Beliefs Conform To Cultural Identities 629
DallasMay writes "This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work. From the article: 'In one experiment, Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology — new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products. "These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says. The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous. Both groups made their decisions based on the same information. "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.'"
A partial solution: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.
The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae. That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on". But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.
Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Worked out great for the Soviets.
Wow, you're the first right-wing-nutjob I've met who can openly admit that. I'm impressed! You're SO going on my friends list!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't you love it when you get modded Flamebait by people who can't even notice obvious details... like usernames.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:4, Informative)
The soviets did not abolish religion, they founded their own and it was so much better that the others that they did not even call it a religion anymore!
Talking to some people that were brought up in this system is realy enlightening.
On the subjetct matter, most people like to copy what others do, think, believe instead of coming up with their own understanding and optinion. It is perfectly understandable if you look at what frequently happens to those that actually understand what is going on and find themselves alone with their standpoint. The human race even had to invent a special, protected caste for these people, called "scientists".
Unfortunately most people do not understand that scientists are people that do not place their opinion first, but what they actually see. If you look at mentally degraded people like the creationists, for example, they still belive science deals with opinions. You find that in a lot of places and especially in politics and religion. Don't like a scientifit result? Ignore it! Unfortunately the chances are pretty good that you are ignoring the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, unless you count extreme political views as a religion.
Not a religion, another ideology of which the proponents are just as unthinking.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yeah, when you systematically slaughter millions of priests, nuns and clergy and burn down all the churches, you tend to "solve" the problem of religion to some degree...
You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...
What's the church's stance on God's inaction there, anyway? They had it coming?
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...
Let's see what he said about killing priests:
1 Kings 18:40: And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape . And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
Seems he's fine with it, as long as they believe the all-powerful God has a different name.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Informative)
You'd think an all-powerful God might have something to say about all that priest-killing...
What's the church's stance on God's inaction there, anyway? They had it coming?
What inaction? The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, does it? ;-)
And yes, this is compatible with Christian teaching. 2 Timothy 3:12 says:
In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted
In Matthew 24:9 Jesus says:
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Hmm, sounds like what happened in the Soviet Union. Again in John 15:20 He says:
Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
I'd call crucifixion from the court of public opinion persecution. So why would they want to be persecuted? Matthew 5:12 says:
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Obviously you don't agree with that line of thought, but there it is. It wasn't hand-waved away in recent times after Christians started getting killed, it has been part of the deal from the beginning. If Christians weren't supposed to ever suffer, why would God's plan be for Jesus to be crucified? It's the Jewish view that the Messiah will be a conquering king and restore Israel and the temple, but it's not the view of the Christian religion.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Interesting)
Citation needed!
And even if you dig up some I still won't buy it because I was there, my parents and grandparents were there too. I know, you just talk....
Sure, there was a killing of intellectuals and some of them were priests, but most were not. Teachers, scholars, generals, aristocracy - they all suffered. BTW, in 10 years the allegedly killed people by Stalin rose from a few million to (don't laugh) 100 million! I have seen such ridiculous numbers from "respectable" sources and most people in the west are conditioned to believe any bullshit about the communist you care to concoct.
Killing and burning churches never works in the long run. If it did, Christianity would have never survived (remember, 2000 years ago the Christians were minority!). You might want to dig up my post about the Ottoman empire and see to what lenghts they went to extinguish christianity in our land. They had 482 years to do so and failed! Because action cause reaction. People started to identify their nationality via their faith. The church was poor and harassed and guess what - they produced great people and did a lot of good in those dark ages. After they got their power back all went to HELL.You can never keep people slaves forever - you always fail.
The trick that the communist applied was more clever than just killing - they simply discouraged people to go to church. You could go to church (yes, you really could - I have been to a church every Easter and every Christmas, mostly because my grandma was a bit religious. No one ever stopped us, no one came knocking on the door. In school people wore crosses below their shirts and no one said anything). 3 generations aftfer communism was established in my country almost everyone was an atheist. Which is exactly what this article is all about. Repeat after me - if I am not reminded DAILY even hourly that I am a believer I will cease to be one - this counts for the vast majority of people. Religion is a meme and you can diminish its influence in the same way you would do it with genes - you prevent the spreading.
I am forever grateful to the communist for one thing only (in general I despise them) - they showed empirically that a particular religion is NOT something natural, something that is inheritable human. Spirituality - yes! It comes from the realization of one's own mortality - nothing new, just read a bit of philosophy. Particular religion however - NO! Nobody is born christian , muslim or jew - you are MADE one and you have no choice. Which is abuse of human nature and damages your free will to an extent that is unrepairable. The communist tried to replace religion with faith in the Party and the system but that ideology had such a vast gap between intentions and reality that it was self defeating. It never did catch up with people. Everyone who tells you that the common people believed in the system is fucking liar!
So at the end, a generation emerged which had limited if none exposure to the most popular belief systems and the "substitute" did not work so we got the perfect secular, scientific, civil generation. I am one of those people - everyone (+/- 5 years my age) around me during all my life is being one - at school, at university, at work. The very new generations are already lost - 2 fucking days after the wall collapsed I saw Mormons on the streets! TWO fucking days, people! Then followed all the sects - there was an explosion of kids running from home, drug abuse, suicide...parents went crazy! One of our prime ministers (democrat and very strong anti-communist) refused permission to enter the country to a sect leader who was legally recognized and pampered in the whole western world and he wanted to sue us in den Hague! Man, if I could just have 5 minutes with this arrogant asshole alone!!!
So, I am sorry my friend but you are not in possessions of the facts, neither (I suspect) you want to be. Millions of nuns my ass - check how much the population of the country was at the time, if you claim to be intelligent (posting on \. is a statement after all), estimate how many priest there were and then talk crap! You just might end up with minus 1 000 000 figure there.....
