Quantum shight

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

So, you are now claiming that Camilla Rees is a fraud and is making up sources to support her claims? I am frankly astounded that you don't bother to do any research before making such outrageous allegations.

No, I'm claiming you are highly inconsistent in how you treat your sources based on whether the sources align with the narrative you hold.

So Economist or Guardian, well respected newspapers, are untrustworthy because they aren't reporting that cell phones cause cancers.

Random webpage on the internet, trustworthy, because it is.

Narrative, narrative, narrative.

Which goes back to the original point, people are inclined to follow particular narratives if the narratives are of a certain kind, without rationally evaluating what is being put in front of them. I've already given the example of accepting the few reports that claim link with something dangerous, and rejecting the vastly more than don't.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is not just a list of names, there are interviews on the site with >10 scientists and medical professionals who are identified not just by name, but by organization. Are you seriously suggesting all this is fraudulent?

I've no idea if it is fraudulent. The question is why do you assume it isn't, when you were highly skeptical of the Economist and Guardian, two newspapers that would have far more fact checking and standards to uphold than a personal website. Why you would automatically consider this website trustworthy without knowing anything about the standards used to produce it, while at the same time claiming skepticism against other sources.

Of course the answer is obvious. You automatically accepted this website because it is telling you want you want to hear.

Which brings us back to the original point about mumbo jumbo.

nagirrac

Good post GCU, nothing like a real world example. I would go a step further and invoke our dear friend Deepak. I think of Deepak as a fine example of living the American dream, at the expense of people with more money than sense, and who am I to criticize them. Its not like he doesn't know a bit about mainstream medicine, he did his internship in the US and taught at Boston college and Harvard and had a regular practive before going after the rich alternative market.

If I were genuinely sick and needing medical care then I would not turn to Deepak, nor would he want me. I would also not recommend anyone go to Deepak if they were genuinely sick. Not that he couldn't treat them, that's not his target audience so to speak.

If someone is in need of a bit of a tune up, say they are a bit overweight and feeling down, then reading one of Deepak's early books on nutrition, exercise and meditation could be helpful (the meditation time could be used to reduce calorie intake:p). There are many other books just as good or better, or no need for a book at all, just stop eating so much and go for a long walk every day. There is no doubt that a balanced Eastern style diet (Japanese for example), a bit of yoga and a bit of meditation are an excellent way to keep the body and mind in good shape, better at least than an Irish breakfast every day, and 6 pints of Guiness a night with the compulsory rants to like minded about the evils of religion .

The last category is where Deepak has made all his money, basically spa treatments for the rich with a bit of meditation and New Age Eastern Philosophy thrown in (nothing like a bit of quantum woo woo to get the Orange county housewives' spiritual juices flowing for a few days). Now, if a multi millionaire wants to spend 5 grand on a week long spa treatment who am I to complain? It would be like complaining about Irish farmers going to the spa in Lisdoonvarna in August for a cure or a wife or both. Go and read the reviews on yelp, most are very positive. They even have free ginger tea, what a treat:D

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And the motivation level isn't necessarily about delusion. Conceivably, your faith in Jesus will motivate you to phone every 24/7 plumber in the belief that God's not going to let your pipes freeze on his birthday. A rational atheist might give up after a half-dozen, illustrating the problem of induction.

It is equally possible though that the person will freeze to death because they are convinced that simply by praying to Jesus the boiler will start working again.

They might be happy while they are freezing to death, continuing to be full of hope and grace as they get sleepy, but they are still going to freeze to death.

This is the problem with magical thinking, the notion that the world bends to ones desires rather than the other way around.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

No, I'm claiming you are highly inconsistent in how you treat your sources based on whether the sources align with the narrative you hold.

Nope, you've just gone off on one of your usual rants, misrepresenting what has been said to buttress your original point.

I never criticised the Guardian which is by UK standards a good newspaper and one I read occasionally. I criticised forming a belief based on a newspaper article. If for example I want to consider evidence on potential dangers from cell phone usage, I wouldn't turn to a newspaper. I would try and find as much research as I could from a variety of sources (as I have). I agree the evidence so far does not support a major problem and is confusing, however more evidence seems to be cropping up which is concerning and perhaps understandable given cell phone usage is a relatively new phenomena.

