Faith vs blind faith

[Shaker]

Let me put it another way.
Brain scans would settle your problem of not being able to distinguish faith claims from guessing.

For some reason your posts are even more incoherent and disjointed than usual this morning and I have no idea what on earth you think you're trying to say. The best I can make out is that the point I made in the first paragraph of #40 still stands.

[Gordon]

Let me put it another way.

How do the researchers you mention 'put it'?

Brain scans would settle your problem of not being able to distinguish faith claims from guessing.

Is that what brain scans show? What to the experts in interpreting brain scans say?

If they are the same the same parts of the brain would be shown to be working.

That may be so, provided the evidence supports you, but does that actually mean what you say it does?

Similarly we could answer the question is metaphysical naturalism merely guessing or is atheism merely guessing?

Have you been head-hunted by 'Brain Scanners 'R' Us' yet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do the researchers you mention 'put it'?

Is that what brain scans show? What to the experts in interpreting brain scans say?

That may be so, provided the evidence supports you, but does that actually mean what you say it does?

Have you been head-hunted by 'Brain Scanners 'R' Us' yet?

I can see this brain scan business might make a New Atheist a bit twitchy after all favourite throwaways such as faith is the same as guessing and religion is brain aberration are brought into the cold light of science.

Here is the reference i'm using...You are free to view the original Gordon,i'm not running any errands for you and look upon it as a test of your steel.

I think the area is called Neurotheology but that might be bad science since neuroscience has traditionally been moved forward by study of the abberant and abnormal. The statistical abnormality here being atheism.

 http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/01/religious_brains_function_diff.html

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can see this brain scan business might make a New Atheist a bit twitchy after all favourite throwaways such as faith is the same as guessing and religion is brain aberration are brought into the cold light of science.

Here is the reference i'm using...You are free to view the original Gordon,i'm not running any errands for you and look upon it as a test of your steel.

I think the area is called Neurotheology but that might be bad science since neuroscience has traditionally been moved forward by study of the abberant and abnormal. The statistical abnormality here being atheism.

 http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/01/religious_brains_function_diff.html

You're still confused. I suppose conceivably a machine might one day be able to distinguish a sincere belief from an insincere one, but that would tell you nothing about whether the subject is sincerely wrong. Person A might believe in the speed of light in a vacuum and Person B might believe there to be fairies at the end of his garden with equal sincerity - ie, whether someone is guessing or knows he's guessing are different matters.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You're still confused. I suppose conceivably a machine might one day be able to distinguish a sincere belief from an insincere one, but that would tell you nothing about whether the subject is sincerely wrong. Person A might believe in the speed of light in a vacuum and Person B might believe there to be fairies at the end of his garden with equal sincerity - ie, whether someone is guessing or knows he's guessing are different matters.

Irrelevent to the question of whether somebody is guessing or not.
Your thesis is that faith is just guessing.
Brain scans would demonstrate whether that is true or not.
If he is guessing then it is irrelevant whether he knows or not and if he is not guessing then he cannot know he is guessing.

Deeply held Hillside assertion capable of scientific investigation. What would you do if it renders your theory incorrect?

[Gordon]

Irrelevent to the question of whether somebody is guessing or not.
Your thesis is that faith is just guessing.
Brain scans would demonstrate whether that is true or not.
If he is guessing then it is irrelevant whether he knows or not and if he is not guessing then he cannot know he is guessing.

Deeply held Hillside assertion capable of scientific investigation. What would you do if it renders your theory incorrect?

You sure about that?

It may be that brain scans would show what areas of the brain were involved in the episode of 'thinking' being studied - but that isn't the same as knowing something qualitative about the thoughts involved, such as whether or not there was guessing involved, whether or not there was sincerity involved, or whether or not what was being thought represents reality beyond the perception of the thinker.

I think you may be over-egging the brain scan pudding.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Irrelevent to the question of whether somebody is guessing or not.

Of course it’s not – it’s central to it.

Your thesis is that faith is just guessing.

No it isn’t. My “thesis” (actually it was a question, but ok…) is that those who posit their personal faith beliefs as a reliable guide to truths for other people have no means of distinguishing those beliefs from just guessing. That is, “faith” is epistemically worthless. 

Brain scans would demonstrate whether that is true or not.

Did you mean to say that? Surely at most they’d be able to identify only what the subject thinks is true. Whether it actually is true would involve investigating the claim itself, not what someone thinks about it.   

If he is guessing then it is irrelevant whether he knows or not and if he is not guessing then he cannot know he is guessing.

You might want to unscramble that into a comprehensible thought.

Deeply held Hillside assertion capable of scientific investigation.

Wrong again – see above.

What would you do if it renders your theory incorrect?

If something renders “my theory” incorrect then I change my mind.

So?

[Outrider]

I can see this brain scan business might make a New Atheist a bit twitchy after all favourite throwaways such as faith is the same as guessing and religion is brain aberration are brought into the cold light of science.