Cultural abuse? (Score:3, Insightful)
By your argument, raising your children within a culture of any sort could be an "abuse of human nature and damages your free will to an extent that is [irreparable]". Religion is just a peculiar sort of culture which is entwined with, but not at all synonymous with, spirituality. As such, it generally does have a stronger impact than, say, what type of music you listen to, but it is still ultimately a culture issue. We all are influenced by our origins, and make choices as a result. Life in the long ru
Re: (Score:3)
Point to one religion that has ever not had those trappings. Even Buddhism falls short.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
>Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished
As if religion is the only place this occurs or the only reason why people think what they think.
I put it to you that some fringes of environmentalism are *exactly* like religions.
--
BMO
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rationalism and and anti-dogmatism?
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
As if religion is the only place this occurs or the only reason why people think what they think.
You start well, but you don't go far enough. It's not just "fringe environmentalism" and other fringes where this is a problem. It's a pervasive problem throughout human thinking generally, and it is just as likely to impact mainstream science as it is the fringes. To compound the problem, humans are notoriously blind to their own biases, tending to think that their evaluation of matters is rather objective and well-founded, and that any reasonable person should come to the same conclusions. This is why people are inclined to label those with radically different views as either mentally incompetent or maliciously deceptive. These two factors intertwine: most people want to believe they are right, and so selectively see the evidence supporting the hypothesis that they are.
The grandparent post used the term "magical thinking" -- a term that I associate with Dr Wallace Breen from Half Life 2. I submit that "magical thinking" is just a rationalist pejorative applied to the thought processes of those with whom they disagree. In other words, "magical thinking" is what those people do: the people who hold fast to some ridiculous theory. After all, thinks the rationalist, I used evidence and reasoning and came to a totally different conclusion, so their methods must consist of woolly thinking at best.
So long as everyone is just arrogant enough to assume that their own reasoning is pretty darn reliable, this problem will persist. Maybe we should all practice a little more recreational sophistry in the hope that it will teach us to take our own straight-faced in-earnest theories a little less seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, to put it more briefly, most people have the problem of thinking that "I came to my world view logically and it makes perfect, logical sense to me. Therefore, it must be true and anyone who disagrees is illogical." It's very frustrating to deal with people like that.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
I just added rightwingnutjob as a friend because the rest of his comments made sense to me, even if I don't always agree with him. Same with Moryath and a few others.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-- Aristotle
It's all cute when we're on slashdot and we can mentally masturbate all night long. But while there are people knocking on my door tryng to get me to turn to Jesus, people in congress voting for stem-cell research bans, legislators in my country asking to give creationism and "intelligent" design* as much face-time as evolution in science as opposed to philosophy classes, then I can say with a straight face that religion is a problem more than it is a romantic set of ideas; even if its idealogues aren't bombing my busses.
* My nipples, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But while there are people knocking on my door tryng to get me to turn to Jesus, people in congress voting for stem-cell research bans, legislators in my country asking to give creationism and "intelligent" design* as much face-time as evolution in science as opposed to philosophy classes, then I can say with a straight face that religion is a problem more than it is a romantic set of ideas; even if its idealogues aren't bombing my busses.
I'd say you've proven the point of this article, your religious beliefs prevent you from accepting alternate arguments based more on your beliefs than actual facts. remember the great song lyrics, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. really I believe there is no way to be completely impartial towards an idea, but if we at least try to view both sides of the argument as fairly as we can, we can at least come to a better and firmer grasp of why we have beliefs in the first place, or hop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good false compromise there buddy:
An individual demonstrating the false compromise fallacy implies that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct [1] . This is not always the case. Sometimes only X or Y is acceptable, with no middle ground possible. Additionally, the middle ground fallacy allows any position to be invalidated, even those that have been reached by previous applications of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally if an argument includes a "global conspiracy" (like a "global conspiracy to destroy the American economy" or a "global conspiracy to destroy technological advance") we can safely dismiss it. Conspiracies are harder and harder to maintain the bigger the number of involved people becomes and involving 90% of the globe would be impossible. Besides, if the rest of the world wanted to destroy the American economy wouldn't a trade war work better than appealing to the ethics of politicians?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
60% is 'a mandate' 30% is 'a political party'
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say you've proven the point of this article, your religious beliefs prevent you from accepting alternate arguments ...
I'd say you missed the point of the article, which was not that all viewpoints are equally valid, and that therefore, the only mechanism by which Person A could possibly dismiss Person B's viewpoint is by being blinded by his own biases. The point of the article was that people will ignore facts that don't jive with their own biases. In the case of the grandparent dismissing Christianity, exactly what facts has he ignored? There are no facts that support religion. Religion is based purely on faith, and survives only through indoctrination, not by any preponderance of facts or evidence.
Yet, you've managed to interpret TFA as meaning that anybody who dismisses another's ideas and/or beliefs, regardless of their rationale for doing so, is guilty of succumbing to their own biases. This implies that there is no such thing as a logical basis for dismissing an idea, which necessarily means that all ideas are equally valid. And since there are many conflicting ideas, this also implies, somewhat paradoxically, that all ideas are equally invalid. In other words, it's all relative, there is no such thing as truth, and basically, anything goes (except for dismissing someone else's idea, that is).
I'm sure that this is not, in fact, the meaning you intended, but it is the logical conclusion of what you said. Yes, "try[ing] to view both sides of the argument as fairly as we can" is a good thing, indeed. But at some point, you have to allow for there to be disagreement, or else it just devolves into the morass of relativism I described above, which means, for instance, that ancient beliefs about volcanoes and earthquakes being caused by angry gods are just as "correct" as the modern science of plate-tectonics. That's a bunch of crap, if you ask me. But then, I suppose you could just conveniently counter that I'm only dismissing the "angry gods" theory because I'm blinded by my own biases regarding plate-tectonics.
