The following link:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/com...chapters/consist.htm

has inspired some discussion.  If presenting convincing arguments solidifies your detractors in their beliefs, what does that mean for communication?  For social interaction?

When I read that article I did think it was very interesting.  Generally I pride myself on approaching debate forums like this and community chat with the intention of learning.  However, I've also realized that I enjoy debates the most when I'm playing devil's advocate; defending the minority view only because it is in the minority.  On the other hand, when I am surprised by a debate and actually find myself defending my views, I oftentimes don't enjoy it at all (unless it's one that I recently changed my stance on, because then I feel like I'm sharing what I've learned rather than defending myself).

I don't know... but I like this phrase:

It takes courage to be in the minority,
and it takes integrity to be in the majority.

Even if we are in the minority group, be it religion, ethnic, race, etc. There comes a moment where your courage has placed you in a certain comfort zone that makes you feel as if you were in the majority group. Thus requiring integrity.

Perhaps this is why, in my church, we're often told, "Don't argue.  Just bear your testimony."  My aim is usually to give a good explanation, to clear up confusion, etc., but all too often I just start argueing -- it's one of my greatest faults.  Not my greatest fault, but it's definitely up there on my all time worse habits list.

The article brought up some interesting points, but I think some of it's assumptions were a bit off.  They seemed surprized by the experiment with the feminists, and interpreted it in a somewhat strange way.  They seemed to expect that showing people their own faults would make people think "well, I guess those faults are okay after all," rather than make people want to get rid of those faults even more.  If someone is opposed to smoking because it causes cancer, showing them that they've got lung cancer too isn't going to make them say, "well, I guess smoking really is okay!" it's going to make them all the more angry about smoking.  Similarly for feminists.  They believe that society causes people to have unjustified assumptions about genders.  Showing them that they make those same unjustified assumptions isn't going to make them think "well, I guess those assumptions aren't so bad after all!" it's going to make them all the more upset about the situation.  I don't think showing feminists that they too make gender-biased assumptions is the same thing as showing them convincing evidence that people should make gender-biased assumptions.  So, I don't think the take-away message from this article is that "showing people evidence contary to their beliefs makes them believe it even more."  Usually when you show someone evidence contrary to their beliefs they will try to come up with a reason not to believe the evidence.  This is a good thing, I think, so long as the reasons for not believing the evidence are good.  What constitutes legitimate grounds for doubting the evidence varies from person to person and belief to belief, but if the person can't come up with a decent reason to doubt the evidence, they'll have to change their beliefs (or simply ignore the evidence, but that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs any stronger).  It may be that if they do come up with a reason to doubt the evidence that their belief will be made stronger.  But in that case, it's justified.  If your evidence against their belief is doubtful, it is logical for them to become more confident in their belief.  In other words, the article doesn't imply that you shouldn't try to change people's minds, just that you should have sufficient evidence ready to do it when you try.

I do think the feminist example they opened with was a little silly.  What was that supposed to prove?  Non-feminist views are okay because you've been indoctrinated with them too?  However the later examples are better.

I would agree, in theory, with your statement that a person will first try to invalidate your argument.  But let's assume your argument is solid (that doesn't necessarily mean it is strong enough to justify a change in views, but it stands on its own).  I believe the article is saying in those cases, when there are two strong arguments for opposing views, people will reinforce their belief in their pre-existing view.  Hypothetically, this can be taken to extremes, since if you reinforce a view enough, it becomes dogma without necessarily requiring justification.  Political discussions really are the best example in my experience.  It's hard to really argue science, since it relies on hard evidence, but economics?  Social sciences?

Speaking for myself, I've found this is true.  The topics I've made the biggest change in views in are one where someone basically challenged me to do my own research on both sides.  The ones I'm strongest in are where people regularly tell me I'm wrong (in part because it's forced me to research why I believe what I believe).

I'd be interested what would happen if we held a 'reverse debate' here, where people argue the opposite of what they really believed.

Heh, that'd be an interesting/fun idea to try.  Back in my college humanities class I would always write my essays expressing the opposite view that I actually had, because it was easier for me to spot the holes in my arguements.  Though, those were usually on things that weren't based as much on evidence, like the politics and such that you mention, but more on ideology (ie, "a is better than b," rather than "a is true and b is false") which made things a bit easier.

This is good philosophy, and I should try this more often.

In that article, I disagreed with the first example.  I assumed the test pilot was a woman, as I'd heard versions of that before.  But how did he "know" that the girl was her daughter?  It could have been a niece or something.  I think it says something about the author's preconceptions that women only go out in public with their own daughters. :p

I had heard versions of that too, so it didn't work on me either.  Question is:  the author's purpose is to MAKE you think it is a man when it is a woman, right?  So subtle author deceit could be another factor.

I think it's important to avoid getting caught up on just the one example.

A question that occurs to me, does anyone here remember having moderate or strong views on a topic, got into a debate with someone who held opposing views, and was swayed by her arguments?

I can think of cases, especially with evilkate, where I grew more comfortable with her side, but still didn't really agree with it.  On the other hand, when I was around people who had a view and just answered my questions or invited me to do my own research, but didn't intentionally challenge me, I know of several examples where I changed views relatively quickly.

I look at the logic and the facts, and will change opinion accordingly, but personal opinion is harder to change if it does not rest on logic or facts.  That's the difficulty with an argument compared with instruction or sharing.

Again, I think it's worth restricting the question to things which cannot be clearly proven.  I'm sure, as a lawyer, you're regularly presented with convincing arguments that ultimately seem to prove a strictly literal, factual story!  SO things like communism vs. capitalism, gun control, abortion, etc., where a video camera or a text book on the subject couldn't definitively prove one view as right.

Actually, strictly factual, literal stories are few and far between because there are always two sides to a story, meaning that there are always at least two stories from which you need to interpret what "really happened" as an objective outsider.

I thought there were always three stories, 1) the story from person A, 2) the story from person B, 3) the truth. :)

Regardless though, I don't know if we could agree there is "the truth" about whether communism is better than capitalism, etc.

What I gathered from the article was not that these people actually thought their faults were ok, but rather that they still defended their previous beliefs eventhough they were even more aware that they were wrong. That is, even if the feminists did have a change of heart about their own views, they still were too stubborn to admit they were wrong.

At any rate, even if the article didn't say that, it's what I believe to be true about human nature. I think that people who smoke know it's bad for them and that in private, they probably do think ill of their own habit and may try to quit. However, when attacked by someone face-to-face of course they won't admit they are wrong for fear of embarrassment. I believe that humans are social creatures and the opinions of others are even sometimes more important to us than our opinions of ourselves. Thus, even when people know they are wrong they will still exhibit the behavior of defending themselves just because they don't want to be made to look like a fool.

People are prideful about their identities. They create labels for themselves to help fit in with society. If a person labels herself a feminist then is challenged with knowledge to the contrary, even if she believes that her actions are anti-feminist she will refuse to change because change causes her to not fit in anymore. It causes her stress at having lost her identity. It scares her that she doesn't really know herself and that she may have to redefine her identity within society.

I think that the power that society has over our thoughts and actions cannot be divorced from this debate. What we believe and how we act are quite often very different. And I think much of the reason for that is owed to societal influences.

I could agree that that's what the article was trying to say, but I don't think the example of the feminists that was given actually illustrates this.  Showing a feminist that she too has unconscious gender biases doesn't show that she's wrong in her beliefs about feminism.


Smoking isn't the best example, probably, because it's more an issue of willpower than reasoning in most cases.  Most smokers that I know freely admit that smoking is bad for them.  Some of them want to quit, but don't manage to do so, others realize it's bad for them, but feel the enjoyment they get out of it outweighs the harm they do.  None of them claim to think it's really not bad for them, though.


I can agree with that.


I agree with the general idea here, but I think the feminist example you give doesn't work.  Feminism is a set of beliefs about how things should be, not necessarily how they are.  Showing a feminist that they don't live up to their own ideals doesn't make their ideals invalid, anymore than showing a christian examples of their own sins makes them think, "well, I guess I was wrong about christianity."  I get what you're saying, and largely agree, I just don't think the specific example used fits very well.


I agree that the influence of society is quite large, and concerns about ones place within it play a large part of what what thinks and does.  I'm less sure about the "often" part of "what we believe and how we act are quite often very different."  While we may act in ways contrary to our beliefs to fit in from time to time, I'd say it's more likely that our beliefs change to better fit those around us, rather than just our actions changing.

I'd agree that it's very rare for people to change their views during the arguement.  My ex-girlfriend was vegitarian, and I used to come up with arguements against it (mostly just to get her fired up, I admit), and didn't really pay much attention to her arguements for it.  A while after we had broken up, though, I got to thinking about some of the points she had raised, and changed my mind and became a vegitarian.  So a very delayed changing of mind, but it was, at least in part, due to arguements she had presented.  I do think the reason it took so long was just the kind of thing this article was talking about though.  I didn't want to have to a) admit I was wrong, and b) change my lifestyle.



