(December 20, 2008 at 11:45 am)LukeMC Wrote: I'm seeing claims such as

Quote:'The most moving evidence for Christianity I have seen is when a person with a broken life puts their trust in the Lord Jesus and finds healing, peace and purpose.'

LukeMC Wrote:This isn't evidence for the truth of the belief, only the impact of it, delusional or not.

Yes. Very important point here. Utility doesn't make something true.
Evf

I don't really actually see the belief in god(s)/designer(s)/higher powers, whatever, as really an issue with intelligence or the intellectual feats of a person. While there may be some correlation here and there I think, in my opinion, it is more a matter of basic human psychology - loci of control, societal supporting/bonding, habituation, conditioning, cognitive dissonance, psychological reactance and so forth which play into the vague and often variable spiritual/religious schemata.

For instance, reactance can be seen when someone enters a debate on theism/atheism or creation/evolution and they end up (no matter how the debate went) claiming to have a firmer stand in their convictions or the often used, "it has made my faith/disbelief stronger". It is not a matter of "sides" or opposing beliefs or the like, it is a matter of human behavior. I'm not saying this is always the case but more often than not it is the rule rather than the exception. Cognitive dissonance can be see on either side of the coin - some have gone so far as to say theistic evolution is a product of the dissonance process - although I would see it as a bit more complicated than simply just that but would not disagree that it may play a role.

Dr. So and So is an eminent professor and distinguished theoretical/particle super physicist and a devout Christian - okay, good for him. Does his status in this context mean he is correct in the religion department? Not necessarily. Does it really prove anything? Not really.

Dr. So-So and So is an eminent professor and distinguished neurosurgeon and neurobiology researcher and is a devout atheist -okay, good for him. Does his status in this context mean he is correct in the religion department? Not necessarily. Does it really prove anything? Not really.

Solidsquid is a graduate student and part-time beer drinker and an agnostic atheist - okay, good for me....well, you get the idea.

Each side can claim, well this smart person was/is a Christian/Believes in God or whatever or this smart person is an atheist/agnostic or whatever. What this seems like is attempting to substantiate one side over another by appeal fallacy proxy. But I think it is an argumentative tool that results in a dead end and we get caught going in circles of "my group has more/better/cooler/smarter people than your group so we're most likely right".

But again, this is my opinion and I could just as easily be wrong in my own conclusions of fallacious in my own reasoning (everyone is biased in one way or another - even you too objectivists). This is not to say that debate/discussion is useless, it isn't because even if no conclusion is reached ever, the time spent on these various ideas is what makes us more well rounded and knowledgeable. It is not the reaching of the destination but the journey itself that is important.

Or I could just be full of crap...

(December 23, 2008 at 9:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Yes. Very important point here. Utility doesn't make something true.
Evf

Then what does make things true?

(December 24, 2008 at 7:53 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Then what does make things true?

As Morpheous asked; "How do you define reality?"

---

Excellent post solidsquid. The last line really brought it all together and reinforced the main point.

(December 24, 2008 at 7:53 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 23, 2008 at 9:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Yes. Very important point here. Utility doesn't make something true.
Evf

Then what does make things true?

Scientific evidence can make something to be as accepted as the best possible scientific explanation. About as close to 'truth' as you can get really I think. Not absolute truth...but then if truth only=absolute truth then when do you use the word truth?
The best scientific explanation is closer to the truth than just thinking something is true because its useful! If something consoles you or helps you in some way. That doesn't mean that it exists!
The more evidence of it and/or its truth the more likely it does exist and/or its true. I don't see how utility makes it, or would make it true. I don't really believe in known absolutes, or even absolutes. I dunno.
Evf

To back up what EvF just said, when I think about an invisible pink unicorn in my back garden, it makes me smile. And I'm not just talking a little smile, I fill up with glee. It is truly moving for me. However this has no baring on whether or not an invisible pink unicorn actually exists in my garden- despite the affect it has on my day-to-day life.

Yes. Good example. And I like Sam Harris' example of believing there is a diamond in the garden the size of a fridge too. Lol
Evf

It is not really the question PR asked though.

(December 24, 2008 at 9:24 am)leo-rcc Wrote: It is not really the question PR asked though.

I answered it above. I am not talking about absolute truth. I said the closest I think we have to truth is scientific truth.
Evf

In which case, isn't truth merely the agreement with facts and reality? If I saw a black shoe and said "this is a black shoe", my statement would be in agreement with the state of the object and therefore "true"? As apposed to calling it a white shoe, which is in direct contrast to reality. For a statement to be true, it must correspond with factual reality. If the statement is useful, "God exists", it may not necessarily correspond to actuality.

But I'm no expert.
EDIT* that is assuming that there is an objective reality which we are a part of. If not, my argument falls to pieces.