Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The Religion and Philosophy Thread

12021222426

Comments

  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    according to my own experience i partially disagree.
    from one side, as i can not even proof you that i exist or you can not proof me that you exist beyond the perceptions super imposing on the conscience i think that even the belief in an external objective world is only based on a feeling, even if i am less judgmental then you and don't use terms like "horrible reason".
    from an other side, assuming that the world that surrounds me is real, assumption that is only based on a feeling, and experimenting the interactions of that world with my inner world i have to say that i have to agree with what some alchemists and mystics tell, there is an intimate connection between the inner and the outer world and any change of one of the 2 cause a change in the other one.
    i had witnessed so many times how situations in the outer world that i was not able to change acting in it changed by themselves as soon as i had made a change in my inner world, i had solved an inner contradiction i had.
    for me the outer world, if it ever exist, is something really magic, even if i consider the 99.99% of what is usually regarded as magic by so much people only superstition, if not directly fake and scam.
    but here i am talking about my opinion on how feelings can affect existence, not answering to your question that is about feelings affect the claim of existence.

    to answer to your question i certainly disagree with you, for me if a person tells:"i believe in the existence of god because it make my life more worth to be lived, give to it a sense" it is a reason good enough. it is not my personal position, but is the position of many people i met and respect. if their letting the feelings affect their claim about god's existence make their lives better it is surely a relevant thing.


  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    according to my own experience i partially disagree.
    from one side, as i can not even proof you that i exist or you can not proof me that you exist beyond the perceptions super imposing on the conscience i think that even the belief in an external objective world is only based on a feeling, even if i am less judgmental then you and don't use terms like "horrible reason".
    from an other side, assuming that the world that surrounds me is real, assumption that is only based on a feeling, and experimenting the interactions of that world with my inner world i have to say that i have to agree with what some alchemists and mystics tell, there is an intimate connection between the inner and the outer world and any change of one of the 2 cause a change in the other one.
    i had witnessed so many times how situations in the outer world that i was not able to change acting in it changed by themselves as soon as i had made a change in my inner world, i had solved an inner contradiction i had.
    for me the outer world, if it ever exist, is something really magic, even if i consider the 99.99% of what is usually regarded as magic by so much people only superstition, if not directly fake and scam.
    but here i am talking about my opinion on how feelings can affect existence, not answering to your question that is about feelings affect the claim of existence.

    to answer to your question i certainly disagree with you, for me if a person tells:"i believe in the existence of god because it make my life more worth to be lived, give to it a sense" it is a reason good enough. it is not my personal position, but is the position of many people i met and respect. if their letting the feelings affect their claim about god's existence make their lives better it is surely a relevant thing.


    And if someone were to say "I believe in the existence of dragons because it makes my life more worth to be lived"

    or

    "I don't believe in the existence of viruses because it makes my life more worth to be lived"

    Would you say those are also valid reasons?

    ArtonaBelgarathMTH
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 9,136
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    that is not irrelevant. i am talking of possible reasons why a large part of humanity trough all its history and even before as we know from archaeological finds believe/believed in some god/religion/supernatural.
    how can it be not relevant?
    i am talking of a different approach then your modern logic approach to the issue of believing or not believing. you can not judge as relevant or not an other approach using your own approach as judgment parameter.

    "horrible reason" is only a personal evaluation of you, is really subjective and by the way possibly judgmental on a large part of the present and past human race.

    @gorgonzola So do you or do you not agree that feelings of humans do not manifest as existence? If you don't agree, I wonder why. It does not matter how much I want dragons to be real, they are not. That's why it's irrelevant.

    Another thing that contradicts the 'feelings don't matter' argument is the placebo effect. It can't be explained, but it is scientifically verified...