Further, you assert that the grandparent's views on religion are "based more on [his] beliefs than actual facts", which blindly assumes that you know what his line of reasoning was, even though he did not address that in his post. Calling someone out on their poor reasoning skills and their closed-mindedness, when you have in fact assumed (i.e., completely fabricated) what his line of reasoning was, and are apparently no more open to his religious beliefs than he is to yours? Really??? That just reeks of hypocrisy!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually as an interesting side note, looking at an argument as having two sides is a self-imposed mental restriction of cultural origin (I bet you're from the US :))
In fact, in most arguments neither side is fully right: if you notice, discussions where two people are discussing something with the intent of reaching a destination instead of winning points will often end with a conclusion which does not exact match the inital argument of
Re:A partial solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Initial POV 1: God exists.
Initial POV 2: God does not exist.
[discussion]
Conclusion: God exists on Mondays, Fridays and alternate Sundays.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One reason I love slashdot is I often learn things from people here, and very often find that what I knew has been superceded; facts change. I have had opinions changed by others' well thought out arguments.
However, no argumant you can make, no facts you can trot out, will get me to believe that cats don't exist, because there are three of them in my house. You won;t get me to believe that there are no such things as elephants, because I've been to the zoo.
I can say with a straight face that religion is a p
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
You start well, but go too far.
With regard to biased thinking being a pervasive problem, you are spot on. However, you throw the baby out with the bath water when you assert that all human thought is hopelessly biased, and that rationalism (and presumably, all other epistemological frameworks as well) is nothing more than a convenient way to disguise one's biases. If that's true, then science, philosophy, and all other human endeavors which involve the pursuit of truth and knowledge are merely various forms of bias masquerading as rational thought. I don't deny that we humans are all, by our very nature, incapable of 100% pure rational thought. However, most of us are, at least, capable of short spurts of mostly rational thought. Unless you believe that all of mankind's progress over the last few thousand years can be attributed to the "monkeys with typewriters" effect, I don't see how you can conclude that rationalism and biased thinking are merely two sides of the same coin.
Furthermore, both you and the grandparent completely misused the term "magical thinking". Magical thinking [wikipedia.org] is not merely a synonym for bias, it is (in the words of the Wiki article) "causal reasoning that applies unwarranted weight to coincidence and often includes such ideas as the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation."
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Interesting)
No system of beliefs is just a convenient way of disguising one's biases, but all of them can be. It's entirely possible to use, say, science to excuse being an asshole; eugenics is a perfect example of that.
The problem is that people who don't share a particular system of beliefs tend to not understand how anyone could believe it, and jump to the conclusion that they don't really do, but are merely pretending to in order to excuse their inexcusable behavior. This isn't helped at all that all such systems have people who believe them but don't understand them, yet feel the need to defend them; rationalism and science are perhaps the worst off here, due to their complexity.
The end result is people dismissing all arguments against their beliefs because they are usually made by people who 1) think the people they talk to are evil demagogues to be defeat or gullible sheep to be rescued and nobody wants to be treated that way and 2) don't understand why anyone would believe the system and thus usually end up arguing against strawmen of their own making, which is amuzing to watch but won't convince anyone.
All this means that it's very difficult to discuss any given belief system rationally; either your audience agrees with you, in which case it becomes an intellectual circlejerk, or they don't, in which case it ends up with you talking down to them or outright attacking them for being idiots, or there are both amongst them, in which case it becomes a free-for-all strawmen vs. insults brawl. Just look at the post that began this thread: it calmly suggests "abolishing" religion, in other words, forcing everyone to conform to the poster's beliefs. Is it any wonder that his would-be victims look at him and all that share his views with suspicion, just like he looks at them?
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why logic should be a required part of high school. Perhaps not coincidentally, your sig fits what I'm about to say perfectly.
Humans can, and do, come to conclusions without bias. We see this a lot in science (by no means always), and we see it in mathematics etc. In other words, there are some things to be 'right' about - but more importantly, our obviously flawed thought processes can come to them.
A mathematical proof that sqrt(2) is not rational, or the infinitude of primes, is simply true - assuming you take as a given the rules of mathematics (a reasonable assumption). Our brains are therefore capable of devising such incontrovertible statements and reasons - but how?
I submit that we can only improve our reasoning abilities by learning our mental weaknesses - that is, being able to go over a mental argument and methodically examine all sources of bias. This would be required by a logic class.
Logic teaches you how to think. If everybody knew how to think, we wouldn't have any of the associated junk like PETA, fear of "death panels", or any of this Creationism crap.
But so few people actually know how to think. It's really the only way we can rise above our capricious biology.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Humans can, and do, come to conclusions without bias.
But not without premises and axioms. In mathematics and formal logic, premises (or "givens") and axioms are clearly stated (or understood by convention). Those who accept the axioms will grant the conclusions which follow from the premises or givens, assuming the intermediate steps are all valid. If someone does not accept the axioms, then they reject the proof. There is no such thing as an unconditionally incontrovertible statement.
We see this a lot in science (by no means always)...
Actually, we never see it in science. Once you depart from the abstract rea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you use both you realize quite quickly that quantum mechanics, aeronautical engineering and medicine are sciences,
Uh, have you actually looked at the methods used in medicine? Medical research done on mice is science. Medicine as practiced on humans is well-informed artistry with lots of tradition acting as governance. That isn't meant as a condemnation - the ethical constraints practitioners operate under greatly inhibits their ability to do real science.
