Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God & the Fairy Tree
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 16 of 306 (407368)
06-25-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by pbee
06-25-2007 11:05 PM


pbee writes:
I commented to the OP by giving my views on the topic in a responsible and receptive way.
So humour me. Explain in plain English the difference between a child's belief in invisible fairies and an adult's belief in an invisible God.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by pbee, posted 06-25-2007 11:05 PM pbee has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 17 of 306 (407369)
06-25-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
06-25-2007 11:04 PM


Re: I thought of a difference
Catholic Scientist writes:
There aren't a lot of intellectually mature people saying that the sign is correct and that the fairies do exist like there are for god.
Isn't the question about how you can tell? If person A believes in invisible X and person B believes in invisible Y, how do you determine which is "intellectually mature"?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2007 11:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2007 11:41 PM ringo has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 306 (407373)
06-25-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ringo
06-25-2007 11:22 PM


Re: I thought of a difference
If person A believes in invisible X and person B believes in invisible Y, how do you determine which is "intellectually mature"?
You can't tell who's "intellectually mature"? Why not?
Do you think I am?
Isn't the question about how you can tell?
I thought the question was 'what's the difference'. It assumes that the difference is 'tell-able'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 06-25-2007 11:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 06-26-2007 12:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 306 (407375)
06-26-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
06-25-2007 11:41 PM


Re: I thought of a difference
Catholic Scientist writes:
You can't tell who's "intellectually mature"? Why not?
I don't see how "intellectual maturity" relates directly to beliefs. Beliefs tend to be non-intellectual, don't they?
You're just adding another variable. Person A believes in invisible X and is "intellectually mature" because of M. Person B believes in invisible Y and is not "intellectually mature" because of not M. You haven't shown how M relates to X and Y.
Do you think I am?
Even the "intellectually mature" can have their foibles.
I thought the question was 'what's the difference'. It assumes that the difference is 'tell-able'.
I think the implicit answer to the question is that there is no difference.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2007 11:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2007 10:14 AM ringo has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 20 of 306 (407402)
06-26-2007 3:40 AM


The question stands
Thank you all for your reactions so far. It's interesting to see this topic take off so quickly. I will answer some points in this one post.
Phat writes:
Some people just think that its illogical for intelligence to evolve from mere elements, as if there is no need for a-priori intelligence.
God as uncaused first cause makes more sense than 4 to 6 elements from the atomic table.
Fairies could have done the job equally well. In fact, there's more evidence speaking for the fairies than there is for God, because there is a lot of mishap in the world and as we all know, fairies are not always nice, so...
Anyway, what I am saying is that there is no difference between the kind of the reason that was given for not being able to see the fairies on the one hand, and for not feeling the presence of God in one's life on the other. They're both ad hoc reasons. Yet, each and every one of us (yes: each and every one of us, don't fool yourself) smiles at the fairy story, but many people don't blink an eye when someone seriously proposes the same kind of explanation in the case of God. Why is that? What's so different in the God case that we have to take it more seriously than the fairies?
pbee writes:
We cannot prove anything. While many do speak with authority, the reality of it is that there are no absolutes beyond our own personal beliefs.
However, this does not hinder our capacity to evaluation and reason. In fact, the remaining unknown variable in the formula becomes key to peoples willingness to apply faith in something they cannot see or even confirm.
Indeed, we cannot prove the fairy story, and we cannot prove the God story. Yet we deride the fairy story, and are expected to treat the God-believers with respect. Why? Please, explain to me how I am to know what to do in each case.
Catholic Scientist writes:
There aren't a lot of intellectually mature people saying that the sign is correct and that the fairies do exist like there are for god.
So it's a matter of majority opinion? If that's the case, then what happens if the majority opines differently one day? Does that alter reality? Was there really once a pantheon of nature gods, and did that change when it became fashionable to believe in just one all-powerful god? I hope you see why I cannot accept this particular explanation.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I thought the question was 'what's the difference'. It assumes that the difference is 'tell-able'.
Well, apparently it is. Or else I would dare you to go around telling your friends that we should take fairies seriously.
To sum it up: to date I have not seen a satisfactory answer to my question. As it stands, I will regard the God story in the same way as I regard fairy stories: as fables for immature minds. Prove me wrong, anyone.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 06-26-2007 4:29 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 06-26-2007 7:20 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2007 10:24 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 141 by anastasia, posted 06-27-2007 3:37 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 21 of 306 (407406)
06-26-2007 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Parasomnium
06-26-2007 3:40 AM


