A Christian perspective of understanding

antiskeptic

Samaris wrote: »

I might not be able to prove my wife loves me

So we're agreed that not all that can be known can be proven.

, but I'll settle for being able to prove she exists!

Convenient. You are happy to prove what you think you can prove and are happy not to be able to prove what you don't think you can prove.

Would you grant me that same convenience?

If I have to argue that the only reason you cannot see my wife is because you do not have a sixth sense necessary to do so, I suspect you'd think I was nuts.

That would be possible. But not necessarily the case. It would depend on whether you were claiming your wife was just like any other person, in which case I would be supposing no special abilities required to detect her.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

One major difference between scientific method and religious dogma is that science doesn't claim any supreme and inerrant truth.

There is no such thing as science claiming. Science is an activity engaged in by people. And people claim all sorts of things about science.

Some people consider science to be the supreme and ultimately inerrant way to all truth. I say ultimately, because science is supposed to work ever onwards and upwards. Accepting of the fact that today's certainty might well be overturned tomorrow perhaps, but in the meantime, todays's certainly is enough to dispel alternative views.

You see it here all the time. Approach the existence of God how? "By scientifically verifiable method. There ain't no other valid discussion to be had on the subject".

A scientific viewpoint is simply one that is formed based on objective observation, insofar as we can manage it. Where we have gaps in our understanding, we reasonable say that 'we dont know', where we new evidence shows our current understanding to be inaccurate, we revise that understanding. Compare that to religion which simple inserts 'God did it' for any knowledge, while denying the believer the right to question the dogma they're handed down.

I've no issue with science doing science. I've an issue with folk supposing science the only way. That's a philosophy held about science. Not science.

I'm not sure what you mean by no right to question. I consider myself to have every right to question (I'm not sure who's going to slap my questions down, least of all God)

In that, evolving a theology is much the same as evolving scientific understanding. If the observation don't fit, alter the theology so that it does. What about people who haven't heard of Christ? They all doomed? What about this OT (or OTT) God vs. the NT God? How are they to be reconciled?

And the like...

Of course not, I strongly suspect my wife loves because she tells me so without being asked, as do my kids. But then my wife and kids exist on this plane, visible to the naked eye, large and in charge. God on the other hand....

My point was to point out the problem with having a "prove it scientifically" philosophy about God. To presuppose he must be empirically demonstrable isn't a scientific position, it's a philosophical one.

The world is a very complex place, disjointed with the mish-mash you describe. The bible is simpler and to some quite preferable on that basis. So is Narnia. I suspect many people take to religion because it provides simple notions of truth and certainty in a complex, confusing, uncertain and often contradictory world.

That's a fair point and I understand the basis of you holding it. However, the issue is whether the explanation works, not whether it's a simple, elegant one or not. Ockhams Razor prefers the simpler solution, so long as it works.

And I find it does work. I'm not at all confused about the utterly chaotic nature of the world around me, men do as they do because their motivations are infected with precisely the elements the Bible says they are infected with: lust, pride, greed, sloth and all the rest. It can't be but a mess.

I've said it before and it's worth saying again: for me, a mechanical engineer, precision, elegance, fine fit, logical working, muti-layer complexity, output related to input .. is what rings my bell. They are the signs of a well designed and working mechanism. It can't be helped: the alternative mish mash, for all the Ph.D's that go into constructing it, look like the work of a 5 year old with two left hands.

Your observation of the many doesn't cover the whole. You need an explanation why it is that people who are as rational, educated, intelligent as any unbeliever, believe.

Choosing a preferred notion of reality over a more probable one displays a level of confirmation bias that make religion seem patently ridiculous to those that aren't religious. You would laugh out loud if a grown adult told you they believed in Santa Claus, that is very much how many people regard a belief in God.

Many people are straitjacketed into a purely rational way of looking at the world. I've encountered plenty of those, enjoy their company and don't mind in the least if they'd laugh out loud at my believing. They usually don't laugh though, because the discussion usually turns into the kind of ding dong we have on these forums. Since no one can land a knock out blow, there is no basis to get to laughing.

I've also encountered many who possess the space to park the question of God, without their believing or feeling a drive to believe in God. I know others of other faiths/spirituality who are driven to navigate a spiritual path by the same kinds of things that caused me to go down the road I went down. I don't know if their God accommodates my type, but I do hold that my God accommodates theirs.

Everyone but the dullest would see the difference between something which purports to deal with the very biggest questions of life and someone who is purported to deliver presents at Christmas. Perhaps dull isn't the right word - perhaps those who equate belief in God with belief in Santa see the issues navigated by both as being on a par with each other.

Samaris

antiskeptic wrote: »

So we're agreed that not all that can be known can be proven.

Convenient. You are happy to prove what you think you can prove and are happy not to be able to prove what you don't think you can prove.

Would you grant me that same convenience?

That would be possible. But not necessarily the case. It would depend on whether you were claiming your wife was just like any other person, in which case I would be supposing no special abilities required to detect her.

Thing is, I'm not claiming an invisible wife to start with.

antiskeptic

Samaris wrote: »

Thing is, I'm not claiming an invisible wife to start with.

I was dealing with the hypothetical you posited.

Care to deal with the rest of the post?

Samaris

Well, you are quite correct, I cannot prove that my - non-existent wife - loves me. However, if I was claiming she existed at all, I would at least be able to prove she did.

Fine, I'll play fair. I could make arguments (if she did exist) that she apparently agreed to marry me which is an indication and that you are quite welcome to come speak to her if you want to make up your own mind. She'll even speak back.

Convenient. You are happy to prove what you think you can prove and are happy not to be able to prove what you don't think you can prove.

Giving you the option to make up your own mind on it, if proof is important to you. Proof of God is important to me when someone wants acceptance that he exists, so I'll assume that proof that my hypothetical wife loves me is important to you. Therefore, here is an open and fair route to confirm for yourself with no tricks like "well, if you cannot see her, your heart is not open to her" or "she works in mysterious ways" or "read this rather self-contradictory set of books of doubtful provenance to see her".

Would you grant me that same convenience?

