Hacker irked by reincarnation • Hacker News Board

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#21

Post by Smudge » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 8:11 AM UTC

simonh wrote: post #16

dhechols wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent…

I was thinking "Do people really attack you for being religious in that way? Surely not." And yet here we have someone doing just that. How sad. Human beings believe things without a shred of credible evidence all the time. In fact, taking things on faith is a valuable, even vital intellectual short-cut that allows us to get on with doing stuff without having to work out every detail of our lives from first principle…

Being civil about these issues is important. (dhechols could have been more civil.) But one of the problems with belief systems is that people often do "expect special rights and privileges."

In my opinion, one of those widely regarded "special rights" is the right to make unfalsifiable claims without being challenged. Scepticism is widely viewed as an "attack" on the safety-zone we call "faith," when in reality it is simply what it is: someone pointing out logical flaws. It's not their fault if we take it personally because we believe our beliefs should be free from sceptics.

But, of course, it helps to not be an ass about it too.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#22

Post by olavk » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 8:12 AM UTC

The blogger claims that the research was ignored without any consideration, but comments points out that the research have been considered, but rejected as pseudoscience.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#23

Post by Smudge » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 8:17 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #10

dhechols wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent…

>I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent... Thousands of scientists throughout history have been conducting experiments while simultaneously holding a belief in God. To take an example from our own industry, how do you feel about Donald Knuth. Do…

Thousands of scientists throughout history have conducted research while simultaneously holding beliefs in any number of things. It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact, at least as long as they held to scientific principles of reasoning. But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe.

Furthermore, just because an assertion (e.g. "there is a God") cannot be proven (or disproven) does not mean it should be free from scrutiny. The claim that one has "no right to judge" a belief due to lack of evidence is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Lack of evidence is a perfectly valid reason to be skeptical.

There are two presuppositions you compare: "I think, therefore I am" and "There is a God." Both require at least a very fundamental assumption, but only one has any basis in what we might typically refer to as "evidence."

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#24

Post by ajuc » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 8:30 AM UTC

dhechols wrote: post #7

cup wrote: post #3

To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. Furthermore, more often than not, the loudest champions for science are the ones furthest away from the scientific field. I've never seen such hyperbole or purist/fundamentalist views about science ex…

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent…

Isn't it basically Argumentum ad personam?

If a known liar and drug addict tells you that he have this theory, and proceed to make rational arguments for it, ignoring him just because of his reputation isn't very scientific.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#25

Post by learc83 » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 8:44 AM UTC

Smudge wrote: post #23

learc83 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent... Thousands of scientists throughout history have been conducting experiments while simultaneously holding a belief in God. To take an example from our own industry, how do you feel about Donald Knuth. Do…

Thousands of scientists throughout history have conducted research while simultaneously holding beliefs in any number of things. It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact, at least as long as they held to scientific principles of reasoning. But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe. Fu…

>But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe.

I never said it did. Did you read post I was responding to? I was attacking the premise that one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God with the evidence that there have been many scientists who believed in God.

In fact your sentence here:

>It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact

is exactly my argument.

>Furthermore, just because an assertion (e.g. "there is a God") cannot be proven (or disproven) does not mean it should be free from scrutiny.

Never said it should be free from scrutiny. I have no problem with you criticizing my beliefs. What I do have a problem with is the OP asserting that my beliefs make me a poor scientist. And the very specific assumption that belief in God renders one unable to perform scientific inquiry. You seem to agree with me, as does the evidence.

>There are two presuppositions you compare: "I think, therefore I am" and "There is a God." Both require at least a very fundamental assumption, but only one has any basis in what we might typically refer to as "evidence."

Two options to explain the beginning of the universe and why it doesn't violate causality.

A. Causality came into existence with the beginning of the universe and so was never violated.

B. An eternal God exists separate from the universe he created

There is absolutely no physical way to prove either one. Which one is simpler or more likely is completely subjective.

