My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

[Makestro]

You know even without a God there could be an afterlife, just because believers in God believe in the afterlife doesn't mean non-believers can't. I personally don't believe in an afterlife, and I've never seen a ghost, but I know a person and seen the aftermath that makes me questions my beliefs and turned me into a mild skeptic, but I still don't believe there needs to be a God for these events to happen and I think the afterlife is just a convientient way of coping with death(which scares the shit out of most people, I remember thinking about death a lot in my early teens and being terrified of it). My parents split up when I was young. I lived with my mom, grandma and uncle until my grandma died. The night my grandma died my father claims she called him, the kicker is none of us knew where he was, not even her. She called him and told him I need him in my life, my grandma loved me and was raising me because my morally broken mother wasn't doing her job. Anyways the next day my dad showed up in the morning and took me out and tried to make my day better, later in life he told me about the phone call. He also claim when his mother died he felt something and 5 minutes later he got the call. I trust my dad, he has no reason to lie about any of this. It was around this period I realized, the afterlife and ghosts could easily exist in a Godless universe. The phenomenon could very well be a very natural occurance outside our ability to scientifically observe it and there may even be some people who are more sensitive to these experiences and thus are affected by them more. I'm still an Atheists and I will call bullshit on ghost stories all day, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

 

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

I apologize. No snark intended. I got defensive after being accused of "obsessing" over alleged miracles. That puts me in some unpleasant company. In fact, I take back my entire final post. I have no idea how much you guys have studied alleged supernatural phenomena. For all I know, maybe you've spent years researching and debunking specific cases. I was describing my overall impression of skeptics on this subject, which is irrelevant. 

 

 

Ah, well, it appears I owe you an apology as well. I didn't mean any ill intent with the word obsess. I did mean to use the word obsess but clearly, you and I don't have the same reaction to the word. In any event, you didn't cause me to challenge my world view but that doesn't mean you can't. I've changed my world view so many times in my life that most of the people I know think I may be insane, and I think a lot of the folks here can sympathize with that. Most people aren't open to new ideas so changing a world view is foreign to them.

 

If you have specific examples, I'm happy to explore them with you.

[STer]

 

 Also, I wasn't trying to make you change your worldview. I was trying to make you doubt your worldview. It seems I failed miserably.

 

My worldview on the subject is that we have no solid establishment of any supernatural phenomena so we should remain agnostic and keep investigating. If we find something more solid where the mechanism is established as supernatural, then we can change to belief in the supernatural. Is this a worldview you think should change? If so, to what?

[fin-tastic]

STer: "Is this a worldview you think should change? If so, to what?"

Since I disowned my last concluding statement as disrespectful and inaccurate, I wrote a new one that answers this question. Also, I substituted the word "materialist" for atheist, since some atheists apparently accept the possibility of the supernatural being real.

Many people obsess over supernatural phenomena to find validation for their belief in God or the afterlife. That can be unhealthy and counter-productive; just look at all the junk in the paranormal section of any book store. However, I think many materialists make the opposite mistake: They ignore or ridicule the subject to remain secure in their materialism. A rational person should be willing to examine the evidence for extraordinary claims even it falls short of providing proof. I believe that an objective reading of the most compelling evidence will make even the most committed materialist less certain that supernatural phenomena never occur. Furthermore, although we should continue investigating, I believe that sufficient evidence already exists for concluding that some supernatural events are probably authentic. If you need "proof" before believing in the supernatural, nothing I have said would necessitate changing your worldview. If you're willing to act on the probability of the supernatural being real, it's time to begin investigating the truth claims of different religions and spiritualties.

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Am I to understand that you don't have a specific claim to examine? If not, that's fine but I'm just wondering. I also agree with your last statement here but I'm a bit hesitant to entertain any religion's truth claims. That's not to say I'm unwilling to consider a supernatural event experienced by a religious person but to consider X, Y or Z religion's truth claims is, in my opinion, a wild goose chase. Religions make a ton of truth claims about a ton of things and frankly, all of them I've ever read about are based on the same false premise.

[STer]

 

STer: "Is this a worldview you think should change? If so, to what?"

Since I disowned my last concluding statement as disrespectful and inaccurate, I wrote a new one that answers this question. Also, I substituted the word "materialist" for atheist, since some atheists apparently accept the possibility of the supernatural being real.

Many people obsess over supernatural phenomena to find validation for their belief in God or the afterlife. That can be unhealthy and counter-productive; just look at all the junk in the paranormal section of any book store. However, I think many materialists make the opposite mistake: They ignore or ridicule the subject to remain secure in their materialism. A rational person should be willing to examine the evidence for extraordinary claims even it falls short of providing proof. I believe that an objective reading of the most compelling evidence will make even the most committed materialist less certain that supernatural phenomena never occur. Furthermore, although we should continue investigating, I believe that sufficient evidence already exists for concluding that some supernatural events are probably authentic. If you need "proof" before believing in the supernatural, nothing I have said would necessitate changing your worldview. If you're willing to act on the probability of the supernatural being real, it's time to begin investigating the truth claims of different religions and spiritualties.