If it makes you happy, then fine, but it does not prove your god exists to me. I really don't care what you believe otherwise - you are perfectly welcome to believe in the Christian god or any other god; I'm pointing out a fallacy in the "you cannot prove that your wife loves you" comparison that you started.

That would be possible. But not necessarily the case. It would depend on whether you were claiming your wife was just like any other person, in which case I would be supposing no special abilities required to detect her.

So, if I came up to you and claimed that my invisible wife, who is actually a fairy princess, was behind you, but you couldn't see her because your eyes are not attuned to fairy dust, you'd just accept that as the obvious truth? That is the level of ridiculous that claims of God's existence (but you, poor heathen, cannot see Him because you have not the required faculties of the Blessed) comes across as.

uck51js9zml2yt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is a good example of why I avoid the word "proof" when discussing the existence of god with a theist. I think many people see the word "proof" as being final 100% incontrovertible conclusion.

Instead I ask theists for any "arguments, evidence, data or reasoning" they can offer that lends "any credence" to the idea that a non-human intelligent intentional agent exists and had a hand in the creation of life or the universe.

You guys don't even have that, nor have you ever offered any when asked.

.

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

Samaris

Actually, fair point on what you said, nozz. Proof is an unfair standard. Evidence, data, anything that lends more to the "probably" than the "unlikely" is more workable.

looksee

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

Are we back to this? I thought we had got past the 'you have to prove a negative' stuff. Tell you what, you give us '100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data' that fairies don't exist, and we will take it from there.

antiskeptic

Samaris wrote: »

Actually, fair point on what you said, nozz. Proof is an unfair standard.

An inconvenient standard more like, given that aspects of what we know to be the case (like our wives loving us) can't be proven.

Evidence, data, anything that lends more to the "probably" than the "unlikely" is more workable.

To comment on the likelyhood or otherwise of something, you would have to have some kind of handle on how you go about establishing the likelyhood or otherwise of that something.

You've retreated (wisely) from a proof. Now you appear to be at the realm of empirical evidence/data/anything. Could you establish that this is an appropriate means of establishing the likelyhood of all things.


Without resorting to a philosophy. Without resorting to "well it's seen us good in the past"

antiskeptic

Samaris wrote: »

Well, you are quite correct, I cannot prove that my - non-existent wife - loves me. However, if I was claiming she existed at all, I would at least be able to prove she did.

I'm not interested in realms in which we're agreed about. I'm interested in realm where things aren't so easy for you.

Fine, I'll play fair.

I'd prefer if you'd play rigorously.

I could make arguments (if she did exist) that she apparently agreed to marry me which is an indication and that you are quite welcome to come speak to her if you want to make up your own mind.

And if I am not persuaded? Does that mean your wife doesn't love you. Or that you know she does?

Giving you the option to make up your own mind on it, if proof is important to you. Proof of God is important to me when someone wants acceptance that he exists, so I'll assume that proof that my hypothetical wife loves me is important to you. Therefore, here is an open and fair route to confirm for yourself with no tricks like "well, if you cannot see her, your heart is not open to her" or "she works in mysterious ways" or "read this rather self-contradictory set of books of doubtful provenance to see her".

I couldn't give a fig whether you accept he exists or not, anymore than you need give a fig whether I accept your (hypothetical) wife love you. The question is whether we need to be able to deliver a proof or acceptable-to-others evidence in order that we be justified in holding what we figure to know to be the case.

If it makes you happy, then fine, but it does not prove your god exists to me.

We seem to have crossed purposes along the way. I'm not attempting to prove or convince you that God exists. I'm dealing with attempts to diminish the basis whereby I can be content knowing he exists.

I'm pointing out a fallacy in the "you cannot prove that your wife loves you" comparison that you started.

What fallacy was that (excluding the irrelevant issue of this (hypothetical) wife being physically provable). We were talking about you knowing she loves you, without a proof being available for that. Without others being convinced by the various evidences and arguments you give in support of that

So, if I came up to you and claimed that my invisible wife, who is actually a fairy princess, was behind you, but you couldn't see her because your eyes are not attuned to fairy dust, you'd just accept that as the obvious truth?

As I say, I'm not suggesting you believe me. I'm suggesting the above line of approach doesn't put the slightest dent in the potential for me to stand on perfectly solid ground in claiming I know what I know. You don't, with the above approach, impact at all on the likelyhood or otherwise of God's existence.

Samaris

Probably not, the whole hypothetical was odd enough and rather irrelevant enough to the original topic to not be very convincing no matter how I argued it, although I'll grant now that I didn't argue it well. So it goes sometimes. Although while you might have taken the proof of love thing, I was talking about proof of existance. Proof of a specific emotion being held by the hypothetical is three steps on from that.

Mind you, why are you unconvinced at the prospect of being able to talk directly to her? A far higher standard of evidence has been offered in this case - a person who could confirm or deny. Is your position that you will just never believe she can love me ( !) regardless? Yes, eventually we would have to agree to disagree, but I did give you a fair run at answering the question posed from your own experience first and, for existance at least (since a specific emotional state wasn't my argument anyway), it could be backed up by the government and its official forms and certs. You then have to rely on your feel for the authenticity of those documents, the likelihood of intentional fraud, the likelihood of unintentional fraud and weigh up if I'm telling the truth. I suppose if it was desperate enough to prove this, there's the whole business with bits of the brain lighting up, although she might be pretty annoyed at me for it being necessary to sit there with wires attached to her head.

Bear in mind that even you're not being asked to substantiate the emotional state of a hypothetical, just the existence. (By the way, the term "hypothetical" isn't meant to sound insulting, but I need a word that covers your claim and my "claim".) The comment to nozz was not my opinion changing based on the question being posed to me, but it was actually purely to do with the word "proving" and a god, which isn't possible to prove - but substantive evidence is still a fair enough ask.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

Where we have gaps in our understanding, we reasonable say that 'we dont know', where we new evidence shows our current understanding to be inaccurate, we revise that understanding. Compare that to religion which simple inserts 'God did it' for any knowledge, while denying the believer the right to question the dogma they're handed down.

This is not correct. As I believer in God I frequently say "I don`t know" to the plethora of questions I get from Atheists. I do this because I know I cannot understand the mind of God when I do not even understand earthly issues.

