|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
On January 04 2013 13:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Okay, I'm liking it, though I'm forced to ask this question following the previous discussion concerning positivism: If the supernatural is by it's very nature undetectable via empiricism is it logical to use this line of reasoning?
That would imply that the supernatural gives zero information which makes it immediately vulnerable to Occam's Razor. Think about it: you are actually suggesting that there is no difference between the supernatural existing and the supernatural not existing.
The supernatural would be able to explain any possible outcome just as easily as any other, and therefore the supernatural gives zero information. Information has to shift the probability of outcomes.
|
I would agree that God contains no information
|
On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information
What does it mean to contain information?
|
On January 04 2013 14:18 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information What does it mean to contain information?
tells you about what possible world you are in
|
On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it?
Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.).
Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!).
I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to?
|
On January 04 2013 20:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it? Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.). Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!). I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to?
I don't think anyone who doesn't believe in God would say something like "You believe in gibberish, you fool" if the belief has a positive effect on him, unless of course that person is an Idiot which is independent of faith...
To get back on topic though - I think the main point (and if I understand you correctly you agree with me) is that there is no correlation between God/faith/however you may call it and the real world (meaning no influence on any actions in the real world) and in my opinion, the government should make laws in ways that positively affect the real world based on all the data/correlations that are known.
|
On January 04 2013 20:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it? Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.). Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!). I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to?
It's being discovered more and more nowadays that we have Bayesian Brains. Our Brain makes lots of shortcuts and extrapolates based on previous information about the world around us. You are acting as if Statistics has nothing to say about language, music, food, or socialization, when it's very much the opposite. How exactly do you think you figure out the connotations? Notice that my example works for any correlation. And it's been shown to work for literally all applications that we have put it to.
As to your thought experiment, we are not living in a world where the religious keep to themselves and don't mean any harm. That is not the situation we are in. We are in the situation where massive churches with tons of money have the power and influence to change the law to whatever bizarre will they want (like banning gay marriage, for example). I don't find your example intriguing, and coming up with examples that don't really matter is not an argument for belief.
And come on, the placebo effect is another example of statistics! You can't use statistics as an argument against itself!
On January 04 2013 14:18 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information What does it mean to contain information?
Anything that shifts your belief or probability of possible outcomes is information.
|
Severedevil:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:51 Reason wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Okay, I'm liking it, though I'm forced to ask this question following the previous discussion concerning positivism: If the supernatural is by it's very nature undetectable via empiricism is it logical to use this line of reasoning? Empiricism is applicable to all observable phenomena, no matter how indirectly they may be observed. To be beyond empiricism is to be beyond observation. Suppose an entity takes no action whatsoever, except that it contacts certain people's minds. In doing so, it alters the behavior of those humans, producing observable phenomena! Empiricism applies. Any effect the 'supernatural' has on humans, no matter how indirect, is a piece of data. Consequently, the only way the supernatural can be immune to empiricism is if the supernatural has no effect on observers at all.
Thanks, nice explanation.
DoubleReed:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 14:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:51 Reason wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Okay, I'm liking it, though I'm forced to ask this question following the previous discussion concerning positivism: If the supernatural is by it's very nature undetectable via empiricism is it logical to use this line of reasoning? That would imply that the supernatural gives zero information which makes it immediately vulnerable to Occam's Razor. Think about it: you are actually suggesting that there is no difference between the supernatural existing and the supernatural not existing. The supernatural would be able to explain any possible outcome just as easily as any other, and therefore the supernatural gives zero information. Information has to shift the probability of outcomes.
You're right, just because something is beyond the understanding of science doesn't necessarily mean that it has no effect on the world. If it really has no effect on anything ever then it might as well not exist so lack of evidence does apply here.
Samzdat:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 11:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science?