What is most concerning to me is the same pattern of attacking researchers who report unfavorable data to the industry that we saw in the tobacco, lead and asbestos industries. You might want to research how the tobacco industry responded to the IARC report on second hand smoke a decade ago. Read the publication by the EEA "Mobile phone use and brain tumor risk, early warnings early action?" which references every scientific study done in this area, in particular the Interphone and the Hardell studies, and also gives a good overview of the response from the telecommunications industry to the recent IARC classification of RF radiation from cell phones as "possible human carcinogen". The spin has kicked in full time just as it did in the tobacco industry.

The point I made about the Economist article (and I agree, also generally a good publication) is that it does not appear balanced to me, as it mentioned all the favorable data and none of the unfavorable data. The article I posted highlighted this quite well I believe, as quite a number of statements were misleading and it neglected to mention research that suggested harmful effects of RF radiation (not just brain cancer).

It is also entirely up to you what you choose to believe or not believe, but please desist from your pseudo psychology regarding how I form my beliefs.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

It is equally possible though that the person will freeze to death because they are convinced that simply by praying to Jesus the boiler will start working again.

That's possible but, you'll notice, I'm suggesting that this isn't really (or, at least, not usually) what theists are telling us about. They don't pray for the boiler to start working again; they might pray that their heating engineer finds a quick solution, and find that reduces their own stress levels and sense of hopelessness. They don't, by-and-large suggest prayer as a way of solving a particular scientific dilemma. They do it as a practice that calms them and makes them feel more in control of their lives.

Zombrex wrote: »

They might be happy while they are freezing to death, continuing to be full of hope and grace as they get sleepy, but they are still going to freeze to death..

I found this reminded me of that line from "Annie Hall", where Woody Allen says that life reminds him of the old joke about the two old ladies in the holiday resort. One says "The food here is poison" and the other replies "Yes, and such small portions".

Even if we allow your extreme example, it's not at all clear that a shorter, happy life is worse than a longer, miserable one.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

and also gives a good overview of the response from the telecommunications industry to the recent IARC classification of RF radiation from cell phones as "possible human carcinogen". The spin has kicked in full time just as it did in the tobacco industry.

That same group also contains stuff like Coffee drinking.
But it does sound very scary and really easy to spin. :rolleyes:

18AD

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

At the same time, is there any conflict in seeing rationality as something people should be shamed into doing?

What is suggested is that if someone says that they can believe whatever they want, this is not a rational justification. It is anything but a justification for whatever belief it is. Which is fine, but lets not kid anyone by thinking that this is a reasonable way to think.

If the conclusion is that you can believe whatever you want in order to be happy then no thought is more accurate than any other.
The trouble here is that you sacrifice the very notion of knowledge. Everything simply becomes justified by "because it makes me happy." Which clearly has nothing to do with how the world works except for this single experience of happiness. A consequence of this is that then every religion is valid, every thought, no matter how nonsensical is fine, but equally has absolutely no meaning in relation to anything but your own happiness and lo, we are again cut off from the world.

What is interesting also is that this is clearly not how things work. It is not the case that I can just arbitrarily choose some thought from a book and be happy because of it. That is not the nature of happiness. (Although I'm a divil for nonsense and I am tempted to try this now). Specific things make people happy for specific reasons and I can only think that they do this because they actually mean something in the context of the world and therefore they MUST actually be thoughts about the workings of the world.

And you get into shakey territory about the workings of belief and ideas. So something like someone trying to convince themselves of a position. Or people believing things that make them miserable. This is really how belief works. Thinking can do weird things, and it commonly does so. And maybe a lot of people do these things in order to be happy but just need a little help rather than being told, yeah you can believe whatever you want. Often relatively short term pain can lead to long term benefits in an emotionally developmental context.

