Whats the reason for this belief?

[Scrotum]

We all know that the majority of the worlds population is ´stupid´, to simplify. But how come so many educated people, with capacity to think, still believe in gods?

Instead of talking about gods specifically , i would like to use the Tooth Fairy as a substitute, as there is no difference, and shows the ridicule of the whole thing.

-
Both John/Harvey & Otsent believe in the Tooth Fairy. Otsent believes in a specific Tooth Fairy, together with John, whom is more of a fundamentalist, Whiles Harvey is more close to a Different Tooth Fairy.

None of these people have any proof or logical based evidence for the existence of their Tooth Fairy. None at all. They simply state he or she exist, and thats the end of story.
-

Why?
Personally, i always presumed the contemporary belief of a Tooth Fairy to be because of fear. Death is a scary thought for most people (remember, the general population is ignorant, and ignorance brings fear), and also the fact that you would be forced to take responsobility for your life,which the existence of the Tooth Fairy removes.


Whats your view?
Why do you think people believe in such things? Is there other reasons then fear and plain ignorance?

[OccamsRazor]

Ok harvey, I understand your point about the Tooth Fairy. My only issue is that when I was little, UK tooth fairies didn't seem to use gold nuggets, instead they used a nickel alloy which was carefully stamped with a monetary value on one side and a relief of the Queen on the other.

There's never been a question that pantheism can explain our universe and or its constants.

But I cannot help feeling that this is capitulation in the face of ignorance. It is synonymous to the belief that gods create rain before the study of meteorology taught us otherwise.

Personally I think that these discoveries should cause us to drop the notion of atheism until we can understand how contingency could have any realistic chance to bring about the world that we see. I think we should reject what is not sensible, and I don't think a contingent multiverse is sensible.

I find this approach completely illogical. This is equivalent to believing every single ontology until we may disprove each one. The point is that you seem to make an exception, you do not logically except every ontology, you just seem to make a special case for God.

[harvey1]

I can't help thinking that this is fundamentally an irrational way to conduct oneself. It boils down to the teleological argument; if we venture out into the world and see some striking feature is it rational to assume it to be the deliberate work of some sentient agency? I would argue that it should always assumed to be the product of natural processes, and void of purpose until such time as it can be positively identified as the product of a deliberate and purposeful construction. Is this not the lesson we should have learned from the history of our investigations in what are now known to be natural phenomena

I agree, and that's why we must reject a brute fact if there is ample reason to believe that some selection processes (i.e., lawful order) are involved. In the case of our universe, the coincidences in the constants require us to believe that this an outcome of some kind of order existing the world.

In effect we short-circuit all this effort by appealing to a teleological origin for the entire universe and undoing all the work in explaining things such as how lightning is not the weapon of some angry God. I find that too much accept. There are simply too many phenomena which have appealing interpretations along these lines for me to ignore the powerful lure towards anthropomorphism as an unwarranted bias.

I disagree because lightning and all phenomena explained by science is built on the assumption that there are laws of nature which bring about the order that we see. Where I think atheism goes off track is by trying to explain these ordering principles as contingent, and that leads to absurdities. Therefore, we ought to do the scientifically responsible act, and believe that a contingent beginning is not viable and not consistent with science.

[harvey1]

Ok harvey, I understand your point about the Tooth Fairy. My only issue is that when I was little, UK tooth fairies didn't seem to use gold nuggets, instead they used a nickel alloy which was carefully stamped with a monetary value on one side and a relief of the Queen on the other.

Unless you are Prince Charles, I suppose.

There's never been a question that pantheism can explain our universe and or its constants.

But I cannot help feeling that this is capitulation in the face of ignorance. It is synonymous to the belief that gods create rain before the study of meteorology taught us otherwise.

I see it the other way around. To use any other explanation for nature other than there is a logical reason for something (i.e., by offering a brute fact) is to give in to mysticism. I suppose mysticism can always be claimed to rule out a logical explanation, but I think that's giving in to irrationalism when it is just unnecessary and uncalled for.