By contrast, the scientific community often make an assumption and then set out to prove it. Sometimes this assumption is wrong. They also attempt to talk about things they know nothing about. For example, they assume that just because near death experience has a scientific basis, it therefore cannot have a connection to the afterlife. Surely it makes perfect sense that the pleasure center of the brain where good and evil compete, (will I be good or have that jam muffin) should also be the gateway for the soul.

How often have we heard stories in the news of junkies in a psychotic state who go and stab someone (or worse) and later claiming the devil told them to do it? Perhaps he did, via part of the brain which is a portal between the earthly and the supernatural.

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is not correct. As I believer in God I frequently say "I don`t know" to the plethora of questions I get from Atheists. I do this because I know I cannot understand the mind of God when I do not even understand earthly issues.

By contrast, the scientific community often make an assumption and then set out to prove it. Sometimes this assumption is wrong. They also attempt to talk about things they know nothing about. For example, they assume that just because near death experience has a scientific basis, it therefore cannot have a connection to the afterlife. Surely it makes perfect sense that the pleasure center of the brain where good and evil compete, (will I be good or have that jam muffin) should also be the gateway for the soul.

How often have we heard stories in the news of junkies in a psychotic state who go and stab someone (or worse) and later claiming the devil told them to do it? Perhaps he did, via part of the brain which is a portal between the earthly and the supernatural.

Er no, none of that makes any sense.

Mark Hamill

realitykeeper wrote: »

This is not correct. As I believer in God I frequently say "I don`t know" to the plethora of questions I get from Atheists. I do this because I know I cannot understand the mind of God when I do not even understand earthly issues.

If you do not understand the "mind of god" and you do not understand earthly issues, then how do you know that the "mind of god" is not just an earthly issue that you have mistaken as the "mind of god" because you do not understand it?

realitykeeper

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you do not understand the "mind of god" and you do not understand earthly issues, then how do you know that the "mind of god" is not just an earthly issue that you have mistaken as the "mind of god" because you do not understand it?

Because the bible says otherwise. If you want proof, forget it. Faith requires the absence of proof.

King Mob

realitykeeper wrote: »

Because the bible says otherwise. If you want proof, forget it. Faith requires the absence of proof.

But maybe, crazy thought here, the book that promotes slavery is not right...?

nozzferrahhtoo

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

You will have to explain to me first, why I would be demanded to offer evidence for a claim I did not make, have never made, and have no intention of making?

If you can do that, then we can talk.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Convenient. You are happy to prove what you think you can prove and are happy not to be able to prove what you don't think you can prove. Would you grant me that same convenience?

Nope. Rather what we should be doing is demanding proof of things that are actually relevant to the context at hand. As soon as the existence of that users wife becomes relevant for example, I shall likely demand that user prove her existence.

If at any point you want to come into the atheist forum and start claiming, or making claims based on, the idea that a god exists then the demands that you substantiation your claims are not based on your convenience, but on context.

The simple fact is you have not got the first SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that such an entity exists. So you have hopped from cop out number 1 (claiming we lack some faculty to see the truth of it, also unsubstantiated) to cop out number 2 (appeals to what is convenient to you).

Why you need to do those cop outs is anyone's guess really. Better to just admit your have no evidence whatsoever for the tosh you espouse, and move on.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Some people consider science to be the supreme and ultimately inerrant way to all truth.

Perhaps they do, but I have to admit to never having met a SINGLE such person in all my life. Rather what I generally tend to meet is people who are interested in the truth and realize that science, despite any flaws it AND the people implementing it have, is so far way out in front as the best methodology we have in finding said truths.

Other methodologies, including the religious penchant for simply making crap up, has not really revealed any, let alone many, truths about our universe.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no issue with science doing science. I've an issue with folk supposing science the only way.

Not accepting YOUR way of simply making stuff up is not the same as claiming science is the ONLY way. I am certainly open to other ways, and evaluating them. That is why I never ask for "proof" of god or ask for scientific evidence of god. Contrary to your narrative, what I actually ask time and time again is for any "Arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends credence to the claim the explanation for our universe lies in the actions of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent".

Regale me, please do, with explanations on where in that statement I ask for A) scientific evidence or proof.

Rather what I think is happening here is that you can not offer anything of the sort, so instead you choose to whinge about the parameters, right up to making up your own ones to whinge about rather than refer to the ones people here ACTUALLY set out.

No wonder you not just define yourself but NAME yourself as someone openly against skepticism. For the person who simply makes nonsense up, skepticism is enemy number 1.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Care to deal with the rest of the post?

Says the guy skipping and ignoring entire posts.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question is whether we need to be able to deliver a proof or acceptable-to-others evidence in order that we be justified in holding what we figure to know to be the case.

Again context if everything. Whether you should "need" to offer any substantiation for your position entirely depends on context.

As a theist believing in unsubstantiated nonsense walking about the place day to day, then no, I do not think you "need" to be able to do any such thing. Rather I believe you should be left alone to your fantasies and not bothered in any way.

In the context of coming into a forum that maintains rules about "soap boxing" and substantiation of ones position however then yes I feel you "need" to do so. That is however a matter for the moderators, not me, and their patience tends to be long but limited. But if the best you have to offer us is to come in declaring and asserting beliefs but then trotting out a few standard canards and cop outs to resist not just some but ANY attempts to substantiate them.......... then I merely question the wisdom of you doing so and your intent.

In the wider world context of people making claims based on no evidence I very much indeed do think that they need to substantiate their claims however. Whether it be on the subject of homosexuality, abortion, what we should teach in our schools like in biology class or how (if?) religion should be on the curriculum and so forth...... then yes they very much should by required to "need" to start substantiating their claims.

The fact that that have no, not just little, substantiation for their claims is their problem but somehow it ends up being ours.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We were talking about you knowing she loves you, without a proof being available for that.

And yet many of us can substantiate heavily the feelings our spouses of choice have for us. If you can not, then I can recommend a relationship counselor.

Time and time again you give off the impression that you believe "proof" means something that shows something else to be 100% true. Even in science we do not treat anything as totally 100% "proven" in this way.

