|
Post by william on Apr 4, 2005 15:54:24 GMT -5
have you all heard that the renound Atheist Antony Flew has changed sides? no he still rejects devine revalation, but has aparrently had the courage to admit that the inteligent design argument has validity. Atleast thats the rumor. I have yet to investigate. imagine, after years of beingone of atheisms most stanch debators! it surly would take a most "rational" "free thinker" to look at the evidence and admit that after all these years, he was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 4, 2005 17:03:55 GMT -5
From the interviews I've read, some things were blown out of proportion and it's still not completely certain exactly what Flew is purporting to believe. Some reported he converted to Christianity, which he said he didn't. Others claim he has become a deist, some a pantheist. Lots of conflicting information.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 5, 2005 2:53:46 GMT -5
Yea I read that his supposed Christian conversion back in 2001 was only a rumor and he refuted it. but this time he is supposely given an interveiw in Philosofia Christi and said" it now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and powerful argument to design." from what Ive read this guy is not some flake that doesnt know his science. I sent for a copie of an interveiw he did about it but it still hasnt come.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 5, 2005 10:54:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 5, 2005 15:23:04 GMT -5
thanks! it figures my printer is about out of ink! I will have to read it all later, Im going to work soon. So why do you suppose he didnt have that cognative dissonance thing. After years of arguing against the existance of God. Can you see(even though you dont agree with him) that it would take great courage to admit publcly that his veiws have changed. I will read what his coleges have said, but I dont emagine its very kind.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 5, 2005 15:32:05 GMT -5
He did have dissonance, however the route he chose to reduce the dissonance was one most don't take. He chose to change his own views instead of rationalizing them away. I can explain more later after I get out of my methodology class.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 6, 2005 2:58:15 GMT -5
He did have dissonance, however the route he chose to reduce the dissonance was one most don't take. He chose to change his own views instead of rationalizing them away. I can explain more later after I get out of my methodology class. looking forward to it!
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 6, 2005 3:29:41 GMT -5
wow I just finnished reading the Flew interveiw, Its almost to good to be true, from my perspective. You know I love the part where he says the supreme court screwed up on the establishment clause!
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 6, 2005 3:39:22 GMT -5
Stenger says brontosors from bacteria, but wasnt Flews point, how did we get bacteria? I would love to hear those two debate.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 6, 2005 17:25:21 GMT -5
Sorry, I haven't forgotten about what I was going to post. Just a bit busy with data analysis for a research proposal, a paper about British women's suffrage, readings about Gestalt and Field theory and half a book to read about fascist Italy....whew. End of the semester always gets busy.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 7, 2005 3:56:38 GMT -5
Sorry, I haven't forgotten about what I was going to post. Just a bit busy with data analysis for a research proposal, a paper about British women's suffrage, readings about Gestalt and Field theory and half a book to read about fascist Italy....whew. End of the semester always gets busy. thats alright, Ill be around when you find time. School is deffinatly the priority. I wish I could go to collage, eh , they would expect me to learn how to spell. Ill just keep reading on my own.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 8, 2005 23:04:37 GMT -5
Cognitive Dissonance Theoryen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceCognitive dissonance will happen when someone also may have a behavior that runs contrary to their beliefs as well. When dissonance arises, there must be some action to reduce it. Aronson et al. lists three basic ways this is done: These action are seen at work when people, for instance, justify smoking even though they know it's bad for you or those who justify eating fattening foods when they know they shouldn't. People also will often avoid arguments in which a contrary argument is presented that may be more sensible. Such things as cheating on a test will involve justification of the behavior even though we know it is prohibited to do so. There is also justification of effort: All this has been shown in many experiments which Pinker sums up: In some cases people can even come to believe their own lies as shown through Daryl Bem's self perception theory. Bem's theory didn't displace dissonance theory but simply expanded one part that people's attitudes are sometimes inferred from their behavior. Another example of dissonance theory in action is told by Vyse: Cash points to some common distortions: False uniqueness would stem from our need to be individuals, our uniqueness. Self-handicapping can be seen in someone who studies a lot for a test but does badly. They will often attribute it to the test being hard or unfair instead of any thought that might put their intellegence in a bad light. Shermer notes his findings of aspects of dissonance theory at work in an experiment in which participants were asked why they believed in God. He found that people are nine times more likely to attribute their belief in God to intellectual reasons than they are other people's belief in God. The others belief were interpreted as having them for emtional reasons. Shermer goes on to discuss the role of confirmation bias incoporated in the system: So I hope you can see how some of the mechanisms of dissonance theory would be at work and probably observable on messageboards like these and in everyday life. References1) Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 2) Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate. New York: Viking. 3) Weiten, W. (2001). Psychology: Themes & Variations. (5th ed.). Stamford: Thomson Learning. 4) Vyse, S. (1997). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. New York: Oxford U.P. 5) Cash, A. (2002). Psychology for Dummies New York: Hungry Minds. 6) Shermer, M. (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 12, 2005 3:57:24 GMT -5
So basicly what your saying is, if someone doesnt want to believe in God, then they will ignore the evidence of his existence while exagerating the claims of materialism, in order to protect their desired disbelief. ;D so have any studies been done on what sort of things will alter their belief?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Apr 12, 2005 9:27:42 GMT -5
So basicly what your saying is, if someone doesnt want to believe in God, then they will ignore the evidence of his existence while exagerating the claims of materialism, in order to protect their desired disbelief. ;D Yes, it can work that way too. It seems to be too complex and varied that I don't think there are any concrete things. There's too many variables to account for to make a prediction.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 13, 2005 14:54:02 GMT -5
Yes, it can work that work that way to. I really like the fact that you have such intelectual integrity. I was thinking about those studies and it really opens a pandoras box. If we are prone to believe what we want inspight of the evidence then all of Science is in jepordy of being screwwed by our preconceived notions. Even the studies that establish cognative dissonance cant really be trusted.
|
|