Why Myths Persist 988
lottameez recommends an article in the Washington Post about recent research into the persistence of myths. In short: once a myth has been put out there (e.g., "Saddam Hussein plotted the 9/11 attacks"), denying it can paradoxically reinforce its staying power. Ignoring it doesn't work either — a claim that is unchallenged gains the ring of truth. Over time, "negation tags" fall out of memory: "Saddam didn't plan 9/11" becomes "Saddam planned 9/11." From the article: "The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths... The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious 'rules of thumb' that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency."
And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe this explains why religion persists in the face of logic, it was here before science.
Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:1, Insightful)
Religion persists against all common sense.
And cue trolling against religion in... (Score:0, Insightful)
Wonder how many "but religions is a myths!!!!111~" posts will get modded insightful.
did you see Microsoft win that vote yesterday? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the famous "Gore won Florida"? (Score:4, Insightful)
What it comes down to is this, people are more inclined to believe stories which correspond to what they already believe to be true, even if the evidence against such a belief is overwhelming. It is all about change and accepting mistakes. There are too many people resistant to change and resistant to admitting mistakes.
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Science and Faith can co-exist. I believe in God and how that Faith helps shape and guide my life. I also believe in Science, in it's ability to help describe the world around me from the smallest quark to the farthest sun. Science only reaffirms my Faith in this way, each time "We" (mankind) say this is the barrier, this is the absolute; Science through discovery pushes past that barrier. In fact I propose that there are leaps of Faith in Scientific discovery that only later logic will describe. For me those leaps are our moments of touching the God that is inside us.
Faith is not about logic and why it will endure along with logic.
Avoiding negations (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of saying "Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11.", you should instead say something like "It was al-qaida, who didn't particularly like Saddam Hussein, that were responsible for 9/11."
The Saddam/911 myth persists because powerful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, religion persists because of "common sense," which this article seems to help demonstrate. The problem is that commonly passes as "sense" is not very logically sound. Common sense is not a great tool for discovering the truth.
This is why the scientific method is so invaluable
Too bad most people are scientifically illiterate.
In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bush lied about Saddam & 911 (Score:2, Insightful)
You are still re-enforcing the Saddam <-> connection.
You need to leave Saddam out entirely.
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many decent arguments both for and against the veracity of religion.
Don't be a troll and act like the rejection of religion is a slam dunk for all thinking persons.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you can call it that if it makes you feel better, but the rest of us just call that "wishful thinking".
I have little doubt your faith makes you feel good inside, but then again, so does a hit to a heroin addict.
Of course, assuming TFA is valid, my denying the entire notion of your "faith" will probably re-enforce it. So you're welcome. Enjoy it in good health.
Yaz.
No You Dim Witted Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of you people are so intent on being snide that you don't even read the post you're responding to. (It makes you look like a real dumb ass.) I hope someone with some common sense mods you down, even if they agree with you're slashdot-populist message. Straw manning someone to ridicule them is unnecessary.
Re:The Saddam/911 link is a bad example (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, as stated in the article, people are much more likely to believe a myth that they simply want to believe, regardless of truth. People want to believe their tax dollars (and blood) are funding a valiant effort that is good against an evil enemy. Hence, any myth brought up that makes the enemy sound more evil, is also more likely to be believed regardless of how true it is.
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Saddam (Score:1, Insightful)
1 - stop watching TV shows and movies. They can be really bad models of a reality-based world. Examples: those 'wave your arms to operate a computer' operating systems in sci-fi films would mess up your shoulders in a day; you can't accurately shoot a
2 - If you're going to live in fear, and then define your fear as a reason to repeat a f#cked-up experiment in US foreign relations, you're not in the reality-based world in the first place.
3 - one of your sentences shows just how messed up your 'thinking' is:
you can pretend he didn't have weapons of mass destruction but what if he did?
a - "you can pretend he didn't have weapons of mass destruction". Let's look at that. In relation to the 9/11 Commission Report that said... HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. There's no "pretending" about it. No matter how much Rick Santorum and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter LIED TO YOU, REPEATEDLY LIED TO YOU, you are still gullible enough to repeat the lie as truth. And then...
b - you say "but what if he did?". You just said OTHER PEOPLE WERE PRETENDING HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. And then you ACKNOWLEDGE that he doesn't have them because you try to Appeal to Emotion [nizkor.org], wondering what would happen if he DID have them in an alternative universe.
