h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

""can you explain the *qualitative* difference between your position, and that of Peter Sutcliffe?"

No, I can't."



"But here's one that has previously been mentioned: I am not insane. I do not go around killing people."

Oh dear. I understand now. We have a problem of basic comprehension of English.

I was very, very careful to specify a qualitative difference - look again and you'll see I even put *asterisks* round the word so you couldn't miss it.

And you respond with a difference of degree. Sutcliffe's acts in response to the voices in his head are more extreme than yours. This is not a qualitative difference.

I *am* listening. You've tried several times to wriggle off this hook, not least by implying I don't want or will ignore an answer. So I'll ask just one more time:

You say the word of your god is more important than the law of the land. How does this position differ QUALITATIVELY - not in degree, but in detail of argument - from Peter Sutcliffe's?

And please, do not repeat the line "I am in fact rational." You believe in the existence of a supernatural being. This disqualifies you from being considered rational, I'm afraid. Again, you seem to have some difficulty with the meanings of common English words. I recommend a dictionary.

"Bearing in mind that I am a rational objective observer, can you eplain to me the qualitative difference between your unshakeable position and that of the bigots outside Parliament?"

Again with the dishonest straw man argument. YOU characterise my position as unshakeable. I have no "unshakeable" position, but I could not expect an irrational person such as yourself to understand that. I have found, again and again, that the superstitious simply cannot grasp the idea that, presented with evidence, I will change my mind if I am wrong. Classic psychological projection leads them, and you, to see themselves in others. I am amenable to reason, IF I am presented with usable evidence. "Because god tells me so" is not evidence, unless it's evidence of dangerous irrationality.

SoRB

So how does the Christian psychiatrist know that the poor crazy who has just been referred to him is suffering say from paranoid schizophrenia, (this he must surely know about from his medical training,) or suffering from direct communication with the Lord, (this he must surely know about from his Christian indoctrination.)

Or more likely should we not conclude that someone who can both be a medical psychiatrist and someone who believes in a virgin birth, people rising from the dead, not to mention walking on water, must himself be mad?

I have started a separate thread on a linking subject to this titled one so as not to take this off topic(anymore than it is now!) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=3798176

>> Or more likely should we not conclude that someone who can both be a medical psychiatrist and someone who believes in a virgin birth, people rising from the dead, not to mention walking on water, must himself be mad? <<

From what I've heard, that is an accurate representation of the opinion the rest of the medical profession hold of psychiatrists.

RF

"You say the word of your god is more important than the law of the land. How does this position differ QUALITATIVELY - not in degree, but in detail of argument - from Peter Sutcliffe's?"

There is consensus on my position. There is consistency. My beliefs are recorded and my position in relation to that recording can be verified.
My beliefs do not manifest as 'a voice in my head'. There is a very simple difference between 'I believe this about the nature of reality' and 'There are voices in my head'.

There is a qualitative difference between insanity and a belief you do not share.

This is the last time I shall bother to point it out, but it's worth making one more try. Considering the evidence on both sides of an argument and reaching a different conclusion to yourself is a poor definition of irrationality.

Ach! It's in the scary place!

Leaving aside the sanity of theists for a moment:

I accept that Britain is *nominally* Christian, but we are statistically secular, apparently.

This being the case, how can Christians presume to impose their moral standards on a nation that includes Muslims, Bhuddists, Atheists etc?

How can the opinion of one group determine the morality for all?

I believe that Winne The Pooh existed as a real talking bear. I have stated this and written it many times. I have read about him in a book.

Therefore, "There is consistency. My beliefs are recorded and my position in relation to that recording can be verified."

But there is NO 'consensus on my position.' So, I may be wrong. However, just because there is a consensus on your position does not mean it is fact. Lots of people believing in the same fantasy does not make it real.

Oh, and if you can prove that Winnie The Pooh never existed show me it. And I do not accept that AA Milne just made all those stories up.

A brief aside:

I just read this on another forum:

'We protect our children against disease by inoculating them with a very mild form of the disease.

If religion is a disease, is the Tooth Fairy a vaccine?'

I chuckled!

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5708&highlight=

I'm going to make this my last post in this thread, as I'm finding it tiresome.

"There is consensus on my position."

Meaningless. There was for a long, long time "consensus on the position" that the sun and planets orbitted the earth. So there are a lot of superstitious people - so what? How does that allow me to differentiate between them, which was the point of the question?

"There is consistency."

I think we've already dealt with the concept of consistency in superstition...

"My beliefs are recorded and my position in relation to that recording can be verified."

Again, I don't see how this is allowing me in any way to differentiate your position from that of an apologetic religious serial killer.

"My beliefs do not manifest as 'a voice in my head'."

So you tell me. Can you prove it?

