https://youtu.be/kyioZODhKbE
Great advice for getting through to believers by not triggering fight or flight instinct.
Try NOT bringing up the issue that triggers them. Avoid arguing. Fond topics where you agree and build upon that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2020 01:40PM by schrodingerscat.

That was really interesting!

Keep in mind that roughly two thirds of Mormons have already left, which means a great many of them are not at all impervious to logic.

Yes, there are some who are in deep denial about the evidence, but it is worth remembering that they are a minority.

People rarely believe for logical reasons. So logic doesn't matter to their belief.

As you yourself demonstrate with your pantheistic posts. It's about what you like, what appeals to you emotionally.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People rarely believe for logical reasons. So
> logic doesn't matter to their belief.

If by logic you mean the ability to make valid (not necessarily sound) inferences from facts to conclusions, I think people for the most part *are* interested in holding logical and consistent beliefs. As such, adherence to Mormonism is not generally about problems in critical thinking (logical thinking). Rather, it is about the subjective element involved in the accumulation and assessment of facts. "Facts" are often notoriously complex, and subject to difficulties in relevance, confirmation and interpretation when applying such facts to one's beliefs. This makes it very easy for people to disagree about both what is "a fact" and how any such fact might logically apply to a particular belief or worldview. This problem also translates to the idea of "evidence."

Because of the complexity of facts, people are left with a lot of room to apply their emotional preferences to their fact finding, fact assessments, and interpretations. However, once they make such judgments, they generally make valid logical inferences based upon such preferences, with the soundness (the truth of such facts) left for controversial argument. That is why arguing with Mormons (and other cult followers) is often useless. It is not because they are illogical, or don't care about logic, it is because their worldview is based upon a set of preferred "facts," and preferred interpretations, which encompass their emotional preferences. And, we all have such prejudices. However, most of us have a more rigid and objective view as to what constitutes a "fact," and how any such fact operates as evidence, for or against, any particular belief or worldview.

I read your post with my face in a hat and it made perfect sense!

I think Salviati's viewpoint is insightful.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People rarely believe for logical reasons. So
> logic doesn't matter to their belief.
>
> As you yourself demonstrate with your pantheistic
> posts. It's about what you like, what appeals to
> you emotionally.

My Pantheistic world view is not about what appeals to me emotionally. For me, it's about being in agreement with what the geniuses I respect (Kaku, Harris, Tyson, Sagan, Einstein, Hawking, Aurelius, Epicurus) all agreed upon.

Also, like Sam Harris said, "Perhaps the appeal has to do with the terrible alternatives."

https://youtu.be/j3xBUNIkA_c

You've said you LIKE to agree with them. That's emotional. Your list is cherry picked based on that agreement and ignores different views of equally eminent cosmologists without trying to reconcile the differences and disagreements.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've said you LIKE to agree with them. That's
> emotional. Your list is cherry picked based on
> that agreement and ignores different views of
> equally eminent cosmologists without trying to
> reconcile the differences and disagreements.

SC's assessment of the views of those on his list as "pantheist" is very misleading at best; and downright false in some instances. It is based upon his association with the views of such people with "Spinoza's God." For most of these cosmologists (I suspect), "Spinoza's God" represents the *laws of nature* or its ordering principles, and not necessarily nature itself in all of its material reality. (pantheism)

In other words, for a pantheist, like Spinoza, God is associated with all of nature, i.e. flowers, trees, the earth, etc., and not just to the ordering laws that apply to the material world. So, I suggest that SC is confused--much like some of these scientists are -- when he invokes "Spinoza's God" and pantheism as representing their views. In many cases, they do not understand what "Spinoza's God" and "pantheism" actually entail. (They do not understand the nuances of philosophy!)

Back to your point, even if one were to assume that SC knows what he is taking about as to the substance and intricacies of the views of these various cosmologists he cites, as well as any opposing views, his (and their) view would still be largely emotionally driven. That is because how one views the facts of nature and the laws of nature, will be laden with one's "emotional" commitments with respect to metaphysical reality generally. After all, many (perhaps most) theoretical physicists would reject ALL talk of beliefs referencing "God" or any other transcendent metaphysical reality (including pantheism) as inappropriate to a scientific worldview. Such people would also be applying their own emotional, metaphysical, commitments to the question.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've said you LIKE to agree with them. That's
> emotional. Your list is cherry picked based on
> that agreement and ignores different views of
> equally eminent cosmologists without trying to
> reconcile the differences and disagreements.