We should invade somewhere "in case" someone could do something to us? Is this the [f]right wing modern version of Reds Under The Beds (Arabs In The Attic)? How messed up to you have to be, mentally, to think "the best form of defense is attack, and the best form of attack is surprise"...? That's what mental people do, you do realize that, right? Mad people attack random people in subway stations and on the streets because "God told them to do it" or "they're all out to get me". And you use that as... what? A viable political opinion?
When did nutso-frigging-bazoo count as a political opinion. I'm going to call a spade a spade. You're mental. Get help.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all faith is created equal. My faith that I will fall back to earth is, I daresay, more rational than that of somebody who believes he or she will fly away. That's because the latter is not only unsupported by, but contradicted by, our understanding of the natural world.
So I can split faith into four categories:
1. faith in things supported by our observations
2. faith in things for which there is no evidence but could
conceivably be observed
3. faith in things that by definition can never be observed
4. faith in things for which contradict our observations
Categories 2 and 3 are, in my opinion, harmless but useless.
Category 4 is harmful.
Personally, I stick to category 1 and am a devout athiest.
Many mainstream religions and a large number of individuals
stick to categories 2 and 3. Except, perhaps, as far as
the historical record is concerned (paranormal events caused
by the intervention of metaphysical beings). It is easy enough
to agree to disagree on these matters.
The problem, of course, is category 4.
Re:And.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Like the famous "Gore won Florida"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps to keep the summary length down, and because they wanted a very clear-cut example of a popularly held, erroneous belief, and because there is actually reason to believe that Gore might have won Florida, had the election not been settled in court?
I'm not disputing your personal experience, but I'm not sure that I've ever heard anyone make the argument that Gore won the presidency because "the media confirmed it" -- that would be a pretty good example of lazy thinking and confirmation bias. The reasoning I usually hear is that there were votes that went uncounted that might have or probably would have went for Gore, and that because Gore won the popular vote (which is technically/legally irrelevant but philosophically persuasive), he was/is the "rightful" president.
Your basic point about people believing what they want to believe is probably valid, though. I've heard that there have been studies conducting establishing that people make up their minds on things a few seconds before they've even consciously considered the question, and then they work backwards to rationalize their position
Many reasons (Score:2, Insightful)
First, whose idea was the invasion? The idea belonged to a small group of strategists, who believed in the benign military power of the U.S. They thought they could finally solve the Gordian knot of the Middle East that was (1) causing terror attacks against the U.S., (2) threatening U.S. access to vital oil resources, (3) threatening the very existence of Israel (these strategists were committed to Zionism) and (4) condemning vast masses of Arabs and Iranians to tyranny.
The strategists argued the root cause of all these problems was the big mistake committed by Britain and the U.S. after WWII when they founded arbitrary kingdoms in the area and installed their vassals as rulers. The surprising examples of Eastern Europe, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines showed that all nations yearn for democracy and, more importantly, that doesn't spell disaster for the U.S. strategist interests. In other words, democracy is a win-win for everybody. So these idealistic strategists were convinced that the Middle East required true democracy from Morocco to Iran.
The idea was to start a positive domino effect whereby a few good examples will get the ball rolling and the remaining Arab states will follow example without U.S. military involvement. The project was started with Iraq for various reasons. Mainly, it was easiest to sell to the U.S. public and secondly, it was led by a sworn enemy of Israel -- even if the project should fail, at least Israel would have one less enemy to worry about.
Now the strategists understood their project about an aggressive war to liberate an Arab nation wouldn't be well received by many people in the U.S. so they came up with a number of baits. They convinced some powerful politicians and industrialists with the promise of huge government contracts. They placated many conservative realists by assuring them that this was the only way to keep the oil. They assured the fiscal conservatives that looting the Iraqi oil will pay for the endeavor. And finally, they had an easy time selling the idea to the U.S. citizenry. At the time the Americans were in a militaristic fervor, and many, many conservatives had been feeling for a long time that the first Gulf War needed to be finished.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction pretext was just a formal gimmick. Nobody believed it, nobody cared except it was nice that the inevitable and much desired war seemed to have an objective justification.
