|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 11, 2009 22:54:45 GMT
Yeah. Nice try, Flix. But just from that part you picked out:
"To each, their own starting point is both obvious and reasonable and therefore unquestioned."
And why might that be, do you think?
Not that it is left in any way unclear, as quoting from the exact same article: "To the religious person, the existence of their deity/ies is an incontrovertible fact."
There it is in black and white.
You could also look at my Reality breakdown, where I point out quite clearly and in detail that anything we BELIEVE to be true is a 'fact' and treated as such by us. Religion is only one of many things to which this applies.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 12, 2009 2:12:39 GMT
You can say whatever you want, there is nothing to back it up without these studies. I still call hindsight bias. You could have used the same post Flix quoted to say you knew it all along if the study showed the exact opposite findings.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 12, 2009 5:25:12 GMT
Zee... I take it you missed my response? Or didn't understand that I was quoting from the same article, as written by me? In 'fact', I could NOT have used that article in any way to support the opposite findings for that study. Flix quoted the introductory paragraph without reading this part: The full article is here. Oh, I could doubtless find selective quotes that appear to hold the opposing view, but as most of my theories rely on 'fact' being largely a matter of opinion, that position definitely would not hold up. You might also find my Reality guide interesting in context... Now, you can cling to your own hindsight bias, Zee, or you can accept the 'fact' that I got there a LONG time before these people ever did. I'll even add something the study does not try to claim: ANYthing that we believe wholeheartedly to be true will be treated as a 'fact', not just religious belief. You can wait for a few more studies to prove that to your satisfaction if you like...
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 15, 2009 23:21:43 GMT
To the religious person, the existence of their deity/ies is an incontrovertible fact. [/b]" [/quote] Although I find no fault in your writting it EK ;D I do find myself somewhat disagreeing with the validity of the assumption. I know "religious" people that most assuredly are not absolutely sure of their deity..??
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 0:52:45 GMT
Me too.
Doubt is normal. That's where strength of faith steps in. I still maintain that there is something different going on with faith (religious or otherwise) that's different from 'knowing' a fact.
Which is why I thought this study was noteworthy instead of something to be dismissed by all as "meh, knew that already."
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 7:30:10 GMT
All 'knowing' is faith, Flix. We mentally divide it into various areas, but the 'facts' of life are different depending on who you ask and even the 'facts' of science often change over generation or by opinion.
Ultimately, our view of what is 'real' is nothing but a mental construct. A lot of this construct we share with others (Consensual Reality) and a lot of it is informed solely by what we ourselves believe to be true (Subjective Reality).
As such, one person's 'fact' is another's 'opinion' and a third person's outright 'fantasy'.
Therefore, all 'facts' - things we believe to be true - will be processed in the same way.
The study IS useful in that it makes a start on actually proving all this, but it is far too limited in scope and ambition, showing that the researchers really don't understand what they are dealing with. Unless it's just the first of may studies, of course, in which case I hope they do more, soon.
People are far more likely to accept all this stuff once someone does a 'proper study' on it, because it doesn't require them to do any thinking themselves, so from that POV it's great.
But the Buddha still got it first: "With our thoughts we make the world." And yes, I know that can be interpreted six ways from Sunday ;D
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 7:52:07 GMT
Ok, well let me characterize the kind of faith I'm talking about. SS mentioned religious people who don't 'know' that God is really up there. They don't believe it the way they believe that the air they breathe is real. Despite a lack of the evidence they would normally require to believe or know something, they continue to insist that they have 'faith' which sustains their persistence in their religion. How to explain this?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 8:14:10 GMT
The belief is most likely in the religion, then, not the deity. The idea is that the thing is worthy in and of itself, without regard to whether or not any 'higher being' stands behind it.
Such people would tend to believe that the religion itself is beneficial (Obviously, else why follow it, if they doubt the existence of the deity?) and thus their 'fact' would be 'The Religion Is Good' rather than 'Insert-Deity-Here Is Good'.
It's either that or our old friend Habit, again. Someone who has done the same thing for their whole lives may well not wish to relinquish it because the entire impetus of their experience flows along one path. So their reluctance to throw the whole thing away is born of fear of the unknown and the safety of past experience.
The thing that makes all this trickier is the double-bind we all have where we sometimes don't know exactly what we DO believe. Not just in religion, of course, but in many other things, too. On some visceral level we may believe in something, but we aren't sure what. Sometimes, that confusion can obscure a genuine belief. Which will of course make any study somewhat harder than might be supposed.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 16, 2009 8:59:14 GMT
What the hell? I don't even know how to respond to most of the things you're saying because they are ridiculous. I'm hoping that you actually went to school and studied psychology?
Let me attempt: In no way are you the first person to think ANY of the things you do. Just because this study happened recently does not mean that no one thought of it previously; it has to do with technological advancement more than anything. Most likely, this IS the start of a larger study; that is how psychological research works.
People not accepting something until there are multiple studies behind it does not mean they don't think for themselves, it means that they actually posses critical thinking skills. What are you talking about when you mention me clinging to my own hindsight bias? I'm using the psychological definition, which causes what you said not to make any sense.
Scientific study results do change over time, mostly because of technological advancement. This does not render the findings useless. Holy crap. I will be waiting for more studies, thank you, because I do not enjoy just talking out of my ass about things I know nothing about. I have my own opinions but I do allow them to change according to these silly studies because I enjoy living a life soundly based in reality.
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 9:22:59 GMT
Holy crap. I will be waiting for more studies, thank you, because I do not enjoy just talking out of my ass about things I know nothing about.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 9:30:24 GMT
Zee - so your 'facts' are very different to my 'facts'? So noted ;D
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 16, 2009 9:32:54 GMT
Hum.
That actually wasn't the point of my post, but I never get straight answers from you. I shall go back to my studying of psychology.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 9:48:49 GMT
You weren't asking questions, Zee. You were saying that you disagree with almost everything I say here intensely, from my approach on up. Which is fair enough. You're not the first and you won't be the last to do so. Everyone has a different approach to finding their 'truth'. I wish you luck with yours
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 16, 2009 9:58:03 GMT
I wanted to know what you meant about the hindsight bias and if you have studied psychology.
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 16, 2009 9:59:27 GMT
EK, not be insulting but as to the straight answers thing, sometimes it does seem you say a lot without really saying anything.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 10:02:43 GMT
In what way about the hindsight bias, Zee?
And I was pretty sure I have told you I never studied psychology in any part of the formal education system. I tell everyone else, after all, so it's no secret. I have spent a very long time studying people and how they think, interact, etc, but whether you would count that as in anyway qualifying I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 10:06:21 GMT
EK, not be insulting but as to the straight answers thing, sometimes it does seem you say a lot without really saying anything. I do have a somewhat awful tendency to OVER-explain, to try to cover every angle... And sometimes things can get lost. Including my original meaning, I'm sure... So yeah, no offence taken.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Oct 16, 2009 10:13:57 GMT
Actually, we've never had that discussion or I wouldn't have asked. We haven't exactly talked much.
I meant that it didn't really make sense, what you said. I was wondering what you thought I meant by hindsight bias.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 16, 2009 10:30:40 GMT
'Hindsight bias' I read as 'shifting one's own prior position to that which is later proven by others in order to be retrospectively correct'.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Oct 16, 2009 11:17:33 GMT
|
|