There were times in history when 75% of people believed... in spontaneous generation the world was flat the sun rotated around the earth that slavery was okay I don't care how 'strong the evidence' was...it was completely wrong... Durvasa said it well but you keep sticking by a statement that is not true. Just because a lot of folks believe in something doesn't give it anymore evidence, proof, credibility, or whatever you want to call it...it just doesn't.
He has it stuck in his head that this counts as evidence, when it is anything BUT evidence. You'll just have to cut ties on this one and let it go, you can't discuss this with someone who doesn't understand the fundamentals.
Actually, I think it is evidence. It is just very, very weak. Especially given the nature of the subject (a belief in something). And especially given the reasonable explanations for why 75% of people could fall into that category but still be wrong. And especially given the fact that many of the 75% have beliefs that directly contradict each other, so the real number can't logically be 75%. But separate from that, the fact that a large number of people believe something is a small amount of evidence that such a thing might be true, and if there are few other pieces of evidence available that number might be enough to cause a reasonable person to lean towards the same belief. I mean, in the absence of all other evidence, if 75% of the people saw the chandelier and 25% didn't and you asked me to make a guess as to whether it was there or not, I'd guess it was there. Instead of arguing that it is not evidence, I think you should be arguing that such evidence is weak and that other evidence exists that is stronger.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eUB4j0n2UDU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eUB4j0n2UDU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fPJQw-x-xho&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fPJQw-x-xho&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P8Aq00yJSxo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P8Aq00yJSxo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
There are more senses than just sight, but this was just an example of indirect evidence. Whether it was sight or some form of input isn't the issue here. There are always other possible variables, particularly when you're talking about indirect evidence. What you are suggesting here is that a large percentage of these people believe what they believe only because it was passed down to them. That would be something to look into, but are people's beliefs really dictated to this extent by their community? Even from the community standpoint, why would so many communities believe in a god or gods? One way or another that 75% number is a major issue to be dealt with if you want to argue that all those people are wrong. I trust you will agree that people can be exerts on the books, in a number of different ways. As for the counselors, they see first hand the impact of spirituality in people's lives, many different people's lives, and that makes them experts. This tends not to be a detached, philosophical, experience, but I think sometimes it is. I recommend talking to some of these people to get a sense of what they've seen and what they've learned from what they've seen. They're not all great to talk to, I should add, but many of them are.
I'm not sure if you're right about any of your examples, but that's beside the point. I am absolutely certain that at some point in time 75% of a population believed something to be true when in fact they were wrong. This fact, however, is not relevant to what's being discussed here. If you don't understand why this is the case then I recommend that you re-read the thread.
I assume that you're hanging on to this because it's your last leg to stand on, but let me assure you that you are completely, 100%, wrong. I have a science degree Donny. I've taken graduate courses in research methodology. You, otoh, I'm quite sure didn't even take very many elective science classes in high school, and yet here you are trying to say that I don't understand the fundamentals. Let it go Donny. Let it go.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LACyLTsH4ac&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LACyLTsH4ac&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> i just watched this movie. wow... i am shocked!
How can those poor kids ever expect to lead a normal life?? Will take an awful lot of counselling to get them back to some kind of normalcy.
Ugh. This is what one of my girlfriends went through when she was little. Not as extreme as this but the same premise. It's just brainwashing, bah, I'm a little angry after watching that...not going to post something I wanted to...
Not relevant? The fact that history has shown(in many instances) that a majority of people believed strongly in something that was not true(mainly because it was based on unproveable ideas at the time, many religiously derived) directly invalidates you're assertion that 75% of a population belief is 'strong evidence'. As someone that has taken classes in 'research methodology' I can't believe you really believe this is evidence for anything...when is something ever considered evidence simply because someone believes it to be true even though you know they don't have any proof of its existence(nobody has proof in this instance, you know that)? It doesn't matter if it's 1 person or a gazillion people...that's not evidence of anything. A 'science' degree? Who says that? LOL, can you try to sound anymore pretentiously general. A nurse has a 'science' degree. Big deal. Given the vagueness of your answer I'm curious as to what the degree is in.
Of course it’s evidence. That’s not in question, at least not for anyone other than Donny. You are quite right, however, that how strong the evidence is can be questioned. I don’t remember you making a case for a reasonable explanation for why ¾ of the population of the world would be wrong on this point, however, and I also don’t remember you making a case for your claim that the beliefs of the various religions contradict each other. I would be interested in hearing both of those, but the second may actually be a secondary question. You are quite right that the 75% number by itself is fairly lean information, and like many research questions it leads fairly quickly to another set of questions. As lean as the point may be, however, there are a number of people who are having trouble accepting even the possibility of the existence of a god or gods, so I do think it’s an important point to work through.