Rather we treat claims relatively in relation to how much substantiation exists for them at the time. Be it none, some, much, or LOADS. But nothing is certain, nothing is vernacular "proven". But claims that are heavily substantiated are put into accepted science. Claims that are not substantiated AT ALL are shelved as interesting but useless.

So likening the god claim with the wife claim does not hold water. The latter can be well substantiated. The former is not. At all. Least of all by the likes of you who only offers cop outs, excuses, and further unsubstantiated canards in order to dodge ever having to substantiate anything you say at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

By contrast, the scientific community often make an assumption and then set out to prove it.

You do know, I hope, that "prove" in science does not mean the same thing as "prove" in vernacular speech right? In science "prove" actually means "to test".

We do not "prove" anything in science in the way you seemingly understand it. Rather we "prove" by testing. That is to say, we test a hypothesis (what you call an assumption, falsely) to see if we can show it to be false.

If after all attempts to falsify it fail, we then put it into accepted science as something that is very likely to be true. That is all.

So before you come into a forum populated by scientists to tell them what science is, perhaps you could stop and let THEM tell you instead.

realitykeeper wrote: »

For example, they assume that just because near death experience has a scientific basis, it therefore cannot have a connection to the afterlife.

I am not sure who is holding that assumption, other than you on their behalf however.

Rather what they/I actually say is that there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest that NDE is any way linked to an after life.

What they/I also say is that our knowledge of human consciousness and sentience is not complete. However 100% of the current knowledge links both to the brain. 0% of ANYTHING we have in the data set at this time suggests a possibility of disconnect between the two, let alone one surviving the death of the other in any way.

So again, I can only question the wisdom of coming into a forum punctuated by the presence of actual scientists and telling them, rather than allowing them to tell you, what their ACTUAL position and ACTUAL words are.`

realitykeeper wrote: »

Because the bible says otherwise. If you want proof, forget it. Faith requires the absence of proof.

How convenient of it. The very thing they "require" the absence of is the very thing that would be used to verify it. That is as convenient as the other user above being "anti skeptic". Of course he is. If you want to espouse unsubstantiated nonsense then skepticism is the VERY THING you will hate most.

Funny though the number of charlatans across the spectrum, in religions, in cases of "mind reading" or "fortune telling" and in cases of alternative quack medicine, who decry skepticism or demand faith too.

Demeaning faith rather than rationality is par for the course. It is basic charlatan 101 stuff. So why should it be accepted as anything but a canard in one place, but not every other? By what methodology or means do you suggest we evaluate it as a proper requirement, and positive methodology in one instance but not all the other quackery, charlatanism, and nonsense that YOU personally reject?

As someone who has given themselves the pedestal of "keeper of reality"..... how do you keep it on "faith" in one case, yet withhold "faith" in all the other cases that have no less (or more) justifiable basis for it than you can offer us here?

kylith

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that unicorns don't exist?

Mark Hamill

realitykeeper wrote: »

Because the bible says otherwise. If you want proof, forget it. Faith requires the absence of proof.

But the bible comes from the "mind of god", right? But if you can't tell the difference between the "mind of god" and other earthly issues, then how do you know the bible comes from the "mind of god" and not just earthly sources?

Mark Hamill

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that God doesn't exist ?

What would you accept as 100% proof that god doesn't exist?

Hotblack Desiato

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Demeaning faith rather than rationality is par for the course. It is basic charlatan 101 stuff.

I think that should be "demanding fath rather than rationality" ?

uck51js9zml2yt

kylith wrote: »

Can you provide us with 100% incontrovertible proof/evidence/data that unicorns don't exist?

Can you ?;)

uck51js9zml2yt

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What would you accept as 100% proof that god doesn't exist?

You tell me. It's the denizens of A&A who keep insisting He doesn't exist. Surely there's proof of His non existence?


Someone mentioned the old slavery nut again,( can't find post.... mustn't exist!),context is everything and understanding why something was said.
In contrast to the old testament, the new condemns slavery but also tells slaves how they should behave.

King Mob

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Someone mentioned the old slavery nut again,( can't find post.... mustn't exist!),context is everything and understanding why something was said.
In contrast to the old testament, the new condemns slavery but also tells slaves how they should behave.

The new testament does not condemn slavery. And telling slaves how they should behave is abhorrent.
Slaves should not exist, period.

Why does god not simply say "Thou shall not keep slaves."?

Under what context is slavery ok in your mind?

Also could you provide 100% proof that something you don't believe in doesn't exist?

uck51js9zml2yt

Yes, slaves should not exist. Fact is they did, it was part of life in the period.
The NT had nothing good to say about it but it was reality and had to be dealt with by the people.
Just like Christians were persecuted, tortured and fed to the lions.

King Mob

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

Yes, slaves should not exist. Fact is they did, it was part of life in the period.
The NT had nothing good to say about it but it was reality and had to be dealt with by the people.
Just like Christians were persecuted, tortured and fed to the lions.

You have dodged the questions.

Why did God not tell people to just not have slaves?
Why did God allow slaves to exist in the first place? Why did God not step in and stop slavery like he did before in Exodus?
Was keeping slaves ok then, but not ok now?

Where does the New Testement condemn slavery? How can it condemn slavery, then also tell slaves how they should behave?

Could you provide 100% proof that something you don't believe in does not exist? Bigfoot perhaps? Nessie? Fairies?

uck51js9zml2yt

King Mob wrote: »

You have dodged the questions.

Why did God not tell people to just not have slaves?
Why did God allow slaves to exist in the first place? Why did God not step in and stop slavery like he did before in Exodus?
Was keeping slaves ok then, but not ok now?

Where does the New Testement condemn slavery? How can it condemn slavery, then also tell slaves how they should behave?

Could you provide 100% proof that something you don't believe in does not exist? Bigfoot perhaps? Nessie? Fairies?

why does God allow it to rain ?

if I thought you were actually interested I'd take the time to answer
But just 1 historical point. It was the Christians in westminster who brought an end to Slavery against all the odds. They also ended the use of chimney boys.

King Mob

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

why does God allow it to rain ?

if I thought you were actually interested I'd take the time to answer

Again you dodge the question. It is obviously because you cannot provide an answer.