If this is the case, the position that anything goes becomes internally inconsistent and we fall squarely into rampant relativism. Because thoughts must be about the world but every thought about the world is equally valid.

sephir0th

People have an innate predisposition to believe in the supernatural. Unfortunately, a field such as quantum mechanics, allows people to feed their confirmation bias and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Next time someone tries to justify this nonsense, just replace whatever they're justifying with 'invisible flying monkey yogurt' and you'll see it's as well supported as their theory.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

18AD wrote: »

What is suggested is that if someone says that they can believe whatever they want, this is not a rational justification. It is anything but a justification for whatever belief it is. Which is fine, but lets not kid anyone by thinking that this is a reasonable way to think.

But I rather think the point is that, unfortunately, however much things like cause-and-effect seem confirmed by our daily experience, it simply isn't possible to draw a definitive line between "rational" and "irrational". Many have tried. All have failed.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

What is most concerning to me is the same pattern of attacking researchers who report unfavorable data to the industry that we saw in the tobacco, lead and asbestos industries.

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point.

You are attacking research that report favorable data, and putting more trust in websites (without any journalistic standards) that support the narrative that the favorable conclusions are flawed, while at the same time presenting unverified sources without any journalistic standards.

nagirrac wrote: »

The point I made about the Economist article (and I agree, also generally a good publication) is that it does not appear balanced to me, as it mentioned all the favorable data and none of the unfavorable data.

You don't seem to understand that any field of research will detect issues with any product. The reason why these studies are done on mass is to detect if there actually is a reason for concern of if the problem identified in the particular study is merely an anomaly.

If you are waiting for there to be zero unfavorable data before one can conclude that something is safe you will never reach that point.

But then that is exactly the type of attitude these people counting on, they know that even if you have a million studies that cannot find a link people will be scared by the one study that does.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is also entirely up to you what you choose to believe or not believe, but please desist from your pseudo psychology regarding how I form my beliefs.

You are providing a perfect example of the type of thing I'm talking about, it is hard not to point that out

18AD

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

...it simply isn't possible to draw a definitive line between "rational" and "irrational". Many have tried. All have failed.

It's not about a definitive line. It's about looking at specific ideas and seeing if they themselves are rational or irrational. As I attempted to demonstrate that the idea that "anything goes" is in itself contradictory and as such is actually irrational. That is demonstrable. It's not about having final abstract definitions of rational/irrational, it's about looking at individual ideas and seeing if they are rational/irrational. Even if these things aren't ultimately decidable that doesn't mean we simply don't try. That seems to be angle you keep returning to, that just because we can't know anything absolutely then it simply doesn't matter what anyone thinks. There are many grey areas between the two polar opposites of absolute knowledge and relativism.


I can't help but think that the position of anything goes, while thinking that it is being ethically just by allowing people their freedom to think whatever, is actually inherently unethical since it denies any sort of imperative to help others think or to simply think collectively as part of a community of thinkers. Thought simply becomes disconnected from everything. Everyone is an isolated armchair philosopher with no one to guide them or call them out on their mistakes.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point.

You are attacking research that report favorable data, and putting more trust in websites (without any journalistic standards) that support the narrative that the favorable conclusions are flawed, while at the same time presenting unverified sources without any journalistic standards.

You are the one spectaculatily missing the point Zombrex, but unsurprising given the black and white world you seem to inhabit.

Nowhere have I attacked any research on this matter, again stop misrepresenting what I have said, it is your normal style of debate. Just to sum it up for you once again, this is my position on the matter of potential harmful effects of prolonged cell phone usage.

1. The majority of the research done to date suggest no harmful effects.
2. There is research that reported harmful effects (the Interphone and Hardell studies).
3. For clarity and balance, read the EEA piece on the subject available online ("Mobile phone use and brain tumor risk, early warnings, early action"). The EEA is not some random website, unless you think they also have a reason to be biased.
4. In industries where harmful effects have been reported from their products in the past, the standard operating procedure is to attack the research and try and muddy the waters. We are starting to see the same behavior here.

If you want to engage in debate, engage honestly, and desist from misquoting me. Show us where I have attacked any scientific research on this topic. I am criticizing the way research is being reported in the media and the response to research from the telecommnunications industry.