 

 

 

I consider myself an agnostic both on God and the supernatural in general. That's where I'll remain until I see reasonably conclusive evidence establishing anything supernatural. Perhaps I'm not your target audience and you're going more for the hardcore materialists who refuse to even consider or investigate anything beyond that. That isn't me.

I agree that it is not rational to refuse investigation of anything (although we do have to prioritize due to limited resources, but we shouldn't refuse to investigate anything as a rule just based on prejudice). That's why I wouldn't label myself as a materialist who insists there is not and can never be anything beyond that. I just have no evidence I consider sufficient to accept there is anything beyond that at this time.

So I don't think our positions are very far apart.

It seems like the only real gap is what you call "proof" and where we put the threshold for that. Like I said before, this is just a basic epistemology discussion. In fact, you'd probably be better off not even mentioning any specific issue like the supernatural and just laying your epistemological cards on the table. You are someone who believes that knowing something requires less burden of proof than some of the rest of us do. You're willing to accept something as true with less systematically analyzed evidence than us. You see a large number of reasonable sounding stories as worthy of saying something supernatural likely exists. I just see them as worthy of saying something exists and we have no idea yet what it is.

I think all this boils down to is you have one epistemological approach (there is probably even a name for your view of epistemology, but I don't know the category names that well, perhaps someone can help with that answer) and the rest of us have a somewhat more rigorous approach.

Epistemology debates are very interesting and I find that a large percentage of other debates end up boiling down to an epistemological difference anyway so it makes sense to just cut to the chase. As long as two people are coming from incompatible epistemological positions, other debates they have will likely be irresolvable. Much more efficient to make the epistemological difference explicit and then talk directly about that.

[fin-tastic]

Great stuff, STer. Yes, my original post was aimed at hardcore materialists—not agnostics. I know nothing about epistemology. I will read up on it.

I think one word can define what separates our idea of “proof” when it comes to the supernatural: midichlorians. Do you know about the controversy surrounding midichlorians in the Star Wars saga? Long story short: The original Star Wars trilogy defined the Force as a mystical energy. Obi-Wan Kenobi said, “Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” The Star Wars prequels redefined the Force as a concentration of biological cells called “midichlorians.” Qui-Gon Jinn actually administers a blood test to a potential Jedi, Anakin Skywalker, to measure the amount of Force in him: “His midichlorians readings are off the charts!”  Naturally and justifiably, Star Wars geeks like me went apeshit. George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, had stripped all the mystery and wonder out of the Star Wars universe. He had reduced the supernatural Force to a materialist Force.

By searching for a “mechanism” that distinguishes natural phenomena from supernatural phenomena, you are looking for the real-world equivalent of midichlorians—evidence of the supernatural that can be observed and measured under a microscope. You will never succeed. You have set the bar impossibly high. Supernatural “mechanisms,” by definition, can’t be measured by scientific instruments. All the evidence for supernatural phenomena is anecdotal and circumstantial. We know that dozens of people have been inextricably cured of illnesses at the sites of alleged Marian apparitions, but we can’t know in advance who is going to be cured and put them under 24-7 medical surveillance. If the Virgin Mary, gods, or other supernatural forces wanted to prove themselves to us, they’d probably just go ahead and do it. Faith will always be a leap.

Let me ask you this: Why do you need proof, or “reasonably conclusive evidence,” before believing in the supernatural? You don’t need “proof” before making any other major life decision. Whether it’s proposing to your girlfriend, filing for divorce, or starting a new business, it’s darn-near impossible to know for certain that it’s the “correct” decision that will work out in the long run. Instead of asking for “proof,” you look at all the available information, weigh the risks and rewards, and make the best possible decision. Deciding what to believe about gods and the afterlife is the most important decision of your life--because it has potentially eternal ramifications. To me, Pascal’s Wager has always been a convincing argument for faith. If you’re on a plane that’s crashing into the Pacific Ocean, you having nothing to lose and everything to gain by whispering, “God, forgive me for my sins.” Nobody can know for certain whether or not there are atheists in foxholes, but I suspect there are not. Dozens and dozens of prominent atheist and agnostic intellectuals have converted on their deathbeds. Christopher Hitchens died reading G.K. Chesterton, one of the greatest Catholic apologists of the 20^th century.  Carl Sagan was verbally denying God in his last days, but who knows what he was thinking at the exact moment of his death?

I often wonder what Stef will do in his last moments. Don’t get me wrong—I love the guy, and I totally respect his philosophical reasons for rejecting belief in gods. If I were to debate him on this topic, he would embarrass me silly. He is smarter than me. But when he’s breathing his last breath—and no YouTube video is recording whether or not he caves at the last second—who cares about intellectual consistency? He’s facing the abyss of total, eternal annihilation. Stef will turn! You will turn! Everyone will turn! Deep down, everyone knows intuitively that they are more than a collection of cells.

