioned seeing as you base your worldview on the unproved premise that the bible is the inerrant work of god because it says it is - and you provide no evidence to support your assertions that does not pre-suppose the bibles validity.

    In short, you fail, again.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Froggie
    I talk about proper basicality , point out that there are documented instances of near-death experiences in medical journals and point out a possible defeater for naturalism and you accuse me of not using logic?
    I'm glad I don't react that way when my epistemology or worldview is challenged. I'd never learn anything

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maragon I think Scmike and Sye have already pointed out the problems with logic being a human construct and in questions you refused to answer.
    and i was never claiming theories of epistemic justification were not man-made. And you otally missed the boat on the part about our coonitive faculties

    ReplyDelete
  25. What is "proper basicality"? Is that like "self-evident" or something?

    ReplyDelete
  26. MFT, I was just looking at some of the other threads you are in. Are you a teenager? Just want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Essentially we are justified in believing something either because it is supported by evidence or if this belief is properly basic.
    Traditionally properly basic beliefs are things like belief in mathematics or logic hat are foundational to knowledge.Philosophers like Plantiga argue that any belief can be properly basic is they are reasonably consistent with a sensible worldview and has enough warrant to overcome possible defeaters.
    Things like this can be belief in the existence of the past, trust in the reliability of our senses, trust in our memory , belief in the existence of other minds and belief in the existence of god.It is not an argument or proof for anything. It just says that any person can reasonable and believe these things even if they have no evidence.

    http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth06.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. MFT,

    We have had this talk before:

    The basic idea was that there was no mechanism within a naturalistic worldview that could ensure our cognitive faculties are accurate.

    There is a mechanism, and it is called natural selection. Keep reading.

    And evolution (alone) does not care whether beliefs are true, but whether they impact survival value.

    True, evolution does not care. All you need is the ability to survive. But (huge "but") there is no reason, whatsoever, to think that the truthfulness of any "belief" (note that I use quotes because it is not just beliefs, but a whole construct of cognitive stuff) is independent of all others. These things are the result of a complex system. This system produces cognitive faculties. These might not be 100% reliable, but there is no reason to think that each time we think of something it has the very same probability to be true or false, nor that it should be 0.5 probable either way. I told you once: natural selection will favor the survival of those whose sets of beliefs SYSTEMS is more reliable over those whose systems are less reliable. Systems MFT, not single isolated beliefs each with a probability of being right or wrong of 0.5. This makes lots of sense. Of course, reliability is not always the case, and that is why we have built so many things to make sure we are in the right track.

    Now you got it?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "MFT, I was just looking at some of the other threads you are in. Are you a teenager? Just want to know."
    Yeah

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chris Mackey, you could have at least googled all that stuff.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief

    and "MrFreeThinker" is also "facilisdescenus". Who lists his age as 19.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/facilisdescenus

    Here's a link for you chris mackey:
    www.google.com

    ReplyDelete
  32. How'd u know all that about me Adam?
    Are you stalking me?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Maragon I think Scmike and Sye have already pointed out the problems with logic being a human construct and in questions you refused to answer."

    I answered every single one of their inane, tedious, ridiculous questions - multiple times.
    They never once answered why I should accept anything they say as true when they cannot account for all the things they claim are absolute because the entirety of their worldview is based on the circular, unproved premise that the bible is the inerrant work of god because it says it is.

    "Are you a teenager? Just want to know."

    Yeah, I was pretty sure I knew everything when I was 19 too. Hopefully, like I did, you'll grow out of it.

    Think about it this way, no really, think about this:

    The most intelligent minds that humanity has had to offer have been pondering questions about our purpose, the existence of god, logic, reason, existence, the nature of the universe(etc) for thousands of years. They have come to no consensus on the biggest issues and the toughest questions.

    But you, you think you have the answer to those questions...because you read some stuff on the internet. Do you fail to understand your extreme and laughable arrogance?

    ReplyDelete
  34. to MFT: Teenagers have this huge amount of energy that they can channel into things. And it seems like you've got a brand new toy that you're not going to give up on. ( I also thought you might be in it for the LULZ but maybe not... )
    Anyway, it all screamed "teenager" to me.
    -----
    And thanks Adam for the link to Google. Grumpy today, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Maragon said:

    "Yeah, I was pretty sure I knew everything when I was 19 too. Hopefully, like I did, you'll grow out of it."

    I'm sorry, but that's funny. Just think of it.

    Don't we all think we grow out of it? And doesn't that, in fact, make us seem to be even more 'all-knowing' and arrogant?

    I've made this same statement, and I'm not criticizing Maragon. It just struck me as funny.

    True, at 19 we all seem to think we're:
    -Invincible
    - all-knowing (more like 'know-it-alls')
    - On our way to being millionaires before we reach the age of 30
    - The person that everybody wants as a friend

    ...or some combination thereof.

    Human nature. I'm not denouncing it, just observing it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Don't we all think we grow out of it? And doesn't that, in fact, make us seem to be even more 'all-knowing' and arrogant?"

    I'm not basing my pronouncement on my personal assessments though, but rather on the testimony of those who know me best, ie my parents.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Maragon -

    Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

    I was, more or less, trying to make light of it in general. No offence intended (but I think you know that).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sorry I'm commenting so late on these threads. Last week was tough, and my boss brought a particularly virulent strain of the flu with him from Berlin. Blech...

    In regards to Froggie's first quote in the OP, I actually disagree with Mr. Shaw. Happiness is EXACTLY the issue religion is trying to address.

    "Happiness" in this case conjugates to providing answers to the scary questions. Even if those answers are false (the opinion of which is subject to much debate), the comfort provided by that answer appears to outweight its validity.

    No, religion survives in part because it provides happiness.

    As does alchohol.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I would argue that WEM, on semantics. I think religion provides community and community provides happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'd agree, Rocky.

    To be fair, the KKK provides community too; I'm not claiming that happiness somehow trumps everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Arg!

    MFT wrote I talk about proper basicality , point out that there are documented instances of near-death experiences in medical journals and point out a possible defeater for naturalism and you accuse me of not using logic?
    I'm glad I don't react that way when my epistemology or worldview is challenged. I'd never learn anything


    Let me ask the following: given that you assume the validity of your world view, and exclude contradicting evidence, in what way could an idea or personal experience possibly challenge it?

    ReplyDelete
  42. LAOF,

    True, at 19 we all seem to think we're:
    -Invincible


    What? Are we not?

    - all-knowing (more like 'know-it-alls')

    So, I do not know it all?

    - On our way to being millionaires before we reach the age of 30

    Hum, gone. Maybe by 50?

    - The person that everybody wants as a friend

    So, it was all pretense? I always thought ...

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.