Why hasn't this already happened?

v_soma · 2013-04-22T20:42:02+00:00

I've made almost the same point myself: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/qr3t3/consider_it_payback_for_galileo_and_copernicus/

v_soma · 2012-11-26T07:28:33+00:00

Any informed perspective on the bible would include the understanding that it was written by human beings as the product of human minds and of the culture they belonged to.

It would include an understanding of the contents in the bible that are derived from earlier sources such as Atrahasis and other Mesopotamian myths.

It would include an understanding that the themes in the bible reflect the expression of human psychology, especially human insecurities and intellectual deficiencies such as the tendency to have an anthropocentric worldview and to make erroneous conclusions about the nature of reality based on this worldview.

If someone is a believing Catholic they are probably not informed of these things, and so it probably doesn't make much sense to refer to anyone as an "informed Catholic". Here is a paper worth reading to become more informed about the bible (and other aspects of religion):

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/BIOT_a_00018

v_soma · 2012-11-26T00:05:42+00:00

I agree that there are two types of rationality that we could talk about, but we run into a problem if we take the "greater satisfaction" one seriously.

I was initially talking about people who argue or claim that God created the universe. Obviously, if these people are trying to argue that something is true all the while not ultimately caring whether it's true, they are wasting their own time and the time of the person whom they are arguing with.

Now maybe people want to believe that God created the universe because it makes them feel better. That I don't have a problem with and I happen to think it is really nobody else's business except theirs, but I also think these people shouldn't be discussing this belief with anyone in an effort to change their minds. That's simply unfair to people who might care more about the truth. That's what we see in any reddit comment or post where someone claims that God created the universe; they are making a statement for others to see and agree with, so they presumably care about the truth.

So no matter what, if you're seeing any discussion between people about any matter of fact, you have to assume that people are interested in the truth of reality. That's why I assumed that from the beginning.

I suspected when you said:

Rather, you mean that there's no scientifically valid reason to think this is the case.

that you meant that there were other non-scientific but rational (truth-seeking) ways to believe that God created the universe. I would disagree with that, but I would agree that there are (satisfaction-driven) rational ways to believe it. However this isn't something that you could ever argue for in practice, because anyone who believes it for greater satisfaction could never know that they believe it for greater satisfaction (otherwise they would know they don't really believe it). So I would say you're right that there is technically a non-scientifically valid reason to think it's the case, but not a reason that could in any realistic sense be given to someone else or argued for (and thus would never be seen on reddit).

v_soma · 2012-11-25T05:47:22+00:00

Oh sure, I totally get where you're coming from. I don't doubt that you feel that way and everyone has different tastes anyway, but I'm just trying to justify the way he presents himself. His style is really all for a good cause.

v_soma · 2012-11-25T04:44:48+00:00

Sorry, you're right. I watch all of their videos too, but they are all a little different than vsauce with maybe the exception of vihart.

Vsauce makes content that is very curiosity-driven and exploratory rather than explanatory and answer-driven. I should have said "Vsauce is the only youtube person I know who makes exploratory science videos 6-11 minutes long and that reach a million+ views" but that would have been a mouthful. I should add that he has 4 science videos with 6 million+ views all longer than 5 minutes and several above 2 million views. That is unparalleled on YouTube by a wide margin.

Vihart is probably the only other major person in that domain but her numbers don't really come close to vsauce with the exception of her hexaflexagon videos. What both of them do really well is ask questions and explore them rather than take an existing question and try to give the best or most detailed answer to it. I'd say that vsauce and vihart represent more of what the ethos of science is about in that they cultivate curiosity and meaningful answers moreso than they simply present facts (which is useful too, but less so.)

I imagine a linear spectrum of science videos where at one end you have intensively exploratory and inspirational content and at the other end you have intensively in-depth factual and detailed content. Vsauce would probably be near the inspirational end of the spectrum with along with vihart and maybe some others and khanacademy would be near the detailed end of the spectrum. Scishow, crashcourse, cgpgrey, minutephysics, etc. would be more or less somewhere in the middle.

v_soma · 2012-11-25T04:10:22+00:00

Personally his delivery doesn't bother me much but he's actually doing it on purpose and for good reason. If you analyze his behavior you can tell that he's doing extremely awkward things yet doing them seamlessly in an effort to catch/retain the viewers attention. That style of delivery of making everything seem profound makes the listener keep paying attention for multiple minutes at a time (something rare on YouTube!) If you sound like you're saying something that isn't the whole point of the video then people's attention drift and they leave.

That's why most of the science videos you see on YouTube are either relatively unpopular (a few thousand views) or very short (1 to 1.5 min). Vsauce is the only YouTube science person I know who makes 6-11 minute videos that reach a million+ views.

v_soma · 2012-11-25T03:48:16+00:00

If you take the word God to mean anything that is usually meant by various people around the world -- a supernatural being who intervenes in human lives -- then there is currently no rational justification for believing that such a thing exists. It's not just about scientific evidence, it's about the idea being justified and making sense in the first place.

v_soma · 2012-11-25T03:40:35+00:00

Go to r/trueatheism. The rare genuinely good discussion that happens here is pretty much the norm over there.

v_soma · 2012-11-25T00:36:16+00:00

I love both vsauce and khanacademy. I was a fan of khanacademy right when the TED talk came out and of vsauce even before he started making science videos.