I find this approach completely illogical. This is equivalent to believing every single ontology until we may disprove each one. The point is that you seem to make an exception, you do not logically except every ontology, you just seem to make a special case for God.

I make a special case for a logical explanation, and I rule out explanations ultimately based on mysticism. Contingent explanations are illogical by definition since there is no reason for the contingent start. It is assumed to be irrational to begin with. I see that as completely illogical.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

I disagree because lightning and all phenomena explained by science is built on the assumption that there are laws of nature which bring about the order that we see. Where I think atheism goes off track is by trying to explain these ordering principles as contingent, and that leads to absurdities. Therefore, we ought to do the scientifically responsible act, and believe that a contingent beginning is not viable and not consistent with science.

The contingency of the choice of properties for the universe in no way means that they are not self consistent and unchanging subsiquent to that initial choice and DO NOT lead to "absurdities". It is also consistent with science. Just as evolution is consistent with the facts no matter how the first life came into being, the properties of the universe are self consistent and(as far as we can tell)unchanging no matter what the First Cause was(contingent or not). A contingent beginning is still in play!!!

Grumpy

[QED]

I can't help thinking that this is fundamentally an irrational way to conduct oneself. It boils down to the teleological argument; if we venture out into the world and see some striking feature is it rational to assume it to be the deliberate work of some sentient agency? I would argue that it should always assumed to be the product of natural processes, and void of purpose until such time as it can be positively identified as the product of a deliberate and purposeful construction. Is this not the lesson we should have learned from the history of our investigations in what are now known to be natural phenomena

I agree, and that's why we must reject a brute fact if there is ample reason to believe that some selection processes (i.e., lawful order) are involved. In the case of our universe, the coincidences in the constants require us to believe that this an outcome of some kind of order existing the world.

Are you saying that the coincidences of the constants serve as uniquivocal evidence for the universe as an act of deliberate and purposeful construction?

In effect we short-circuit all this effort by appealing to a teleological origin for the entire universe and undoing all the work in explaining things such as how lightning is not the weapon of some angry God. I find that too much accept. There are simply too many phenomena which have appealing interpretations along these lines for me to ignore the powerful lure towards anthropomorphism as an unwarranted bias.

I disagree because lightning and all phenomena explained by science is built on the assumption that there are laws of nature which bring about the order that we see. Where I think atheism goes off track is by trying to explain these ordering principles as contingent, and that leads to absurdities.

Absurdities? What, like this region of space-time that we call our universe being a subset of a greater (if not infinite) space with local laws -- or this being one of many (if not infinite) repeating cycles of universal expansions and contractions (or even just repeated expansions) -- or this universe being isolated as a single bubble in a massive foam of many (if not infinite) other universes -- or any of the numerous other "many worlds" hypotheses?

Therefore, we ought to do the scientifically responsible act, and believe that a contingent beginning is not viable and not consistent with science.

You seem very eager to consign these other hypothesis to the trash-can today. Are you quite confident that this is the right thing to do?

[OccamsRazor]

To use any other explanation for nature other than there is a logical reason for something (i.e., by offering a brute fact) is to give in to mysticism. I suppose mysticism can always be claimed to rule out a logical explanation, but I think that's giving in to irrationalism when it is just unnecessary and uncalled for.

Sorry, I do not follow this. I am not advocating a brute fact explanation (and have never done so). I see no problem with taking a position of ignorance. In the absence of evidence for the reasons for the physical constants being as they are I simply say that I don't know what caused this. Do you feel justified in saying that because "brute fact" does not sit well then you must introduce a creator?

I make a special case for a logical explanation, and I rule out explanations ultimately based on mysticism. Contingent explanations are illogical by definition since there is no reason for the contingent start. It is assumed to be irrational to begin with. I see that as completely illogical.

I'm sorry but I do not see where you introduce mysticism. I do not see why a contingent explanation is illogical, surely the definition of a contingent start is that the initial conditions were possible if not necessary.

Again I feel that you are adding a divine power purely to eradicate ignorance.

