It is currently Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:36 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:15 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2548
Physics Guy wrote:

The fact that many famous smart people have had faith doesn't prove that God exists but it does prove that there must exist reasonable definitions of "faith", "reason", and "compatible" under which faith and reason are compatible. Otherwise those famous smart people would all have to have been too stupid to notice a trivial contradiction.

So one can dispute about which kinds of definition are most useful or reasonable or whatever, but to insist that "the" definitions make faith and reason incompatible is just dumb.


and there are smart people that believe in the Annabelle Doll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0jD-sVYo8w

I am sure you have good reasons to believe in some kind of god or gods, but isn't agnosticism better? Why bother with faith?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:39 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 7379
‘Belief in God’ though isn’t where it stops. Because we’ve yet to agree on what ‘God’ refers to. People have faith in something that they’ve labelled ‘God’ and it can be a label that covers a very broad spectrum - from money, to the sun, to Xanu, Zeus, Voodoo, etc etc. It would be more accurate to say people have faith that there’s something other than our reality at play. Faith that ‘the truth is out there’...<cue X-Files music>

And Shermer is bang on when he declares his agnosticism thus “I don’t know, and you don’t either.” If people were intellectually honest, everyone would accept that his position is the only position on the subject of “something other than our reality” (or “God” if you prefer).

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:24 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10478
Location: Multiverse
I understand that Shermer didn't do that well debating the loon Graham Hancock. Shermer is bright but underestimates the deviousness of his opponents, IMO. We're far beyond Gish gallops now.

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:43 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10478
Location: Multiverse
Watch for Jordan Peterson moves.

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:29 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2548
Maksutov wrote:
I understand that Shermer didn't do that well debating the loon Graham Hancock. Shermer is bright but underestimates the deviousness of his opponents, IMO. We're far beyond Gish gallops now.


Yes I know. Hopefully Shermer doesn't underestimate Peterson.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:31 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2548
Maksutov wrote:
Watch for Jordan Peterson moves.


LOL the Petersons like crazy mental gymnastics.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:17 am 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 428
I have a question wrote:
Shermer is bang on when he declares his agnosticism thus “I don’t know, and you don’t either.” If people were intellectually honest, everyone would accept that his position is the only position on the subject of “something other than our reality” (or “God” if you prefer).


Absolutely. In fact "know" is a tricky thing to explain in any case. It's one of the big questions in philosophy. I can't claim to be absolutely certain of very many things, even things that I would normally say that I don't doubt at all. There's always some small chance that I'm just a brain in a jar being fed simulations by somebody, and in that case everything that I now think is true could change completely in the next instant, and none of it would ever have really been what I thought it was. I'm not even sure I quite believe Descartes "I think, therefore I am". It sounds convincing, but is it really airtight? I'm not sure.

For practical purposes, however, there are many things that it's well worth assuming. Even though I acknowledge a small chance that I'm a brain in a jar, I never really take this possibility seriously in any way, and I think I'm smart not to do so. I never take seriously the possibility that the sun won't come up tomorrow. For professional reasons I'm even pretty locked into the assumptions that quantum field theory and general relativity must be good approximations to the theory of everything within the regimes that we've explored until now. I rarely even consider alternative hypotheses and I never take them seriously.

Faith is not about kidding yourself that you know things for certain. It's about not taking alternative possibilities seriously. When and why exactly is it a good idea to stop taking a possibility seriously? That's not easy to say even when the practical choice seems obvious, as it does for possibilities like the brain-in-jar scenario, or gravity suddenly disappearing. When and why should one ever stop taking seriously the possibility of the non-existence of God? That's certainly harder to justify.

My point is just that the issue is not the trivial one about not having absolute certainty about God. Of course nobody has that. But that isn't the point.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 3674
Physics Guy wrote:


Faith is not about kidding yourself that you know things for certain. It's about not taking alternative possibilities seriously. When and why exactly is it a good idea to stop taking a possibility seriously? That's not easy to say even when the practical choice seems obvious, as it does for possibilities like the brain-in-jar scenario, or gravity suddenly disappearing. When and why should one ever stop taking seriously the possibility of the non-existence of God? That's certainly harder to justify.

My point is just that the issue is not the trivial one about not having absolute certainty about God. Of course nobody has that. But that isn't the point.

