I don't care about your categories, I thought I made that abundantly clear. I think they are worthless.

Also you have yet to demonstrate any cause/effect relationship to happiness. Your explanatory variables are so wide they each included everyone, and your response is as well. You need to stop "zooming out" and come back in for a closer look.

Well, these are the only three epistemic states I can think of. Can you think of others? I'd be happy to know. — TheMadFool

Well two of your "epistemic states" are really the same thing, and your categories are so broad they are useless, plus you are just making up crap off the top of your head with no real research involved.

This above statement contradicts the previous statement you made. — TheMadFool

No, it doesn't it.

It would also be a challenge to find a person who doesn't fit into all three. I think you need to reconsider your inquiry, it is very ineffective. If your concern is your happiness maybe it should be focused on you.

Every one of us must be in, at least, one of these three states — TheMadFool

I am sorry, but when did you establish this, and the validity of your limited and grossly oversimplified categories?

Can you clarify. — TheMadFool

Already did.

Sorry, but I lost interest.

It does not matter that you are using numbers, it is still an arbitrary ranking with labels. You need to ditch this idea that quantitative = numbers, because it is more than that. Gradations of your personal and subjective "likes" is not quantitative, as it is not an intersubjectively verifiable numerical measurement with meaningful units.

If all the reasons to end life are emotional and subjective, than what gives them prior over the emotional and subjective reasons to continue living?

The notion of infinity is inseparable from numbers (quantity) — TheMadFool

When was the last time you or any one measured an infinite quantity?

There is no meaningful measurement there; I can't say the 2nd Batman is 5 meters better than the 3rd Batman, as that would be gibberish. There is no way to measure how much better 2 is than 3.

The ranking being used is arbitrary. I could rank Batman 3 as a 5 out 5, but what does that mean? Is it good? Is it bad? I could rank them A to F, I could even rank them fish to pizza. They are only labels.


I think we need to clear up what these terms actually mean:

Quantitative is numerical measurements that have meaningful units.

Categorical, is categories or labels.

I got this crazy idea, instead of debating the difference between the two here in this thread, how about people get a book from a reliable source and read it. I know that not making stuff up off the top of your head is a new concept for "philosophers", but I think it is just crazy enough to work.

I wasn't claiming that, to take your example, people can simply be pegged to a spot on some approval scale. I was saying that part of classifying their qualitative judgments as "approve" or "disapprove", say, is that we can count them -- four approve, six disapprove — Srap Tasmaner

You are not even looking at the variable of interest any more. You are looking at the proportion and not the observation, you can't pull our a ruler and measure how someone feels about the color blue. You can count how many people like blue, and how many don't like blue, but now you are summing something different. You can say this group is bigger than that group, but now you are looking at the number of people in a group and not their feelings towards blue. The variable of interest is categorical; quantitative does not means that there are numbers within proximity.


**And there was no misunderstanding, I just didn't want to waste my time explaining something so basic to you.

Simply because you arbitrarily assigned numbers to groups or the elements in those groups that does not mean the observations themselves are quantitative observations.

What I think is going on here, is not philosophy, but a general misunderstanding of what these terms mean. Pick up a intro to statistics book and start reading.

Do they? The comparison suggests they can be measured so the infinity is quantitative. — BlueBanana

That is not how quantitative works and there can be categorical comparisons.

Example:

"How I thought that movie was great! What did you think?"

"I thought it sucked."

There is a reason we have labels such as qualitative and quantitative, because not everything can be measured on an interval scale. Don't let the fact that numbers are involved confuse you on the difference between the two.

Take the president's approval ratings. That is not a quantitative measurement of how well the president is doing, is a proportional measurement of the opinions of how people feel the president is doing, which is a categorical response (aka qualitative). Getting the two confused is a common mistake, but it is important to understand the differences. There is no ruler we can take out to measure the way people feel about the president. We can say this many people feel this way, and that many people feel this way, but we cannot actually measure their feelings about the president and compare them on either an interval or ordinal scale. We can only say this many people feel this way, and that many people feel that way, which is categories.

Any number can be defined as a categorical (aka qualitative) term, even infinity.

No, it does't, and death is not a "change in life". Life is not changing, life ends.

I know that is colloquial semantics, but it implies death is life transformed. Even the word death, itself is problematic, and it is a way for those still alive to cope with the absence of those that are gone.

I am sorry, but "death" is nothing but a semantics function used to anthropomorphize our memories of those alive once, and our own complete and final end. "Alive once" is even a disjointed concept, since there is no "once", there is no past, there is no future, there is only now and things either exist now or they don't exist at all. These are words we use to reference our own perceptional framework, which as we all know, does not always reflect reality.

I recognize the usage of these terms as functions to facilitate subjective reasoning and colloquial conversation, but as a reflection of the objective reality they dissolve and fall to pieces. Perhaps the hardest part of "death" is dealing with the fact that the remembered loved one, simply does not exist, there is just a void, just an absences where you can recall them existing. That perceptions persist because your memories do exist in the now, but those are not the same thing. And rather then deal with the reality that said loved one exist nowhere in time or space, we comfort ourselves with deceptive language (even those who "do not believe in the after life").

