Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[Harambe]

Hahaha. Not something I ever expected someone to call Roach.

Merely proves my accusations true. Randomly going out on any whim he decides at any given seconds, facts with him or not.

Again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6rRNANSgI

 

[Harambe]

You're missing the mark.

Like the marksman that hits the target stand.

"Just what I was aiming for"
*F-troupe sets down bb gun and proclaims himself God of all things projectile*

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Religiosity goes FAR deeper than Bible thumping. It seems to be an extremely common aberration in human cognition (which suggests it was evolutionary advantageous).

Have you ever tried talking a hippie out of her "I need these crystals to cleanse my body of toxins" style of faith? It is just as impossible as trying to reason with the hardcorist of fundamentalist Christians.

Well, perhaps then the true aberration is rationality, not religiosity, or if you like, irrationality (e.g, holding beliefs/making decisions despite lack of evidence, or even in face of contrary evidence).

There's, I believe, a well-developed amount of empirical evidence that humans, by and large, do not respond to rational arguments in forming their beliefs. Most beliefs are reached via irrational means, and defended similarly. Although there is also empirical evidence that smart people are particularly skilled at defending irrational beliefs, or beliefs arrived at via non-rational means.

 

[Siro]

Well, perhaps then the true aberration is rationality, not religiosity, or if you like, irrationality (e.g, holding beliefs/making decisions despite lack of evidence, or even in face of contrary evidence).

There's, I believe, a well-developed amount of empirical evidence that humans, by and large, do not respond to rational arguments in forming their beliefs. Most beliefs are reached via irrational means, and defended similarly. Although there is also empirical evidence that smart people are particularly skilled at defending irrational beliefs, or beliefs arrived at via non-rational means.

I don't think rationality can be meaningfully called an aberration since it exists outside of human cognition. Rational, or logical, thought is the process of discovery of the constituents of the causal chain. It is how a computer works, or any system that wishes to accomplish a task in an efficient manner. Religiosity does not exist outside of the context of human (or any other animal) thought. It probably conferred an evolutionary advantage for advancing the role of conformity in forming community identity. It also provided short cuts to satisfying humans' thirst for understanding, without actually going thru the difficult and lengthy process of acquiring verifiable explanations. It is thus only meaningful to think of religiosity as the aberration.

I agree with what you're saying about how people form worldviews. While it is unfortunate, I don't think it is inevitable. After all, people think rationally about a lot of practical matters that directly affect their lives (all of economics depend on the idea that people are rational actors). They should need to be taught, from early age, to avoid deviating from rational thought in all areas, not just practical areas.

 

[Stoked]

You're missing the mark. Much of humanity is religious even if not spiritual at all. Think of your upbringing and what community means to you. Community is religious but not spiritual. It's what you are, what you want to be, who want to impress by your lifestyle and not be embarrassed for.

That's a rather generic example but the extensions are obvious.

It think it's the reverse. But that's no surprise.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I don't think rationality can be meaningfully called an aberration since it exists outside of human cognition. Rational, or logical, thought is the process of discovery of the constituents of the causal chain. It is how a computer works, or any system that wishes to accomplish a task in an efficient manner. Religiosity does not exist outside of the context of human (or any other animal) thought. It probably conferred an evolutionary advantage for advancing the role of conformity in forming community identity. It also provided short cuts to satisfying humans' thirst for understanding, without actually going thru the difficult and lengthy process of acquiring verifiable explanations. It is thus only meaningful to think of religiosity as the aberration.

I agree with what you're saying about how people form worldviews. While it is unfortunate, I don't think it is inevitable. After all, people think rationally about a lot of practical matters that directly affect their lives (all of economics depend on the idea that people are rational actors). They should need to be taught, from early age, to avoid deviating from rational thought in all areas, not just practical areas.

I wasn't serioulsy suggesting that rationality is an aberration, but in relative terms to irrationality (under which I place religious beliefs--not necessarily as pejorative term but to suggestion belief in absence of evidence), it is much less the norm, so relatively speaking an aberration. It's hard for me to view anything that is such a common attribute of humanity (religiosity) to be an aberration. To me, an aberration is something outside the norm of what we'd expect, and religiosity IS the norm, not outside the norm.

As for rational choice theory, it only specifies that individuals act to maximize a given utility function, but it says nothing about the source of the utility function nor whether the beliefs embedded therein are rational or irrational (or good or bad). So, say, for a utility function informed by a belief in eternal glory being serviced by a bevy or nubile virgins, blowing oneself up in a crowded market sqaure can be considered a highly rational act.

 

[Siro]

I wasn't serioulsy suggesting that rationality is an aberration, but in relative terms to irrationality (under which I place religious beliefs--not necessarily as pejorative term but to suggestion belief in absence of evidence), it is much less the norm, so relatively speaking an aberration. It's hard for me to view anything that is such a common attribute of humanity (religiosity) to be an aberration. To me, an aberration is something outside the norm of what we'd expect, and religiosity IS the norm, not outside the norm.

Oh, duh. Yeah, of course.

As for rational choice theory, it only specifies that individuals act to maximize a given utility function, but it says nothing about the source of the utility function nor whether the beliefs embedded therein are rational or irrational (or good or bad). So, say, for a utility function informed by a belief in eternal glory being serviced by a bevy or nubile virgins, blowing oneself up in a crowded market sqaure can be considered a highly rational act.

