Originally posted by Jaeh.is.AwesomeBy saying that you have faith means that you believe regardless of the information that you have which is the whole "faith" thing. If you choose to believe that is your thing just as I choose not to believe but I understand and acknowledge why I believe the way that I do.
That's from your point of view. If that's how you see it and all. I still stand for what I see is the truth. 😄I have faith. *shrug*
If you have facts that God does exist then it is not faith, to have faith you must lack facts that support your beliefs.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
By saying that you have faith means that you believe regardless of the information that you have which is the whole "faith" thing. If you choose to believe that is your thing just as I choose not to believe but I understand and acknowledge why I believe the way that I do.If you have facts that God does exist then it is not faith, to have faith you must lack facts that support your beliefs.
I see facts, I see truth. But they're facts and truth not accepted by everyone, so I refer to my belief as having faith in general. Besides, I believe that God cannot be explained to anyone who refuses to believe - so no matter what I do to try and explain the facts on how I see God exists, I can't make you guys believe in it anyway. 🙂
that's how I see it. 🙂 and please do not ask me to explain, I'm really not up for it. I'll leave it to the other Christians here on KMC who are explaining in other threads 😉
either way, I respect that you believe in what you believe in anyway. There's no point in arguing about things when you know that you can't convince the other side to see and believe what you want them to see and believe. 🙂
Originally posted by Jaeh.is.Awesome
That's from your point of view. If that's how you see it and all. I still stand for what I see is the truth. 😄I have faith. *shrug*
I don't need blind faith. I know because I have been there, and I am telling you the truth. You can choose to not believe me, but just remember that the way you feel is not unique.
Originally posted by Jaeh.is.AwesomeA fact is a fact and is completely different from a truth, a fact is that 2 + 2 = 4 and is accepted by everyone, a truth is relative to the person. You are also making assumptions saying that I refuse to believe, I do not refuse to believe because I do not refuse to not learn new information. You seem to refuse to believe that God may not be real which is different then me believing that the God of the Bible is not real but if shown proof that he is I would accept it as truth but until otherwise proven he is a work of fiction created by man's need to belong.
I see facts, I see truth. But they're facts and truth not accepted by everyone, so I refer to my belief as having faith in general. Besides, I believe that God cannot be explained to anyone who refuses to believe - so no matter what I do to try and explain the facts on how I see God exists, I can't make you guys believe in it anyway. 🙂that's how I see it. 🙂 and please do not ask me to explain, I'm really not up for it. I'll leave it to the other Christians here on KMC who are explaining in other threads 😉
either way, I respect that you believe in what you believe in anyway. There's no point in arguing about things when you know that you can't convince the other side to see and believe what you want them to see and believe. 🙂
How do you know that you couldn't not convince me that God does exist? Is your proof that he exists the same as to what has been posted over and over and shown to be flawed, curricular or a leap in faith? If you have proof or a new reason of thinking that has not been posted I would very much like to hear it, if it is the same arrangements that has been posted over and over then yes please keep it to yourself and yes that wouldn't convice me of God's existence.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
A fact is a fact and is completely different from a truth, a fact is that 2 + 2 = 4 and is accepted by everyone, a truth is relative to the person. You are also making assumptions saying that I refuse to believe, I do not refuse to believe because I do not refuse to not learn new information. You seem to refuse to believe that God may not be real which is different then me believing that the God of the Bible is not real but if shown proof that he is I would accept it as truth but until otherwise proven he is a work of fiction created by man's need to belong.How do you know that you couldn't not convince me that God does exist? Is your proof that he exists the same as to what has been posted over and over and shown to be flawed, curricular or a leap in faith? If you have proof or a new reason of thinking that has not been posted I would very much like to hear it, if it is the same arrangements that has been posted over and over then yes please keep it to yourself and yes that wouldn't convice me of God's existence.
*sticks fingers into ears and hums a song* 😉
Yeah, saying that you can never convince the "other side" of your viewpoint is a bit of a cop out. I've seen many people convert to all sorts of different belief systems, even when firmly entrenched in a particular viewpoint. It might not be the majority of cases, but it also isn't such a rarity as to make debate worthless.
So a failure to convert likely isn't due to the other side's stubbornness or ignorance. More than likely, it's simply due to the argument itself being flawed, or its method of delivery. People are generally receptive to solid arguments. They become much less so when there's holes in a given position.
Originally posted by Digi
People are generally receptive to solid arguments. They become much less so when there's holes in a given position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Westen#Political_bias_study
Originally posted by Digi
So a failure to convert likely isn't due to the other side's stubbornness or ignorance. More than likely, it's simply due to the argument itself being flawed, or its method of delivery. People are generally receptive to solid arguments. They become much less so when there's holes in a given position.
Very few people don't care about the facts. Most will follow whatever sounds good at the moment, critical thinking has never been and still isn't a common skill. While you or I might be more interested in the soundness of an argument the average person wants rhetoric, charisma and someone who's similar to them.
Fair enough, to both of you. I'll rescind one of my earlier two points, but will maintain the other: that it's still a cop out to cite others' stubbornness as a reason for not engaging in debate, especially when the claim is that "no one" can change their thinking. That was the position I was refuting, though clearly I went a little too far in my refutation. Selective interpretation and confirmation bias and generally just a lack of critical thinking is indeed all too common in anything we value as important to our cognitive worldview, whose biological roots are alluded to in the link inamilist posted, and whose real-world affects Sym correctly identified.