Name a more "preeminent cosmologist" than Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking or Einstein?

Where they all 3 agree, I agree and I've heard them all say very similar things about god and God. Where they agree, about god and God, I agree.

Because they also agreed with other more ancient wise men, like Lao Tzu and Buddha, Epicurus and Aurelius and yes, Spinoza.

I pay attention to what the wise men, and women, have had to say. I value wisdom literature, both current and ancient.

Where they all agree, I agree.

Where they disagree, on god, which is pretty rare, I tend to find more current views more valuable, like Michio Kaku's, for instance, since he has a 100 years of advantage over Einstein.

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2020 06:31PM by schrodingerscat.

> Because they also agreed with other more ancient
> wise men, like Lao Tzu and Buddha, Epicurus and
> Aurelius and yes, Spinoza.

There it is again. You don't understand Laozi or the Buddha at all: they do not agree with your rock stars let alone with you.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Because they also agreed with other more
> ancient
> > wise men, like Lao Tzu and Buddha, Epicurus and
> > Aurelius and yes, Spinoza.
>
> There it is again. You don't understand Laozi or
> the Buddha at all: they do not agree with your
> rock stars let alone with you.


Or I have a different understanding than you?
YOu're not the ultimate authority on Lao Tzu, Buddha, Epicurus and Aerelius, are you?
I've read them all and I have a pretty decent grasp of what the wise men have all said and agreed upon.
It's not that complicated.

I didn't express an opinion Epicurus and Aerelius because although I have read them, I am not educated enough on them to say anything definitive.

I do, however, have a thorough understanding of Taoism and Buddhism. If you have read the Daodejing, as you claim, show me a single passage in that very short book that mentions God at all. Or that says God is the same as nature. Or that says science is good. I will be interested to see how you handle the question since the Chinese of the Warring States period did not even have a word for God. "Shen" for the spirits in mountains or rivers or a big rock, but not God.

As for the Buddha, show me one place where he or any of the early Buddhist documents speak of an ultimate God. You won't be able to do it because the core of Buddhism is that reality around us, including science, is an illusion. At the end of the present kalpa (do you now the word?) all individuals will have ceased to exist, the universe will no longer exist, and there will be no science at all.

As I said, I can't make general statements about Epicurus and Aerelius or even spinoza. But what you do to Laozi and Buddha is so ridiculous that I am confident that you do understand the others either.

Have your own thoughts. Trumpet them. But don't assign those thoughts to philosophers whom you don't even understand.

Lot's Wife, believers are impervious to logic and how to get through to them...isn't using logic.

Agreed.

But my shotguns and hunting rifles are at my parents' home.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Have your own thoughts. Trumpet them. But don't
> assign those thoughts to philosophers whom you
> don't even understand.


You who don't understand them.
At all.

Sure.

While I have you and your expertise available, could you tell me whether you prefer the mainstream Daodejing or the Ma Wang Tui Dedaojing? I mean, there's obvious value in the established tradition but the Ma Wang Tui manuscript dates to about 170 BCE and hence is many hundreds of years older and was found very near where Laozi lived.

Which do you think is closer to the Zhuangzi and Liezi tradition?

> Where they disagree, on god, which is pretty rare,
> I tend to find more current views more valuable,
> like Michio Kaku's, for instance, since he has a
> 100 years of advantage over Einstein.


I suspect your view of Einstein and Hawking might be more generous than Kaku's if they had had the benefit of Ted talks and Youtube clips.

SC follows only the very best cosmology influencers, as rated by Tiger Beat Magazine.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC follows only the very best cosmology
> influencers, as rated by Tiger Beat Magazine.


Name a cosmologist more genius than Einstein.
Just one.
I'm waiting.

> Name a cosmologist more genius than
> Einstein. Just one. I'm waiting.


I wish that were the point many of us natter on about you. All the credit in the world to Einstein for the work he did. But his glory does not attach to you because you claim him for your guru. All you're saying is, "Oh, yeah!? Well, my guru is better than your guru, so that makes me better than you!"

Over and over and over...

Some of us daydream for amusement and inspiration, some of us watch YouTube videos and post links.