Even the best clinical trials tend to show wh
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are quite right to point out the role of "weighting". One does not simply take all the observations, place them in a machine, and let the conclusion fall out. We make personal choices about what to observe and what to ignore, which things are important and which aren't, and so on. The article does not demonstrate faulty reasoning on anyone's part when it says, "they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information." This merely demon
You guys are amazing, oblivious (Score:5, Funny)
The whole point of this article is that people believe information that confirms their biases and the react accordingly.
And you guys respond immediately with "See! This information confirms my biases against religion..."
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Funny)
You're right, we must crush the intolerant! If people aren't willing to open their minds to new ideas, we'll open their skulls for them, instead!
</sarcasm>
Re:A partial solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, we must crush the intolerant! If people aren't willing to open their minds to new ideas, we'll open their skulls for them, instead!
</sarcasm>
Curshing ignorance isn't the same as crushing ignorant people.
Re: (Score:2)
My counter-proposition is that if religion is abolished, large tracts of population would disappear. Religion/dogma seems to be the only thing that keeps some people going.
Faced with an alternative of continuing living and committing suicide, what are the options ?
1) Realize that life is as likely to be good as bad, decide to die
2) Hope that life is on average good and continue living.
3) Believe that "god" or "
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
My counter-proposition is that if religion is abolished, large tracts of population would disappear. Religion/dogma seems to be the only thing that keeps some people going.
You know, I keep hearing that argument, and it's just mind-boggling to me that any intelligent individual could say something so stupid. It's like claiming that abolishing cocaine would cause large tracts of the population to disappear, since cocaine is the the only thing that keeps them going.
Yeah, if you depend on a substance or an ideology, breaking with it is going to be hard. That doesn't mean that you need it to live, or to be happy. It just means you're an addict. If you ditch your addiction, things can only get better.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I keep hearing that argument, and it's just mind-boggling to me that any intelligent individual could say something so stupid. It's like claiming that abolishing cocaine would cause large tracts of the population to disappear, since cocaine is the the only thing that keeps them going.
I'm not saying I buy the GP's argument (at least not completely), but I think you vastly underestimate how important religion is to some people. The cocaine=religion analogy doesn't really stand up very well under scrutiny. And I'm not merely making the obvious observation that all analogies are flawed and fall apart if you examine them closely enough - I'm saying this one is worse than most.
Yes, many people who are addicted to cocaine may actually feel that they cannot live without the drug. But religion is not merely a drug - it is intertwined with all of the most important unanswerable questions in life. Does life have purpose? Is there such a thing as The Truth? Is there life after death? Will I see my lost loved ones again someday? Is there justice in this world? Will good ultimately prevail over evil? Why must there be so much suffering?
As an agnostic, I am used to having my religious friends and family members say that I'm just taking the easy way out. To them, no God means no responsibility, no sense of duty, no moral quandaries, no church on Sunday, etc, etc. However, as I'm sure many agnostics can tell you, being an agnostic is anything but easy. All of those Big Unanswerable Questions weigh heavily on you - much more so than for religious people who've found all of those questions conveniently answered by their religion of choice. Meanwhile, I've spent nearly my entire life being constantly tormented by those questions. Some mornings, I find it excruciatingly difficult to drag myself out of bed, because I'm desperately trying to figure out "What the fuck is the point of all this?" Don't confuse this with depression. I am not merely depressed. In fact, most days, I don't feel depressed at all. I enjoy life. But those questions are always there, always eating away at me, making it difficult to function at times.
I'm not trying to sound "deep" or compare myself to philosophers like Tolstoy who were nearly driven mad by those questions. I'm merely observing that life is difficult enough already without the struggle to find meaning. With that struggle, life can be unbearable at times. And for a lot of people, religion is the only thing that can fill that void and make life worth living, or at least seem to be so. I get the whole "religion is just a crutch for weak minds" thing. I really do. I felt that way in my early 20's. But I'm in my late 30's now, and all those questions have been a heavy burden on me in the intervening years. So although I'm still as much of an agnostic as I ever was, much of my arrogance has been replaced with understanding. My agnosticism is no longer something that makes me feel superior. In many ways, I actually envy my religious friends, and if I could force myself to believe in God, I probably would. Don't think I haven't tried - numerous times. I'm just not wired for faith, it seems.
Anyway, the point is, given how deeply intertwined religion is with those things which weigh most heavily on the human mind (or "soul", if you believe there is one), I don't think the cocaine analogy, nor the implied addiction model of religious belief, even come close to explaining why people adhere so steadfastly to religion. It's a LOT deeper and a LOT more complicated than you give it credit for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever been addicted to cocaine?
Re:A partial solution: (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, the point is, given how deeply intertwined religion is with those things which weigh most heavily on the human mind (or "soul", if you believe there is one), I don't think the cocaine analogy, nor the implied addiction model of religious belief, even come close to explaining why people adhere so steadfastly to religion.
You're going to have to do a better job of explaining why. I get your "unanswerable questions" argument, but - no offence - it's shit. Theism doesn't answer any of those questions. It barely even tries. It simply asserts commandments based on an Ultimate Authority - an immortal Mafia Don who promises to break our legs if we don't don't pay homage and follow his orders.
The actual meaning of life, the question of morality ... those questions remain unanswered on any broad level. That's because we as individual human beings get to define what those things are, and no external orders can ever solve those dilemmas for us. Nobody can tell you what the purpose of your life is, and nobody can dictate a moral code to you. I find religion particularly offensive because it pretends to do both. I get one life to live to the best of my ability - a mere 80-ish years on this Earth, if I'm lucky - and some jackass in a funny hat thinks he has the right to dictate how I live it based on orders from his magical sky daddy. Well fuck that. Even if there were a "god" to tell me how to live my life, I'd tell him to get fucked too - I don't give a damn how he intended me to live it because it's purpose is mine to determine. He could have some input on it (if he'd speak the fuck up) but the final decisions would still be mine to make. As long as you allow for free will, no religion can ever give you an answer to what the purpose of life is.