I am interested in the answer, but experience tells me that you aren't going to provide one. You're welcome to try, but constantly ignoring and dodging questions just makes it look like you are being dishonest.

Your God could have easily made a commandment against slavery.
He didn't.
Why not?
If you don't know, then be brave and honest and say you don't know.

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

But just 1 historical point. It was the Christians in westminster who brought an end to Slavery against all the odds. They also ended the use of chimney boys.

The passages in the bible that directly promote and instruct on slavery where used to defend and justify the continuation of slavery in the American south.

If Christianity and God were against the idea of slavery, then there would be a commandment against it.
But there isn't.
Nor is there any passage that actually condemns it.

But context is important I guess and slavery was ok until God changed his mind.

Also you have not addressed the question you have been asked repeatedly. Again because you are dishonestly avoiding it.

Please provide 100% proof that something you don't believe in doesn't exist.

If you are going to avoid this again for the 8th time, then at least have the decency to explain why are you avoiding it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

You tell me. It's the denizens of A&A who keep insisting He doesn't exist. Surely there's proof of His non existence?

I think you will find you are misrepresenting them as egregiously as you did me. While there are SOME people here espousing what you claim above, the majority of them do not.

Rather what they do claim is that there is no evidence that there is a god. No reason being offered to think there is a god. No arguments, evidence data or reasoning at all (least of all from you) to suggest this entity exists.

If you feel that statement is wrong, and there in fact IS some arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer that there is a god......... then by all means do so. But until then, I can only suggest you reply to what people actually do say, rather than decry what they say only in the fantasy world in your own head.

Samaris

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

You tell me. It's the denizens of A&A who keep insisting He doesn't exist. Surely there's proof of His non existence?

Maybe you should think harder about the sentence "It's the denizens of [Atheism and Agnosticism] who keep insisting [God] doesn't exist" and see if you can figure out why this position might be held and why appeals to faith may not be very effective.

Also, denizens? I see this whole "Christian understanding" thing. It's a good thing it wasn't called "Christian courtesy".

spacecoyote

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

why does God allow it to rain ?

That has to be one of the poorest attempts at an equivalency.

Rain is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and if there was no rain, we'd all be living in deserts...or not living at all

Slavery I'm pretty sure, is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. I don't think there are too many animals who keep other animals as their slaves. Would it not be slightly co-incidental that the guys writing down "Gods word" might just suit themselves & say "God said its OK for me to keep slaves"

smacl

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

You tell me. It's the denizens of A&A who keep insisting He doesn't exist. Surely there's proof of His non existence?

There's probability, insofar as there are a huge number of religions and mythologies out there that all insist that their's is the one truth and the others have it wrong. In the absence of hard supporting evidence, they all have exactly the same probability of being right, which is infinitesimal given the infinite number of possibilities, so they're either all wrong or just one is right. Christianity could be that one, but there's more likelihood you'll win the Euromillions lottery.

Put another way, if you claim any imagined fantasy to be true, the burden of proof lies with you to support this statement.

Mark Hamill

Gustavo Famous Compass wrote: »

You tell me. It's the denizens of A&A who keep insisting He doesn't exist. Surely there's proof of His non existence?

How can I tell you what you would accept as 100% proof?

realitykeeper

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do know, I hope, that "prove" in science does not mean the same thing as "prove" in vernacular speech right? In science "prove" actually means "to test".

We do not "prove" anything in science in the way you seemingly understand it. Rather we "prove" by testing. That is to say, we test a hypothesis (what you call an assumption, falsely) to see if we can show it to be false.

If after all attempts to falsify it fail, we then put it into accepted science as something that is very likely to be true. That is all.

Come now, surely you are not suggesting the scientific community is without prejudice? The so-called "God particle" may well exist and early indicators suggest that it does but what if it didn`t? Seems to me a lot of scientists need it to exist to negate (at least to their limited mindset) the need for God. After all, if the necessary particle did not exist, there could not be enough dark matter in the universe to create the gravitational forces required to make the big bang a repeatable event.

From a Christian perspective however, it makes absolutely no difference if the particle exists or not because faith does not require proof, so it is irrelevant if the big bang is a repeatable event or not.

Then there are the Joseph Mandela type scientists who stuffed skulls with soot and weighed them to ascertain the brain capacity of white people versus non whites but of course they applied a bit more pressure on the soot packed into skulls of the white people to "prove" they had a larger brains.

Another example of how clueless scientists can be is the marshmallow test. Even as a non scientist, it was obvious to me that the reason kids who ate the marshmallow immediately, did so was not because they were stupid but because they had learned not to trust the adults in their lives and so if you want your children to be successful in later life, do not lie to them. After all, the kids who went 15 minutes without eating the marshmallow tended to do better in later life. This new interpretation of the marshmallow test is now considered more valid than the original interpretation. Of course, the two interpretations may be mutually supportive because if kids learn it is not a fools errand to be disciplined, they will practice discipline and get better at it.

realitykeeper

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you do not understand the "mind of god" and you do not understand earthly issues, then how do you know that the "mind of god" is not just an earthly issue that you have mistaken as the "mind of god" because you do not understand it?

Faith is a choice. You can choose to believe in the absence of proof. The reason I choose to believe is because if true, then God is good, so much so that he gave everything (even his son) to the world for the salvation of souls. To put it another way, if true, God deserves our love and devotion. Hence, Christians give love and devotion, i.e. in case it is true. That is faith.

To put it in a context you might understand, lets say a family member needs an experimental new medication to have a chance of surviving an illness. This medication will cost you dearly. Maybe it will save the life of your loved one, maybe it will not. So you take a chance and buy the medicine. That is blind faith because you do not know if it will work or not.

looksee

realitykeeper wrote: »

To put it in a context you might understand, lets say a family member needs an experimental new medication to have a chance of surviving an illness. This medication will cost you dearly. Maybe it will save the life of your loved one, maybe it will not. So you take a chance and buy the medicine. That is blind faith because you do not know if it will work or not.

That is not blind faith. If the medication is available it must have undergone some investigation by scientists - doctors, researchers, chemists etc. They don't just mix together random ingredients and try it out on anyone who will give it a go. Therefore you are at least buying something with some chance of being successful.