The original idea really was to bring American-style happiness to the Iraqi people, and at first many Iraqis were hopeful. However, because of the necessary compromises that were needed to get the war sold, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have had to die. Since the war wasn't supposed to cost anything to the U.S., there weren't enough soldiers to secure the country and disproportionately many were dedicated to securing the oil facilities. Also, not enough money was granted for the infrastructure projects and what money there was was given to wasteful companies owned by U.S. cronies. The people were "liberated" but the free press was censored and reporters were assassinated.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:1, Insightful)
This makes sense... to anyone who accepts the underlying presumption that the human experience is logical.
To those of us who have orbited the Sun a couple dozen times or more, and have kept our eyes open, it is abundantly clear that most of the human experience defies logic. And that the most important things we can experience cannot even be approximated with logic.
I won't talk about "religion", because that quickly gets all wrapped up in human institutions and the behavioral control mechanisms they try to wield. Instead I will say it thus:
Anyone who wants to experience life to its fullest must be open to living on faith, because logic will only take you to the far reaches of the playpen in which it operates.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and news flash:
#1 there's no 'distasteful' moderation,
#2 not everyone agrees with you (matter of fact, some people regard mainstream religion as highly offensive and insulting),
#3 just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're 'wrong'.
You have faith in "God". The parent poster has faith in what he/she can scientifically determine. Neither is wrong nor right. I apologize if you're uncomfortable with that much gray, but that's life.
Re:Saddam (Score:4, Insightful)
At the time america was 90% sure Iraq had WMD... But I doubt that was the real reason, because the real reason would be politically incorrect.
My theory.
1. End Sansions (AKA Oil) There were sansions on Iraq hurting the Iraqies and American interest in oil as well. By kicking the leaders out we can end the sansions.
2. Force terrorist to think locally. Why spend resources try to atack unarmed civilians on the other side of the earth when there is a bunch of armed ones right next door.
3. American Influence. Dealing with americans even occupiers makes people realize they are not as evil as they once thought, They may not like the occupiers but many of the civilians learn that americans are not as blood thirsty as they origionally beleaved.
4. Iraq is the most religious tolerant country in the area. Giving the best chance for reform.
Those are my theorys on the real reasons but most americans will be angry from them because it is more of the ends justify the means mantanility. Needless to say I don't think it worked as well as planned. Not accounting for the secratarian violance.
Re:Spare Me (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me, the reason that religion has a bad name in some quarters is the propensity of those who are religous to do very unpleasant things to those who disagree with them about minor points of theology.
It's really hard to take the concept of a loving God seriously when the jerk promulgating it is beating the crap out of person or persons who are not members of the right club.
You folks need to clean up your act. Then we can talk.
(But I think [yes that's an act of faith, not reason] that probably by the end of this Century. the non-believers will have their picture of the universe all neatly tied up with all the loose ends tucked in. When (OK, if) that happens, you folks will find it harder to dismiss 'rationality'.)
Re:Saddam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In other words (Score:3, Insightful)
Wizard's Second Rule:
Wizard's Tenth Rule:
Since looking them up in the books themselves would be a pain, here you go [wikipedia.org].
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're claiming that it's easier to believe that:
1) something (God) exists and has no creator
2) God has the ability to create the universe
3) God used that ability to create the universe
As opposed to:
1) something (the Universe) exists and has no creator
Please correct me if I have somehow misrepresented your position.
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So even if something like Heaven (for instance) doesn't exist, it doesn't matter because A.) if Heaven exists, you're set, B.) if Heaven doesn't exist, you'll be dead by the time you learn the truth so who cares, and C.) you will have lived your life free of worry and doubt in regards to death, which is to your benefit during life.
If you're saying what I think you're saying here, you're talking about Pascal's Wager [wikipedia.org], which in essence states that the consequence of believing in god and being proven wrong at death is smaller than believing god doesn't exist, and being proven wrong at death (and thus spending eternity in hell).
