• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The power of stories to influence us

Yes. Totally. I was very moved by the story that showed polytheism is true and monotheism is false. My emotions dictated my response to the story, rather than logic, because I generally throw logic out the window when I hear a moving story.
[...]
Aaaand, just like that it sounds like you missed the point of the video.
Whoosh...
Did you think the first video was proof of anything? Did you see it as validation of things you already believe?
Proof? It's just one piece of evidence that stories can convey various concepts, and the concepts stories convey don't always have a 1:1 correspondence to reality. Sometimes stories are designed with ridiculous surface concepts, which provide contrast to various truths.

Does that validate what I "believe" about stories? Yup. Stories can, but don't always, convey important truths even if their "surface" concepts do not correspond to reality.
If you did think the first story counted as compelling validation or worse proof of things you already believe, did you not notice how unconvincing the other stories were?
No. They are all compelling validation and proof, or evidence, of what I already believe: stories can convey concepts that do not correspond 1:1 with reality.
If you noticed the difference, then the two cited studies very much apply to you, and you should pay more attention to the video because it tells you how to avoid being unduly influenced by stories.
I suppose all the stories did confirm what I already believe about stories. Does this mean I am unduly influenced by the stories?
 
Aaaand, just like that it sounds like you missed the point of the video.
Whoosh...
Did you think the first video was proof of anything? Did you see it as validation of things you already believe?
Proof? It's just one piece of evidence that stories can convey various concepts, and the concepts stories convey don't always have a 1:1 correspondence to reality. Sometimes stories are designed with ridiculous surface concepts, which provide contrast to various truths.

Does that validate what I "believe" about stories? Yup. Stories can, but don't always, convey important truths even if their "surface" concepts do not correspond to reality.
If you did think the first story counted as compelling validation or worse proof of things you already believe, did you not notice how unconvincing the other stories were?
No. They are all compelling validation and proof, or evidence, of what I already believe: stories can convey concepts that do not correspond 1:1 with reality.
If you noticed the difference, then the two cited studies very much apply to you, and you should pay more attention to the video because it tells you how to avoid being unduly influenced by stories.
I suppose all the stories did confirm what I already believe about stories. Does this mean I am unduly influenced by the stories?

If you recognize that the stories don't actually prove anything, why did you have such a negative reaction to the video? It sounds like you agree with exactly what the video was saying.
 
If you recognize that the stories don't actually prove anything, why did you have such a negative reaction to the video? It sounds like you agree with exactly what the video was saying.
I said he was so caught up in attacking religious narratives that he missed the point of the story on heaven/hell.

I also said he was so caught up in attacking what someone says, that he missed the point entirely (which is basically the same thing).


The thing is, you can focus on what someone says, or if you know them, where they are coming from, you can focus on what someone means. Recently I replied to something someone meant, rather than what they said. You know why? Because I knew what they meant, despite their incorrect phrasing.

It was here, and the majority of the people here presumably would understand what was meant, rather than what was said, so I didn't have to get all specific and caught up in correcting the wording. Although I could have- I know how.
 
If you recognize that the stories don't actually prove anything, why did you have such a negative reaction to the video? It sounds like you agree with exactly what the video was saying.
I said he was so caught up in attacking religious narratives that he missed the point of the story on heaven/hell.

I also said he was so caught up in attacking what someone says, that he missed the point entirely (which is basically the same thing).


The thing is, you can focus on what someone says, or if you know them, where they are coming from, you can focus on what someone means. Recently I replied to something someone meant, rather than what they said. You know why? Because I knew what they meant, despite their incorrect phrasing.

It was here, and the majority of the people here presumably would understand what was meant, rather than what was said, so I didn't have to get all specific and caught up in correcting the wording. Although I could have- I know how.

He was demonstrating how the research lines up with actual stories people trade with each other over the Internet.

How is that "attacking religion"?
 
If you recognize that the stories don't actually prove anything, why did you have such a negative reaction to the video? It sounds like you agree with exactly what the video was saying.
I said he was so caught up in attacking religious narratives that he missed the point of the story on heaven/hell.

Except he didn't - at least, not as it's told in many Christian churches. The "point" is that God doesn't send people to Hell, they send themselves there by being self-centered sinners. This is spelled out in Sunday Schools across the land. During my years as an Evangelical Christian, I heard this story told many times, often as an apologetic against the fact that the Bible says God created Hell and evil.

The video is a rebuttal of an often-related story that attempts to get BibleGod off the hook for eternal damnation.
 