The most challenging part of dealing with "death" is facing the fact the person you remember simply does not exist. Their life line ended and "death" is really you, your memories and your pain.

You are either dead or you are alive and you can only experience life. To be honest even saying, "you are dead" is an odd phrase that does not reflect reality because there is no more "you". "You" can never actually be dead, your life just ends and you cease to exist.

Because people are stupid and it causes them to believe stupid things.

There is no essential feature that makes a field "scientific", and there is no such thing as the "scientific method". — darthbarracuda

It looks like your "moderately educated opinion" is not worth very much.

Science, as already stated, is a methodology for the exploration and categorization of knowledge. The scientific method has been carefully laid out and has a common core shared by all branches of science. The basics of the method are easy enough to grasp but learning it with proficiency is something that takes years of education.

A scientist is someone who has been trained and educated in the use of the scientific method. A physicist is not just someone that learns physics, but someone that learns how to apply the scientific method in the exploration of physics.

Formal logic is not that important. If you want to understand the world around you then yuou need some level of math; how much is hard to say. Personally, I would go for at least enough to read and understand scientific articles founded on the mathematical sciences.

While mathematics will help develop quantitative reasoning, problem solving and critical/analytical skills, it is not the only path to sharpening your rational edge.

Should I become extremely competent in math before I delve into politics? Or maybe the other way around? — rickyk95

If your focus is politics some math will be needed. You'll mainly need an understanding of statistics, which at advanced levels requires a large amount of math; however, much of statistic can be learned with nothing but college level algebra, since it is largely conceptual. Understanding the conceptual aspect of statistics for a politician is probably more important than knowing the math itself.

I would call your response - uncompassionate. Some day the shoe will be on the other foot and you may need some compassion. — woodart

I think you are being over dramatic.

It seems to me there are two types of thinking that I call "System 1" and "System 2". System 1 is the intutive, creative and visual part of your mind -- the part that instantly understands words without having to analyze them, and the part that engages in metaphorical and visual thinking. I consider myself fairly skilled in this department, because I have an intuitive sense for language, writing and visualization. I find that philosophers are generally very skilled in this department, and uses brilliant metaphors to describe the nature of reality. It seems to me that philosophy entails mind activity beyond mathematics and symbols to get to the very fabric of existence. — Avidya

I also recognize two types of thinking. I call them making crap up and learning. Some people just make crap up, because they are to lazy to go out and learn. For example some people are bad at math, because they don't try hard enough and make excuses.

You are the one making claims about what they said without any citation at all, accept some responsibility.

I rather read them for myself, than have you tell me about them. I am well aware that there are some studies out there, and have seen a few for myself but they generally leave a lot of room open for debate. I also would want to review their sampling methods and statistical procedures used.

I think it will be difficult to prove that believing or not believing makes a difference because it won't be possible to isolate belief (or no belief) as a measurable variable. It will be found to be tied in with too many other factors. — Bitter Crank

A statistical analysis could only show if there is a difference it could not prove the cause of that difference. As there is simply no way you can randomly assign beliefs to people. Without that type of random assignment it would be restricted to observational studies, which do not establish cause, but it would be a start.

I bet if Mongrel actually took the time and effort to look into it there are probably some relevant studies out there. Mongrel has a thesis the next step is to actually research that thesis.

Logic is not a magic wand you can wave and suddenly truth appears, it is a tool to help you in your considerations. Further more the OP is not employing logic; there is a differences between a rationalization and logic.

"Philosophy" is not an excuse to shrug off doing proper research, although I know many at these forums certainly treat it that way.

*rolls eyes*

God forbid someone in a philosophy forum actually suggest a need for evidence.

So Mongrel hasn't provided decent evidence that religion helps. Maybe her standards for evidence are low, but what kind of evidence would you accept? — Bitter Crank

The entire OP hinges on one claim, even as a rhetorical argument it fails horribly.

The thesis is: "dependence on religion will return and atheism will be eclipsed (again)."

Which is supposedly explained by: " religious people handle adversity better than atheists"

If you have no evidence to support your one and only claim, then at least attack it from different angles.

We can look at surveys, we can look at long lists of anecdotal reports, and narratives that testify to the benefits of religious belief in times of disaster. It's something, but it's hear-say. There probably isn't any "proof" one way or the other. No brain scans, no blood tests, no behavioral observations or measurements. — Bitter Crank

A statistical analysis would certainly be a good place to start.

Calling your argument "fundamental" does not change the fact that your standard for evidence is pathetically low.

Your standard for evidence is pathetically low.

Feel free to present your own view of things. Or not. — Mongrel

I am fairly certain I already did. My view is that your view needs more support.

No I don't have any scientific articles — mongrel

Then you don't really have anything at all. Your whole argument hinges on that one conclusion, and if you can't establish in some meaningful way then you really have nothing at all. To be honest it is very sloppy "philosophy".

It's just something I came to expect during my time working in a pediatric intensive care unit. Parents who stand at the bedside of their dying child acting like we're at a barbecue or something.. they're atheists. The ones who are present and accounted for are religious.