This, to me, is not only fundamentally flawed, but it is the cornerstone on which religious bigotry is based. For one, who's god should one believe in? Presumably the god of the one who is positing the wager. But, to me, the larger issue is this: If there is a god, and you've spent your life trying to enrich humanity and all those around you without any respect to any god, and god doesn't want to let you into heaven... then god is evil. If there is NO god, and you've spent your life worshiping him, and giving people money who represent him, and there IS NO eternal life... you have wasted the only precious resource you have, which is your time on earth.
I, like many others on slashdot, believe that when you die, your body goes into the ground and you rot. There is no continued existence after death, when your brain shuts off for the last time, you are dead, and it's the end of the line. I can think of no greater tragedy than to waste the limited time we have here together on earth by worshiping god.
Life is precious. Religion robs us of the preciousness of this commodity by telling us that there's more of it over the next hill. Wake up, folks. The next hill is a cliff.
~Wx
Re:Faith in Carbon (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Eradication by ridicule (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:2, Insightful)
How very strange! Here I've been going around thinking that what scientists were doing was wishful thinking. For example, "I sure hope the Scientific Method is a valid technique to verify what the universe really is, or all our work will come tumbling down around our ears" or "I sure hope modus ponens ponens never yields a contradiction," or "I sure hope the next study doesn't suggest that eating eggs is good for you." I've seen several attempts by scientists to verify the Scientific Method, but all of them use the Scientific method, which only stands for the unremarkable proposition that the Scientific Method is valid provided that the Scientific Method is valid. Now don't let me be one to deny your faith. I'm perfectly willing to allow you to use the Scientific Method to verify the Scientific method, but, in fairness, I think I should require you to allow me to use the Bible to verify the Bible.
I have little doubt your faith makes you feel good inside, but then again, so does a hit to a heroin addict.
That analogy doesn't help me much as I've never hit any heroin. Would it be anything like the feeling Friedrich August Kekulé von Stradonitz got when he woke from his dream about the snake biting its tail giving him the chemical structure of benzene? Or the feeling Archimedes got upon leaving his bath?
Of course, assuming TFA is valid, my denying the entire notion of your "faith" will probably re-enforce it. So you're welcome. Enjoy it in good health.
Why, thank you! Perhaps I can do a similar service for you some day. Oh, wait! I already have.
Yaz.
-Loyal
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the latter is true, then yes.
Would you rather live in a world that's flat, or a world that's round? A flat world would probably have some interesting properties. It would be easier to draw a map, for one thing. It'd also be easier to define where God goes in this world -- in the sky, of course.
But the world isn't flat. It's round. So if I really wanted to, I could live in a delusion of a flat world -- there's even a "flat earth society" that was started as a joke, but now has a loyal following. But it would be a delusion.
Now, as it is, people keep shifting the definition of God and religion so that a God could always exist, so I can't conclusively say that you're wrong, and that there is no God. However, I do find it kind of silly that you continue to believe in one.
Oh, false dichotomy, by the way. You can have a world of meaning and purpose without religion. You can make up your own meaning and purpose, if you like, one that's not based on a fantasy.
Re:And.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some unexpected examples.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Following your much appreciated defense of U.S. military capability*, I have to point out an important lesson that is relavent today: We may have won every battle of Vietnam, but we still lost the war. Because in a guerilla war, winning battles in the field is not as important. Being able to crush the enemy when they dare to stand and fight is meaningless when the survivors, the smart ones, will just fade in the face of the attack and blend back into the population. The same holds true in Iraq, which is why invading Falluja was both a cakewalk and a fool's errand. Our forces far outmatch the insurgents, and that hardly matters for victory. It's very frustrating for those who want military solutions for everything, who think the problem with Vietnam is that we didn't spend enough blood and treasure, but it's a lesson we'll have to learn.
* I liked the part where the OP said the U.S. only attacks when it has overwhelming force. Duh, because that's a good strategy for winning! The primary strength of our armed forces is logistics, the ability to move our forces to where they are needed, and to keep them supplied, and to take ground piece by piece by dropping shit-tons of firepower on it. It's how the North won the Civil War against superior Southern generals, it's how we kept the march across France going, and it's what our last Secretary of Defense decided to throw out the window because he thought he knew better.