Physics Guy, I thought you made good points in your post. Any comments about faith run into the problem that the word faith has a spread of meanings. I see a point to the way you used it here. I on the other hand do not think faith in God involves not taking seriously the possibility of Gods Non existence. I think instead that faith is being true to, acting in accordance with, your best awareness of God.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 4145
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Just wanted to note that for the price of admission for you and a guest to see Prof. Peterson, you could instead stay two nights at the Bellagio in an 853 sq.ft. suite, with a complimentary $150 food/beverage credit, and still have a little cash left over.

_________________
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 12:18 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2548
Physics Guy wrote:
Faith is not about kidding yourself that you know things for certain. It's about not taking alternative possibilities seriously. When and why exactly is it a good idea to stop taking a possibility seriously? That's not easy to say even when the practical choice seems obvious, as it does for possibilities like the brain-in-jar scenario, or gravity suddenly disappearing. When and why should one ever stop taking seriously the possibility of the non-existence of God? That's certainly harder to justify.


Are you comparing a brain-in-jar with "the non-existence of God"? Listen, the most honest answer is that we really don't know. Sure it is possible we are a brain-in-a-jar, but the number of possibilities are endless. God is just one of the many possibilities out-there. We should simply use Occam's razor to not go insane.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:56 pm 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 428
I compared them in the sense that I mentioned them both as examples of cases that no-one can entirely rule out. The point is only that "we can't know" doesn't weigh heavily against God because we can't really know much of anything. You've got to go beyond the easy win of "can't know" to show that it's somehow quite unreasonable to assume God. That's not as easy.

Defining a measure on the set of possibilities is a bit of a challenge. Most of logic is designed around bits, with countable sets of propositions to be labeled true or false, but the set of possibilities is clearly uncountable. Heck, there's probably a surprisingly good ontological argument for God to be made from the notion that there are lots more ways for a God to exist than for no God to exist, because there's only one way for nothing to be nothing but there are lots of possible variants of God. I don't alike that kind of argument myself, but if you really want to argue about God, you have to deal with all kinds of tedious stuff. Even idiotic arguments can be hard to refute. Bertrand Russell himself famously spent a day being convinced that Anselm's ontological argument was valid.

I don't think God is only one possibility among many. There could be this kind of God or that kind of God. God is a large range of possibilities. How large, in comparison to the range of other possibilities, is something I don't think anyone can say.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:11 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 2548
Physics Guy wrote:
I compared them in the sense that I mentioned them both as examples of cases that no-one can entirely rule out. The point is only that "we can't know" doesn't weigh heavily against God because we can't really know much of anything. You've got to go beyond the easy win of "can't know" to show that it's somehow quite unreasonable to assume God. That's not as easy.


It is "we don't know". It is very hard to prove that faith in God is unreasonable. How do you define God? I myself think it is likely that god-like extraterrestrials exists somewhere in the universe. I can't prove faith is unreasonable, but I can show that faith is unnecessary.

Physics Guy wrote:
Heck, there's probably a surprisingly good ontological argument for God to be made from the notion that there are lots more ways for a God to exist than for no God to exist


If God doesn't exists we will never know it. It is impossible to prove that God doesn't exists.

Physics Guy wrote:
I don't think God is only one possibility among many. There could be this kind of God or that kind of God. God is a large range of possibilities. How large, in comparison to the range of other possibilities, is something I don't think anyone can say.


Sure God can be technology. Isn't it better to believe in Cryonics than it is to believe in some God who is going to raise you from the grave?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:48 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 3674
Maksutov wrote:
Watch for Jordan Peterson moves.


Maksutov,
I find myself clueless as to the intended meaning here. I know who both Jordan and Daniel are but am not much helped by that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:18 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10478
Location: Multiverse
huckelberry wrote:
Maksutov wrote:
Watch for Jordan Peterson moves.


Maksutov,
I find myself clueless as to the intended meaning here. I know who both Jordan and Daniel are but am not much helped by that.


Broad attacks on secularism.

https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/artic ... chologist/

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:28 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 892
If you are a brain in a jar, that changes nothing, really. The known universe collapses into that point theoretically but it is still as big as your brain. The other debaters are still subject to those rules in your brain, as are you. Whatever you know as a brain in a jar is all you have to argue unless someone can established extra-jar information .