It's definately easier to change your view when it's not an arguement.  But I'd guess that part of that is the fact that you're less likely to be arguing about things you don't have very strong views about already.  If you can be in a coversation about something you don't agree with without arguing about it, it's probably something you don't feel so strongly about, and are more willing to consider changing your mind on.

One last point that hasn't been addressed so far is that sometimes debates between persons A and B might not change A or B's mind, but could change C or D's mind.  People listening to the arguement, but who aren't so directly involved might be more likely to change their minds, since they can do so less publicly, so to speak.

This is the question that I specifically wanted to reply to.  I did, and I'm pretty sure it was you who did it, in that debate on CC about Hiroshima.  I've always thought that was wrong, but after reading the arguments given for it in that thread, I did a little bit of looking into them, and they hold up pretty well.  The only thing that still bothers me about it is the idea that the scientists weren't sure a reaction that size was going to stop before it blew up everybody, and I couldn't substantiate that...so the balance in my mind definitely tipped in that debate.


This confuses me a little.  How do you present somebody with evidence to the contrary about what they are?  You can maybe say their actions don't fit your notions of feminism, say, or some other outside definition, but that only means they're not what this outside source would mean by the label.  It doesn't mean she isn't what she means by it.  Labels, even when we use them inside ourselves, are always oversimplifications for convenience...but people are usually basically right about what they, themselves, are, I think.

I also agree with Tycho.  Incidentally, I did once talk a vegetarian out of it...but it's definitely harder, for many very solid reasons, to convince someone to make their own life harder, than to convince them to go the easy way.

Recent LDS General Conference, Saturday Morning session.  The original can be viewed at http://byu.tv/ LDS General Conference 10:00am  The talk starts at 1:01:28 into the video and ends at 1:18:25. 

Saw this in the editorials today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...inion/17kristof.html
and it reminded me of this thread.  Interesting stuff!

That was interesting, but I was just really busy tonight and didn't have time to read the last four paragraphs at all... :p

Are we to debate the general content of this article or its opinions on Democrats primaries?

Whatever you feel like.  This was more a "you might find this interesting" post than anything I thought would create much debate.

A bit of a spin off from the LDS thread, since I wanted to make sure TitL didn't misunderstand what I was saying as implying that he was being closed minded.  The paradigm issue that I'm talking about is more along the lines of "I can't change your mind on this particular point because given your paradigm (ie, the other things you already believe) your position is the logical conclusion."  In other words, I'm not saying TitL won't listen, or won't consider other views, but rather that the view he holds is the rational, logical conclusion that would come based on the other things he already believes.  In order to change his mind about the prophecy in Mathew 24, I'd first need to change his mind about a bunch of other things.  No amount of arguing just about those particular verses will change his mind, because given the other things he already considers to be true, his interpretation is the correct the logical conclusion.

The reason we see different things when we read the same verse is because we have different assumptions that the evidence (ie the text) gets filtered through.  If you already believe the Jesus is God, and that the bible is infallible, then the logical conclusion when looking at that verse is that Jesus worded things slightly oddly, and really meant something other than that the generation he was talking to wouldn't pass before the end times.  The other interpretation (that Jesus really meant just what it looks like, but was wrong) contradicts the starting assumptions, so isn't possible.  In order to believe that, one would have to give up those starting assumptions, and if those assumptions are strongly believed, it's much easier to accept a slightly odd phrasing than to drop a strongly-held assumption.

On the other hand, I'm coming from a different paradigm, and don't share those assumptions.  The "Jesus was wrong" conclusion doesn't contradict my starting assumptions, so its more logical for me to accept that than the odd phraseology interpretation.  Neither conclusion butts up against my assumptions, so the simpler one is the natural one for me to reach.

Put in less abstract terms, for me the question boils down just to "does it mean what it looks like at first look, or does it an odd, somewhat ambiguous way to word something that means something very different?"  But for TitL its question of "is it an odd, somewhat ambiguous way to word something, or are some of my core values wrong and much of my world view incorrect?"  In each case, the first possibility is the simpler one, and thus rational one to reach, even though that means we end up at opposite conclusions.

So that's what I was saying when I said I couldn't change TitL's mind about that particular chapter.  Not that he was being closed-minded, or wouldn't listen to reason, but rather that our differing assumptions would lead naturally to different conclusions.  Put another way, our disagreement over the meaning of Jesus' words in that case is a product of other things we disagree about, rather than a cause of the other disagreements, and arguing about those particular words while we still disagree about the other stuff wouldn't get us anywhere.

There has been a lot of research about this in terms of social psychology, and in the end it is a very complicated issue. Generally people with fanatical beliefs will address conflicting evidence with conflict- either refutation or denial. there was a wonderfull study of a UFO cult which became more fanatical and began prosthetysing (where before they were very secretive and exclusive) when the UFO failed to show up.
On the other hand it can be pushed to the breaking point- in one case a tribe whose world view defined everything in terms of anscestral reverence litterally sat down and starved to death because their world view could not handle the existance of steel axes.
Less fanatical beliefs on the other hand tend to become modified rather than simply abandoned when conflicting evidence s presented, ussually after research into that evidence- very few people will believe conflicting evidence based on simple presentation, though many will believe supporting evidence based on simple statement even when the source has proven unreliable (which is why Fox News is still 'the most trusted name in journalism' when there have been no death panels and Obama didn't turn the country over to muslims the way they predicted- their audience litterally has nowhere else to go to hear their biases confirmed.)
The real trick in intelectual honesty is trying to be skeptical of those who agree with you.

Well to be honest Tycho, you really haven't shown Matthew 24 to be incorrect in any way at this point. You siad it didn't match up, but didn't point out what doesn't match up.

I get the idea that there is more information to be seen, but at this point, there's no reason to alter any view without reason why it doesn't fit.


To point out the obvious, you just start at a different assumption. You are assuming that my position is based on assumption for one, and two, you are assuming that the prophecy doesn't match up. (Though if you provide a verse to reinforce your view, it does remove one assumption)

Actually, if it reads as straight forward, why can't it be prophetic, and reasonable logic?

It matches up perfectly from what I see.  "this generation will not pass from the scene until all these things take place."  While I believe "this generation" means the Christian generation (around 33% of the world, still on the scene)the biggest part of it all is what comes after that claim.

Verse 36  "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself.  Only the Father knows."

Those are huge words.  Jesus himself just said he didn't know when it was going to happen.

On the other hand day and hour are pretty much opposite ends of the scale (at that time) from the year or the generation or the millenia...
Of course now we have microseconds and picoseconds which puts days and hours squarely in the middle, but at the time I think not knowing the day or the hour would still let you say which generation (30 year time frame) it would happen in.

Okay.  Like I said, didn't expect/intend for you to alter your view.


Yes, definitely.


Hmm...perhaps we are using the word "assumption" in a different sense here.  Every position is based on assumption in the sense that I'm using it.  It's not an insult or slight to say it.  If you prefer axiom, or a priori knowledge, or whatever, I can use that term instead.  I don't mean it in the less formal sense, where people usually mean it as a bad thing.


No, I'm not using that assumption.


Because the straight-forward reading implies the prophecy didn't come true.  You need a different interpretation than the straight-forward one for it to fit your beliefs.  That (interpreting it in light of your beliefs) is a reasonable position, though, as I said already.

Interesting take.  Different from the one I hear most christians give.  Like I said, though, different paradigms will lead to different interpretations.  The upside of this one (compared to the standard christiand response) is that it makes the statement non-tautological, the down-side (in my view at least) is that it's even less natural diction.  I for one have never thought "generation" meant "everyone alive from now into the future who all share a same belief system."  But again, we'll reach different conclusions because we start from different points of view.  My intent/expectation wasn't to change anyone's minds on this passage, but rather just point out that what people think it means depends on what else they believe when they read it.


Yeah, definitely.  Means there's something Jesus doesn't know.  Means Jesus isn't omniscient.  Which means either 1) Jesus isn't God, or 2) God isn't omniscient.  But again, people coming from another set of prior beliefs will reach a different conclusion.

I've heard several times where generation is used to describe more than just 30-40 years.  Cultural traits can be separated by generations.  Christianity is a culture and can be put into a generation.



I'll go with answer 3) God's a genius(Read verses 42-44).  Christ, in his coming to earth, did submit himself to the father who has His own mind seperate from Christs(and own thoughts), and who, as the Father, has taken the role of the final authority in regards to certain issues of extreme importance, like the coming of Christ in judgement on Israel.  The importance is shown in that God the Father knows while no other part of the trinity knows -- it, like all of scripture is accomidated to us. Christ in effect says, this is such a huge thing that will happen, that WE (the trinity) have decided that only the father will determine the date.