"There is a very simple difference between 'I believe this about the nature of reality' and 'There are voices in my head'."

You have not adequately explained WHY you 'believe this about the nature of reality', beyond the fact that it's written in an old book and you have a funny feeling.

"There is a qualitative difference between insanity and a belief you do not share."

Perhaps there is. But what you've failed to do is explain to me a difference I, the objective, rational observer, can measure. YOU may think you're different from an insane person. But you would say that, wouldn't you? My point is, *I* can't tell the difference, and none of the so-called "evidence" you offer is of any help to me, as it has to do with what's going on in your head and the fact that lots of people are superstitious in a similar way to you.

"Considering the evidence on both sides of an argument and reaching a different conclusion to yourself is a poor definition of irrationality."

Fair enough. My definition of irrationality would include "believing in the existence of supernatural beings without physical evidence".

But as I say, this is getting dull...

SoRB

>>But what you've failed to do is explain to me a difference I, the objective, rational observer, can measure.

If there is any measurable distinction between a person's irrational superstition and insanity, it would hinge on

a> the *presented* (ie interpreted externally) behaviour
b> the judgement of the veracity of that person's testimony
c> the latest revision of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual
d> prevailing psychiatric opinion
e> the rule of law
f> the whim of the diagnostician.

Which, of any of those, can be empirical? Psychiatry is a leap of faith, and on just as shaky ground as religious dogma. It's not science in the same terms as would allow me to calculate the weight of the Sun from measurements of the elliptical orbit of Mercury. It's supposition, based on hearsay, grounded in accepted practice, seasoned with debate, determined by jurisprudence and governed by experience. Try wrapping a micrometer around that!

Particularly since the DSM-IV includes snoring and bad handwriting...

As a matter of interest, can I rephrase SoRB's question in a gentler tone?

Now I am not suggesting that the world-wide religious community at large is populated by lunatics but I would like to ask anyone on this thread who has ever considered themselves to have religious beliefs how it is that they are (assuming they are) confident that their own views are accurate and whether the presence of 'fanatics' causes them to have any anxieties about the strength of their beliefs. Did any of that make any sense?

I'm not sure I follow the question, sorry.

Are you asking if religious people who are not fanatics feel threatened or undermined by the fanatics and the apparent strength of their faith and moral certainty, compared to their doubt about many things?

"Psychiatry is a leap of faith, and on just as shaky ground as religious dogma."

Not entirely true. Is there confusion between psychology and psychiatry here?
Psychiatrist differ mainly, as I understand, in approaching mental illness from a medical approach. As such, the normal scientific method is applied to the treatments they prescribe. For example, the affects of various drugs on those with particular illnesses are researched and studied with appropriate controls and so forth. There *is* a 'woo' element to it though. But psychiatrists, from what I have encountered, do have higher standing that psychologists because they are trained as medical practitioners who specialise in mental illness and seek to treat it through physical means (surgery, drugs being two).

POsychology on the other hand differs in that the practitioners are not medically trained so cannot prescribe drugs and surgery.
And within psychology you have both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The qauntative is the one that is objective and uses stats and studies the scientific method to try and find out what makes the brain tick.

The qualitative is subjective and deals with the subjective experience of being a human and any conditions that are encountered. This is what gives us such things as psychoanalysis, cognitive behavioural therapy and other non-science backed approaches.

This is what most of pop-psychologists seem to use. And is why psychology gets looked down on.

But I think the most important thing is that the study of the human mind is still in its infancy, we're nowhere near an equivalent to any of the big 3 sciences theories. Natural Philosophy would look much the same to us today. The early pioneers of the enlightenment would look at alchemy and mediums and so forth to try and understand them and work out what they are. Psychology is still very much in those stages.

Sorry for the OT. Feel free to ignore and get back to the subject in hand!

I think the subject at hand's long gone!

I suppose what I'm asking is whether their ability to convince themselves of things that most people would find rather appaling has ever caused you to question the extent of your own certainty, or whether you remain confident that you are on, if you like, the right theoloigcal path.

not only that but it was abominable typed! So many mistooks. Perhaps it is time I went home!

and even that was wrong too. Bye!

what's slightly odd about all this is that there are exclusions in this bill for religious premises etc. and in fact many "loopholes" which preserve the right to freedom of expression, including faith. what this legislation tries to do is ensure a level playing field for all.

the most sensible comment i've heard from someone who has faith is that why they are opposed to homosexuality another person's sexuality is between them and their God - assuming they have one. seems fair enough to me.

as an atheist i can happilt respect people with faith - up to the point that impacts adversely on those who do not share that faith, or indeed that interpretation of faith. there seem to be wildly varying opinions on the issue of homosexuality within the christian faiths for example.

That was totally on the money Ictoan, thank you for the clarification. I'm never very secure about this sort of thing.