What do you think of this notion? “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”

the older I get the more I tend to focus more on fulfilling the peak needs I have, finding meaning in the world, that is otherwise meaningless. Because of that I put a lot of value on continually articulating a more tenable existential foothold. I do that by reading mostly, mainly those wise men of the past and wise women (and men) of the present, like Malala and Ayan Hirsi Ali. There are a lot of wise women in the past too. Maybe more. We just don't hear a hell of a lot about them because we live in a patriarchal culture.
I love to find where they all agree, which seems pretty simple to me.
We're all one.
Our purpose is to ever enlarge our circle of compassion.
Love.
And where they disagree, which isn't really the most significant part.
I agree with the what the wisest wise men and women I know of, agree upon.
That gives me confidence.
The courage of my convictions.

> I agree with what the wisest
> wise men and women I know of,
> agree upon.

So you would also be in love with Miss America?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Name a cosmologist more genius than Einstein.
> Just one.
> I'm waiting.

Well, in the first place, for many years Einstein aggressively defended the (false) steady state theory of the universe, until Hubble conclusively showed that the universe was expanding in 1933. (Or thereabouts) During this time several cosmologists, most notably Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre tried to point out to Einstein that the field equations of general relativity were more conducive to a dynamic "big bang" model as later proposed by George Gamov, making Einstein's cosmological constant unnecessary. He ignored and often ridiculed these people; until he acknowledge his "greatest mistake."

In applying general relativity to the universe at large several cosmologists made greater contributions that he did. So, to suggest that Einstein was "the greatest genius" in cosmology is ludicrous.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In applying general relativity to the universe at
> large several cosmologists made greater
> contributions that he did. So, to suggest that
> Einstein was "the greatest genius" in cosmology is
> ludicrous.

A pantheon needs gods. The older the better as long as they can hold their own in the current scientific society of marginally understood ideas to undergird their Parthenon.

My money's on Noam Chomsky with Homer, Bart, Lisa, Maggie as supporting characters; Flintstones, Rocky & Bullwinkle, 3 stooges as audience / sometimes crew.

'nuf said?

I'll have a go at this game, but my thinking is probably off other posters and SC, anyway here goes...

'Name a more "preeminent cosmologist" than Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking or Einstein?...Where they all 3 agree, I agree and I've heard them all say very similar things about god and God. '

I'm not sure that any of them knew anything about God, they are the wrong ones to look at for any information. Let's start with Stephen Hawking. He was an invalid who had to be an atheist for his own sanity. I respect him but realize he had a very hard life and needed to have this mindset to get through the god-damn day. He's not the one to look to for answers though.

Then there is Einstein, well he was a Jew. The Jews believe everything and nothing, there is no consensus. It's not like he passed his catechism or something, I wouldn't look to the Jews for answers, when they haven't got any.

As for Michio Kaku, sounds like Siamese or something, I don't know anything about him.

> Let's start with Stephen Hawking. He
> was an invalid who had to be an atheist for his
> own sanity. I respect him but realize he had a
> very hard life and needed to have this mindset to
> get through the god-damn day. He's not the one to
> look to for answers though.

I'm not comfortable with your psychological analysis here. Hawking said he was an atheist because he thought that the logical conclusion. Your looking past his stated views and identifying what you believe is the underlying rationale is close to an ad hominem attack: Hawking is an invalid, therefore you can't take his arguments about God seriously.


------------------
> Then there is Einstein, well he was a Jew. The
> Jews believe everything and nothing, there is no
> consensus. It's not like he passed his catechism
> or something, I wouldn't look to the Jews for
> answers, when they haven't got any.

Again, many Jews devote huge amounts of time and energy trying to understand God. That the community does not prohibit that by imposing an orthodoxy hardly invalidates their work and their insights.

It's easy enough to deal with Einstein because he said explicitly that he did not believe in a personal God.


---------------
> As for Michio Kaku, sounds like Siamese or
> something, I don't know anything about him.

Kaku is Japanese American and a serious academic. More important in the present context, he is also a an accomplished popularizer with a few mass market books and lots of public interviews on his resume. He is wedded to a few theories, which he presents as highly probable if not certain, and is criticized for that limited horizon.

But like the others, he is not an expert on God or religion. Also like the others, he uses that word as a proxy for the cosmos and the laws of nature.