The Greek word that was translated "generation" is also translated "age."

Also, I forgot to point out that Jesus does say someone would see the Son of Man return to his Kingdom, which happened.  How do you think we got Revelations?

Even if we went with age tehre have been multiple ages since tehn by anyones reconing- it was the iron age, we moved to the medieval age to teh rennasaince age to teh age of exploration and the age of discovery or scientific age and into teh age of industry and the space age.
... admittedly teh most recent ages have been shorter that is typical but certainly more than one age has past.

Also seperated minds limiting knowledge is teh best you can coe up with? After all all knowing can encompas definitions in which everything *knowable* is known, but things which are unknowable remain unknown (liek quantum location-speed in heizenburg's uncertainty theorum)

Yeah, like I said, it's a paradigm thing.  For you it's an issue of it can mean "age," because if it can then it's clearly better than the impossible option of Jesus being wrong, so must be the right one.  For me, either option is possible, and it's just a question of which is the more natural reading.


As you like.  Not inconsistent with either of the other two options (and also doesn't address the dilemma).


So is it a mistranslation in the english, then?  Should it say "age" rather than generation?  Why did the translators choose "generation" if "age" was the more accurate translation?


Heh!  Seems like a bit of a loop hole to me, but to each their own.

Silveroak, the "is that the best you can come up with" line wasn't really necessary in your last post.  I don't think it needs to be removed, but just wanted to put in a little "keep it friendly guys" note in here so things don't escalate.

When I read it the first thing that comes to my mind is the same generation you think of, but I won't stop there.  I'm forced to find a better understanding.  It seems you are reading it hoping for evidence of Jesus being wrong.  It makes perfect sense for Jesus to mean the Christian Generation/Church Age which the world is still in.



You'll have to take that up with a Biblical Scholar.




How so?  (Rev. 22:8) John did see the return of Jesus to his Kingdom.  It's what the whole book is about.

At this point, being in a debate supporting the position that that is what it means obviously that is to a degree the case. However I can also remember when I first read that line, when I was about 12 thinking "Wait a xecond, that obviously didn't happen".
I also find it interesting how many people who will insist that the days in genesis have to be litteral because that is what the words say find convoluted reasons this verse means something other than what it says.
It also seems to me that if there was a better translation that people trying to sell copies many generations after the words were uttered would have found them.

If the books are corrupt like your GNB than they remain to allow Satan's agents to say "See, Jesus is wrong.  If he was wrong than he couldn't possibly be a savior."

And I think that if there is a Satan with actual human agents on Earth they would have far better uses for their time than publishing a reprint of the bible that is at best moderately successfull in hopes that it will snare a few more people into doubting the bok they are translating. They could, for example, have been inspiring a new branch of radical protestantism whose vhemance and rhetoric would be offensive to most people, thereby driving more people away from the message they espouse, at the same time teaching them that they are unquestionably right and need not repent any actions or words taken on behalf of this faith, so that 'we don't need to ask forgiveness killing witches, God wants us to kill them" leaves them with major unrepentant sins come judgement day.
Fred Phelps would be a role model of disruptive infiltration tactics if I were an agent of satan.

In reply to silveroak (msg #40):

Radical protestants?.. like the Mormon Church?

I wouldn't limit myself to such dillineations. The people I created would be radicalized versions of every denomination, caught up in their hatred of every other denomination to make sure that as many people as possible became disgusted with the whole thing. If I were an agent of Satan I would be supporting Jack Chick, Fred Phelps, anyone who wanted to publish a book picking on some other group and decrying them as evil and anti-christian. I would be suggesting to them new groups that could be fronts for evil for them to crusade against, and creating as much friction and divsion amongst people assosciated with the Faith as possible. Lead them to speak poison and hurt each other in the name of God so that reasonable people will want nothing to do with it.
Hmmm... sounds like an interesting possibility for a game...

Exactly, this is just what I was saying (and by the by, thanks for your candor; I'm not sure many others even realize they're doing this).  Your prior beliefs (ie, your paradigm) 'force' you to find a better interpretation of the words, because the most obvious one doesn't match with what you believe.  That's the paradigm issue I was talking about.  And I'll wager that Heath is "forced to find a better understanding" of the Joseph Smith prophecies that you linked to earlier.


Not really in this case, no.  Either interpretation fits fine with my beliefs.  Your interpretation just leaves an open-ended as-yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecy.  No trouble with that fitting into my beliefs.  I'm in the situation where either answer fits with my beliefs just fine, so I'm not "forced" to pick anything other than one that looks the most obvious in this case.

However, since you've brought it up, why would it be wrong for me to do so?  Would it be any different than you reading it hoping for the opposite?  Why is it okay to be "forced" to have a different understanding in your case, but not for someone who reaches a different conclusion?  I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, but rather would ask you to give them some real thought.  I agree that intentionally seeking out an interpretation that makes Jesus wrong would be a bad way to go about reading the bible.  But I'd also say that intentionally seeking out an interpretation that makes Jesus right would be a bad way too.  You seem to feel differently, but why?


To you it does, because the other options is ruled out by your prior beliefs.  To someone who doesn't start with those beliefs, it makes more sense to just take the meaning it looks like it has when you first read it.  Not much way around it, really, but it's worth realizing that different prior beliefs will lead to different ideas on what makes "perfect sense."



Hmm, this seems an odd answer to me.  You feel you have a "better understanding" of what was said then the biblical scholars, apparently without knowing why the scholars have the position they do.




Because if someone says "you'll see this" I tend not to take it to mean "one of you will have a dream about this."  Seems like a "read the fine print!" kind of prophecy to me.  But like I've said, different paradigms will lead to different views on that.

Makes for an easy prophecy threshold "And you will see the heavens open and the voice of destiny will proclaim to you the rightness of my message. Now everybody take your LSD and go sleep on the roof."

Curious, there is some statements against American about the style of posting he is using isn't the best method.

Which made me think about what you think would be a better approach.

What approach do you think would change your viewpoint about Jesus being the savior of the world?

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg #45):

Approach? I suppose that I, personally, respond poorly to folk taking an authoritative approach and best to those that take an almost familial voice (although not my family! Funny how that works). I can't say that voice alone does it, but it certainly helps.

To be clear, I'm asking for what would help.

I think people do like to have control, and when someone comes in and asserts it, it could rankle people who desire that control.

To begin with I'd need to be convinced that the world needs saving...

That should be easy. What is salvation? Simply put, it's having Jesus taking your punishment so that you do not have to pay the price that is due.

1 Peter 2:24
24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

Now, even if you do or do not believe, if that is true, your belief doesn't actually make it true or not true.

So now since I think it reasonable to agree that belief or proof does not make something true or not true, then the basis of salvation in this case is a reference to Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus did live, and He did give Himself up in payment for our sins, then salvation is possible if you so choose.

I can't make any sense of that statement. Is there another way that you could put that that is an argument for the world needing saving?

Also, I'm not convinced that something like salvation is limited to Jesus Christ.

I don't follow. The context is salvation through Jesus Christ. The original question is "What approach do you think would change your viewpoint about Jesus being the savior of the world?"

In the context that salvation is due to Jesus accepting the payment for what actions a person has done.

What other actions would you feel are payment in full?

That's just it: The sins of the world are, from my perspective, balanced by the good done on a daily basis. You might talk about scope and scale (the killing of a village not being equal to giving someone a hand out to the car with a heavy package), but I don't think the two are really that far apart on the scales, and I certainly don't believe God would find them very different either.

Therefore the world lacks the need for a savior and God, being infinite and all-knowing, wouldn't send one.

Ok. Let's say you know more than an all knowing and all powerful God. Though I have to admit, why would you know more than an all knowing God? I'm not sure what basis you use to say killing a village of people is near equal to helping a person out of their car?

Is there any particular reason we should accept a basis that premise other than you believe it? Would that mean if actual evidence other than your belief might be more credible if you have little support other than belief?

Keep in mind, I'm still looking for an approach on what would help change your view on this matter.

I'm not saying that I know more than God. I'm saying that God, knowing more than us pitiful humans, would see the clear lack of need for a savior. If I can see it, and I'm an idiot comparatively, than he would.

It does not necessarily follow that all acts of good are equal if all acts of evil are equal, I suppose. I don't see why that shouldn't be the case though. The cumulative good done in the world, I believe, outweighs the cumulative evil. Thus, no need for Jesus, no savior, no salvation.

I get you're saying you could think it up. However, thinking it up doesn't mean that's true. Certainly you;d have to agree that there are plenty of others who are thinking differing and counter ideas. How can everyone thinking them up make it true?

Again, from the context that Jesus Christ is our savior, could an all knowing God not choose to have a need for a savior?

Aren't you assuming that there are equal amounts though? But how do you determine more good acts than evil acts?

