The 22 Questions
22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

The 22 Answers
Phil Plait: Creationists Have Questions. I Have Answers.

The Bill Nye / Ken Ham Debate
Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham On Creationism

Article by Phil Plait
“>The Creation of Debate

imgur Cartoon
Ken Ham, NOT the science guy

imgur Cartoon
Debating with Ham. I let out a mighty guffaw (not oc)

The Creation of Debate

CrazyNeutrino said:

The 22 Answers
Phil Plait: Creationists Have Questions. I Have Answers.

Good answers.

I like the way he looked for a question worth answering in each of the 22, although I think he was tiring a bit towards the end.

Still, he pointed out the errors embedded in the questions clearly, calmly, without requiring any great scientific background, but also without treating the questioners like idiots; and I think that’s the best you can do.

17) “What purpose do you think you are here for if you don’t believe in salvation?”

“….I also don’t think there is a purpose granted from an outside agency. We are what we are, and create our own purpose. We should make the best of it…..”

I wonder to what extent culture and ideology are or can be seen as an ‘outside agency’ within the context of ‘create our own purpose’.

transition said:

17) “What purpose do you think you are here for if you don’t believe in salvation?”

“….I also don’t think there is a purpose granted from an outside agency. We are what we are, and create our own purpose. We should make the best of it…..”

I wonder to what extent culture and ideology are or can be seen as an ‘outside agency’ within the context of ‘create our own purpose’.

In the context of the question, not at all.

Culture and ideology are part of what we are, just as much as genes.

The Half Remarkable Question

The widely publicized creationism debate held in Kentucky last week between science educator Bill Nye and expatriate Aussie Ken Ham from the Creation Museum, is indicative of a disturbing and prevalent trend of misunderstanding and misrepresenting the scientific method.

Ken Ham spent much of the debate obfuscating over “historical” versus “observational” science, terms which he alone seems to have defined. Despite universal acceptance by the scientific community, a disturbi…ngly large minority still reject biological evolution and the irrefutable fact that the earth is considerably older than 6000 years.

We see similar rejection of science with climate change denial, anti-vaccination campaigns, rejection of evidence-based medicine, and the popularity of conspiracy theories and internet hoaxes. Having a PM who thinks a sports minister is more important than a science minister bodes ominously for our future. When Joe Hockey recently said that the age of entitlement is now over I think he actually meant the Age of Enlightenment.

Paradoxically we are witnessing the inexorable decline of religious belief in Australia, with the simultaneous rise in popularity of faith-based schools. How do we know we can trust them to teach real science and not some nonexistent “controversy”?

Number 10 wasn’t even a question, and I don’t think Phil Plait got that.

>In the context of the question, not at all.
>Culture and ideology are part of what we are, just as much as genes.

The interesting stuff in that statement is in “..what we are, just..”
Suffer me some while I make the trip into absolute certainty and agreement.

What else is there.

15 ways atheists can stand up for rationality

I’ve often wondered how the term “New Atheism” gained such currency. It is a misnomer. There is nothing new about nonbelief. All of us, without exception, are born knowing nothing of God or gods, and acquire notions of religion solely through interaction with others – or, most often, indoctrination by others, an indoctrination usually commencing well before we can reason. Our primal state is, thus, one of nonbelief. The New Atheists (most prominently Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens) have, in essence, done nothing more than try to bring us back to our senses, to return us to a pure and innate mental clarity. Yet their efforts have generated all manner of controversy. Far outnumbered, and facing a popular mindset according kneejerk respect to men (yes, mostly they are men) of faith — reverends, priests, pastors, rabbis, imams and so on – the New Atheists have by necessity explained their views with zeal, which has often irked the religious, who are accustomed to unconditional deference. Even some nonbelievers who, again thanks to custom, consider religion too touchy a subject to discuss openly have been riled.

more…

>All of us, without exception, are born knowing nothing of God or gods, and acquire notions of religion solely through interaction with others – or, most often, indoctrination by others, an indoctrination usually commencing well before we can reason. Our primal state is, thus, one of nonbelief”

I am looking at what appears to be a yellow flyspray can over the otherside of the room. Regards the ‘sensation’ of its apparent yellowness which appears to be hard-wired and I can’t seem to summon anything that’ll have it anything other than that peculiar yellow experience, is this a “belief”?

Is there anything more boring than going over the same old ground with a Creationist? I think not, they are just so boring, boring people, talking about an oh so boring subject.

I initially misread the title of this thread.

For a moment, i though it said ‘Phil Plait responds to 22 cartoonists questions’.

transition said:

>In the context of the question, not at all.
>Culture and ideology are part of what we are, just as much as genes.