Re:And.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. The the rest of us are quite capable of speaking without your help.
I have little doubt your faith makes you feel good inside, but then again, so does a hit to a heroin addict.
True, but doing heroin doesn't give insight as to how to live your life, how to treat those around you and how to deal with life's unforeseen problems. And while heroin addicts may have various support groups, it is nothing compared to what you will find in your average, every day, small town church. I don't see a lot of heroin addicts feeding or the poor, housing the homeless, finding homes for orphans or giving Christmas gifts to children whose parents can't or won't afford it, all while demanding absolutely nothing in return.
So while you may think it's cute to insult the intelligence of those of us who believe in a higher power, it shows your ignorance of how faith works. There is so much more to religion that simply feeling good. Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God. Who are you to challenge the intelligence of people like Einstein, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, George Washington and all of the many, many other brilliant historical figures that also believed in God?
So, the TFA's notion that your denying of faith adds credence to it is not because it keeps it in the limelight, it is because you have a such a disdain for those who believe in something that you do not understand at all, there must be something to it.
(Forgive me for going OT, but if I'm OT, so is the parent.)
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
faith in things supported by our observations
Why then would you be an atheist? Miracles have been observed for the past 4,000 years. Man's notion of God's existence is the longest held tenet in the written history of our existence. It would seem that if it were incorrect, we would have found out by now.
The interesting thing is that other methods of knowing - such as scientific discovery - have not only been wrong, but spectacularly so. From the Golden Age of Greece until the Renaissance, it was held that the Earth was the center of the universe. Imagine if one's eternal destiny had been contingent on knowing the correct answer to this question.
Yes, science does correct itself - eventually. But you never know if what you believe today will be shown wrong tomorrow by the discovery of additional material. People want to know the truth, not something that *may* be true until later shown false. Logic can assist, but it is only as good as the assumptions on which it is predicated. Divine revelation, OTOH, is known to be true by virtue of the authority from which it is given. And interestingly, is often confirmed through miracles.
If you want to believe in a tentative explanation which could be true, listen to science. If you want to know eternal truth that has been verified true throughout the centuries, listen to divine revelation. (Of course, for questions of the physical environment, you're stuck with science, but on these matters it's usually a pretty safe bet, global warming and other politically sensitive subjects excepted.)
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You learned this as an infant, before you learned language your brain calibrated to the world it perceived and recorded that things fall... things always fall.
It's not faith, it's observed fact.
Re:And.... (Score:2, Insightful)
No. No, they are not. Religion has forever been used to explain why things are the way they are. Why did it rain today? Well, it's because we prayed and offered a token sacrifice of grain to a statue of the deity. Religious people generally feel that their deities will intervene on their behalf (particularly where weather is concerned) if they pray enough. Scientists look at things like atmospheric pressure, water vapor, etc., and see patterns that suggest that weather is the result of a chaotic system that, while beyond our current capabilities to fully predict, shows no evidence of being controlled by some deity. If deity-belief and science were actually orthogonal, then the deities would have ZERO control over what we observe, in which case their existence would be moot.
Re:And.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Photographs can be faked, just like many other kinds of evidence.
Your belief in the existence of Thomas Jefferson is wishful thinking, based only on easily faked paintings and texts.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Atheists on slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
"If there was a god, I'd be happy, I'm happy therefore there is a god"
vs
"If there was a god, I'd be happy, I'm not happy therefore there is not a god"
Both statements are about as stupid as stupid can get and yet both sides of the debate choose to use this crap to gore their oxen. People actually choose to link to this drivel in their sigs. Why not just put "I'm a complete moron and proud of it" as your sig.
Re: And... (Score:3, Insightful)
Feel like I should flag this one. From what I've read, Einstein didn't believe in gods. The quote about gods not playing dice was -- reportedly -- a metaphor.
A list of impressive people, though one could question whether their various strengths lend them credibility in theological matters. But regardless: doesn't asserting the right/imperative/ability of people to think and speak for themselves seem a bit contrary to claiming that the beliefs of others should be considered persuasive?