    The placebo effect was partially explained a few years ago when a direct link between the brain and the immune system was discovered. I'll see if I can find an article about it to post.

    gorgonzolaZaghoulSkatan
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    edited April 20
    @FinneousPJ first of all who am i to judge what is a valid reason for an other person?

    about comparing god and dragons with viruses is like comparing apples with oranges, we have evidence that viruses exist, to claim that they don't exist in spite of the evidence is a completely different thing that to claim something without having any evidence.

    about comparing god and dragons, so something that a large part of humanity believe exist to something that is almost universally agreed that is not existing i already told you that i find it really judgmental and not respectful.

    if you want an answer please ask your question in an appropriate way.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    @FinneousPJ first of all who am i to judge what is a valid reason for an other person?

    about comparing god and dragons with viruses is like comparing apples with oranges, we have evidence that viruses exist, to claim that they don't exist in spite of the evidence is a completely different thing that to claim something without having any evidence.

    about comparing god and dragons, so something that a large part of humanity believe exist to something that is almost universally agreed that is not existing i already told you that i find it really judgmental and not respectful.

    if you want an answer please ask your question in an appropriate way.

    Alright, what a way to shut down discussion. BTW, the number of people who believe a claim has not impact on its truth value, just like feelings have no impact ;)

    Artona
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    @FinneousPJ i am not shutting down discussions, i am only asking you to don't use non relevant comparisons, like the one with viruses, and to possibly avoid to compare god with unicorns and dragons as it is judgmental, you could have picked different and better things to compare.

    i was also talking of claim's value, the decision to add "truth" restricting the field of the value, answering to a post of mine, where it was clear that in my post i was talking of other type of value, is yours and totally arbitrary. it seems to me that you fail to understand what the other people try to tell not only for their limits in expressing themselves in a not native language, and i certainly have such limits, but because you are biased towards your own convictions.

    talking of the "truth value" of a claim i think that both the positions "i believe that god exist" and " i believe that god don't exist" lack of any evidence so both lack of any truth related value, only the agnostic position "i don't know if god exist or not" is a claim that has a truth value. on the ignorance, not on the god's existence or not existence.
    i refuse the minimum assumption criteria as a good criteria to claim that something don't exist, and the fact that before the invention of the microscope it could have lead to the claim " bacteria don't exist" is imho a good enough example on how illogical is a claim of not existence based on that criteria.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited April 20
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    @FinneousPJ i am not shutting down discussions, i am only asking you to don't use non relevant comparisons, like the one with viruses, and to possibly avoid to compare god with unicorns and dragons as it is judgmental, you could have picked different and better things to compare.

    I'm not going to start guessing what analogies are OK with you or not. If you don't wanna shut down conversation, then offer an analogy of your own and argument stronger than going the route of "I'm offended, therefore you're wrong."
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    i was also talking of claim's value, the decision to add "truth" restricting the field of the value, answering to a post of mine, where it was clear that in my post i was talking of other type of value, is yours and totally arbitrary. it seems to me that you fail to understand what the other people try to tell not only for their limits in expressing themselves in a not native language, and i certainly have such limits, but because you are biased towards your own convictions.

    I'm only interested in the truth value for the time being.
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    talking of the "truth value" of a claim i think that both the positions "i believe that god exist" and " i believe that god don't exist" lack of any evidence so both lack of any truth related value, only the agnostic position "i don't know if god exist or not" is a claim that has a truth value. on the ignorance, not on the god's existence or not existence.
    i refuse the minimum assumption criteria as a good criteria to claim that something don't exist, and the fact that before the invention of the microscope it could have lead to the claim " bacteria don't exist" is imho a good enough example on how illogical is a claim of not existence based on that criteria.

    Yep, once again I have not made the general claim of "no god or gods exist".

    Anyway, let's leave dragons out and simply ask:

    "I believe X exists because it makes me feel good."

    Do you think that's a good reason? X can be god, or dragons, or pixies, or anything. It doesn't matter logically.

    Artona
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    yes i think that for some people it can be a good reason.
    it does not mean that it is a good reason for me, actually it is not so, as i was not personally offended by the comparison between believing in god or unicorns as for me even to believe in the existence of a world beyond the perceptions is as silly as to believe in gods or unicorns. but this is true for me, is my personal opinion and having it does not give me the right to don't respect other people's opinions. comparing believes in god or even in the existence of a physical objective world to things that are universally accepted as fairy tales, as myths imho is not a respectful way to have a discussion.

