If your holy book fails to match reality ...

[74x12]

Even without knowing which holy book that is, I suspect that we have different understandings of what truth is and how it is determined. To call the Bible, for example, the truth is to say that its claims are facts of history, science, morality, and metaphysics (afterlife, gods and angels, heaven and hell), meaning that they demonstrably with reality.

That is determined by examining reality and comparing scripture to it. If the scripture accurately maps a piece of examined reality, then we can call it a fact, as when it refers to the presence of fig trees in the Levant. We can go to the appropriate place and confirm that the claims that there are indeed figs grown there. We can be confident that the claim does map reality, since it can predict outcomes reliably. If I go there, I can expect to find figs.

More generally, if a man holds belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, that is, a fact, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is incorrect.

Either you agree that truth should be measured by its ability to predict outcomes and its capacity to inform decisions such that they lead to desirable results, or you have some other understanding of what makes an idea true, correct, or factual. If we agree, we have a common basis for discussion, and a common means of investigating any differences in opinion about what is true. If I think that a particular restaurant is still in business, and you think otherwise, we have a means to determine which is the fact

If you have a different understanding of what truth is or how it is determined, say by faith, then we have no basis for discussion, and your contradictory opinion carries has no persuasive power to the rational skeptic, who questions all unevidenced claims, and believes nothing without a sound reason.

For me faith doesn't mean "blind". It means trusting in God. So I trust God. That's all. If God is not real then I've made a horrible mistake. But if so then I must be delusional as ... I don't know; but really delusional. Because of what I've seen and experienced.

Besides, my "delusion" is shared by other people and our "delusions" are all so similar and comparable. It's really incredible. At this point; I'd need faith to not believe the Bible!

I agree that the truth should be measured and all that. However, the truth is becoming so obvious to some of us and understood more and more. We can't deny it anymore. I know you're an intelligent person and I don't blame you for reasonable skepticism.

But, I know what I know.

 

[ManSinha]

What about bigger

A circle is a circle with the same properties whether bigger or smaller - that does not count

What about embossed with gold?

You will not find universal acceptance that a circle embossed with gold is better than a circle per se - it is still a circle

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my goodness! That flew over your head?

No, Christ could've sinned! That was the point! (You ever use critical thinking, tying one Biblical event to another? It is enlightening!)

It is clear to me that the head this is flying over is wearing a cowboy hat.

Then Christ was not perfect either according to you.

If Satan thinks he can oust God, do you really think that tempting Christ would be beyond him? Not like Satan is a an actual entity, but for arguments sake.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

After reading this, I felt it necessary to say that I don't believe Jesus is God; the Devil wasn't trying to ' take' God...but just imagine if he could take \ get God's First-born Son! Now, that wouldve been something!

But, to me, during Jesus' previous existence in Heaven with his Father (John 17:5), he had developed so much love and respect for Him, that he simply wasn't going to give in to anything! But Jesus could've...his love just motivated him not to.

See, Adam hadn't developed such a closeness...he felt closer to his wife.

I do not see Satan as anything more than a metaphor for the evil that exists in man.

According to the Bible, he rebelled against God. That sounds like a coup to me.

The questions still remain. How can perfect beings succumb to temptation? Why would perfect beings need free will? If they were not perfect, sure, they would need free will to be tempted and be subject to temptation, but then you have to wonder what other imperfections did they have.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just what do you think perfection entails?

The inability to improve. A perfect circle is one that cannot be any rounder, one in which any change in shape makes the circle less round and therefore less perfect.

What about bigger?

Is a bigger circle more perfectly round?

What about embossed with gold?

Whatever a circle must be to be called perfectly round by you (or me), it must be what we cannot improve upon, that is, all points on it equidistant from its center.. I don't require a circle to be golden to be perfectly round.

the truth is becoming so obvious to some of us and understood more and more.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that what you and I mean by that word truth is the same thing. I defined truth by its relationship to observable reality according to the laws of reason and the rules for properly evaluating evidence.

I know you're an intelligent person and I don't blame you for reasonable skepticism.

Thanks, but skeptics don't consider skepticism irrational ever, assuming that we're discussing the same thing - the unwillingness to accept anything as fact without sufficient empirical justification.

A circle is a circle with the same properties whether bigger or smaller - that does not count

Agreed. Perfect circularity is not a function of radius, but the result of having all points on the circle being exactly that distance from a common center.

You will not find universal acceptance that a circle embossed with gold is better than a circle per se - it is still a circle

Recall that my call was not for the better or best circle, but the perfectly round one. Such a circle is not expected to be found in nature with or without gold.

 

[Augustus]

If any of my beliefs don't match reality, I modify them as soon as I become aware of it. I just provisionally accepted somebody's claim about different kinds of thinkers having different brain scans while doing their characteristic type of thinking. I

So do most people.