Sarky

Why didn't you post a link to the EEA instead of a crappy personal website with no credibility?

PucaMama

The Browser wrote: »

I had a conversation last night with someone who I know is having a tough time emotionally for the past couple of years. She is educated, intelligent, articulate. But, like many an emotionally troubled person, has taken to reiki, crystals, having her fortune told, and latterly, quantum mysticism -- particularly what sound to me like Chopra-esque notions about quantum theory and "how it proves that we're all energy and that if you think about something and visualize it, it will come to you".

I'm wondering how best to converse with someone who clearly cannot tell good science from pseudoscience. How do you get through to them that they're being fooled? And how do you do it without hurting their feelings? And, importantly, how do you show them them that the Chopra-perspective is not the intellectual equivalent of the real scientific method? How do you show them, whhile in the middle of what is an intense but enjoyable conversation, that all of the research they've done is bogus and that they were reading the wrong stuff all along?

I said that this person is educated, and she is -- but obviously only to a point; that point being marked by a complete ignorance of the scientific method and a failure to acknowledge that "reality" isn't just something that everyone can have their own unique take on and still be right.

It's sad to witness. She also went to a psychic recently who told her the following things:

"someone close to you will soon get married"
"I can see you grandmother. I see knitting needles...she liked to knit (yes). I see a stove (yes)...and fields (yes)...with animals (yes!)"

I found it hard to keep a straight face. But I was also demoralized that otherwise intelligent people can be suckered so willingly and so easily. I was thinking of Sam Harris's conversational intolerance and applied it to the psychic's predictions/observations.

But when it came to the quantum gibberish, it was hard to convince her that the stuff she was reading was less meritorious, shall we say, than a Feynman lecture.

We both happen to be Irish and live in Dubai. I'm surrounded by blatant religiosity every day and have to bite my lip when my colleagues sincerely tell me that Arabic was the first language, that homosexuality is a terrible sin, that Arabic is spoken in heaven, and when particular lines from the Koran apparently reveal what can of course only be a divine knowledge of black holes and embryology. So I was looking forward to chatting with a similarly aged non-Muslim for a change -- and then she started with the quantum baloney. It got me down, so I came here to vent with kindreds and to ask for your points of view.

Thanks.

why is this woman any less intelligent than you because she has different beliefs its a bit strange you take such exception to her lifestyle

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

Why didn't you post a link to the EEA instead of a crappy personal website with no credibility?

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/late-lessons-chapters/late-lessons-ii-chapter-21/view

Sarky

A fat lot of good that does now after all this "No, YOU'RE spectacularly missing the point!" stuff.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

18AD wrote: »

It's not about having final abstract definitions of rational/irrational, it's about looking at individual ideas and seeing if they are rational/irrational.

Grand, but it actually is (ultimately) about having defintions of what they mean. Otherwise, we're kidding ourselves.

18AD wrote: »

Even if these things aren't ultimately decidable that doesn't mean we simply don't try. That seems to be angle you keep returning to, that just because we can't know anything absolutely then it simply doesn't matter what anyone thinks. There are many grey areas between the two polar opposites of absolute knowledge and relativism.

Grand, and I'd suspect if we figured it out more we'd find an amount of common ground in what we're actually saying. Bear in mind, what I'm suggesting is that (usually) theists aren't making utterly crazy suggestions, like planes fly because invisible angels are carrrying them. If someone says "this crystal gives me courage", well, maybe it does. If they say "this crystal will cure your cancer" or "this crystal will fix your central heating", that's a different matter. But (usually) that's not what they are doing.

I suspect what we're arguing over is reallly just how big the grey area is, and what it covers.

18AD

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect what we're arguing over is reallly just how big the grey area is, and what it covers.

Not really.

My point was that the idea that "you can believe whatever you want" doesn't actually make sense if we are trying to retain any degree of rationality. Also that the word "belief" stops making sense if this is your starting position, if we take belief to be something about the actual world, which I think it is.

