God and the Audiophiles

[Paul R]

Science is not faith-based.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how science works if you believe that to be the case.

 

Hah- "science" is faith based as much as any other human endeavor, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

Scientific methods are much less so, but scientists/researchers still have to rely all the time on assumptions they can not prove. The common example is that induction works - you can generalize about future events by observing past events.

 

An abrupt dismissal of a subject is in fact, evidence of faith. Whether from a scientist or a religious leader, though they might furiously argue with one another about it.

 

Curiosity or a desire for more information about a subject indicates a lack of faith. So when someone demands more evidence, it is (usually) not driven by faith, but a lack thereof. I do not have faith in the results of that experiment. I do not have faith in the results because your method appears to be flawed. That type of thing.

 

Reason and faith are not antagonistic, though I admit, in many cases, reason and religion are.

 

YMMV, etc.

[Teresa]

…I don't think it is coincidental that the same mindset that rejects evolution in favor of biblical creationism rejects rationalism and science in favor of subjective listening impressions.

 

I believe in a creator or creators of living creatures just as I believe someone created my computer. I find the big bang an unscientific fairy tale. I find macroevolution to be fantasy and unprovable. However, I as well as most creationists believe in microevolution which is simply adaptation within biblical kinds now known as the family classification in modern biology.

 

However, I cannot verify the Bible, the Qur'an or any other book is the word of a creator or creators. It is entirely possible the creator or creators haven’t felt any need to communicate with humans on a distant planet way out in the boonies of the Milky Way galaxy.

 

I believe in good science which does not contradict reality but explains the real world as experienced though our senses.

 

...I don't know any intelligent person who believes in creationism...

 

I have never met an atheist in real life, only on the internet. I have met a guy who was a satanist and a woman who was a good witch who worshiped Mother Nature and believed in only using powers for good. Everyone I’ve ever met when religion was discussed they all believed in a creator, I am very old, so that may be why? Or it could be the states I’ve lived in the most: Oklahoma, Utah and Nevada?

[joelha]

Thanks a lot, Chris.

 

It's a credit to your site that I felt that I could offer this post here.

 

Joel

[joelha]

I don't know any intelligent person who believes in creationism.

 

Allan,

I don't know if you're intentionally trying to be provocative here or not, but assuming that your comment is sincere, you either automatically assume that anyone who believes in creationism isn't intelligent or else I hope you'll meet more people than you have. Some incredibly wise people believe that God created the universe.

Based on my original post, do you also believe that anything we believe we hear in our audio systems has to be validated quantitatively in some way?

Joel

[Allan F]

Gee Allan- holding much of a grudge there? If I said the sun came up in the east, you would argue about it just because I said it. And being you, you can argue with a stone. I think upon occasion, the stone would lose when arrayed against you too.

 

It is true that people in audio are fighting an entrenched mindset, more than one mindset in fact. There are many parallels to religion in there. Not the least is that because this is a passionate hobby for a lot of us, it always boils down to what we think, individually, about what we hear. Again individually.

 

It would be a shame if you can't step aside from your hard feelings and offer the thoughts your fine mind has to offer on the subject. No matter what you think, it would probably be interesting. Last time I will comment back to you with personal content. Just wanted you to know I have seen your comments directed to me here and elsewhere, and generally do not reply to them, out of respect. Does not mean I agree with you about myself, or other subjects.

 

And you are accusing other people of being too sensitive!!! As you are wont to do, in your haste to reply, you obviously did so without thinking. I haven't the faintest idea where you get the idea of a grudge or hard feelings in my post. Neither was present or intended. I expressed my honest opinion on the subject, which happened to differ from yours. Nothing more or personal. You seem to think that you hold some exalted position on this forum. The fact that you seem to spend most of your life here does not confer such status or afford your opinions any more weight than that of others. Your attack was entirely unwarranted.

 

If you think there is a parallel to religion, that's fine. But don't postulate it as "true". That is as arrogant as those who insist their view on any topic is the only one possible. I need not cite names.

 

Have a drink. Take a pill. Do whatever. But, give your head a shake!

[alfe]

Xenophanes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Nothing new in this thread:)

[Guidof]

"God is in the details." (Ludwig Mies van der Rohe).

[Skeptic]

Allan, I don't know if you're intentionally trying to be provocative here or not, but assuming that your comment is sincere, you either automatically assume that anyone who believes in creationism isn't intelligent or else I hope you'll meet more people than you have. Some incredibly wise people believe that God created the universe.

Based on my original post, do you also believe that anything we believe we hear in our audio systems has to be validated quantitatively in some way?

Joel

Creationism is not about belief in God or some higher power creating the universe.

It is the disbelief in evolution, the idea that the Earth is <10,000 years old.

As far as I can tell, this is largely an American thing, it is unheard of in this part of the world.

