Something I think bares reading.

[Boozy]

I have two thoughts on the placebo effect. First, it is evidence of the mind's control over the body that someone can, effectively, will themselves to be healed of certain conditions. Second, in pharmaceutical studies, the placebo effect becomes a false positive, which is exactly why new medicines must be shown to be more effective than a placebo. It is things like the placebo effect that make scientists test and retest scientific findings to make sure that the findings are accurate.

Right.

But I think you missed my point. Which was that sometimes, misplaced faith can still be a good thing.

[Gravekeeper]

I have been quite clear, over several posts, to state that the definition of faith that I'm using is "a belief not based on evidence." This is not solely found in Christianity. If you think that there is a better definition for faith, or that it's better used in some other religion, pleas explain.

So you do understand the proper definition, yet can't understand how that may have helped science forward over the centuries? How many scientific discovers would have gone undiscovered had we not had some faith that they were true without any evidence? Hell I can think of one extremely major one just in the last couple years: Exoplanets. We had no evidence and no way of detecting them. They were, scienfitically speaking, considered to be the fairy tale of a mad man. The one guy that had faith they existed and that we could detect them had no evidence whatsoever to convince his colleuges. He was treated like a pariah and basically considered to be a lunatic for years by the rest of the scientific community.

But he kept on and finally proved it.

How? How does believing something that is not true or has not been demonstrated to be true help advance civilization?

Art, poetry, music, literature, architecture, monuments, wonders of the world. Do you have any idea how sterile and boring civilization would be had we not believed in things that weren't true?

Besides, don't theists live longer than atheists? Even mere faith is ironically beneficial to health and mental well being. -.-

[Mytical]

Don't mind me, just passing through.

Besides, people do something every day..that can not be proven, but even the most cynical have a hard time not believing in. Its a little thing called love. Impossible to prove. So...are you advocating we should all just give up on love? I mean..it is something that can not be proven. *shrugs and waves*. Another random thought brought to you by Mytical. When it absolutely has to be random, trust the Mytical brand.

Edit : For that point, any emotion. Anger, sadness. It's impossible to prove we experience them to anybody but ourselves. So they don't exist and should just be ignored..right?

[FArchivist]

I must admit your subjective reality is occasionally dark, but certainly entertaining.

I have a reputation IRL for being the most cynical person anyone knows.

Meaning is important, but squabbling over the definition of a single term rather than discussing the point at hand is unproductive.

I must disagree. There is an article from one of my old psychology classes about critical thinking that I should post sometime, but one of the seven guidelines for critical thinking is:

2. Define Your Terms: Precision is very important in science. We all use language differently and what one person understands a concept such as anxiety to be may be different in important ways from another's understanding. When studying a particular phenomenon we must take pains to carefully and precisely define and specify exactly what we mean.

This applies equally to all disciplines.

To understand the true nature of the universe is to know madness?

I would say "Probably." Our minds are not designed for conceptualizing infinity.

That would so not be good karma. Though possibly you might gain his power via the Quickening.

Ha! No, the "Kill the Buddha if you meet him on the road." is a Zen koan. To quote Wikipedia: "Thinking about Buddha is delusion, not awakening. One must destroy preconceptions of the Buddha. Zen master Shunryu Suzuki wrote in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind during an introduction to Zazen, "Kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else. Kill the Buddha, because you should resume your own Buddha nature.""

I like hacker koans a little better. Like this one:

In the days when the Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
"What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe", Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Please seek professional help.

Well, that wasn't patronizing, now was it! <sarcasm mode off> Sorry, but professional psychiatric help is not required. I have successfully gone through psychiatric testing and it has been determined that my constant anxiety and hot reactor symptoms are all totally physiological in nature and that I'm absolutely, totally sane. At least, so far as the DSM-IV can see.

I don't see a Universal Meaning, either. Therefore, our lives have the meaning we give them. It doesn't matter whether our words and actions will be remembered 5000 years from now. What matters is that our words and actions have a real effect on those around us right now.

Which is a false meaning as it is impermanent and ephemeral and the universe doesn't give two craps about how you treat other people. 'Giving my own life meaning' is just the creation of an artificial construct. I place no value on artificial things.

Any religion that has a temple or other meeting place needs to collect donations in order to keep it up and running. Any religion that doesn't encourage its followers to either breed or recruit more followers isn't going to last long. And no religion that includes any sort of afterlife has been able to demonstrate (or prove, if you prefer) that the afterlife exists, otherwise it would be fact, not belief.

Since several Eastern religions DON'T require temples or meeting places, donations are not an issue.
Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Shintoism are the ones off the top of my head that have no need of recruiting whatsoever and don't.
And again, that's the point about belief: A belief does NOT require proving as a fact! That's WHY it's a belief!