The interesting stuff in that statement is in “..what we are, just..”
Suffer me some while I make the trip into absolute certainty and agreement.

What else is there.

What else is there other than what?

Skeptic Pete said:

Number 10 wasn’t even a question, and I don’t think Phil Plait got that.

It was an implied question:

“So what do you say to that, mr. know-all so-called scientist?”

I thought he answered it pretty well.

transition said:

>All of us, without exception, are born knowing nothing of God or gods, and acquire notions of religion solely through interaction with others – or, most often, indoctrination by others, an indoctrination usually commencing well before we can reason. Our primal state is, thus, one of nonbelief”

I am looking at what appears to be a yellow flyspray can over the otherside of the room. Regards the ‘sensation’ of its apparent yellowness which appears to be hard-wired and I can’t seem to summon anything that’ll have it anything other than that peculiar yellow experience, is this a “belief”?

I wouldn’t call it a “belief”, no.

It’s a learned name for an innate response to a particular type of light.

CrazyNeutrino said:

15 ways atheists can stand up for rationality

I prefer the Plait approach on the whole, but one area where I think we Old Atheists should be more vocal is in objecting to the regular slurs against Atheists as a group that occur even on media outlets such as the ABC, and would be regarded as unacceptable if directed against any other group.

Except mass-murderers, rapists and motorcyclists perhaps.

PermeateFree said:

Is there anything more boring than going over the same old ground with a Creationist? I think not, they are just so boring, boring people, talking about an oh so boring subject.

Sure there is; there are lots of more boring things.

interrupting a discussion you are not interested in to say how boring it is, for one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

15 ways atheists can stand up for rationality

I prefer the Plait approach on the whole, but one area where I think we Old Atheists should be more vocal is in objecting to the regular slurs against Atheists as a group that occur even on media outlets such as the ABC, and would be regarded as unacceptable if directed against any other group.

Except mass-murderers, rapists and motorcyclists perhaps.

Here! Implied slur against motorcyclists!

Law-abiding motorcyclists (almost all motorcyclists) regard slurs against our portion of society as unacceptable, too!

>It’s a learned name for an innate response to a particular type of light”

It is, and well put.

Let’s call it ‘spectra y’. The tendency to attribute a name, to denotate, similarly could be seen as an innate response – points hairy finger at various examples of yellow and grunts “spectra y” – we could of course argue over what a ‘response’ is.

Personally I think the sensation of yellowness is a hard-wired response, largely shared across the species, that it isn’t greatly available to will and discretion and the experience greatly alterable this way does not so clearly put it outside of what can be understood to be “belief”.

Point being that if colour perception (the experience of it) injects this much into what is perceived of the world, then what of the processing artifacts being injected into that of the social field.

I think the experience of yellowness is a hard-wired belief, that such a response to that sort of light has utility.

Similarly I think the projections of the workings of consciousness that generate the God concept – the big screen that generates possible multiview overviews – that this too is a processing artifact, with utility.

I think it fair to say that the God concept probably does or has had as much utility as the belief yellow things are really yellow as the experience of yellow tends it.

And, possibly related, but derailing a bit, why is all that tends toward perception and conceptions of self as being (or behaving as if) a contemporary social construct so different to the creation and young earth view.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Good answers.

Hmm, only had a glance but I think he made a mess of some of those answers.

>There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith.

No, there’s no room for a god in science.

>Where do you derive objective meaning in life?

He doesn’t point out that meaning is a property of cognitive perception, and therefore inherently subjective.

I’ll have a closer look at it later :)

http://eagereyes.org/blog/2011/you-only-see-colors-you-can-name

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Good answers.

Hmm, only had a glance but I think he made a mess of some of those answers.

>There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith.

No, there’s no room for a god in science.

>Where do you derive objective meaning in life?

He doesn’t point out that meaning is a property of cognitive perception, and therefore inherently subjective.

I’ll have a closer look at it later :)

OK, if the purpose of the exercise was to convince the 22 creationists (and all their fellow travellers) that they are completely wrong, and that the whole God thing is an illogical waste of time, then the answers were not very good.

OTOH if we accept that that is just not going to happen, but all the same we would like to stop the push to teach stuff that isn’t even pseudo-science in schools, along side or in place of evolution (and geology, and cosmology, and just about every other sort of ology), then I think the answers were pretty good.

Boris said:

http://eagereyes.org/blog/2011/you-only-see-colors-you-can-name

interesting link thanks.

I think they are over-selling it though.

I mean it doesn’t seem surprising that we can differentiate between two different but similar things more easily if we have separate named categories for them.

JFTR, they’re still teaching Yr 7 kids in Australian high schools that glass is a liquid.

;-)

transition said:

>It’s a learned name for an innate response to a particular type of light”

It is, and well put.