    i am aware that you personally did not claimed that god don't exist, i see how you are careful in not claiming anything, but questioning what other people claim. in what you quoted i was merely telling that in my opinion both the beliefs "god exist" and "god don't exist" lack of any truth value, not implying that you claimed what you did not claim.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited April 20
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    yes i think that for some people it can be a good reason.
    it does not mean that it is a good reason for me, actually it is not so, as i was not personally offended by the comparison between believing in god or unicorns as for me even to believe in the existence of a world beyond the perceptions is as silly as to believe in gods or unicorns. but this is true for me, is my personal opinion and having it does not give me the right to don't respect other people's opinions. comparing believes in god or even in the existence of a physical objective world to things that are universally accepted as fairy tales, as myths imho is not a respectful way to have a discussion.

    i am aware that you personally did not claimed that god don't exist, i see how you are careful in not claiming anything, but questioning what other people claim. in what you quoted i was merely telling that in my opinion both the beliefs "god exist" and "god don't exist" lack of any truth value, not implying that you claimed what you did not claim.

    Why is something that's a good reason for other people not a good reason for you? It sounds like you don't think it's a good reason if it's not a good reason for you.

  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    because not all the people are the same, what is good for one can not be so for an other.
    reasons, foods, climate, habits and many other things.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited April 20
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    because not all the people are the same, what is good for one can not be so for an other.
    reasons, foods, climate, habits and many other things.

    But if reason A is a good reason to conclude X exists for a person, it should be a good reason for all persons, because once again whether X exists or not is not dependent on what people think about it. If it's not a good reason for you, i.e. based on A you cannot conclude X exists, then it's simply not a good reason.

  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    edited April 20
    [quote="FinneousPJ
    I'm only interested in the truth value for the time being.
    [/quote]
    this is your own point of view, and it works good for you, cause not all people are the same.

    and i already told you that
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    whether X exists or not is not dependent on what people think about it.
    for me is to some extent not true. and it works well for me, cause not all people are the same.

    but even assuming that you are correct, that what we think about something does not influence the existence of that something, as the humanity has not been able until now to demonstrate the existence of god nor to demonstrate its not existence (demonstrating something that exclude the possibility of his/its existence or in an other way) we should conclude that the value of believing in god's existence (or not existence) can not be truth related.

    i personally know people whose having faith make them better persons, with a more rich life, a value in their believing can not be negated, even if it can not interest you.
    and i know people whose having faith make them bigots, fanatics and intolerant, cause again we are not all the same.

    EDIT: sorry if i answered to you only after 1 hour, but i was making pizza for dinner with the forum page opened.


  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited April 20
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    this is your own point of view, and it works good for you, cause not all people are the same.

    and i already told you that
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    whether X exists or not is not dependent on what people think about it.
    for me is to some extent not true. and it works well for me, cause not all people are the same.

    Let me reiterate. If reason A is a good reason to conclude X exists for a person, it should be a good reason for all persons, because once again whether X exists or not is not dependent on what people think about it. If it's not a good reason for you, i.e. based on A you cannot conclude X exists, then it's simply not a good reason.
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    but even assuming that you are correct, that what we think about something does not influence the existence of that something, as the humanity has not been able until now to demonstrate the existence of god nor to demonstrate its not existence (demonstrating something that exclude the possibility of his/its existence or in an other way) we should conclude that the value of believing in god's existence (or not existence) can not be truth related.

    i personally know people whose having faith make them better persons, with a more rich life, a value in their believing can not be negated, even if it can not interest you.
    and i know people whose having faith make them bigots, fanatics and intolerant, cause again we are not all the same.

    EDIT: sorry if i answered to you only after 1 hour, but i was making pizza for dinner with the forum page opened.


    The claim "there is a god" is a truth statement whether we know the answer or not. It is truth related, as you put it.

    How would you know these people are better people for having faith? Obviously, currently they have faith and you have no way to know how they would be different if they didn't have it. And even if you did, how could you ever show causation between faith and their state of being?

  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    i had always told here that some people can have good reasons to belief, not conclude that or be sure of. to belief is somehow more a statement of faith then a statement of truth. faith can be used when there is not an evidence, a proof that make the faith not needed. and i tell can be used because it can also not be used, i decided to don't use it myself long ago, probably 42 years ago.

    you are right about me knowing or not knowing people. i have been betrayed by people i was trusting and positively surprised by people of whom i did not had an high opinion. and i can not have any certainty about what it would have been if...
    still i had the chance to talk to religious people and to listen on their own opinion on how their faith make their life more rich and worth to be lived. if they feel that their life is enriched by the faith for me it is a good reason enough, for them obviously, my own path is different.
    and not only we are not all the same, but we are also not only logic, like mr spock from star treck is, we are also emotion, intuition, instinct and other things. each one of us is a different mix of those ingredients with his own particular flavor. what we belief, we like, we want depends also on the particular mix we have. it seems to me that possibly the logic is a big ingredient of your own mix, but it is not true for everyone.

