pull down to refresh
7 sats \ 8 replies \ @PlebeiusG 20 Mar \ parent \ on: Why Joe Rogan Avoids Bitcoin Discussions bitcoin
I disagree. I think reading Peter Boghossian's book "A Manual for Creating Atheists" is the best way to fully grasp how the religious use faith as an epistemology and also contrasts it with our every day understanding of world dynamics based on direct experience. First, they are not the same.
Second, when a religious person says they have faith, it's essentially them saying "I have no way to know, but I am choosing to believe it's true as if I had evidence."
If you had evidence you wouldn't need faith. That's why faith is a mind virus and a completely unreliable way to come to understand the world. Comparing it to phrases like the sun rising and "I think therefore I am" is a confusion of the conversation.
Good times
when a religious person says they have faith, it's essentially them saying "I have no way to know, but I am choosing to believe it's true as if I had evidence."
This could be a strawman. First, a 'religious person' ought not be a category with characteristics that can be ascribed based on belonging to a group. The individuals vary greatly. Some have thought it through and some haven't.
Second, and this will require some unpacking, let's look at the 'it's true' in your statement that I've highlighted. But first, we need to distinguish the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof.' If I'm not mistaken, I think you meant 'proof.' Evidence can exist but not lead to the conclusion a person observing it thinks it does. Proof is objective, not subject to anyone's opinion.
The point I aimed to make is not that all types of faith are the same. It is that every person ever chooses what to believe. Every person ever chooses to believe some things 'as though they had proof.' Some people only choose to believe those things which they can reasonably prove with experimentation, and doubt anything they have not proven themselves. However, as they perform experiments in their garage -- on whether orange juice truly has vitamin c in it, or whether their gut really breaks it down as is claimed in the journals -- they must trust that their own brain has not gone delusional and hallucinated the results as they record them on their personal 'reality verification journals.'
Now, back to 'it's true'. It seems to me that your statement presumes to know what 'the religious person' thinks is true, and how that person would define it. In other words, it seems that you allow yourself the possibility to choose what portion of reality to believe, and on what level / quality of evidence - but do not allow a person whom you categorize as a religious one to do the same.
Perhaps they only believe that for which they think they have seen enough evidence to be reasonably sure is worth believing -- but only believe it to a degree of certainty that makes sense based on information gathered -- while keeping an open mind to any new evidence that might inform a more mature opinion - just like you, and just like science is supposed to work ;)
After all, not all religious people buy all religious claims. None of them do. They just believe what they believe, just like we all do.
reply
You sound religious.
This is turning into a word game. Not longer interested.
Again, anything written by Peter Boghossian.
reply
Okeedoke, cheers
reply
Let me help
reply
K thanks. Will this teach me how not to play word games? Or just an atheist teaching people what faith means
reply
Good question. Id love to hear what you thought of the video.
reply
What interest could you possibly have in the opinion of a person who thinks it's possible to be a teenager without judging entire churches full of like-minded contented people in pursuit of their own happiness as misguided idiots?
reply
Interesting question. Id love to hear what you thought of the video, when you watch it.