Is belief in spiritual or supernatural entities a sign of mental weakness or illness?

[pantheory]

22 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

.............  Faith in science or faith in God....not a biggie, pick one.

 

 

Hi Edgarcito,

 

I don't think one should have faith in either science or religion. Read what a particular science says.  if it makes sense to you then you can believe it, but not because this or that expert believes it. The same goes for religion. Read parts of the Bible and if it makes sense to you believe it, if it doesn't then don't believe it. Faith better fits those who cannot think for themselves, and those with less self confidence in their own judgement IMO.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi Edgarcito,

 

I don't think one should have faith in either science or religion. Read what a particular science says.  if it makes sense to you then you can believe it, but not because this or that expert believes it. The same goes for religion. Read parts of the Bible and if it makes sense to you believe it, if it doesn't then don't believe it. Faith better fits those who cannot think for themselves, and those with less self confidence in their own judgement IMO.

 

DITTO!

[walterpthefirst]

18 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi Edgarcito,

 

I don't think one should have faith in either science or religion. Read what a particular science says.  if it makes sense to you then you can believe it, but not because this or that expert believes it. The same goes for religion. Read parts of the Bible and if it makes sense to you believe it, if it doesn't then don't believe it. Faith better fits those who cannot think for themselves, and those with less self confidence in their own judgement IMO.

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but your argument only holds good only so far.

 

Things which makes sense to us only do so because evolution has equipped us to perceive and understand the world around us in certain ways.  It therefore logically follows that things evolution has not equipped us to perceive and understand cannot make 'sense' to us.

 

Two examples are quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Many people reject these things because they do not make 'sense'.  These people are relying on mental tools and techniques that cannot deal with the very small and the very large.  Mental tools that first helped us make fire, understand the seasons, comprehend where animals could be hunted and so on.  These tools were adequate for almost everything that happens here on Earth.

 

But they are not adequate for understanding the quantum realm or the vastness of the universe.  For these things that lie outside of human experience, other tools are needed.  Mathematics being the best example.  A willingness to think beyond the confines of human experience is another.  A willingness to accept that reality has no obligation to be understood on our terms is another.

 

So, your point about accepting and believing what makes sense is mostly true, but not wholly true.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but your argument only holds good only so far.

 

Things which makes sense to us only do so because evolution has equipped us to perceive and understand the world around us in certain ways.  It therefore logically follows that things evolution has not equipped us to perceive and understand cannot make 'sense' to us.

 

Two examples are quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Many people reject these things because they do not make 'sense'.  These people are relying on mental tools and techniques that cannot deal with the very small and the very large.  Mental tools that first helped us make fire, understand the seasons, comprehend where animals could be hunted and so on.  These tools were adequate for almost everything that happens here on Earth.

 

But they are not adequate for understanding the quantum realm or the vastness of the universe.  For these things that lie outside of human experience, other tools are needed.  Mathematics being the best example.  A willingness to think beyond the confines of human experience is another.  A willingness to accept that reality has no obligation to be understood on our terms is another.

 

So, your point about accepting and believing what makes sense is mostly true, but not wholly true.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

<Logic> Follow the evidence wherever it leads </Logic>

 

<Emotion> Unless it leads to something that looks like woo</Emotion>

 

..................

 

"A willingness to accept that reality has no obligation to be understood on our terms is another." 

 

Powerful statement. We are not so important that the universe needs to align to our thinking. 

 

 

[pantheory]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but your argument only holds good only so far.

 

Things which makes sense to us only do so because evolution has equipped us to perceive and understand the world around us in certain ways.  It therefore logically follows that things evolution has not equipped us to perceive and understand cannot make 'sense' to us.

 

Two examples are quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Many people reject these things because they do not make 'sense'.  These people are relying on mental tools and techniques that cannot deal with the very small and the very large.  Mental tools that first helped us make fire, understand the seasons, comprehend where animals could be hunted and so on.  These tools were adequate for almost everything that happens here on Earth.