    FinneousPJ
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 9,136
    One of the articles I mentioned... not the most up to date but not impossible to read if you're not a doctor :)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374437/

    And the obligatory Wikipedia mention :)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimmune_system

    gorgonzolaArviaSkatan
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,104
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    @FinneousPJ first of all who am i to judge what is a valid reason for an other person?

    about comparing god and dragons with viruses is like comparing apples with oranges, we have evidence that viruses exist, to claim that they don't exist in spite of the evidence is a completely different thing that to claim something without having any evidence.

    about comparing god and dragons, so something that a large part of humanity believe exist to something that is almost universally agreed that is not existing i already told you that i find it really judgmental and not respectful.

    if you want an answer please ask your question in an appropriate way.

    @gorgonzola , I have to disagree with you, seriously and sharply here. Your argument strikes me as alarmingly similar to the "arguments" used by the anti-vaxxers, who are currently causing a resurgence of measles across the world with their alarmingly misguided "beliefs", which are all "legitimately" based on the "beliefs" of the majority of humanity across history.

    The scientific method is what works to maximize benefit and minimize suffering. We have an idea, we apply it, and we conduct experiments in the material world to find out what works. We develop better and better observational instruments that help us gather data that is beyond our direct ability to sense with our limited physical senses. We improve our methods, our theories, and our hypotheses based on our ever expanding database.

    "Belief", and historical "belief", are absolutely, irrevocably, ineffective against the terrors and plagues that assault humanity. Would you really turn down a measles vaccine for your children because you "believe" that God will protect you and them, just as countless people did before in history?

    The measles vaccine was discovered and perfected through the scientific method, and "belief" had nothing to do with any of it.

    I do care about *why* most of humanity has "believed" in harmful and ignorant superstition throughout the past few thousand years. That's so I can maybe, slowly and gradually, help humanity become free from that horrible slavery to Darwinian natural selection, and universal entropy, through what very little influence I can attempt to exert as a lonely human individual. (I swear, sometimes, I feel like "A voice, crying in the wilderness.")

    I do *not* care *that* most of humanity has "believed" in harmful and ignorant superstition throughout the past few thousand years. I study history and history of thought, and it seems I am seeing something very, very different than you do. I see a few thousand years of superstitious darkness, suffering, and manifold evil acts based on superstition, with just a glimmer of hope from "Science as a Candle in the Dark (Carl Sagan)".

    ArviaFinneousPJ
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    edited April 21
    sorry @BelgarathMTH i fail to see how what you quote is related with what you tell.
    i told that we know that viruses exist so they have to be considered in a different way then the things that we have not evidence that exist. i did not tell anything about vaccine.
    i did also not named the scientific method in the post you quote, but i did in previous posts in this thread, and if you read them you find that i am a firm believer in the scientific method, even if i don't like when scientists or science writers apply some distortions on the method because of personal bias.

    also i see a lot of darkness, superstition and suffering in the past of humanity, i see them also now, with new superstitions replacing old ones. like the superstition that the humanity can free itself from the slavery to natural selection, that is what make the species strong and fit to survive, without consequences. and don't get me wrong i am talking of natural selection, certainly not of artificial selections like the one that the nazi wanted, that are only the worst form of racism.
    but i see also a lot of light in the past of humanity, beacons of light like socrates, buddha, jesus, as well as i see light today.

    by the way i had the measles when i was a baby, and almost all my friends and schoolmates had it, no one had permanent consequences. i become aware of what happens in the usa and you are referring about only now as i checked on internet what you was talking about.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    Arvia wrote: »

    I am okay with faith and religion if they help people in spiritual matters. But when they start meddling in other things where they have no business (and they do), it's not only wrong, but it is harmful. Superstitions based on religion have stopped the progress of science for centuries, and they still try to do so. I vividly remember our "history of medicine" lecture, and we all know how many scientists have been exiled or burned at the stake for telling the truth. I sometimes try to imagine how our world would be now if all those things hadn't happened, if people had been free to explore and discover. It's useless of course and only leads to depression, but at least we can do everything in our power to make sure this doesn't continue to happen.

