

Why Do We Believe Impossible Things? - robg
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5817998

======
maxklein
We HAVE to believe impossible things. Many things have been deemed impossible
in the past, but the world changed and they became possible.

Flying used to be impossible, speaking to someone across the world used to be
impossible, hell, facebook used to be impossible!

But there were people who thought it was possible, and it's because of them
that we can have It's complicated relationships on facebook.

I always encourage people to believe in anything they want, so long they do
not try to make others believe in too, and so long they do not insist that
their way is the only way.

------
run4yourlives
_No other animal has the mental framework for understanding cause and effect,
Wolpert says._

Yeah, um, okay. Dude has obviously never owned a pet. This article is junk
science and not really up to the standards that should be required for this
forum.

Regardless of his thesis, his evidence is woefully weak.

------
boredguy8
"Extraordinary claims, he said, demand extraordinary evidence."

The single worst statement to happen to epistemology. Extraordinary claims
require the same type of evidence as ordinary claims.

Ignoring for now the category problem of delineating extraordinary claims from
ordinary ones, we find a deeper issue: It seems to be the case that asserting
a certain category of truth-value statements require a different level of
verification than another category is itself an extraordinary claim. Yet there
is no extraordinary evidence that this claim is true. Hence the argument is
self-referrentially absurd.

~~~
gnaritas
I disagree, the whole point of the statement is that ordinary claims don't
require verifiable evidence because they're ordinary and we expect them to
happen.

If I say it rained yesterday, my word is evidence enough to satisfy most
inquires about the weather. If I say it rained and God reached down and
protected me with his hand, well, I better have some serious evidence if I
expect anyone with a rational mind to believe a word I'm saying.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence is a well known and well
accepted self evident fact.

~~~
run4yourlives
_I disagree, the whole point of the statement is that ordinary claims don't
require verifiable evidence because they're ordinary and we expect them to
happen_

Therefore, popular opinion belays fact?

I get what you are saying but your counter argument is not the best. The
parent seems to have a good point about the nature of evidence, to suggest
that ordinary claims though should be accepted at face value because they are
ordinary is the reason heavier than air vehicles could never fly, for
instance.

~~~
gnaritas
No, popular and ordinary are entirely different things. Ordinary claims are
ordinary because they are well proven and well known and don't need re-
evaluated every time.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence precisely because because
they haven't been proven. Claiming the Earth was round was at one time
extraordinary, it no longer is. Claiming you met God however, is still an
extraordinary claim and as such still requires extraordinary evidence.

Stating that the same level of proof is required for each one ignores the
reality of the history of the claim.

------
jonmc12
"People tend to look out for people of like faith, as in churches, and that
support can make them stronger, thus improving the chances that they will live
long enough to see their genes passed along."

Its kind of a stretch as an argument. Common identity is what brings people
together, thus enabling social support structures. If people are brought
together by ideas, true or not, its because those ideas are core to identity.

Ideas themselves have their own selection criteria for being passed on -
<http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMSELC.HTML>

If I were to re-phrase the thesis, it would be something like this - 'Humans
have the ability to infer cause/effect relationships based on the most
relevant information available. Often, the perceived relevancy of ideas is
heavily influenced by ideas that are held to be true in present cultural
belief system. Over time, as more information is available to the culture,
there may be a disparity between observed information (facts) and cultural
ideas (beliefs). In this scenario, relevancy of ideas will still be influenced
by cultural ideas, sometimes to the point of necessitating the dismissal of
observed information.'

------
Herring
_Wolpert is an atheist, but he says he isn't trying to convert anyone to
atheism. If so, he may be the only person on the planet who is willing to
share his deeply held beliefs without caring whether he can convince anyone to
believe the same way._

Atheism is a "deeply held belief" now? Learn something new every day..

~~~
litewulf
As a Christian, let me just say I have met very ardent atheists...

Atheists can preach just as much as any other religion. Perhaps you are
confusing the belief in NO god with simple indifference towards religion?

~~~
Herring
And I've met some very ardent math professors. Passion doesn't turn you into a
believer.

There are layers of irony here.

~~~
Herring
Additionally, claiming X doesn't exist and not being able to prove it doesn't
make you religious. Common counterexamples being X = invisible pink unicorns
or spaghetti monsters.

It's a surprisingly simple concept, considering how few people get it. I
wonder whether there's a more effective way to communicate it.

~~~
run4yourlives
The issue though is that because a notion of god as existed as long as we
have, writing it off as pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters belittle's it to a
meaningless degree; it's a weak counter.

There is clearly something very human in a god belief. To suggest that this
type of belief is simply a meaningless may in fact be correct, but it leaves a
big part of the equation blank.

It's like answering math questions without showing your work. I think that's
what reasonable people have issues with.

~~~
Herring
To be precise, I wasn't suggesting anything. I was arguing that those reasons
for labeling atheism a belief are wrong.

To answer your post, I think the lack of evidence for all religions is a
perfectly good counter. I think it shouldn't matter how long some idea has
been around, or whether it appeals to our innate human instincts. But clearly
both matter to a lot of people. As I'm not one of those people, I have no idea
how to address this need.

------
Shamiq
Thanks for using the print version of the article. I was dreading having to
wade through ads to get to the content

------
qqq
> Why Do We Believe Impossible Things?

I don't.