You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#26

Post by bfrs » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 9:02 AM UTC

Reincarnation, telepathy, extra sensory perception etc. are pipe dreams for us, but ironically, for AIs that we build, they will be routine!

Current operating systems are like rudimentary souls, and any OS routinely uses these capabilities:

Rebooting Reincarnation

Networking Telepathy

USB devices Extrasensory perception

Andy Tannenbaum's MINIX-3 explicitly calls rebooting as reincarnation.

Future AIs will have Thompson & Ritchie to thank for making flexible reincarnation possible for them.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#27

Post by Smudge » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 9:11 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #25

Smudge wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thousands of scientists throughout history have conducted research while simultaneously holding beliefs in any number of things. It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact, at least as long as they held to scientific principles of reasoning. But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe. Fu…

>But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe. I never said it did. Did you read post I was responding to? I was attacking the premise that one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God with the evidence that there have been many scientists who believed in God. In fact your sentence here: >It would be fallacious to di…

Yes, apologies. I misunderstood your meaning. I also think we interpreted dhechols's post slightly differently. (I did not assume he was actually making the argument that "one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God" -- I thought he was just hinting at a cognitive dissonance between being a scientist and holding a faith, which is a slightly different line of discussion.)

Your other point:

> "You can't choose camp A with no supporting evidence, and then decide that you are more rational or superior to people in camp B because they lack evidence."

Whoever said I chose camp A? This line of reasoning excludes the possibility of an option C (or D, E, F, etc). Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are shifting the burden of proof and appealing to ignorance. ("There is no proof, therefore they are both equally subjective.")

How about, instead, "there is no proof, therefore we don't know or claim to know." Seems more rational than any of the other options, at least to me.

(Sure, nobody's 100% rational, so we could keep picking these arguments apart all night. I'm happy to agree on a simple "we don't know" for anything not empirically based on the evidence of the senses.)

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#28

Post by Smudge » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 9:21 AM UTC

ajuc wrote: post #24

dhechols wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent…

Isn't it basically Argumentum ad personam? If a known liar and drug addict tells you that he have this theory, and proceed to make rational arguments for it, ignoring him just because of his reputation isn't very scientific.

It's ad hominem if dhechols' point was that a scientist's work should be ignored if he/she also holds religious beliefs. That's not how I read it. I see no fallacy in simply pointing out a disparity between scientific reasoning and (unscientific) beliefs.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#29

Post by nodemaker » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 9:21 AM UTC

simonh wrote: post #19

nodemaker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I believe in re-incarnation, but nonetheless your argument is misleading. Lets say re-incarnation actually existed....what would its evidence possibly be then anyways?

What Ian Stevenson collected were anecdotes, not evidence. Evidence would be statistically significant instances of characteristics, not transmittable through any other mechanism , verified against a control group. He never even proposed a mechanism for transmission that someone might actually investigate, or even prove or disprove, let alone actually conduct anything resembling a real test or experiment himself.

Yes I agree with your first statement.But then IMO one doesn'nt need to propose a mechanism for a phenomena in order to prove that the phenomena exists. Just statistically significant positive results balanced against a control group is enough.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#30

Post by superk » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 10:08 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #25

Smudge wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thousands of scientists throughout history have conducted research while simultaneously holding beliefs in any number of things. It would be fallacious to discount their scientific work because of this fact, at least as long as they held to scientific principles of reasoning. But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe. Fu…

>But the fact that they were scientists does not lend credence to the additional, unfalsifiable claims they may have made about the universe. I never said it did. Did you read post I was responding to? I was attacking the premise that one can't be both a scientist and a believer in God with the evidence that there have been many scientists who believed in God. In fact your sentence here: >It would be fallacious to di…

A. Causality came into existence with the beginning of the universe and so was never violated.

B. An eternal God exists separate from the universe he created

I think the issue that most skeptics have with "B", is not that it is being presented as a possible explanation to the existence of the universe as you have written here, but that there are folks that say they know and talk to this dude, and he tells them we need to pay their organization money (or fill in whatever other ridiculous religious dogma you want here).