21 replies to this topic

[MrsRoper]

I am having a friendly debate with a close friend regarding the phrase, "Everything happens for a reason." She is saying this phrase is valid by equating cause with reason, i.e.: you lost your job because you didn't come to work. I was trying to explain to her that what she really believes in is cause & effect, not a deterministic universe.

Are there any smart people out there that can break this down into laywoman's terms? I seem to be doing a piss poor job.

Edited by MrsRoper, 16 July 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[florduh]

It's confusing a reason with a purpose.

Obviously, there has to be a reason that something happens. You may break your leg because you tripped on a step because you were distracted by a cat that was there because the cat's mother had kittens because she got out and got impregnated by an alley cat, etc., etc., ad infinitum. That doesn't mean there was a purpose in breaking your leg. Whatever happens after the accident gets construed by the woos to be the reason (purpose) it happened to you; perhaps you meet someone special at the hospital, you postpone a trip on an ill fated flight, and so on. All your current circumstances are built upon prior random occurrences.

[MrsRoper]

You bring up the next problem. She doesn't think anything in the universe is random and that everything has an explanation.

[florduh]

You bring up the next problem. She doesn't think anything in the universe is random and that everything has an explanation.

That belief is based on absolutely nothing. Good gets punished, evil rewarded. Natural disasters kill saints and sinners equally - hence the term "random." Disease and death strike infants and tyrants alike.

Everything does have an explanation, but not necessarily a meaning or purpose.

There is no arguing with someone who has closed their eyes to reality in order to maintain some woo-woo belief system.

[MrsRoper]

You bring up the next problem. She doesn't think anything in the universe is random and that everything has an explanation.

That belief is based on absolutely nothing. Good gets punished, evil rewarded. Natural disasters kill saints and sinners equally - hence the term "random." Disease and death strike infants and tyrants alike.

Everything does have an explanation, but not necessarily a meaning or purpose.

There is no arguing with someone who has closed their eyes to reality in order to maintain some woo-woo belief system.

That is perfect right there. She doesn't see herself as a woo either, so I can't use that argument. She's a quasi new age-buddist christian.

[florduh]

She doesn't see herself as a woo either, so I can't use that argument. She's a quasi new age-buddist christian.

Hah! They never see themselves as having unfounded beliefs. They see themselves as Enlightened and of course, more spiritual than thou. Sad, really.

[MrsRoper]

She doesn't see herself as a woo either, so I can't use that argument. She's a quasi new age-buddist christian.

Hah! They never see themselves as having unfounded beliefs. They see themselves as Enlightened and of course, more spiritual than thou. Sad, really.

I have more of a problem in that she sees herself as logical and me as the one who is not thinking outside of the box. It's laughable, she is buying into conventional wisdom and not at all questioning her beliefs. And I have lived both sides of the coin. And really, saying that to me was an ad hominem attack.

[TrueFreedom]

It sounds like she's all over the map. When people say that things happen for a reason they are usually referring to a theistic god's ultimate purpose. Equating this with natural cause and effect seems disingenuous to me.

I've read convincing proofs supporting determinism but it doesn't sound like she grasps the concept. Or maybe you have not presented her case adequately. Can you supply a quote?

[TrueFreedom]

Is this what you're looking for?
Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand

These may also apply:

• Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
• Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.

[MrsRoper]

It sounds like she's all over the map. When people say that things happen for a reason they are usually referring to a theistic god's ultimate purpose. Equating this with natural cause and effect seems disingenuous to me.

I've read convincing proofs supporting determinism but it doesn't sound like she grasps the concept. Or maybe you have not presented her case adequately. Can you supply a quote?

She is all over the map. She is not being disingenuous on purpose, she really doesn't understand the terms & when I try and explain them to her she is either obstinate or says she's open to possibilities. She likes to argue even when she doesn't understand what she is talking about. It's some frittata form of devil's advocate.

I was trying to explain to her that cause and reason aren't the same thing. Flurduh's description above will be helpful.

It's through text and too convoluted to publish here. I will read the links you posted above.

[MrsRoper]

The logical fallacy is: post hoc, ergo propter hoc http://en.wikipedia....rgo_propter_hoc

but honestly, I'm realizing that we aren't having a "logical" conversation and she just wants to believe that phrase because it gives her comfort. So there is probably no reason to continue the discussion.