Religion answers the question "What is the meaning of life" to the same extent that cocaine does - it's all about the next fix. We can come up with much better answers than that. Even Douglas Adams' tongue-in-cheek answer was more meaningful and less harmful than the ones provided by most religions.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure I care. I'm an atheist, but was raised Catholic. I didn't disappear - I just realized that we turn to dust when we die, there's no reason behind anything, and we should make the most of our lives. It might be depressing if I wasn't happy with my life and how I'm leading it.
Going off heroin can kill you too. And I even concede that in a hypothetical world where religion disappeared one night, people might kill themselves. But the next generation would be raised with no ingrained religious misconceptions about the world, so the benefit would come fairly quickly.
In any case, how many religious people kill themselves because their life sucks, and it occurs to them that their lifelong friend God couldn't possibly be on their side?
Re:A partial solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.
I'm as big an atheist as anyone, but the way you phrased this sent shivers down my spine. I'd love it if religion and magical thinking went by the wayside because people decided of their own free will that it was bunk, but saying it "should be abolished" implies an active destruction that doesn't bode so well if you think about history.
It's also scary because so many religious fundamentalists (who outnumber the atheists) believe in abolishing the atheists. And they don't intend to do it peacefully.
Re:A partial solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Statements like this are exactly the point of this experiment. You obviously have some beliefs about religion, and if I gave you a set of new facts, you would interpret them in light of your beliefs, and resist changing them.
The point of these experiments isn't to look at everyone else and say, "Yeah, they're all screwed up." The point is to look at yourself and say, "Do I have beliefs for which I am discarding / reshaping evidence to fit them?" Every human on the face of this planet has the same exact tendency. And that means every atheist, every Liberal, every Republican, every religious person, every man, every woman. And most importantly, that means YOU.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly enough, the standards for "communitarian" and "individualistic" that they used to sort the people would put the majority of the "right-wing nutjobs" into the "individualistic" group, and the majority of the rest of /. into the "communitarian" group.
Note, specifically, that religion, or lack of same, wasn't even a factor in deciding which group you're in.
Hurr. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.
No they didn't.
They based their decisions on information gathered from outside the experiment - their own life experiences, and applied those experiences to their arguments.
This is surprising?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here here.
Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for. Not accounting for, sometimes painfully obvious, faults in their conclusions, or reasoning.
Like the studies that link accidents and cellphones. Not accounting for the possibility that neglectful and distracted drivers that will get into accidents will probably now use cellphones as well as drink, eat, and read a book or put on makeup. It's outside their scope of the experiment so it isn't a possible contributing factor.
This study i
Re:Hurr. (Score:5, Funny)
Here here.
Where!?
Re:Hurr. (Score:4, Informative)
Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for. Not accounting for, sometimes painfully obvious, faults in their conclusions, or reasoning.
Like the studies that link accidents and cellphones. Not accounting for the possibility that neglectful and distracted drivers that will get into accidents will probably now use cellphones as well as drink, eat, and read a book or put on makeup. It's outside their scope of the experiment so it isn't a possible contributing factor.
If you think scientists don't know what "confounding factors" are, or don't try to account for them in their analyses, then you don't know enough about how science is done to have an informed opinion on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
The "don't try to account for them" bit is purely a matter of being cynical and not having a lot of faith in someone they don't really know anything about.
Sure. I could just have "faith" that the cardinal with the white coat did everything right. Although that would probably be a mistake.
Re:Hurr. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes it would be a mistake because it's arguing from authority, ie: not science.
Science does not ask for trust, nor does it ask for BLIND faith, it asks YOU to use critical thinking [wikipedia.org].
Re:Hurr. (Score:5, Insightful)
What you say in your reply post is entirely reasonable. But casting it as a "restatement" is disingenuous at best. Your original post was a broadside against scientific practice; now that you've been called on it, you're retreating and saying "well, what I really meant was ..." when you're actually saying something quite different and much more limited.
Did you actually read the study? (Score:2)
We conducted a study of the nanotechnology risk- benefit perceptions of a diverse sample of 1,600 americans. The subjects’ worldviews had been previously measured using scales developed for the study of the cultural cognition of risk (Kahan, Slovic, Braman, Gastil & Mertz 2007; Kahan et al. in press). Those scales characterize individuals’ values along two dimensions: “hierarchy-egali- tarianism,” which measures how much subject’s value equality versus clearly delineated forms of social authority; and “individualism-communi- tarianism,” which measures how much they value individual interests versus collective ones.
They framed the questions in what looked like a newspaper article, which I thought was pretty ingenious. The headlines were: "Scientists Call for More Research on Nanotechnology Consumer Goods", "Scientists Call for More Research on Use of Nanotechnology in Government Regulation of Air Pollution", "Scientists Call for More Research on Market Potential of Nanotechnology for Cleaning Environment", and "Scientists Call for More Research on Potential Use of Nanotechnology to Fight Enemies at Home and Abroad"
The
Re:Hurr. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists see results in their studies that they are looking for.... This study is pretty bad
Interesting. You came to this article with a preconceived belief that scientists are idiots and/or self-deceiving, and then you applied that belief to the scientists in question without properly evaluating their research - I assume you haven't bothered to read any of the peer-reviewed journal published papers from this research group, and are just relying on a few quotes from the media and a Slashdot summary to confirm your predetermined bias?
More to the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA, one of the group is defined by:"Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the 'individualistic' group."