[harvey1]

The contingency of the choice of properties for the universe in no way means that they...unchanging subsiquent to that initial choice

That doesn't make any sense to me. How can the basic set of properties that "just were" able to undergo real change? Let me give you an example. If I said that the basic axioms of algebra can undergo change depending on the outcome of the equations solely deduced by those axioms, then I am speaking gibberish since I need those axioms to construct new axioms, so those old axioms are not being replaced they are merely hidden from view as the deductions (of those hidden axioms) provide for an emergent set of new algebra axioms. However, the hidden axioms have not changed since the new axioms are still reliant on those hidden axioms at all times of their implementation (/existence).

[harvey1]

Are you saying that the coincidences of the constants serve as uniquivocal evidence for the universe as an act of deliberate and purposeful construction?.

Yes. Now, let me clarify that by saying that one can always concoct a fantastic story to avoid adopting a religious view (which I guess is akin to pouring water on the Wicked Witch of the West), but if we follow up on those stories we see that they either reduce to accepting the religious view or are just absurdities.

Absurdities? What, like this region of space-time that we call our universe being a subset of a greater (if not infinite) space with local laws

It's absurd QED to say that extremely complex stuff just contingentlz exists without having gone through some kind of selection process. So, if someone wants to say that there's no selection process, then I say that is an absurd solution.

or this being one of many (if not infinite) repeating cycles of universal expansions and contractions (or even just repeated expansions) -- or this universe being isolated as a single bubble in a massive foam of many (if not infinite) other universes -- or any of the numerous other "many worlds" hypotheses?

If someone wants to say that the Universe possesses a simple set of metaphysical laws that bring about this kind of complexity, then I think that they are pantheists and have moved over into a religious perspective. On the other hand, if they want to say that the world just happens to have this complexity for no reason, then again I say that this position is absurd.

You seem very eager to consign these other hypothesis to the trash-can today. Are you quite confident that this is the right thing to do?

I'm not consigning scientific hypotheses to the trash can. I'm labelling this strong kind of mysticism as absurd (which it technically is sense being absurd means to lack a logical explanation which mysticism is by definition).

[harvey1]

To use any other explanation for nature other than there is a logical reason for something (i.e., by offering a brute fact) is to give in to mysticism. I suppose mysticism can always be claimed to rule out a logical explanation, but I think that's giving in to irrationalism when it is just unnecessary and uncalled for.

Sorry, I do not follow this. I am not advocating a brute fact explanation (and have never done so). I see no problem with taking a position of ignorance. In the absence of evidence for the reasons for the physical constants being as they are I simply say that I don't know what caused this. Do you feel justified in saying that because "brute fact" does not sit well then you must introduce a creator?

I am not introducing a Creator, I'm merely rejecting a priori any move toward mysticism as a valid epistemic position to a rational explanation. So, for example, if someone says that "the moon is made of green cheese... whee...," then I feel more than justified in rejecting that claim (or the claim to remain agnostic about that claim) as absurd. The reason is that such a claim is irrational (i.e., not given to a genuine rational explanation), and therefore ought to be rejected. Similarly, any kind of brute fact possibility is irrational since there is nothing to explain the brute fact (by definition of being a brute fact).

I make a special case for a logical explanation, and I rule out explanations ultimately based on mysticism. Contingent explanations are illogical by definition since there is no reason for the contingent start. It is assumed to be irrational to begin with. I see that as completely illogical.

I'm sorry but I do not see where you introduce mysticism. I do not see why a contingent explanation is illogical, surely the definition of a contingent start is that the initial conditions were possible if not necessary.

How can a contingent start be necessary? A necessary start is necessary, and a contingent start is contingent (both true by definition). If there is a contingent start, then that's the end of inquiry. We just have to accept the brute fact and end the inquiry. However, if that's the case, we are saying the world is irrational and then anything can be the case.

Again I feel that you are adding a divine power purely to eradicate ignorance.

I reject any explanation that asks us to either accept or be agnostic about it if it implies an irrational universe.

[OccamsRazor]

surely the definition of a contingent start is that the initial conditions were possible if not necessary.

Sorry, this was a failure of my use of English. I meant "surely the definition of a contingent start is that the initial conditions were possible if not probable".