Depending on who is sitting around the dinner table, I agree. One important aspect of humor is to know your audience.

My etiquette is based on the fact that it's the dinner table, not who sits there. This is the Table. These are the rules of the Table. All who sit at it will Obey.

If a god exists, its existence should be able to be proven by science.

Why?
As in, why does a belief need to be a fact?

I never said anyone's beliefs could be demonstrated. I said that claims (such as the existence of something) should be demonstrated to be true before anyone accepts them as true.

...then there's no such thing as belief. Or faith. Your definition of why a belief that claims a sky fairy exists needs to demonstrate it makes it Not A Belief. You want to turn all such belief into theories according to scientific method.

You seem to forget that one of the definitions of belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". And yes, demonstration is rigorous proof.

Besides, which you DID make claims. I'll focus on one to make it easy.

You CLAIMED that all life is sacred. So please demonstrate why.

[FArchivist]

On the other hand, if one's God answers prayers, for example, it interacts with the universe, and should be detectable using the scientific method. The fact that such claims have been tested and found to be lacking evidence shows that claims of a God that interacts with humans are false.

Heh, that argument has been dealt with several times by Jesuits. Since one of the tenets of faith is that God is omnipotent, God can interact with humans with methods that are not traceable by any instrument that we can develop. That's part of the omnipotence thing - the power to do anything, including interact without scientific detection.

This response to that from the atheist convention is usually the "Well, then can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift? Huh?"

The Jesuits then smile serenely and respond "Certainly He can. After all, He is omnipotent and so can contravene any natural law He chooses, including His Own. But would He? That we cannot know, as no man may know the entirety of the mind of God."

I, on the other hand, value the truth of a claim above all else. In my view, if a claim cannot be demonstrated to true, it doesn't matter how good it makes one feel.

To which I respond, "What is truth?" Fact is absolute. Truth is relative.

Faith in oneself (confidence or trust) is not the same as faith in something supernatural (belief not based on evidence).

According the guidelines for critical thinking in scientific thinking, confidence and trust ARE the same thing. Confidence and trust in yourself indicates bias, which interferes with objectivity. Same with intuition and 'common sense'.

[Ghel]

Right.

But I think you missed my point. Which was that sometimes, misplaced faith can still be a good thing.

I can see that in some few cases (the exception, not the rule) that it might be beneficial to the individual to believe something that isn't true. But as with the example of placebos, how much more damaging to the individual will it be if or when they find out that their faith is misplaced?

So you do understand the proper definition, yet can't understand how that may have helped science forward over the centuries? How many scientific discovers would have gone undiscovered had we not had some faith that they were true without any evidence?

It looks to me like you're using the exact same definition I was. The only other definition that might apply here is "confidence or trust in a person or thing," but that definition applies with or without evidence.

Hell I can think of one extremely major one just in the last couple years: Exoplanets. We had no evidence and no way of detecting them. They were, scienfitically speaking, considered to be the fairy tale of a mad man. The one guy that had faith they existed and that we could detect them had no evidence whatsoever to convince his colleuges. He was treated like a pariah and basically considered to be a lunatic for years by the rest of the scientific community.

But he kept on and finally proved it.

Really? Which mad man? Wikipedia's entry for extrasolar planets describes scientists looking for extrasolar planets since the 16th century. Confirmed discoveries started in 1988 by a group of astronomers. No mention of someone who spent his life trying to find them and was later vindicated.

Still, in the situation you describe, it doesn't matter how much faith he had that he would eventually find them, there would be no reason for anyone to agree with the madman until he found evidence for exoplanets and the evidence had been reviewed by other scientists.

Art, poetry, music, literature, architecture, monuments, wonders of the world. Do you have any idea how sterile and boring civilization would be had we not believed in things that weren't true?

Atheists can make works of art, music, literature, etc. Atheists can also appreciate art. I can enjoy Handel's Messiah even though I don't believe in the Christian God. I can appreciate Da Vinci's The Last Supper, even though I don't think it ever happened. Berke Breathed, Douglas Adams, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Edgar Allen Poe, Samuel Clemens, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Gene Roddenberry, J. Michael Straczynski, Christopher Eccleston, and Penn & Teller are (or were) all non-believers. Some of them are out-and-out atheists. Certainly the world is not sterile and boring because of their works.

Besides, don't theists live longer than atheists? Even mere faith is ironically beneficial to health and mental well being. -.-

There hasn't been a conclusive study on this. You would have to find a way to control for economic and geographical disparities and then you'd still have a host of other variables, including genetic factors. And then you'd have to figure out which brand of theism was the most beneficial to health and well being. And even then, it wouldn't tell you if that brand of theism was true.