Don't care, everyone and their dog thinks they have special insight, but people also suffer from observational bias, which means they tend to see what they are looking for. This is why I ask for data, instead of opinions. Also I can tell you right now that your experience does not meet the standards of a fair representative sample of theists or atheists.

religious people handle adversity better than atheists — mongrel

Other than your pseudo-philosophical drivel do you have any evidence of this? And I don't mean your opinion on the matter, I mean a peer review scientific article.

In regards to probability, that is not at all how you from a proper hypothesis, or create a distribution (this is what you are essentially trying to do), and you also don't seem to understand what is "random" in this context or how to use it.

Man, you just need to pick up a book, or take a few courses to educate yourself. Using probability to do a statistical analysis is something you are going to have to actually work at to learn. I can recommend some books to read if you really like, but you need to get that mathematical base down first. If you at least understand college algebra then an intro to statistics course at your local community college would be a great place to start.

You essentially want to create a probability distribution and then use it to test your "hypothesis", and to do that you are going to need some schooling. It is not as simple as you think it is, and guess what it relies on empirical data.

*edit - I would also like to point out that a hypothesis is generally tested at a 90, 95 or 99% confidence level. Testing a hypothesis at a 33% or 50% confidence level is almost worthless (far too much room for error for it to be dependable). Of course you don't actually have a testable hypothesis, all you have is a percentage you have assigned to your personal opinions. For it to be a hypothesis it has to be falsifiable, and to be a statistical hypothesis it has to be falsifiable with in the limits and context of statistics.

Something people need to understand about equal probability: It generally does not just happen on its own, it needs people to make it happen with some type of equal probability procedure.

Let me help you out here. There is either a platypus, a piece of lint, or nothing in your pocket. It's equal odds (of course), but there's now only a 33% chance of there being a platypus in your pocket. Better? — SophistiCat

No, that is not any better, if you say one of these in my pocket and the other two are not. Either a platypus or a piece of lint or nothing.

Then you have three possible scenarios:

You have a platypus, but not a piece of lint.

You have a piece of lint but not the platypus.

You have nothing.

This is where the common misconception of probability is, because each scenario does not have a 33% chance of being in you pocket. One of them is 100% true and the other two are 0% true.

Now I may take a guess but then it is my guess that has the % chance of being right. For example if you rolled a 3 sided die earlier in the morning to pick which to put in your pocket then I could maybe say my guess has a 33% chance of being right. But the chance applies to my guess, not the contents of your pocket. However, there could be confounding variables which compel me to guess one way over the others so not really a 33% chance. I might have a fondness for lint which could cause me to guess lint more often than the other two.

However, if you did not apply equal probability to determine the contents of your pocket then the actual % chance of my guess being right is unknown because I don't know what confounding variables influence your pocket contents form day to day. I would need some type of random sampling procedure to come up with a predictor.

I assume they are equally probable because there is no way we can know or prove that they are unequal. Whilst these scenarios are likely not equally probable, we can't really know how much more probable a certain scenario is - hence, I assume they are equal for the sake of providing some kind of statistic. — Javants

Also there is a problem with this.

A statistic is any quantity that can be calculated from the observed data. You don't have any observed data. Data are not something you just make up. You gave no evidence for justification of your assumption of equal probability. You simply said I don't know what it is so I am just going to make it up.

I applaud you for trying a scientific method to approach a philosophical dilemma, but the problem is you need to actually learn the science you are trying to use. Remember science is based on empirical data, and lack of these data is not a free ticket to just start making it up.

Using that same reasoning there is a fifty-fifty chance that there is a flying pink unicorn next to me chanting in Aramaic, because it either exists, or it doesn't. — Javants

You are not paying attention. Probability requires a chance mechanism. You flip a coin; that coin has a chance to land on heads or tails, but once it lands there is no more chance involved, as it is either heads or tails. That result will not change no matter how many times you look at the coin. The only way for chance to come back into play is to flip the coin again.

This is the basic concept of probability you learn when studying statistics.

This is the academic definition of probability: Probability is the proportion of possible out comes under the repeat exercise of a random event.

Your claim here:

"These probabilities are made on the basis of how many times the outcome of a God existing is reached when we systematically analyse all the possibilities (as far as we know) of how we come to exist and whether or not other beings exist."

Is not a random event.

A random event is either random assignment or random sampling, and it requires all units of a population have an equal probability of being selected (that is how you get your proportion). The randomization is important for many reasons, but mostly to control confounding variables (or what you are calling "possibilities").

It is more than clear that you don't really know what probability is and you know even less about how to apply it. You are using a layman's grasp of probability and trying to use it for things it cannot tell us.

God is either there or is not there. If God exist then there is not a 33% chance that God exist. If God does not exist there is not a 33% chance that God exist. That makes no sense at all. Tell me do you have a 33% chance to exist? Things that exist don't have a chance to exist, only things that currently do not exist can have a chance to exist.

The existence of God is not dependent on the chance values you made up, God's existence is independent of those values.