relationship questions

Quote: EvenBob

For all you Carl Sagan worshippers, try reading 'Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky' by Charles Ginenthal. I never liked Sagan, he was an egocentric bully.

I was never a big Sagan fan, either, but he was a smart guy. His science knowledge was cutting-edge for its time, and he did have some positive, constructive thoughts as far as the philosophy of scientific inquiry and the scientific method. Interestingly, many people who claim to be Sagan fans and/or cite him disregard his philosophy on scientific inquiry and the scientific method.

Yeah, Sagan was kind of a blowhard, but he could back at least some of it up, and you don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I was never a big Sagan fan, either, but he was a smart guy. His science knowledge was cutting-edge for its time, and he did have some positive, constructive thoughts as far as the philosophy of scientific inquiry and the scientific method. Interestingly, many people who claim to be Sagan fans and/or cite him disregard his philosophy on scientific inquiry and the scientific method.

Yeah, Sagan was kind of a blowhard, but he could back at least some of it up, and you don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I think that many of those who dislike/opposed Sagan were religious believers who didn't like his humanist, rationalist approach at all. A large part of his philosophy was that science can supply the wonder, awe, and mystery that religion purports to give its adherents. He stated that the reason many people cling to religion is the illusory comfort it gives them, which is sad, because science is so much more beautiful and powerful, once you get to know it, than anything religion ever offers or could offer. It also has the virtue, unlike religion, of being true.

EvenBob mentioned Velikovsky as one of Sagan's opponents. Velikovsky wrote several best-selling books based on his theory that other planets had collided with Earth in the relatively recent past (enough to affect human history). This, of course, was nonsense, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and Sagan came out in opposition to it. Velikovsky was either a fraud or a nut (possibly both), but he did capture the popular imagination for a while, before he and his books disappeared back down the rabbit hole.

Quote: thecesspit

Those books should be free download from many sites, as they are out of copyright. In fact a quick search and I found it free on Kobo, for one (along with Treasure Island).

Kobo ereader is also free.

Sounds interesting. I'm a voracious reader with over 150 mostly science fiction tomes to prove it :)

Quote: mkl654321

I think that many of those who dislike/opposed Sagan were religious believers who didn't like his humanist, rationalist approach at all. A large part of his philosophy was that science can supply the wonder, awe, and mystery that religion purports to give its adherents. He stated that the reason many people cling to religion is the illusory comfort it gives them, which is sad, because science is so much more beautiful and powerful, once you get to know it, than anything religion ever offers or could offer. It also has the virtue, unlike religion, of being true.

EvenBob mentioned Velikovsky as one of Sagan's opponents. Velikovsky wrote several best-selling books based on his theory that other planets had collided with earth in the relatively recent past (enough to affect human history). This, of course, was nonsense, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and Sagan came out in opposition to it. Velikovsky was either a fraud or a nut (possibly both), but he did capture the popular imagination for a while, before he and his books disappeared back down the rabbit hole.

I'm not sure if you grasp how arrogant it is to say things like, "many who dislike/oppose Sagan were religious believers who cling to it for illusory comfort, and science is so much more beautiful and powerful, if you would only get to know it," but it is arrogant and presumptive in the extreme. It sounds a lot like the 21st century version of some 16th century religious thinking. Can't you imagine some pompous archbishop saying something like, "many who dislike/oppose God were scientific escapists who don't like accountability and judgment and conscience and so look for alternate explanations for our existence. Since God created science, he is so much more beautiful and powerful, if they would only get to know him."

The reasons why that's true (not just that I think it), I went over in great detail in the past threads that dealt with the "think" vs. "feel" parts of the human existence, so there's no need to go back over it or have that discussion again.

Having been surrounded by people far more brilliant than myself (and me being no idiot), I can tell you that there is no consensus in the existence or non-existence of God in that group. There's a lot more consensus on political party than the existence of God.

In other words, intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong. I think Sagan said that. So, some big fraction of my friends in academia are ... um ... dead wrong. Why is it automatically those that believe in a God?

If the answer is something like, "there's no God and only ridiculous, clinging idiots think there is," I don't guess there's reason to go further. Whatever these people are, they're not idiots. You are fooling yourself. To be intellectually honest, you'd have to conclude that belief or non-belief in God is not related to intellect. Which a) was my main point in the former thread, and b) means that statements like the one you make are arrogant and presumptive in the extreme.

Thank you, Sir Soccer! In order for one to lead a selfish lifestyle, be it a gambler or GBLT, one must, by definition, hate God. It's a matter of choice. King David said it best; "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' "

Quote: DeMango

Thank you, Sir Soccer! In order for one to lead a selfish lifestyle, be it a gambler or GBLT, one must, by definition, hate God. It's a matter of choice. King David said it best; "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' "

Wow, what a completely asinine argument. It implies that there is no way to be a virtuous person, or an unselfish one, without belief in God.

