Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I promise you a reply, though it will take me a bit to work through my thoughts on the matter...
You're too kind. No urgency, just my curiosity. I look forward to reading your response.
Regards
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I promise you a reply, though it will take me a bit to work through my thoughts on the matter...
Well, as to the interconnectedness of all things, for that I have physics.Regardless, animism is a way of perceiving and living in the world by recognizing the interconnectedness of all that exists and the life in all things. If you don't believe in it, that's your business. But I'm not going to come up with pseudo-scientific ideas that are insulting to try to explain your disbelief.
I'm not here to argue over whether it's true or not in either of our views as I don't really care if you believe it or not. I'm concerned about actions, not beliefs.Well, as to the interconnectedness of all things, for that I have physics.
On the other had, it is simply not true that there is "life in all things." Life is a word that has meaning, and that meaning cannot be applied to a rock, or any of the few remaining hairs on my hand.
"Living entities metabolize, grow, die, reproduce, respond, move, have complex organized functional structures, heritable variability, and have lineages which can evolve over generational time, producing new and emergent functional structures that provide increased adaptive fitness in changing environments. Life - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy."
Its an idea, but it may not be the way things happened right? Also we're talking about mammals, and the first mammals are small and tend to make type I errors.
Apes actually started to develop into predators, and so their thinking must have changed, somehow. They must have retained the potential to think in more ways than one.
More on that later, or perhaps in another thread...I need to rethink Jacob Needleman's book "Why Can't We Be Good?" He makes an impressive case for our nature's having multiple aspects, sometimes at odds with each other.Its an idea, but it may not be the way things happened right? Also we're talking about mammals, and the first mammals are small and tend to make type I errors.
Apes actually started to develop into predators, and so their thinking must have changed, somehow. They must have retained the potential to think in more ways than one.
Do you have a point you'd like to make?Well good OP Poster, everything will turn out great for you. Have a great ride, row row row your boat. Don't stab anyone with that knife thing there. no . noooo
Your avatar looks like a mix of Breaking Bad on DVD and I don't know, but hey Jesus could have been greasing the social wheels just by existing. My point is, sometimes the skeptical internet gets so strong people don't see being nice. God Bless! Then I get on a Church forum with Nothing on it. God Bless!Do you have a point you'd like to make?
You are correct...I do remember that from some years ago. However, I was just reading another book called "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, and I suppose I was reminded. I coughed it up on my own, but having a memory that stores what it hears with some fidelity, I plead guilty as charged...though without malice intention. I do try hard to provide credit when I'm aware that I'm citing something else, so thank you for pointing that out.Didn't I hear that once - yep, a talk by Michael Shermer: (2:00 minute mark)
What's with the plagiarism on this site?
Personally, I'm not sure that the assumption in the thread's title is even true. Non-belief is on the rise, quite prevalent, and a lot of 'believers' are just faking it for other reasons besides actual belief.
Regarding the latter: Do you think they could be the Trans-religious belief version of the Trans-gender folk: atheists trapped in believer bodies and believers trapped in atheist bodies waiting for the day when they can afford the surgery to get their bodies and associated lifestyles fixed?
Imagine that you are a small hominid on the plains of Africa some 3 ½ million years ago, let’s say an Australopithecine. Now, suppose one day, while you're foraging in the open near to the trees, that you hear a rustle in the grass close to you. Suddenly you need to know, “is it just the wind, or is it a dangerous predator?”
Let’s suppose that you make a snap decision that it is a dangerous predator, and you quickly scamper to the nearest tree for safety. If it was just the wind, then you’ve made what’s called a Type I error in cognition, or a “false positive.” You thought the rustle was connected to something, and it wasn’t. You were wrong, but this type of error is relatively harmless, in that mostly, you’ll go a bit hungry at worst, for want of something to eat because you’re afraid to come out of your tree and forage.
But what if you think that the rustle was just wind, and it’s really a dangerous predator, and you stick around – you’re lunch. Now you’ve made a Type II error in cognition, a false negative, and you’ve just taken yourself out of the gene pool before you’ve reproduced. Why can’t we just stick around long enough to collect enough data to get the answer right? Well, the answer is that predators don’t hang around waiting for prey to collect more data – that’s why the stalk.
We are the descendants of, we evolved from, those who most consistently made Type I errors, and went on to reproduce, rather than Type II errors and got eaten.