    If I can prevent death and suffering but don't do it because it disagrees with my concept of good and evil and how the world should be (and fear of losing power over people), then that concept is WRONG.

    Again you make an interesting observation, even regarding yourself. How do you compartmentalise this type of superstitious thinking so it doesn't affect your practice or other decisions? Why do that instead of simply abandoning the beliefs for which there is no evidence?

  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    Arvia wrote: »
    "no one had permanent consequences" is not a valid point. You and your schoolmates is n=what? 20? 30?
    Compared to the world's population?
    ....................
    About 35 deaths among them (source: a medical journal quoting WHO data).
    i could tell 35 compared to europe's population, not a valid point.
    i don't do it, i don't think it and as i told in my previous post i was not talking of vaccines, you still don't know my opinion about them and the reasons behind that opinion. the very word virus was used originally by @FinneousPJ , not me, and we was talking about believing in viruses existence, not talking of vaccines, and my personal opinion was that as the virus existence is a scientific evidence there is no need to believe in them, of an act of faith, certainly not that viruses don't exist so vaccination is not needed.

    still 35 deaths compared to the european population is a small number, no reason to go bersek about it, as there are so many other things that cause a much larger mortality that could be avoided. we should be in a permanent bersek state for multiple reasons. just to keep the things in their true proportions.
    and this is not in any way a reason to don't vaccine people or to don't try to avoid that 35 deaths if is possible to avoid them.
    as i told and i repeat the 3rd time in the thread you don't know my position on vaccinations, please don't super impose stereotypes on what i am telling.


  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,012
    The problem I see is as follows: if, to call some reason "valid", it is enough for given reason to *seem* valid for the person, then it is impossible to distinguish valid reason from invalid. In other words: every reason is valid, then. And if anything can be valid reason, then any explanation loses all value it can have. As a consequence, any reasoning is impossible.

    gorgonzolaFinneousPJ
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    @BelgarathMTH i want to expand a little my opinion on the freedom from natural selection being a modern superstition.
    the scientific and technological progress has done giant passes in the last 2 centuries, and the acceleration seems to be exponential is some areas of our knowledge. this had a positive and a negative impact on humanity.
    on the positive side, to take only an example medical matter based, a person that contract pneumonia has a much greater chance to survive then before. on the negative side if allergy was once something pretty rare now it is so common that probably if a teenager bring to school peanut butter he and his parents will be lynched on the public road. and no one seems to notice that it is a terrific alarm bell, that our immunity system is going crazy, we all accept the thing as normal. it is not normal in any way, take away from you your scientific superstition bias and be logic, be scientific for a moment. you can not see how it is not normal, how something very dangerous is happening side by side with something very positive.
    the immunity system is the key to the health, medicine is only a help, a last resource when the immunity system in not up to the situation.

    the medicine related knowledge is progressing so fast, now we have even decoded the human genoma and soon we will be able to modify it. sorcerer's apprentices imho. but how the technology will be used?
    let's see what happen with the food production, we have right now the capability to produce enough food to feed the whole human population, and how it is used? people still starve, still die for starving, entire populations of children still grow with growth deficit for the lack of proper food. while a relatively small part of the human population suffer from obesity and waste more food then they eat!
    shame on us human beings
    i have reasons to suspect that even in the medicine field the progress will have a even more unbalanced use, right now we see how the interest of the corporate, the copyright, matters more then the people's health, the more the medicine will become expensive, and genetic based future medicine will be very expensive, the more the spread will rise.

    with a immunity system that is going crazy, with an advanced medicine that will become available only for the richest people/nations and without the (very positive imho) influence of the natural selection, so a less strong human genoma, as is the selection that keep it strong, i fail to see the future of humanity as an age of light after millennia of darkness.
    and i am strictly talking of the medical matter, i don't even scratch here how we are depleting resources, damaging the environment beyond its capability to auto repair, building mass destruction weapons that can kill a large part of the life of the planet and so on.