[STer]

 

Great stuff, STer. Yes, my original post was aimed at hardcore materialists—not agnostics. I know nothing about epistemology. I will read up on it.

 

Yes I think you'll find epistemology really speaks to you.

By searching for a “mechanism” that distinguishes natural phenomena from supernatural phenomena, you are looking for the real-world equivalent of midichlorians—evidence of the supernatural that can be observed and measured under a microscope. You will never succeed. You have set the bar impossibly high.

 

I don't believe I am the one who sets the bar. I just respect where I believe the bar is. If the bar can't be reached, then we should remain agnostic. That's my view. I don't think we should readjust the bar just so something can meet the standard. Is this like affirmative action for ideas?

 

All the evidence for supernatural phenomena is anecdotal and circumstantial.

 

As long as that's the case I will have to remain agnostic.

 

We know that dozens of people have been inextricably cured of illnesses at the sites of alleged Marian apparitions, but we can’t know in advance who is going to be cured and put them under 24-7 medical surveillance.

 

In keeping with the epistemology topic, I think we differ strongly on what it means to "know" something if you think we know what you just claimed. At best, what we might know is that some people had an illness and around the time of a visit somewhere it went into remission. Again, to claim they were cured at the site, implying that the visit to the site was the reason they were cured, is pure speculation.

 

Let me ask you this: Why do you need proof, or “reasonably conclusive evidence,” before believing in the supernatural? You don’t need “proof” before making any other major life decision. Whether it’s proposing to your girlfriend, filing for divorce, or starting a new business, it’s darn-near impossible to know for certain that it’s the “correct” decision that will work out in the long run.

 

I didn't say my standard was certainty. The irony is that in other threads, I've made the point that we know nothing for certain and been bashed by a few people for it. But I do have a certain threshold of probability that I need reached for different things. To file for divorce, you may need to be 70% certain that you're making the right decision. For starting a new business, maybe your standard is that you think it's just more likely to work than not work. To believe that supernatural events occur, I'd need a pretty high level of probability. And that's what research does. It increases our confidence level, not to 100%, but closer to it than before. As far as I can tell we have a confidence level on the supernatural of almost nothing. It's very very low.

 

To me, Pascal’s Wager has always been a convincing argument for faith.

 

Pascal's wager is deeply flawed. So much so that there is an entire section on its Wikipedia page about the refutations of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Criticism

I had already seen through the faulty logic of it years before I found that page. It just sort of symbolized how flawed it is when I saw that section. The most simple argument against it, which I realized a long time ago is that it assumes a God that would be pleased with someone believing just to serve their own best interest. How do you know God doesn't punish people who try to game the system even harder than those who honestly doubt? It's based on pure assumption about what type of God there is and what that God values. If the assumption is wrong, the entire thing is wrong and your wager might end up costing you more than it gains you.

 

I often wonder what Stef will do in his last moments. Don’t get me wrong—I love the guy, and I totally respect his philosophical reasons for rejecting belief in gods. If I were to debate him on this topic, he would embarrass me silly. He is smarter than me. But when he’s breathing his last breath—and no YouTube video is recording whether or not he caves at the last second—who cares about intellectual consistency? He’s facing the abyss of total, eternal annihilation. Stef will turn! You will turn! Everyone will turn! Deep down, everyone knows intuitively that they are more than a collection of cells.

 

Are you even serious with that? Surely you kow that's like anti-atheism 101, the kind of stuff most atheists have heard 5000 times by the time they're 20. I'm agnostic, not atheist, so it doesn't really apply to me. But my feeling is that if there is a God, God would know better than anyone how sincerely and with how much effort I've tried to genuinely understand the world and that that is the best I can do. And you have no idea, if there is a God, what that God values more - sincere effort in understanding, even if filled with doubt, or blind faith.

[Guest darkskyabove]

It's always emotion versus thought:

"The Universe divided As the Heart and Mind collided, With the people left unguided For so many troubled years. In a cloud of doubts and fears, Their world was torn asunder into hollow Hemispheres. Some fought themselves, some fought each other. Most just followed one another, Lost and aimless like their brothers, For their hearts were so unclear, And the truth could not appear. Their spirits were divided into blinded Hemispheres."

-Rush, "Hemispheres"

People of the mind refuse to accept the supernatural, not because of "lack of proof", but because it is no longer necessary. People of the heart are indignant that anyone would gainsay them: "I must be right because I "feel" right".

First, the continued assault of irrationality by some, presupposes that the gainsayers don't understand the nightmarish history perpetrated on humans by the use of the "supernatural". All in the name of personal power. Is that all done with? Am I to now to accept the irrational in its kinder, gentler, form? Are you sure I won't be burned at the stake, or crucified in the media for my dissent?

