4
   

A Mystical Experience with the Son of God [Jesus Christ]

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 08:37 am
@FBM,
Sounds more like an appeal to authority to me.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 10:54 am
@FBM,
First of all, my eyes glazed over at the sheer length of your cut and paste.
Too much yada yada mixed with the blah.
Psychologists are known for their generous application of wishful thinking to their results. (I oughtta know)
I would have been more impressed had you taken one or two points and provided your own schlep.

I'm sorry to admit that gigantic cut and pastes, videos, links to off site pages, and liberal use of [img]jpeg. send me to the coffee pot.
Patches
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 03:18 pm
http://www.picturesquote.com/wp-content/uploads/quotes-about-gods-love-god-pictures-images-scraps-for-orkut-myspace-68446.jpg
FBM
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 03:52 pm
@neologist,
Granted, and like I said, I didn't expect anyone to read the whole thing. It was intended to contrast with Patches' empty rhetoric. But you still have yet to point to a specific factual error in the text. Your personal feelings and preferences have no impact on the quality of the person's argument.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  0  
Wed 6 May, 2015 03:54 pm
@Patches,
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/11150644_922384934450107_4692947441305859175_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  0  
Wed 6 May, 2015 04:43 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Quote:
Why Do People Believe in Gods?
...
Promiscuous Teleological Intuition
...Drawing on her own and others’ research programs, Kelemen, director of the Child Cognition Laboratory at Boston University, has found that children around the world “evidence a general bias to treat objects and behaviors as existing for a purpose” (Kelemen 2004, 295). There is now overwhelming evidence that children are innately prone to “promiscuous teleological intuitions,” preferring teleological, purpose-based rather than physical-causal explanations of living and nonliving natural objects (Kelemen et al. 2013).

For example, young children do not see raining as merely what a cloud does but as what it is “made for.” If asked why prehistoric rocks are pointy, children will greatly prefer “so that animals could scratch on them when they got itchy” over “bits of stuff piled up for a long time.”

Early parenting or explaining makes little difference to this strong tendency. It appears to be modifiable only from around ten years of age.
...
The major contribution of this new evidence-based conceptualization of the problem is that we now know more clearly what we are fighting. Promiscuous teleological intuition is powerful, innate, and adaptive for the young. But it is not adaptive for the adolescent or adult leaving the human environment of the family hut for the natural world of the forest, where food does not present in the hands of intentional beings but on the branches of naturally occurring trees. Similarly, humanity may now use its growing knowledge and insight to escape its dependent teleological worldview in favor of a more mature one.

Ironically, the motto thus reinforced may be a biblically sourced one:

“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” (1 Corinthians 13:11)

References
...


Is that sound-bitey enough? See the original for cited references.
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:29 pm
@FBM,
I find the adjective 'promiscuous' rather interesting.
Why not 'innate'?

Theological intuition is nothing new. Pretty much universal, though we are free to ignore it.
FBM
 
  0  
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:44 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
pro·mis·cu·ous
prəˈmiskyo͞oəs/Submit
adjective
1.
derogatory
having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships.
"she's a wild, promiscuous girl"
synonyms: licentious, sexually indiscriminate, wanton, immoral, fast; More
antonyms: chaste, virtuous
2.
demonstrating or implying an undiscriminating or unselective approach; indiscriminate or casual.
"the city fathers were promiscuous with their honors"
synonyms: indiscriminate, undiscriminating, unselective, random, haphazard, irresponsible, unthinking, unconsidered
"promiscuous reading"


The latter is the usage more often found in scholarly literature. The author intended a different meaning from 'innate.' It would take different research to determine whether or not it is genuinely innate, rather than a widespread tendency. And even if it were innate, that's not very informative. Children innately crap themselves and play with their own feces. But the healthy ones grow out of it at a certain stage of maturity, which is the author's point about evidence-free beliefs in invisible beings and cosmic teleology.
FBM
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 06:40 pm
Developmental stages of the human:

http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w561/hapkido1996/11182210_667832553347778_798223748634170208_n_zps61lladey.jpg
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 06:51 pm
@FBM,
I am well aware of the definition(s) of promiscuous.
Indiscriminate, haphazard, and irresponsible seem less appropriate than innate.
Perhaps the 'scientist' has hidden axioms.

Pretty much par for the social 'sciences'
FBM
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 07:42 pm
@neologist,
There are a lot of connotations to the word, but I don't see a problem with 'indiscriminate' or 'haphazard.' Very young children, to my knowledge, generally lack the cognitive skills needed to discriminate between evidence-based, falsifiable claims and evidence-free, unfalsifiable faith-based ones. As for 'haphazard,' I think that fits, too. Kids tend to just say the first idea that pops into their heads, regardless if it contradicts something else they said earlier.

Anyway, the word 'innate' doesn't help very much. You fall prone to the naturalistic fallacy if you go in that direction. In any event, I don't see any way that it would help support the god hypothesis.
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 11:25 pm
@FBM,
I'll go with innate.
It's my training in psychology.
So I can do that. Very Happy
FBM
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 12:45 am
@neologist,
Wink Cool. But I'm going to stick with what the author wrote. What do you think about the danger of the naturalistic/appeal to nature fallacy? Can you avoid it?
neologist
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 11:37 am
@FBM,
To which one are you referring?
And do you mean the way things are, or the condition of things before the Edenic mutiny?
Patches
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 02:15 pm
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-36Kez1Qxm2k/TW18ADyH7MI/AAAAAAAACU0/RcQ_x6Z691Y/s1600/Dont_Worry_Be_Happy.jpg
0 Replies
 
Patches
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 04:36 pm
I SAW JESUS CHRIST WITH MY OWN EYES!

0 Replies
 
Patches
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 05:51 pm
My Vision of Jesus

FBM
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 06:09 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

To which one are you referring?


Yeah, that was sloppy of me. The appeal to nature.

Quote:
And do you mean the way things are, or the condition of things before the Edenic mutiny?


Well, I don't know what you believe about the way things were before the alleged Edenic mutiny, and whatever that belief is, the appeal to nature fallacy was almost certainly formulated by people who didn't share it, so I guess we'd better go with what is commonly considered to be nature.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 06:13 pm
@Patches,
Institutionalized child abuse.

Patches
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 06:29 pm
@FBM,
You are just a downright filthy, negative person who has nothing positive to say.

https://thespiritguide.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/devil.jpg

Symbolic of you.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 12:09:51