Let’s call it ‘spectra y’. The tendency to attribute a name, to denotate, similarly could be seen as an innate response – points hairy finger at various examples of yellow and grunts “spectra y” – we could of course argue over what a ‘response’ is.

Personally I think the sensation of yellowness is a hard-wired response, largely shared across the species, that it isn’t greatly available to will and discretion and the experience greatly alterable this way does not so clearly put it outside of what can be understood to be “belief”.

Point being that if colour perception (the experience of it) injects this much into what is perceived of the world, then what of the processing artifacts being injected into that of the social field.

I think the experience of yellowness is a hard-wired belief, that such a response to that sort of light has utility.

Similarly I think the projections of the workings of consciousness that generate the God concept – the big screen that generates possible multiview overviews – that this too is a processing artifact, with utility.

I think it fair to say that the God concept probably does or has had as much utility as the belief yellow things are really yellow as the experience of yellow tends it.

And, possibly related, but derailing a bit, why is all that tends toward perception and conceptions of self as being (or behaving as if) a contemporary social construct so different to the creation and young earth view.

I don’t think the term “belief” should be applied to “hard-wired” results of the interaction with our environment, even if these interactions can be modified to some extent by learned information (as discussed by Boris’s link).

To me a “belief” is a conclusion we have reached about some subject as a result of thinking about our observations, or information provided by others, or a combination of the two.

There is certainly a strong interaction between the “hard-wired” activity of the brain, and acquired beliefs, but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing.

Incidentally, I don’t agree that we don’t have “beliefs” related to science, as suggested by Plait. Beliefs are just ideas that we think are likely to be true.

Are you guys still trying to use science to prove/disprove there is a God???

Peak Warming Man said:

Are you guys still trying to use science to prove/disprove there is a God???

No, if you read the thread you would see that the link is someone trying to convince people that non-science should not be taught in science classes, whatever their beliefs about any god or gods. The discussion has then led on to talking about the nature of beliefs.

So not connected with proving/disproving god or gods at all.

You’ll probably get into an argument about that with religious fringe dweller nutters like the AiG mob but main stream Christians have left the scientists ( many of whom are Christians ) alone to go about their earthly pursuits, we have no argument with them.

Peak Warming Man said:

You’ll probably get into an argument about that with religious fringe dweller nutters like the AiG mob but main stream Christians have left the scientists ( many of whom are Christians ) alone to go about their earthly pursuits, we have no argument with them.

That’s pretty much what Plait said.

But it should be noted that this debate was in the USA, where the YACs are much more than religious fringe dwellers.

You are more likely to find Yaks in Asian.

Peak Warming Man said:

You’ll probably get into an argument about that with religious fringe dweller nutters like the AiG mob but main stream Christians have left the scientists ( many of whom are Christians ) alone to go about their earthly pursuits, we have no argument with them.

Unless it involves embryonic stem cells .

> we have no argument with them.

Only ‘cos you know you’d lose :)

Bubblecar said:

>There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith.

No, there’s no room for a god in science.

Expanding on this:

You could say there is room for gods in the human sciences (anthropology, psychology etc), as imaginary beings invented by humans that have played an important role in religious culture and ideology etc. This is how gods are defined in this context and the definition seems highly accurate :)

In physics, there’s no room for a god because it’s a religious concept that is not translatable into scientifically meaningful terms (without disappearing). Modern religious believers tell us that God is a being who created the universe somehow or other, but that he exists outside of time and space and is not physical in nature. At a basic ontological level in physics, “not physical” means: nonexistent. And there appears to be no such place as “outside of time and space”. Indeed, the religious believers simply seem to be defining God as the human scientists do, i.e. as an imaginary being. They won’t concede this but that amounts to an admission that they’re not willing to play by scientific rules, further confirming that their god concept has no place in physics.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith.

No, there’s no room for a god in science.

Expanding on this:

You could say there is room for gods in the human sciences (anthropology, psychology etc), as imaginary beings invented by humans that have played an important role in religious culture and ideology etc. This is how gods are defined in this context and the definition seems highly accurate :)

In physics, there’s no room for a god because it’s a religious concept that is not translatable into scientifically meaningful terms (without disappearing). Modern religious believers tell us that God is a being who created the universe somehow or other, but that he exists outside of time and space and is not physical in nature. At a basic ontological level in physics, “not physical” means: nonexistent. And there appears to be no such place as “outside of time and space”. Indeed, the religious believers simply seem to be defining God as the human scientists do, i.e. as an imaginary being. They won’t concede this but that amounts to an admission that they’re not willing to play by scientific rules, further confirming that their god concept has no place in physics.

Maybe god = big bang. If so now there is no god except for the remnant 4°K radiation.

