Elaborating On Accepting Scientist\'s Unbelief
 

The following is a repost of a reply I made to sexdrugsmoney regarding how I would feel If Newton lived now and was still a devout Christian (which I said would almost certainly not be the case). It is important because I realize that up to now, I had left out an important reason why I tend to accept brillinat scientists judgements on these matters.

SDM:

"So by your logic, even if Newton was alive and was a convinced believer in Christianity, you would still dismiss his claims citing 'brainwashing' because he obviously is educated (¬A), obviously a genius (¬B), & obviously "normal" (¬D), therefore he must be brainwashed (C) and if so his opinion doesn't matter anyway.

Is that an accurate assumption or have I erred?"

ME:

VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION on your part. Before I answer it let me make it clear that under the heading of brainwashing or abnormal I also include what might be called a strong or even pathological, psychological need to believe. Because to some, the implications of non belief are so depressing or horrifying. But with that being said I still could not dismiss Newton's beliefs as being caused by these things.

The reason is that brilliant scientific minds can almost always FIGHT OFF emotion caused irrationalities. This is an important point that I should have accentuated earlier. John Nash realized "they weren't getting any older". An apocryphal story, to be sure but it makes my point. If you are both brilliant in and trained in logic, probability and science, you have strongly learned to distrust your insincts. Similar to the way Tversky describes rare trained people in Judgement Under Uncertainty.

In other words, Newton would have to be much more "sick" than the average person to believe in Christianity if he had present day knowledge. Since such a severe sickness is very rare, I would not be able to easily ascribe his belief to such a thing and would have to take his belief seriously.

Re: Elaborating On Accepting Scientist\'s Unbelief
 

[ QUOTE ]
... If you are both brilliant in and trained in logic, probability and science, you have strongly learned to distrust your insincts...

[/ QUOTE ]

Distrust your instincts? One would not simply distrust instincts, granted those that may be considered "brilliant" might have a greater understanding or willingness to be open minded. Being such may help one understand or take in more then an instinct. It is far from "distrust" of ones instinct

Re: Elaborating On Accepting Scientist\'s Unbelief
 

This is not exactly on point (somewhat it is) , but I have a question.

I understand and agree with you that - any believer who says his (or any other) belief is logical is being illogical when he says such.

Can we say this, I think we can (and perhaps, already have):

I understand my beliefs (tenets of the religion, etc.) are illogical. I understand that I am being irrational (illogical? Exactly the same thing? Or is there a technical difference? ) when I say I believe in x. I might even be making the correct choice in what I believe (It might turn out that my religion is correct after all.) But my beliefs can in no way be construed as being logical.

Can we say this, I think, too, we can:

I understand my beliefs are illogical. My decision to believe can be based on logic, though. Example -I choose to believe because the ultimate worse case scenario is (in the case of x belief) is eternal hell. Therefore I error on the side of caution. (and I am not saying this would be a good reason to come to that decision - personally, I think the it wouldn’t be a good enough reason, at least). I followed logical reasoning in my decision.

If we can say the above, is this semantically correct (the same as saying the above):

Even though my beliefs are illogical (by definition) my decision to believe is not illogical.

Saying it this way doesn't sounds correct, but it looks correct. I am just curious if one further dissects this last sentence, it actually doesn’t state the same thing as my prior sentences. Does it? This is not a trick question. Rather easy one too, I assume. Just want to make sure I am not missing something.

Re: Elaborating On Accepting Scientist\'s Unbelief
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... If you are both brilliant in and trained in logic, probability and science, you have strongly learned to distrust your insincts...

[/ QUOTE ]

Distrust your instincts? One would not simply distrust instincts, granted those that may be considered "brilliant" might have a greater understanding or willingness to be open minded. Being such may help one understand or take in more then an instinct. It is far from "distrust" of ones instinct

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. "distrust" probably isnt the best word. However, the concept is clear and to argue over the semantics is silly.

I can use a poker analogy to help with the concept if need be. A person can win a few hands and a row and feel instinctually that they are on a rush, and that they should play more hands. However, intellectually they know this is false. So while they still have this instinct to play more, they have to "distrust" their insticts.

-blake

Re: Elaborating On Accepting Scientist\'s Unbelief
 

The simple fact that Newton is still a devout Christian shouldn't have any affect on how you feel or even logicly analyze the intellectual reality of Christianity.

If Newton were to put forth some work or at least logical process regarding Christianity, then this could be considered.

However, simply altering your beliefs because someone smart has a differing opinion is ridiculous.
While if you generally respect and agree with someone intellectualy, it might behoove you to reevaluate your stance on a subject due to their dissent. It doesn't mean that their dissent in and of itself should reflect on your belief.

-blake

Re: Elaborating On Accepting Scientist\'s Unbelief
 

Did you know; Just a comment:

Regarding Sir Isaac Newton and his investing (divesting) in the South Seas Company:

"Eventually word broke out that the management team (of the South Sea Company around 1720[I think]) had sold out completely. Investors were left holding the bag. Panic selling of the worthless shares immediately ensued. Fortunes were lost in a heartbeat. The stock market crash had started and all other stocks prices were obliterated, as well. Isaac Newton lost over 20,000 pounds of his fortune (after initially doubling a 7000 pound investment.) As a result of this crisis, he stated “I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people”.

After this disaster in Newton’s life. I think Newton’s interest in science essentially ceased. Newton could not bear to hear the mention of South Sea Company. I think he took some job with the British Government. Newton was emotionally treaked by the financial loss. I’m sure if; Newton would have had a twenty-first century knowledge of the slave trade business (that is; a business associated with slave trade); his basic religious and/or logical beliefs would have prevented him from betting 20,000 pounds in the South Sea’s Company – but then again; human greed causes some men do way-out things.

Re: Elaborating On Accepting Scientist\'s Unbelief
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. "distrust" probably isnt the best word. However, the concept is clear and to argue over the semantics is silly.

I can use a poker analogy to help with the concept if need be. A person can win a few hands and a row and feel instinctually that they are on a rush, and that they should play more hands. However, intellectually they know this is false. So while they still have this instinct to play more, they have to "distrust" their insticts.

-blake

[/ QUOTE ]

There is more to it then simply what you state as "semantics", if you read what I wrote I never stated that I thought that directly the word "distrust" is not the best word to use (though I would not disagree with anyone that told me that it is not a fitting word for his statement). If you look at it from that perception and value it only a one-word value understanding, so be it.