Ah, a rational choice based on a irrational, religious foundation. That's my problem with "faith". Unless society rejects faith as a legitimate basis for informing decisions, irrationality is here to stay.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Oh, duh. Yeah, of course.



Ah, a rational choice based on a irrational, religious foundation. That's my problem with "faith". Unless society rejects faith as a legitimate basis for informing decisions, irrationality is here to stay.

Yep, I have similar problems with 'faith.' One of my pet peeves is the deference US society gives to faith-based beliefs. I understand the history behind this cultural and legal prediliction, but from where I sit, a bad belief is a bad belief regardless of its source. Plus, given the thousands of years of human history, which show to us so clearly the human cost so often imposed by faith-based beliefs, one might argue that they merit even closer and more rigorous scrutiny than beliefs emanating from other sources. (Well, I'd probably expand that a bit to include all beliefs emanating from dogmatic belief or ideology.)

Societies in which rationality is the norm only exists in science fiction.

I'm not advocating that all decisions, policies, etc. should only be made on basis of evidence, but I'd certainly like to see the pendulum swing in that direction a bit more.

Interestingly, however, I've been doing work evaluating policy influence organizations (e.g., think tanks), and you learn quickly doing this that the pathways from evidence to policy decisions is a long and circuitous one, with many permutations. Making decisions based on emotion, gut, etc. is so much damned easier.

 

[♪alt13]

Religiosity goes FAR deeper than Bible thumping. It seems to be an extremely common aberration in human cognition (which suggests it was evolutionary advantageous).

Have you ever tried talking a hippie out of her "I need these crystals to cleanse my body of toxins" style of faith? It is just as impossible as trying to reason with the hardcorist of fundamentalist Christians.

It's actually not that hard. I have a lot of hippie friends and I talk them out of nonsensical beliefs all the time. What people are attracted to(I think this is the evolutionary wiring you are referring to) is a trifecta of knowledge, a sense of belonging or community, and a confirmation of their own uniqueness. As diaspora-tic as those subjects may seem I think they make up the essence of what we call spirituality.
You can have a conversation with a spiritual person, a conversation that challenges their beliefs, without challenging their knowledge, community, or unique identity. You can challenge their beliefs while celebrating those things. The importance of experience to spiritualism lends strictly spiritual people a flexibility to edit their views in light of their own experiences, including conversations with another person.
Religion perverts what is natural for humans by dispossessing a persons experience(their individualism) with dogmatic authority of the omnipotent kind. This replaces knowledge with "truth" and community becomes legalistic and authoritarian. You cannot easily discuss the validity of their beliefs because it is "truth" and to refute the truth is to attack the omnipotent dogma that has replaced so much of their natural experience.

 

[Siro]

It's actually not that hard. I have a lot of hippie friends and I talk them out of nonsensical beliefs all the time. What people are attracted to(I think this is the evolutionary wiring you are referring to) is a trifecta of knowledge, a sense of belonging or community, and a confirmation of their own uniqueness. As diaspora-tic as those subjects may seem I think they make up the essence of what we call spirituality.
You can have a conversation with a spiritual person, a conversation that challenges their beliefs, without challenging their knowledge, community, or unique identity. You can challenge their beliefs while celebrating those things. The importance of experience to spiritualism lends strictly spiritual people a flexibility to edit their views in light of their own experiences, including conversations with another person.
Religion perverts what is natural for humans by dispossessing a persons experience(their individualism) with dogmatic authority of the omnipotent kind. This replaces knowledge with "truth" and community becomes legalistic and authoritarian. You cannot easily discuss the validity of their beliefs because it is "truth" and to refute the truth is to attack the omnipotent dogma that has replaced so much of their natural experience.

How can you change anyone's beliefs without challenging their knowledge? And my own experiences lead me to believe that talking people out of nonsensical beliefs is very hard. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have formed these beliefs to begin with. I have spent hundreds of hours arguing with conspiracy theorists on this very site, and it made zero difference. It doesn't matter what evidence you give them, because to them, the providers of the evidence are in on the conspiracy.

I also don't think your definition of spirituality and religion are that useful. People tend to define spirituality however they like it seems. But from the many definition I've heard, I think it is best to be thought of as an emotional attachment to an abstract ideal.

Religion is not just a hierarchical system with a final authority. Even mainstream religions don't always follow that structure, let alone a more general definition. The second half of your definition touches on a more general truth, but it's still vague and unconvincing. I think religion is any system of beliefs that cannot be altered by the flow of information. This can be individuals beliefs based on personal experiences, or community beliefs based on group think (like nationalism), with or without spirituality or a higher authority.

 

[franklin]

Well, perhaps then the true aberration is rationality, not religiosity, or if you like, irrationality (e.g, holding beliefs/making decisions despite lack of evidence, or even in face of contrary evidence).

There's, I believe, a well-developed amount of empirical evidence that humans, by and large, do not respond to rational arguments in forming their beliefs. Most beliefs are reached via irrational means, and defended similarly. Although there is also empirical evidence that smart people are particularly skilled at defending irrational beliefs, or beliefs arrived at via non-rational means.

Religiosity and irrationality are not identical IMO. Being emotional to some stance is completely separate than worshiping the same.

 

[Harambe]

Religiosity and irrationality are not identical IMO. Being emotional to some stance is completely separate than worshiping the same.

Like being emotionally attached to being contrary for the sake of it, rather than having any substantial backing at all.

Or trying to sound smart, but coming out like a cheap fortune cookie.