However if someone came up to you and said 'I have created this wonderful drink which will cure your relative, just give me x amount of money and you can have it', and you gave them the money, that would be blind faith - or stupidity.

Or you offered a large sum of money to guarantee that a considerable number of people would pray for your relative/ think positive vibes about them, or similar, that would be blind faith - both that they would actually do the praying, and it would work.

King Mob

realitykeeper wrote: »

Faith is a choice. You can choose to believe in the absence of proof. The reason I choose to believe is because if true, then God is good, so much so that he gave everything (even his son) to the world for the salvation of souls. To put it another way, if true, God deserves our love and devotion. Hence, Christians give love and devotion, i.e. in case it is true. That is faith.

But if he exists, God cannot be anything expect a vile, uncaring despot. He would be completely undeserving of love or devotion.

The only reasons we need salvation is because of the arbitrary and contradictory rules he decided on.
He had to sacrifice his son to satisfy arbitrary conditions that he himself set up for no real reason or benefit.
But then he actually didn't sacrifice anything by sending his son since his son popped right back to life then came back heaven with him forever.
Have to love someone because you have to because of an implied threat is not a good thing and it's not something a good being does.

Hotblack Desiato

King Mob wrote: »

But then he actually didn't sacrifice anything by sending his son since his son popped right back to life then came back heaven with him forever.

Exactly, why all the fuss about the 'sacrifice' (read: temporary inconvenience) of his 'only son' when he could have magicked up as many sons as he wanted?

smacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

Come now, surely you are not suggesting the scientific community is without prejudice? The so-called "God particle" may well exist and early indicators suggest that it does but what if it didn`t? Seems to me a lot of scientists need it to exist to negate (at least to their limited mindset) the need for God. After all, if the necessary particle did not exist, there could not be enough dark matter in the universe to create the gravitational forces required to make the big bang a repeatable event.

From a Christian perspective however, it makes absolutely no difference if the particle exists or not because faith does not require proof, so it is irrelevant if the big bang is a repeatable event or not.

The term 'God particle' is one used primarily by the media and one considered inappropriate by many scientists including Higgs. It comes from the title of a book "The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?" which the author originally wanted to title "The Goddamn Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?" which the editor found too controversial.

Then there are the Joseph Mandela type scientists who stuffed skulls with soot and weighed them to ascertain the brain capacity of white people versus non whites but of course they applied a bit more pressure on the soot packed into skulls of the white people to "prove" they had a larger brains.

You seem to be rather weirdly confusing Josef Mengele with Nelson Mandela there. Is it cos he is black?

Another example of how clueless scientists can be is the marshmallow test. Even as a non scientist, it was obvious to me that the reason kids who ate the marshmallow immediately, did so was not because they were stupid but because they had learned not to trust the adults in their lives and so if you want your children to be successful in later life, do not lie to them. After all, the kids who went 15 minutes without eating the marshmallow tended to do better in later life. This new interpretation of the marshmallow test is now considered more valid than the original interpretation. Of course, the two interpretations may be mutually supportive because if kids learn it is not a fools errand to be disciplined, they will practice discipline and get better at it.

That's how science works though. Our current understanding of anything arrived at by a scientific method is always open to revision as new information comes to light. This tends to be particularly true of the soft sciences such as psychology.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

However if someone came up to you and said 'I have created this wonderful drink which will cure your relative, just give me x amount of money and you can have it', and you gave them the money, that would be blind faith - or stupidity.

Could also be a combination of clever marketing and preying on the vulnerable, as we see with all sorts of fad diets, cures and snake oil. e.g. eating red fruit and vegetables will stop you getting cancer, this little sugar pill with exactly no molecules of the active component listed on the bottle will make you better. Where people are told to take things on faith at a young age by those they trust, e.g. this is the body of Christ, you'd wonder whether they're more likely to continue taking things on faith later in life, e.g. this vaccine will give your kids autism. I don't think it is stupidity at play so much as a lack of teaching of critical thinking at a young age.

Peregrinus

Well, I have to point out that people who take drugs supplied by drug companies are also taking them on faith - they rely on the assertions made by the drug companies, on the advice of their own doctors, on the regulatory work of the authorities, etc, etc, none of which, typically, they are in a position to evaluate and verify themselves.

The difference is this, I think: The claim that "this drug will cure your embarrassing case of Harrison's Crawling Sexual Mange" is in principal capable of scientific verification, so the faith we have when the take the drug is faith that somebody has scientifically verified the claim. Our faith may be reasonable or unreasonable; well-placed or misplaced. But is is, basically, faith in particular individuals to have applied the scientific method to validate the claim.

But the claim that "This is my Body; this is my Blood" is not capable of any kind of scientific examination at all, so faith in this claim is faith of a radically different kind.

That doesn't mean its an unreasonable or misplaced faith, though (as those with a solid grounding in critical thinking will know). There are lots of claims that are not capable of scientific examination, by no means all of them religious; all ethical claims, for instance, are of this nature. We can't live our lives without taking positions in relation to claims of this kind, and it would obviously be nonsense to suggest that the positions we take are invalidated because the claims are not susceptible of scientific examination or verification.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

Come now, surely you are not suggesting the scientific community is without prejudice?

Scientists are human. Humans have narratives, biases, prejudices and more.

The scientific methodology however is a different thing. It is a tool and it itself has no biases. It is constructed in such a way as to remove, as far as is possible, the effect of human bias and prejudice.

The problem here with you is that they are different things, and every time someone like myself moves to discuss one, you hop skip and jump over to the other.

realitykeeper wrote: »

faith does not require proof

Nor do things that you simply make up on the spot. Which to the outside observer like myself is a problem as we have no way at all to distinguish between the two. What you call a faith based belief has no distinguishable difference from anything else someone simply made up on the spot.

realitykeeper wrote: »

so if you want your children to be successful in later life, do not lie to them

The word "lie" means different things to different people though. For many people it means you should not tell children something you now to be false.

Others, like myself, consider lying also to tell children things are true when you have no ACTUAL arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to think they are true.

That, to me, is just as dishonest and just as much a lie as anything you might consider a lie. And one example of that is, indeed, telling children a god exists.