I have actually taught the story of the long spoons in Sunday School. Being UU, I don't use heaven and hell, but simply say two kingdoms.

At the end of the story, the kids get that it is about cooperation (no deities necessary), and here is kicker. By not limiting them to heaven and hell and the confines of a forced eternity, the kids get to think through the story for themselves. I always then tell the class to write the epilogue. And always there is at least one kid who says the kingdom who feeds each other can go over to the other kingdom and teach them how to feed each other.

Story isn't the problem.

Abuse of story is the problem.
 
I said he was so caught up in attacking religious narratives that he missed the point of the story on heaven/hell.
Except he didn't - at least, not as it's told in many Christian churches.
The point is that the minister at his church obviously was teaching that cooperation is good behavior (heavenly) and selfishness is bad behavior (hellish).

Anyway, SMBC might do it a bit better. Comic is too big for image, so... here.
 
He was demonstrating how the research lines up with actual stories people trade with each other over the Internet.

How is that "attacking religion"?
Ok, what I said is slightly important as it conveys what I meant: I said "he was so caught up in attacking religious narratives that he missed the point of the one story". He went off on a bit of a tangent about how the story could have meant this or that, and had fun pointing out the story and Christianity's "flaws".

Which is a lesson in the fact that one can miss the point of a story if they take it all apart. I mean, he is chubby, so obviously the story puts him in... ahah! Chubby and in hell, because he missed the point of the story and came up with a way that selfish people could be cooperative, while they are still in hell because they have no love, which might be why his fatness looks ugly and unhealthy instead of a good, glowing chubbiness.

Which might be the whole point of the story, from my Alighierical perspective.
 
It's quite possible that he was relating the point of the story as it was told to him.

As I said, I've had it told to me many, many times as a narrative that gets God off the hook for eternal torment. Those in Hell aren't tormented because Hell is a terrible place of fire and brimstone and wailing and gnashing of teeth, but simply because they are bad people. C. S. Lewis makes the identical point in The Great Divorce: Hell is only Hellish because the damned make it so.
 
What's particularly enticing about that story is the insinuation that empathy and cooperation come from religious beliefs and that not holding the correct religious beliefs makes a person selfish and unevolved. Therefore, our religious beliefs are good for humanity and non-belief is clearly bad for humanity.

There's so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin, but I imagine it sure is tasty for someone who wants to feel like they're right and secure in their ideological identity.

And it's precisely that emotional and psychological "grab" that makes this story so powerful in hijacking whole groups of people into the virulent ideological disease we know as Abrahamic religion.

Of course, if you're suffering from a need to be right in your ideological group identification, you won't likely notice the obvious, even though the video and narrator illustrate it very clearly.
 
It's quite possible that he was relating the point of the story as it was told to him.
Ohh, he related the superficial point of the story, however he missed the point that being served great food, because you have cooperated out of greed, is the same as spiritual starvation. In other words, those in hell, who cooperate out of greed instead of love, make the same motions, but are spiritually starving.

So, to save them from hell, they must first know that love and care for others must be the foundation of cooperative acts, or else they will lose sight of the distinction between heaven and hell.
Those in Hell aren't tormented because Hell is a terrible place of fire and brimstone and wailing and gnashing of teeth, but simply because they are bad people. C. S. Lewis makes the identical point in The Great Divorce: Hell is only Hellish because the damned make it so.
Yeah. You can cooperate out of love, or out of greed. Guess which is the right path. Greed!!! :cheeky:
 
What's particularly enticing about that story is the insinuation that empathy and cooperation come from religious beliefs and that not holding the correct religious beliefs makes a person selfish and unevolved. Therefore, our religious beliefs are good for humanity and non-belief is clearly bad for humanity.
Where did you get that one, and why isn't there an emoticon that is awesome enough to express my amusement?
 
The 'mice in the piano' story is completely lacking in any kind of useful point. The idea is that the audience think 'ah - the mice don't know that there is a pianist; but obviously there must be' and that they then analogise that 'no matter how much we observe inside the universe, we will never see the external power that directs the universe; but like the pianist, we can conclude that one must exist'.

But that conclusion is only possible in the case of the story because the audience go into the story already knowing what a piano is, and how it works, and that it requires a pianist. So the argument is circular - we conclude that there must be a pianist, because we know to start with that this is necessary for a piano to generate music; By leaving this premise unspoken, the circularity is hidden, but the argument is circular nonetheless - the mice don't realise that there is a pianist, but the possibility that the music has another cause is ruled out by the audience's prior knowledge of what a piano is.