Re:Furthermore (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but let's be honest; the God most religious people believe in is indistinguishable from Santa Claus. Otherwise, why are people always asking God for stuff?
The problem is, what the hell language do you use to describe such a thing? You can call it "energy", or the "Force", but that gets you lumped in with the crystal wavers that are often more flaky than your traditional religious types. So you say God, knowing full well that 99% of the people who hear you don't have a clue what you really mean.
So, what you're saying is, the really reasonable religious believers are actually the ones who are lying-by-ommission about what they believe just to look cooler than the dirty hippies?
Yeah, how very reasonable and intelligent of them. I can't imagine why on Earth people think religion is for the small-minded.
Don't be so quick to dismiss those who profess to be religious. Damn near all of the greatest scientific minds of the last thousand years fall into that category.
Spinoza's God doesn't exactly count as a religion. It's more like a bumper-sticker people who are atheists at heart put up so that they don't get burned at the stake. It's more like necessary camouflage in a religious society - because, frankly, us atheists don't get a lot of help from you so-called reasonable moderates.
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So ignorance is bliss, is it? How, exactly, does sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La, la, la" in the face of evidence make you "enlightened"? What you're essentially saying is, "Thinking is hard and icky, so I'll just believe what the nice man in the shiny robes tells me." It's intellectually dishonest and ethically reprehensible.
Ignoring something that, by all conceivable tests, does not exist, also frees you from worry about that thing. And it allows you to focus on real experiences and seek real enlightenment.
But hey, enjoy your yummy Kool-Aid.
Re:No You Dim Witted Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
"Belief in a power greater then ourselves is not about logic. It is about faith. Religion is a man made construction around Faith in something greater and a poor one at that.
Science and Faith can co-exist. I believe in God and how that Faith helps shape and guide my life. I also believe in Science, in it's ability to help describe the world around me from the smallest quark to the farthest sun. Science only reaffirms my Faith in this way, each time "We" (mankind) say this is the barrier, this is the absolute; Science through discovery pushes past that barrier. In fact I propose that there are leaps of Faith in Scientific discovery that only later logic will describe. For me those leaps are our moments of touching the God that is inside us."
First: The poster never said "Faith is a belief beyond proof" - that's your assertion. And, you're wrong, it's a belief of something in the absence of proof, or despite evidence of the contrary. There is an important distinction there. Having faith is something "greater" has no meaning in the absence of some roadmap of how that "something greater" will guide your life. All of the ideological constructs informing his/her Faith in (any) "God" is driven by the man-made religious dogma he/she ascribes to. The "Faith" that "helps shape and guide" the OP life is based on those religious constructs - he/she is making choices and shaping their life based on the dogma. So, the OP's "Faith" is essentially a man-made construct.
Second: There is a big difference between religious faith and the "leaps of faith" taken by science. The "leaps of faith" in science are ideas that are tested and accepted (or discarded) over time through the scientific process. Essentially, the antithesis of religious faith.
Re:No imagination. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all facts are mathematical in nature. "Facts" can refer to observations, as well. Even observations that are not 100% repeatable or 100% accurate come within the realm of fact. The effects of gravity and evolution are observed facts. Various theories (there isn't just one theory of gravitation, you know) have sprung up to help us understand those observations. So, GP was right: It's a fact that if he jumps up, he will come back down. Is it faith to say that the same thing will happen every time he tries the experiment (as long as he stays on planet Earth, at least), he will get that result? My answer is no: It's a statement consistent with every observed fact that might be relevant to the question. You are equating faith with inductive reasoning, but I don't think that equation stands.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it depends on how you view things. Some people wouldn't say that a life lived the way their God wants them to is wasted. Meaning it's not just about worship and giving money or whatever, but the doing-good-to-others, being selfless and an upstanding citizen, etc and the other ideals usually present in the Bible but then not always obeyed by those who promote them. If it were followed properly I imagine it wouldn't be a wasted life at all, it would be a satisfying one that enriched the lives around it as well.
Right, but my point was only that all these things you say are good, and could be done with out the god part of the equation. As another of your sibling posts says, religion is not all bad. I will agree with this, but the parts of religion that aren't bad - charity, love for your fellow man, etc - aren't the religious parts.