We have not just little but NO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest our universe was created by an intentional intelligent agent. Least of all from you. So telling children such a thing is true is, to me, outright lying to them.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Faith is a choice. You can choose to believe in the absence of proof.

Nope. Speak for yourself. YOU can choose to believe in the absence of truth. But just because YOUR credulity is labile enough to do so, do not automatically assume everyone else's is too. You are not the template from which all humanity was made.

I, for one, am not capable of it. I can not choose to believe something for which there is zero substantiation. I can not choose to disbelieve something that is substantiated. It is simply not an ability I have.

realitykeeper wrote: »

he gave everything (even his son)

You have a very weird definition of "gave" I must say. Last time I read the Christian Narrative for example, this "son" was sitting in a state of eternal bliss and dominion beside the father.

At best (and even then it is more comedy than accuracy) this god could only be said to have "lent" this son. For a period of time that, in the face of all eternity, is less than insignificant.

It is like me saying I give my child to the void every time I blink. But as a narrative it is deeply insulting and demeaning to every parent who HAS lost a child in death to some person, place or ideal.

Your god character is likely not even capable of understanding true grief. Much like the girl in the Pulp song "Common People" was unable to understand life as one of the lower classes. Because to understand it truly, you can not have at your finger tips the capability to make it all stop at any moment.

What a limited god you have.

realitykeeper wrote: »

So you take a chance and buy the medicine. That is blind faith because you do not know if it will work or not.

Again speak for yourself. I would not buy any medication on blind faith. I would buy it only after studying ALL the available literature on how it was tested, and what the results of those tests were, and my choice to purchase it (or not) would be a deeply educated judgement call.

Again you take attributes of yourself..... from labile credulity to blind guess work........ and simply assume everyone is the same as you. An assumption that is no less unsubstantiated blind guess work than pretty much everything else you threw into this thread so far.

Step 1 on the path to enlightenment and wisdom therefore for you is: Stop pretending everyone else is the same as you.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I have to point out that people who take drugs supplied by drug companies are also taking them on faith - they rely on the assertions made by the drug companies, on the advice of their own doctors, on the regulatory work of the authorities, etc, etc, none of which, typically, they are in a position to evaluate and verify themselves.

IMHO, most people do very little critical evaluation of anything. What happens is that they establish trusted sources of information and come to rely on them and similarly become invested in them. This is a necessity as we have neither the ability, time nor inclination to understand everything we rely on from first principals. What we see in this so called post truth era are media outlets, politicians and marketing people making substantial investments to acquire trust, not that that is particularly new so much as the volume being turned up. Again just opinion, but the decline in religious adherence is due to lost trust on the one hand and inability to compete at those levels of volume on the other.

The difference is this, I think: The claim that "this drug will cure your embarrassing case of Harrison's Crawling Sexual Mange" is in principal capable of scientific verification, so the faith we have when the take the drug is faith that somebody has scientifically verified the claim.

When we have Harrison's Crawling Sexual Mange we maybe feeling somewhat vulnerable and will of course place our faith, tenderly, along with a fistful of sheckels, with anyone reasonably claiming to have a cure. That drug companies would prey on us for their own gains in such a manner is, my friends, an outrage :pac:

Peregrinus

As regards scientifically verifiable claims, yes, we basically do place repose faith, either consciously or unconsciously, in persons or institutions that we trust. Few of us have the competence or the commitment to verify them ourselves, as Nozz does. This isn't just true for the cure of Harrison's Sexual Mange, but for all the medical treatment we accept, and for many of our other purchases. I know how to select the better bananas on the shelf, but when it comes to a car or a PC I have to rely on others.

Which leads to the ironic situation that, in relation to scientifically verifiable matters, we largely make faith-based choices.

As regards non-scientifically-verifiable claims, we do actually tend to exercise a higher degree of personal scrutiny. We all have particular beliefs inculcated in us by our families, our society. our culture and the advertising/marketing industry, but part of growing up and establishing personal autonomy is that we do scrutinise and evaluate at least some of those beliefs in the light of reason, experience and other factors, and we do modify or reject some of them.

How much of this is true critical thinking, and how much of it is determined by psychological needs of which we are only dimly aware, or maybe completely unconscious, is hard to say.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

none of which, typically, they are in a position to evaluate and verify themselves.

What is sad there is that there is no reason people SHOULD be entirely unable to evaluate things themselves. At least partially.

It takes a lot of work and study to be able to evaluate the papers and studies on a drug to a very indepth level. But that learning is not linear. The initial parts are rather easy to learn.

Even putting something like "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre on the early school curriculum would enable a populace to read through a lot of the papers, and media guff, on any given drug. Let alone implementing an actual well thought out, well constructed, module in our education curriculum on the subject.

There would still be a lot of guess work and ignorance. But they would be VASTLY more educated guesses than the blind faith many people take drugs with today.

In a world so full of scientific studies and the pronouncements of authorities..... it is a horrific oversight to my mind that we do not bother teaching our children how to read, interpret and understand the basics of scientific studies and the methodologies of epidemiology. Instead they sit there learning off the names of Irish Rivers and Solar System planets by rote.

I know I happily take any prescription a doctor gives me. I know I do not happily actually TAKE the drug until I have invested a minimum of 4 to 6 hours of reading into who studied the drug, what methodologies they used, what their results were, and how (and by who) those results were interpreted.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are lots of claims that are not capable of scientific examination, by no means all of them religious; all ethical claims, for instance, are of this nature.

I think I am in the Sam Harris camp of not buying the idea AT ALL that moral and ethical claims are outside the bounds of scientific evaluation and inquiry.

I think that it is an idea that has long been in the human narrative but aside from it's assertion I have never seen it argued as true.

A parallel to this is the claim I heard many times growing up and never, in my early years, had an answer for. The claim was that science can never "explain" art, or artistic appreciation.

But then I actually started studying human evolution, human psychology, human neuroscience and more in depth formally and informally. And I quickly learned that we indeed do have a working science of art, well on the way to explaining art and artistic appreciation at the level of the brain.