Second, it needs to be done, and done. Rational people have no valid reason to defend reality against mystics. You can TELL me anything; you prove it. I'll not waste my time disproving the non-existent. "Existence exists." Therefore, non-existence does not exist.

Third, if YOU can't explain it, why come to ME for an explanation? When did I accept the burden you choose to shed?

Has no one read the news. The battle of the heart and mind is over. The Mind: 110, the Heart: -10.

Without rational thought, we'd all still be living in mud huts, at the whim of the local warlord (or priest).

 

[STer]

 

It's always emotion versus thought

 

This reminds me of another relevant point. The Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F) preference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator may be in play here. It identifies whether you prefer to make decisions based on logical analysis of pros and cons (T) or go with your "gut" (F).

I am really balanced on the two which is why I see both sides of this and I understand the desire to go with the gut but I also have to keep that in check by being skeptical so I don't become gullible which can leave one vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

Some in highly rational forums might see it as a battle between thinkers and feelers and wish everyone would become a thinker and believe the world would then be a better place. But there are many fields where feelers do great work that we all value. The world would be a far less wonderful place if either T's or F's disappeared. I believe they both evolved because they played an important role in our species' thriving. To me the issue is having those functions used in appropriate ways so they complement each other.

By the way, it's not really important whether you like or believe in the validity of Myers-Briggs as a whole. Some people prefer to make decisions logically, others with their gut and some prefer one or the other to a greater or lesser degree. I don't think anyone would refute that. The T/F distinction is just a way of communicating that preference concisely.

[fin-tastic]

“As far as I can tell, we have a confidence level on the supernatural of almost nothing. It's very very low.”

Really? Unfortunately, I don’t have a comprehensive file of what I consider to be the best evidence of alleged supernatural events. Since you’re willing to throw out percentages (70% for divorce), challenge me: What’s the percentage of certainty you need for believing in the supernatural? Please don’t ask for 100; I can’t find you midichlorians. And not to get all cheesy here, but have you searched with your heart as well as your mind? When I’ve thought about Pascal’s Wager, I always assumed there was a genuine conversion of heart as well as the “gamble” aspect.

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

My take is that rationality and emotion are both valid, in their own arenas. I have mentioned this just recently: see my post @ http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/38560.aspx.

I totally agree that the world would be a dreary place without the benefit of emotion. I think that would eliminate most art, music, and literature.

But, emotion is not a very good tool to make decisions. Rational thought trumps it with bells on.

Not to say that we always have adequate information to make those decisions. I just can't advocate making "gut" decisions, except as a last resort. I've seen, and experienced, far too many of those consequences.

The way this has coalesced into my brain is that: ideally, I make a rational decision, based on the evidence at hand. If I made a good decision, I will experience good emotions. Bad decision, bad emotions. This is only applicable to decision-making. Tapping into the emotional well of creativity is a different topic, and not a source of life-or-death struggle. When was the last time a song started a war?

I view my emotions as a regulatory system. I'm not trying to go all "Spock" about it. If I try to make decisions based on a "feeling", I usually experience another "feeling": burnt.

And none of this came easy. As I mentioned: CONSEQUENCES.

[fin-tastic]

 darkskyabove:

It is simply inaccurate to claim that "thinking people" will always arrive at atheism. 95 percent of all people who have ever lived on Earth have believed in some kind of higher power--a group that includes such brilliant minds as Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Berkely, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Kierkegarrd, Shakespeare, Dante, Chesterton, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Tolkien, da Vinci, Michaelangelo, T.S. Eliot, Dickens, Milton, and Bach. Is it really so strange to think that they might be onto something--that reality is more than what we can see, hear, and touch--that what cannot be seen, is not unreal?

[STer]

 

“As far as I can tell, we have a confidence level on the supernatural of almost nothing. It's very very low.”

Really? Unfortunately, I don’t have a comprehensive file of what I consider to be the best evidence of alleged supernatural events. Since you’re willing to throw out percentages (70% for divorce), challenge me: What’s the percentage of certainty you need for believing in the supernatural? Please don’t ask for 100; I can’t find you midichlorians. And not to get all cheesy here, but have you searched with your heart as well as your mind? When I’ve thought about Pascal’s Wager, I always assumed there was a genuine conversion of heart as well as the “gamble” aspect.

 

 

The problem isn't how many "allegations" you have or how "good" they are. It's the type of "evidence" you're providing. It's all anecdotal and circumstantial by your own admission and completely untestable. And I don't value that type of information very highly when it comes to a highly complex and biased subject. In an everyday matter where there is no serious controversy and nobody has any incentive to mislead themselves, I might not have a problem accepting that type of information and running with it. I'd still admit that technically I don't know, but it's safe enough to base minor decisions on. But with something as fraught with complexity as the supernatural issue, that kind of data is not going to be enough to overcome all the potential bias.