Besides, people do something every day..that can not be proven, but even the most cynical have a hard time not believing in. Its a little thing called love. Impossible to prove.

Seriously? Love is an emotion. Emotions have a real, physical effect on the person's body. It's very easy to demonstrate. Compare that with demonstrating the existence of something supernatural, say a god, and they're not only not in the same ballpark, they're not even playing the same game.

Which is a false meaning as it is impermanent and ephemeral and the universe doesn't give two craps about how you treat other people.

Obviously. The universe doesn't care about anything. It isn't conscious. If you think it is, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is conscious.

My etiquette is based on the fact that it's the dinner table, not who sits there. This is the Table. These are the rules of the Table. All who sit at it will Obey.

LOL. I'd be willing to bet that you don't get many dinner guests.

Why?
As in, why does a belief need to be a fact?

Not all do. However, theists frequently make the claim "god exists" as if it were fact. At that point, it moves into the realm of the testable.

You CLAIMED that all life is sacred. So please demonstrate why.

I also said my beliefs were tentative. Since I posted that, I have realized that I don't hold all life to be sacred. After all, I'm perfectly willing to kill insects, rodents, bacteria, viruses, and other pests. I'm also willing to have an animal or plant killed for my dinner. I'm willing to pull weeds out of my garden. So that bit can be stricken from my list of beliefs, and if I were to state them again I would leave that part out.

Heh, that argument has been dealt with several times by Jesuits. Since one of the tenets of faith is that God is omnipotent, God can interact with humans with methods that are not traceable by any instrument that we can develop. That's part of the omnipotence thing - the power to do anything, including interact without scientific detection.

If God is good, why does he let people suffer? If God answers prayers, why won't he heal amputees?

To which I respond, "What is truth?" Fact is absolute. Truth is relative.

No, truth and fact are interchangeable. They both mean the same thing. I know that some philosophical systems, including some religions, try to use truth differently, such as "it's true for me," but that doesn't make it a correct usage.

[KnitShoni]

Atheists can make works of art, music, literature, etc. Atheists can also appreciate art. I can enjoy Handel's Messiah even though I don't believe in the Christian God. I can appreciate Da Vinci's The Last Supper, even though I don't think it ever happened. Berke Breathed, Douglas Adams, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Edgar Allen Poe, Samuel Clemens, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Gene Roddenberry, J. Michael Straczynski, Christopher Eccleston, and Penn & Teller are (or were) all non-believers. Some of them are out-and-out atheists. Certainly the world is not sterile and boring because of their works.

I don't think he was talking about a belief in a "higher power" here. I think the point was that most of the advances made over the course of history were made when there was no proof these things could be done. He never said people HAD to believe in a deity or even be spiritual for them to occur.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't think anyone has tried to argue that atheists CAN'T make works of art, literature, etc.

[Ghel]

I don't think he was talking about a belief in a "higher power" here. I think the point was that most of the advances made over the course of history were made when there was no proof these things could be done. He never said people HAD to believe in a deity or even be spiritual for them to occur.

The statement was:

Art, poetry, music, literature, architecture, monuments, wonders of the world. Do you have any idea how sterile and boring civilization would be had we not believed in things that weren't true?

I don't know how to interpret that other than that GK thinks there would be no human advancement without myth, legend, and superstition.

It would be something completely different to say "Do you have any idea how sterile and boring civilization would be had we not imagined anything?" or "had we not dreamed of what might be possible?" Believing something that's untrue is a different realm from imagining what might be possible.

[Gravekeeper]

The statement was:
I don't know how to interpret that other than that GK thinks there would be no human advancement without myth, legend, and superstition.

To the extreme, as always? I didn't say "no advancement". I said there is so much to our culture, history and even science that is due primarily to believing things that we know now aren't real or having faith in things we cannot or could not prove at the time. All of our stories, legends and folklore. Our ancient wonders. Many were the result of faith and belief. I think it would have turned out a tad more boring if it had been the other way around and no one believed in anything.

Believing in things that weren't real or couldn't be proven has led to a great deal for society, culture and ironically even our health. Even from an evolutionary standpoint, atheism is technically kind of a dead end weirdly enough. Low "recruitment" to begin with and theists tend to live longer, have more children and cope better with life due to better support systems and a belief that there's something out there looking out for them. Even if it is a delusion. Because of mind > matter.

Believing something that's untrue is a different realm from imagining what might be possible.

Imagining what might be possible can lead us into believing in something even if it was proven untrue at a later date. They are not different realms. They're quite intertwined, really. Part of what we do with our imaginations is try to fill in the blanks of that which we do not yet understand.

I mean really, which is more fun to have in our past? "Pfft, thunder" or "HOLY SHIT ITS ZEUS"? I perfer the Zeus option.