I'm fairly sure the idea of us being 'hard-wired' to be religious is a reasonably well-explored concept - there probably are some atheists (I don't know if they'd qualify as 'New' or not, I'm still not really that au fait with what the new version of 'I don't believe in gods' might be) who get twitchy at this, but then there are probably some believers who get twitchy at the idea that their belief is not an act of will but an inevitable consequence of their particular brain structure.

I think the area is called Neurotheology but that might be bad science since neuroscience has traditionally been moved forward by study of the abberant and abnormal. The statistical abnormality here being atheism.

And science moving us forward through it, that's such a nice thing for you to say. Of course, in a different context, abberance and abnormality are mutations, and we all know how evolution works on the local survivability of those.

O.

[floo]

I am of the opinion a lot of people want to believe there is a higher power, which is in charge of the universe, even though there is no evidence to support the idea.

[wigginhall]

Brain scans, eh?  It's hard to keep up with Vlad's theological odyssey.  What a whirlwind  of ideas and formulations we are privileged to see.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of course it’s not – it’s central to it.

No it isn’t. My “thesis” (actually it was a question, but ok…) is that those who posit their personal faith beliefs as a reliable guide to truths for other people have no means of distinguishing those beliefs from just guessing. That is, “faith” is epistemically worthless. 

Did you mean to say that? Surely at most they’d be able to identify only what the subject thinks is true. Whether it actually is true would involve investigating the claim itself, not what someone thinks about it.   

You might want to unscramble that into a comprehensible thought.

Wrong again – see above.

If something renders “my theory” incorrect then I change my mind.

So?

OK Hillside what you are doing is admitting you cannot tell the difference between guessing there is a god and having a faith in God.
That would all be settled with a brain scan one way or another since when one guesses a certain part of the brain is in operation.
I don't think it can be made simpler for you.

Therefore your assertion about not being able to tell between a faith position and a guess is rendered obsolete by science whether faith is or isn't a guess.

On past experience you will not allow yourself to be publicly wrong and that will detract from interesting and pertinent thought concerning Neuroscience, religion and atheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Brain scans, eh?  It's hard to keep up with Vlad's theological odyssey.  What a whirlwind  of ideas and formulations we are privileged to see.

Who knows - maybe he's one of the great undiscovered philosophers only we unworthy minions aren't intellectually equipped to appreciate his ruminations.

Then again... 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm fairly sure the idea of us being 'hard-wired' to be religious is a reasonably well-explored concept - there probably are some atheists (I don't know if they'd qualify as 'New' or not, I'm still not really that au fait with what the new version of 'I don't believe in gods' might be) who get twitchy at this, but then there are probably some believers who get twitchy at the idea that their belief is not an act of will but an inevitable consequence of their particular brain structure.

How would conversion fit into your suggestion that the brain is a fixed thing?

[Outrider]

How would conversion fit into your suggestion that the brain is a fixed thing?

Who said it was 'a fixed thing'? Hard-wired? Perhaps I should have said 'hard-wired with a tendency towards religion' - my poor phrasing.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Brain scans, eh?  It's hard to keep up with Vlad's theological odyssey.  What a whirlwind  of ideas and formulations we are privileged to see.

Wigginhall and Outrider are here. I'm glad Hillside has people to help him out of difficulties......The Fox, Davies and Johnson of antitheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK Hillside what you are doing is admitting you cannot tell the difference between guessing there is a god and having a faith in God.

“Admitting” is a loaded term, but essentially yes – which is why I asked whether someone who thinks they are different could explain what it is. 

That would all be settled with a brain scan one way or another since when one guesses a certain part of the brain is in operation.

No it wouldn’t. If someone is convinced that his faith belief is necessarily a fact for everyone then – so far as he’s concerned – he isn’t guessing at all. What then would this “brain scan” look for?

I don't think it can be made simpler for you.

Or wronger – see above.

Therefore your assertion about not being able to tell between a faith position and a guess is rendered obsolete by science whether faith is or isn't a guess.

Wrong again – see above.

On past experience you will not allow yourself to be publicly wrong and that will detract from interesting and pertinent thought concerning Neuroscience, religion and atheism.

The irony of that will be lost on you, but I’d be quite wiling to be shown to be wrong if anyone could make a cogent argument to that effect. Do you have one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who said it was 'a fixed thing'? Hard-wired? Perhaps I should have said 'hard-wired with a tendency towards religion' - my poor phrasing.

O.

Inevitable consequences of brain structure suggests 'fixation'.
What about conversion? After all many antitheists here and atheists claim to have once had faith.
Mutation. Does it work as fast as you are suggesting? I thought that's why memes were invented.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“Admitting” is a loaded term, but essentially yes – which is why I asked whether someone who thinks they are different could explain what it is. 

No it wouldn’t. If someone is convinced that his faith belief is necessarily a fact for everyone then – so far as he’s concerned – he isn’t guessing at all. What then would this “brain scan” look for?

Or wronger – see above.

Wrong again – see above.