The problem with this is that humans have many cognitive strategies not to become aware their beliefs don't match reality when these are emotionally important to them. That's why (almost) no one changes their mind here on any controversial issue being debated even when presented with masses of scholarly information to the contrary.

We are very good at unconscious self-deception, and some scientists believe that the tendency towards self deception increases with intelligence and analytical reasoning ability

“We often think that greater intelligence will be associated with less self-deception—or at least intellectuals imagine this to be true. What if the reverse is true, as I believe it is—smarter people on average lie and self-deceive more often than do the less gifted?” Robert Trivers - Deceit and Self-Deception

This is consistent with other studies that show people with better reasoning abilities are less likely to change their minds when presented with contradictory evidence that goes against their political ideology. (Nominal) group identity is a far more powerful psychological force than exposure to information.

More often than not, people find reasons they can dismiss such information out of hand. They believe they are being completely reasonable in doing this, yet it is often highly inconsistent with how they would treat such information on an issue they have little emotional attachment to.

The example you give is something you already have a latent tendency to believe and such information almost always causes us to change beliefs.

The problem is we often don't know that our brain's 'belief protection' mechanisms have come into play, so assume we are more rational than we actually are as we are conscious of being rational, but not being irrational or hypocritical.

 

[ManSinha]

So do most people.

The problem with this is that humans have many cognitive strategies not to become aware their beliefs don't match reality when these are emotionally important to them. That's why (almost) no one changes their mind here on any controversial issue being debated even when presented with masses of scholarly information to the contrary.

We are very good at unconscious self-deception, and some scientists believe that the tendency towards self deception increases with intelligence and analytical reasoning ability.

I have a personal anecdote that backs this up - I do some work in the area of clinical quality

Several years ago - was on a project for a chronic illness for which the guidelines had recommended a specific medication

The compliance rate among a group of physicians was 47% (in reality around 85% is thought to be optimal) - and when I discussed this with the group - every single physician insisted that every eligible patient was getting the medication

I literally had to meet with each one one-on-one and present the ones from their panel that had the illness and the medication prescribed versus those that qualified but did not - before the number overall started inching upwards

To me this is indicative of the fact that it is difficult to accept personal failing with the same credulity one applies elsewhere

 

[Audie]

So do most people.

The problem with this is that humans have many cognitive strategies not to become aware their beliefs don't match reality when these are emotionally important to them. That's why (almost) no one changes their mind here on any controversial issue being debated even when presented with masses of scholarly information to the contrary.

We are very good at unconscious self-deception, and some scientists believe that the tendency towards self deception increases with intelligence and analytical reasoning ability

“We often think that greater intelligence will be associated with less self-deception—or at least intellectuals imagine this to be true. What if the reverse is true, as I believe it is—smarter people on average lie and self-deceive more often than do the less gifted?” Robert Trivers - Deceit and Self-Deception

This is consistent with other studies that show people with better reasoning abilities are less likely to change their minds when presented with contradictory evidence that goes against their political ideology. (Nominal) group identity is a far more powerful psychological force than exposure to information.

More often than not, people find reasons they can dismiss such information out of hand. They believe they are being completely reasonable in doing this, yet it is often highly inconsistent with how they would treat such information on an issue they have little emotional attachment to.

The example you give is something you already have a latent tendency to believe and such information almost always causes us to change beliefs.

The problem is we often don't know that our brain's 'belief protection' mechanisms have come into play, so assume we are more rational than we actually are as we are conscious of being rational, but not being irrational or hypocritical.

I totally agree that the power of self deception is
most unlimited!

Everyone really would do well to keep that in mind.

It would be interesting to know if any of our
fundamentalists have any inclination or capability
at self examination.

I kind of do not think so, as they seem to all have
in common the inability to ever ever admit to
being the least bit wrong on anything.

Now, for myself, I was taught to see the value
in being wrong.
Not to stubbornly cling to it of course,
but to learn from it.

 

[Audie]

For me faith doesn't mean "blind". It means trusting in God. So I trust God. That's all. If God is not real then I've made a horrible mistake. But if so then I must be delusional as ... I don't know; but really delusional. Because of what I've seen and experienced.

Besides, my "delusion" is shared by other people and our "delusions" are all so similar and comparable. It's really incredible. At this point; I'd need faith to not believe the Bible!

I agree that the truth should be measured and all that. However, the truth is becoming so obvious to some of us and understood more and more. We can't deny it anymore. I know you're an intelligent person and I don't blame you for reasonable skepticism.

But, I know what I know.

Of course you wont see your faith as being blind.

Even when it leads you to believe in the most
outlandish nonsense such as your suddenly (pick
your synonym) frozen mammoths, that somehow
must be as you say, or the bible will collapse
into a moldering heap of elephant doodie.

Reasonable skepticism anyone? Unreasonable
faith?