There are plenty of Christians here, but no Creationists.

 

There is absolutely no problem with belief in God while also accepting science.

 

Hah- "science" is faith based as much as any other human endeavor, whether you want to admit it or not.

Scientific methods are much less so, but scientists/researchers still have to rely all the time on assumptions they can not prove. The common example is that induction works - you can generalize about future events by observing past events.

An abrupt dismissal of a subject is in fact, evidence of faith. Whether from a scientist or a religious leader, though they might furiously argue with one another about it.

Curiosity or a desire for more information about a subject indicates a lack of faith. So when someone demands more evidence, it is (usually) not driven by faith, but a lack thereof. I do not have faith in the results of that experiment. I do not have faith in the results because your method appears to be flawed. That type of thing.

Reason and faith are not antagonistic, though I admit, in many cases, reason and religion are.

YMMV, etc.

Next you will be telling me that generally accepted science is "just a theory".

Science requires evidence and critical assessment.

You can make assumptions about an experiment in advance but if the evidence disproves your theory, you don't hold onto that idea based on faith.

[Allan F]

Creationism is not about belief in God or some higher power creating the universe.

It is the disbelief in evolution, the idea that the Earth is <10,000 years old.

As far as I can tell, this is largely an American thing, it is unheard of in this part of the world.

There are plenty of Christians here, but no Creationists.

 

+1

 

Precisely.

 

Denying creationism is not denying the existence of God or a Creator. This appears to be commonly misunderstood. To Joelha, I meant exactly what I wrote. I personally do not know any intelligent person who rejects evolution in favour of creationism. FYI, most of the people I know believe in God or some Supreme Being.

[kumakuma]

"God is in the details." (Ludwig Mies van der Rohe).

 

Sounds like God is an audiophile...

[alfe]

"God is in the details." (Ludwig Mies van der Rohe).

 

The devil too.

[kumakuma]

The devil too.

 

Forgot about him/her.

[joelha]

To Joelha, I meant exactly what I wrote. I personally do not know any intelligent person who rejects evolution in favour of creationism. FYI, most of the people I know believe in God or some Supreme Being.

 

You changed your statement, Allan. Your original comment was that you didn't know any intelligent person who believes in creationism. That's the comment I replied to. It's also possible God that authored evolution. And no, a day in the Bible is not 24 hours as we know it today especially since the sun, moon and the stars weren't created until the fourth day. There's more to say on that point, but I really don't want to go down that road. I'd just like to know if you believe people need to validate the opinions they offer about what they hear in their audio systems.

Joel

[petaluma]

Perhaps I'm being too sensitive and taking this too personally, but your disclaimer doesn't hide that within your response to me may be another problem in this field. It seems you see 2 teams, and that I'm not on yours. You therefore relegate me to the other team and already know all about me. You don't.

 

 

If anyone disputes my facts, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. When everyone agrees with me, we might all be crazy. But when I admit I'm wrong, I'm happy because I'm certain I've learned something.

 

 

SoundandMotion, welcome. There are very definitely two teams playing on this site and the rivalry makes the Red Sox/Yankees look like a summer tea party....

[SoundAndMotion]

I have much to say here, but not much time. So the short version: I am a committed agnostic.

 

What that means to me is that anyone who is sure there is a god (or gods), or anyone who is sure there is no god (or gods), is full of it. Can't prove either one. So how can you be so fraking sure?

I used to claim to be an agnostic for similar reasons, until a few people convinced me it was a cop-out. Briefly, my position was falsely predicated upon the assumption that there is a reciprocity between the belief "there is a deity" and the belief "there is no deity." This is very similar, logically, to the two assertions "Cable A makes an audible difference" and "Cable A does not make an audible difference."

 

My assumption that the two assertions are somehow logically equivalent, however, is false. In each case, the second statement is the "null hypothesis," and requires the fewest number of arbitrary assumptions. In addition, it is very clear how the null hypothesis can be refuted (just provide one counter-example).

 

The atheist position is a lack of belief -- it is the null hypothesis. It isn't a question of being sure it is right, but rather, being able to state under what conditions one would accept it is wrong.

 

I'm agnostic about God and about many things audio (but not all). And I'm now at peace with that. But I don't think believers are full of it. As others have mentioned, they have faith. I have faith in some things, but not these.

 

I find the phrasing of "used to claim" curious. I can't say I claim it; I am agnostic.

 

The lack of logical equivalence for the two assertions does not force you to accept one. They can be unequal but either can be wrong. I accept your characterization of the null hypothesis; but failure to disprove the null hypothesis does *not* prove the null hypothesis. I lost count of the number of assumptions required in this case (God), but even if I grant you, for argument sake, the null hypothesis has fewer, it still isn't zero, so I don't see what the score means. Either way, you want to avoid the Type I error but ignore the Type II error. Although asymmetric, both errors are... well errors, and I choose to avoid both by just saying I don't know.