Originally posted by Digi
Selective interpretation and confirmation bias and generally just a lack of critical thinking is indeed all too common in anything we value as important to our cognitive worldview, whose biological roots are alluded to in the link inamilist posted
minor correction, and only because it is you digi 😉
it isn't an issue of critical thinking or of confirmation bias, which is specifically the selective interpretation of search for evidence which confirms a previously held belief. The study deals with non-conforming evidence. It would be more appropriately described as attempting to understand why humans do not experience cognitive dissonance when faced with conflicting evidence to their previously held views.
even at that, my favorite part of the study is the finding that people experience activity in their "reward" brain areas when they read statements they agree with. Actually, that might have to do with confirmation bias, unfortunately it takes a while for neuro and social psychological theories to come together.
Originally posted by Digi
shakefistThough to be fair, I'm wasn't familiar with the neurological terms to label it correctly. Had to go with the closest terms I knew, which were sociological.
lol, which highlights the current territory war between social and neuro (re: real) psychology
jokes aside, it is really a large problem. Many of these social conceptions are empirically true, yet make little sense when applied to what is known about neurology. Not that the results are different, just that the social explanations for something like cognitive dissonance become less relevant the lower you go. And ya, there are huge turf wars between the social and the neuro camps, mainly because of how deterministic and dehumanizing neuro research tends to be. The best argument I've gotten back from anthropologists about this type of thing is akin to "but that is too reductionist" while failing to point out what specificity is being lost with the reduction.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, which highlights the current territory war between social and neuro (re: real) psychologyjokes aside, it is really a large problem. Many of these social conceptions are empirically true, yet make little sense when applied to what is known about neurology. Not that the results are different, just that the social explanations for something like cognitive dissonance become less relevant the lower you go. And ya, there are huge turf wars between the social and the neuro camps, mainly because of how deterministic and dehumanizing neuro research tends to be. The best argument I've gotten back from anthropologists about this type of thing is akin to "but that is too reductionist" while failing to point out what specificity is being lost with the reduction.
You learn different things at different levels (which is a poor choice of terms I suppose) of research. Chemistry can be reduced to math but mathematicians are learning different stuff than chemists are. Similarly neuropsych (and neurology I suppose) tells you the physiological processes but not anything about thought processes that actually get used in day to day life. IMO, it's all about what you want to know rather than who's right.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You learn different things at different levels (which is a poor choice of terms I suppose) of research. Chemistry can be reduced to math but mathematicians are learning different stuff than chemists are. Similarly neuropsych (and neurology I suppose) tells you the physiological processes but not anything about thought processes that actually get used in day to day life. IMO, it's all about what you want to know rather than who's right.
neurology is the processes, neuro-psych is about how those do produce everyday behaviour.
Originally posted by inimalist
neurology is the processes, neuro-psych is about how those do produce everyday behaviour.
Ah!
Neurology: the brain
Neuro-psych: how the brain makes the mind
xxxx-Psych: the mind
Or something to that effect?
So why the war between neuro and soc rather than neuro vs cognitive or humanistic?
cognitive science is at odds with cognitive psychology (the former thinking the brain is not necessary for cognitive studies).
its not "neuro" and "soc", but rather more of a war between psychology and all of the other, non-empirical sciences, that have tried for a long time to explain human behaviour in terms of kin relations and institutions. lol, and it is hardly a war...
Psychology literally means mind, but in terms of what it means scientifically, it is behaviour. The mind still falls under its "umbrella", it is just much more difficult to test, hence schools like Behaviourism where no mention is made of information processing, just stimuli and response. So, XXXX-psych is the interaction between XXXX and human behaviour.
Originally posted by inimalist
cognitive science is at odds with cognitive psychology (the former thinking the brain is not necessary for cognitive studies).
Where are they finding cognition to study then?
Also, I lol at the irony.
Originally posted by inimalist
its not "neuro" and "soc", but rather more of a war between psychology and all of the other, non-empirical sciences, that have tried for a long time to explain human behaviour in terms of kin relations and institutions. lol, and it is hardly a war...
Isn't being empirical one of the sorta requirements for being a science? I mean if you can't or don't test things it's basically wild mass guessing.
Originally posted by inimalist
Psychology literally means mind, but in terms of what it means scientifically, it is behaviour. The mind still falls under its "umbrella", it is just much more difficult to test, hence schools like Behaviourism where no mention is made of information processing, just stimuli and response. So, XXXX-psych is the interaction between XXXX and human behaviour.
Makes sense.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where are they finding cognition to study then?Also, I lol at the irony.
cognitive science is the study of information processing, normally "higher order" information. So like AI and other stuff, models of how te brain might compute things.
I'm with ya, I think its ridiculous.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Isn't being empirical one of the sorta requirements for being a science? I mean if you can't or don't test things it's basically wild mass guessing.
see if you can find a paper called "Anthropology against women".
It is a Marxist Feminist look at the history of Anthro, and essentially a wild mess of bias mixed with accusations.
It was presented in my 3rd year anthro class as a good paper with lots of ideas we should use in the course [sic]. Needless to say, there is no such thing as Marxist or Feminist science.
They call themselves non-empirical sciences, so I just use it in a mocking sort of way.