Do You Believe in Water?

[Lausten]

I've been listening to Sam Harris' reading of his book "End of Faith". He is doing it on his Podcast, free. With commentary.

In Chapter 2 he talks about what "belief" means and how no one just decides to believe in God, or would describe their thought process as simply believing and not needing evidence. They might compare scientific evidence to faith evidence, but they still have a view of the world that supports their belief, otherwise, they wouldn't hold it.

He compares this to his belief that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. He learned that, but he couldn't prove it. He would barely know how to start the experiments to separate the two parts and then he wouldn't be sure what to do with them to prove the ratio. Believing H2O is a valid representation of the thing we drink is based on centuries of experiments and mountains of evidence that most of us don't bother attempting to fully comprehend.

Instead, we look at the world that is that resulted from that knowledge. The people who do understand it have done other things with hydrogen and oxygen. The knowledge of H2O is related to all the other knowledge of the periodic table. If someone said H2O is wrong, they would have to explain all of those other things as well and explain how we arrived at that wrong conclusion, but managed to invent SCUBA gear or hydrogen batteries.

I've had a few conversations about belief lately. Total wastes of time as it turned out. So, I'm going to take the stand that H2O is wrong, because you can't prove it. Go ahead, prove it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Your argument is all wet. /thread

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Why don't you take the position that water IS H2O and require any opposition to disprove it? Shouldn't we plebes go with the settled science unless we have specific reasons not to?

[ElectricMonk]

Of course it's wrong: If I knew the secret of how to make Water, I wouldn't tell everyone!

Obviously those scientists are keeping the real formula hidden and only tell it to their acolytes and members of the Church of Darwin.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course it's wrong: If I knew the secret of how to make Water, I wouldn't tell everyone!

Obviously those scientists are keeping the real formula hidden and only tell it to their acolytes and members of the Church of Darwin.

Mark Watney done give it away on you, son.

[Lausten]

Why don't you take the position that water IS H2O and require any opposition to disprove it? Shouldn't we plebes go with the settled science unless we have specific reasons not to?

Because that wouldn't make the point. That would be taking the position that science is accurate. That's what I've been doing for 4 years and and not getting anywhere. It's a thought experiment. You should try experimenting with thinking Bobbo.

[OlegTheBatty]

Harris is baffled because he is going about it bass ackwards.

Mix 2 parts H, 1 part O in a sealed container. Provide a spark. Check the results.

[TJrandom]

I learned how to make water from a TV survival show. It`s really simple - just piss thru a T-shirt and drink away.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I learned how to make water from a TV survival show. It`s really simple - just piss thru a T-shirt and drink away.

You can also squeeze it out of fresh elephant dung.

Thanks, Bear Grylls, for that image. {!#%@} you.

[TJrandom]

Don`t think I`d want to be that close to an elephant ass, but to each his own...

[OlegTheBatty]

Don`t think I`d want to be that close to an elephant ass, but to each his own...

I think you wait for the elephant to move on - not reach in and grab some.

[ElectricMonk]

Don`t think I`d want to be that close to an elephant ass, but to each his own...

I think you wait for the elephant to move on - not reach in and grab some.

When you are a celebrity, they let you.

[TJrandom]

Glad I didn`t have any coffee in my mug...

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Why don't you take the position that water IS H2O and require any opposition to disprove it? Shouldn't we plebes go with the settled science unless we have specific reasons not to?

Because that wouldn't make the point. That would be taking the position that science is accurate. That's what I've been doing for 4 years and and not getting anywhere. It's a thought experiment. You should try experimenting with thinking Bobbo.

Dithering on the obvious.....what draws me in??????????

The point you make is that you are unhinged......to the degree you are being anything except..........."variable." You don't like something so you are going to argue something you know is false to make your point. Is that about it Bucky????? DO THAT for 4 more years and you can become a Party Faithful.

I say: NO. Let's stick with science, the only tool we have for finding out the truth..... and if you require absolutes as the net experience from your past frustrations, then lets say science, the only tool we have to stumble towards the best explanations of the real world that we have.

Arguing science for 4 years, if thats what you think you did, why did you think you were on some journey instead of resting easy on home base? Really Lausten: you are an island unto yourself. Why do you seek the agreement of those who are obviously wrong and not worth arguing with???? And on that, I throw down the red flag and call ....... hypocrisy.

I hate it when that happens.