The main purpose of the scientific method is to reduce bias. And this is a topic extremely high in bias. In fact, one form of bias shows in your own apparent eagerness to believe. You strongly want to believe one way as opposed to the other on this issue. You don't just want to find the truth, but you want the truth to be one way vs. another. There is also enormous bias involved because this is an issue that deals with the very types of perceptions that are most vague and difficult to pin down, making the perceptual claims less trustworthy than ever. And in situations full of bias like that, the standard for what counts as impressive evidence goes way up.

I'd need at the very least over 50% certainty to really even start to believe in anything supernatural. 60% would get me seriously considering it. And what's most missing here is any kind of predictability or repeatability to show me cause and effect are involved.

When I search my heart what I find is probably what you find, an appreciation for the fact that it could be a beautiful thing if the world had more in it than mundane materialism. It would be thrilling to find that out, though scary in some ways too. I have no dearth of appreciation for the emotions involved. But it's precisely because of those emotions that the standard for evidence has to be raised. If you really care about finding truth, then you should be most skeptical when you know you have a bias toward believing something so as to compensate for your own resulting flawed perception.

As for Pascal's Wager, if there is a genuine conversion, then where is the wager? If you've actually been converted, then how do you even have a choice? At that point how could you not believe even if you tried? I thought the whole point of the wager is that if you're undecided and could go either way, you should supposedly choose to believe because that will be more likely rewarded.

[fin-tastic]

 Hey dudes,

I gotta get some sleep, but I hope to continue this later. I really, really, hate to throw out links to videos and articles (because it basically means I've failed to convice you, and I'm hoping other people can convince you for me), but IF you're interested, check out

. It's an interview with Jennifer Fulwiler, a former hardcore atheist who eventually converted to Catholicism. Yes, I just let the cat out of the bag. I'm Catholic--mainly because the Catholic Church has the best miracles, the coolest costumes, and the most repressive rules on sexuality you could ever imagine--they got it all, baby! She describes how she was "hard-wired" for atheism, which probably explains many people who frequent this messageboard. She's intelligent and insightful, and I would love to hear what you think about it. If you feel like it, check it out.    

[fin-tastic]

50 or 60 percent? I requested a CHALLENGE! I'll get you 50 or 60 in my sleep...to be continued... 

 

[STer]

 

My take is that rationality and emotion are both valid, in their own arenas. I have mentioned this just recently: see my post @ http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/38560.aspx.

I totally agree that the world would be a dreary place without the benefit of emotion. I think that would eliminate most art, music, and literature.

But, emotion is not a very good tool to make decisions. Rational thought trumps it with bells on.

Not to say that we always have adequate information to make those decisions. I just can't advocate making "gut" decisions, except as a last resort. I've seen, and experienced, far too many of those consequences.

The way this has coalesced into my brain is that: ideally, I make a rational decision, based on the evidence at hand. If I made a good decision, I will experience good emotions. Bad decision, bad emotions. This is only applicable to decision-making. Tapping into the emotional well of creativity is a different topic, and not a source of life-or-death struggle. When was the last time a song started a war?

I view my emotions as a regulatory system. I'm not trying to go all "Spock" about it. If I try to make decisions based on a "feeling", I usually experience another "feeling": burnt.

And none of this came easy. As I mentioned: CONSEQUENCES.

 

The T/F in Myers-Briggs is specifically about how one makes decisions. And I'm arguing that there are indeed reasons why emotional decision-making, not just emotional expression, is an important capacity to exist in our species. For me it's more about which kinds of decisions are best made emotionally vs. logically and having people with the right skills involved in the right places.

Of course you don't advocate making decisions on "gut," darkskyabove. Everything you're saying screams out that you're clearly a strong T The point is there are lot of people who are F's who believe just as strongly in the other direction. And this is deep stuff, temperament. It may even tie into brain structure or function. I think one of the most misguided ideas promulgated on FDR is that feeling-based decision-making is basically a pathological symptom of abuse and when healed everyone would be T's. I think it can work both ways. An F can be abused into being a hyper-T and vice-versa. Sometimes the extreme hyperrationality screams trauma to me just as much as the extreme emotion-based decision making.

The question you'll have to grapple with is, if a significant percentage of people are simply by nature F's, what do you propose to do? Are you going to try to encourage them to go against their nature and act like T's? Or do you really think everyone is a T and F's are all just people who have been abused out of their natural T'ness?

[STer]

 

50 or 60 percent? I requested a CHALLENGE! I'll get you 50 or 60 in my sleep...to be continued... 

 

 

If you're going to do it in your sleep and you are going to sleep now, then why isn't it being continued immediately?

[nickhk]

 

evidence of the supernatural that can be observed and measured under a microscope. You will never succeed. You have set the bar impossibly high. Supernatural “mechanisms,” by definition, can’t be measured by scientific instruments. All the evidence for supernatural phenomena is anecdotal and circumstantial.

 

If I am understanding this correctly, you really are suggesting extraordinary claims should not require extraordinary evidence.