Well, God moves in mysterious ways, so I suppose that it's possible that he knows something about the nature of mankind that requires us to have a savior without needing a savior. Some sociopsychological need perhaps?



Sure. Are you assuming that the balance swings the other way? My glass, despite the efforts others have made, remains half full. I believe that people are basically good.

F0r those who do believe what would it take,whether from another person or the world in general, for you to decide that your beliefs to date were mistaken and Jesus was not the world's savior?
In short the same question from the opposite perspective..

Making it more general, the best way to get me to entertain a viewpoint is to either present it as a question or a puzzle for me to figure it out, or to argue vehemently the opposite way from what you actually believe. I think being Devil's Advocate is written in my bones.

Best way to turn me off is to come off as an authority (for similar reasons).

Ok. Your reasoning is belief. Would you say that you would be persuaded by logic and reasoning if there were evidence otherwise? Or would you continue to believe that regardless of evidence?

I think that's a great question silver. At the moment, I'm not going to respond as I'm still looking for answers to the previous question. So far, there hasn't been to much constructive ideas.

People are saying what doesn't work, but aren't really saying what does.


In my opinion if it cannot be stated what would work, why should someone change their behavior with nothing to change it to?

Yea, I like that perspective as well. I find myself presenting counter points to co workers often. I try and leave it so that there's room to discuss though.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg #59):

I think my belief that people are basically good is pretty unshakable. My other beliefs ebb and flow with the tides. You could influence me on the right day that Thor was going to beat me with his enchanted Monchichi.

What are you looking for here? I mean it's not like I'm going to say "Well gee if someone would just argue XYZ I'd convert. Realistically if I knew something was true and would cause me to convert I would have.
That said I was raised Christian and became pretty thoroughly convinced that it was *not* true, in fact could not be true, back when my assumption and perspective for processing information was the assumption that it was true. That kind of previous experience is going to be a huge hurdle for anyone to cross.
The first thing is going to be being able to set aside for the discussion any kind of assumption that the bible itself is unquestionable- the entire perspective of 'you should believe this because the bible says so' doesn't man much if the person you are discusing the issue with doesn't accept the authority of the bible.
I'm always willing to discuss the bible, but for me it is just fictional literature, and one whose plot is not especially well constructed either.

Well, again, it's not the message that I think is the problem, but the delivery.  A better delivery alone won't change my mind about christianity, but its likely a necessary prerequisite.  I do make an conscious effort to try to listen to the point of the message, even when I don't enjoy the person's approach, but it really requires conscious effort on my part.  A better delivery can make me want to hear what they have to say, and give it some honest thought.  I might not end up agreeing with them, but I'm much more likely to give it the consideration it's due.

So, what kinds of things make a delivery better, in my view?  Personally, I'm much more receptive if the person seems as willing to listen to me as they're asking me to be about listening to them.  If I feel they're willing to change their mind if the evidence warrants, I'm much more open to changing my mind based on their evidence.  It's much more pleasant to interact with someone who treats you like an equal, rather than just expecting you to adopt their beliefs on the grounds that they think it's really important that you do so.  And when I enjoy talking to the person, it's much easier for me to give their ideas a fair listen.  When their approach is grating on me or offending me, I have to put in extra effort not just to ignore them, or to offer a snarky comment.

I'm not sure if this goes for everyone, but I really prefer if the person aims at giving me understanding of the reasons for believing what they do, not just being focused that I reach the same conclusion as them.  If someone is more concerned with what they think I should believe than why I should believe it (and by that I mean the reasoning backing it up, rather than the benefit provided by the belief) then it's much harder for me put in the effort to try to see their point of view.

Which is another thing I look for: them making an effort to understand my point of view, rather than just telling me to adopt theirs.  If I feel like they don't value my views at all, it's much harder for me to value theirs.

Like Katisara, I have a tendency towards the devil's advocate (though perhaps not quite to the degree he does), and if someone seems completely certain of their view I tend to be pushed towards the opposite.  People who've really considered views in depth tend to have a better understanding of what they don't know, and the weak points of their view.  If someone doesn't give any hint of that, I tend to automatically think that they haven't given it all that much thought.

Another thing I value is them being able to show some understanding of alternative views to their own, and being able to present alternative views in a way that those who hold them would agree with.  If someone can only present strawman versions of alternatives to their views, I tend to assume that they haven't considered the alternatively very deeply.

One thing I don't like is being to "just trust" the person on something, or the like.  If I asked a question and get a "well, we don't know, but we just have to trust that there's a good reason for that," answer, that makes it harder for me to take what they say all that seriously.  On the other hand, being willing to say "I don't know, and I'll admit that's a weakness of the argument," makes me much more inclined to listen to them.  The two answers aren't all that different really, but they have a huge difference on how I feel about the argument for some reason.

Perhaps as a very general rule, if someone asks "have you thought about this?" I'm much more inclined to give it some thought than if they say "here's the answer.  Start believing it."

Sorry to jump in your conversation, but I think there's a misunderstanding here.  I think it stems from separating what you believe to be true about God, and what might actually be true.  As you said of other people's views, just because you believe, that doesn't make it true.  So when someone disagrees with your views about God, they're not saying they know better than God, they're saying they might know better than you.  If you're struggling to see the difference, I think you might be falling into the same problem that you were talking about others falling into.

Isn't that just science.  If I have a theory and something comes along that throws a wrench in my cogs, I have to revamp my theory to fit the new information.  But comparing the teachings of Jesus to Joseph Smith is comparing gold to fools gold.




Is it fine?  Say I and Christianity are wrong, I die and just rot.  There is no harm in my "wasting" my life believing a lie that makes me live a better person.  Say I'm right and you die only to go to heaven and realize you are to suffer for eternity because you heard the message but chose to be selfish and live for yourself.



It's rather pessimistic, which is no way to live.  I force myself to seek out an answer that fits but I don't even have to look very far.  My solution is a perfect fit to not only myself but numerous other Christians.  I don't feel I "hope" I'm right, I know I'm right.



There's alot you have to take it.  I don't know the word Jesus used.  it's possible that the word Jesus said doesn't have a Greek translation.  In that case the writer must used the next best word.  Maybe a translation of the translation was off and therefore the translator translated the word incorrectly.



So if I own a business and steal millions from my employess but on my way out the door stop to give a bum 5 dollars I've evened myself out and therefore aren't a bad person?



Now in my life it would actually take Jesus coming through my window and telling me as much.  I've had too many personal experiances that instilled Christianity in me.



and yet.. you're Catholic?  How does that work?  Do you debate during confession?

Thinking on my past, most of my changes in personal philosophy have been based on a few basic things.

1) It's almost always presented to me as a question or an alternative - not something I MUST believe, but something I may (or should not) believe.

2) It's deeply interesting to me. I'm never going to really 'hold' a philosophy on faith vs. works because, frankly, I don't care. I'll just repeat dogma.

3) It's not directly contradicted by facts. I don't even need it to be supported by facts (especially in the case of religion). It just needs to not be disproved.


In regards to things like political positions, I tend to base it more on numbers. I like numbers :) So compelling statistics can work for that. But politics aren't religion, so obviously it doesn't exactly carry over.


Delivery is pretty important for two reasons. For one, if you have a rough delivery, I'm automatically going to be bothered (violating #2), doing harder research (more likely to run into #3), and by its nature violates #1. But the ideas presented can start to fertilize the ground for later discoveries. Secondly, delivery sometimes offers proof. Someone who is nasty and harsh, but says he represents a loving religion, I'm not going to believe because it doesn't seem to be working :P

Is it fine?  Say I and Christianity are wrong, I die and just rot.  There is no harm in my "wasting" my life believing a lie that makes me live a better person.  Say I'm right and you die only to go to heaven and realize you are to suffer for eternity because you heard the message but chose to be selfish and live for yourself.

And suppose you die, and find out that because you didn't end your life in an orgy of blood and violence in noble combat, Thor isn't going to let you into Valhalla.

Or suppose you die, and find out that because you didn't have two coins placed on your eyes, you won't be allowed to cross the River Styx and must spend the rest of eternity wailing on its bank.

Except for all that time you could have been productive but instead went to church or studied dead languages hoping to glean the wisdom of a pointless religion? Debating on the internet?



You're putting an awful lot of value on material possessions in this argument. Because the answer to that particular scenario is definitely 'yes.'

Thought this practical

"I'd rather have people hate me with the knowledge that I tried to save them."
-Keith Green


"Many do not recognize the fact as they ought, that Satan has got men fast asleep in sin and that it is his great device to keep them so. He does not care what we do if he can do that. We may sing songs about the sweet by and by, preach sermons and say prayers until doomsday, and he will never concern himself about us, if we don't wake anybody up. But if we awake the sleeping sinner he will gnash on us with his teeth. This is our work - to wake people up."
-Catherine Booth

"Jesus Christ did not say, 'Go into the world and tell the world that it is quite right.'"
-C. S. Lewis

How about:

"It's common courtesy not to barge into other people's houses or countries and tell them that everything they believe is a lie."