Morality and ethics seems to be in the business of maximizing well being. "Good" appears to be anything that maximizes the well being of the of the maximum number of people. "Evil" appears to be that which does the exact opposite. And there is a whole continuum in between them.

And how to move along that continuum is not a space I think that is immune to scientific inquiry and evaluation. There is going to be "right" and "wrong" ways to move in that space.

Further one of the corner stones of moral and ethical judgements is the concept of intent. Stabbing you by accident while turning with a knife in my hand while not even knowing you were there is not generally a moral action, or judged as one. Whereas going out of my way to intentionally stab you is.

Why? Because INTENT and fore knowledge is key to how people judge moral actions. And what is science if not the learning of causality and what the results of any given action will be? Science massively informs our knowledge of "If I do X, Y will be the result" and if ethics and morality are in the business of judging intention and foreknowledge behind actions........ then science is DIRECTLY involved in informing and evaluating moves in that space.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

. . . . I know I happily take any prescription a doctor gives me. I know I do not happily actually TAKE the drug until I have invested a minimum of 4 to 6 hours of reading into who studied the drug, what methodologies they used, what their results were, and how (and by who) those results were interpreted.

Which does you credit, Nozz. I'm just observing that it's not how most people work, or are ever likely to work. Particularly if we expand this approach not just to decisions about medical treatment, but to all decisions that are affected by scientifically-verifiable claims.

The beauty of scientifically-verifiable claims is that they can be scientifically verified. And that's important and valuable, even if they are largely accepted on faith, most of the time, by most of the people who rely on them. The very fact that the claims can be scientifically verified tends to make faith in them at least somewhat reasonable, no?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think I am in the Sam Harris camp of not buying the idea AT ALL that moral and ethical claims are outside the bounds of scientific evaluation and inquiry . . . Morality and ethics seems to be in the business of maximizing well being. "Good" appears to be anything that maximizes the well being of the of the maximum number of people. "Evil" appears to be that which does the exact opposite. And there is a whole continuum in between them.

I'm not in the Harris camp, I have to say, and what you say here helps to show why. The understanding of "good" that you offer is a fairly standard utilitarian approach, but utilitarianism is only one of a range of philosophical approaches to the idea of "good", and there is no scientific case for saying that it has a greater validity than any of the competing approaches.

And the particular way you frame it here is problematic. You say that "good" involves maximising the "well-being" of the greatest number of people. But what is "well-being"? "Well" is simply the adjectival form of "good"; to know what "well-being" is we already have to have a concept of what "good" is, so this is basically circular. (Note to smacl: critical thinking at work!)

Parking the issue of circularity for a moment, I think ethical utilitarianism does have an appeal to people who value science because, if you define "good" as promoting the well-being of the greatest number, and if you also select a concept of well-being which is empirically observable, you can of course apply the scientific method to establish what does, and what does not, tend to maximise well-being.

But all we're really doing here is choosing a philosophical concept of ethics because it will enable us to apply the scientific method; that assumes the very value for the scientific method that we are trying to prove. And even then we have to start from foundations like a concept of "well-being" which cannot itself be scientifically validated. I don't find this a particular compelling approach.

And you can also have the problem that you can have different concepts of "well-being" that are empirically observable; is that which makes us more prosperous to be preferred to that which makes us more healthy, that which makes us more content, that which makes our capacities flourish to the greatest extent? I don't see that science is going to be much help here.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm just observing that it's not how most people work, or are ever likely to work.

Only, I suspect, because we simply do not give them the tools to do it at the educational level. So I fear you are using the status quo to validate the status quo, which is dangerously circular.

I think it would be REMARKABLY easy to include a module in the school curriculum to give the basic skills required to people. You empower people with simple tools, and they have a tendency to use them I find. The whole "give a man a fish, or teach a man to fish" narrative in play.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the particular way you frame it here is problematic.

Not really problematic so much as intentionally short for an already educated (I suspect) audience. It is obviously a lot more complex than I painted it here, but that complexity was not required to make the point(s) I was making.

But the very question you ask (what is well being?) makes the point for me. When someone is declaring such things to be outside the realm of science, I do not take on faith the claim that it is.

There is no reason known or available to me to suggest that answering that question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Unless you take the approach of the "Pone" user posting here of late, that there is some equivalence between what science has not done yet, and what science is by definition limited in doing, there is nothing put pure assumption at work in declaring these things outside the boundaries of science.

That is not, of course, to declare by fiat they are NOT. Just that we have no reason this time to think they ARE.

But if one does the thought experiment of imagining a universe that is specifically constructed and contrived to cause the maximum possible amount of suffering from the maximum number of beings possible...... then one has a basis already for a continuum of good versus bad and a concept of well being. Any move AWAY from that end of the continuum would be a good move. The moment one admits of a desire to move away from that state of affairs, is the moment the continuum of which I speak has been conceded as existing.

So I do not see it as suffering from the circles you imagine it does. But the point central to it is clear. There is nothing past pure assertion about questions like "What is well being" that puts them automatically outside the purview of science.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is sad there is that there is no reason people SHOULD be entirely unable to evaluate things themselves. At least partially.

There's a problem of time and scale here. Every field of scientific endeavour is generating increasing amounts knowledge all the time, such that the total accumulated knowledge growth is exponential, as in many cases is the complexity. Our intellects as individuals have not grown on any comparable basis. Thus while any individual could potentially understand any given scientific conclusion by bringing it back to first principals, they'd be long dead of old age before they could do it for any significant proportion of all of it. In our parents lifetime you could successfully be a generalist, but I'm not convinced you can any longer. For example, I'm currently working at very technical level in computer vision and deep learning. The number of research papers coming out is such that I have pick and choose what I read and limit myself to directly relevant work for risk of getting bogged down. Someone coming into the field is going to need decent maths and programming skills as a prerequisite, face a steep learning curve, and an ongoing time commitment to keep up to date. And all that for one narrow facet of computer science.

Then with all that going on, the vast majority of what is produced in the media, social and otherwise, is little more than white noise at best and attempts to manipulate for the gain of others beyond this. The ratio of bad versus good information that we consume is frightening. I think that one reason why religion survives is that many people simply can't handle this complexity and would rather go back to what they perceive as 'simpler truths'. Same goes for all the other snake oil.