Alright, well... I didn't want to say this earlier, but I've got this invisible unicorn friend of mine, beyond space and time, and he needs your money.  He says he'll get you double-plus good karma if you mail him a cashiers check.  You can send it to me, though, because my friend has moral objections to the post office.  Just take my word for it.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

 darkskyabove:

It is simply inaccurate to claim that "thinking people" will always arrive at atheism.

 

First, please allow that I am in no way attacking you. Though I may sound like it at times, I am not meaning that the discussion lacks merit. My major complaint is about "defending reality", as if I, as a rationalist, must disprove the unprovable. I admit, if your purpose is to convince me, you've got one helluva mountain to climb. Please understand, I, and others, have heard many, many arguments for the "supernatural" through the years. I will try not to discount, nor admire, your persistence. I will accept it. Along with the Non-Aggression-Principle, I am constantly working on my own Fairness Doctrine. If it is of any help, I might suggest considering that I, and others, are predisposed to bring the weight of history to these types of discussion. I find that belief in the "supernatural" has been used for so much evil, in so many ways, why would I reconsider it from a "new" perspective. Of course, I accept that you are not trying to indoctrinate and control, but do you see the hurdle?

Second, I do not remember ever making the claim that "thinking" leads to "atheism". I will concede, after reviewing my posts, that I may have "loosely" implied it. I hereby retract that implication. I'm rarely sure where my, much less anyone else's, thinking will lead.

By the way, I guess I already "believe" in at least one "miracle": quantum entanglement.

 

The T/F in Myers-Briggs is specifically about how one makes decisions.

 

Followed your link: good stuff. I was especially pleased to find mention of the Enneagram; as I was reading I was wondering if you'd heard of it.

Two minor quibbles.

The MBTI requires "thought" to recognize, and apply, its principles. I would submit that an "ESPF", to deal with reality, must, at times, put aside inclination, and, at least temporarily, become a "thought Nazi". (Pun intended.)

Then there's the issue of conditioning. I tend to idealize the human condition based on the "tabula rasa" concept. Yes, we are all born with a genetic inheritance, but there seems to be incontrovertible evidence to support the idea that young humans can be molded by environment. I would also submit that I may have succeeded in recreating the "tabula rasa" beyond childhood. I have worked for years to "undo" the conditioning of my parents, schools, friends, relatives, neighbors, government, scholars, news media, etc., and try to "wipe the slate clean". What I have found is that I now fit into so many "psychological" categories that the categorizations themselves are not that useful. Shades of gray is not a definitive answer, although, it is an answer.

Ultimately, I conclude that rational discourse upon most all subjects to be in a new state of infancy. ALL of historic thought can be dissected to show improper conditioning, in some form or other. Humans are on the verge of breaking the chains of the past.

There lies freedom.

[STer]

 

Followed your link: good stuff. I was especially pleased to find mention of the Enneagram; as I was reading I was wondering if you'd heard of it.

Two minor quibbles.

The MBTI requires "thought" to recognize, and apply, its principles. I would submit that an "ESPF", to deal with reality, must, at times, put aside inclination, and, at least temporarily, become a "thought Nazi". (Pun intended.)

Then there's the issue of conditioning. I tend to idealize the human condition based on the "tabula rasa" concept. Yes, we are all born with a genetic inheritance, but there seems to be incontrovertible evidence to support the idea that young humans can be molded by environment. I would also submit that I may have succeeded in recreating the "tabula rasa" beyond childhood. I have worked for years to "undo" the conditioning of my parents, schools, friends, relatives, neighbors, government, scholars, news media, etc., and try to "wipe the slate clean". What I have found is that I now fit into so many "psychological" categories that the categorizations themselves are not that useful. Shades of gray is not a definitive answer, although, it is an answer.

Ultimately, I conclude that rational discourse upon most all subjects to be in a new state of infancy. ALL of historic thought can be dissected to show improper conditioning, in some form or other. Humans are on the verge of breaking the chains of the past.

There lies freedom.

 

Yes Enneagram is very interesting too and in some ways even more useful than MBTI.

Remember MBTI just indicates preferences. Nobody is 100% on any of them. ESFP's do make choices using logic to some extent, they just prefer to make them on their "gut." And your argument works both ways. Nobody can be a 100% T either and do very well in the world. But this is also cultural. In some cultures, it's easier to be an I than an E or an E than an I or a T than an F and so on. It sounds like you idealize T and think it is superior to F. I don't think that. I think they both have their place.

Also part of the problem is the overly individualistic world view. These types evolved, I believe, because they each played a role in a community. They were never meant to exist in isolation from each other. F's evolved to live amongst T's who would balance them out and vice-versa as the community made decisions.

