Changing our mind

[BashfulAnthony]

My wife is always changing her mind!

My wife always used to be changing my mind, when she was there!     

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Normally, pure intellectual views can be changed quite fast....like changes in scientific theories for example. Even our understanding of our own bodies, such as medical facts, can be changed fast.

But any idea with an emotional content is very difficult to change because it becomes a meme and starts behaving like a gene. It tries to survive and replicate.  To delete any of these memes and to load others takes lot of time and continued exposure to the new idea. Also, how others around us feel can influence us to change our minds ....or hold on to our ideas... depending on how they feel.   

We think that 'evidence' will make us change our minds. It does not usually happen!

Many religious people are unable to give up their belief in mythology in spite of overwhelming evidence against it. But not that atheists are immune to such 'digging in the heels'.

Just to give some examples about discussions on here.... Everyone knows about NDE's and that millions of people around the world  have these experiences. But most people who hear about it tend to dismiss it as just hallucinations or some brain generated experience.

Floo had a personal experience of a remarkable cure...but she and most others dismiss it.

Not that these above experiences should make us change our minds immediately and accept the idea of an after-life or a biofield! No! That may be difficult. But at least a.... 'Hmmm....maybe there is something to it'.... would be a good start...which could be the beginning of a new and broader understanding of the world! But it doesn't happen.

Secondly, many of us feel that if 'sufficient evidence' is presented...we will readily change our minds. This is  just a way of fooling ourselves. There is no such thing as 'sufficient evidence' if we have made up our minds against it. The above two instances are 'sufficient evidence' in my view and nothing more can possibly be presented in these matters.   Yet...no one is impressed!   

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

 

[ippy]

Some years back I was in hospital recovering from a DVT and my bed was opposite this, as I thought at the time, a very badly spoken, dragged up, unnecessarily rude person in his manner toward everyone, he was snorting, farting, always picking at himself and unnecessarily exposing himself without regard.

None of the above particularly phased me, but I couldn't help noticing, his general behaviour was very much in your face, well almost; one evening his daughter came to visit him and I couldn't help overhearing the most tender loving conversation between the two of them, I have a tear in my eye as I'm writing and recalling this moment, I didn't hear every word said but from the tone of the conversation the poor man was on his way out.

The loving tenderness of this overheard conversation taught me to do my best to not pidgin hole people or to be as judgmental as I was in the past, it shook me and has altered my thinking considerably, in other words, changed my mind.

ippy

[Hope]

evidence for what?

To be honest, NS, I'm not sure, where Shaker is concerned     He spends a lot of time telling all and sundry that religion is without any basis, but doesn't really seem to produce any evidence for his belief that seems to me that science provides/will provide the answers to all the questions people ask.

[Hope]

That's interesting ippy.
I've also pidgin holed people and seen that I was wrong.

Usually because they have shown a side to them I hadn't seen before.


Thank you for sharing.

🌹

I learnt very early in my life that pigeon-holing people was not simply wrong, it was a fallacy.  Ironically, it was as much because of the erroneous way that others used to pigeon-hole me as the way I pigeon-holed others.

[Nearly Sane]

To be honest, NS, I'm not sure, where Shaker is concerned     He spends a lot of time telling all and sundry that religion is without any basis, but doesn't really seem to produce any evidence for his belief that seems to me that science provides/will provide the answers to all the questions people ask.

I think you have to unpack that. That religion has no basis depends on how you are defining 'basis' Here.

That science will provide all the answers to all questions is a different statement, and I don't know if Shaker has ever stated that.

[Gordon]

To be honest, NS, I'm not sure, where Shaker is concerned     He spends a lot of time telling all and sundry that religion is without any basis, but doesn't really seem to produce any evidence for his belief that seems to me that science provides/will provide the answers to all the questions people ask.

I don't recall Shaker, or indeed any of the atheists here, claiming that science can provide 'all the answers' - which raises the issues of what questions are being asked, whether these questions are within the scope of science and, of course, whether these questions are valid ones in the first place. 