 

But they are not adequate for understanding the quantum realm or the vastness of the universe.  For these things that lie outside of human experience, other tools are needed.  Mathematics being the best example.  A willingness to think beyond the confines of human experience is another.  A willingness to accept that reality has no obligation to be understood on our terms is another.

 

So, your point about accepting and believing what makes sense is mostly true, but not wholly true.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

As you know Walter, I believe the complications of the quantum realm and of the universe are only in their detail. And their lack of understanding is only in the mind of the perceiver confounded by mainstream theory.

 

Of course generally all also know that what is logical to one person may not be logical to another. And as you know my perspective of reality is that essentially everything is simpler to understand when put in a logically consistent perspective, contrary to many mainstream physic's theories today -- but not for lack of trying.

[Edgarcito]

On 7/18/2022 at 11:19 AM, pantheory said:

 

Hi Edgarcito,

 

I don't think one should have faith in either science or religion. Read what a particular science says.  if it makes sense to you then you can believe it, but not because this or that expert believes it. The same goes for religion. Read parts of the Bible and if it makes sense to you believe it, if it doesn't then don't believe it. Faith better fits those who cannot think for themselves, and those with less self confidence in their own judgement IMO.

Thanks.  I'm believing the path to believing what we believe for ourselves is worth the time and distress.  I personally believe to see too many patterns where science and the Bible appear to match.  My brain is a pattern/analogy type brain.....don't know how else to describe that.  Then I ask which came first or was it just astute old dudes or what.  Is what it is.  Glad to have intelligent people to visit with as not many people walk the path. 

 

Except for you Walter.  LOL, I'm kidding, I even enjoy the debate with you sir.  

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

As you know Walter, I believe the complications of the quantum realm and of the universe are only in their detail. And their lack of understanding is only in the mind of the perceiver confounded by mainstream theory.

 

Of course generally all also know that what is logical to one person may not be logical to another. And as you know my perspective of reality is that essentially everything is simpler to understand when put in a logically consistent perspective, contrary to many mainstream physic's theories today -- but not for lack of trying.

 

Yes, I know that you believe that reality is essentially simple, Pantheory.

 

But what I have yet to hear from you is an objective reason why the universe should be as simple as you believe it is.

 

And I dismiss your over-zealous usage of Occam's Razor as a legitimate objective reason.

 

The Razor is a philosophical tool to be applied judiciously and where it is warranted.

 

Not to justify your long-standing belief that the universe must be as simple as you want it to be.

 

 

But this is getting off-topic.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  I'm believing the path to believing what we believe for ourselves is worth the time and distress.  I personally believe to see too many patterns where science and the Bible appear to match.  My brain is a pattern/analogy type brain.....don't know how else to describe that.  Then I ask which came first or was it just astute old dudes or what.  Is what it is.  Glad to have intelligent people to visit with as not many people walk the path. 

 

Except for you Walter.  LOL, I'm kidding, I even enjoy the debate with you sir.  

 

That's ok Ed, no offence taken.  

 

 

So, if you enjoy debating with me, then there's something I need to draw your attention to.

 

The argument you've put forward about finding matching patterns between science and the bible is one that people of other faiths can and do make, about their particular holy books.

 

As such, for us sceptics, there is nothing to choose between your argument and theirs.  It is a level playing field where each believer finds matching patterns between their holy book and science.  You are all saying essentially the same thing...'science supports my religious beliefs and not anyone else's.'

 

But from our sceptical p.o.v., you are no different to any of the others.  Going further, from our p.o.v. you are all doing this for exactly the same reasons.  Because you are all emotionally invested in your chosen holy book and not in any others.

 

So, can you break the deadlock and cite any scientific evidence that specifically identifies your chosen god?

 

If you do that, we will take notice.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[pantheory]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, I know that you believe that reality is essentially simple, Pantheory.