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:51 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 892
Philo Sofee wrote:
The debate won't be about God, but about the utility and importance of faith, a much easier topic for a religion to debate. I do hope that Peterson will bring up what he considers the very best arguments and reasons why his views are more correct than a skeptics, so that Shermer can then show what it is that keeps him skeptical. If there really was evidence, skeptics wouldn't have reasons for being such. I hope it's a good discussion.


Interesting.

I would be interested to see how they agree on the definitions of faith and reason. What is faith?


Last edited by Meadowchik on Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:54 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12466
Physics Guy wrote:
Faith is not about kidding yourself that you know things for certain. It's about not taking alternative possibilities seriously. When and why exactly is it a good idea to stop taking a possibility seriously? That's not easy to say even when the practical choice seems obvious, as it does for possibilities like the brain-in-jar scenario, or gravity suddenly disappearing. When and why should one ever stop taking seriously the possibility of the non-existence of God? That's certainly harder to justify.

My point is just that the issue is not the trivial one about not having absolute certainty about God. Of course nobody has that. But that isn't the point.


The possibility of God is much closer to the possibility of a brain in a jar then gravity suddenly disappearing. Faith in God/s being reasonable seems to need faith to be defined as well as God. If faith is just believing in some general creator and one just goes on with living life I could see a good argument for that faith being reasonable. If Faith means giving up 10% or more of your income and 10+ hours a weeks doing things you may not enjoy that much, then that faith needs a lot of evidence to be reasonable.

Religions define many Gods. LDS God has so much evidence against it is unreasonable to have faith in that God. I would suggest the Christian God is in better shape then the LDS God, but not by much. Even with the more vague concept of God/s why should I even have faith that God exists? I can't think highly of an entity that will require blind faith in them. It seems from what I know about the world that any faith more then just believing God exist's and living as though God doesn't exist is unreasonable. Of course another problem may be how we define reasonable. :confused:

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4243
Location: Firmly on this earth
Quote:
Themis
LDS God has so much evidence against it is unreasonable to have faith in that God. I would suggest the Christian God is in better shape then the LDS God, but not by much.


I honestly don't see any difference that makes either one better than the other. Zeus has as much of a chance as either of these two, and I see literally nothing in favor of Zeus being physically existing as real.

_________________
"Being and nonbeing arise mutually. Thus not to see the unity of self and other is the fear of life, and not to see the unity of being and nonbeing is the fear of death." Alan Watts

"The problem is most religions proceed to try and explain the truth and then insist that you agree with their explanation." Brad Warner


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:58 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12466
Philo Sofee wrote:
Quote:
Themis
LDS God has so much evidence against it is unreasonable to have faith in that God. I would suggest the Christian God is in better shape then the LDS God, but not by much.


I honestly don't see any difference that makes either one better than the other. Zeus has as much of a chance as either of these two, and I see literally nothing in favor of Zeus being physically existing as real.


The Christian God does better only because the LDS God Joseph created has so much evidence against. The Christian God has less evidence against due to most claims and events happening thousands of years ago and they define God a little more vaguely.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4243
Location: Firmly on this earth
Quote:
Themis
The Christian God has less evidence against due to most claims and events happening thousands of years ago and they define God a little more vaguely.


If neither has any evidence for, no matter what time periods we are looking at, then they both have the same quality of weakness, so far as I can tell, nothing in favor. That is all I see. They are both simply human projections. Funny, when I was into reading all about "God" I discovered this is true of every proposed deity!

_________________
"Being and nonbeing arise mutually. Thus not to see the unity of self and other is the fear of life, and not to see the unity of being and nonbeing is the fear of death." Alan Watts

"The problem is most religions proceed to try and explain the truth and then insist that you agree with their explanation." Brad Warner


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Daniel C. Peterson to Debate Michael Shermer on Faith
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:13 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12466
Philo Sofee wrote:
Quote:
Themis
The Christian God has less evidence against due to most claims and events happening thousands of years ago and they define God a little more vaguely.


If neither has any evidence for, no matter what time periods we are looking at, then they both have the same quality of weakness, so far as I can tell, nothing in favor. That is all I see. They are both simply human projections. Funny, when I was into reading all about "God" I discovered this is true of every proposed deity!


As far as a lack of evidence I would agree, but the LDS God has quite a bit against it's existence. LDS God is very dependent on Joseph's claims being true and we know of no good evidence in favor of the LDS God, but lots against like the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: esodije, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group