Ah now you're on to something :D A+ welcome to my life  I don't think you have to do "majority rules" but I'm not really in a position to put forth my own ethical theory, I just want to show people that they don't actually know what they think they know. When I say "useless" I just mean if you decide "there's no way to judge things" then you can't get anywhere useful. So you try to come up with something that IS useful, but it's really hard and you turn all cranky and angry like me when you try. edit: and you try to avoid talking to people who say things like "some people say the bible proves that the bible is true, and idk man what can you do??" edit: rejecting positivism doesn't mean you can't use science, it just means you can't reject truth claims just because they're not scientific. edit: I claim following Habermas, that the five kinds of truth-claims are: cognitive-instrumental: (truth of propositions, efficacy of teleological action) moral-practical: (rightness of norms of action) evaluative: (adequacy of standards of value) expressive: (truthfulness or sincerity of expression) explicative discourse: (comprehensibility or well-formedness of symbolic constructs)
So, how does this sit with you then in your own ethical theory?
Everyone:
We seem to be at the point where we're happy for religious convictions to trample over all others simply because a large number of people are religious. That seems very, very wrong to me.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function. On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:
What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
but the point is that some beliefs can't be tested, like beliefs about morals
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science? We collectively though obviously not unanimously hold the moral belief that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon gender/race/sex/etc and we are happy to base secular law around such judgements, what happens when two different codes of morality/ethics clash? Which takes precedence, always the majority right?
I suppose that would lead us back to the conclusion that it's right for religious groups to discriminate against homosexual couples for as long as the majority holds that opinion?I don't like that answer myself...
Just because a view is a majority view I don't think that makes it impossible to argue against it. Many pages back in this thread we came to the conclusion "things are the way things are because they want it so" and we almost seem to be back there again.
Would you not speak out if you lived in a country where people were repressed based upon their race and gender?
Would you simply accept it as the majority view and go with the flow or would you take a stand?
Harsh reality and circumstance may choose for you another answer, but I think we know what most of us would like our response to be, and in every place and time where views like these are predominant there are always those who have spoken out and initiated change.
I think the same applies here, just because the majority of people have it wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't be speaking out for what is right.
The thing that upsets me the most is actually the complete lack of respect for peoples convictions unless they are religiously derived. No one gives a crap what you think or believe unless you heard it in a Church first and that has to be one of the scariest truths of my present day existence.
I think it's a lot more concerning than homosexual couples being refused marriage in certain venues and speaks of a far wider and greater problem.
Unless we can find a way to make it work so that the convictions of any group or any individual are treated with the same respect as any other, nobody should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws or similar legislation, it's a violation of every notion of equality that we've established so far.
|
On January 04 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 20:20 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it? Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.). Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!). I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to? It's being discovered more and more nowadays that we have Bayesian Brains. Our Brain makes lots of shortcuts and extrapolates based on previous information about the world around us. You are acting as if Statistics has nothing to say about language, music, food, or socialization, when it's very much the opposite. How exactly do you think you figure out the connotations? Notice that my example works for any correlation. And it's been shown to work for literally all applications that we have put it to. As to your thought experiment, we are not living in a world where the religious keep to themselves and don't mean any harm. That is not the situation we are in. We are in the situation where massive churches with tons of money have the power and influence to change the law to whatever bizarre will they want (like banning gay marriage, for example). I don't find your example intriguing, and coming up with examples that don't really matter is not an argument for belief. And come on, the placebo effect is another example of statistics! You can't use statistics as an argument against itself! Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:18 Severedevil wrote:On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information What does it mean to contain information? Anything that shifts your belief or probability of possible outcomes is information.