 

But what I have yet to hear from you is an objective reason why the universe should be as simple as you believe it is.

 

And I dismiss your over-zealous usage of Occam's Razor as a legitimate objective reason.

 

The Razor is a philosophical tool to be applied judiciously and where it is warranted.

 

Not to justify your long-standing belief that the universe must be as simple as you want it to be.

 

 

But this is getting off-topic.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Simplicity or complexity of understanding is different from the simplicity of complexity of reality. All else being equal, the simpler answer to explain reality is always the better answer of several choices. IMO If one believes in mainstream answers, he will find reality to be a very complicated place.

 

My suggestion is to always look for simpler explanations if something does not make sense to you. An explanation(s) that is not contradicted by observation and is logical to you. They're out there, or you can consider your own.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, pantheory said:

 

Simplicity or complexity of understanding is different from the simplicity of complexity of reality. All else being equal, the simpler answer to explain reality is always the better answer of several choices. IMO If one believes in mainstream answers, he will find reality to be a very complicated place.

 

My suggestion is to always look for simpler explanations if something does not make sense to you. An explanation(s) that is not contradicted by observation and is logical to you. They're out there, or you can consider your own.

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but I do not share your expectation that the universe must obey your logic or be as simple as you would like it to be.

 

I also think that we are dragging this thread off-topic.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  I'm believing the path to believing what we believe for ourselves is worth the time and distress.  I personally believe to see too many patterns where science and the Bible appear to match.  My brain is a pattern/analogy type brain.....don't know how else to describe that.  Then I ask which came first or was it just astute old dudes or what.  Is what it is.  Glad to have intelligent people to visit with as not many people walk the path. 

 

Except for you Walter.  LOL, I'm kidding, I even enjoy the debate with you sir.  

 

Astute old dudes have the wisdom to make better life decisions, but young men in their teens and early 20's have made many of the breakthroughs in science, take Newton and Einstein for example.

 

One of my favorite sayings was that "science advances one funeral at a time." This quote was made by the famous scientist Max Planck. Older scientists have created, and are invested in mainstream theory. Young beginning scientists are free from entrenchment in existing theory and can look outside the box for better answers if they are out there. 

[pantheory]

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Pantheory, but I do not share your expectation that the universe must obey your logic or be as simple as you would like it to be.

 

I also think that we are dragging this thread off-topic.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

Simplicity is unrelated to ones wishes, It's related to ones  understandings.  And thanks, I agree, these comments are off topic and will not continue on my part.

[walterpthefirst]

On 7/18/2022 at 11:47 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

True in the sense that I can only begin to understand what you are first willing to share.  But, once shared, each word has a distinct meaning, a definition, used to effect my understanding of your experience.  The experience itself may be one I can only ever fully understand by undertaking it myself, much like a christian cannot understand deconversion.  In this instance, though, provided you measure your words against their definitions, you can convey a description adequate enough for me to empathize with the experience, if not fully understand. 

 

Yes, Professor.

 

I can agree with this.  

 

I can convey a description of something to you using language that we can both agree upon. 

 

But I'm not sure that this agreed description would qualify as a definition that we could both accept.

 

Seeing as you asked what the difference is between a description and a definition.

 

That I'm still thinking about.

 

 

On 7/18/2022 at 11:47 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't think subjectivity precludes understanding entirely.  It may limit it; but I don't need to hike Mt. Everest to get a sense of the elation and enlightenment described by those who have. 

 

Agreed.

 

Because we have communicated efficiently in the past and are doing so now, subjectivity cannot be the unsurmountable barrier that some people believe it is.

 

So, within certain limits,  we can indeed share in the thoughts, feelings and experiences of others.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

All else being equal, the simpler answer to explain reality is always the better answer of several choices. 

 

 

I am reminded of the words of my uneducated but wise grandmother.  "Some people make mountains out of mole hills". 

