Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mystery:Why Do People Doubt?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Suggested answers?: reply)
(Blindness: reply)
Line 44: Line 44:
 
Aschlafly, people who regain their sight after a period of blindness do not "doubt" they can see again (as you stated above). Its because the brain, after losing sight, uses other methods to navigate the world (hearing being the big one) and when sight is regained people have relearn to navigate with sight again as the brains forgets how. Just to clarify. [[User:JonoP|JonoP]] 21:29, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 
Aschlafly, people who regain their sight after a period of blindness do not "doubt" they can see again (as you stated above). Its because the brain, after losing sight, uses other methods to navigate the world (hearing being the big one) and when sight is regained people have relearn to navigate with sight again as the brains forgets how. Just to clarify. [[User:JonoP|JonoP]] 21:29, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
  
: You don't cite anything to support your view, and you don't address the other examples of ''irrational'' doubt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
+
:Removed unsubstansive comments. Andy, we dont fall for claims of expertise here. You obviously have never read any Dr. Oliver Sacks and are obviously clueless about how the brain works. You have provided no links to back up your claims. Please make a substansive comment or go elsewhere. P.S - PNAS was RIGHT! You were WRONG! Thanks and Godspeed! Sincerely, Ace McWicked

Revision as of 20:06, 15 September 2008

Suggestion for some theories on why people doubt: Past (personal) experiences. If something did not work for some reason in the past, people tend to believe that it may not work in the future. For example, baby elephants are secured with chains, while adult elephants are secured with mere ropes. Also, the use of glass to keep a fish from eating another that works even when removed. Observation of others. For example, if you view someone attempting and failing to walk on water, you may tend to believe that walking on water does not work, period. I suspect that Peter viewed Jesus walking on water, tried it, started to succeed, then remembered past observations and experiences which overwhelmed him, and fell in. Pessimism/cynicism For example, some people succeed at sales, others do not. The difference is eventual doubt or optimism as to whether a sale will be made. Userafw 15:32, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Feed your faith, and your doubts will starve to death. Sideways 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
In reply to Userafw, it was illogical for Peter to reject the fact that he was walking, and instead place greater significance to his prior inability to walk.
I'm told that some blind people who, due to an operation, obtain their sight may actually have difficult believing they can see. Again, this is illogical.--Aschlafly 17:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