You might have read my bit about "true type" vs. "reactive type" on my page. If so, you know that I realize one's inborn type interacts with the environment to give us what we see in the present day. But I don't believe we are a tabula rasa. You can take someone who is a T and force them toward F or vice-versa via upbringing. But if it's not their inclination, they may well suffer or have to repress to make that change. If you raise an F as an F, they will feel healthy and whole being an F. If you raise a T as an F, they may well feel something is missing and have defense mechanisms in place trying to cope with being something they're authentically not.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

If you raise an F as an F, they will feel healthy and whole being an F. If you raise a T as an F, they may well feel something is missing and have defense mechanisms in place trying to cope with being something they're authentically not.

 

Well said. That reinforces the idea that it is wrong to "condition" another human to your views. Presenting one's views, and allowing them to stand, or fall, on their own merit, would seem to be the more free-market stance.

I must admit, my "rational" stance, in all its nuances, cannot be claimed as the "be-all-end-all" of humanity. It just seems the most effective, especially in a world succumbing to irrationality.

[STer]

 

 

If you raise an F as an F, they will feel healthy and whole being an F. If you raise a T as an F, they may well feel something is missing and have defense mechanisms in place trying to cope with being something they're authentically not.

 

Well said. That reinforces the idea that it is wrong to "condition" another human to your views. Presenting one's views, and allowing them to stand, or fall, on their own merit, would seem to be the more free-market stance.

I must admit, my "rational" stance, in all its nuances, cannot be claimed as the "be-all-end-all" of humanity. It just seems the most effective, especially in a world succumbing to irrationality.

 

My point was that we are not a tabula rasa. If we were, nobody would suffer being pushed into being something they're not since there would be no such thing as being something you're not.

I see the world as split between areas where irrationality is fine and areas where it's really unethical because of the damage it causes. I would like to see rational people in charge of the areas where rationality is really necessary, but I don't need or want to see rationals running everything on earth.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

 

My point was that we are not a tabula rasa. If we were, nobody would suffer being pushed into being something they're not since there would be no such thing as being something you're not.

 

 

I'm not sure you're tuned in to what tabula rasa means. A blank slate can be written upon by anyone or anything. How could one "suffer" being pushed when they didn't know the difference?

 

I would like to see rational people in charge of the areas where
rationality is really necessary, but I don't need or want to see
rationals running everything on earth.

 

I would like to see people in charge of themselves.

[STer]

 

I'm not sure you're tuned in to what tabula rasa means. A blank slate can be written upon by anyone or anything. How could one "suffer" being pushed when they didn't know the difference?

 

You're misunderstanding something. If we were tabula rasa, a blank slate, then you could push every person toward any trait and, as you say, they wouldn't feel any differently since they had no inborn predilection that it goes against. They'd have no feeling that it wasn't them because there was no "them" before the programming. The fact that people do suffer when pushed in an inauthentic direction, which you agree happens, is a symptom of the fact that we are not tabula rasa. We are born with certain inclinations, which is why, if you push everyone in one direction, some will suffer and others will not.

 

I would like to see people in charge of themselves.

 

That's fine but if you stop with just that, then you can never have institutions or organized communities of any kind. If you have institutions then there will have to be some process for decision-making within them and my point is that in those institutions or organized communities where rationality is crucial, there I would like to see the T style take precedence. But I don't think the T style needs to take precedence everywhere.

I don't know if you are saying you want there to be no organized groups of any kind or what. But this gets into another pet peeve of mine which is hyperindividualism, making the individual level out to be everything and diminishing the role of other levels of human systems.

[Guest darkskyabove]

You have exposed yourself as a Statist.

 

That's fine but if you stop with just that, then you can never have institutions or organized communities of any kind.

 

You have, also, mis-characterized my argument about tabula rasa.

 

If we were tabula rasa, a blank slate, then you could push every person
toward any trait and, as you say, they wouldn't feel any differently
since they had no inborn predilection that it goes against.

 

What I wrote was that they wouldn't "know" the difference. And I made no reference to some inborn predilection. In fact, what I wrote was:

 

Then there's the issue of conditioning. I tend to idealize the human
condition based on the "tabula rasa" concept. Yes, we are all born with a
genetic inheritance, but there seems to be incontrovertible evidence to
support the idea that young humans can be molded by environment.

 

Confusing thinking and feeling are exactly what I'm arguing against. To support the idea that an "indoctrinated" child can somehow "feel" the wrongness seems a stretch. Usually, the "conditioned" rebel due to being exposed to alternative ways of "thinking".

[STer]

 

You have exposed yourself as a Statist.

 

No I simply "exposed" myself as someone who is aware that not all of human life takes place at the level of the individual and that any organized group of any kind, state or no state, requires decision-making. I can't imagine how anyone would seriously refute either of those claims.

 

You have, also, mis-characterized my argument about tabula rasa.

What I wrote was that they wouldn't "know" the difference. And I made no reference to some inborn predilection. In fact, what I wrote was:

Then there's the issue of conditioning. I tend to idealize the human
condition based on the "tabula rasa" concept. Yes, we are all born with a
genetic inheritance, but there seems to be incontrovertible evidence to
support the idea that young humans can be molded by environment.