If I gave you the impression that "statistics has nothing to say" in regards to language, music, food, or socialization, forgive me, for I did not mean to imply such a thing. Symbolic logic as represented through Bayes theorem can most certainly provide a great deal of information and insight in regards to a great many phenomena, even those of artistic or creative merit. But, this information is necessarily narrow by virtue of the words, symbols, and logical framework with which we analyze it. I do not doubt that Bayes theorem works for any correlation; my concern is in regards to information that does not reduce neatly enough to suitably warrant the implementation of tools such as correlation or even binary comparison. Consider the question "Does God exist?". How do we prove that this question or the insight it might provide are worth anything at all? Using logic and the tools of science and math, we can become reasonably certain that from within the realm of rationality, God as is traditionally conceived of most certainly does not exist. But of what importance is this, for beliefs are founded upon personal experience, intuition, and feeling in addition to empirical knowledge, with the first three oftentimes taking priority. Many believers might "know" in a certain sense that their faith is irrational, if prompted with the appropriate line of reasoning, but the experience of attending religious services or entertaining religious thoughts might provide alternative "justification" (and I use that word loosely for we are at the boundaries of "good language"). In the end, the importance and relative applicability of rational and statistical models in regards to "belief" phenomena are incredibly subjective, for the hard nosed scientist and the devout artist can both be "right" at the same time, with both simply relying on different frameworks of inquiry.
Now, if we are to begin to extrapolate outward from there, towards a societal and governmental recognition of "belief" phenomena (which is more or less what this thread is all about), I actually agree with you amongst others in terms of relying a bit more on rationality and the likes of Bayes' Theorem; the muddled waters of subjective religiosity make for very poor building materials when it comes to healthy legal and governmental systems (It is with this in mind that the US Constitution shines most brightly, I think, for it maneuvers around "belief" in a highly efficacious and then unprecedented way). I think this is where you misunderstand me a bit, for I am not suggesting that belief ought to trump rationality or that the majority ought to dictate the course of the minority, and I think governments are, in general, right to keep religious justification out of lawmaking. It is with this in mind that the law described in the OP makes the least sense, for it effectively consolidates religious authority and enforces a certain mode of legal religiosity that simply makes no sense. The government has no place in assisting church leadership when it comes to enforcing doctrine, especially given the contemporary climate of tolerance and acceptance that church leaders oh so hate to see creeping through their sanctuary doors. As to the question of whether or not a government ought to be able to force specific churches to marry gays, I'm not sure I can provide more insight than has already been brought to bear by others in this thread; I do not think governmental intervention in the affairs of specific religious institutions makes much sense, for I personally find the sort of organic changes like that which we see in the Episcopal Church of the United States far more felicitous, though I can see how KwarK's and others arguments in terms of "public service" could apply.
In the end, I am merely repeating what Sam!zdat has already suggested, which is that Bayes' Theorem, along with other tools of rational thinking (standard language systems included), cannot explain the "edges" of human experience and understanding, for that is where tragedy, song, compassion, and performative expression take over.
As to whether or not the fact that our brain takes "shortcuts" and extrapolates renders it "Bayesian", well we'll just have to disagree there 
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:02 Reason wrote:Everyone:We seem to be at the point where we're happy for religious convictions to trample over all others simply because a large number of people are religious. That seems very, very wrong to me. + Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function. On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:
What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
but the point is that some beliefs can't be tested, like beliefs about morals
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science? We collectively though obviously not unanimously hold the moral belief that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon gender/race/sex/etc and we are happy to base secular law around such judgements, what happens when two different codes of morality/ethics clash? Which takes precedence, always the majority right?
I suppose that would lead us back to the conclusion that it's right for religious groups to discriminate against homosexual couples for as long as the majority holds that opinion?I don't like that answer myself... Just because a view is a majority view I don't think that makes it impossible to argue against it. Many pages back in this thread we came to the conclusion "things are the way things are because they want it so" and we almost seem to be back there again. Would you not speak out if you lived in a country where people were repressed based upon their race and gender? Would you simply accept it as the majority view and go with the flow or would you take a stand? Harsh reality and circumstance may choose for you another answer, but I think we know what most of us would like our response to be, and in every place and time where views like these are predominant there are always those who have spoken out and initiated change. I think the same applies here, just because the majority of people have it wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't be speaking out for what is right. The thing that upsets me the most is actually the complete lack of respect for peoples convictions unless they are religiously derived. No one gives a crap what you think or believe unless you heard it in a Church first and that has to be one of the scariest truths of my present day existence. I think it's a lot more concerning than homosexual couples being refused marriage in certain venues and speaks of a far wider and greater problem. Unless we can find a way to make it work so that the convictions of any group or any individual are treated with the same respect as any other, nobody should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws or similar legislation, it's a violation of every notion of equality that we've established so far.