Shock horror, the people who embrace new technology were more likely to embrace a new piece of technology...
This is almost a zero-information experiment. The definitions classified the results that were then analysed against the classifications. In other news, when we classified coin tosses into a "heads" group and a "tails" group, we found that the "heads" group contained 100% heads results, no matter how many times the coin was tossed ... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.
The participants were not presented with "facts", they were presented with "claimed facts" which they had to both interpret and assess. (A process called "reading" and "understanding".) That the participants were able ahead-of-time to describe the foibles of their assessment strategies (that one group was able to say it was more amenable to new technology) merely shows that the participants were pretty good at reflecting on their own decision strategies.
Next...
Re:More to the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
People who embrace authority are "individualistic"? Who came up with that definition?
Re:More to the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what I've been trying to wrap my head around. The article says:
Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural beliefs. Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians."
So where does someone who embraces new technology and free enterprise, but is suspicious of authority fit in?
Re: (Score:2)
So where does someone who embraces new technology and free enterprise, but is suspicious of authority fit in?
Outliers...
Re:More to the point... (Score:5, Informative)
His name was Thomas Hobbes and he wrote a book called Leviathan. Hobbes wrote this book in the context of the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, both of which were massive civil conflicts centered around religion (Protestant sects vs. Catholicism).
In order to prevent further religious conflict, Hobbes set out to create a philosophical basis for the bracketing of religion from public life. Not the abolition of the Church outright, but the removal of the ability for people to make (public) claims about what is true (private piety was still assumed). He rejected revelation as a basis for truth claims, but noted that most things that people 'know' aren't really derived from experience, but are instead things that they believe on the authority of someone else. For instance, we believe certain things about reality because we recognize the epistemic authority of physicists.
Without an ultimate authority to resolve claims about reality/truth, Hobbes believed that people would never escape the devastating civil wars that he saw all around him in Europe. Rejecting revelation as a source of knowledge, Hobbes said that the person of the 'sovereign' would have to serve as the ultimate authority on truth claims in order to prevent civil conflict.
Establishing a sovereign authority would be the only way that rational individualism could prosper. Individuals, freed from epistemic confusion or conflict, could then engage in public life with the maximum freedom to pursue their (material) interests.
This is relevant to TFA given that it pits individualists (epistmeic authority allowing for skeptical materialist individualism) against communitarians (people making broad values/truth claims supposedly binding on others).
It's hard to find a more relevant philosopher for understanding modernity than Hobbes. The way that authority, truth claims, individualism, state sovereignty, and materialism are politically entwined are all to be found within Hobbes' writing. Even if you disagree with the conclusions he came to, it's still worth reading and knowing why he wrote what he wrote.
So yes, individualism and authority are quite closely linked in the history of Western thought.
Footnote: Hobbes was the first major translator of Thucydides. Many of his views on civil war and epistemic confusion come from Thucydides' description of the Corcyraean Civil War (in Book III of Thucydides' History). The episode is only about 8 pages and well worth reading to see how deeply ingrained this particular strand of political philosophy is embedded in Western thought. It's a pretty chilling description of the collapse of convention, law, norms, and the very meaning of words in the face of violence.
Re:Hurr. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody reads Heisenberg anymore, I see....
One of the best books I have ever read on scientific epistemology was by him ("Physics and Philosophy" Great book.)
Over and over in that book he writes about how people tend to think that data implies theory, as if there is only one true interpretation of the information before a scientist, but how that is a false assumption. As he puts it (several times), "Data does not imply theory." Instead he suggests that theories can only emerge when scientists put the pieces together based on pre-existing philosophical assumptions.
"Physics and Philosophy" is really one of those books that anyone interested in the sciences really should read. It would help avoid the reactions to studies like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying that Werner Heisenberg was a poor scientist and a great philosopher?
Are you at all uncertain about the value of his uncertainty principle?
A more humerous way to put it (Score:5, Funny)
I generally consider Heisenberg (author of "Physics and Philosophy") to be one of the finest scientists of the twentieth century. However, I am very much aware of how fast science is moving and so may be slightly unsure of my position on the matter at the moment.....
Seriously, Heisenberg's discussion of the process of formation scientific theory is the clearest work I have ever seen on the subject. The man was a real genius in this regard and certainly comparable to both Einstein and Feynman.
One of the clearest examples he makes in the book is the comparison between Heraclitus's selection of fire as the prima materia and Einstein's equation of E=mc^2. Einstein, Heisenberg tells us, basically took Heraclitus's statement and quantified it, telling us how much of Heraclitus's fire was used to make up the rest of matter.
Re: (Score:2)
The interaction between prior information and data interpretation is very well understood within the Bayesian framework. In particular, the divergence of beliefs upon learning the exact same data can be demonstrated mathematically, Jaynes does it in one of the examples in the aforementioned book.
Re:Hurr. (Score:4, Informative)
For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". As for "anti-GMO guys", a recent peer-revieed study showed that 3 different varieties of Monsanto GMO corn caused liver and kidney damage in rats [biolsci.org]. Again, something that probably does not belong in your list. To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake, since they are on a much more solid stance, evidence-wise. Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water.
Which is precisely the point, and even the point you make: people let biases influence them. Including you. (I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of "bullshit", even though from the scientific evidence, some of them probably do not belong in the list.)
You need a study for that? (Score:4, Insightful)
People thrive on information that reinforces their point of view and reject information that challenge it. How is this news?
That's basically what newspapers and TV stations thrive on.
Re:You need a study for that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Newsflash: science works by subjecting everything to the scientific method. Including things that we think are obvious. Sometimes it confirms the obvious (like here), sometimes it throws everything into complete upheaval (like special relativity).
