The Religious Faith Problem?

The Religious Faith Problem? “Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.” Ref We Do Not Really so much have a religious faith problem, as we have a scientific reality problem. If one would accept scientific realism over religious faith’s (fideism) antirealism/idealism world views, there would be no more religious faith problem. Fideism (faith-ism) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths. Debates about scientific realism are centrally connected to almost everything else in the philosophy of science, for they concern the very nature of scientific knowledge. Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences. This epistemic attitude has important metaphysical and semantic dimensions, and these various commitments are contested by a number of rival epistemologies of science, known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism. Epistemologically, realism is committed to the idea that theoretical claims (interpreted literally as describing a mind-independent reality) constitute knowledge of the world. This contrasts with scientific skeptic positions which, even if they grant the metaphysical and semantic dimensions of realism, doubt that scientific investigation is epistemologically powerful enough to yield such knowledge, or, as in the case of some antirealist positions, insist that it is only powerful enough to yield knowledge regarding observables. The epistemological dimension...

What’s Wrong Believer?

What’s Wrong Believer? When I see, a believer complaining, I think, “What is wrong? Did prayer not work?” or “I thought everything happens for a reason?” The most fundamental believers seem to almost completely rely on pseudo-intuition for everything good feeling god is guiding you give him the glory but are sometimes practical in realizing things are going wrong but instead of blaming god or their reliance on pseudo-intuition think it’s just life being unfair or hard. Moreover, even though fundamental believers sometimes are practical in realizing things are going wrong they do not connect that some of the things going wrong are directly because of them relying on pseudo-intuition. Intuition will work at times but it will also mislead you or may partially deviate from facts or reason, or even wholly pervert accusation of facts in giving deliverance to exaggerations or extravagances, impossibilities, or delusions. Consequently, at the very time when you suppose that you are being infallibly guided by intuition, you may in fact be strongly guided by pseudo-intuition which is something quite different. You may believe that you are honoring higher guidance when in actuality you are dishonoring facts or reason and choosing deceptions and unreason. Prayer: “a Useless Action Some Wrongly Think is Useful” Well, prayer often is used as a self-serving tool. In fact, many times, I have had prayer used against me as a threat and the ones who are threat or force praying against me believe by doing it supports their position in superiority and truth. Why would a religionist/fideist threat or force pray for as an atheist? Force pray or force...

Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis? As Always, Just Pseudoscience.

I was asked if I had heard of the “Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis”? The aquatic apes theory/hypothesis (AAH) to me is more like the stuff of unsupported myth like: humans come from or were created by aliens, intelligent design, creationism, and not proven evolution. Standard evolutionary models suggest and supporting evidence shows the different features that make humans different appeared at separate times and for many different reasons. The AAH argues they all occurred because our ancestors decided to live in or near water. There are several problems with this bad idea… Here Are objections to the ridiculous hypothesis listed on RationalWiki The first is that convergent evolution predicts adaptations serving similar function, not necessarily similar structure. A platypus bill looks like a duck bill because it solves the precise same problem (sucking bugs out of mud); but the wings of a bat, a bird, and a bumblebee are products of convergent evolution in solving the problem of flight, but are structurally very different. Morgan’s convergent evolution adaptations focus on structure. The second problem is that evidence provided for the AAH is equally well accounted for by savannah-based adaptations without needing to posit an aquatic phase of human development. Loss of body hair: lower parasite load (early hominids appear to have been disgusting skanks) and maintenance through sexual selection. Furthermore, many aquatic mammals have actually kept their body hair. Several other savannah species have also lost much of their hair including elephants, rhinoceroses, and naked mole rats. Although it is interesting to note that both elephants and rhinoceroses are theorised to have evolved from aquatic ancestors so they may not...

Extreme Religious Faith & Induced/Shared Delusional Disorder

Extreme Religious Faith & Induced/Shared Delusional Disorder “Induced/Shared Delusional Disorder is rarely seen (except for fanatical religious or political cults where it is extremely common) and these delusions are shared by two or more people with close emotional links. The delusions in the nondominant person(s) usually disappear when the people are separated. Whereas the delusions in the dominant, genuinely psychotic person persist (unless treated). Effective Therapies for Shared Delusional Disorder the delusional individuals must be separated. Usually the follower with “induced” delusions regains sanity once separated from the psychotic leader (e.g., cult leader or psychotic parent).” Ref Extreme faith has issues common with Induced Delusional Disorder or “faith brainwashed” thinking.  A true scientific thinker will be delighted at having found a new aspect of science, especially if it changes a scientific view, whereas a true religionist/fideist motivated by faith or Induced Delusional Disorder will deny it and try to explain it away. Why are religious delusions so prominent in patients with serious mental health diagnoses? Are there sociological or cultural-religious factors beyond the psychological explanations for the high prevalence of religious delusions? Likewise, to what extent are such delusional religionists/fideists expressing Induced delusional disorder. The term “induced delusional disorder” comes from the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems diagnostic tool maintained by the World Health Organization. I will from now on use the term induced delusional disorder as I this it more clearly describes how I am using it. The Induced Delusional Disorder involves a disorder where non-psychotic person or group develops delusions “brainwashed” after interacting with one or more psychotic delusional people and by people or groups...

Scientific Thinking not Faith Thinking

Scientific Thinking not Faith Thinking   Science, unlike faith, uses more Critically Open-Minded Reasoning (open assessment and reflective correctability) the effort to overcome all of those issues common with Induced Delusional Disorder or “faith brainwashed” thinking. With science, unlike faith thinking, all facts are welcomed, even if they contradict a treasured theory or model, which must then be rejected immediately. A true scientist will be delighted at having found a new aspect of science, especially if it changes a scientific view, whereas a true religionist/fideist motivated by faith or Induced Delusional Disorder will deny it and try to explain it away. Admittedly science is not a single category, approach or thinking, however nobody who is reasonable and informed can or should reject or deny the truths it produces. Religion too is not a single category, approach or thinking, however nobody who is reasonable and informed can accept its deluded or reality devoid beliefs as any kind of truths. The scientific method assumes a priori of methodological naturalism about the nature of reality that is devoid of considering supernatural causes, it is not agnostic about this. The scientific method is using a form of philosophical rationalism to establish this view about the nature of reality along with the commonly held philosophy of empiricism, because looking for proof or truth devoid of considering supernatural causes by using a priori assumptions is employing rationalism. Rationalism By Luke Mastin at philosophybasics.com “Rationalism is a philosophical movement which gathered momentum during the Age of Reason of the 17th Century. It is usually associated with the introduction of mathematical methods into philosophy during this period by...