Probably for another thread anyway.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

18AD wrote: »

My point was that the idea that "you can believe whatever you want" doesn't actually make sense if we are trying to retain any degree of rationality.

Which is fine. But would you accept that, by and large, people aren't applying "you can believe whatever you want" to questions that are better left to rationality. People aren't rubbing crystals off their central heating boilers, in the belief that this will fix them.

Now, I suppose we could point to creationism as an example of where a sizeable number of theists do seem to make assertions that conflict with quite an amount of evidence. But, I'd suggest, even that is something that they are doing for motivational reasons. They're rejecting a rational approach as they see it as morally debilitating to see humans as just another animal. Which, ironically, is perfectly rational if you accept their premise that people will behave differently if they don't believe themselves to be created by God.

18AD

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Which is fine. But would you accept that, by and large, people aren't applying "you can believe whatever you want" to questions that are better left to rationality.

Not really. I quite often hear people say that it's all right for people to believe whatever they want. It seems to be a common outlook. It has been brought up twice in this very thread.

I'm saying that to do so undermines the very notion of rationality. There are no questions that fall outside of rationality, or if they do, they are in fact nonsense.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

Not really. I quite often hear people say that it's all right for people to believe whatever they want. It seems to be a common outlook. It has been brought up twice in this very thread.

As I was one of the one's to make the statement let me try and explain it better. There are obviously many meanings of the word "rational" depending on the discipline, but in the context of this thread I would say the discipline is personal philosophy. In this context the definition of rational that makes sense to me (loosely from wiki) is the conformity of one's beliefs or actions with one's reasons to believe or act, or a belief or action that is not just reasoned but optimal for solving a problem or achieving a goal.

To use a simple example, let's say you know a person that is very religious and goes to church every day. If you ask them to explain why they say that going to church brings them genuine benefits; they feel close to God and before they felt this closeness their life had no meaning, they feel at peace, they reflect on their lives, it gives their life purpose, they feel love and empathy for their fellow man, etc. That's their reasoning. Now if they go out into the world every day and act like selfish hateful asshats that is irrational, as there is no conformity of the reasoning and the actual. If on the other hand they live their lives with kindness and selflessness surely they are being entirely rational?

This is where in my opinion the atheist argument with theists and deists falls down most severely. What does atheism have to offer a person like the above who seeks meaning and purpose in their life and finds it in religion? What exactly would an atheist say to such a person that would be rational for them i.e. something they would believe and that would achieve the same goal for them? I believe the answer is nothing.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

As I was one of the one's to make the statement let me try and explain it better. There are obviously many meanings of the word "rational" depending on the discipline, but in the context of this thread I would say the discipline is personal philosophy. In this context the definition of rational that makes sense to me (loosely from wiki) is the conformity of one's beliefs or actions with one's reasons to believe or act, or a belief or action that is not just reasoned but optimal for solving a problem or achieving a goal.

To use a simple example, let's say you know a person that is very religious and goes to church every day. If you ask them to explain why they say that going to church brings them genuine benefits; they feel close to God and before they felt this closeness their life had no meaning, they feel at peace, they reflect on their lives, it gives their life purpose, they feel love and empathy for their fellow man, etc. That's their reasoning. Now if they go out into the world every day and act like selfish hateful asshats that is irrational, as there is no conformity of the reasoning and the actual. If on the other hand they live their lives with kindness and selflessness surely they are being entirely rational?

This is where in my opinion the atheist argument with theists and deists falls down most severely. What does atheism have to offer a person like the above who seeks meaning and purpose in their life and finds it in religion? What exactly would an atheist say to such a person that would be rational for them i.e. something they would believe and that would achieve the same goal for them? I believe the answer is nothing.

I think it's unfair to suggest that atheism has nothing to offer. It's not really the purpose of atheism to offer anything. I'd also make the same case for theism. The reason is atheism and theism are theological positions they are not religions. You're not comparing like with like.