Falkus said that.

I wouldn't call it science, no.  Science has to deal with paradigm issues as well, but that's not what makes it science.  And really, in this case it's less you changing your theory in light of new data, but changing the data to fit your theory.  But that's what I was saying all along--different paradigms will lead to different conclusions.

As for Smith being "fools gold," that seems a bit like circular logic to me.  You're using the assumption that he is "fools gold" as a reason to treat his predictions differently than Jesus', but then using the results of those predictions (filtered through two different standards) to conclude that he's "fools gold."  You've used your conclusion as an assumption.  Doesn't necessarily mean your conclusion is wrong, but it does mean the logic you've suggested to get there is flawed.


When I said either interpretation was fine for my views, I was speaking specifically about the prediction in question, not about your beliefs as a whole.  I can bump the thread on Pascal's wager if you like, but the short answer is, yes, if your religious views are right, then I'm in trouble.  But I'm also in trouble if the Muslims are right, the mormons, the jews, the pastafarians, etc.  And for most of those, you're in just as bad of shape as me, but you don't lose any sleep of it, I imagine.  And neither do I, and for the same reason: we're both confident enough that we're not wrong that we're not too fussed about the consequences if we are.

As for being selfish, why do you assume that I'm "living for [my]self," and you're living for someone else?  You're the one promising me benefits if I agree, and punishment if I don't.  That sounds like a selfish reason to believe to me.  ;)


You didn't really answer the question, though?  Why is it okay for you to be "forced" to seek an interpretation that matches your view?  Whether you have to search "far" or not, whats your justification for searching beyond the most obvious interpretation in the first place?  As for "knowing" you're right, unless you can prove it, I'd say that you only feel very strongly that you're right.  And I think most people will agree that feeling strongly about something doesn't necessarily correlate well with it actually being true (case in point, there are lots of non-christian religious people around the world who also claim to "know" they're right, and who's beliefs are held just as strongly as yours).


Heh!  The only thing that that would convince you you're wrong is unequivical proof that you're right?  Seems like a bit of a lack of imagination there to me. ;)  More seriously, though, care to share the types of personal experiences you've had that make you so confident that you can't be wrong?

True, but not a very effective reproductive/evolutionary strategy.

Or say the presumed atheist (since I do not fit your counterargument point here) is right and you wind up at the end of your life having lost firends and alienated people who were put off by your zealotry and general rudeness in your approach to trying to convert them to your precepts of the truth, and you were not right and do not get into heaven as a reward for your zealotry?
Can you honestly say that you have borne no cost in your life for your beliefs and the way in which you choose to proclaim them? That there is really no cost to believing as you do and following the path you have chosen?

I thought about this some more. Monk, are you a parent of a child? Or do you remember back when you were a child? Do you remember how old you were or how old your child was when you were teaching them/ or your parents teaching you how to lie and be selfish?

Or do you think it is a natural thing for people to lie and be selfish?

Just arguing the inherently good process and the logic behind it.

If you watch "The invention of lying" it shows that there is a good side to deception...

I did watch that movie. It was pretty funny. I think part of the reason it's funny is because it's so obvious that not everything could be true, but people accepted everyone was so honest that it was easier for them to accept a lie than to accept that someone could not be honest.

But really, we know lying is not a good trait. We don't invent lying because we are good, we do so because we are selfish inherently. The bible says we are born sinners.

Mark 10:18
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

Really, whether you accept the bible is correct or not, it matches up with everything we can observe. Look at history, look at us. People like to do things that are harmful to others. Even here on this board, where the goal is merely discussion, look what happens when someone doesn't agree with us? Instead of showing patience, how many of us have resisted the good thing by showing we care for them, but rather retort harshly, trying to show them they are wrong for not coming to the same conclusion.

The other point though was how depressing the world was with no lies, and how a few select lies managed to improve it so much- adding romance, hope, and comfort to the world. Fiction is nothing but a lie we chose to pretend to believe for our own amusement.

Sure, the writer of the movie did make up a world that was sad without lies. I think in the end, we do have a tough time imagining what perfection will be like, since we're all so naturally desiring selfishness, and other negative traits.

I think perhaps the world is simply less black and white. Imagination, fiction, and lies *do* all tioe together, and most children's first exposure to lying is Santa Claus.

But really, we know lying is not a good trait.

So if you were in say, Nazi Germany, and you were hiding some Jews in your house, and the SS came by and asked if you were hiding any Jews, it would be wrong to lie to them?

No it would not be wrong to lie to the nazi's. Biblically speaking, even though we know lying is not a good trait, (specifically a bad trait), we see examples where lying is used to protect others.

Clearly protecting others is more important than lying. Just like protecting others makes killing acceptable too. We see examples of this in the bible, and in modern day use too.

And what about Santa Claus? Does bringing joy to children and concealing where presents come from count amongst the unequivicobly evil acts in the world?
Being basically good is not the same thing as being perfect, even if we could accept a universal definition of what perfect would be. Sometimes it comes down to questions of competing good traits, and sometimes it comes down to competing labels.
I teach my kids to be self reliant, with a desire to succeed. Some might say selfish.
I teach my children to be able to protect themselves. Some might say to be untrusting, or even violent.
I teach creativity, which relates to dishonesty, and concern for other people's feelings.

Nope, it doesn't count as an evil act.

I agree. You can be doing good things, without being perfect. Though God, who is perfect does only good. So good doesn't mean perfection, though perfection does result in good.

Agreed. It is our nature to desire things which benefit us, and often, although not always, will not benefit others. I think it is our sinful nature. You don't state that is sin, but we cannot state just because we all desire selfishness that actions which cause harm to others is now good.

I understand you believe that humans are by nature sinfull, others, like me, believe that people are basically good, and I don't think it requires willfull ignorance or a belief that people are introducing evil training to their children to hold that position- principles of good can conflict with each other. Mercy versus justice, sometimes even justice versus order. Individual freedom versus social order, the desire to protect those who are close lends fear against our desire to be tollerant and accepting. we live in a world of finite resources, where conservation of mass and energy prevail in the face of geometric population growth absent tragedy. Given those conditions tragedy and to a degree what can be termed evil isn't so much a part of human nature as it is a fundamental reality in the basic structure of our universe.

When did you teach your children to lie? And how did you go about teaching them selfishness? No, it's natural.

Additionally, have you looked back on history? How about criminals?

Where do you live that has given you the impression that people are basically good? The north pole?

You ever tell a kid there was such thing as Santa Claus? Easter Bunny? Just like selfishness it is a trait that can be picked up from the environment.

Actually Monk, I did not tell my kids there is a Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny. I particularly dislike telling children that's real.

My kids are the likely reason other kids find out that neither are real to the students who believe in Santa. (Inevitably, at some point in school, all of them have explained they are not real. You know how kids are, when they knew something that isn't matching to what other kids say, they'll argue it quick enough)

Well, environment is an interesting theory. Did you have any evidence to show which environment was the one that doesn't teach them lying and selfishness? (that does assumes there is an environment reason why everyone learns it)
This message was last edited by the player at 02:41, Mon 08 Nov 2010.

There is no reason for me to believe that children are not tabula rasa coming out of the womb. Humans teach deception. Even if you, as a parent, do not, there are other elements that do. Peek-a-boo? Hell, the whole concept of object permanence is that your environment is lying to you.

Uhm, you may have missed the question asking for which environment doesn't result in lying and selfishness being learned.

In other words, if you can show which environment doesn't have it, then you have supported the statement it's environmental causes.

At this point, since we see this happening at the earliest of ages in every culture, then it seems to follow the pattern we see of humans through out history and how they are not basically good.

Environments are basically evil.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the whole "humans are evil/good" argument never ends, and never will. It is entirely up to your faith in mankind. Not the wrestler.

Uhm what? Because you couldn't support your stance, no one could possibly support their stance?

While I'll have to point out I'm not convinced, it seems you seemed to have convinced yourself very well on that point. :)

I don't think you have supported your stance. The only instance that I'm aware of where infants where left with no emotional input (or a minimum, since it is very difficult for humans to interact without some), and a clean environment, all of the subjects died.

I think that was Frederick the Great who conducted that one.

So, as you clearly just demonstrated, lying cannot be broadly defined as a bad trait.

Actually Monk, I did not tell my kids there is a Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny. I particularly dislike telling children that's real.

Teaching kids to accept small lies is important so that they can grow up and learn to believe the big lies; like freedom, fairness, justice, democracy, etc.

To be clear, I thought it silly to say that because you couldn't support your stance, then no one could support their stance either. That was your conclusion when asked to show support.


