This statement would apply to theoretical musing in biology, where uncertainty abounds, and yet the belief they display will not entertain any discussion on the obvious and many uncertainties.
I find it entertaining along these lines: you believe in a flying spaghetti monster because you can demonstrate scientifically that you have spaghetti.
I have been subjected to wild accusations regarding ToE, even questioning my honesty, and yet I cannot help but note the lengths proponents of ToE will go to cover up the many uncertainties in their belief in ToE - this smacks of questionable honesty - ironic what!
Instead of looking only at facts (which frequently do not move people), build a Baysian catalog of categories of information vs. each categoryâs demonstrated ability to influence people.
What could be more Real than to have a flow chart of what Really influenced human decision makingâŚ
Your error is assuming that I am saying it is false. There is a difference between not knowing if something is true and claiming that something is false.[quote=âMervin_Bitikofer, post:80, topic:36189â]
That a belief shares this in common with falsehoods does not mean that the belief in question is untrue.
[/quote]
Just to be clear, I didnât say that it is untrue.[quote=âMervin_Bitikofer, post:80, topic:36189â]
You are the one who persists here â could have fooled me.
[/quote]
You say this as you persist in posting.[quote=âMervin_Bitikofer, post:80, topic:36189â]
You want us to justify our beliefs to you on your narrow scientific terms. We tell you that there are issues here bigger than science or materialism, and we share with you something of our non-scientific justifications. But then you predictably come back with dissatisfaction â your dissatisfaction with our justifications because they are outside where you can go or what you allow yourself to accept.
[/quote]
That is not how I see it. If you stated that you have faith based beliefs that arenât supported by evidence and are just believed through faith, then I would agree. However, that is not what I am seeing. Rather, there is an attempt to make beliefs look like facts when they arenât. This is done by claiming that beliefs are knowledge, or that there are no facts so faith based beliefs are equivalent to anything I call a fact. From where I sit, there seems to be dissatisfaction on your part that your beliefs are not facts.
Also, I donât begrudge your freedom and right to believe whatever you want. Personally, I am not one who embraces faith based beliefs, but thatâs just me. I am not one to tell you what you should or shouldnât believe, and I think that religious beliefs are part and parcel of the human experience for most people.
Examples?[quote=âGJDS, post:81, topic:36189â]
I have been subjected to wild accusations regarding ToE, even questioning my honesty, and yet I cannot help but note the lengths proponents of ToE will go to cover up the many uncertainties in their belief in ToE - this smacks of questionable honesty - ironic what!
[/quote]
Ahh â and here I thought I was just persisting in answering your questions and challenges. But I can let it go too â it does take two to tango, and feel free to add in any last word in here then if thatâs what this is about. If itâs a question, though, I do have a hard time breaking the habit of answering. I can try.
For my own part, Iâll concede this: it does seem like we agree on a lot of areas, and that you are simply more strict in what you refer to as factual. I can respect that, and make the effort in your presence to limit use of that particular word to just scientifically established things. There are plenty of other good words to accommodate the rest, I think â enough to keep me happy.
Blessings to you, and thanks for a civil conversation.
I think that is definitely something we can agree on. Perhaps my insistence on precise language is a bit overboard, but it is partially a product of scientific debates where such things are important. If we are talking about evolution or climate change, the difference between facts, hypothesis, and opinion are immensely important.
And thanks to you as well for answering my somewhat rhetorical and leading questions. I hope the sunshine finds you well.
His point was that people donât do what is necessarily the most logical thing ⌠but they are driven by what makes them happy.
If you are able to show how a âMore Logical Decisionâ can create at least the same amount of happiness, while being logical, then you will have accomplished something important.
But what I see is that you want me to afflict myself with the sterility of the logical ⌠no matter what it does to my personal happiness. I am not impressed.
I think we may be talking past one another. I am interested in how we determine if something is true, not if something makes someone happy. Using your method, if I were an oncologist I would tell all my patients that they were cancer free, even if they werenât. I would say that since it makes them happy to be cancer free it must be true.
For some YECâs, you are never going to change their minds. Those discussions and debates are more for lurkers who may be on the fence and actually care about what is true.
When others can see that YECâs are focusing more on what feels right instead of the facts it makes our case for us. It shows that the evidence is not on the side of YECâs.