[Lausten]

My reasons for arguing with trolls and idiots are my own. It wouldn't make sense to try to explain it to you, since you are both.

That said, it is a perfectly normal exercise in even an introductory philosophy course to take an opposite opinion to your own and attempt to argue from it.

[Gord]

I don't believe in water, it's failed me too many times in the past.

[scrmbldggs]

You no longer buoy that it will hold up?

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

My reasons for arguing with trolls and idiots are my own. It wouldn't make sense to try to explain it to you, since you are both.

That said, it is a perfectly normal exercise in even an introductory philosophy course to take an opposite opinion to your own and attempt to argue from it.

Ha, ha...Lausten's stupid hole is so deep, he thinks he is a philosophy professor.

Dream on.

[Lausten]

My reasons for arguing with trolls and idiots are my own. It wouldn't make sense to try to explain it to you, since you are both.

That said, it is a perfectly normal exercise in even an introductory philosophy course to take an opposite opinion to your own and attempt to argue from it.

Ha, ha...Lausten's stupid hole is so deep, he thinks he is a philosophy professor.

Dream on.

Can you read? I said exercise in an introductory course. That would make me a student. Your attempts to grade me make you the wanna be professor.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

You think you as a student ask the questions? Not in any intro class I've been in.

No.... you still suck in your overly self referential way.

[Cadmusteeth]

I would say that my belief in water is a justified belief.

[Gord]

I would say that my belief in water is a justified belief.

Clearly water ain't never done you no wrong.

[Scott Mayers]

I've been listening to Sam Harris' reading of his book "End of Faith". He is doing it on his Podcast, free. With commentary.

In Chapter 2 he talks about what "belief" means and how no one just decides to believe in God, or would describe their thought process as simply believing and not needing evidence. They might compare scientific evidence to faith evidence, but they still have a view of the world that supports their belief, otherwise, they wouldn't hold it.

He compares this to his belief that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. He learned that, but he couldn't prove it. He would barely know how to start the experiments to separate the two parts and then he wouldn't be sure what to do with them to prove the ratio. Believing H2O is a valid representation of the thing we drink is based on centuries of experiments and mountains of evidence that most of us don't bother attempting to fully comprehend.

Instead, we look at the world that is that resulted from that knowledge. The people who do understand it have done other things with hydrogen and oxygen. The knowledge of H2O is related to all the other knowledge of the periodic table. If someone said H2O is wrong, they would have to explain all of those other things as well and explain how we arrived at that wrong conclusion, but managed to invent SCUBA gear or hydrogen batteries.

I've had a few conversations about belief lately. Total wastes of time as it turned out. So, I'm going to take the stand that H2O is wrong, because you can't prove it. Go ahead, prove it.

Do you have a link to this online?

I'm can't interpret Sam's nor your position nor to what the reference about water is precisely (it seems to broad to interpret this). Can you explain? What is your own definition of "belief" and how it contrasts with the one you interpret Sam Harris making?

[Gord]

Do you have a link to this online?

It's available as an audiobook: http://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/end-of-faith/50347

[Scott Mayers]

Do you have a link to this online?

It's available as an audiobook: http://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/end-of-faith/50347

Thanks.

Edit: I see that it is actually not 'free' but intended as a promotion for "audiobooks.com" to entice you to sign up. I'll check the expected 'agreement' associated with these. But if it is expecting me to provide some promise to buy into it UNLESS I opt out after some trial, I may not bite. It's also not 'free' when they may be just using it to collect emails and other data for alternate uses.

[Gord]

Yeah, I never get those things because of all that nonsense.

Maybe your local library has one you can borrow though.

[Scott Mayers]

Yeah, I never get those things because of all that nonsense.

Maybe your local library has one you can borrow though.

I thought the OP was saying this was a NEW book by Sam himself giving it away. Does anyone know what precisely his definition of "belief" is? I've read some of his works and agree to his style and attack similar to my own. (external to his concern about tackling Islam and to look away from Israel instead)

[Lausten]

Got to samharris.org and search for "end of faith sessions" in his podcast. The book was published in 2004. He has done 3 chapters on the podcast so far.