This is what annoys me the most about this, much more than just the whole "well you think this so you can discriminate as you please" attitude of the exemption. It seems religions are getting a free pass because they are popular and have been around for a long time which seems like a bad way of deciding who gets exemptions from something that for anyone else would be breaking the law. It's like saying "well there a lot of white people in the uk so we should let them be more discriminatory than all the black and asian people." The only difference is that people seem to respect your beliefs a lot more if they are a part of a large religion.
|
On January 04 2013 22:02 Reason wrote:
Samzdat:+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 11:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science?
Ah now you're on to something :D A+ welcome to my life I don't think you have to do "majority rules" but I'm not really in a position to put forth my own ethical theory, I just want to show people that they don't actually know what they think they know. When I say "useless" I just mean if you decide "there's no way to judge things" then you can't get anywhere useful. So you try to come up with something that IS useful, but it's really hard and you turn all cranky and angry like me when you try. edit: and you try to avoid talking to people who say things like "some people say the bible proves that the bible is true, and idk man what can you do??" edit: rejecting positivism doesn't mean you can't use science, it just means you can't reject truth claims just because they're not scientific. edit: I claim following Habermas, that the five kinds of truth-claims are: cognitive-instrumental: (truth of propositions, efficacy of teleological action) moral-practical: (rightness of norms of action) evaluative: (adequacy of standards of value) expressive: (truthfulness or sincerity of expression) explicative discourse: (comprehensibility or well-formedness of symbolic constructs) So, how does this sit with you then in your own ethical theory?
It means that when people conflate cognitive-instrumental and moral-practical truth claims (by claiming e.g. that morality can be grounded in science) they are committing a heinous category error and should be publicly mocked in philosophical show trial 
For anyone interested who hasn't seen it, here's a problem about Bayesianism:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=391489
|
On January 05 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 20:20 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it? Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.). Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!). I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to? It's being discovered more and more nowadays that we have Bayesian Brains. Our Brain makes lots of shortcuts and extrapolates based on previous information about the world around us. You are acting as if Statistics has nothing to say about language, music, food, or socialization, when it's very much the opposite. How exactly do you think you figure out the connotations? Notice that my example works for any correlation. And it's been shown to work for literally all applications that we have put it to. As to your thought experiment, we are not living in a world where the religious keep to themselves and don't mean any harm. That is not the situation we are in. We are in the situation where massive churches with tons of money have the power and influence to change the law to whatever bizarre will they want (like banning gay marriage, for example). I don't find your example intriguing, and coming up with examples that don't really matter is not an argument for belief. And come on, the placebo effect is another example of statistics! You can't use statistics as an argument against itself! Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:18 Severedevil wrote:On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information What does it mean to contain information? Anything that shifts your belief or probability of possible outcomes is information. If I gave you the impression that "statistics has nothing to say" in regards to language, music, food, or socialization, forgive me, for I did not mean to imply such a thing. Symbolic logic as represented through Bayes theorem can most certainly provide a great deal of information and insight in regards to a great many phenomena, even those of artistic or creative merit. But, this information is necessarily narrow by virtue of the words, symbols, and logical framework with which we analyze it. I do not doubt that Bayes theorem works for any correlation; my concern is in regards to information that does not reduce neatly enough to suitably warrant the implementation of tools such as correlation or even binary comparison. Consider the question "Does God exist?". How do we prove that this question or the insight it might provide are worth anything at all? Using logic and the tools of science and math, we can become reasonably certain that from within the realm of rationality, God as is traditionally conceived of most certainly does not exist. But of what importance is this, for beliefs are founded upon personal