Next time I hear someone say "Durrr! Everyone knows that!" I'm going to smack them.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just amazed that it wasn't established already.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if the study found the complete opposite was true, would you be so quick to defend the results as they would in that case conflict with what you already expected? As has been pointed out in previous discussions [slashdot.org], what seems to be completely obvious must also be tested and the results are not worthless as news just becaus
Culture or pre-conceived notions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think any of these individuals are a clean slate so it's not a surprise that they may have strong pre-conceptions that come into play. It's not that "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe". Rather they already have some beliefs they consider true which they apply.
It's also no surprise that people in groups do not behave rationally. Even scientists and medical researchers can be downright stupid about things. I was listening to an interesting podcast this morning: http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/everything-is-dangerous-a-controversy [americanscientist.org]
Oh well (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone knows facts have a liberal bias anyway.
Re:Oh well (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on who's picking the facts ...
Example (poll results below): More people feel that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military than homosexuals. Same survey. The only difference between the two questions was the word "homosexual" vs the term "gays and lesbians."
Why do you think that opponents keep saying "homosexual rights" and "homosexual agenda"? It's because "homosexual" is a dirty word because of centuries of religious meddling.
And let's not forget stupidity. These poll results also show that more than 10% of the population (the ones who think it's okay to deny homosexuals rights but not gays and lesbians) depend on someone else to tell them how to think. (FauxNews, the Church, etc).
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/dadt_poll.html/print.html [americanprogress.org]
Re:Oh well (Score:4, Insightful)
"Depends on who's picking the facts ... "
Atheist: "I'll believe it when I see it."
Non-Atheist: "I'll see it when I believe it."
Trying to explain to the ostrich that the hyena can still see him is a waste of time as it is pretty damn hard to hear anything with sand in your ears.
Confirmation Bias Confirmed (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for confirming confirmation bias [wikipedia.org] for me. It was pretty much what I expected anyway...
The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Not commenting on the debate, but I think it's interesting that in an article about cognitive biases (particularly group cognitive biases) that they don't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like "scientific consensus," they only view it from the perspective of how such biases affect the freshly germinated views of the uninitated. You would think scientists, being human beings as well, would be in some way subject the same effects, and as long as questions are being raised about the human proclivity for certain viewpoints, someone might stop to wonder "in what ratio do people who go into the environmental sciences tend to be individualist or communitarian, and how is this likely to affect their judgment of related information?"
Re:The Irony (Score:4, Informative)
We say there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming because all the scientific papers that reach a conclusion about it reach the same conclusion: AGW is happening. It's not because climatologists "just believe" that AGW is happening due to their personal biases instead of what the facts say. If anyone wants to claim that AGW isn't happening, all they need to do is write up their observations and reasoning in a paper.
The article is much more about whether laypeople (and even scientists from other disciplines) are apt to believe certain scientific conclusions. Whether they do or not has little to do with the evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno - the danger of scientific consensus could be summed up in a few plays on a statement you made:
We say there is a theological consensus about the existence of God because all the theology papers that reach a conclusion about it reach the same conclusion: God must exist. It's not because theologians "just believe" that God exists due to their personal biases instead of what clear logic dictates. If anyone wants to claim that God doesn't exist, all they need to do is write up their reasoning in a pape
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this sound like what you're doing? Ignoring the hundreds of papers on global warming, and focusing on a handful of emails that involve a few climatologists? There are outright frauds in science all the time, and people don't blow those out of all proportion. Why do you do it with AGW? Oh, I
Re:The Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you do it with AGW? Oh, I get it, it doesn't conform with what you would like to believe. Duh!
And you're assuming that, ironically, because it's just what you would like to believe. There are good reasons for hyperfocusing on AGW errors -- AGW scientists have a decent chance of influencing legislation that will cost trillions and trillions of dollars, potentially ruin the economies of those who try to engage with it (if others don't play equally), and change the balance and distribution of wealth in the entire world (to the disadvantage of developed nations). Someone who hyperfocuses on problems in AGW isn't necessarily doing it because they are closed minded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure you can always find "problems" to hyperfocus on. If we delay acting while there are "problems", we'll never act. If AGW is happening, dealing with its effects will cost more trillions and trillions of dollars than avoiding it. If there are actual problems with the hypothesis of AGW, all someone needs to do is write a paper. Taking emailed comments out of context isn't the way to show AGW isn't happening. We need actual scientific evidence. You know, the actual facts.
Surely if you're worried about w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is vividly illustrated by modern data analysis methods, which tend to be black boxes defying full understanding. A good example that's been on slashdot a few times was the Netflix contest, where the most
I'm an Atheist damnit! (Score:2)
Diamond Age anyone? (Score:2)
Wow! They found differences between individualist and collectivist cultures in their acceptance of nanotechnology!
Someone could write a really cool piece of scifi based on this idea.
Oh wait... [wikipedia.org]
Mechanical Thinking. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?
I'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.
I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.
Now, if you have experienced that, ask yourself the following. . .
Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?
Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?
Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?
Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?
Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?
Just asking.
-FL
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that most people in this world are very much unaware that they do belong to "tribes", how they have "authority figures" and how they influence one's behaviour.
In fact, i reckon that most Slashdoters have never looked at Slashdot as the tribe it is.
The problem with your argument is that it relies on the targets having the know-how and self awareness to understand it and recognize themselfs on it.
Countless sessions of friendly discussions with the local Jehovah's Witnesses that pop-up at my door (wh
Re:Slashdot needs a like button. (Score:5, Interesting)
wrong description (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the article describes an experiment that shows that people don't necessarily trust scientists to get things right, and the degree of the trust varies by culture. This is hardly surprising. Scientists are people, and one's opinions about people tends to be a result of your interactions with people around you, most of whom are generally from your own culture. Most of what culture is is the result of such interactions. How could your culture not affect what you expect to see from a group of people?