>Maybe god = big bang. If so now there is no god except for the remnant 4°K radiation.

Only if you change the meaning of “god” to “Big Bang”, in which case it’s an entirely different concept (a natural process not involving any “being”), and not one that the religious believers would warm to.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith.

No, there’s no room for a god in science.

Expanding on this:

You could say there is room for gods in the human sciences (anthropology, psychology etc), as imaginary beings invented by humans that have played an important role in religious culture and ideology etc. This is how gods are defined in this context and the definition seems highly accurate :)

In physics, there’s no room for a god because it’s a religious concept that is not translatable into scientifically meaningful terms (without disappearing). Modern religious believers tell us that God is a being who created the universe somehow or other, but that he exists outside of time and space and is not physical in nature. At a basic ontological level in physics, “not physical” means: nonexistent. And there appears to be no such place as “outside of time and space”. Indeed, the religious believers simply seem to be defining God as the human scientists do, i.e. as an imaginary being. They won’t concede this but that amounts to an admission that they’re not willing to play by scientific rules, further confirming that their god concept has no place in physics.

God is omnipotent and He made the rules.
I’m not sure how it all works but you wont find Him in an equation or some algorithm, you are looking in the wrong place.
Anyway I don’t want to be seen arguing with an Atheist who is going to rot and burn in hell for eternity in case I get judged and found guilty by association.
I don’t want to spend near eternity in purgatory because of some casual argument I had on some backwater holiday forum.

Bubblecar said:

>Maybe god = big bang. If so now there is no god except for the remnant 4°K radiation.

Only if you change the meaning of “god” to “Big Bang”, in which case it’s an entirely different concept (a natural process not involving any “being”), and not one that the religious believers would warm to.

I was going off the >> that he exists outside of time and space and is not physical in nature. That sounds like the big bang.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith.

No, there’s no room for a god in science.

Expanding on this:

You could say there is room for gods in the human sciences (anthropology, psychology etc), as imaginary beings invented by humans that have played an important role in religious culture and ideology etc. This is how gods are defined in this context and the definition seems highly accurate :)

In physics, there’s no room for a god because it’s a religious concept that is not translatable into scientifically meaningful terms (without disappearing). Modern religious believers tell us that God is a being who created the universe somehow or other, but that he exists outside of time and space and is not physical in nature. At a basic ontological level in physics, “not physical” means: nonexistent. And there appears to be no such place as “outside of time and space”. Indeed, the religious believers simply seem to be defining God as the human scientists do, i.e. as an imaginary being. They won’t concede this but that amounts to an admission that they’re not willing to play by scientific rules, further confirming that their god concept has no place in physics.

God is omnipotent and He made the rules.
I’m not sure how it all works but you wont find Him in an equation or some algorithm, you are looking in the wrong place.
Anyway I don’t want to be seen arguing with an Atheist who is going to rot and burn in hell for eternity in case I get judged and found guilty by association.
I don’t want to spend near eternity in purgatory because of some casual argument I had on some backwater holiday forum.

So hell exists outside space but not time?

The Big Bang is physical in nature, and doesn’t exist outside time & space.

I think it’s in the Alpha Quadrant, just the other side of The Barrier.

Bubblecar said:

The Big Bang is physical in nature, and doesn’t exist outside time & space.

But prior to the big bang there was no time or space.

>But prior to the big bang there was no time or space.

I don’t think you’ll find many physicists who would subscribe to that notion these days. They’re more likely to say that we’re not currently able to theoretically probe what was going on before the BB (except very speculatively) and it appears to be empirically inaccessible.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith.

No, there’s no room for a god in science.

Expanding on this:

You could say there is room for gods in the human sciences (anthropology, psychology etc), as imaginary beings invented by humans that have played an important role in religious culture and ideology etc. This is how gods are defined in this context and the definition seems highly accurate :)

In physics, there’s no room for a god because it’s a religious concept that is not translatable into scientifically meaningful terms (without disappearing). Modern religious believers tell us that God is a being who created the universe somehow or other, but that he exists outside of time and space and is not physical in nature. At a basic ontological level in physics, “not physical” means: nonexistent. And there appears to be no such place as “outside of time and space”. Indeed, the religious believers simply seem to be defining God as the human scientists do, i.e. as an imaginary being. They won’t concede this but that amounts to an admission that they’re not willing to play by scientific rules, further confirming that their god concept has no place in physics.

God is omnipotent and He made the rules.
I’m not sure how it all works but you wont find Him in an equation or some algorithm, you are looking in the wrong place.
Anyway I don’t want to be seen arguing with an Atheist who is going to rot and burn in hell for eternity in case I get judged and found guilty by association.
I don’t want to spend near eternity in purgatory because of some casual argument I had on some backwater holiday forum.