If we take the simplest idea of a person who believes in a God who, created the universe but didn't really give an asshat's about it since its creation, then you've basically got a theistic belief system that is lacking all the values you criticised atheism for. Atheism in the guise of buddhism offers a person plenty of the qualities that you claim it supposedly lacked. It should hopefully be clear that atheism or theism by themselves are just stances or positions of belief. They may lay the groundwork for someone's philosophical frameworks but they are not necessarily the reason why that framework will fail or succeed.

Most of the posters, if not all, on this forum subscribe to two basic axioms.
- That truth is the fundamental epistemic value.
- That any belief require evidence or reasoning, preferably both.

It's perfectly possible to build a rational framework without those two axioms. However, I believe, it's not really possible to build a rational framework that would lead to such pragmatic outcomes that we have in society today.
Of course, just because something has proven pragmatic doesn't necessarily mean it is good. But, the romanticist, in me likes to think that it's the epistemic pursuit of truth that has got us to the progress we've got so far. And more importantly, as a consequence of this progress we've ended with more endless possibilites for romantic untruths. The truth is stranger than fiction and if it wasn't for scientific theories like quantum mechanics a lot of the more bizarre stuff that most posters on this forum brazenly dismiss probably wouldn't even exist.

I realise that last paragraph is weak. I actually think Dawkins, as much as I'm not his biggest fan, made a decent argument for this 'knowledge is the ultimate value' in "Unweaving the Rainbow". I didn't even attempt to sketch it. Rather just stated a personal belief that not all atheists may even subscribe to. :P

18AD

nagirrac wrote: »

To use a simple example, let's say you know a person that is very religious and goes to church every day. If you ask them to explain why they say that going to church brings them genuine benefits; they feel close to God and before they felt this closeness their life had no meaning, they feel at peace, they reflect on their lives, it gives their life purpose, they feel love and empathy for their fellow man, etc. That's their reasoning.

So my first point was, that if you think that other people of a different religion can achieve this through different means, say a buddhist, then you totally devalue the actual beliefs that are bringing this about, because they simply becomes means to an end, i.e. to bring about happiness, peace, compassion etc...

Secondly, I don't think this is simply what's happening. You actually say it in the next part of your post that the beliefs and the consequent emotions are grounded on rationality, because as I argued belief has a definite truth aspect to it. But anyway, embedded within those positive emotional returns are beliefs like God exists and what it means to be close to God etc... So if you then say that anything goes you are saying that all positions are equally valid. Which equally means that all positions are false and thereby undermine your own beliefs.

This is where in my opinion the atheist argument with theists and deists falls down most severely. What does atheism have to offer a person like the above who seeks meaning and purpose in their life and finds it in religion? What exactly would an atheist say to such a person that would be rational for them i.e. something they would believe and that would achieve the same goal for them? I believe the answer is nothing.

Nothingness is a beautiful thing.

I'd guess though that the answer is that atheism itself isn't actually offering anything. Life itself has plenty of things that can fill that void. Or just be happy with the void. :P

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

I think it's unfair to suggest that atheism has nothing to offer.

Most of the posters, if not all, on this forum subscribe to two basic axioms.
- That truth is the fundamental epistemic value.
- That any belief require evidence or reasoning, preferably both.

In fairness, I said that atheists have nothing to offer the type of religious person I described.

Although it took me a while, I now fully realize that most posters are epistemic monists which is why a pluralist like myself gets constantly beaten over the head around here . I honestly believe the days of materialistic reductionism are coming to an end, although I agree that it has brought us a long way along the road of knowledge. I don't accept truth as the fundamental epistemic value because I believe it to be too elusive. I believe our world is too complex for at least our current minds to grasp, we may never know truth.

I fully believe science to be the only way to enhance our understanding of the external physical world. My pluralistic viewpoint however leads me to believe that the external physical world and the internal mental world are quite different, and that one cannot explain the other, as in attempts to understand consciousness from neurological activity. The fact that almost 100 years after its discovery, we have no satisfactory interpretation of QM leads me to agree with many scientists who think it will remain incomprehensible. I think the best we can hope for is continued expansion of overlapping theories.

