RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 3:48pm

Link

Edit

Why don't they have the balls to ask: "Do you know if God exists?"

Post 1

Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 6:47pm

Link

Edit

Ted-
I'm a hardcore atheist and wouldn't know how to answer yours since it's a more confusing question. It is actually unclear whether it is asking 'do you believe beyond any doubt that god exists?' or 'do you think the question of whether god exists is knowable?' or possibly other variants.

Post 2

Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 9:12pm

Link

Edit

But - to exist is to be knowable [it is in the nature of existing, a part of identity]- ye might not be able to so know at the moment, but it is nonetheless know- able......

If it is not knowable - then it simply does not exist....... no matter how much it may be believed....

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/13, 9:14pm)

Post 3

Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 9:16pm

Link

Edit

Aaron, well I'm not quite sure what you mean by "hardcore" since I figure the matter is either/or, not a matter of degrees. The problem that I have is that people treat what is such an important matter as if having a mere belief, a mere supposition, is an acceptable state of affairs. If I asked you, do you "believe" that your spouse is still alive, or was just murdered, would you just sit around mumbling? What's wrong with these people?

Ted

Post 4

Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 10:22pm

Link

Edit

What do you mean by "god"?

Post 5

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:21pm

Link

Edit

It seems to me, Ted, that nobody cares if the questions one asks are good questions. That�s why I have a very low tolerance for public opinion polls. First of all, who gives a damn what the public thinks. Second, the questions are always preceded by an incorrect premise, like �Do you feel that President Bush is doing a good job with the economy?�. Here�s how that question should be stated: Do you feel that the president should be actively involved in manipulating the economy?

Polls are the collectivist way of making sure people are on board. If opinion changes its time to switch boats, right?

P.S. � Mike, what are you talking about? �What do you mean by �god�?� What could anyone possibly be talking about other than a deity?

Post 6

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:42pm

Link

Edit

Then rephrase it - what is a deity?

Post 7

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:01pm

Link

Edit

Steve - I have had a fun time taking polls and answering very literally the specific questions asked. Mike's question, which you and I might find silly in the context of reasonable people trying to conduct arguments with some minimum number of common assumptions, is actually the first thing I would have asked the pollster myself. By assuming that nonsense makes sense, you are giving the irrational the benefit of the doubt. Popular discourse in this country remains absurd for a large part because we all too often allow nonsense to go unchallenged. Perhaps Rand's most important lesson was that no matter how confused the culture is, you can never afford not to know exactly what you mean about your own words and thoughts.

Ted

Post 8

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:51pm

Link

Edit

I will agree with you that words and what those words mean is important in any discussion, however, I still don�t find the connection between that and the question �What do you mean by �god�?� in a polling interview. When someone asks, �do you believe in God?� there is no reason to assume that they are asking you anything other than �do you believe in God?�. As an atheist the subtleties of anyone�s definition of God is insignificant to me. It does not matter what God they believe in or how they have chosen to define the word �god�.

If we can�t assume that we are all talking about the same �god� then what else are we to ask further on? Maybe the real question to ask the pollster is, �can you send me the questions you are going to ask so I may be sure that I understand all the words contained?�.

Post 9

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 8:04am

Link

Edit

Steve: Polls are the collectivist way of making sure people are on board. If opinion changes its time to switch boats, right?

Well, yes, not surprisingly, the Nazi government of Germany agonized over polling. We are told that this was a "dictatorship" with one man giving orders, but, in true Hegelian Idealism, he was only the Expression of the Popular Will, so it was important to know what that was. Also, they needed to guage the success of all those lies. So, there was that.

I agree with what I identify as your proto-anarchist assumption that the opinions of other people are irrelevant. But, then, again, even you and I have chosen to live in society and it can be helpful to know what "most" people think. Even the questions -- which you question -- are themselves validated by statistical processes for clarity and context.

It could be possible to pay a lot of money to form an opinion -- called "push polling" -- by asking the kinds of questions you (and I) might prefer. Do you think the President should interfere in your household decision on what to buy for dinner? Do you think that Congress has the right to take food off your table? Do you grant the Department of Education the right to enslave your children? Do you think that the New York Times tells more lies than the Washington Post? In fact, dollar for dollar, this would be more effective in changing a culture than has been the selling of books to people who already agree with the content before they read them.

Post 10

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 9:02am

Link

Edit

Steve: It does not matter what God they believe in or how they have chosen to define the word �god�.

You accept an ad hoc poll of your own based on what you think that most people believe. By asking, "What do you mean by 'god'?" you force them to say what they mean, rather than sliding by with ad hoc meta-polls.

As for "god" I am not sure what it could or could not be. Have you ever ridden a pachyderm? You might not think you have, but in truth, the term "pachyderm" is obsolete as an order because it could include hippopotamuses and horses as well as rhinoceroses and elephants. Now: Have you ever ridden a pachyderm?

Is a "god" necessarily immortal? Baldur died and did not win rebirth. Jesus died (apparently; Moslems say that he appeared dead and the men only took him for dead) but he came back. Nonethless, it is critical to Christian theology that his death be understood and accepted as real. Gods die.

How much more "powerful" than a "normal" person is a "god" -- and by what measure?

According to Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I could not now find the reference, but I read a contradiction of that saying that any advanced technology looks like advanced technology. In other words, even a "primitive" human is such a tool-maker that even complicated tools can be perceived as tools, even if not understood. Think of making fire with a bow drill.

In Geneology of Morals, Nietzsche delves into the etymologies to show that "good" and "god" and "Goth" are three expressions of the same thing: us.

So, when someone asks, "Do you believe in God?" you can accept the context and say, "No." It's easy enough. Here on RoR, however, nothing is easy.

-----
Maybe we should take this over to one of those "Leibnitz" discussions, but, Steve, let me ask you: Is there not, of necessity, a most highly ordered or most complex or widest integrated or oldest continuing entity. And if several such could be for all purposes from our view, then, not "a" most but "many penultimate"? In other words, there does not need to be the popular version of God out there for there to be "gods."

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/16, 1:57pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 9:38pm

Link

Edit

‘Have I not said, ye are gods?’

Post 12

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 9:51pm

Link

Edit

"By asking, "What do you mean by 'god'?" you force them to say what they mean" -MEM

And having to say - and think out - what you mean, Steve, is the only way to defeat the irrational. By God do you mean someone who can create a stone he cannot lift? (Omnipotent) Do you mean someone who, if he commanded you to commit murder, would not be commanding you to commit a sin? (Transcendent? Omnibenevolent?) Do you mean something that existed before existence? Do you mean someone who needs nothing, but gets upset when mortals don't bow and scrape before him? Do you mean an impersonal dispassionate first cause? If so, why not make an analogy between that first cause and the "laws" of physics, rather than between that first cause and...Zeus?

Making people say what they mean is not just half the battle, it is victory.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/16, 9:52pm)