You have already associated yourself with this thread

are these terms the same

burn in hell for eternity
spend near eternity in purgatory

I don’t want to spend near eternity in purgatory because of some casual argument I had on some backwater holiday forum.

chuckle

Bubblecar said:

>But prior to the big bang there was no time or space.

I don’t think you’ll find many physicists who would subscribe to that notion these days. They’re more likely to say that we’re not currently able to theoretically probe what was going on before the BB (except very speculatively) and it appears to be empirically inaccessible.

Even Hawking in his old Brief History places the BB within time & space, just as the north pole is part of the Earth’s surface.

Dropbear said:

I don’t want to spend near eternity in purgatory because of some casual argument I had on some backwater holiday forum.

chuckle

near eternity looks very similar to near infinite

CrazyNeutrino said:

Dropbear said:

I don’t want to spend near eternity in purgatory because of some casual argument I had on some backwater holiday forum.

chuckle

near eternity looks very similar to near infinite

But much more uncomfortable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html?ref=science

Michael V said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html?ref=science

Makes sense. They couldn’t get in through the eye of the needle.

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html?ref=science

Makes sense. They couldn’t get in through the eye of the needle.

Judging only by the newspaper report, this seems to be a nice bit of archeological science. Camels apparently had not been introduced to Israel at that time.

>To me a “belief” is a conclusion we have reached about some subject as a result of thinking about our observations, or information provided by others, or a combination of the two”

And this is (at) the heart of what I will argue against later.

Snitzel on the burner. Smells good.

Michael V said:

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html?ref=science

Makes sense. They couldn’t get in through the eye of the needle.

Judging only by the newspaper report, this seems to be a nice bit of archeological science. Camels apparently had not been introduced to Israel at that time.

They were probably known of though.

transition said:

>To me a “belief” is a conclusion we have reached about some subject as a result of thinking about our observations, or information provided by others, or a combination of the two”

And this is (at) the heart of what I will argue against later.

Snitzel on the burner. Smells good.

Is there is difference between believing and knowing?

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

>To me a “belief” is a conclusion we have reached about some subject as a result of thinking about our observations, or information provided by others, or a combination of the two”

And this is (at) the heart of what I will argue against later.

Snitzel on the burner. Smells good.

Is there is difference between believing and knowing?

I believe there is.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and that this phenomenon is due to the rotation of the Earth on its axis, but I don’t know either of those things.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

>To me a “belief” is a conclusion we have reached about some subject as a result of thinking about our observations, or information provided by others, or a combination of the two”

And this is (at) the heart of what I will argue against later.

Snitzel on the burner. Smells good.

Is there is difference between believing and knowing?

I believe there is.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and that this phenomenon is due to the rotation of the Earth on its axis, but I don’t know either of those things.

ok, reasonable statement

Ken’s imagination: The Earth is 6000 years old

Bill’s response

Science has answers

10,500-year-old stand of Huon Pine

The oldest tree

>Sibeen: There was a discussion last night about lead-acid batteries. Somebody had observed over a long period of time and many batteries, that the cell adjacent to the positive terminal needed topping more frequently than the others. Why would this be so?

adjacent = nearest?

Anyway as of automotive batteries the end set of plates may get higher temperatures, and they did (of older vehicles like mine anyway) tend to put the + terminal to the inside away from the body of the vehicle. Elsewhere flooded LA I use do tend to get the afternoon sun on end-sides of batteries, but do try to keep them shaded. The end plates also may also not have as much support (more buckling and cracking).

As for some other factor other than not being able to temperature derate charge voltages and currents for individual cells and across cells, doubtful, though the increased corrosion from running a higher surface charge for longer along with that cell declining its charge status quicker over time will result in cell capacity decline (including sulfation) so each discharge/charge cycle compoundingly takes its toll.

woops :)

ELI5: Creationist here, without insulting my intelligence, please explain evolution.

heaps of replies, over 1423

CrazyNeutrino said:

ELI5: Creationist here, without insulting my intelligence, please explain evolution.

heaps of replies, over 1423

Has anyone posted the question allowing insulting the intelligence as a control test?

party_pants said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

ELI5: Creationist here, without insulting my intelligence, please explain evolution.

heaps of replies, over 1423

Has anyone posted the question allowing insulting the intelligence as a control test?