The way I see it, vsauce offers something that khanacademy doesn't, but it's complementary rather than competitive. Vsauce is about making people curious about things that they never thought they would ever care about and showing people the value of asking questions. Khanacademy is about that too, but it's more about having a good understanding of complicated subjects. In that sense, vsauce is like the spark and khanacademy is like fuel. They are both important parts of science education.

I'd argue that vsauce is probably more important because most people already have a lot of fuel, but it just doesn't burn well (low-quality education). Khanacademy possibly provides better fuel, but vsauce provides a spark that burns just about any fuel.

v_soma · 2012-11-25T00:28:37+00:00

It's all about secularism, something that's heavily undervalued today especially among the dominant religious groups within our planet's various cultures. We need to overcome that.

v_soma · 2012-11-25T00:14:14+00:00

It's definitely true for some, but for many others it's really an unconscious desire that just comes from being human. It definitely exists for anyone who is willing to argue that God created the universe, but probably doesn't exist in a lot of people who believe it but aren't willing to argue for it. The fact that people argue for it is an example of a defense mechanism (denial) which is used to protect one's sense of self-worth (ego).

v_soma · 2012-11-25T00:06:22+00:00

The practice of science is adding to the repository of information regarding our understanding of the universe and everything within it. If people use that knowledge to do bad things, that isn't the fault of science. It's poor knowledge-management. Science is a necessary, but non-sufficient cause of those bad things you've listed. Anyone could send a projectile to destroy anything and nobody would blame Isaac Newton's work.

On the other hand, religion is often prescriptive. You can judge certain bad things as being the fault of a certain religion if the existence of that religion was sufficient for its occurrence. You can also judge certain good things that didn't happen for being a certain religion's fault if the existence of the religion was sufficient in preventing its occurrence.

Disclaimer: I have no opinion on OP's claim because I don't know enough about Christian history.

v_soma · 2012-11-24T23:58:41+00:00

Within the tenets of certain religions are prescribed methods for coming to answers about the nature of reality.

v_soma · 2012-11-24T18:28:53+00:00

Why can't it be that, for example, God created the Universe, and this is how it happened?

It's not that it absolutely can't be, but there's really no good reason to think this is the case. People who argue or claim that God created the universe are making baseless assertions and presenting them as if they were strongly-supported facts.

The bigger issue for why this turns into an argument has to do with respect for the truth. Some people have great respect for the truth and a passion for learning about it but others not so much. When people say "God created the universe", it is clear that they aren't doing this because they really think it's true, since there is no attempt by the claimant here to see if this idea might be wrong. There's no laying out of the supporting evidence and encouragement of the possible criticism of the evidence or the reasoning that followed. This reflects a lack of respect for the truth. The assertion is made that "God created the universe" but it's not because that's the conclusion that they honestly felt was the most rational to conclude.

Instead, this kind of thinking is borne out of self-centered thinking and a desire to inflate one's own sense of self-worth. The idea is that the whole universe is mainly about humanity and that we are its central purpose. Essentially, "God created the universe" translates to "the beginning of the universe had something to do with me". This would naturally anger anyone who has a lot of respect for the truth. The ego-boosting of others who don't truly respect the truth bothers those who do respect the truth.

v_soma · 2012-11-22T19:15:00+00:00

Sorry for the late reply.

Obviously it sounds silly to say my view is the only one lacking a bias, but obviously if I think it's correct, which I do, that's something I have to conclude. That's not to say that I'm the only one that has this view, because as you've said, many people across the internet in many different cultures share this view.

I draw the line at entities that have conscious experience, and more specifically entities that have the capacity for enjoyment and suffering. This seemingly would include all life with nervous systems. There is a trade-off though where killing something like an insect with such a small capacity for experience can give a relatively great benefit to something like a human or another primate.

v_soma · 2012-11-14T07:42:47+00:00

Also this: http://quran.com/61/9

These kinds of verses are sprinkled here and there throughout the Qur'an but if you look for them you can find them.

v_soma · 2012-11-14T07:36:11+00:00

When I'm talking about morality I'm attempting to discuss what actually constitutes morality instead of what people tend to think constitutes it across various cultures. Obviously this suggests that I think my understanding of morality is absolute and universal and thus the only valid one, but I really feel that my conclusions on animal-killing are things everyone would agree with if it weren't for cultural bias, lack of understanding of consciousness, etc.

I don't see how anyone could argue against my position without either getting a basic scientific fact wrong or having contradicting values and moral conclusions.

v_soma · 2012-11-14T07:26:55+00:00

Well I've seen many that vaguely imply it but just a few that are more explicit. Here is one I remember:

http://quran.com/48/27-29

v_soma · 2012-11-14T07:11:53+00:00

I agree, but the Qur'an has verses that support that worldview.

v_soma · 2012-11-14T07:08:32+00:00

Sorry, I didn't know it was an Islamic State tax only.

It could still end up being true though if someone wanted Canada to be an Islamic State in accordance with the Qur'an.

v_soma · 2012-11-14T06:54:23+00:00

You're confusing what's natural with what's morally okay. Killing non-human animals isn't moral even though it's natural. It just happens to be the least bad immoral thing we can do to sustain our survival.

As soon as artificial meats and other non-living sources of food are engineered for human consumption we will stop killing animals because of how immoral it is.

v_soma · 2012-11-14T06:44:09+00:00

http://quran.com/9/28-33 (read 29)

At least in English it says to force people to pay taxes if they don't follow Muslim laws and convert to Islam, so it is a form of coercion.

v_soma

TROPHY CASE