Succinct summary of the study (Score:4, Interesting)
"Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus [culturalcognition.net]"
ABSTRACT:
People tend not to listen to your message if they view it as threatening to their livelihood, their community, or their ego.
--
Toro
In other words . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Translated: "In a laboratory setting, we demonstrated we couldn't magically persuade people of whatever we wanted about hot-button issues by selectively presenting facts."
Good.
'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewhere. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's reasonable to characterize the Bible as a suspicious. The Bible in it's present compiled form has been subject to rigorous literary criticism for sixteen hundred years(and the majority of the Bible has been subject to this treatment for significantly longer than that, with the law of Moses being some three thousand and five hundred years old). I've not heard challenge to it's credibility that would warrant the description you have provided here. I can't prove that those who wrote it w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other gospels, as far as I am aware, do not focus on giving an account of the life of Jesus, but rater give accounts of "secret" wisdom given to some of his disciples, myths and parables used to describe christian teaching, and parables and phrases given by Jesus. I just purchased a book containing all the other early works recovered to date, so I'll know better what they say after I've read them.
As far as the gospels go, most believe that Matthew and Luke were written from Mark (and some believe from the
Re:One needs to look no further than religion (Score:5, Interesting)
That passage is of dubious authenticity and may be mistransliterated. It also includes other historical mistakes.
Personally, I think the arguments over transliterations (Chrestianos vs Christianos) are misguided since some of the PGM use "Chrestos" in clear place of "Christos" ("Christos" is Hebrew "Messiah" translated into Greek while "Chrestos" is Greek for "The Useful One" though Hans Dieter Betz translates as "The Most Excellent" in context).
However, the historical errors by Tacitus suggest he was not working from actual records, but perhaps simply entering a sidebar as to what the Christians said about the founding of their sect. Consequently I am not prepared to use it as evidence of Jesus's existance.
My own view is that Christianity began as a synthetic religion between somewhat Hellenized Jewish sects and Hellenistic mystery cults. I think the Gospels bear the same relationship to Christianity as the Asinus Aureus (as Augustine called it) bore to the Cult of Isis. That doesn't devalue the work as a mythological basis for religion and in fact may strengthen its pedigree. Such an interpretation however flies in the face of literalism.
Re:One needs to look no further than religion (Score:4, Interesting)
I am aware that the majority of scholars think Jesus existed. However, this strikes me as evidence of what this thread is about rather than a matter of solid evidence. I think this is for a couple of reasons:
1) Christians of course want to think that Jesus existed.
2) Atheistic approaches tend to assume that it is simpler to assume that Jesus was a great teacher than that everything written about him was pseudopigraphic or mythological in origins.
My reason for saying there is no real reliable evidence however comes from concluding (by studying Hellenistic religions) that basic outline of the story of Christ is probably mythological instead of factual, and that it combines pre-existing threads from a number of other Hellenistic religions. Secondly, there seems to have been a very lively tradition of writing what were essentially novels about religious subjects as a means of religious teaching (Apuleius's Metamorphosis/Asinus Aureus is a good example of that). This sort of thing has been called "pseudopigrapha" when the authorship is falsely attributed.
Furthermore, when you actually look at Paul's epistles, they are all over the place in which Hellenistic religions they incorporate pieces of. His general approach seems to be to incorporate the basic religious terminology and cosmology of whoever he is writing to.
So when we strip all of these things which seem to come from other sources away (the Trinity from Plato, the Archons of the Ages from various Hellenistic Gnostic cults, the Last Supper as possibly having Dionysian origins, the death and resurrection on Easter as the pagan sacrifice of world renewal), we are really left with nothing new under the sun.
I am not dismissing the possibility of Jesus's existence entirely. However, I am saying that it is more fruitful to look at Christianity as an outgrowth of the Hellenistic world in general than the outgrowth of one man's teachings, and that I have no immediate understanding of the exact circumstance of the formation of Christianity in the first place (our records until really near the end of the Hellenistic era are remarkably sparse).
BTW, I would also go further. I think that some of this Roman literature about other Hellenistic religions was formative on Christianity as well. The development of the Blood Libel really seems to have its origins in Roman literature such as that of Lucan, Apuleis, Horace, etc. If Christianity is seen as having its origins in a syncretic, Hellenistic branch of Judaism, then I think more problems are solved than created. The only problem created is a doubt as to whether Christ actually existed.
A note on the Trinity (Score:3, Interesting)
First, Philo is an interesting source and I consider to be one important to the study of this topic. I would argue however that the trinity does derive (as was believed in the Renaissance) from Plato's works, in particular "Republic" and "Letters." However, the roots of the concept go even further back. In Republic you have Plato essentially arguing that a tripartite structure unites the human condition and society, and in Letters, this is applied to the structure of Godhead (though Plato only mentions t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's spelled "douche bag". And the answer to your question is any student of the Classics. Learn something.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bible thumpers" generally only care about early 17th century English. You would be hard pressed to find a bible thumper that knows Latin.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The authenticity is also not at question of the various copies of the original scrolls, and by various I mean over 5600 origin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Watch a Christian complete phase out and stop processing info when you point out the the many similarities between Jesus and many other similar shepherd gods in other cultures of that same region of the Eastern Med.
I'm not religious, but I "phase out" at that, too. The problem is that these "similarities" are an invention of a whacked-out conspiracy nut who basically just pulled them out of his ass. Non-religious people who buy into it are simply swallowing another form of dogma.
Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.
If you think that a recording of police broadcasts can "scientifically prove" anything, then you don't really understand what that phrase means.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that your two examples have in common is that they're based