I’m working my way through the comments, but the thread has been locked, so no new comments

but I have an interest in emotional intelligence and see being able to control ones emotions has intelligent

>>To me a “belief” is a conclusion we have reached about some subject as a result of thinking about our observations, or information provided by others, or a combination of the two”

Clearly a belief can be something (a view or whatever) someone is inclined toward, can probably be unconcluded, and I expect beliefs exist (perhaps are common) that the holder is unaware of.

transition said:

>>To me a “belief” is a conclusion we have reached about some subject as a result of thinking about our observations, or information provided by others, or a combination of the two”

Clearly a belief can be something (a view or whatever) someone is inclined toward, can probably be unconcluded, and I expect beliefs exist (perhaps are common) that the holder is unaware of.

Depends what you mean by “unconcluded”. Beliefs can change, so they are not a “conclusion” in that sense, Perhaps decision would be a better word.

As for “unconscious beliefs”, certainly there are brain processes that affect how we behave that we are not aware of, but I don’t know that these can be called beliefs.

I believe that the word belief only applies to conscious thoughts.

>I believe that the word belief only applies to conscious thoughts.

What of mental associations, like used in advertising, a jingle and happy faces associated with some product, you might go buy that product because you associate it with happiness, you want to be happy/ier or stay happy, and perhaps without knowing it in some way believe it will contribute to your happiness. You haven’t thought the entire matter through much at all, and your friend bought it previous and dropped in and went on about how good it was. So you’ve been swayed by the advertising and what a friend feels.

I think feelings regularly input to beliefs, not much thought required at all.

Observing something, if we consider conviction and convinced (level of) to be graded possibilities, that they like belief can be seen to have a force (force of conviction, force of belief etc), then we can watch smething acting on something we’d describe as being a belief, the actor though need not know of what exactly is it acting from, could be unworded, unabstracted.

Regards this “…only applies to conscious thoughts..” does it have to be in worded thought? Or do you acknowledge many beliefs in-large-part may be in the territory of unworded mental activity. What of beliefs in the unworded internal world in minds.

transition said:

>I believe that the word belief only applies to conscious thoughts.

What of mental associations, like used in advertising, a jingle and happy faces associated with some product, you might go buy that product because you associate it with happiness, you want to be happy/ier or stay happy, and perhaps without knowing it in some way believe it will contribute to your happiness. You haven’t thought the entire matter through much at all, and your friend bought it previous and dropped in and went on about how good it was. So you’ve been swayed by the advertising and what a friend feels.

I think feelings regularly input to beliefs, not much thought required at all.

Observing something, if we consider conviction and convinced (level of) to be graded possibilities, that they like belief can be seen to have a force (force of conviction, force of belief etc), then we can watch smething acting on something we’d describe as being a belief, the actor though need not know of what exactly is it acting from, could be unworded, unabstracted.

Regards this “…only applies to conscious thoughts..” does it have to be in worded thought? Or do you acknowledge many beliefs in-large-part may be in the territory of unworded mental activity. What of beliefs in the unworded internal world in minds.

I can’t think of a name for unconscious mental processes that affect our actions in a consistent way.

I think there should be one (after all, these whatsnames do exist, and are important), but I don’t think it should be “belief”.

As to whether a belief has to be worded, I think it does.

I think it is inherent in the idea of a “belief” that it can be stated and justified verbally.

Although an idea that could be supported in the form of dance could be called a belief I suppose.

>I think it is inherent in the idea of a “belief” that it can be stated and justified verbally.

That’s a peculiar linguistic imposition. Can I just shake my head gesturing the mental state of ‘disagree’ regards that.

>I can’t think of a name for unconscious mental processes that affect our actions in a consistent way.

Not necessarily “unconscious”, but what has you believing language and thought and belief are so tied together. I suppose it depends to what extent one believes language determines thought, or how much better than approximation thought is, and how much better than approximation language is, and both approximations, I suppose the latter expresses the former, or whatever order you prefer.

It’s not up to atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist, it is up to the theists to prove that they do, and I say “they” cos why should there be only one?

bob(from black rock) said:

It’s not up to atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist, it is up to the theists to prove that they do, and I say “they” cos why should there be only one?

It will be interesting if there is more than one, or if its aliens

why cannot atheists prove that God does not exist or does exist?

or maybe religious scientists will prove that God does exist or does not exist

maybe theists will either prove or disprove Gods existence

the important thing is to keep an open, broad mind, and be honest about observation and be honest about possibilities, and to be honest about historical events in the past

• historical events in the past

Unlike those pesky future historical events…

transition said:

>I think it is inherent in the idea of a “belief” that it can be stated and justified verbally.

That’s a peculiar linguistic imposition. Can I just shake my head gesturing the mental state of ‘disagree’ regards that.

You think words having a specific meaning is a peculiar linguistic imposition?

That seems a peculiar linguistic latitude.

transition said:

>I can’t think of a name for unconscious mental processes that affect our actions in a consistent way.

Not necessarily “unconscious”, but what has you believing language and thought and belief are so tied together.