    BelgarathMTH
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,012
    @gorgonzola - I believe that problems you mention are very real, but they are not result of progress, but inevitable consequence of unchecked capitalism.

    gorgonzolaBelgarathMTHArvia
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    Artona wrote: »
    The problem I see is as follows: if, to call some reason "valid", it is enough for given reason to *seem* valid for the person, then it is impossible to distinguish valid reason from invalid. In other words: every reason is valid, then. And if anything can be valid reason, then any explanation loses all value it can have. As a consequence, any reasoning is impossible.

    i agree, but before it has to be defined or agreed what "valid" means.
    see the debate between @FinneousPJ and me. for her valid is only truth related, for me valid is anything that has a positive impact on the person that believe into something.
    once there is an agreement about what valid reason mean we can debate if a reason is valid or not, find out if the valid reason criteria is reached or not.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @gorgonzola So we're back to this, which is the problem both I and @BelgarathMTH have tried to explain to you. "for me valid is anything that has a positive impact on the person that believe into something." If that is the case, you should be OK with a person believing viruses do not exist if it makes them happy. And yet, you claim that was not the case. You are in conflict there.

    Also, who is "her"?

    BelgarathMTH
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    Artona wrote: »
    @gorgonzola - I believe that problems you mention are very real, but they are not result of progress, but inevitable consequence of unchecked capitalism.

    i agree with you, but i think that there are also other reasons.
    take as example the antibiotics. as penicillin was discovered it killed almost every bacteria. it is one of the greatest inventions of humanity. but its abuse has created resistances in the bacteria, now we have to use much more powerful antibiotics and even so often is needed in vitro research to find which antibiotic is able to fight a resistant infection.
    the abuse was not only due to an unchecked capitalism, to the corporate wanting to sell more antibiotic, is due also to the fact that the medical class suffer of a omnipotence superstition, often ignore the negative consequences of its own operating, and due to the humanity not willing to accept that disease is an inevitable part of the biological live and together with natural selection has a positive effect.
    we are loosing the race between us finding stronger antibiotics and bacteria developing resistances, in the future, if the trend, our way to use the antibiotics, will not change the antibiotics will become almost not useful.

  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,012
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    i agree, but before it has to be defined or agreed what "valid" means.
    see the debate between @FinneousPJ and me. for her valid is only truth related, for me valid is anything that has a positive impact on the person that believe into something.
    once there is an agreement about what valid reason mean we can debate if a reason is valid or not, find out if the valid reason criteria is reached or not.

    I follow your debate with great interest, and I believe there is one strong aspect of @FinneousPJ 's position (if I understand it correctly), that wasn't raised yet. That aspect is following problem: let's imagine we have two people. One person believes X exists and it has positive impact on their lives. Other person believes X doesn't exist (or that non-X exists) and it also has positive impact on their life. If we take position that validity of reasoning is connected to truth-value, then we can examine reasonings of those people and deem one of those reasoning invalid.
    However, if we would judge reasonings only on whether they have positive impact on the person, then we are forced to assume that we cannot really say, if X exists or not, regardless of empirical evidence. Or, even worse, to assume that X both exists and doesn't exist at a same time. Relating validity of reasoning with truth-value seem to generate more information of the world.

    gorgonzolaArviaBelgarathMTH
  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 346
    edited April 21
    @gorgonzola I am sorry if you felt attacked. It was not my intention, and I know the feeling all too well myself.
    The first part of my post, about the measles, was directed at your observation of yourself and your classmates surviving without problems. By "not a valid point" I was referring to epidemiological data, not your reason or anything. I am sorry I didn't make that clearer.
    The mortality rate is what counts, not the rate of survivers (unless we are talking about infections like ebola).
    It happens many times in medicine that we use things for years and suddenly, when enough data is collected, they turn out to be too harmful to use, because you need a large pool of data to get any statistical results. But I'm sure you know that.
    So, if I received information that a drug we had been using in anesthesia for decades can cause hepatitis and should not be used any longer, imagine I said "I have been using it these past 11 years and never seen a single cause of hepatitis. I'm going to continue using it."
    My point was, a large pool of data can confirm or detect things that personal experience cannot. Also, bad things happen all the time and there are many sufferings in this world that cannot all be solved at once. To say "We should address other, more important things first" is not something I can agree with. We can't possibly come up with a solution right now for every problem in this world. But if deaths could be prevented by tools that are already existing, I label that high priority. And people refuse to use these tools because of ignorance and superstition. Not because they can't afford it or don't have an infrastructure to give them access to medical attention.