Religion I agree has totally lost its way and is meaningless to most of the younger generation. When I look at Hindu beliefs for example that were developed long before the other major world religions, it is hard to comprehend how far we have strayed from some pretty decent philosophy and guidelines for living a worthwhile life. I do think there is a role for spirituality in giving meaning and purpose to many people's lives, far better to live a life of hope than one of despair if all that awaits is the void.

nagirrac

18AD wrote: »

So my first point was, that if you think that other people of a different religion can achieve this through different means, say a buddhist, then you totally devalue the actual beliefs that are bringing this about, because they simply becomes means to an end, i.e. to bring about happiness, peace, compassion etc...

My point is it doesn't matter what means are used, the end does justify the means, so long as the end is positive for the individual and for society in general. Far better in my view to have a society of people going to church, chanting Hare Krishna, meditating, surrounding themselves with crystals, etc. than despairing at how lame and meaningless life is. I am not suggesting atheists do the latter, but most of the population in some form or other seem to need the former.

Dave!

So if hypothetically we discovered a gene which allowed us to put someone in a permanently good mood - they never have to feel negative emotions - you'd be happy to see that switched on at birth for all children?

nagirrac

Dave! wrote: »

So if hypothetically we discovered a gene which allowed us to put someone in a permanently good mood - they never have to feel negative emotions - you'd be happy to see that switched on at birth for all children?

No, that's not even remotely connected to what I'm saying. What you're suggesting is a form of eugenics, interesting enough a concept developed by a cousin of Charles Darwin, who was inspired by Darwin's theory, and was later brought to its horrible conclusion by the Nazis.

What I am suggesting is quite the opposite. Let people believe what they want in their pursuit of happiness and purpose, and nobody, whether an individual or the state, has the right to interfere in that as long as the individual is not harming anyone.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

To use a simple example, let's say you know a person that is very religious and goes to church every day. If you ask them to explain why they say that going to church brings them genuine benefits; they feel close to God and before they felt this closeness their life had no meaning, they feel at peace, they reflect on their lives, it gives their life purpose, they feel love and empathy for their fellow man, etc. That's their reasoning. Now if they go out into the world every day and act like selfish hateful asshats that is irrational, as there is no conformity of the reasoning and the actual. If on the other hand they live their lives with kindness and selflessness surely they are being entirely rational?

This is where in my opinion the atheist argument with theists and deists falls down most severely.

It's where your understanding of the atheist argument falls down most severely.

There's nothing in most religions which requires people to act socially. Most religions do, on the other hand, assert that the highest aim of the religion is to (a) stick rigidly to some interpretation of it (usually one's own) and (b) propagate it.

Behaving like a selfish asshat in doing (a) and (b) is therefore a major part of most religions, and rationally so. Hence Steven Weinberg's comment:

Steven Weinberg wrote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Dades

PucaMama wrote: »

why is this woman any less intelligent than you because she has different beliefs its a bit strange you take such exception to her lifestyle

I don't believe the OP suggest the woman was less intelligent than him. In fact he lamented how an otherwise intelligent woman could be taken in by such obvious quackery.

And it's hard to stand by when someone you care about is lining the pockets of con-artists and shysters who are preying on her emotional issues.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

18AD wrote: »

There are no questions that fall outside of rationality, or if they do, they are in fact nonsense.

That seems to me to be an extreme position. It strikes me that motivation does fall outside rationality. Plus, we simply do have to recognise that rationality isn’t a perfect view – it’s our preferred view, but that’s all. I still actually think that, outside of the dynamic of the debate which makes us have to almost frame the discussion as mutual opposition, all we’re really discussing is the scope of the grey area.

Jernal wrote: »

Atheism in the guise of buddhism offers a person plenty of the qualities that you claim it supposedly lacked.

Grand, but I think it’s fair to say that it doesn’t base itself in reason. It invites people to accept certain assumptions, with the promise that doing so will eventually make them happy.

robindch wrote: »

Originally Posted by Steven Weinberg
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Except, without religion, the meaningfulness of terms like good and evil becomes moot. And I really haven’t a clue what human dignity is. Sounds like nonsense on stilts.