With no prior knowledge of what a universe is, or what (if anything) is needed to make it 'go', we cannot draw any useful analogy from the story - the 'pianist' is analogous to 'God', but there is no reason to accept that the universe is, like a piano, in need of an outside intelligence to make it work. We have gone from not knowing whether there is a God, to not knowing how similar (or how different) a piano is to a universe - a net gain in information of exactly zero.

Unlike a universe, a piano is not an entity from which an 'outside' cannot in principle be seen. A mouse who climbs out of the piano could, in principle, see the pianist, and add the pianist's existence to the sum of murine knowledge. Indeed, mice are prey to so many predators that they are hyper alert - a pianist might be unaware of mice in his piano, but there is no way that a mouse in a piano would be unaware of the pianist. No such means of detecting a God is available to humans; every effort to date to detect a God or to determine what his characteristics might be have resulted in abject failure - if a God is out there, He is succeeding in remaining hidden; and if He is successfully hiding from humanity, and human who claims knowledge of Him is, necessarily, a fucking liar.

A mouse who seeks to explain the source of the music need not stop at the strings, he can go on and find the hammers. From the hammers, he can follow levers that lead to keys; and from the keyboard, he can see the pianist's fingers. With skill and persistence, he can then develop an understanding of the human, and find out a lot about him.

A human who seeks to explain the working of the universe need not stop at any particular point; the more we find, the more we are led to new discoveries - and we have progressed so far along that journey that it is clear that any 'supernatural' influence or interference in the workings of the universe is not having any effect whatsoever on our lives, and can safely be ignored. The mice can believe what they like, but if they think that they can influence the choice of music that is played - for example through chanting prayers to the pianist - they are bloody stupid. And if they want to claim that their belief in the pianist justifies any restrictions of any kind on the behaviour of other mice, they have to provide evidence.

If a universe was like a piano, it would require a pianist. And if my aunty had a penis, she'd be my uncle.
 
Ohh, he related the superficial point of the story, however he missed the point that being served great food, because you have cooperated out of greed, is the same as spiritual starvation. In other words, those in hell, who cooperate out of greed instead of love, make the same motions, but are spiritually starving.

So, to save them from hell, they must first know that love and care for others must be the foundation of cooperative acts, or else they will lose sight of the distinction between heaven and hell.
Those in Hell aren't tormented because Hell is a terrible place of fire and brimstone and wailing and gnashing of teeth, but simply because they are bad people. C. S. Lewis makes the identical point in The Great Divorce: Hell is only Hellish because the damned make it so.
Yeah. You can cooperate out of love, or out of greed. Guess which is the right path. Greed!!! :cheeky:

In reality, people cooperate out of enlightened self-interest. Which ideally includes love and selfishness, as well as a large dollop of understanding and forgiveness. When you realize what an asshole you are, it's easier to forgive others for being assholes too.
 
if a God is out there, He is succeeding in remaining hidden; and if He is successfully hiding from humanity, and human who claims knowledge of Him is, necessarily, a fucking liar.
Did you call yourself a fucking liar on dolphin?
 
Ohh, he related the superficial point of the story, however he missed the point that being served great food, because you have cooperated out of greed, is the same as spiritual starvation. In other words, those in hell, who cooperate out of greed instead of love, make the same motions, but are spiritually starving.

So, to save them from hell, they must first know that love and care for others must be the foundation of cooperative acts, or else they will lose sight of the distinction between heaven and hell.

Yeah. You can cooperate out of love, or out of greed. Guess which is the right path. Greed!!! :cheeky:

In reality, people cooperate out of enlightened self-interest. Which ideally includes love and selfishness, as well as a large dollop of understanding and forgiveness. When you realize what an asshole you are, it's easier to forgive others for being assholes too.
It sort of sucks when you're better than everyone else. Then you sort of have to act like an asshole so they don't feel bad about themselves- and then they don't believe you are good, and you did it to make them feel better, and then they catch on and feel guilty, and then... fucking catch 22, like I said earlier. Poor fucking God. It's best to remain hidden until people understand why you remain hidden. And then the kids want the natural laws again, so they can fuck with eachother. :rolleyes: But no man can know the reasons God acts like an asshole. Because people love assholes....
 
if a God is out there, He is succeeding in remaining hidden; and if He is successfully hiding from humanity, and human who claims knowledge of Him is, necessarily, a fucking liar.
Did you call yourself a fucking liar on dolphin?

I didn't call myself anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom