Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think so, but bear in my mind my reach exceeds my grasp when it comes to mathematics and physics haha
I'm struggling when it comes to explaining the intuition in a rigorous way, even if I'm quite confident in it.
At least it makes sense to me that this can happen, even if it's not common, after all there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses that explain any given amount of evidence, and it's entirely possible two or more of them have the same Kolmogorov Complexity.
Once again I stress this is less relevant in practice, as you also point out, but I believe it's still true. Humans (and LLMs using autoencoders) have an inherent simplicity prior, so we usually try and pick the least complex explanation for most phenomenon. Usually.
I obviously have a more cynical explanation in mind. I find any efforts to reconcile the abundance of miracles in the past with their paucity in the present highly suspect.
At the very least you must admit that "prophets" tend to be given less than ambiguous information.
I can far easier swallow no intervention from a disinterested Creator and omnipresent or frequent intervention than I can the middle ground of it happening just a little too sparsely for us to be confident of it.
Further, I think it's grossly unethical to confront a flawed being like a human with the possibility of endless fulfillment versus infinite suffering in the form of Heaven and Hell and not give them sufficient information to make an informed decision. You might well disagree that you have "sufficient" information. It would make far more sense to give everyone the brief and then condemn those who stray.
(Even if the latter is a joke in the eyes of an omniscient entity who knows exactly what a soul will do before it's put in a position to mess itself up)
What exactly is "morally ready" but a convenient rug to sweep counterarguments under? Some of them were skeptical, were they not?
Certainly I'm not the latter, if I had concrete evidence of God that is distinguishable from the normal operations of the laws of physics, I'd at least consider it (and this being a Simulator fucking with me, or me going insane).
I'm glad you didn't die from that, but is the fervent thanks of the denizens of the odd hut that wasn't swept away by a tsunami any consolation to all the others who did?
It seems deeply chauvinistic to think that you are the one person who deserves the big ticket miracles, and not the other millions or billions of earnest believers!
As you acknowledge, the RCTs concur with me, and while a sample size of one isn't nothing, it's not much either.
And simply from anthropics, if you'd been killed by the cancer, you wouldn't be around to tell me how being pious helped..
Err.. Maybe consciously perform an experiment where you intentionally misbehave and flaunt your beliefs? The inverse of what you proposed I'd do.
You'd have to do it over a prolonged period of time to get enough data, and I'm not sure you even like the idea.
It depends on if the correlation you describe between being better and more obvious miracles holds in the obverse, do you expect to sprain your foot or get hit by a bus if you suddenly become the world's worst anti-Mormon? If not, you'll just get more evidence of nothing much at all happening, or the absence of miracles, and I don't know what the base rate for that is in your eyes.
Or at least you could try to be the secular idea of a "good person", someone who absolutely doesn't believe in the supernatural yet tries to do good in their eyes. I trust you can figure out how to do that, but I suspect you're just as incapable of actually banishing your belief in God on demand as I am to embrace it, or even the 1% suggestion you extended.
Knowledge has its upsides and downsides. Eventually we'll all come to know the truth but in the meantime whether someone will benefit from a given piece of truth varies depending on the timing and the individual. Prophets, along with anyone else more morally advanced than the average person, are in a different situation where they are usually ready for more knowledge. Thus what they receive is usually less ambiguous.
I can explain my beliefs along these lines much further, and am happy to do so, but these are pretty basic objections and I'm confused why you're making them. I feel like "knowledge has downsides" explained prophets well enough already if you put a bit of thought into it.
I don't believe in either end of this--infinite suffering or insufficient information. Firstly nobody even has the ability to go to hell unless they have full understanding of their choice, and then they have to commit truly heinous actions. Judas Iscariot is the prime example. Secondly, and this is extremely speculative, my understanding is that while hell will probably last a long time it still will not last forever, and eventually those consigned to it will evaporate into whatever base-level awareness they existed as before they were made into spirits.
The condemnation doesn't happen until after everyone is given the brief. The point of Earth is for us to learn, not to see who slips up and strays when given the chance.
I don't really want to rehash this conversation, but I disagree that determinism and agency are contradictory.
I don't doubt you'd believe in God if you were given enough evidence, but there are big drawbacks with that as I've already stated. "Morally ready" was probably a bad way to frame that; I don't mean to imply (nor do I actually believe) you're less moral than I am, but just that given who you currently are, clear evidence of God would be more likely to hurt you than help you. This is also true of me.
It was a sibling, not me. And I don't think we deserved it necessarily, which is why I can't predict when prayer will or won't work. We don't really believe in "deserving" things in general--the basic belief is that we all deserve nothing and are granted endless blessings such as life, human experience, music, etc. by the grace of God.
My own health miracle was a debilitating, but not terminal, illness. I was on a medication to clear it up, but it was supposed to work within 1.5 months and it had been IIRC 6-7 without any improvement. I felt far better one day, the best by far I had since being diagnosed with the illness, offhandedly mentioned it to a family member, and then learned from them that my extended family had performed a fast for my health the previous day without my knowledge.
This was priceless to me because it felt like God knew exactly what I needed. I was extremely concerned that despite all of my tests, my inability to properly control them made them, in the end, worthless. I considered myself more or less incapable of determining the truth of my church because I was maybe biased towards the church being true, and as we've seen with parapsychology and many other fields since, in all but the hardest fields of science the bias of the researcher is powerful enough to overcome all of our methodological tools put together. So God saw fit to give me a miracle I could not quite so easily explain away as placebo--a statistically unlikely faith healing which I wasn't even aware had happened until after the fact.
This is probably one of the main reasons I believe as much as I do--I performed that test and the results were horrible. It would be idiotic to try again, like covering every inch of my skin with fire ants to verify that they're always painful vs just painful in the spot where I first got bit. It wasn't a randomized controlled trial of which sins to perform, so it wasn't exactly a perfect test, but the results were strong enough I'm not going to try to repeat it.
I'd generally expect life to get worse, and I'd expect myself to get less intelligent. It wouldn't necessarily manifest in physical harm. But that's the same with becoming more righteous--I don't necessarily expect any specific blessings from generally becoming a better person. Prayer/fasting are the exceptions because it's there that I ask for specific things, which makes it easier to objectively evaluate the results.
This is why I tested prayer + fasting first and most intensively. If the truth is just "being a good person leads to personal benefits" then prayer and fasting are not likely to be helpful. I also tested meditation, to check and see whether the benefits of prayer had more to do with mindfulness rather than actual divine intervention, and the results were of course negligible. I think the meditation test is a good version of what you're suggesting, and I'm not eager to repeat it. "Doing good in a secular way" doesn't really work because it doesn't distinguish between the two hypotheses I consider most likely.
I remember Scott mentioned once that a blast of cold water in the ear is strangely likely to temporarily dispel delusions. That would be an interesting thing to test, and probably something everyone should try at some point, if it's even half as effective as he thought it was.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link