Confusing thinking and feeling are exactly what I'm arguing against. To support the idea that an "indoctrinated" child can somehow "feel" the wrongness seems a stretch. Usually, the "conditioned" rebel due to being exposed to alternative ways of "thinking".

 

I think many of us who were indoctrinated in various ways felt the wrongness of it from very early on. It's exactly why so many of us, when we later find philosophy and various concepts that make sense of that feeling, don't experience it as a sudden realization that anything is wrong but more a relief to finally understand what it was. Remember the "splinter in your mind" concept in The Matrix? It's just like that.

So I disagree with you. I think many many people who were raised in ways that pushed them out of their authentic self feel something is off long before they have any outside validation of it.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Apologies for the sarcastic Statist comment. Should have appended a "tongue-in-cheek" smilie.

I think we agree in many ways, and disagree in others.

I will exit graciously, and consider.

[fin-tastic]

I’m still working on a comphrensive list of what I consider to be the most compelling cases of alleged supernatural phenomena. Still following the debate though. Some thoughts:

Pascal’s Wager:

STer: Nice takedown of Pascal. If someone genuinely believes there are no gods, verbally professing belief in gods as a way to cover your bets is probably a bad idea. But if someone has crossed the 50 percent threshold of certainty that the supernatural is real, that argument no longer applies. So, I’ll modify: I’ve always found Pascal’s Wager to be a convincing argument for acting on your belief in the supernatural if you’re more than 50 percent sure that the supernatural is real. If gods exist, and they desire some kind relationship with mere mortals, it seems obvious that they demand a leap of faith on our part. If they wanted to give us “proof,” they would have done it by now. Perhaps they perform miracles to close the gap we have to cross, but they still expect us to leap.

Anti-atheism 101:

It must be annoying for atheists to hear stuff like the following:

“Deep down, you know you’re wrong.”
“You’re just proud.”
“You probably had a hard childhood or adolescence.”
“You won’t be saying that on your deathbed.”
“If you look into your daughter’s eyes and still believe that love is just a chemical reaction in the brain, then you don’t really love your daughter.”

I try to avoid speculating about what a person “really” thinks and the psychological and social motivations for their professed beliefs. For that reason, I regret speculating about what Stef and other atheists will believe on their deathbeds. But you have to admit: Atheists pull that kind of crap all the time. They attribute religious belief to “brainwashing” or “blind faith,” as if nobody has ever been convinced by rational argument or direct experience that the supernatural is real. Stef has argued that people believe in gods only because they

. [*-)]

Reason alone?

IMO, when people form their worldview, they should consider things like tradition, intuition, gut feeling, the heart, personal experience, and eyewitness testimony in addition to science and philosophy. I think most skeptics/agnostics/materialists already do that; when they discuss why they don’t believe in gods, they talk a lot about unanswered prayers, negative experiences with their religious upbringing, the hypocrisy and crimes of religious leaders, and so forth. If I recall correctly, it was not “science” that made Charles Darwin an atheist; it was his heartbreak following the death of his daughter. If you do that, though, you have to consider the experiences that run in the opposite direction, including alleged supernatural phenomena.

Also: If reason alone is the best way to discover truth, why have modern philosophers failed to reach anything approaching a consensus on answers to the Life Questions: What should we believe, and why? How should we live, and why? Not only have they failed to provide convincing answers to these questions, they can’t agree on a rational, consensual means to resolve their differences. Skeptics point to the proliferation of competing religious claims to discredit faith and religion, but one could easily make the same observation about reason and philosophy. In the words of analytical philosopher C. A. J. Coady: “I, for one, would not sooner think of consulting your average moral philosopher over a genuine moral problem than of consulting a philosopher of perception about an eye complaint.”

Bias:

I admit to having a bias regarding supernatural phenomena; I want it to be true.  But there are ways to control for that. You could focus on people who were agnostics before and after their experience, or those who had negative experiences. Nobody wants their

, for example.

I think atheists/agnostics have their own biases that make an objective examination of alleged supernatural phenomena all but impossible.  Objectivity requires that you set aside your materialist assumptions, open your mind to the possibility that the supernatural is real, and examine specific cases on their own merits. If you do that, I think you’ll end up agreeing with my original premise: It’s an equally extraordinary claim to insist that NO supernatural event has EVER happened as it is to claim that ONE has happened SOMEWHERE, at SOMETIME. This would not necessitate belief, of course—since there are many other factor factors to consider—but it’s enough to make you doubt a materialist worldview…which brings me to my last point.

Uncertainty

People here seem very confident that supernatural events never happen. How can you be certain? Do you ever doubt? If you want to humor me, please fill in the blank: “I am ___ % sure that materialism is true.” For the record, my degree of certainty that the supernatural is real fluctuates anywhere from 40 – 90 percent.