 

The definitions I use (I think the dictionary agrees) is that atheist in *not* a lack of belief, that's agnostic. Atheism is a *belief* that there is no god (a + theos = no god), whereas agnostic means you think it's unknowable (a + gnostos = no know).

 

And I don't think no know is a no-no... bad I know, sorry ;-)

[kumakuma]

SoundandMotion, welcome. There are very definitely two teams playing on this site and the rivalry makes the Red Sox/Yankees look like a summer tea party....

 

I see it as more of continuum. You have a couple of hard-core members at both ends of the spectrum but the rest of us fall somewhere along this continuum. For example, I'm closer to the objectivist end than the middle.

[christopher3393]

Xenophanes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Nothing new in this thread:)

 

Good find...however, did you finish the article? Xenophanes was a great critique of polytheism, but appears to have been a theist. His arguments were considered effective enough and authoritative enough to be taken up by Christian apologists. In fact, Augustine of Hippo's position is quite similar in some aspects.

[joelha]

As the OP, I'd like to make a friendly request here.

My question was whether those who tend towards secularism also tend towards requiring evidence to validate what people hear in their audio systems.

I'd love to get people's opinions about that.

Thanks,

Joel

[alfe]

Good find...however, did you finish the article? Xenophanes was a great critique of polytheism, but appears to have been a theist. His arguments were considered effective enough and authoritative enough to be taken up by Christian apologists. In fact, Augustine of Hippo's position is quite similar in some aspects.

 

Exactly like Skeptic:)

[petaluma]

I see it as more of continuum. You have a couple of hard-core members at both ends of the spectrum but the rest of us fall somewhere along this continuum. For example, I'm closer to the objectivist end than the middle.

 

Kumakuma, your right. I probably should have stated their are factions within the two teams that have extreme rivalries.....the rest are free agents....

[Paul R]

And you are accusing other people of being too sensitive!!! As you are wont to do, in your haste to reply, you obviously did so without thinking. I haven't the faintest idea where you get the idea of a grudge or hard feelings in my post. Neither was present or intended. I expressed my honest opinion on the subject, which happened to differ from yours. Nothing more or personal. You seem to think that you hold some exalted position on this forum. The fact that you seem to spend most of your life here does not confer such status or afford your opinions any more weight than that of others. Your attack was entirely unwarranted.

 

If you think there is a parallel to religion, that's fine. But don't postulate it as "true". That is as arrogant as those who insist their view on any topic is the only one possible. I need not cite names.

 

Have a drink. Take a pill. Do whatever. But, give your head a shake!

 

(grin) I pity that there stone.

 

-Paul

[kumakuma]

Kumakuma, your right. I probably should have stated their are factions within the two teams that have extreme rivalries.....the rest are free agents....

 

Yes, free agents who sometimes switch teams without warning.

[Paul R]

 

Next you will be telling me that generally accepted science is "just a theory".

Science requires evidence and critical assessment.

You can make assumptions about an experiment in advance but if the evidence disproves your theory, you don't hold onto that idea based on faith.

 

Now you have lost me... what has that got to do with what I said? I agree with what you said above, but if an experiment goes bonkers, do you automatically assume the universe changed the rules, or do you assume you made a mistake?

 

I assume the later. But that is because I have faith (the non religious kind) that the rules of the universe are not going to change just to aggravate me.

[sandyk]

You have a couple of hard-core members at both ends of the spectrum - kumakuma

If you are lumping me in the numbers of hard core members in the Subjective side, then you would be wrong. In many areas I am mainly with the Objective side, relying on measurements wherever possible, and using proven technical methods to further enhance the performance of my own DIY gear. If the measurements do not agree with what I am consistently able to duplicate for myself and others via listening , then that's a different story. Even in the area of USB cables for example , measurements at the DAC end of a cable, as seen readily on a CRO and often published in some consumer publications, will usually show differences that some will dispute can cause audible differences in the DAC.

You can't simply lump everybody into the various categories.

 

My Signature for example, shows that I do use proven technical methods to further enhance performance. Some however may not agree that they will make any worthwhile differences because the perceived improvements may be difficult to verify by typical measurements.

[Paul R]

As the OP, I'd like to make a friendly request here.

My question was whether those who tend towards secularism also tend towards requiring evidence to validate what people hear in their audio systems.

I'd love to get people's opinions about that.

Thanks,

Joel

 

I think that has to be true. The more secular one's outlook on life, the more one demands proof of anything before accepting it. And the less tolerant of other folks who are willing to grant other folks the right to believe what they will.

 

But, the further to the extreme on either side, the more they seem to be alike. My way or no way type of attitude.

-Paul