experience, intuition, and feeling in addition to empirical knowledge, with the first three oftentimes taking priority. Many believers might "know" in a certain sense that their faith is irrational, if prompted with the appropriate line of reasoning, but the experience of attending religious services or entertaining religious thoughts might provide alternative "justification" (and I use that word loosely for we are at the boundaries of "good language"). In the end, the importance and relative applicability of rational and statistical models in regards to "belief" phenomena are incredibly subjective, for the hard nosed scientist and the devout artist can both be "right" at the same time, with both simply relying on different frameworks of inquiry. Now, if we are to begin to extrapolate outward from there, towards a societal and governmental recognition of "belief" phenomena (which is more or less what this thread is all about), I actually agree with you amongst others in terms of relying a bit more on rationality and the likes of Bayes' Theorem; the muddled waters of subjective religiosity make for very poor building materials when it comes to healthy legal and governmental systems (It is with this in mind that the US Constitution shines most brightly, I think, for it maneuvers around "belief" in a highly efficacious and then unprecedented way). I think this is where you misunderstand me a bit, for I am not suggesting that belief ought to trump rationality or that the majority ought to dictate the course of the minority, and I think governments are, in general, right to keep religious justification out of lawmaking. It is with this in mind that the law described in the OP makes the least sense, for it effectively consolidates religious authority and enforces a certain mode of legal religiosity that simply makes no sense. The government has no place in assisting church leadership when it comes to enforcing doctrine, especially given the contemporary climate of tolerance and acceptance that church leaders oh so hate to see creeping through their sanctuary doors. As to the question of whether or not a government ought to be able to force specific churches to marry gays, I'm not sure I can provide more insight than has already been brought to bear by others in this thread; I do not think governmental intervention in the affairs of specific religious institutions makes much sense, for I personally find the sort of organic changes like that which we see in the Episcopal Church of the United States far more felicitous, though I can see how KwarK's and others arguments in terms of "public service" could apply. In the end, I am merely repeating what Sam!zdat has already suggested, which is that Bayes' Theorem, along with other tools of rational thinking (standard language systems included), cannot explain the "edges" of human experience and understanding, for that is where tragedy, song, compassion, and performative expression take over. As to whether or not the fact that our brain takes "shortcuts" and extrapolates renders it "Bayesian", well we'll just have to disagree there
Bayesian Reasoning is almost completely based on the idea of subjectivity. It uses numbers, but you can perfectly easily factor in personal experiences and all that jazz. That is it's main criticism before we realized how effective it is: that is 'measuring ignorance' and 'subjectivist.'
Anyway, the brain is more Bayesian in the fact that your brain makes 'guesses' and then keeps updating as it gets more and more information from your senses and experiences. Or all the different risk assessments that it makes all the time. Stuff like that. It just seems to function this way. Shrug.
|
Right but the point is that there's a difference between saying
"It's often useful"
and
"It's a good way to think about all kinds of beliefs"
the latter was your original claim
So I can ask e.g. how do I apply Bayesian Reasoning to claim "This is a very pretty painting"
|
On January 05 2013 06:32 sam!zdat wrote:
Right but the point is that there's a difference between saying
"It's often useful"
and
"It's a good way to think about all kinds of beliefs"
the latter was your original claim
So I can ask e.g. how do I apply Bayesian Reasoning to claim "This is a very pretty painting"
Hmm... I don't know. I haven't considered it. That's still my claim though.
But that question doesn't seem that far out. In fact the only reason it sounds difficult is because it's often difficult to describe why we like things in general. But I don't see why it wouldn't work in the exact same way.
|
Well think about it and let me know what you come up with. I'm pretty sure it's nonsense to talk about mathematical credence in such a belief, but I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about it.
|
I don't think it's legitimate to criticize an information dependent process for not being able to answer a question just because we are incapable of supplying the relevant information.
Also, to reiterate on topic, I think granting legal exemptions for religious convictions and dismissing any and all otherwise derived convictions is the most important type of discrimination addressed in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