You ask why do people doubt (or deny) the existence and power of God? Could it be that they have been taken over by evil, by the devil, to disbelieve in God while being influenced to deny the existence of their possessor as well? (In case this sounds extreme, I'd recommend M Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', a book that demonstrates the existence of evil). Bugler 17:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the recommendation, which I'll buy and read. Logic certainly doesn't explain the doubt, so evil/devil is a plausible explanation.--Aschlafly 17:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble with this essay. It seems to be saying that all doubt is bad. Surely that's not true, or we'd all be incredibly gullible people. Doubt and skepticism can be very beneficial. You yourself expressed a great deal of doubt about Lenski's experiments, which is certainly not a bad thing. Assuming God is omnipotent, he can do basically anything. Does it really stand to reason that we should believe anything, just because it's possible? If I told you God raised my Aunt Mildred from the dead 3 days after she died, would you believe me? I would certainly doubt such a claim. BrianH 18:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
What I got out of the essay is that doubt in oneself and his abilities is bad. Obviously doubt in itself is not a bad thing. Without doubt in liberal teachings and claims, this site would not exist. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, I admit that part makes sense, though it is also important for one to know one's limits. I seriously doubt I could swim to, say, a not too distant island because I am not a great swimmer. Casting these doubts aside and trying anyway could easily lead to my demise. Certainly when attempting any sort of physical or other feat, one should keep a positive mindset. I think most people agree on that. But this essay goes further, centering on the resurrection of Christ. There are reasons to accept this and reasons to doubt it, but the idea that "God can do it so it's silly to think he might not have" is hardly a satisfying one. If God can do anything, should we accept all claims of everything he purportedly did? BrianH 18:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
The obvious point of the essay is to criticize illogical doubt that defies rational explanation. I give several examples of this to illustrate the point. When Peter is already walking on water, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can do that. When an athlete is ahead in a contest, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can win and then degrade his performance.--Aschlafly 18:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
That much makes sense, to an extent, though if I saw someone walking on water, I would be tempted to think it was a trick of some sort, at least at first. I'm sure we've all seen enough "magic" shows to know there are myriad ways to make things appear not as they are. The point about the resurrection, which seems to be the crux of this essay, is a different matter altogether. It might be illogical for the disciples who witnessed direct evidence of the resurrection to doubt it, but for those of us who haven't (which is everyone today) such doubt does not seem so out of place. If the only argument is "it could have happened" then there's more convincing to be done.
Furthermore, at least some doubt is beneficial even in the athletic contests you mentioned. Not doubt one can win, but at least some doubt that one will win. A classic example of someone with no doubt of his victory is the hare in the tortoise and the hare parable. While it is merely a story, it is a good example of what can happen when someone is so certain of an outcome that they take it for granted. McCain is ahead in the polls now, but he should have at least some doubt of his eventual victory. If he had none at all there would be no reason to spend millions more campaigning, and if he were to stop now, he'd almost certainly lose. Having some doubt is different from having a defeatist attitude. Basically everyone agrees that the latter is detrimental. Though this has little to do with the resurrection of Christ. BrianH 19:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Your comment starts from a faulty premise: it was not an observer who doubted that Peter could walk on water, but Peter himself doubted it while he was already walking on water.--Aschlafly 20:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I misread that. Nevertheless, that is an atypical example of doubt, as it involves a miracle making what is normally impossible suddenly possible (a little doubt is hardly surprising in any case; "I can't believe I'm walking on water!" would seem to be a normal response). I can basically see the connection between that and an athlete being ahead and suddenly taking a defeatist attitude and then losing. But the jump to the resurrection doesn't seem to fit in to this pattern. It's a very different type of doubt, and we agree that not all doubt is bad. BrianH 09:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

"Doubt is not a desire for more information"

The essay is an interesting one, but I have to question this particular assertion. Doubt can often be the driver of a search for more information. A key premise of the scientific method is the application of doubt to a prevailing theory, which in turn leads to new hypotheses, research, experimentation, and then often, a new theory that replaces or improves on the old. Doubt can also lead one to a spiritual revelation - the classic case one would promote on Conservapedia being when a non-Christian is exposed to the teachings of Christianity, and rather than just disregarding the prior beliefs, begins an exploration and study of Christianity leading to conversion. --DinsdaleP 18:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

The essay discusses a "type of" doubt. The scientific method you describe is not really an affirmative doubt, or force of doubting, but simply an open mind seeking more information. The doubt described in the essay is not an open mind seeking the truth; it is a force blocking out the truth in an illogical manner.--Aschlafly 20:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


Suggested answers?

Since the article is posed as a question, it would surely be appropriate to include a section (either in the article or perhaps the talk page) where readers can suggest why humans doubt? One suggested answer might be, for example, that it comes from a sense of self-preservation, as in, "If I chase that deer at full tilt towards that cliff, might I not myself follow the animal over the edge?" There are plenty of useful uses of doubt. BenHur 21:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Irrelevant to this entry, which focuses on irrational doubt, like Peter doubting he could walk on water as he walked on water.--Aschlafly 22:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Blindness

Aschlafly, people who regain their sight after a period of blindness do not "doubt" they can see again (as you stated above). Its because the brain, after losing sight, uses other methods to navigate the world (hearing being the big one) and when sight is regained people have relearn to navigate with sight again as the brains forgets how. Just to clarify. JonoP 21:29, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Removed unsubstansive comments. Andy, we dont fall for claims of expertise here. You obviously have never read any Dr. Oliver Sacks and are obviously clueless about how the brain works. You have provided no links to back up your claims. Please make a substansive comment or go elsewhere. P.S - PNAS was RIGHT! You were WRONG! Thanks and Godspeed! Sincerely, Ace McWicked