[Lausten]

As for what I believe, I believe that the beliefs are not something you can just choose. The H20 comes right after a discussion about Pascal's wager. That bad piece of pseudo-philosophy assumes you can weigh two options and decide to believe in a specific God. It doesn't work that way. You believe things because you have built up evidence over your lifetime. Whether or not the evidence is good is beside the point. Most things I believe are probably due more to the people I've known than they are to actual scientific fact. But I do try to verify things with some level of learning, but even then, I'm going to go to PBS for that education before I go to Fox News, and I do that based on past experience, which could be flawed. So, I believe all beliefs are provisional, which makes it hard for some people to believe me.

End Chapter 2 podcast, he spends an hour talking about Trump,then gets to the book chapter. He gets into the belief analogies about an hour later, but there's good stuff on it throughout. Sorry, I don't have the bookmark on the specific H20 story right now.

[Scott Mayers]

As for what I believe, I believe that the beliefs are not something you can just choose. The H20 comes right after a discussion about Pascal's wager. That bad piece of pseudo-philosophy assumes you can weigh two options and decide to believe in a specific God. It doesn't work that way. You believe things because you have built up evidence over your lifetime. Whether or not the evidence is good is beside the point. Most things I believe are probably due more to the people I've known than they are to actual scientific fact. But I do try to verify things with some level of learning, but even then, I'm going to go to PBS for that education before I go to Fox News, and I do that based on past experience, which could be flawed. So, I believe all beliefs are provisional, which makes it hard for some people to believe me.

End Chapter 2 podcast, he spends an hour talking about Trump,then gets to the book chapter. He gets into the belief analogies about an hour later, but there's good stuff on it throughout. Sorry, I don't have the bookmark on the specific H20 story right now.

Thanks for the link.

I agree with you. But I'm not sure how or why many do not notice how "belief" and "faith" are things certainly derivable from CERTAIN knowledge that an individual witnesses and interprets themselves. In other words, all that you "know" defaults being believed and you act in "faith" on that knowledge. But the converse (reversed implication) is NOT true (but may happen to be). That is, if you "believe" in X, this doesn't assure you "know" it but if you "know" X it definitely assures you "believe" in it.

I also agree that people still 'believe' in something AT LEAST based on something 'known' as you appear to be asserting and so to those who appear unusual in thought, as many may accuse some religious rationale, that there is a sincere justification for that belief. They are just not always at hand, like "intuition" based upon prior experiences lost in memory (due to hard wiring), like not remembering how initially struggled to learn how to walk.

[Scott Mayers]

Okay, I only got through about half of the first podcast and what I already understood of his stance is something I can't agree with.

He is assuming that Islam's extremism is uniquely Islamic and that we should not 'tolerate' it based on their ideology.

I DON'T think that Islam is 'unique' about its extremism other than contemporary accident in our times. Economics, contrary to his own thinking, IS the cause of extremism in ALL forms of religion. And so he is indirectly attempting to justify both a unique political disgust for such Islamic abuses in direct prejudice BUT to excuse (without quite coming out with it), a get-out-of-jail card FOR others who are deemed to behave apparently similar by some of us, namely, the unnamed, Israeli supports.

In other words, it seems that though he agrees with atheism more strictly, but that the moderate religions of the liberal side of politics who see Israel or America as equally being 'terrorist', that we should treat the Islamic side as the only 'terrorist' due to its extremist interpretation that he believes CAUSES the terrorism WITHOUT an economic foundational cause. He thinks that we should uniquely ignore comparing their extremism as resulting in anything BUT some intrinsic nature of Islam that makes it alright to offend them with extreme prejudice.

I'm not sure how it fits with this OP title though. ? Regardless of interpretation, I think he's rationalizing his own atheism that normally lacks any specific favor for one religion or another to support going against Muslim's in general as having a uniquely 'terroristic' nature unrivaled by other groups that many of us atheists (and moderate religions) see as logically indistinguishable from those attacking the Islamic causes in the Middle East. In other words, he is supporting a directed unique hatred of the Middle East's Muslims versus many of us who question the American/Israeli violations against them in kind.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

I DON'T think that Islam is 'unique' about its extremism other than contemporary accident in our times.

Kinda a VERY STUPID thing to think, much less post......in such an extreme way that even you should see it??? Or will as usual EGO conquer all?

The very characteristic that makes an issue unique is: "other than...........((whatever))."

Simple basics.

[Lausten]

I DON'T think that Islam is 'unique' about its extremism other than contemporary accident in our times.

Kinda a VERY STUPID thing to think, much less post......in such an extreme way that even you should see it??? Or will as usual EGO conquer all?

The very characteristic that makes an issue unique is: "other than...........((whatever))."