Because that’s what I believe the word “belief” means.

>You think words having a specific meaning is a peculiar linguistic imposition?

Did I suggest as you say, or mean that, I don’t think so.

Does the specific meaning you mention define (or determine) the work/ings of the concept, in your mind.

Imagine I had a stroke and it took out specifically my ability to write and speak, can I still have beliefs?

>Because that’s what I believe the word “belief” means.

I gather amongst that belief, perhaps involved in producing it, are unworded beliefs.

Or is that it simply that it has to be wordable, not necessarily currently worded.

Based on your definition, does that mean that all your beliefs are fully worded, fully abstracted, fully explained, with full and complete exactitude, absolutely complete, comprehensive. Further, how do you reconcile that beliefs are largely representation, approximations given a force perhaps.

You’re pulling my leg anyway, as there’s no way the workings of the God concept internal (beliefs associated) are likely to be fully worded.

transition said:

>You think words having a specific meaning is a peculiar linguistic imposition?

Did I suggest as you say, or mean that, I don’t think so.

You seemed to, but I can only guess at what you mean from what you write.

transition said:

Does the specific meaning you mention define (or determine) the work/ings of the concept, in your mind.

Imagine I had a stroke and it took out specifically my ability to write and speak, can I still have beliefs?

Sure, as long as you still has some sort of internal language.

>Sure, as long as you still has some sort of internal language”

Are we venturing the subject of mentalese here, or internal monologue in spoken language.

transition said:

>Because that’s what I believe the word “belief” means.

I gather amongst that belief, perhaps involved in producing it, are unworded beliefs.

Or is that it simply that it has to be wordable, not necessarily currently worded.

Yes, wordable would be sufficient.

transition said:

Based on your definition, does that mean that all your beliefs are fully worded, fully abstracted, fully explained, with full and complete exactitude, absolutely complete, comprehensive.

Why would you think that?

transition said:

Further, how do you reconcile that beliefs are largely representation, approximations given a force perhaps.

Why do you think that needs reconciling?

transition said:

You’re pulling my leg anyway, as there’s no way the workings of the God concept internal (beliefs associated) are likely to be fully worded.

No, I’m not pulling your leg.

I think you are being excessively either/orist here.

transition said:

>Sure, as long as you still has some sort of internal language”

Are we venturing the subject of mentalese here, or internal monologue in spoken language.

Either one, to the extent that they are different, or any other form of internal language.

>Either one, to the extent that they are different, or any other form of internal language.

Could you tidy that up for me. Be more exact, you are being excessively either/orist, maybe.

transition said:

>Either one, to the extent that they are different, or any other form of internal language.

Could you tidy that up for me. Be more exact, you are being excessively either/orist, maybe.

No, I’m being the opposite of excessively either/orist.

By either/orism I mean the widespread tendency to treat everything as though they can be divided into a small number of well-defined groups.

Anyway, there’s more to be had from this subject additional to placing your hand on an anvil and smashing your fingers with a hammer and asking when you began believing it hurt, then asking you to put words to it.

:)

It is an interesting subject, the ways and means language imposes. You know when a kid, and it’s the same of most kids, they aggressively apprehend language, and I think later it remains the same in ways, amplified (perhaps exploited) through groups and culture, but I think there is a requirement for a counter-tracking-awareness regards this, or for this, to mediate the impositional, even if possibilities.

I don’t believe religion to be necessarily the worst example of overly imposing(/ness of) language.

transition said:

Anyway, there’s more to be had from this subject additional to placing your hand on an anvil and smashing your fingers with a hammer and asking when you began believing it hurt, then asking you to put words to it.

:)

But being aware that something hurts is different to believing that something hurts.

To look at it from a different perspective, my dog has an awareness that some things hurt, and she avoids doing them (except when chasing a ball), but I wouldn’t call this a “belief”.

transition said:

It is an interesting subject, the ways and means language imposes. You know when a kid, and it’s the same of most kids, they aggressively apprehend language, and I think later it remains the same in ways, amplified (perhaps exploited) through groups and culture, but I think there is a requirement for a counter-tracking-awareness regards this, or for this, to mediate the impositional, even if possibilities.

I’m afraid I don’t know what you are getting at there.

transition said:

I don’t believe religion to be necessarily the worst example of overly imposing(/ness of) language.

I didn’t suggest that it is. But since I don’t really know what you mean by the “overly imposing(/ness of) language”, I’m not likely to.

>But being aware that something hurts is different to believing that something hurts.
>To look at it from a different perspective, my dog has an awareness that some things hurt, and she avoids doing them (except when chasing a ball), but I wouldn’t call this a “belief”.

Yeah I’ve been going through dog examples etc, trying to understand the more physical or direct aspects (minus the conscious overview thing, sorta, or the wordable conscious overview/framing necessity).

