Of course intuition requires a stimulus. The problem is thinking that it is a supernatural stimulus and that it is always right.
@Noitsyou. The same can be said about analytic, scientific thinking, as if it is always right.
I would be more than sure if your daughter was walking alone on the street at night and a stranger she encounters asks her for the time, and she suddenly gets that creepy feeling, you would tell her to trust her intuition. Ask any woman, she'll tell you, she gets in more trouble when she doesn't listen to her intuition— what you might would call, "irrational" thought, and instead, only followed rational behaviour of manners.
The idea of a supernatural stimulus is not that far-fetched. If we think of the human race developing from caveman status to this present day, and how those primitive societies will usually have some form of rituals, like the cannibal eating the heart of its enemy , (I hope you enjoy me bringing that up! lol) with accompanying reverence, including even, other appeasing sacrifices, those usually end up being attributed to some form of a supernatural interloper, or ancestor worship benefactor.
Even Hollywood in the movie Castaway, or the classic book, "Lord of the Flies" shows the universal idea that more humans have been wired for a desire for the order of a higher, supernatural being. We simply reject being alone in all its manifestations, and if you think about it, we have no business existing, without that rejection. Darwin would have to agree.
Perhaps we just aren't smart enough using the brains we have to understand how it all goes together. Maybe we aren't supposed to, isn't that true for someone who is taken with the agnostic point of view?
Back to my first stated point, that analytic science, what you call "rational" and which I now take as your opinion, considers such thought tendency to being automatically superior, and used for the best bar of human intelligence, has its own habit of not being "always right".
The other important aspect that makes your theory of "rational and irrational" thought untenable as fact, is that it denies the duality of how the brain sides are meant to be working, where we possess both modes of thinking. The trick then IMHO, would be to use both to their best advantages.
by Noitsyou on 15 August 2016 - 16:08
@beetree, these are 3 posts, in order, that I made on the thread which started this:
1. studies have shown that atheists tend to be more intelligent and have open minds so are welcoming of new experiences and open to learning.
2. All atheists are not smarter than all believers.
3. Scientists in general are more likely to be atheists.
I believe that contrary to what you claim, I have been rather consistent.
by Noitsyou on 15 August 2016 - 17:08
We have been wired for intentionality, what some call agenticity, because of evolution. Nature doesn't care if we believe incorrectly or correctly; the only thing that matters from an evolutionary standpoint is survival. So yes, we have "feelings" or "hunches" and maybe that sound an ancient ancestor on the savanna heard was just the wind or maybe it was a sabre-toothed tiger. Regardless, before knowing what it was he ran assuming it was a tiger. If 9 times out of 10 it was just the wing evolution doesn't care. All that matters to evolution is the one time the hunch was right.
So that creepy feeling a woman gets is the result of some external stimulus. She may not be aware of it since not everything we "see" gets processed in the same part of the brain. And how many times has a woman gotten that feeling and it turned out she was wrong? Again, it's the one time we don't listen to it and we were right that we end up remembering.
Rituals are probably the result of patterns. Rituals are in fact patterns. Like a baseball player who eats the same thing before every game because one day he ate it and played well and so made an association between that food and playing well.
Once primitive peoples started believing in invisible agents and intentionality they created an entire supernatural world. They then developed all sorts of rituals and talismans to connect to that world just as Christians did/do with saintly relics.
Irrational thought has its place when it comes to survival but it didn't create science, philosophy, art or architecture. Look at it this way, the people who never invented the wheel, written language, science, philosophy, etc., are also the most superstitious of people. Is there a connection between a people's cultural advancement and how superstitious it is? Intuition alone isn't curing cancer. Rational thought alone might. Irrational thought is part of the human experience, not always for the better, and we shouldn't abandon it in order to become Vulcans but we can't allow it to control us. The idea that irrationality and rationality are equals is not something I would agree with however. Irrationality should be nothing more than a spice on the main course.
by Hundmutter on 15 August 2016 - 17:08
@Shtal - how does the Brad Stine video answer my question to you ? Oh - that's right, it doesn't.