    The rest of my post was a general statement and not directed at you specifically.

    I also strongly disagree with your view on natural selection (again, I'm not trying to call you ignorant, I am stating my point of view as opposed to yours).
    Of course every discovery in this world can be used and will be used for good and bad. Everything can become a weapon. Manipulating DNA can be used for all kinds of purposes and have long time consequences that we can't possibly imagine now. I don't feel very comfortable with that kind of knowledge in the hands of many people either. And even good intentions can lead to terrible mistakes. But if it means that all those hereditary neurodegenerative diseases can become a thing of history lessons, can we ignore that knowledge? I am just stating an example, I'm not very sure about my own opinion on that matter because there is still too little information.
    We can't go back, we can only try to change the little things that we can change, and hope that it will lead to a better future, as it has until now, because even if there are many new problems caused by every discovery, I think humanity is better off than 500 years ago, and hope that the future will show more positive development. I have faith (there it is again) that we humans can do better than before.

    I want a future like this: "Kidney dialysis! What is this the stone age?" McCoy, Star Trek IV

    gorgonzolaArtonaBelgarathMTH
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 2,440
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    @gorgonzola So we're back to this, which is the problem both I and @BelgarathMTH have tried to explain to you. "for me valid is anything that has a positive impact on the person that believe into something." If that is the case, you should be OK with a person believing viruses do not exist if it makes them happy. And yet, you claim that was not the case. You are in conflict there.

    Also, who is "her"?

    her is you, but i can be wrong, as i told many posts ago. as you did not reply i gave for good that her is appropriate. if is not i apologize.

    about the not believing in viruses example is true that there is still people that believe that the earth is flat so is possible that they don't believe in viruses (i am obviously talking of who know about viruses, not of the people of some tribe that still ignore their discovery).
    if such person refuses to vaccine "because viruses don't exist" and then contract a illness the impact is not positive at all. and we are talking of a matter where there is a scientific evidence of the existence of something and a deliberate choice to ignore that evidence.

    i was talking of a matter where there is no evidence at all and the consequences are far less material, like believing into a god or religion. even there the consequences can be positive and negative, that belief can lead to a better life, more rich and worth to be lived or can let face the fact that the body is not immortal, we have to die, with less anxiety. but the same belief can lead to bigotry and fanaticism, on a large scale can lead to war and massacre.

    BelgarathMTH
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    @gorgonzola So we're back to this, which is the problem both I and @BelgarathMTH have tried to explain to you. "for me valid is anything that has a positive impact on the person that believe into something." If that is the case, you should be OK with a person believing viruses do not exist if it makes them happy. And yet, you claim that was not the case. You are in conflict there.

    Also, who is "her"?

    her is you, but i can be wrong, as i told many posts ago. as you did not reply i gave for good that her is appropriate. if is not i apologize.

    Oh, I didn't notice. Why would you assume someone is a her when most people by far on forums like this are men? No, it's not appropriate.
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    about the not believing in viruses example is true that there is still people that believe that the earth is flat so is possible that they don't believe in viruses (i am obviously talking of who know about viruses, not of the people of some tribe that still ignore their discovery).
    if such person refuses to vaccine "because viruses don't exist" and then contract a illness the impact is not positive at all. and we are talking of a matter where there is a scientific evidence of the existence of something and a deliberate choice to ignore that evidence.

    i was talking of a matter where there is no evidence at all and the consequences are far less material, like believing into a god or religion. even there the consequences can be positive and negative, that belief can lead to a better life, more rich and worth to be lived or can let face the fact that the body is not immortal, we have to die, with less anxiety. but the same belief can lead to bigotry and fanaticism, on a large scale can lead to war and massacre.

    The belief in not viruses is positive for them because it makes them happy. But you're saying if they get a disease it's not a good reason, and if they do not it is a good reason? I'm out of words at this point...

Sign In or Register to comment.