No, in fact it doesn't. Please look up the difference between 'strong evidence' and 'conclusive proof'. They are not the same thing. Have you ever heard of a poll? Have you heard anyone talk about scientific polling before? They happen fairly frequently around elections, for example. This is just one of many examples of a type of study that involves asking people about their beliefs and experiences. I'll tell you what. I'm going to assume that you have heard of polling before and that you posted this without really thinking the issue through, so I'll just leave it here. You don't think nurses learn anything about science? I can assure you that nurses take a lot of science classes, and that they read and understand scientific papers. My degree is in civil engineering, btw, and I have done project management related graduate level research using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. What's your science background?
I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable explanations for why ¾ of the population is wrong about this, or at least plenty of facets to a single one. One reasonable explanation is that when humans cannot fully understand a given phenomenon, they tend to create an explanation for it, which would explain the prevalence of various mythologies in societies throughout human history. Another might have to do with evolutionary advantages to certain social behaviors that religions tend to emphasize, or advantages to the belief in God itself. Combine either or both of those with a predisposition for humans to believe in and follow the teachings of their parents and peers and you have a scenario where a large percentage of the world's population might believe in some sort of deity regardless of whether a deity actually exists. I'm sure there are more accurate and scientifically studied explanations available, that's just an off-the-top-of-my-head quickie. But hopefully you can see how one might reasonably argue that so many people can come to that conclusion without it necessarily being true. As far as contradiction, I'm not enough of a expert in religion to give you examples with 100% certainty, but I'm pretty sure that religions have conflicting beliefs that just don't work together. For example, is it really possible for the story of Jesus to be accurate as various Christian faiths believe, but also be accurate the way the Jewish faith believes it to be? If Christians believe he was Christ and Jews believe he was just a carpenter, then I don't see how those two beliefs can coexist and both be correct. Or more simply, some religions believe in multiple gods. But the second commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Can both of those belief systems be true? The reason those contradictions matter is that they directly refute the importance of the 75% evidence. If various groups within that 75% hold mutually exclusive beliefs, then some of those people must be "wrong". If some of those people are wrong (and given that no one religion is practiced by more than 30% of the population, it stands to reason that more than 50% of the people would be wrong), then that puts in doubt the accuracy of the belief that puts them into the 75%. Obviously, this analysis doesn't prove anything. But, in my opinion, it reduces the impact of the 75% number to such a point that it is virtually irrelevant. Of course, even if only 5% of the world believed in a god, I don't think anybody should dismiss the possibility. There's just no way we can know that we know enough to be certain of anything.
Evidence supports conclusive proof does it not? They are very much related and FAR from 'two very different things' I don't know why you are trying so hard to say they are totally different. It is not 'strong evidence' simply because the majority of people 'believe it' on 'faith'. That's like saying it's strong evidence because I think it is, only on a wide scale...the more people that believe doesn't make it anymore credible. Does it? You're just dancing around the issue. Just like how you answer durvasa's reply of your chandelier analogy(because it is actually a material object that is easily describable) with... 'There are more senses than just sight, but this was just an example of indirect evidence. Whether it was sight or some form of input isn't the issue here.' Whaaa? That's exactly the issue and you danced around it again. There is no evidence(in this instance) that would be taken seriously without some type of objective proof...none...and to call it strong is erroneous at best. I'm curious, what sense do people use to detect religion? Also you seem to really want to hammer your 'strong evidence' vs 'conclusive proof' sematics...I was wondering which category you put this statement in: "If 75% of the world believes in a god or gods then I would say that that is the natural state, or at least it's the normal state, and I think the first assumption would have to be that it’s the natural state as well - although I agree that that’s not a certainty." What do you mean by natural state? Do you mean that the existence of God is a natural/normal state? I'm sure you didn't mean simply "belief of God is a natural state" because that would be ridiculous. You'd be saying "since 75% of people believe in god believing in god is a natural state"Uh okay. That does not provide 'evidence' of any kind. It's the actual existence is it not? It's funny, I was going to put up the definitions of the 2(strong evidence and conclusive proof), so I looked them up on yahoo search and low and behold the first things that come up are creationism issues...coincidence? Wtf? Scientific polling? Uh okay...hey, here's the newest one "Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS "Ah it must be true! That's 'strong evidence' right there, right? I'm sure the state department is looking into a massive investigation after this scientific poll... Again, dance around the issue. What does a poll have to do with evidence? This is the same issue...people believing in something does not make it true(sorry Bush haters...)