(PS Is he supposed to be a standup comedian ? He ain't very amusing ! )
by beetree on 16 August 2016 - 16:08
@Noitsyou. I see that the idea of "agenticity" and "patternicity" is an idea introduced by Michael Shermer, the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, he is learned in science history and psychology, and recently had taught at Chapman University. He is not exactly a practicing scientist, even though he regularly contributes to "Scientific American" magazine. http://www.michaelshermer.com/downloads/Shermer-CV.pdf
Shermer wrote in the June 2009 issue, an interesting theory— and I see where you form your own ideas on "rational vs. irrational" thoughts. Upon further investigation, I have come to a rather different conclusion than yours, that instead I see such a theory as a rationalization against the explanations and theory of astrophysicist, Paul Davies who is an active scientist and Professor at Arizona State University. http://cosmos.asu.edu/biography
This is one such Davies' opinion pieces that seeks to explore the reasons for why the laws of physics exist as unchanging and unchallengeable as today as when they were first discovered. The idea of life exists because of randomness does indeed have its glaring flaws.
What really tweaked my antenna, so to speak, was discoving this article written by Martin S. Pribble, a self-proclaimed online "activist atheist" after reading other of his opinion pieces where he defends Shermer against Davies. I found we had reached some of the same conclusions! I will post it in its entirety, and really, think everyone here should read it!
Leaving the Tribe
Why I’m no longer part of the online atheism community.
You don't change the world by yelling at people on the Internet.
This article is adapted from an essay that originally appeared on Martin Pribble’s personal blog.
For the last five years I have considered myself an “activist atheist.” I trolled Facebook and Twitter for theists and told them why they are wrong. I made fun of them for their unreasonable beliefs. I would analyze and nitpick their statements, show examples of just where they went wrong and why, and even at times ridicule them when there seemed to be no option left, all in the vain hope that I might be able to sway them to a more rational way of viewing the world and the universe. This could be extremely satisfying, and sometimes I found I could even come to a level of agreement with a believer about the realities of life. I even have friends among my Twitter following who are priests and strong Christians.
But I’m through with it, and I no longer want to be part of the online atheist “community.” What I was once a proud member of, a group who fought against the evils of deliberate misinformation coming from religious groups and people, has become, at least on the surface, a parade of contradiction and caterwauling against theists who have no clue that there could be an alternate viewpoint or understanding of the universe than their own. The times of satisfaction are outweighed by feelings of frustration and hopelessness.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m still an atheist. But I will no longer be dragged into debates with theists who make a ludicrous claim, then base their evidence on the very book from which their ludicrous claim originates. There is no point in it. All this back-and-forth sniping serves to do is to make us feel a sense of superiority to the person making the claims and does nothing for them except leave them with a smugness about their assumption that “atheists are all mean.” Faith overrides knowledge and truth in any situation, so arguing with a theist is akin to banging your head against a brick wall: You will injure yourself and achieve little.
This will not change an awful lot in what I do online. But I think I’ve come to a point where I am only injuring myself if I were to continue engaging in theistic debating about things like the efficacy of the Noah’s Ark story. If someone is espousing beliefs that are actively harmful—i.e., promoting intolerance based on belief systems—expect me to be the first to stand up and say something. I can’t allow this kind of thinking, and if I can help it, I will move to sway the believer into rethinking their position. But this will be done with reason and rational discourse, not with contradicting the finer points of the religious texts.
It all comes down to a simple fact, which I think applies to Internet communities—so frequently home to us-vs.-them thinking—in general: People will be more easily swayed if you don’t attack them personally. Others in the atheist community might say that an attack on religion is not a personal attack, but to many believers it is, because that is what they base their lives upon. If you mock or criticize the believer’s convictions, it is as though you are attacking them personally, and they will shut down the conversation right there. Even worse, they’ll GO INTO ALL-CAPS MODE, as if that makes the defense of belief more substantial.
An argument can be much more convincing if it gives context and information instead of just derision. Discussing the mathematical or physical impossibilities of Noah’s Ark is much more likely to sway the believer than just saying, “That’s a fairy tale, and you’re a moron for believing it.”