[Mytical]

Really? Prove to me love exists. Go ahead. I'll wait. Further prove that you can feel any emotion at all. I've got nothing but time.

[Ghel]

I said there is so much to our culture, history and even science that is due primarily to believing things that we know now aren't real or having faith in things we cannot or could not prove at the time. All of our stories, legends and folklore. Our ancient wonders. Many were the result of faith and belief. I think it would have turned out a tad more boring if it had been the other way around and no one believed in anything.

Would you say that it was better for ancient people to believe the gods were angry with them rather than figuring out why a volcano erupts and how to predict when it will erupt? I'll give you "a tad more boring," but I'd rather things were more boring, and fewer people suffered and died because people believed in things that were untrue. For example, humors for curing disease as opposed to germ theory.

Stories, folklore, and ancient wonders have nothing to do with faith (in the "despite the lack of evidence" sense). Of your current list, only legends have anything to do with faith (well, some legends) - they're religions in which no one believes any longer.

Believing in things that weren't real or couldn't be proven has led to a great deal for society, culture and ironically even our health. Even from an evolutionary standpoint, atheism is technically kind of a dead end weirdly enough. Low "recruitment" to begin with and theists tend to live longer, have more children and cope better with life due to better support systems and a belief that there's something out there looking out for them. Even if it is a delusion. Because of mind > matter.

Normally, I would ask you to demonstrate all this, but it doesn't matter. Even if everything you say in this paragraph were true, it still wouldn't tell us if the beliefs in question were true. The only way to determine if beliefs are true is to use science.

I mean really, which is more fun to have in our past? "Pfft, thunder" or "HOLY SHIT ITS ZEUS"? I perfer the Zeus option.

First off, you've got a false dichotomy there. There's far more options than "meh" and "Goddidit."

You make it sound like scientists have no sense of wonder, or that once science has explained something that it's no longer amazing. Figuring out how natural phenomena work makes them that much more amazing, in my eyes.

The fact that you prefer the Zeus option says a lot about how little you value truth and knowledge.

Prove to me love exists.

All it would take is an MRI showing the difference in brain activity from thinking about a random person to thinking about one's spouse. I've seen videos of MRIs (though I can't find them right now) showing the effect strong emotions have on the brain. (You did say any emotion, before.)

And we don't have to go that far, really. We can see the effect emotions have on people. It's absurd to try to say emotions have any comparison to the subject of someone's faith. Emotions have an effect on the real world. The supernatural does not. That is why it's called supernatural.

[Mytical]

According to you it doesn't affect the real world. As for MRI's, proving somebody has different thoughts about different people =/= proof of things like love, fear, etc.

As for the 'physical' aspect of emotions, there are more logical explanations. Flight or fight responses can explain flushing of the face for fear/anger. In fact there is another logical explanation for any physical reaction for any so called emotion. People can claim they have an emotion all they wish, proving it is another matter entirely.

[Gravekeeper]

Would you say that it was better for ancient people to believe the gods were angry with them rather than figuring out why a volcano erupts and how to predict when it will erupt? I'll give you "a tad more boring," but I'd rather things were more boring, and fewer people suffered and died because people believed in things that were untrue. For example, humors for curing disease as opposed to germ theory.

No, I would not say that and did not say that. I said it was more interesting this way. ;p

Stories, folklore, and ancient wonders have nothing to do with faith (in the "despite the lack of evidence" sense). Of your current list, only legends have anything to do with faith (well, some legends) - they're religions in which no one believes any longer.

They have everything to do with faith, they're things we believed in without evidence. That is the definition of faith. And considering there are wonders literally named after gods and goddesses. ;p

Even if everything you say in this paragraph were true, it still wouldn't tell us if the beliefs in question were true. The only way to determine if beliefs are true is to use science.

But thats not the argument I was making.

First off, you've got a false dichotomy there. There's far more options than "meh" and "Goddidit."

Actually, I had a joke there. But ok. =p

You make it sound like scientists have no sense of wonder, or that once science has explained something that it's no longer amazing. Figuring out how natural phenomena work makes them that much more amazing, in my eyes.

I said nothing of the sort, in fact my arguement was quite the opposite ( wonder drives wisdom ). So I'm not sure what you're on about, honestly.

The fact that you prefer the Zeus option says a lot about how little you value truth and knowledge.

Really? After this whole thread you're seriously going to make it personal and make a damning generalization of me, a complete stranger you've never met, based one sentence I typed on the internet?

I'm honestly dissappointed in you, Ghel.

[Ghel]

GK, it seems I owe you an apology. I honestly didn't see the joke. (I will admit that I tend to deconstruct jokes after I've laughed at them.) The statement about preferring the Zeus option did seem out of character for you, however.