Supernatural (and BS filters)
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd todds@pa.net
Fri, 3 Oct 1997 06:35:49 -0400 (00875896549, 199710031035.GAA00419@emh1.pa.net)
>> RJV 10/1
>> And this would be a _bad_ thing? Matt, I have a little task I'd like you
>> to perform. It's called the mirror argument, and sometimes it is helpful
>> in determining where an opinion that _you_ hold is wrong. Reread the
>> above and replace the word "Bible" with "Quran" or "Book of Mormon" or any
>> other religious work. Make similar, consistent substitutions where
>> appropriate (Jesus to Allah, etc), reread your paragraph, and see if that
>> will convince you that another faith is just as valid as yours.
>
>KOLLER
>The use of the mirror tool is very effective. Xtians make claims claims
>as if they are somehow unique -- that their arguments are untouchable.
>I frequently do search-and-replace on xtian e-mail I receive and send it
>back to the originator. It's the quickest way to give them pause for
>thought. If they can understand the absurdity of what I my reply, then
>perhaps they can understand why I find their position equally absurd and
>unpersuasive.
>
>> RJV 10/1
>> Matt, I'm afraid that this might get you into a whole heap of troubles.
>> Do you believe alien craft (UFO's) visit earth regularly? Do you believe
>> that the Heavens Gaters actually went to "the level after human"? This
>> mindset that you propose makes it almost impossiblie to filter out crap.
>
>KOLLER
>Which is one reason why I could never go back to xtianity, or any other
>evidence-less religion. By believing on faith, you completely lose your
>objectivity. By using faith, you give up your tool of discernment. If
>you can believe at least ONE thing on faith, why can't you believe more
>than one? And why can't others also believe by faith? The fact is they
>do; and you can't tell them that they are wrong anymore than they can
>tell you that you are wrong. This is why I find arrogant dogma so
>misguided. It has no foundation in objectivity; it's simply empty
>rhetoric.
>
>RJV
>> You're basically turning your bullshit filter off, and blindly accepting
>> almost everything people say. I'm sure you don't actually operate under
>> this premise IRL (in real life). Now, for me, and many others, a much
>> more sound view to hold is the following: Accept nothing as truth without
>> proof.
>
>KOLLER
>It is amazing how wonderful this methodology works. And best of all, is
>its consistency. When applied equally across the board, it makes for
>very smart living. I can't express enough the joy I receive on a
>day-to-day basis by holding everything up to the standard of proof. It
>is actually quite exhilarating!
>
>RJV
>> It's hard at first, but, it is the best BS filter I know. If
>> someone comes up to me and tells me they've been abducted by a UFO, then I
>> think they smoked some funky colored crack rock earlier in the day UNLESS
>> they have some pretty damn good EVIDENCE.
>
>KOLLER
>I've had people challenge me about my "faith" in the scientific method.
>I have no problem telling people that I trust the scientific method.
>But unlike religious faith, "faith in science" is grounded in reality.
NANCY
This is the difference between trust and faith. Trust is belief based on
evidence, while faith is belief without, or even in spite of the evidence.
KOLLER
>The scientific method has earned the right to the title "BEST B.S.
>filter". It has demonstrated time and time again its utility. Unless
>and until something better comes along, I have no reason to abandon the
>scientific method. I certainly find no reason to apologize for it.
NANCY
I wish everyone would read Carl Sagan's book, _The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle in the Darkness_. It is a wonderful explanation of
knowledge versus faith.
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net