So then your conclusion from that study has led to your evidence for why the environment is what teaches all humans to lie and be selfish?

Uhm, yes, lying can be bradly defined as a negative trait.


Example, Falkus is a liar. Is that a bad or good description to call someone a liar?

I get your argument, but having any example where it's not bad doesn't mean something is not normally considered bad.

Another example, murder.

Murder is bad. But we can think of situations where murder is not bad, but necessary.



Or how about trying to support lying as something not considered a negative use in the broad sense? ;)

Uhm, yes, lying can be bradly defined as a negative trait.

Yet, as we clearly just established, there's cases where lying is not bad and is, in fact, commendable.

Or how about trying to support lying as something not considered a negative use in the broad sense? ;)

The universe is not a nice place for humanity. Believing otherwise is how we function as a species.

Right, but as I clearly pointed out, calling someone a liar is not a point that is commendable.

I'll point it out even clearer than the last post, the exceptions don't make the rule. Have you ever heard "liar" used in a way that is commendable?

Just to be clear, we weren't trying to establish if there were ever good reasons to lie. So it's great we established that, but that doesn't take away that lying is not a commendable trait to be known for.

Liar is a broadly used term that means a negative trait. Liar is only used for someone who lies.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:05, Mon 08 Nov 2010.

Though archaic teh compliment that someone is an accomplished liar has been known to be used- but it is inreference to tehri skill at deception rather than tehir tendancy. Otehrwise we tend to call it by other names- bluffing in poker, authorship of fiction... it is still fabrication of something that is not true.

Selfshness I will give you as an inherant trait- a child is born and thinks only of themselves- I'm hungry, I'm tired, I'm uncomfrotable, I'm hurt. That is a survival trait. Since, as mentioned earlier, teh universe has a design towards tragedy/evil it is necessary for any species that wishes to survive to maintain some level of selfishness or be over run by other sepcies which would claim the resources they need.

As to an environment without lies, again this is something we learn from nature. Mimics, animls which appear to be of another species- mirages which promise water where there is only sand. Where our perceptions prove limited and subject to illusion we, being intelligent, surmise that other's perceptions may also be tricked. Though lying is largely seen as a negative act as I have pointed out here in numerous examples this is largely an issue of context rather than deception itself being inherantly 'evil'. Any movie is a form of deception- a series of pictures projected onto a wall to create the illusion of motion, depth, and character. It is a lie we endure for entertainment.

We lie to our children and tell them that everything will be alright when we cannot know that it will, to instill in them a sense of security that allows them to grow up without becoming disfunctional. The universe is a hostile place, and people become hardened by living in it. yet at the same time the primary impulse of people is to band together, to help each other out. To cling to each other as defense against the hostility, in comfort, fear, or for mutual pleasure. Children who have been sheltered from those harsh realities will hug strangers, share their toys with other children they just met, and are generally very kind. In my opinion to believe such sweet innocent people are somehow inherantly vile and evil can only come from the most repugnant and delusional of philosophies.

To add some clarification - it s not lying which is inherently bad, it's deceiving people which is inherently bad. If I tell you a joke, it is a lie - it didn't actually happen, but I expect a reasonable person to recognize that and not be deceived. If I tell a story to you which gives you incorrect information, either through lying, with-holding information, or otherwise malforming it, that is bad, because it is deception. The lie is not required. Why is deception bad? Because honest relations are the foundation upon which we build effective and efficient relationships. Deception puts me over you and makes most forms of socialization much more difficult.

However, in the case of Nazis asking after Jews, the Nazis have already broken that social contract. Excommunicating them is therefore acceptable. I may deceive them or cause them other social harm, for instance through boycotts or sabotage.

The question of 'are humans inherently good' is flawed in that we don't have an objective measure of what is good or evil. Because it can't be accurately quanitied or measured, it can't be properly compared.

Agreed. I was going to point out that some people are debating that lying and selfishness are good traits.

So when the argument that people are basically good, and then point out they consider those "good traits" are traits that are also negative, clearly basically good includes terms which are not actually good.

Or it comes down to complexity and a difference in definitions. A stage magician decieves. A movie projector decieves. A con man decieves. We all agre that the third one is bad, outside of specific context (hiding Jews from Nazis) but there is a degre of question as to how distinct the third one is from the other two when you are talking about what is inherant to human nature.
Human beings have a certain degree of capacity/tendancy towards deceptiveness. That can be applied to artistic pursuits, politics, theft by deception, white lies to save feelings, or even towards constructive ends (imagination being the first component of design, for example). To simply say 'humans are liars and therefore bad' ignores the broad pallate of the more general trait.

Silver, the only thing being said about lying is that people have a natural inborn tendencies to lie which are intended to negative.

I think others just want to debate anything else than accept that people have an inborn trait that is negative, as it doesn't mesh up with their idea that humans are basically good. So there is other definitions, or uses of the word, but that doesn't change that humans do not need to be taught how to lie. They know it without being taught it.

1) Not entirely true. Lying specifically is an artifact of language, which is learned.
2) I don't think either side of this topic is more guilty that the other of trying to redefine the discusion towards their own viewpoint. it might however help the situation if you can accept that someone else's perspective also has validity from the framework they view the world instead of ascribing negative motives to others on the basis of your assumptions.
although i suppose if you do believe that people are inherantly evil and dishonest then presuming that people who disagree with you are being dishonest is intrinsic to that viewpoint. I would point out however that this in itself illustrates a shortcoming of that perspective in that it taints how you relate to other people.

How about this:

Having a single trait that some and/or all societies designate as negative does not equal an "evil" person. A child lying about whether it took cookies is a far cry from sticking puppies in a blender.

So what would constitute a base line of evil?

I'd say language is learned, using language to lie, ....what age is this taught at? I'm saying you don't need to teach it.

Associating a learned language equals learning to lie is not accurate.

Actually, I think it's a little obvious that it came about to make some statements to support other statements. Some of these statements are not backed by logic, or facts.

  Uhm what?

The only thing I suggested not valid was in pointing out the lack of support for said statements. (Which was true, since there wasn't support).

? If you're saying my belief influences how I act, I'd have to say that's true for all. However, it looks like we're saying the same words, but the words have different meanings.

The act of speaking requires a certain level of abstract thinking. Sounds are not really things, but you have to associate one with the other in order to functionally "speak." In effect your parents and environment have already started the process of lying by making this claim and indoctrinating you into the mass hallucination that is spoken language.

TheMonk- ???

Lying is, but deception is not. Deception has also been documented throughout the animal kingdom, and can be clearly documented via game theory to be a successful strategy when used appropriately. I have no question that humans, on the average, instinctively develop the ability to deceive others. Similarly, adultery has been documented in species, and has a positive correlation to physiological features in animals, which extend to humans as well. Adultery is another instinctual behavior, with clear competitive benefits. In fact, of the 7 deadly sins, I feel confident saying that we can find strong evidence linking all those behaviors to instinctual sources, that appear also in other species, where it is unlikely to be learned.

However, I would also argue that a person exhibiting all of these features still could not definitively be called 'good' or 'evil', and I certainly don't think you could apply any sort of metrics to determine what the average person is like. That's quantitative analysis of (dubiously) qualitative data.

I'm not sure that I would classify what happens between animals as adultry, since we have no way of knowing what forms of social contracts their relationships might take - for all we know the entire species might have a "don't ask don't tell don't talk about it" open relationship...

as to lying versus deception, that is why I said specifically lying. I already pointed out that there is deception innate to nature even in cases where there is no concept of intelligence involved (unless one invokes the concept of a creator, who then becomes the ultimate and orriginal deciever)- optical illusions, mimics, and so forth.

Speech/Language is deception.

Are you trying to deceive me right now? Or do you mean that it can be used for deception? Not sure why you say language is now deception.

I believe that what he is trying to convey is the concept that language is a form fo deception in that it conveys a meaning which is something other than what it instrinsicly is. There is nothing tpo the symbolys S H E E P to instrinsicly link it to a wooly mammal. This is further illustrated by the facts of Egyptian mystical/linguistic tradition in which a thing's name, and the symbol for the name were held to be not simply indicators or signifiers of a thing but the spiritual-magical equivelent to the thing itself.

What silver said.

I'm still not getting it.

Are you saying because the word doesn't match up with what you think it is describing, then it's a deception?

Example, you think a sheep is a woolly animal, so instead of calling it woolly animal, it's a deception to call it a sheep?

What I think has little to do with it. The culture defines the value of a word.

Let's look at a proper name: Bob. The name itself does not conjure Bob into existence, nor does Bob fall out of your mouth as you pronounce his name. This is because the name is not the thing! Bob is merely a series of sounds. Any other meaning is a sort of sleight of hand (tongue?).

An interesting theory, but it really doesn't become true because you were able to think it up.

Bob in your example doesn't have to be conjured to be true. Bob is real, and the name Bob really does mean that person. Just because language is an invention doesn't mean deception is now an invention.