All I'm saying is that living what I consider a "good religious live", i.e. one in which you seek to make humanity better than when you came into the world, could be done without the religious aspect; and if that's the case, then spending your time worshiping god, even in addition to doing these things, doesn't negate the fact that it's still irrelevant to the end goal of bettering humanity.
Still, I think Jesus had a lot of good ideas, if he existed. Feed the poor, assist the sick, love your neighbor, treat other people how you wish they'd treat you, don't be quick to judge, don't overlook your own inequities - all these things are excellent. Which is why if he were a philosopher, I'd be all about his teachings. Unfortunately, someone had to go and make a religion out of them instead, and not only that, one in which half the followers skip over all the philosophical goodness and go straight to the fire-and-brimstone eternal-life-only-for-believers bits. Nothing turns people off to christ like christians.
~Wx
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Photographs can be faked, just like many other kinds of evidence.
Your belief in the existence of Thomas Jefferson is wishful thinking, based only on easily faked paintings and texts.
Ah, the good old "all uncertainties are equally uncertain" argument. You can't prove with 100% certainty that Thomas Jefferson was real, so either you believe in Jefferson and God (my god, that is; not those other obviously fake gods) or you don't believe in either.
I am reasonably certain that no one can be absolutely certain about anything, if one bases one's certainty on evidence and not on faith. The evidence that Thomas Jefferson was a real person is, by any standards, extremely good. Contrary to your claim, faking the mountains of independent and mutually supporting evidence for the existence of Jefferson would not be easy; it would be monumentally hard. The evidence for any kind of god, on the other hand, is extraordinarily weak, by any standards. One can hold to a high standard of evidence and be confident that Thomas Jefferson was real. In order to hold the same confidence of belief with respect to any of the popular religious myths (all of which are, taken anything close to literally, incompatible with one another) one would need to either have a standard of evidence that is so low that just about any claim will pass muster, or one must engage in special pleading and argue that, for some reason, belief in such-and-such a god does not require the same standard of evidence as belief in anything else.
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, you can create an achievable plan that will result in you seeing and touching the man.
Can't say the same for Freya...
Re:Unless they actually said it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No You Dim Witted Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Newton's laws are hardly an article of faith: they're directly observable, and with a little tweaking to account for space and time variables that were too small to affect Newton's calculations, they fit into a consistent system with reproduceable results.
Feel free to write God into the gaps if you wish. Somehow I doubt this god particularly cares if we supplicate to him in our schools or see nipples on our TV screens.
Re:And.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Like God, Frosty will not come into your house and shake your hand. He has better things to do.
Or does your "skepticism"/silly frameworks for measuring existence deny poor Frosty the right to exist?
Science and the question of the existence of/nature of Frosty are orthogonal.
Frosty loves you.
Our existence is proof that magical beings like Frosty must exist.
Re:Marcus Aurelius FTW (Score:2, Insightful)
If you believe in self determination then you MUST believe that the good came from that person.
Unless, of course, you think good is a substance, in which case God help you
Re:Opiate of the Masses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither does believing in invisible superhero father figures in the sky. Please stop confusing morality with religion.
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:2, Insightful)
Strawman. To a logical person, the concept of a divinity is laughable.
The problem is, what the hell language do you use to describe such a thing? You can call it "energy", or the "Force", but that gets you lumped in with the crystal wavers that are often more flaky than your traditional religious types. So you say God, knowing full well that 99% of the people who hear you don't have a clue what you really mean.
No, you're misunderstanding. Those of us who argue against God aren't (by and large) trying to argue against the man in the white robes, they are arguing against every concept of a deity.
Don't be so quick to dismiss those who profess to be religious. Damn near all of the greatest scientific minds of the last thousand years fall into that category.
And close to all of the greatest scientific minds of the last hundred years don't. Sure, individuals can be religious and intelligent, but on the large, statistical scale, religious people are more likely to be stupid than those who are not.
Re:Opiate of the Masses (Score:3, Insightful)
Wizard's First Rule? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Opiate of the Masses (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)