Re: The question stands
parasomnium writes:
To sum it up: to date I have not seen a satisfactory answer to my question. As it stands, I will regard the God story in the same way as I regard fairy stories: as fables for immature minds. Prove me wrong, anyone.
  • What constitutes a mature mind? Is it unfashionable to believe in anything outside of science? I can see your logic regarding this topic and it is quite sound. What I don't see is any proof that a mature mind allows no room for belief.
    Personally, fairies have never been real and personal to me. Even as a child, my imagination was never quite able to accept fairies, giants, magic lamps, and space aliens as anything plausible.
  • The concept of God, however, was culturally reinforced yet to be honest, I never saw any more likelihood that God existed than I did Aladdins Genie.
    As an adult, I had a religious epiphany and changed quite dramatically in one particular period of time. I suppose that I could step back and evaluate the experience skeptically and critically, but I would not be prone to attempt to disprove myself. A man who is so skeptical as to stand for nothing inevitably spends his entire life searching for something that was with him the whole time, IMHO.
    Its all about world views and comfort levels. I feel uncomfortable imagining a world with no Creator. The Creator is personal to me...I believe that He loves me,
    I believe that He has veto power over any calamity that I or any other human can get ourselves into, and it gives me a sense of security whereas believing that we humans are alone in a vast universe and are responsible for our future destiny
    is quite uncomfortable to contemplate. We ain't that good!
    Humanity needs God. We don't need religion, however. For anyone to say that they don't need God is to have an unrealistic view of collective purpose. After all, who would make a better leader?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 3:40 AM Parasomnium has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 5:19 AM Phat has not replied
     Message 28 by nator, posted 06-26-2007 9:10 AM Phat has not replied

    Parasomnium
    Member
    Posts: 2224
    Joined: 07-15-2003


    Message 22 of 306 (407408)
    06-26-2007 5:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
    06-26-2007 4:29 AM


    Re: The question stands
    Phat writes:
    What constitutes a mature mind? Is it unfashionable to believe in anything outside of science? I can see your logic regarding this topic and it is quite sound. What I don't see is any proof that a mature mind allows no room for belief.
    A mature mind, I think we all agree, is a mind that does not believe in fairies anymore. (Actually, that's the point of this thread, more or less.) But to me, maturity also requires consistency in one's beliefs and one's reasoning about them. To treat one ad hoc explanation quite differently from another is to be inconsistent. It's only in that respect that I think religious people are immature.
    I think you'll agree if I say that humanity has grown up in the sense that most of us don't believe in animated rocks, trees, rivers, & cetera, anymore. But for all the sophistication of our present-day "modern" conceptions of God, I think they're still proof of the intellectual immaturity of the people who believe them, specifically because of the inconsistent reasoning behind these beliefs.
    I am not saying that a mature mind leaves no room for belief. But there must be valid reasons for belief. The onset of science has taken away reasons for belief in God as creator and given us reasons to believe a different story. But the most important lesson science teaches us is that we must be consistent in our beliefs. And if we all agree that there's no valid reason to believe in fairies, as apparently we do, then, by the same token, we should not believe the God story, at least not for the invalid reasons usually given.
    Its all about world views and comfort levels. I feel uncomfortable imagining a world with no Creator. [...] I believe that He has veto power over any calamity that I or any other human can get ourselves into, and it gives me a sense of security whereas believing that we humans are alone in a vast universe and are responsible for our future destiny is quite uncomfortable to contemplate. We ain't that good!
    If there's one reason to feel uncomfortable in this universe, it would be a creator with veto power over calamities, who apparently doesn't always use this power to avert them. That's downright scary.

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
    Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by Phat, posted 06-26-2007 4:29 AM Phat has not replied

    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 23 of 306 (407410)
    06-26-2007 5:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Parasomnium
    06-25-2007 5:51 PM


    Well that subtitle got all messed up :-(
    Parasomnium writes:
    Just back from another holiday in England (Cumbria this time) I thought I'd relate to you something I've seen there during a woodland walk in a beautiful garden. There was a tree with a small notice that went something like this:
    This is the Fairy Tree. If you look closely you might see the fairies. If you don't see them it's probably because you have scared them off already.
    They've fairy trees in England too? Cool beans. I've actually gotten lucky enough to snap a few shots of the fairy trees in the local park here when some of the fairies were particularly active. I'll try to find them on my other computer when I get a chance , but I assure you, they are there, and you will one day see ...
    J·n
    Edited by Jon, : Subicus titlicus majoricus?