[TrueFreedom]

The logical fallacy is: post hoc, ergo propter hoc http://en.wikipedia....rgo_propter_hoc

but honestly, I'm realizing that we aren't having a "logical" conversation and she just wants to believe that phrase because it gives her comfort. So there is probably no reason to continue the discussion.

I assumed as much. I've heard similar sentiments. "I just have to believe that terrible things like that happen for a reason."

[MrsRoper]

This is really makes me look like a jerk, but I've gotten to the point where if someone believes "everything happens for a reason" without questioning the validity of the statement, I just assume they are stupid.

[Deva]

She doesn't see herself as a woo either, so I can't use that argument. She's a quasi new age-buddist christian.

Hah! They never see themselves as having unfounded beliefs. They see themselves as Enlightened and of course, more spiritual than thou. Sad, really.

There are actually incompatibilities with Buddhism and Christianity. I don't think she has studied Buddhism very much. The so-called New Age came out of the 19th century movements of theosophy and spiritualism. It's teachings comprise misunderstood Buddhism. The people of that century had an excuse for their ignorance, but today we have less.

[MrsRoper]

She doesn't see herself as a woo either, so I can't use that argument. She's a quasi new age-buddist christian.

Hah! They never see themselves as having unfounded beliefs. They see themselves as Enlightened and of course, more spiritual than thou. Sad, really.

There are actually incompatibilities with Buddhism and Christianity. I don't think she has studied Buddhism very much. The so-called New Age came out of the 19th century movements of theosophy and spiritualism. It's teachings comprise misunderstood Buddhism. The people of that century had an excuse for their ignorance, but today we have less.

I just say that because she was raised Catholic, but she practices more of a Zen form of Buddism. She doesn't study either theology critically.

[London]

I really hate hot and cold people. I just want to scream "pick a personality". But that's just me. This person has no religion, she is just trying to live a persona that is her own fantasy. I'm gonna guess that people in the RW don't hang with her much because she comes off as a loonie. Just my guess.

I might suggest coming at her in a different way. If she believes there is a reason, start asking her what the reason would be and why. Don't give your opinion or try to make her see your view, have her put her views on the table so she can examine them without your views being avaliable for her to use as an excuse.

In a way it's like when a child asks "why" repeatedly. You eventually have to explain it to the child or get so frustrated you just say "because, that's why".

If you remove the "arguing" she will either look inside or stop communicating.

[blackpudd1n]

It sounds like she's all over the map. When people say that things happen for a reason they are usually referring to a theistic god's ultimate purpose. Equating this with natural cause and effect seems disingenuous to me.

I've read convincing proofs supporting determinism but it doesn't sound like she grasps the concept. Or maybe you have not presented her case adequately. Can you supply a quote?

She is all over the map. She is not being disingenuous on purpose, she really doesn't understand the terms & when I try and explain them to her she is either obstinate or says she's open to possibilities. She likes to argue even when she doesn't understand what she is talking about. It's some frittata form of devil's advocate.

I was trying to explain to her that cause and reason aren't the same thing. Flurduh's description above will be helpful.

It's through text and too convoluted to publish here. I will read the links you posted above.

This reminded me of this video:

[blackpudd1n]

Actually the whole video might be helpful in your debate.

[MrsRoper]

I really hate hot and cold people. I just want to scream "pick a personality". But that's just me. This person has no religion, she is just trying to live a persona that is her own fantasy. I'm gonna guess that people in the RW don't hang with her much because she comes off as a loonie. Just my guess.

I might suggest coming at her in a different way. If she believes there is a reason, start asking her what the reason would be and why. Don't give your opinion or try to make her see your view, have her put her views on the table so she can examine them without your views being avaliable for her to use as an excuse.

In a way it's like when a child asks "why" repeatedly. You eventually have to explain it to the child or get so frustrated you just say "because, that's why".

If you remove the "arguing" she will either look inside or stop communicating.

No, she doesn't come off as a loonie at all. She is intelligent, successful and a very good friend to have. She has plenty of good people as part of her community. She just has flawed logic and she's uninformed about many of the things she likes to talk about.

The rest of your advice is really great. I'm going to take it.

[MrsRoper]

Actually the whole video might be helpful in your debate.

I love this video. I think I saved it to my youtube favorites. It's very helpful.