Not sure about the clarity of this “…..But being aware that something hurts is different to believing that something hurts…”, but don’t claim much clarity myself.

Just to clarify some other matter, have you softened a bit re your criteria for status as a belief, by it (initially) requiring having been worded, to being capable of being worded. I could go back a read, but will keep with it being a work-in-progress for the moment.

transition said:

Just to clarify some other matter, have you softened a bit re your criteria for status as a belief, by it (initially) requiring having been worded, to being capable of being worded. I could go back a read, but will keep with it being a work-in-progress for the moment.

It’s hard to say, certainly the expressed criteria have widened, but the few written words I used initially couldn’t be expected to fully define my opinion on the matter.

Especially since it is a fuzzy concept anyway. The main difference (I think) that qualifies something as a “belief”, rather than “knowledge” or an “idea”, or a “feeling” or an “unconscious mental activity that affects our behaviour”, is that there should be some level of doubt about it, and it should be possible to apply some sort of thought process in deciding whether you believe it or not.

>Especially since it is a fuzzy concept anyway. The main difference (I think) that qualifies something as a “belief”, rather than “knowledge” or an “idea”, or a “feeling” or an “unconscious mental activity that affects our behaviour”, is that there should be some level of doubt about it, and it should be possible to apply some sort of thought process in deciding whether you believe it or not.

Do fear and anxiety generate this (non-pathological fear etc), they input to calibrate for uncertainty.

transition said:

>Especially since it is a fuzzy concept anyway. The main difference (I think) that qualifies something as a “belief”, rather than “knowledge” or an “idea”, or a “feeling” or an “unconscious mental activity that affects our behaviour”, is that there should be some level of doubt about it, and it should be possible to apply some sort of thought process in deciding whether you believe it or not.

Do fear and anxiety generate this (non-pathological fear etc), they input to calibrate for uncertainty.

Sorry, I don’t believe I know what you mean by that.

>Sorry, I don’t believe I know what you mean by that.

Well, it’s a busy road you want to cross, what drives or motivates the risk/hazard computations.

transition said:

>Sorry, I don’t believe I know what you mean by that.

Well, it’s a busy road you want to cross, what drives or motivates the risk/hazard computations.

Lot’s of things, but making a decision (which will be largely based on unconscious activity) is not the same as having a belief.

It might become a belief if you later had to go back and justify your actions on a particular occasion.

I believe I had better get back to work now.

>Lot’s of things, but making a decision (which will be largely based on unconscious activity) is not the same as having a belief.

Where are we at, “belief” requires deliberation in internal monologue, or must be capable of being the subject of such deliberation. Does this make belief like a position or view that can be articulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispositional_and_occurrent_belief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance

I think, rev, we’re probably in the territory of beliefs about beliefs, that of perception that inputs to conceptualizing, the composite, ideas of them. Both simplifying and complicating that, is that human minds are given to creating shortcuts to simplify consideration of them (for economy, and to have influence too), but also both simplify and complicate to obscure the reality of them. There are protective psychological mechanisms for operating in the social field, conformity being one.

You know the balance (totality and detail, with all certainties/uncertainties) of what a person believes and what of what is believed that tend to be communicated are not always the same thing, I why should or would they be.

So there’s expressed views or ‘tendings’ for affect (lending to the written and verbal), and then there’s something else, perhaps that might find expression in select company, or remain in some individuals internal world. Of course most of us have private beliefs, which we are cautious of the scope of the social field we might venture them. It is quite possble such private beliefs, to remain private, might tend to be kept in our internal world by limiting the verbal framework put on them, or that they might be subjected to.

Beliefs I note too can be ‘soft’, and it maybe the case that most of humans (beliefs) are in a way, more representative of the fleshy things we are, and the psychological and social world we inhabit. The effectiveness of belief may not (always) come from their certainty, or imposingness.

Personally I only think religion (mostly) damaging in which case it lends itself to cultural and linguistic determinism, or determination of behaviour this way. Where it hijacks the projections of consciousness, or the mechanisms that would otherwise tend toward a more distributed application of the tools contributing to consciousness.

But religion IMO isn’t the only thing that historically has done this, so I redefine ‘religion’ (to be ‘ideology’ of a sort), and group with that anything that tends to hijack the projections of consciousness. By ‘projections’ I mean what finds its way onto the big screen (awareness) for consideration or introspection (analysis even, or very little as the case may be), but I’m also suggesting the possibility of distorted expression, even the possibility of pathology, though am a reluctant pathologizer.

>and it should be possible to apply some sort of thought process in deciding whether you believe it or not.

Does this apply to children before they have a so-called Theory of Mind?