My concern with the term 'confidence' is that it admits a chink of doubt regarding objective knowledge. Anyone who says maybe the planets are actually in a different order is either ignorant or a nutcase.

Even though I agree with your exasperation, I have to say that this still does not give us a way around the problem of certainty. To say that the order is certain can be expanded into an identical claim with more transparency.

Let's say there are infinite universes that are approximations of our own. Some things in history are different, some things are the same. In each and every one of these infinite universes, humanity believes the planets are in a very specific order. There is almost no room for doubt. Now, out of these infinite universes, what are the chances that just a single universe got the answer wrong? Some incredible series of mistakes and circumstances that have lead people to the wrong answer about the order of the planets.

I can't see myself saying that out of an infinite number of universes, not a single one of them would get the answer wrong. All things being equal, that could very well be our universe. The very concept of certainty doesn't compute for me. It's as though it's invalid because of it's definition.

I dislike the problems the admittance of doubt gives rise to. But I can't simply wish away what I see as true to instead believe in a way that is "more productive".

As to Orwell, I accept that, in the context of the 1984 and the Party, the requirement to believe what is obviously false is offensive ... but primarily because it is a 'requirement' so there is an element of brainwashing and coercion ... the dehumanizing factor, the stripping of the dignity of the autonomy and dignity of the individual does create an offensive, insulting situation but this goes beyond the case I was considering above.

Perhaps there is no gentle way to educate someone away from false beliefs, if they are emotionally tied to those beliefs. To be emotionally tied to a belief can be contrasted with the alternative; being emotionally tied to a cause or a process. Not irrationally so, as is sometimes suggested by an "emotional tie".

I believe there are a few processes and axioms that when combined, trump any single belief. Avoid certainty, be confident instead. Be aware of what it feels like when you feed your ego, it's a good feeling and we all desire to feed it more. If something intellectual is feeding your ego, explore that in great detail, because it's the most likely source of error in your worldview. Adhere to the best practices of logic and epistemology, including being aware of your biases. Accept every conclusion only provisionally(avoid certainty).

And if any of these things presents a problem, be willing to restructure or rethink them. The beliefs that these processes lead to are not to be considered "property" of my mind. They are results of a process, so I can be confident that they are true while still not taking ownership of them. There are more processes and axioms I abide by, but it's a lengthy discussion. It would be interesting to talk about emotion versus reason, and the interplay.

Interbane wrote:Let's say there are infinite universes that are approximations of our own.

Though I am not nearly as knowledgeable or intelligent as you folks, when I read that comment on the certainty of planetary order, the first thing that came to my mind was alternate universes. I didn’t have enough confidence in my own knowledge about such things to respond, but I’m glad to find that my thoughts were not so bizarre as to be unworthy of some discussion. Not by me, however. Carry on, gentlemen. I’ll be listening in.

johnson1010 wrote:alley-oop.

http://www.booktalk.org/confidence-vs-faith-t11336.html

Okay, further discussion on confidence and faith should be at that thread. Thanks

I was watching a movie the other day where a christian couple invites over a couple of men for dinner. They are under the mistaken impression that the two men are gay lovers. In reality, one of the men is gay, but the other is not. He's just letting the gay man stay with him until he gets on his feet again, having been recently fired from a job on account of his homosexuality.

The christian couple wants to say grace before they eat, they all agree with shrugs. The man leads the prayer and spends the majority of the prayer pleading with god to help the two sinners to repent from what god finds abominable.

Offended, the guests leave, thinking that the christian man who lead the prayer is an asshole.

Both now have some distaste of the other. Who has cause and who does not for those feelings?

The christian has a distaste for something which has nothing at all to do with his life. Something which is simply the manifestation of two consenting adults having love for one another.

The two guests have a distaste for the christian man calling them degenerates to their faces with a shrug and saying, "hey it's not ME who hates gays. It's god."

Lets say a man hates me because i have brown eyes. He knows, because he read it in a book somewhere, that dudes with brown eyes are the worst sort of asshole. So, he pre-emptively key's my car.

I think he's an asshole because he keyed my car.

Equivalent distaste?

Hi Johnson, that argument is a good example of the defective psychology of religious assumptions. People are very sensitive about topics that touch on deeply felt emotional attitudes. This makes them wary about asking explicitly for evidence that might test their opinions. In the movie you describe, the Christians prefer to act on their flawed assumptions rather than ask simple questions that would let them know they are wrong. It is a strange psychological quirk that people find it more painful and risky to ask direct questions than to insult people on the basis of no evidence.

It is an interesting case study regarding how false belief can flourish. People believe what they want to believe, and emotional fixation can be very hard to shake.

Comparing this example to the broader problem of the prevalence of delusory Christian belief, it is worth going back to the beginning of Christianity to ask how the myth of a historical Christ gained such momentum. The Old Testament predicted the Christ (anointed one), and then because people so much wanted to believe, they converted this prediction, which just used Christ as a title, into a belief that it had actually happened, with Christ as a person's name, all the time refusing to analyse the evidence that showed it was completely imaginary.

Robert Tulip wrote:. . . it is worth going back to the beginning of Christianity to ask how the myth of a historical Christ gained such momentum.

From what I’ve read on the subject, the biblical Jesus was very likely a composite image of a concept, depicted by dozens of authors who often disagreed about the facts. There were books of the bible literally thrown out because they were thought to be too radical by the religious politicos who finally decided to write it all down. Some had him flying like Superman, and others had him doing things probably considered too radical to be believed. Even the Gospels disagree on the facts and times and words of Jesus, which leads me to think he was just a necessary creation of a paternally inclined society, meant to insure male domination for centuries to come. If so, it certainly worked.

The fact is that, in the actual "Time of Jesus," there was little reason to write anything down at all, because the "End of the World Was Near." Why write stories for future generations to read if there were to be no future generations? Only after several decades, perhaps centuries, was the thought even conceived that these things should be written down--by then it had become obvious that the end of the world was not quite as close as people thought.

How accurate the bible is should not be an issue. Nor should true Christians tolerate the turning of one or another verse into dogmatic rhetoric in order to found yet another financially independent religion. The bible is inaccurate because it is not fact; it is poetry, and poetry is generally not intended to convey literal truth--it hopes to convey a concept, a feeling, those things that cannot be literally described. The creation of a “savior” who is the manifestation of god on earth, seems to have been a necessary thing in order to give the concept substance and clarity.

Well, I’m sure I’ve gotten in over my head here, and that there will be others who find my observations either incorrect or simple-minded. But I’ve been reading a lot of these debates here, and I figured it was time to go out on a limb and say a couple of things.

welcome to the rumble, Avid Reader!

Avid Reader wrote:I’m sure I’ve gotten in over my head here, and that there will be others who find my observations either incorrect or simple-minded.

I disagree. I think this is a pretty well-devised condensation of the events that may have taken place.

Well, I’m sure I’ve gotten in over my head here, and that there will be others who find my observations either incorrect or simple-minded.

I second what LeBeaux said.

The humility you express has a lot to do with how objective you are. Don't ever let it morph into something more self-serving. If you suddenly think you're right, change your mind. Explore the idea, but explore it from both sides.

Interbane wrote: If you suddenly think you're right, change your mind.

Can't get much more wishy washy than that Interbane. Hey, maybe the solar system doesn't really exist :Unimpressed: :laugh2: