Essay talk:How to Overcome Spherical Earthism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Brilliant. Just Absolutely Brilliant, Tolerance. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You. I am still Thinking about it Though. I'm also Wondering if it should be Moved to Essay Space.--Tolerance (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Either space is fine. Awesome essay, very funny!--ADtalkModerator 08:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


Ha ha, very funny. The difference between the spherical-earthism/flat-earthism issue, and the God/no-God issue, is we have actual positive evidence for one over the other. In the case of God-exists-vs-God-doesn't-exist, we have no actual positive evidence for one side over the other, just an absence of evidence for both sides. An absence of strong evidence creates a space in which faith can operate, the presence of strong evidence precludes the operation of faith. You say Consider questions like — Is the Earth flat? Is there an afterlife? Is ethics objective? We lack any strong evidence for or against these propositions, so that absence of evidence creates space for faith. Do we lack any strong evidence for or against Is there an afterlife?, I would say we do. Do we lack any strong evidence for or against Is ethics objective?, I would say we do. Do we lack any strong evidence for or against Is the Earth flat?, I would say we don't - we have very good reasons to believe that the Earth is not flat. Do we have good reasons (besides faith) to believe there is or is not an afterlife, or that ethics is or is not objective? I would say no. Maybe you would disagree with me, in which case please state your disagreement. But, in any case, if you disagree with me, that is somewhat besides the point, since that is a question of the application of my principle of faith, rather than a question of the validity of that principle itself. (((Zack Martin))) 21:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chrissakes, Maratrean, read God of the gaps instead of spewing your pseudophilosophy every fucking where. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have read God of the gaps, but its not the same thing. Firstly, "God of the Gaps" is about suppose God as an explanation for things science can't currently explain; but I don't put forward God as an explanation, as an explanation for anything. I am happy for the scientists to have explanation all to themselves; while the concept has some use in science, I don't think it is useful in metaphysics or theology, and so I don't advocate using it in those ares.
Secondly, you suppose that for every possible claim, science will eventually have the power to determine whether it is true or false. But, that isn't true. Consider the claim that there is afterlife - it is unfalsifiable. No amount of science will ever be able to disprove it. So this is very different from "God of the Gaps", where we are trying to build religion on the likely temporary limitations of science. I build religion on science's permanent limitations.
Also, unfalsifiability, while for science it is a vice, I believe that for faith it is a virtue. The things we believe by faith ought to be unfalsifiable (or close thereto); falsifiable beliefs are not proper objects of faith.
Although, I think some beliefs that are scientifically unfalsifiable may be falsifiable in other ways. I believe that in the end all our souls merge together as one, and then we merge into Maratrea. So, we will all become Maratrea, who I believe is omniscient. As Maratrea, we will know certain things to be false. Hence, certain claims can be falsified by the process of the union of all souls with Maratrea. (((Zack Martin))) 08:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, for claims about reality, the scientific process can theoretically lead to an answer. I also agree that for claims unrelated to reality (eg., most god concepts) science can never provide an answer. You have neatly defined your god out of reality, and your faith out of the ability to reveal truth except by accident. I do notice that you have left an escape exit for your claims, but how are claims only amenable to 'non-scientific' forms of falsifiability? What does this even mean? Tielec01 (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) "we have no actual positive evidence for one side over the other, just an absence of evidence for both sides." It's more like "our side" is solely that there is no evidence for your side. And there are infinity things which have no evidence for or against them, The Flying Spaghetti monster being one of the famous examples. The reason you have for your religion of course is that it's a very comforting lie, so if you can convince yourself that there's no real reason against believing it you get to wallow in your wonderful warm world of fantasy and delusion. Hey, if I could I'd also like to believe Hogwarth's is real, that place looked swell! But do yourself a favor and don't try to rationalize your habit, the only one you're convincing is yourself. GTac (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean, I find myself Disturbed by the somewhat Hostile tone of your reply. Please note that I am also a Theist and like you I have also founded my own religion, Tolerism, of which I am the only member. So we have much in Common.

I also Agree that emotional belief comes before evidence. I seem to Recall that you once Pointed Out that that there is potentially an infinity of evidence in the World. I agree. Given that, all that we have to do is decide on something in which we want to Believe and then select from this infinity of evidence to support our Pre-selected position.

I am frankly Disappointed in your rejection of flat earthism, your objections smack of Scientism to me. I cannot see why you are unable to open your soul to the idea of flat earthism. After the Evidence will Follow.

