I'd say "god" is by far the #1 misattribution of causal relationships, but
as you say religious topics are not appropriate here. Thanks for the
response and congrats on the radio show. I'll listen to the podcast.
Cogno
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Frank
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2011 11:01 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: People That Live in Brick Houses Can Throw Stones
Frank wrote: I'm not trying to say there isn't a God>>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@...> wrote: Why
not? You're not doing anyone any favors by pretending superstitions are
reality. We're almost at the tipping point. Why not add your voice?
Cogno
______________________________________________
Well if it was an outstanding question contest, you might just have one it.
Answers:
1. I'd like to keep to vpFREE's rules about no religious topics.
2. This story is not negative on religion, it just happens to be about some
guys I went to church with. The point of this story and my current contest
is to show how people can missatribute causal relationships, which is
perfect for vpFREE and very applicable to gambling.
3. I do want to add my voice to humanity's knowledge, I simply choose not to
do that be contradicting peoples beliefs.
4. Discussions are rarely won by contradicting people. To really change
opinions, people must find common ground on things they agree, and then
allow others to come to their own conclusions on the points where they
disagree. Sometimes, this even results in one changing ones own beliefs. It
is the difference between discussion and argument.
5. The story is a direct excerpt from my book, which was intentionally
written to be religiously neutral. It was actually very hard to write a book
about gambling, including the concepts of randomness and probability and not
make it sound like the book was bashing religion. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH MY BELIEFS! It's just history. Religion has come into direct conflict
with probability math so many times throughout the ages it's impossible to
write about it and not sound anti-religious. The first westerner that wrote
about probability was burned at the stake and the second was put under house
arrest...and this was for publishing such controversial stuff as some
equations, and saying, "Hay, some things might just happen randomly". So to
counterbalance this dark history, and make my book more accessible to people
of faith, I was careful to offer their side of the story, and make sure
people didn't blame "god" for things that people did.
6. I saw, and see no point in writing things to contradict religious beliefs
that only an atheist would read. Oddly, that would be "preaching to the
choir".
7. And finally, I know from personal experience how important and powerful
beliefs can be, regardless of their veracity. It is the choice between being
right, or being happy. I can only make that decision for myself. And I can
not find it in my heart to begrudge someone for believing anything that
makes them happy.
Anyway...I hope that explains my attitude toward religious topics, and why I
agree with vpFREE's policy of not talking about them.
Now lets get back on track talking about MIS-ATTRIBUTION OF CAUSAL
RELATIONSHIPS. Obviously any example one gives of this will be about
someone, or group of people that erred. It should be irrelevant to the
discussion if they happen to of a particular faith or not. WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT A SPECIFIC HUMAN ERROR IN COGNITION HERE.
~FK
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