You're stating they are, but you're not providing a reason for anyone to agree with that theory. It doesn't make sense using logic.

It's kind of like you're saying A is true, therefore, B is also true. But you're not showing why A=B.

But Bob isn't "Bob." He's a person that his parents, poor fools that they are, slapped a convenient label on. And I'm not the inventor of this theory... it's been in literary and cultural theory for over 60 years.

So, with generations of logic minded folk, such as Derrida, backing me up, I believe it is safe to say that the sign is not the signified.

Language is an invention for what purpose? To quote Hannibal Lector*, "what does he do, this man you seek?"

(An imaginary figure... one that does not exist, yet has a name.)

Sorry I hadn't a chance to throw my two cents in up until this point.  Been a bit busy.  Anyway, here's my attempt to reply to all the discussion so far in one post!

First, I think TitL's point that you don't need to teach children to lie is pretty uncontroversial.  I think some of the replies trying to say that lying isn't always bad sort of missed his point.  On the other hand, I'd agree with silveroak that the fact that children learn to lie on their own isn't necessarily the same as saying they're evil, or even "basically bad."  You don't need to teach children to tell the truth, either, they'll do that on their own too (and in fact they'll do it first, as they don't understand the concept of deception at a very early age), so if we use that criteria we're sort of at an impasse as to whether people are good or bad.

I'd suggest the main problem is trying to look for a black and white, either/or answer.  People naturally do some good things, and some bad things.  They're neither perfectly good, nor perfectly evil.  Whether they're "basically" good or evil depends on what we mean by the terms.  I think TitL's argument implies a "perfect or not perfect" dichotomy, where "not perfect" implies "basically evil," which seems too strong for me.  If "basically evil" just means "not perfect," I'd rather just use the term "not perfect," for clarity's sake.

I'd also propose that the "do you have to teach them to do it?" test isn't the best one for determining what people "basically" are.  A child has to learn to speak, but that doesn't mean people are "basically unable to speak," in my mind.  They have to learn to walk, but that doesn't mean walking isn't natural to humans.  We have to learn the rules of the societies we live in, and if we don't know those rules will break them, but that doesn't mean our natural state is one of a strong desire to break every rule at every chance we get.

Humans have urges that are both selfish and social.  These are often in conflict, and sometimes we lean more towards one side, and others we lean more towards the other side.  Summing either of those up as "evil" or "good" seems rather simplistic to me.

I'd say people tell the truth more than they lie, on average, and that they give to charity more often than they steal.  But does that make them more good than evil?  I don't know.  I think the terms aren't well enough defined to really answer the question by looking at what people do or don't do.  How many good deeds balance an act of evil?  How much money do you have to give to charity to offset walking by a homeless person asking for change?  How many acts of selflessness does a child rapist need to commit to get back into "basically good" status?  The very question of "are we more good than evil" implies a quantifiability of good and evil that I really don't think we have.  Unless we have a way of weighing up the good things we've done against the bad, the question doesn't even really have an answer, let alone an easy way of determining the answer.

Thank you, Tycho. I had gotten caught up in something boardering minutia, if it wasn't there.

Now I think it reasonable to say that doing good doesn't make you good. For example, if Hitler were to donate to charities, is he a good man? Obviously not. If Hitler gave CPR to 20 people, saving their lives, does that make JHitler a good person? If he fed 100 hungry people, saving their lives, does that make him a good person? If he fed tens of thousands of people, saving their lives, does that make him a good person?

If John Doe fed one person and saved their life, does that make them a good person?

Actions do not make you a good person. There are plenty of serial murderers that do good acts.

Now, if the Pope lied once, does that make him a liar? If the John Doe cheated on his spouse just once, does that make him an adulterer?

Intentions are important, yes? A person who feeds the hungry out of genuine desire to help is different than someone who does so only because a judge ordered them to community service, and does not help out any further. Or do you feel both are equally good because of the action. Intent doesn't matter?

And in reverse, actions don't make you a bad person. So by what metric do you define the term 'good person'?

Altruistic actions without expectation of reward.

I think another aspect of this that hasn't been discussed is the one of roles. A good parent may be willing to say strike their child on teh bottom to correct them while in general striking someone is considered a bad thing (though in some roles a good lover might do he same thing for entirely different reaons).
When we talk about Hitler for example- fairly universally defined as evil but he did not act alone. To my knowledge he didn't ever personally kill someone. He was 'evil' in his role as a leader- a role which has a tendancy to magnify consequences. Had he remained teh exact same person he was but failed at politics he would have still been racially prejudiced and power hungry, but I doubt he would be anything near the universal symbol of evil he is today.
So the question is not simply what virtues or flaws exist in our character, but what we choose to do with them and what roles we bring them to.

Really?  Hmm...what would you say does make someone good, in that case?


No...if somehow he had saved billions of lives, though, we'd probably look on him far more favorably than we do now.  We do this with many historical characters.  For example, we overlook that the founding fathers owned slaves, say, or that Martin Luther was very antisemitic.  To a degree, it's a question of whether we consider the bad bits to outweigh the good bits, or vice versa.  How we do that objectively, I honestly can't say, but it does seem like we do it subjectively without even thinking about it.  We think some people are more evil or more good than others, which implies some kind of quantification of good and evil acts.


Different answers in different situations, perhaps.  I tend to think of the term "liar" meaning more than just "has lied ones," though I can accept that that's what it means to some people.  I tend to think of it as someone who does lie; it's a statement indicating you shouldn't trust them because they have a tendency to lie that is implied to be on-going.  If it only means "has lied at least once" I don't think it'd be considered such an insult to call someone a liar.


Yes, definitely, though I have to admit I'm not entirely sure how.  Is a person who wants to punch you, but resists the urge better or worse than someone who didn't want to punch you in the first place?  I'm not really sure.  I can see it both ways to a degree, actually.


Doing good because you want to is certainly better (in my view) than someone who is forced to do it, but what of someone who doesn't really want to help, but knows it's the right thing to do so does it anyway?  In that case I'm not really sure if that's better or worse than wanting to do it.  It certainly is more selfless, and takes more strength/willpower.  But which is preferable?  I'm not sure, really.  What do you guys think?

Looking at it a different way, is a person good if they commit and evil act with good intention?  What if Hitler honestly and sincerely believe that he was doing the right thing?  Does that make him good?  I don't think so.  Abraham, we're told, was willing to kill his son because he thought God wanted him to do so.  Did his intent to kill his son (an act of evil) make him evil, or does intent to do as he was told make him good?  Should he have told God, "Screw you buddy, killing my son would be evil, and I'm not going to commit and evil act, even for you!" or is "just following orders" acceptable reasoning when dealing with deities?  (if so, does that apply when following other deities if you believe they're the right one?)  If Al Queda sincerely believe Allah wants them to blow people up, does that make them not evil?

I definitely agree that intent matters, but I don't think it's all that matters, and I'm not entirely sure how it fits in.  As a first stab at it, to be good you have to do good acts for good reasons.  To be fully evil you have to do evil acts for evil reasons.  Doing good acts for evil reasons and evil acts for good reasons are somewhere in between.

There is a saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but
not their own facts.  These days, it seems more and more that what
people consider to be facts is diverging.  This is most easy to observe
in the political realm, but its also becoming common in less-directly
political ares, such as teach curriculum, the climate debate, etc.  It's
not just that people are expressing disagreements over values.  Those
kinds of disagreements over what is right or wrong, or what is more
important than what, have always been with us, and always will be.  And,
arguably, are a good thing, since they get us to consider other points
of view.  I'm also not just talking about disagreements over future
predictions, or estimated effects of one action or another.  Again,
predicting uncertain events in the future will always be difficult and
will always lead to disagreement.  What I'm talking about here is more
disagreement about what's actually true, right now (or in the past),
right in front of us.

I'm certainly not the first to point this out, and I'm sure I won't be
the last.  So I'm not going to get into too many examples, or try to
argue who's right in which case. I'm actually more interested in the
situation itself.  How does it come about, and can anything done about
it?  I've been noodling on it a bit today, and thought I'd run some
ideas by you guys to see what you thought.

First, most of the things we see this kind of disagreement on (though
not all) are complicated things.  The data is there for anyone to look
at, but there's so much data, related in non-trivial ways, that 99.9% of
us won't go to the trouble of looking at it.  We'll get a summary handed
to us second hand from a source we trust, and accept their analysis as
truth.  Sure, we could go look at the numbers ourselves, but why bother?
The source has already done it for us, and we know they wouldn't try to
mislead us.