But here’s where it goes wrong: although that snap decision based on a False Positive is relatively safe, it is also not based on reality. It makes an association between A and B (that A is somehow connected to B) that is not true. That’s the basis of superstition, and magical thinking. And that’s what we’ve evolved to do. And it’s the basis of the sort of thinking that leads to animism, superstition, and belief in gods. Because the difference between the wind and a predator is "intention," which is something that we unconsciously attach to the object of our false positive.
And that's why more humans believe in gods, spirits, ghosts and a host of other not demonstrably true things than do not. And that's why I think that people who opt for true rational thinking can escape that trap.
Well then, we're not so far apart after all. I, too, care about actions, although I accept without question that our beliefs inform our actions - hopefully mitigated by our reason.I'm not here to argue over whether it's true or not in either of our views as I don't really care if you believe it or not. I'm concerned about actions, not beliefs.
Consider the implications of what you state. Think about the implied complexity of what you call "a Designer and Creator." That complexity must, by you own conception of it, be utterly immense, unfathomable. And yet you insist that there's no problem that it's "just there." No "random mess" because there was nothing to cause that structural complexity, because you don't think it's needed.I agree with you most of the way except that every atom scientifically shouts out there is a Designer and Creator and if it were not so there would be no order or structure in life just a random mess. Yet we see in entities such as the human body, intelligence so complex and intricately evolved that it is impossible to be a result of randomness.
A beautiful fictional story. And then a deduction as if it were true based on a fictional story.Imagine that you are a small hominid on the plains of Africa some 3 ½ million years ago, let’s say an Australopithecine. Now, suppose one day, while you're foraging in the open near to the trees, that you hear a rustle in the grass close to you. Suddenly you need to know, “is it just the wind, or is it a dangerous predator?”
Let’s suppose that you make a snap decision that it is a dangerous predator, and you quickly scamper to the nearest tree for safety. If it was just the wind, then you’ve made what’s called a Type I error in cognition, or a “false positive.” You thought the rustle was connected to something, and it wasn’t. You were wrong, but this type of error is relatively harmless, in that mostly, you’ll go a bit hungry at worst, for want of something to eat because you’re afraid to come out of your tree and forage.
But what if you think that the rustle was just wind, and it’s really a dangerous predator, and you stick around – you’re lunch. Now you’ve made a Type II error in cognition, a false negative, and you’ve just taken yourself out of the gene pool before you’ve reproduced. Why can’t we just stick around long enough to collect enough data to get the answer right? Well, the answer is that predators don’t hang around waiting for prey to collect more data – that’s why the stalk.
We are the descendants of, we evolved from, those who most consistently made Type I errors, and went on to reproduce, rather than Type II errors and got eaten.
But here’s where it goes wrong: although that snap decision based on a False Positive is relatively safe, it is also not based on reality. It makes an association between A and B (that A is somehow connected to B) that is not true. That’s the basis of superstition, and magical thinking. And that’s what we’ve evolved to do. And it’s the basis of the sort of thinking that leads to animism, superstition, and belief in gods. Because the difference between the wind and a predator is "intention," which is something that we unconsciously attach to the object of our false positive.
And that's why more humans believe in gods, spirits, ghosts and a host of other not demonstrably true things than do not. And that's why I think that people who opt for true rational thinking can escape that trap.
These are reminders only to myself...I will be addressing Jews and Muslims and learning, mob mentality (i.e. lynch mobs in the US), the Inquisition, missionaries. I will counter with Quakers (the Society of Friends), Humanism and the idea of "liberty." And I will absolutely have to consider human intention, and it's impacts. (You are watching an argument build in progress.)You're too kind. No urgency, just my curiosity. I look forward to reading your response.
Regards
And your refutation(s)? Can you bring your expertise in human cognition to bear on the question, and explain why you think it works some other way?A beautiful fictional story. And then a deduction as if it were true based on a fictional story.
Well done!
There is no default position I think other than potential to believe all kinds of things.So what do you think, Brick? Is atheism "the default position" , "a choice", or "a genetic variation"?
An analogy just occurred to me. What if "religious" belief is like sexuality? Some folks take to it like fish in water, others can't bear the thought of it. Then there are the Bi's who enjoy belief and atheism equally and don't enjoy being deprived of the opportunity to belief or not believe.