The irony of that will be lost on you, but I’d be quite wiling to be shown to be wrong if anyone could make a cogent argument to that effect. Do you have one?

Hillside
The study I referred to earlier suggests that, thanks to brain scans there are different responses betwixt atheist brains and religious Brains at the mention of God.

A religious brain will become active in the fear control centres of the brain and we can link those findings to previous studies showing the religious have less active anxiety centres.

An atheist brain becomes active in the visualisation areas of the brain.

The scientists involved in the study think that the atheist brain is occupied in trying to come up with a visual representation of God.

Out of the two the atheist brain is doing IMHO activity more akin to guessing than the religious brain which does not bother with an attempt at visualisation of God because, as we keep telling you guys...........God is not an old man with a white beard.

[Gordon]

OK Hillside what you are doing is admitting you cannot tell the difference between guessing there is a god and having a faith in God.

Not sure he is but can you, and if so how?

That would all be settled with a brain scan one way or another since when one guesses a certain part of the brain is in operation.

Is that so: do neurologists really diagnose 'guessing' or 'faith' using brain scans?

I don't think it can be made simpler for you.

You'd be better off trying to make sense, Vlad: simple or otherwise.

Therefore your assertion about not being able to tell between a faith position and a guess is rendered obsolete by science whether faith is or isn't a guess.

Step this way Prof Vlad: your Nobel Prize awaits you - you are clearly miles ahead of the professional neurologists.

On past experience you will not allow yourself to be publicly wrong and that will detract from interesting and pertinent thought concerning Neuroscience, religion and atheism.

Of course, Vlad.

[Outrider]

Inevitable consequences of brain structure suggests 'fixation'.

Ah, I see - that was intended as the interpretation of the twitchy theist, not my interpretation.

What about conversion? After all many antitheists here and atheists claim to have once had faith.

Hence why I'm saying that I should more accurately have described is an inherent tendency towards religion - as with any other influence on the human psyche, it can be overcome.

Mutation. Does it work as fast as you are suggesting? I thought that's why memes were invented.

Different levels of variation work at different rates depending on the reproductive cycle in which they're competing. Memes on the internet are reproduced incredibly quickly, and are liable to 'mutation' very quickly. Biological mutation occurs at varying rates depending on the organism's complexity and its lifecycle.

O.

[Outrider]

Wigginhall and Outrider are here. I'm glad Hillside has people to help him out of difficulties......The Fox, Davies and Johnson of antitheism.

Oh, really, that's just snide!

I rather think we're the 'Rod, Jane and Freddie' of antitheism, much like Rod, Jane and Freddie were the Rod, Jane and Freddie of Question Time.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The study I referred to earlier suggests that, thanks to brain scans there are different responses betwixt atheist brains and religious Brains at the mention of God.

A religious brain will become active in the fear control centres of the brain and we can link those findings to previous studies showing the religious have less active anxiety centres.

An atheist brain becomes active in the visualisation areas of the brain.

The scientists involved in the study think that the atheist brain is occupied in trying to come up with a visual representation of God.

Out of the two the atheist brain is doing IMHO activity more akin to guessing than the religious brain which does not bother with an attempt at visualisation of God because, as we keep telling you guys...........God is not an old man with a white beard.

As presumably there would be “betwixt” leprechaunist and a-leprechaunist brains at the mention of leprechauns. Relevance?

Again: whether someone thinks they’re guessing and whether they actually are guessing (or doing something epistemically indistinguishable from guessing) are different matters.

Why is this confusing you still? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh, really, that's just snide!

I rather think we're the 'Rod, Jane and Freddie' of antitheism, much like Rod, Jane and Freddie were the Rod, Jane and Freddie of Question Time.

O.

Yes and we've got an Ippy, that just leaves George and Bungle.........come on chaps i'm feeding you the lines here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As presumably there would be “betwixt” leprechaunist and a-leprechaunist brains at the mention of leprechauns. Relevance?

Are there enough Leprechaunists in the world to do such a survey?
Everybody's visual centre would be active with a mention of Leprechauns because Leprechaunists and a-leprechaunists know they are tiny Irish Chaps with Ginger hair and beards etc.

Atheist brains studied demonstrate a difficulty in conceptualising God IMHO. Could that be the scleroticising effect of atheism?
I don't know.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are there enough Leprechaunists in the world to do such a survey?

Utterly irrelevant.

Everybody's visual centre would be active with a mention of Leprechauns because Leprechaunists and a-leprechaunists know they are tiny Irish Chaps with Ginger hair and beards etc.

And presumably those who believe in various gods can visualise them too, at least to some degree. As it has no relevance to the question though, it doesn’t matter much either way.

Atheist brains studied demonstrate a difficulty in conceptualising God IMHO. Could that be the scleroticising effect of atheism?
I don't know.

I do: no.

As you keep ducking and diving, here it is again: when a theist says, “I know that my god is your god too because that’s my faith” can you think of any reason at all to treat his claim as anything other than a guess – ie, to consider his faith to be “blind” for epistemic purposes?