[midniterider]

God did it. Pretty simple. Only one assumption needed. lol

[midniterider]

I like where the topic is at the moment. 

 

Can we get a digression exemption?

[alreadyGone]

...

[◊ Weezer ◊]

34 minutes ago, midniterider said:

I like where the topic is at the moment. 

 

Can we get a digression exemption?

 

To digress a little further, I like the signture on your posts.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Isn't is possible that mankind could persist for another 18,000 centuries and never discover the origins of temporal reality? 

 

I think it is a very good possibility.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

All else being equal, the simpler answer to explain reality is always the better answer of several choices.

You're misapplying Occam's Razor here, Pan.  "Rain makes crops grow" is as simple an explanation as there is.  But this explanation fails to take into account several key elements such as environmental factors, soil conditions, altitude, relative humidity, etc.  On top of this, with modern irrigation practices, rain is not even necessary for crops to grow; and some crops, such as  strawberries, grow better under a shelter.

 

Occam's Razor is meant as a tool to remove unnecessary complexities from an explanation, which will usually yield the explanation most likely to be correct.  It doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is the always right one.

[pantheory]

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You're misapplying Occam's Razor here, Pan.  "Rain makes crops grow" is as simple an explanation as there is.  But this explanation fails to take into account several key elements such as environmental factors, soil conditions, altitude, relative humidity, etc.  On top of this, with modern irrigation practices, rain is not even necessary for crops to grow; and some crops, such as  strawberries, grow better under a shelter.

 

Occam's Razor is meant as a tool to remove unnecessary complexities from an explanation, which will usually yield the explanation most likely to be correct.  It doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is the always right one.

 

The basis of Occam's Razor is when given a choice of two possible answers to a problem, the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal -- with no guarantees that either answer is correct. 

[walterpthefirst]

Occam's Razor is meant as a tool to remove unnecessary complexities from an explanation, which will usually yield the explanation most likely to be correct.  It doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is the always right one.

 

Since we seem to have returned to this Professor, I'll comment.

 

(Or rather, pose some questions.)

 

If I interpret an explanation as being over-complex and then use the Razor to justify my simplification of it, is that a warranted use of the Razor?

 

Also, is the issue of unnecessary complexity a matter of personal interpretation?

 

Should the Razor be used for any other agenda than to remove unnecessary complexities?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

The basis of Occam's Razor is when given a choice of two possible answers to a problem, the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal -- with no guarantees that either answer is correct. 

This misunderstanding is probably where your misapplication stems from.

[midniterider]

W: Also, is the issue of unnecessary complexity a matter of personal interpretation?

 

Seems like it. 

 

Here's an OR article:

 

https://towardsdatascience.com/stop-using-the-occams-razor-principle-7281d143f9e6

 

Is Occam's Razor a principle that has been shown, over time, to be valid with some sort of evidence to back it up? Is it a tool of reason and logic? Or maybe just a personal preference? 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's ok Ed, no offence taken.  

 

 

So, if you enjoy debating with me, then there's something I need to draw your attention to.

 

The argument you've put forward about finding matching patterns between science and the bible is one that people of other faiths can and do make, about their particular holy books.

 

As such, for us sceptics, there is nothing to choose between your argument and theirs.  It is a level playing field where each believer finds matching patterns between their holy book and science.  You are all saying essentially the same thing...'science supports my religious beliefs and not anyone else's.'

 

But from our sceptical p.o.v., you are no different to any of the others.  Going further, from our p.o.v. you are all doing this for exactly the same reasons.  Because you are all emotionally invested in your chosen holy book and not in any others.

 

So, can you break the deadlock and cite any scientific evidence that specifically identifies your chosen god?

 

If you do that, we will take notice.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I'm not a comparative religion person, but I expect a trinity is not unique to Christianity.  So I will go with another.  How about when Moses glowed after being in the presence of God.  The pattern I'd like to submit is ICP-OES.  Burning bush, God's presence....Moses glowed.