This means which sources we trust will make a big difference in what we
consider to be true.  But how do we decide what sources we trust?
Usually based off what they tell us.  If they tell us thing that seem
true to us, we're likely to believe them.  If they tell us things that
don't match our beliefs, we're likely to distrust them.  This leads to a
positive feedback loop, where once we decide one source is trustworthy,
we start accepting what they say as true, dismissing those who disagree
with them, and trusting those who agree with them.  Beyond the initial
"choice" (I put this in quotes because I don't think it's actually a
conscious decision) of who to trust, it sort of progresses naturally on
its own, without our direction.

Add to this the echo chamber effect, where source X says something, Y
hears it and trusts X so repeats it as well, then Z hears X and Y saying
it, so thinks is couldn't possibly be wrong and so repeats it as well.
Then it gets back to X, who says "it's not just me saying it, these
other folks have looked into it and reached the same conclusion!" when
really it's all back to just X saying it in the first place.  This has
become more common in the "new media" world, where "trusted sources" are
just as likely to be random bloggers reading each others blogs as
independent news sources.

Another factor is tribalism, or us-and-them-ism.  There's not just
trusted sources telling you what you already believe, but also strongly
distrusted sources sayign the opposite.  But instead of making us less
confident, this actually reinforces our beliefs.  "If X said it it's
true, then I know it has to be false!"  A voice of disagreement in such
cases actually makes us more confident we're right.  This makes it
particularly difficult to escape the echo chamber, as voices from the
"outside" trying to point out any errors in our thinking actually
strengthen our conviction.

It would seem the only way to escape the echo chamber is from someone
inside it to realize an error, and point it out to those who trust them.
But this doesn't always work.  Often, instead of giving up our views, we
give up our trust.  We view them as a "traitor" or the like, someone
who's betrayed the truth.  You stop trusting them, rather than
considering what they say.  Voices of disagreement from within get
pushed quickly into the "them" category, and ignored at best, or viewed
as pariahs at worst.

As I said, none of this is new insight.  Plenty of people have made the
same observations countless times in the last few years (and I'd guess
if we looked we could find people saying similar things decades and
centuries ago too).  The question is, what can we do about it?  How can
we avoid falling into the same trap?  Is it even possible?  Is there
much to do besides "pick a side and hope it's the right one?"

One option is to look at the data itself, rather than trust sources.  In
an ideal world, that's what we'd do.  But it's time consuming, hard
work, and often we don't have the expertise to do the necessary
analysis.  I'd do this more when I was at my old job (when I had more
time, and better software for crunching numbers), and still try to do it
whenever I can these days, but for the vast majority of things, I just
don't have time for it.  I've got a scientific background, but only in a
fairly narrow field.  I'm not an economist, a climate scientist, a
census taker, etc.  I can do my rudimentary checks, but to a degree I
don't consider myself a trusted source on many of these
questions.

Another option is to make a conscious effort to read/listen to sources
outside our own echo chamber.  The danger here, though, is the tribalism
effect.  If we intentionally go looking for sources we expect to
disagree with, instead of openning our mind, it can actually re-inforce
our views by confirming our expectations of "them".  Finding sources you
sometimes disagree with can be useful, I think, as it keeps you
from expecting to agree or disagree up front, and forces you to evaluate
each point on a case by case basis.  But it can be tough to find sources
that don't tend to fall into the "us" or "them" categories most of the
time.

What do you guys think?  Is there much hope for objectivity, or are we
doomed by human nature to this kind of source picking?  Does it help
open our minds to talk to those of different views, or does it just make
us stronger believers?

We all think we're right, and that we're open minded and have selected
the "correct" sources, and yet we tend to end up with different sources.
It's easy to say "well, those guys believe crazy stuff because they
listen to X, Y, and Z!"  but it doesn't really convince them that their
"crazy" views are wrong (let alone crazy), and it doesn't help us come
to any kind of agreement.

Again, I'm not just talking about those things that we're probably
always going to have disagreement about:  religion, the future,
morality, etc.  I'm talking about objective reality stuff that we can't
seem to agree on.  Is the planet getting warmer?  Does radiometric
dating work?  Are taxes lower today than they were under Reagan?  Was
Obama born in Hawaii?  Did Fannie and Freddie do most of the subprime
lending, or did private banks do more?  Is the "heat index" a new term
introduced just recently by the government?  Do most biologists consider
evolution to be a fact?  All these kinds of questions and more divide us
into "us and them" positions, and evidence doesn't really seem to play
much part in the discussion, because the sides can agree on what sources
to trust to provide the data in the first place.  What can be done about
it?  Is there any hope for objectivity?

People can, and do, change their minds about deeply held beliefs.  But
in my experience, it's not usually new data that causes them to do so,
but rather a new source.  It takes someone they can trust telling them
to consider a different position.  Or, perhaps more to the point,
someone they trust telling them that this other position isn't
necessarily in opposition to all the other things they believe.  For
example, you can accept X that "they" say is true, without actually
having to agree with them on Y, and Z as well.  But often that voice
ends up being discarded and untrusted when it calls on us to consider
the possibility that we're wrong.  What makes the difference between the
two cases?  Why do we listen some times, and abandon the source in
others?

This brings up another factor I didn't mention before: the "clumping" of
ideas.  Because of the importance of sources, positions on unrelated
issues often get linked.  There's no real reason why the view that
climate change is a hoax should be correlated with pro-life views, or
that opposition to replacing social security with investment accounts
should correlate with acceptance of evolution, but ideas like these do
tend to end up correlating.  In part, I would argue, because a source
that doesn't fit neatly into the the "us" or "them" category won't be as
influential in affecting our views.  So once camps have defined
themselves, we end up with the somewhat illogical view that if we change
our mind about X, then all our other beliefs should suddenly be in doubt
as well, because if so-and-so was wrong about X, well, what else could
they have been wrong about?  The result of this is that we start to
think "well, I don't know much about X, but I know so-and-so was right
about Y, so I'm sure he's right on this too!"

So, a bit of a ramble, I know, and not really ending with a clear
question.  But what do you guys think?

I think we can start by building up trust ... and being careful of our allies. I'm still very upset with Al Gore for taking something which was gradually gaining scientific consensus and turning it into a political (and specifically democratic) talking point. People generally have a goodly amount of trust in the scientific community, in part because scientists take so long to be sure and transparent before making a big fuss. Politicians though ... it's exactly like you said.

and part of teh issue is also what kind of truth are we talking about- the more complex and uncertain the validity of a model the more likely disagreement is to occur. Which is why nobody still considers it a challenge to God's authority to say that the Earth is not the center of the universe, but evolution is still held to be such a challenge by a siginifigant portion of the population.

In hindsight it probably wasn't such a good idea to bother testing Socratic Dialectics against Rhetoric; the "Proselytizer of the day" at my college didn't seem too comfortable with the two-way street of the public forum, insisting that I "go someplace quiet and get right with Jesus".

It can be pretty hard to deal with rhetoric without being drawn into it yourself, but it's also predictable; when he tried to pull out the "Are you a Good Person?" line, all I could think of was Ray Comfort (Tip: It doesn't work if you don't stage it).

Before I was drawn away by my friend to check out her new puppy, I did manage to get him to say a bunch of things that definitely didn't help his case with the gathering crowd; it turns out there really are people like Jack T. Chick out there (though when I asked him if he knew about Jack Chick he said he was a pawn of Satan too, go figure), and admitting that you believe Catholics, Calvinists, Mormons and JWs are all going to hell because they worship Satan is a really big Rhetorical Faux Pas when people listening know from personal experience that they do no such thing.

I digress to it being a bad idea in hindsight, though; I suffer from acute social atrophy, and that workout made me feel sick all yesterday and today with dry mouth, jittering, and concentration-fatigue.

So I'd like to say that I'd probably not do it again anytime soon, but that's more than a hope than something I'm sure I could avoid.  Not very many people like the people who shout their message on the street corners, regardless of whether they agree with the message or not ("They're scaring people away" one of my Christian friends remarked).

But hey, it's a free country, and it's great that we have the freedom to go shouting out what we believe if we want and not have to worry about anything other than that hot feeling you get whenever you draw attention to yourself (or maybe that's just me).  Because if you can say what you want, then I can criticize it, and vice-versa.
--------------------------------

But speaking from the experience above, you gotta have respect for people who do go out there and speak to people who "aren't the choir".  That takes bravery, it's a very exhausting thing to do; you have less time to think and react than you do in an online forum.  I regret not being able to shake his hand at the end of it all, but I was running late.

I contrast that though to the people who wish to speak in the public forum but try to prevent anyone but the choir from participating; if you're not willing to handle the possibility of your claims being criticized, then you shouldn't present them in a context where criticism is the name of the game.
This message was last edited by the GM at 07:16, Thu 06 Oct 2011.

I suspect a lot of the extremists you're talking about stick to their message for a reason completely unrelated to religion; paranoia, an urge to strike out, previous hurts, or even serious brain imbalances. If someone is speaking with conviction that all Mormons worship Satan, it's basically a non-starter.