About Knowledge

[RightlyDamned]

Re: About Knowledge

Some obvious points to make in the argument against gnosticism and the religious dogma. "Where is the proof? How do you know that?" the truth, I think, is that they really dont care if they are wrong or right. They just like a soap box. they want to feel special , like some god has chosen them to do his will. They want to have principality over the wills of men. I think, deep down, they feel worthless.

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: About Knowledge

I think, deep down, they feel worthless.

This is the purpose of most religions trying to convert people, they make you feel like you have done something bad or wrong (sinned), or that there is something wrong with you that you can't change (only God), they break people down to feeling "worthless" and then present God as the sole vehicle that is capable of making them feel "worthwhile", effectively brainwashing them. It's a similar technique used by the military, especially during the Vietnam War, break down a "man" first then proceed to build them into a "soldier".

 

[Andrewww]

Re: About Knowledge

Sorry zomgitscriss, I'm a huge fan but you are being highly contradictory in this post. You claim that we cannot "know" anything, and I completely agree with you. However, I would like to think that atheists like us have a good reason for not believing in God - the reason being that there is no evidence to support him and even some evidence that goes contrary to the beliefs of many theists.

But when you say that you still believe in determinism even though there is evidence that there are instances of randomness outside of our Classical Universe and into the Quantum Universe it is exactly like saying that even though there is evidence that shows Creationism isn't a fact, you still believe in it because, well, you just do.

I'm just pointing out to you that your beliefs are not all based on evidence, and even some of them are based on faith. This, to me, is no better than theists saying they believe in God on the basis of "faith".

 

[Skepticus]

Re: About Knowledge

Sorry zomgitscriss, I'm a huge fan but you are being highly contradictory in this post. You claim that we cannot "know" anything, and I completely agree with you. However, I would like to think that atheists like us have a good reason for not believing in God - the reason being that there is no evidence to support him and even some evidence that goes contrary to the beliefs of many theists.

I agree so far and so too I think would ZOMGitscriss.

But when you say that you still believe in determinism even though there is evidence that there are instances of randomness outside of our Classical Universe and into the Quantum Universe it is exactly like saying that even though there is evidence that shows Creationism isn't a fact, you still believe in it because, well, you just do.

Sorry but that isn't the same. Believing and KNOWING are two different animals. As far as I can tell ZOMGitschriss is making a point about theist certainty in their imaginary friend. They are commonly heard to state with overweening confidence that they know God is real. There are many things I believe without complete watertight proof. That is not a concern though, as I attempt as far as possible to use reason and evidence as a guide, to choose beliefs which are relatively probable. What ZOMGitschriss actually said was:

I still have certain beliefs. For instance, I believe that Quantum Mechanic could be eventually proven not to contradict Determinism. I don't believe that the atoms act randomly but rather that at atomic level there might be laws we haven't discovered yet and variables we cannot calculate. Which, imho, is not to say that the atoms are not subjected to the cause and effect rules. And I believe that (strongly I may say) because EVERYTHING in the observable Universe is subjected to the cause and effect rule. But I am willing to admit that I don't KNOW that and there is a possibility I might be wrong.

I'm just pointing out to you that your beliefs are not all based on evidence, and even some of them are based on faith. This, to me, is no better than theists saying they believe in God on the basis of "faith".

Sounds like you have more disagreement over the veracity of ZOMGitschriss' actual belief in determinism. She clearly states that her belief here is only opinion. It is being used to illustrate the point that opinions are different to undeniable proven facts, and that where there is room for doubt, it is prudent to resign oneself to a position that falls short of saying that you 'KNOW' this thing. The point about quantum determinism (incompleteness theorem?) may very well be moot, but it is a long long shot from a faith based conclusion as you have intimated.

The possible existence of randomness does not preclude an underlying order that is hitherto undiscovered/unexplained.

"...evidence that there are instances of randomness outside of our Classical Universe and into the Quantum Universe"

That might be compelling except for the fact that there s no objective test for randomness. Moreover there is no way of knowing if a seemingly random set of measurements is actually based on a very non-arbitrary (even simple) set of rules. The decimal expansion of the irrational number pi for example, appears to be a random sequence of digits, yet it is the result of a simple division of a circles radius into it's circumference. ZOMGitschriss also mentions her defense of suspecting quantum determinism, on the strength that we do not know anything elsewhere in nature that ultimately evades determinism. That is a very convincing point I feel, but nevertheless her argument does not depend on it. She clearly states that it is a belief and makes a deliberate point about what it means to KNOW something by comparison to speculation. You too should learn the difference. :roll:

 

[youneac]

Re: About Knowledge

Hi Criss,

I'm a great admirer of your work on the internet. Here's my thoughts on what you wrote here, and on your message in general.

People in general appear to have a need for a belief system. This can be explained physiologically and neurologically in the way that our brains work.
Belief systems are good in that they provide a construct of hypotheses with which we can develop logic, and attain and further knowledge. A critical factor, however, is that we keep testing each hypothesis, keep thinking.
Once a hypothesis, an idea, is left in our minds too long without being criticized, it becomes so firmly imprinted in our brain that we can no longer critically re-evaluate it. It becomes a firm belief, a conviction, which we use as a basis for other hypothetical constructs. In the end, so much of how we regard the world is, diectly or indirectly, based on that conviction that we will giercely resist and reject anything that criticizes or falsifies that conviction.
This mechanism does not only apply to religion, but to any fundamental conviction (political, economical, ethical, etc.).

Religion does however have some unique traits. It claims to have an answer to everything, which is very tempting and comforting. Also, in many cases it has a carrot-and-stick construct that keeps people in check and aligned: hoping for awards for being a good follower, afraid of penalties if deviant.
Another trait that keeps religion in existence is evangelism. Believers love to spread their beliefs around, and attack opposition to it. This is caused on two levels. On one level the religion usually tells that a good believer should spread his religion, on a lower level the brain will entice its owner to protect the conviction on which most of its reasoning is built and thus depends.
The most effective evangelism is indoctrination and the easiest to indoctrinate are children. Push a belief onto a child early enough and it wil imprint on the brain so strongly that it is virtually unerasable.

Now what makes religion bad? A lot of good has been done through the ages too by religion, right?!
The problem is that an unquestioned belief in something creates a submissive handle on people. Anyone seen as a superior by the believer can use that belief to bend the believer's opinion. This way a whole community of believers can be easily led. That leadership can be used for good, but as we all know "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts abslutely". So, unfortunately through the ages most wars, genocides, slavery, etc. has been executed, managed and condoned by religious groups.

BUT... does this only apply to religion? I don't think so. As said earlier, political, economical, ethical and other beliefs can be used and abused the same way, and have indeed been used so. Nazism was supported by the roman catholic church (as well as others), but it was itself not a religious belief system. The same goes for e.g. current neo-conservatism, supported by various jewish (and other religious) groups.

In conclusion: eradicating religion is impossible. Religion is also just one type of belief control system; an effective approach should look at constraining them all, not just one.
I do not have the answer on how to stop religion as a weapon of evil, but IMO the separation of church and state as implemented in many countries is a good step in the right direction. Another good step are guarding organizations like the Center For Inquiry and other such organizations protecting freedom of thought. Unfortunately, many groups focus just on religion, foregoing other types of belief control systems.
The internet with its current low censorship is probably the best and unique way to keep people thinking, not just believing. So keep up the good work!