http://www.idm.me.uk/2007/08/itsjusta_theory.html

Why would anybody pay any heed to unsupported assertions that you make, like “Those who believe most… know least.”?

Good question. Why would anybody pay heed to any unsupported assertions? Who’d do that? That’d be silly (albeit tax deductible).

I put it out there for the universe to do with it what it will. People will always believe what they have a NEED to believe. Personally, I can live with no absolute truth.

But I live in hope, that in thousands of years, there’ll be people with such need… and my unsupported assertions (so easily questionable at the moment) are taken as divine truth revealed.

Super-Sweet.

Next time you’ve got a comment lull, may try a post on Censorship, Abortion, Gun control, Marijuana, Nukes, Terrorism, Bestiality, Global Warming, Holocaust Denial, or Michael Jackson.

You wrote, “Those who believe most… know least.” How do you know that?

Because I’m stupid, know it and believe nothing. I barely believe what I think most of the time. It’s the people who don’t know they’re stupid and do believe absolutely what they think that I worry about.

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many intellectual domains. This overestimation occurs because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.

BTW: That was a [in]direct rip-off. If you haven’t read this, you should: “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments” http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf (That’s a general “BTW” comment and not an insult aimed at you Dave Peace, Love & Mung Beans! )

Personally, I find it more helpful to rely on being informed by science, other evidence-based disciplines (e.g. psychology) and my experiences in life…

Yeah, totally. And “informed” is a great word there. I also like “certainty”, as in “I accept theory T as true with certainty P”.

But then how do we (or do we even try to) address “truth”. I don’t have the answer to that question.

Peace back at ya.

Personally, I find it more helpful to rely on being informed by science, other evidence-based disciplines (e.g. psychology) and my experiences in life than to put my faith in one or more spiritual beings interpreted from scriptures.

On the matter of people using the bible because they were brought up to believe it and assume it is true, I am going to jump on a tangential hobby-horse. I think that religious upbringing and the consequential acceptance of one religion as “true” raises the issue of tolerance of other beliefs as one of vital importance. Obviously there are a number of major religious traditions on this planet. Within each tradition – notably Christianity, Islam and Judaism – there are those who fervently believe that their religion is absolutely true and all others are false. Some of these, whom we label as “fundamentalists”, directly play a role in causing bloody conflicts. Others contribute to the spread of intolerance and ignorance. The fact that such a high percentage of Americans believe the bible literally is alarming. So, without ranting any more, let me say that I think there is a great opportunity for religious moderates to do more to promote inter-faith tolerance.

Peace.

If I was to read the Creation myths of the native Americans, or the indigenous Australians, to a Christian, they would probably think they were rather quaint ways of explaining how the earth all came to be. According to the Australian Aborigines, for example, the world was created by a rainbow serpant, who wound his way around the world, creating its physical features. The creations of various significant physical formations also have their own separate creation myths.

The “truth” of these creation myths seems self-apparent to the Aborigines: Uluru, the Murray River, and the Olgas exist, therefore, ipso facto, they were “created”.

Now anyone outside of that culture looks at those stories and says, well, it’s a useful way to think about how those formations came to be. But it’s just a theory, right?

The creation myth in Genesis is no more and no less believable that the story of the Rainbow Serpant. But it was written by man, just as the Rainbow Serpant was invented by man, to explain how all of this came to be. Apparently, if the world exists, it must, ipso facto, have been “created,” just as Uluru, the Murray river, and the Olgas must have been “created” to the Australian aborigines.

The various stories are all very interesting… but no human was there to accurately document creation (whether it took 7 days or 4 billion years), which makes all of the stories “theories”. However, for me, the theory of evolution seems rather more useful in our current world than the theory that a giant snake created the world – or, indeed, a guy with a flowing robe and a white beard.

Now I think Dave might agree with me here. I think we have to say that using the bible as a source of truth (as opposed to finding it describes things you independently agree with, eg the Golden Rule) requires, presupposes, that you have already accepted the truth of God. The truth of God as revealed in the bible.

If that is so, then there is no use attacking the bible per-se. Or rather, given that presupposition, there is definitely a line of moderate[1] theology that does follow rational processes. A frank and honest and (presuppositionally) inspired attempt to look at the bible for truth. And both that line of theology, and atheists, can rationally argue against many literal interpretations because they are demonstrably false (um… I want to supply an example here… a naff one is the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus? One or both must be wrong?).

Rather, we should look at why the bible is being used in the first place. I’m sure Dave has a presuppositional view here, but there are other reasons why the bible is used for truth, the classic being simple tradition: being brought up to believe it and just assuming it is true.

[1] “Moderate” Christianity… I’m not going to bother defining that but it seems to have some common meaning in many christian/atheist discussions.

@Dave: definitely, “explanation” and “prediction” point in different chronological directions. I didn’t intend to conflate them, rather to remind that the scientific method’s scope includes both directions.

Can we accept a proposition as true if we have a limited set of observations?

I agree we can, and I’m find the whole philosophical topic of “accepting as true” extremely interesting. I hope to blog more on that once/if I come to any understanding.

Regarding evolution and transitional forms… on the one hand I pull the “useful trumps truth” card. But yes, on the other hand, what about going ahead and accepting evolution by natural selection as the truth (or as false). Or in fact any scientific theory whatsoever? How do we go about that (the scientific method itself of course doesn’t say). Good question.

By the way, I love the phrase “accept as true”. I think it totally describes the action undertaken, there really is a sense of “accepting” or “taking in” or “imbibing”.

@Ivan, I definitely agree that the spark of the current EvC debate is biblical literalism, what is often called by US commentators as Christian fundamentalism.