Atheists and nonbelievers make up such a small part of the world’s population that we can never hope to change the world by ourselves—certainly not, if our primary weapon is yelling at people we don’t agree with. Most theists in the world are not completely delusional. Many see their faith as being primarily about an afterlife and dismiss the more ridiculous stories—about the apocalypse, for instance—as parables used to illustrate a point. The problem is, the people we hear most from are not the rational ones. It’s the fanatics with the largest and loudest voices.
I have decided to define myself by what I stand for in life rather than what I don’t believe in. I call this “methodological humanism.” In essence, methodological humanism is a standpoint by which everyone, theist, agnostic, and atheist alike, can agree on as a platform from which we can all benefit: the need for food, water, and sanitation; the protection of our natural environment; and the preservation of the world as a whole. Without these things, we, as a species, cease to exist.
So much of Internet discourse is based upon the disagreements we have with one another, and sometimes it feels like sport, about scoring points and relishing your opponent’s missteps. But if we can first find a space where we agree, a bottom-line for the well-being of all people, then the arguments about belief begin to look like petty squabbling over childhood toys. This is not to say that I think people should stop arguing—quite the opposite. Argument helps us suss out the finer points of what we believe to be our rights and needs, and what are simply comforts that we are so used to having that we can’t imagine life with out them.
I’m not calling for a cease-fire altogether between atheists and believers online. In fact, I think that we still need those who will relentlessly chase down believers for their ludicrous ideas, especially when they cause harm in the world. But I will not be the one doing it—and those who are in the trenches should think harder about their own tactics.
Martin S. Pribble is a humanist blogger interested in skepticism, science, religion, and politics. He lives in Melbourne, Australia
by GSD Admin on 16 August 2016 - 17:08
You did start it all over, number 7. Ugh!
by beetree on 16 August 2016 - 18:08
@GSDAdmin. Are you talkin' to me?
@Noitsyou. Thought I'd revisit your last post as well and attempt to answer your direct questions. I was on a train of thought on my previous post, that should be fairly evident.
First, you said:
And how many times has a woman gotten that feeling and it turned out she was wrong? Again, it's the one time we don't listen to it and we were right that we end up remembering.
Now that I understand that it is your skeptic personality driving your question, I will answer it thus:
A woman who does not listen to that creepy feeling will end up either a victim, or feeling foolish. Women on the whole will decide it is better not to be a victim, more often than risk feeling foolish. The risk is not equal and for very good reason.
You also said:
Rituals are probably the result of patterns. Rituals are in fact patterns.
I agree, that rituals are like patterns but the difference being, that they are what we create, rather than being observed as a natural event. The reasons we create rituals are varied. Consider this:
Recent research suggests that rituals may be more rational than they appear. Why? Because even simple rituals can be extremely effective. Rituals performed after experiencing losses – from loved ones to lotteries – do alleviate grief, and rituals performed before high-pressure tasks – like singing in public – do in fact reduce anxiety and increase people’s confidence. What’s more, rituals appear to benefit even people who claim not to believe that rituals work. While anthropologists have documented rituals across cultures, this earlier research has been primarily observational. Recently, a series of investigations by psychologists have revealed intriguing new results demonstrating that rituals can have a causal impact on people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
There are too, the social aspects of ritual outside of religious ones. For instance the handshake greeting or sitting down for dinner at the family table.
...gotta run, hope to elaborate later...
by GSD Admin on 17 August 2016 - 04:08
Number 7. Bee you are known as #7, not to be confused with 007. Just 7. Ugh.
by beetree on 17 August 2016 - 05:08
I don't think you mean that as a compliment.
I'm not making you read any of my posts, now am I .
by beetree on 17 August 2016 - 13:08
Waddya know. Turns out you are right. I am a number 7.
The number 7 is the seeker, the thinker, the searcher of Truth (notice the capital "T"). The 7 doesn't take anything at face value -- it is always trying to understand the underlying, hidden truths. The 7 knows that nothing is exactly as it seems and that reality is often hidden behind illusions.
, (I hope you enjoy me bringing that up! lol) with accompanying reverence, including even, other appeasing sacrifices, those usually end up being attributed to some form of a supernatural interloper, or ancestor worship benefactor.