I personally don't hate God, for the same reason I don't hate Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or The Wicked Witch of the West; they don't exist.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I'm not sure if you grasp how arrogant it is to say things like, "many who dislike/oppose Sagan were religious believers who cling to it for illusory comfort, and science is so much more beautiful and powerful, if you would only get to know it," but it is arrogant and presumptive in the extreme.

If the answer is something like, "there's no God and only ridiculous, clinging idiots think there is," I don't guess there's reason to go further. Whatever these people are, they're not idiots. You are fooling yourself. To be intellectually honest, you'd have to conclude that belief or non-belief in God is not related to intellect. Which a) was my main point in the former thread, and b) means that statements like the one you make are arrogant and presumptive in the extreme.

I'm not sure if you grasp how arrogant it is to say things like, "There is an invisible being in the sky who knows everything, controls our every action, and can tell the future", especially when followed by "I/we have a direct conduit to this being, and you had better obey me/us, or you will suffer torment and anguish for all eternity".

The burden of proof is on those who purport the existence of such a fantastical being. To be skeptical, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF, about this being's existence is simple rationality, not "arrogance".

I partially agree with your latter statement--belief in God is indeed not related to intellect. In fact, it is related to the SUBVERSION of intellect. Think of what criteria you apply to decide whether something is or is not real. Do you apply those criteria to God as well? If you did, you couldn't make any reasonable case for God's existence. Conversely, non-belief in God is indeed related to intellect, because it relates to a refusal to believe something is true just because it may make you feel good to do so. It might very well be fun and comforting to believe in God--that's why the concept has such worldwide appeal. But that fun and comfort is, by itself, no justification to believe in something.

As Ronald Reagan would say; "There you go again..." Subversion of intellect? When many scientists agree that there can be no creation without a Creator, you are calling them stupid and subverted?? You better hope you never die and.... Oh that's where that Pascal fella had a few insights! Let's not leave the Wizard out of this either. He needs Jesus to come down and walk across his pool. This is where you lose your free will right? Atheists need to reexamine their position, they have no hope.

What an insane thread. All I asked was a simple question to the wizard and somehow it turned into a religious holy war between (as always) believers and non believers.

Crazy

Quote: mkl654321

I'm not sure if you grasp how arrogant it is to say things like, "There is an invisible being in the sky who knows everything, controls our every action, and can tell the future", especially when followed by "I/we have a direct conduit to this being, and you had better obey me/us, or you will suffer torment and anguish for all eternity".

I think I do, and I gave an example. It's arrogant both ways.

Quote: mkl654321

The burden of proof is on those who purport the existence of such a fantastical being. To be skeptical, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF, about this being's existence is simple rationality, not "arrogance".

No. The burden of proof is on those who purport the absence of any proof.

Not really, but it's not the same question as, say, prove this person murdered somebody. Both sides take what they see in front of them as proof of the existence or absence of God.

Quote: mkl654321

I partially agree with your latter statement--belief in God is indeed not related to intellect. In fact, it is related to the SUBVERSION of intellect. Think of what criteria you apply to decide whether something is or is not real. Do you apply those criteria to God as well? If you did, you couldn't make any reasonable case for God's existence. Conversely, non-belief in God is indeed related to intellect, because it relates to a refusal to believe something is true just because it may make you feel good to do so. It might very well be fun and comforting to believe in God--that's why the concept has such worldwide appeal. But that fun and comfort is, by itself, no justification to believe in something.

You don't really believe this, and I'll show you how.

Einstein >>> Sagan. Einstein believed in God. Sagan didn't. Therefore, Sagan was wrong.

I know you don't believe that logic. And since you don't, you can't believe that belief is subversion of intellect. There's no argument you can offer that can't simply have the word "science" replaced by "religion" and vice versa, and it still makes sense (to the open-minded). This same debate has existed throughout the ages with the same reasoning and the same rhetoric. It won't be resolved in this lifetime. You and I do not have superior knowledge and wisdom to everyone who ever lived before us.

It's a circular argument that can't be solved by intellect or science (since it depends solely on intellect) alone. It has to be resolved in the "feel".

I would add that "related to intellect" and "refusal to believe" are not compatible. It's not intellectual to flatly refuse to believe something. The flat earth people taught us that. Once something is known (round earth, Santa Claus, etc.), belief doesn't enter into things any more. That goes back to, it's on you to prove God doesn't exist. Neither you nor any of the kazillion people smarter than you over the ages has ever done so. All they've offered is similar rhetoric: "God MUST NOT exist because no one has proven differently." Dont' you see that it's the same rhetoric? "God MUST exist because no one has proven differently." And you say your "nyah nyah nyah" is prima facie better? I don't think so.

I think there is a core need in you to rely on intellect as an excuse for closing your mind to the existence of a God. You've created some defenses but they just don't hold up. I wish you would just be honest about why you don't want to believe and not hide behind all this "non-belief = intellectualism" crap. It would make far more sense to me if you just said, "I don't believe because my parents went to church and they were assholes" or "Robert Tilton and other televangelists are crooks" or "I don't think I'm a bad person so judgment doesn't make sense to me."