[Hope]

Some Religious people want that sparkle of magic or an ultimate justice and not a universe that is aloof and totally explainable.

I'm not sure that suggesting that religious people 'want that sparkle of magic or an ultimate justice and not a universe that is aloof and totally explainable' is realistic, Rose.  I certainly don't. 

• Working backwards, I think we all want an explanation of the universe, but some people seem to want a different explanation to others.
• Not sure that the term 'aloof' is even applicable to the way atheists think about things; rather they seem to look at things from a different perspective and therefore see the universe in a different light to non-atheists.
• 'Ultimate justice'; could you expand on what you mean by that?  Is it some sort of ultimate punishment? 
• Finally, 'sparkle of magic'; as soon as anyone brings the concept of magic into the discussion, I begin to get suspicious.  Back in September and October,  I used to look out of our sitting room window and watch as a particular tree at the end of our close, changed colour spectacularly over a 4-5 week period.  Yes, it was 'magic', but there was no supernatural-ness to that magic.  Rather it was naturally spectacular.  I think that that is how many Christians regard the way in which God works and how his nature is.  The problem for atheists is that that 'natural-ness' is a far bigger concept than the rather narrow one that relies on science alone to describe it.

[Shaker]

I think we all want an explanation of the universe, but some people seem to want a different explanation to others.

A real one would be preferable.

[Hope]

NS and Gordon, are you suggesting that there are areas of reality that science doesn't claim to speak to?

[Hope]

A real one would be preferable.

I would agree wholeheartedly, Shaker.  I just think that the one you espouse is not a real one.

[Shaker]

I would agree wholeheartedly, Shaker.  I just think that the one you espouse is not a real one.

Evidence for that?

[ippy]

I learnt very early in my life that pigeon-holing people was not simply wrong, it was a fallacy.  Ironically, it was as much because of the erroneous way that others used to pigeon-hole me as the way I pigeon-holed others.

I can remember learning at a very early part of my life whatever the rule, there's always an exception to the rule.

ippy

[Hope]

Evidence for that?

The posts you make in the religion/science debate threads.

[Hope]

I can remember learning at a very early part of my life whatever the rule, there's always an exception to the rule.

ippy

Were you the latter, ippy?   

[Shaker]

The posts you make in the religion/science debate threads.

I don't think you understand.

I was asking for evidence that the explanation of the universe I espouse is not "the real one." Remember that the explanation I espouse, more particularly the methodological principles that undergird it, show their success every single day that the sun shines upon the earth. Without going into too much heavy detail here and now (been done before; will go into it all over again if deemed necessary, however) I consider that case closed for the methodology and explanation(s) I espouse. Sure, I can make all the right noises about it being provisional and tentative and all that, but really, as I say, it's done and dusted, kippers and custard as far as I'm concerned.

So that's me and mine - what about yours?

[ippy]

Were you the latter, ippy?   

Sorry can't help there I'm so ordinary, how would I know, but there are datums.

ippy

[Hope]

I was asking for evidence that the explanation of the universe I espouse is not "the real one."

I have extracted this from a post I have just made on the 'The Sun wilbe Darkened' thread for Shaker's benefit.

"

Apropos which, how's the evidence coming along for your assertion that my explanation of the universe is "not a real one" on the "Changing our mind" thread on General Discussion?

And that explanation was ... what?  That the debate is done and dusted?  That sounds extremely dogmatic.  If it really was 'all done and dusted' I would expect the on-going philosophical debates not to be on-going, the continued existence of theology to have ceased and the efforts of science to find the answers to be unnecessary.

I have nothing against your holding the belief that all is done and dusted, in the same way that I have no problem with UKIP holding the belief that the UK would be better off outside of Europe: I happen to disagree, as do many others (on both issues)"

[Shaker]

Why copy and paste that here when I saw it on the other thread (where it appeared first and where I replied)? Do you think that copying and pasting will somehow cover up the fact that you're still bobbing, weaving, ducking, diving and evading backing up yet another of your assertions?

Pathetic. Contemptible, actually.