    In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
    _ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _
    En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 06-25-2007 5:51 PM Parasomnium has not replied

    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 24 of 306 (407416)
    06-26-2007 7:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 20 by Parasomnium
    06-26-2007 3:40 AM


    I AM here - heed thou my wiz of a wiz
    It is true that you must treat each claim equally because they are both simply claims about reality. As a Theist, I request that you treat God-belief as an equally absurd claim. If you only get what you know to be fallacious reasons - then you are right to disregard them, as you would dissapoint me if you didn't. But I'm not always available to give you logical reasons.
    One can only make sense of these beleifs in personal subjective colloquial ways. i.e. I would ask myself what is more believable TO ME. That life has a purpose - that there is a "something" that intended the universe, or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
    Yet we deride the fairy story, and are expected to treat the God-believers with respect. Why?
    What is behind each belief?
    What fascinates me is that you exist, therefore it's not impossible for me to believe that you could exist again. Once I've seen the miracle, why should it be impossible for me to believe it can happen again in another reality? Is it so different from believing that other universes could exist? Hang on a minute - isn't that what it is? Another "place". (I'm begging the question, but it doesn't matter because TO ME - it's a miracle.
    TO YOU it's not a miracle. Respect this - it is not a delusion, it is the way my mind works.
    Yet is a belief in a fairy to be equated with belief in God? There are deeper formal reasonings STILL - such as composition.- WHAT does each person believe EXACTLY. Is there depth and difference in those beliefs? WHAT do they entail? Do they truly not differ in every manner, or is only the absurdity-factor being observed?
    The fact is that pink-unicorn or fairy belief is not the same as God-belief, NOT because of absurdity-factor, because they are both absurd in their transcendent capabilities, but because the P.U. is a shallow concept. It has no worth, whereas my belief in God requires much of me. I have to care for others, try to help them, feed the poor, clothe them, I have to do as Christ says all of my life, and worry about getting my one shot at life correct.
    The P.U. is shallow. (Check out undistributed middle term)
    - P.U. belief invokes magic entity
    - God-belief invokes magic entity
    Therefore God and P.U. belief are the same.
    - An apple is a fruit
    - An orange is a fruit.
    Therefore apples and oranges are the same.
    Looks simple eh? Logic always looks simple - even absurdly obvious - but only in a strict formal context. See the big mess I had to type in order to explain?
    (Please feel free to check on everything I have said)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 3:40 AM Parasomnium has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 7:50 AM mike the wiz has replied

    Parasomnium
    Member
    Posts: 2224
    Joined: 07-15-2003


    Message 25 of 306 (407418)
    06-26-2007 7:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
    06-26-2007 7:20 AM


    Check your logic, Mike.
    mike the wiz writes:
    - An apple is a fruit
    - An orange is a fruit.
    Therefore apples and oranges are the same.
    If you're implying that I think that fairies and God are the same, you are mistaken.
    In my version of logic, a different conclusion follows from your premises: we should treat both apples and oranges as fruits.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 06-26-2007 7:20 AM mike the wiz has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 06-26-2007 7:58 AM Parasomnium has replied

    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 26 of 306 (407419)
    06-26-2007 7:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by Parasomnium
    06-26-2007 7:50 AM


    Re: Check your logic, Mike.
    If you're implying that I think that fairies and God are the same, you are mistaken.
    But I thought you were implying it, as this story of the tree is asking why one should respect belief in God but not fairies. If both are magical entities - there are no valid implications from that, as shown.
    But also, I was referring to the popular atheist argument which states that the P.U. and God are the same, so I am not accusing you, but this train of thought is common knowledge.
    Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
    Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 7:50 AM Parasomnium has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 8:13 AM mike the wiz has replied

    Parasomnium
    Member
    Posts: 2224
    Joined: 07-15-2003


    Message 27 of 306 (407420)
    06-26-2007 8:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
    06-26-2007 7:58 AM


    Re: Check your logic, Mike.
    mike the wiz writes:
    If you're implying that I think that fairies and God are the same, you are mistaken.
    But I thought you were implying it, as this story of the tree is asking why one should respect belief in God but not fairies.
    I am not implying that God and the fairies are the same, but that we should treat belief in them, and more specifically, the stated reasons for belief in them, in the same way. If we dismiss the reason we don't see fairies ("you have scared them off already", see my opening post) as irrational ad hoc reasoning, then we should do the same with ad hoc arguments for why we don't feel the presence of God in our life (again, see the opening post).
    I was referring to the popular atheist argument which states that the P.U. and God are the same
    I am afraid that's a bit of an oversimplification of the Pink Unicorn argument. It's not that they are the same, i.e. identical, but that they are equally absurd.
    Edited by Parasomnium, : Unicorns
    Edited by Parasomnium, : "of" -> "off"

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
    Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 06-26-2007 7:58 AM mike the wiz has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 06-26-2007 9:58 AM Parasomnium has replied
     Message 30 by pbee, posted 06-26-2007 9:59 AM Parasomnium has not replied

    nator
    Member (Idle past 2170 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 28 of 306 (407430)
    06-26-2007 9:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
    06-26-2007 4:29 AM