It is by using the above reasoning that I support my beliefs in God, flat earthism and ear candling. Once again I beg your to Adjure Scientism and open your mind.--Tolerance (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to Recall that you once Pointed Out that that there is potentially an infinity of evidence in the World - yes and no. I did say something like that in a previous discussion, but note the word potential, not actual - I am talking about evidence we might have, not evidence we actually will have, and the amount of actual evidence will be far less than the amount of potential evidence. (Technically speaking, I don't actually believe the possible evidence is infinite, rather vast yet still finite, but let's gloss over that.)
all that we have to do is decide on something in which we want to Believe and then select from this infinity of evidence to support our Pre-selected position - but we can't select from potential evidence (which is what I was talking about), only actual evidence. Now, I do think faith is a form of actual evidence. But faith is not a license to believe absolutely anything.
To justify flat earthism by faith, as I understand faith, you'd have to believe that belief in flat earthism was objectively ethically beneficial, that it fulfilled some ethical duty. Until you try to make such an ethical argument, I am not convinced that your attempted use of faith is actually valid.
As to scientism, I understand it differently from you. I am not sure how you actually propose the term to be understood. But I see it as attempting to use the scientific method to answer questions that science by its nature simply can't answer. "Is there an afterlife?", "Does God exist?", are not in general questions science can answer, so it is scientism to assume that science can answer them. But, "What shape is the earth?" - that is a legitimate question for science to answer, hence it is not scientism to use science to answer it.
And, this is the other problem with your flat-earthist faith - it contradicts legitimate scientific evidence. (((Zack Martin))) 10:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
But your whole point is - and I agree with it - that belief comes First and then we look for evidence. I don't understand why you are Retreating into scientism now. I beg you to Open you Mind.--Tolerance (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
But our search for evidence is not totally unbounded — neither is it totally constrained — but is a freedom exercised within certain bounds. What is the definition of scientism which you are using? By my definition, you are using it incorrectly, but maybe you are using it with a different definition than I am. (((Zack Martin))) 10:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Mu definition of Scientism include the Idea that only evidence can be used to approach reality. By quoting so called "scientific evidence" to support your dubious claim the earth is not flat you are guilty of the very Scientism of which you accuse others. You (like the rest of this wiki) really need to Move Beyond the Confines of this restrictive mindset.--Tolerance (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough then, but that is not how I use the term, or how the term is commonly understood — it is about scientific evidence specifically, rather than evidence in general. Maybe what you are complaining about would be better called evidentialism, which is much broader than scientism (scientism insists on only scientific evidence; evidentialism insists on evidence, scientific or not). (((Zack Martin))) 00:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

An oblatist speaks[edit]

writes actually, or types to be truthful, anyhow .... You sir have fallen for the trap of the spherists where you believe if not a sphere then must be flat. A false dichotomy. It is true that in the early years God could not seem to decide if the world was flat with four corners or a ball, and being God if it was a ball, a perfect ball it would be, no shoddy work here. With the Fall of course the world became an imperfect place and hence an Oblate Speroid was born. This has distinct religious overtones, and thats fine cause I dont have to explain anything , but I realize to a goup of scientism_ists it might be difficult to follow. Hamster (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You have fallen into the trap of "moderate spherical earthism" by supposing an oblate spheroid. These beliefs give shelter to the more dangerous ideas of literal spherical earthism. Your reasons for believing the earth is not a hyperbolic triangle are not rational. --√2 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
All of these Beliefs are equally Valid. Remember that Belief comes first and we only later need to look for evidence. Who is to say that oblatism is incorrect? Do not be deceived by the Trap of Scientism.--Tolerance (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to essay space[edit]

Could some Kind Person move this to Essay Space? Thanks.--Tolerance (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What to do with those pesky Unfalsifiable Claims?[edit]

The glaring problem with Maratreanism's brand of faith is its disregard for the arbitrary nature of unfalsifiable beliefs. I can construct an unfalsifiable belief that contradicts any tenet of Marateanism's beliefs, and there is nothing he could say to rebut me. For example, I could hypothetically believe with certainty God(s) don't exist, that a deistic God exists that doesn't know we exist or doesn't care, that the Christian God exists but he is actually an evil liar who sends good people to Hell and bad people to heaven, ect, ect, ect. The only possible response in his writings to this I can see is an appeal to ethics. We should believe those unfalsifiable claims that bring comfort or keeps society in line. This appeal commits the is-ought fallacy, that is, what we ought to do (ethics) is completely unrelated to what is true (epistemology). Reasonable (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, you can believe whatever you want, I can't make you believe anything. However, I think that realistically, as a human being, there are some beliefs it is actually possible to seriously hold, and some there is no evidence people can. For example, you may think belief in God is great, or you may think it is the dumbest thing ever—but there is no denying that "God" is a belief reasonably sane human beings are capable of seriously believing—maybe you personally can't, but many humans can. Other unfalsifiable claims, e.g. Last Thursdayism, don't fall into the category of beliefs people can seriously hold—as evidence of that, I will submit the undisputed fact that there is no evidence of any reasonable sane person ever actually seriously believing Last Thursdayism. Whether a belief is believable in practice depends a lot on "ethical" concerns — many people seriously believe in a God who loves us, even if they can't always explain that love considering what God apparently permits; very few or no people seriously believe in a sadistic God who hates all humanity, and takes pleasure in their suffering, and who is looking forward to torturing every last one of them eternally in hell.
You bring up the is-ought fallacy, but I don't agree it is a fallacy, at least in the way you present it. Rather than seeing ethics and epistemology as completed unrelated, I see ethics as something that can be true, and as a subject of knowledge. To me, it sounds like the difference is, I believe that ethics is as objective as fact; you it appears don't. You may disagree with me on this, but can you prove me wrong?
Of course, some people choose different unfalsifiable beliefs from me, and seriously believe them. If they accept my ideas about ethics as justifying our beliefs (i.e. faith), then we can have an ethical discussion about what we should believe. The thing about ethical discussions, is they have factual and rational aspects, but they also have social and emotional and experiential aspects. For example, take someone with strong moral objections to homosexuality — sometimes, no amount of reason or fact will change their ethical view, but when their son or daughter comes out as gay, that does. (((Zack Martin))) 09:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

nice conzpiracy thery Troll[edit]

Troll So so sorry to break the news to you, but FLAT EARTH beliefs are FALSE. Read Flat Earth for more refutation. --UglyRat (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

--UglyRat (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)