...no matter how many people believe. It might be true, but the simple belief of it adds no validity to the evidence...none. Why do you think it does? And why do you think it is strong? Simply because of the shear number that believe it? That's completely illogical...again look at previous post. Well good for you. I was previously a pre-med major which forced me to take genetics, microbial physiology and evolutionary biology...very eye opening stuff. To watch mutations happen in a matter of days that can lead to the changes of a species is pretty good ,albeit simple, evidence of evolution...I guess...'strong evidence' in your words. Much stronger than a 'belief' would be right? Well, maybe not to you. It is based on observable data. Anyways, I couldn't wait another 6 years to start making money and decided to be an xray tech and got an associates...then I got into nursing and graduated from UTMB with a BSN(thank you for adding to nursing crediblity), but I grew bored with the healthcare field and am now a junior mechanical engineering student. I feel like it's a much better fit for me... So you've done some post grad work measuring and trying to optimizing compressable flow, concrete design or something...I don't see how that makes you anymore more of an authority than anyone else on the matter. It's maddening how many times you answer a question with a question, or 'look into it', or 'that's not the issue', or get familiar with 'so and so' response. You just avoid everything the best you can with circular reasoning and mix in some semantic arguments. It's very obvious and frustrating at the same time.
A poll, like in an election, is not evidence that one person is more capable than another. It could be evidence that a majority of the population prefers that person to be in office, but it is not evidence of that person's abilities. I think you've called that "indirect evidence". Well, ok, but that's not actual evidence in a scientific sense. I mean, I suppose I could just be ignorant, but I can't think of a single scientific field where this sort of "indirect evidence" is used to validate a hypothesis. Now, if there was a study carried out which showed a high correlation between past election results and the candidate's qualifications, then it could be counted as evidence.
I think we’ve been through much of this earlier in the thread. I agreed that humans have a drive to understand the world around them. I don’t think it would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to say that humans make up fictitious explanations, however, particularly elaborate religions. We discussed this w.r.t. the time and resources that are spent on religions, and how that would be a waste and a competitive disadvantage if it didn’t relate to anything real, etc. Not really. 75% of the population of the world is a very big number. It’s not something that can be easily brushed away. I think a very substantial response would be required if someone wanted to argue that all these people are wrong. This is a very good issue to raise. I see it as a secondary question but I don’t think it matters how you look at it. In science you always have to be prepared to go back and reassess you previous findings if new information comes to light which casts doubt on those findings, so whether this is addressed as a secondary step or as part of the original question I don’t think matters. Delving into the issues you raise here involves a great deal of work, however, but I do happen to think it’s worthwhile. Here are some of the high level issues. You’ve probably heard people say that all religions are the same, and you’ve probably heard people talk about the fundamental differences between them. Which position is correct? I’ve done some work on this question and I found no quick or easy answer. It is commonly believed within most groups that there are strong and fundamental differences, but when you dig into the differences a bit you find that many of them start to become quite questionable, and at the same time you start to see why most members of these religions believe in the strong differences. I’ll try to keep this brief, but if you want to go into this in any detail I think it might be best done in another thread. Perhaps I should also mention that I’ve mostly looked at Christianity and Islam, and I’m not as familiar with the other religions. I found that the differences tend to have been emphasised by the leaders for political reasons, and because these groups tended to live separately from each other there usually wasn’t any reason for the members to question the differences. The leaders appear to have emphasized and often created differences in order to demonize the other groups, and they used this to justify various power struggles and wars, like the Crusades, for example. You see similar conflicts even between denominations of the Christian church. But, if you strip the layers of politics and tradition away and just compare the books, in this case the Bible and the Qur’an, it is truly shocking how many supposedly fundamental differences start to shrink away, and how explanations start appearing for the ones that remain. I wasn’t able to take my research to the point where I’m able to say with confidence that the Bible and the Qur’an aren’t mutually exclusive, unfortunately, but I can say that it wouldn’t surprise me anymore if that were true. There are a great many individual issues that could be addressed here, as I’m sure you can imagine, but if you want to discuss those I suggest that we start another thread and leave this one to the people who just want to discuss the very basic high level question, does a god or gods exist?