    Re: The question stands
    quote:
    Humanity needs God. We don't need religion, however.
    I'd say the exact opposite has been observed.
    Religion allowed stronger clan ties and enforced common purposes and order within societies, and that bolstered survival.
    God's existence, on the other hand, is irrelevant to if belief in the supernatural enforces in people the requirement to subsume their individual wants and needs in favor of the group.
    quote:
    A man who is so skeptical as to stand for nothing inevitably spends his entire life searching for something that was with him the whole time, IMHO.
    Who says you have to search for something your entire life if you don't believe in God?
    quote:
    Its all about world views and comfort levels. I feel uncomfortable imagining a world with no Creator. The Creator is personal to me...I believe that He loves me,
    Where is it written that the universe, or truth, owes you comfort?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by Phat, posted 06-26-2007 4:29 AM Phat has not replied

    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 29 of 306 (407439)
    06-26-2007 9:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 27 by Parasomnium
    06-26-2007 8:13 AM


    Re: Check your logic, Mike.
    I am afraid that's a bit of an oversimplification of the Pink Unicorn argument. It's not that they are the same, i.e. identical, but that they are equally absurd.
    Lol - what do you mean - it is a simple argument.
    It's still begging the question because it assumes that God is absurd, but it's only atheists who say that God is absurd. First the claimant must prove that God is necessarily absurd. That's not self-evident, all we have to go on is that God shares invisibility with said entity, and atheists think he's just as silly. That's not enough, the argument is not sound.
    S0 you might aswell compare God with the higgs boson. Why not? = because God is absurd. BBBZZZZT! Wrong! That's what you have to conclude.
    Oh but - the higgs boson isn't absurd. Now that right there is a double standard, because that freakin' thing is invoked because mass exists.
    So I compare God to the higgs boson. The scientist needs the boson, the believer needs God.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 8:13 AM Parasomnium has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 33 by nator, posted 06-26-2007 10:45 AM mike the wiz has replied
     Message 43 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 11:59 AM mike the wiz has replied

    pbee
    Member (Idle past 6028 days)
    Posts: 339
    Joined: 06-20-2007


    Message 30 of 306 (407440)
    06-26-2007 9:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 27 by Parasomnium
    06-26-2007 8:13 AM


    Re: Check your logic, Mike.
    Yet we deride the fairy story, and are expected to treat the God-believers with respect. Why? Please, explain to me how I am to know what to do in each case.
    The beliefs or practices of others should have no influence on our social responsibilities towards people. - This is not implying that we *should respect whatever people do. It does however imply that we have an inherent responsibility to respect people as persons(within reason).
    I am afraid that's a bit of an oversimplification of the Pink Unicorn argument. It's not that they are the same, i.e. identical, but that they are equally absurd.
    This brings be back to a point I made earlier.
    Well thats the beauty of it isn't it. We cannot prove anything. While many do speak with authority, the reality of it is that there are no absolutes beyond our own personal beliefs.
    However, this does not hinder our capacity to evaluation and reason. In fact, the remaining unknown variable in the formula becomes key to peoples willingness to apply faith in something they cannot see or even confirm.
    One outstanding characteristic in children, is their capacity to create imaginary conditions. By our own standards this is classified as normal behavior, since children lack the ability to reason as adults do. However, as we grow, so does our ability to justify our own beliefs. We inherently gain the capacity to evaluate and move by confidence within adult social ranks.
    This raises some interesting questions regarding reality and reason. - if reasoning is justified by demonstrating a belief which can in turn stand up to social standards, then is it ever possible to conclude that we can be assured of anything? The answer seems to be leaning towards "no". - Based on our own historical data, It does not seem plausible to conclude that human beings have the capacity to resolve problems which precede our own experiences. While it may seem as though we are getting smarter, life has shown us that with more knowledge comes more implications and so and so forth(see quantum physics).
    Getting back to the comparative of God & Fairies, the most obvious attributes shared between a fairy tale and God is the invisibility factor. Since we already know, based on childhood experiences that invisibility is something best left in the books(so to speak) is it ever safe to put the theory up for consideration? - Just as the idea of projecting images and sounds through space would have produced rolling laughter in the not so distant past, the notion of none material intelligence does stand to reason.
    When all is said and done, as adults we have no authority on the beliefs of other consenting adults. This is not saying we cannot reason or challenge someones beliefs. However, we are no longer dealing with cases of who is right and wrong. We are now looking at humility and social tolerance.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by Parasomnium, posted 06-26-2007 8:13 AM Parasomnium has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024