Simple basics.

So, it's just an accident that thousands of people believe they are going to either save or take over the world by declaring a Caliphate in a certain city that just happens to have scriptural references to it?

[Lausten]

Oka

I'm not sure how it fits with this OP title though. ?

IT DOESN"T!!! I sent you to the book to look for the part where he talks about the H2O analogy. You brought this other stuff he talks about to this conversation.

[Scott Mayers]

Oka

I'm not sure how it fits with this OP title though. ?

IT DOESN"T!!! I sent you to the book to look for the part where he talks about the H2O analogy. You brought this other stuff he talks about to this conversation.

I was trying to listen from the first part and each is 2hrs long. So when I realized that book was about defending what I noted, I raised it.

So basically you are saying that you believe that 'belief' with respect to the analogy of believing that water exists is of the same kind as what one defaults to trust over many years in 'practice', not simply a heads-or-tails vote to favor religion based on potential risks of being wrong, correct?

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

I DON'T think that Islam is 'unique' about its extremism other than contemporary accident in our times.

Kinda a VERY STUPID thing to think, much less post......in such an extreme way that even you should see it??? Or will as usual EGO conquer all?

The very characteristic that makes an issue unique is: "other than...........((whatever))."

Simple basics.

So, it's just an accident that thousands of people believe they are going to either save or take over the world by declaring a Caliphate in a certain city that just happens to have scriptural references to it?

What makes Islam unique is it is the only major world religion that advocates theocracy according to its faith.

Nothing to do with accidents, other than the head injury you suffer from.

[Scott Mayers]

I DON'T think that Islam is 'unique' about its extremism other than contemporary accident in our times.

Kinda a VERY STUPID thing to think, much less post......in such an extreme way that even you should see it??? Or will as usual EGO conquer all?

The very characteristic that makes an issue unique is: "other than...........((whatever))."

Simple basics.

So, it's just an accident that thousands of people believe they are going to either save or take over the world by declaring a Caliphate in a certain city that just happens to have scriptural references to it?

What makes Islam unique is it is the only major world religion that advocates theocracy according to its faith.

Nothing to do with accidents, other than the head injury you suffer from.

It's a problem of religion in general but is enhanced where the extremes of poverty and wealth exist OF those extremes. Muslim extremists would NOT exist if is wasn't for Jewish extremists (Israel).

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

No......its NOT a problem of religion in general. Poor Catholics don't terrorize society in order to establish Islam as the basis for all laws while outlawing other religions. Islam UNIQUELY does this in rich and poor societies...with lots of variety. The subject of this sidebar discussion is UNIQUENESS. Try to stay on subject.

[Scott Mayers]

No......its NOT a problem of religion in general. Poor Catholics don't terrorize society in order to establish Islam as the basis for all laws while outlawing other religions. Islam UNIQUELY does this in rich and poor societies...with lots of variety. The subject of this sidebar discussion is UNIQUENESS. Try to stay on subject.

That's funny...and naive. New York's crime syndicates, for example, involve these to one degree or another. At the present time, the Middle East's problems are this era's focus for most of the world based on both Islam and Judaism ....as extremes! [These do not even represent the averages among these two general religious groups either. They are just the ones causing the problems.] The extreme favored and wealthy Jews of Israel are dominating the economic landscape there for their own internal intolerance of non-Jews based on their specific Nationalistic Jewish favored system that took over Palestine and controls much of the Middle East trades.

The same goes for the extremes of wealth of the Arabian Royalties among various different religions and people they don't favor in a similar way as Israel. The divisions in the religions are creating an extreme difference in power to which only the ones on the bottom get treated as "terrorists" when all sides involved are but the fault comes from those in the wealthier Nationalism.

[Lausten]

Oka

I'm not sure how it fits with this OP title though. ?

IT DOESN"T!!! I sent you to the book to look for the part where he talks about the H2O analogy. You brought this other stuff he talks about to this conversation.

I was trying to listen from the first part and each is 2hrs long. So when I realized that book was about defending what I noted, I raised it.

So basically you are saying that you believe that 'belief' with respect to the analogy of believing that water exists is of the same kind as what one defaults to trust over many years in 'practice', not simply a heads-or-tails vote to favor religion based on potential risks of being wrong, correct?

That's probably as close as you're going to get to rewording what I said, yes.

I'm not going to pursue the Islamic stuff with you because there is just too much to unravel there.