quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it reasonable to claim empirical knowledge of Christianity, or of God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
With non-interpersonal experience as evidence, your data on the existence of God is no different from mine that I am Napoleon, Emperor of the French.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
All evidence is experience. The data provided by scientific method are experienced personally by scientists, in exactly the same way that your belief in God is experienced personally by you. The difference, and this is important, is that the evidence of science is interpersonal. Others can also experience the same evidence by following exactly the same method of experiencing it. With non-interpersonal experience as evidence, your data on the existence of God is no different from mine that I am Napoleon, Emperor of the French.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick
Others can also experience the same evidence by following exactly the same method of experiencing it.

---

quote:

---

It follows that if several people are looking at the table [the empirical object in question] at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the same point of view, and any change in the point of view makes some change in the way the light is reflected.

For most practical purposes these differences are unimportant, but to the painter they are all-important: the painter has to unlearn the habit of thinking that things seem to have the colour which common sense says they 'really' have, and to learn the habit of seeing things as they appear. Here we have already the beginning of one of the distinctions that cause most trouble in philosophy -- the distinction between 'appearance' and 'reality', between what things seem to be and what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are; but the philosopher's wish to know this is stronger than the practical man's, and is more troubled by knowledge as to the difficulties of answering the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:


'Here it is in the dictionary: empirical - based or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory, deriving knowledge from experience.'

---

If that is indeed the correct definition of empiricism then absolutely we can have empirical knowledge of Christianity.

If, however, as Yorick says, empiricism is defined by reproducibility of experiment, then that would be more difficult because the variables in the Christian experiment are too many to successfully control and reproduce in each person.

But that's the beauty of Grace.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Empirical knowledge of Christianity? Not only is it possible, it exists. Whole anthropological, sociological, and historical studies have been done on Christianity, most of them the product of observing Christians in their native habitat.
 

---

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
I'm glad that this thread has been spun off from "Atheists' Church."

One of the most interesting set of comments from that other thread is this:

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How do those who believe that God is communicating with them tell the difference between their own thoughts and input from God?

This is a good question. We have thoughts entering our heads all of the time. Where do they come from?

God speaks into the spirit, which then feeds into the mind, so that the blessing of peace in the heart accompanies God's guidance. Discernment is applied logically too: God would not guide us into harmful behaviour, and we must be conscious of our own tendencies and influences.

---

quote:

---

Unbidden thoughts, dreams, spiritual experiences, feeling of peace, dreams, visions ...

all these can be accounted for as coming form our own subconscious mind. We have great imaginations too.

---

quote:

---

For most practical purposes these differences are unimportant

---

quote:

---

In fact, one of the functions of religious ritual is to harmonize people's experience to an extent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Empirical knowledge of Christianity? Not only is it possible, it exists. Whole anthropological, sociological, and historical studies have been done on Christianity, most of them the product of observing Christians in their native habitat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roybart:
There are so many ways that religious people "know," "experience," "believe," "feel," "imagine," that they are in contact with God. Can they all be authentic? Beneficial, or at least free from harm to us or others?

This puts a huge burden on the "discernment process" -- one's own, and that of the larger community/communities in which we live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:The question of whether religious revelation is empirical or not would therefore depend on whether there is a sense devoted to such things. Now most senses have a phenomenology - we can say one taste is not like another taste, and so on. As there isn't any attested phenomenology of a religious sense, and religious revelation or religious awareness don't behave in other ways like sensory observations, it's not empirical knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet
With this empirical evidence question with Christianity, we may get 100% reliability within certain groups of people. Validity? That's the key isn't it. The validity of Christianity hinges on something that cannot be validated, i.e., belief/faith, and thus fails a simple empirical test.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:


I cannot see that any form of faith can be so validated in this way. I just don't think this is the right language to consider faith, prayer, existence of God or anything else religious. In fact, a clear proof of any of it invalidates the whole idea of belief in the very absence of verification. So it is a contradiction.

However, I may be persuaded to believe something by my subjective experience or the force of your argument. But it is still not validity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Few people deny that human beings experience more than the physical senses provide. Love, emotional feelings, being 'moved', etc are shared human experiences, as is religious revelation. Whether or not there is a set down standard by which the phenomena may be tested, surely those who can testify to them have empirical knowledge of them, using the term in its broadest sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that those are not experiences in the way that the senses provide 'experiences'. Being in love does not work like seeing a red flower or feeling a brick wall. It's much more comparable to the way in which having worked in the same job for thirty years is experience. But that's orthogonal to whether there are sources of empirical data other than our senses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thus, if there is a speck of dust on my telescope lens, I will ignore it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The way I see it, the spiritual substance of our faith is in evidence, as may be verified by those who share it. The fact that it cannot be predictably reproduced proves the validity of belief in a God with a will who is other than us and who cannot be manipulated by us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
What is the empirical observation or experiment which establishes your definition of 'validity'?

---

Definition of validity.

I took 3 undergrad courses in stats, and 7 at the grad level, so my definition tends to go with validity in its "external" or "causal" form.

You have to be able to show that the thing you're validating holds to be true across situations or circumstances, with expectable predictability. The IQ test I invented above does not correspond to any external validity, e.g., other indicators of intellect. Thus invalid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If a group of Christians mutually affirm their common experience of what they believe is God, then that experience is valid for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
An example of this would be a claimed miraculous healing backed up with medical documents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

No amount of 'valid' proof will convince the hardened believer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I see where you're going with this. It is not the same thing. I think you're actually talking inter-person reliability. That if this person independently believes of a second, and also independent of a third, then the convergence of independent views tends to confirm the belief. But it doesn't. It just says that there is agreement between people. Such agreement between people may lead us to think the belief is thus valid, but it does not actually work that way. To be valid in the sense of verification, the evidence would have to come from more that a belief.

Consider malaria. Literally thought to come from "bad air", and a shared belief that it did not make it factual. Or that germs and disease arise spontaneously from dirt, also a shared belief, but not valid.

If we're going to enter the land of statistics, validity and evidence, we end up losing if we're talking about religious beliefs. It's like showing up to play golf with snorkelling gear. It cuts the other way as well: science loses when it tries to convince us that it can discuss and conclude about ultimate things, like what got the universe going with the big bang, and the purposes of it.

On the other side of this question, this is what annoys me so thoroughly at the child-like approach to religious faith people like Dawkins take. They make a similar error, in trying to use successful methods from one area of inquiry, misapplying it to another where it also just doesn't fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If a group of Christians mutually affirm their common experience of what they believe is God, then that experience is valid for them.

---

That sounds like a very subjective approach to validity. Have you finally come round to my point of view?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Of course we may revise our interpretations as new ideas and tests provide more information as to the sources and nature of our experiences and how we express them, but the events stand as true experiences, and should not be written off as imaginary simply because we can't reproduce them at will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ok, here's the thing. By that logic, the experience of a Christian who believes God has acted in her life is true. BUT, by the same logic the experience of a Muslim who believes Allah has acted in her life must also be true.

Logically, it is impossible for both religions to be true. So how can both people's experiences be true? And if one is false and the other is true, how can we tell which is which?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Logically, it is impossible for both religions to be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A scientist who doesn't recognise the existence of the human spirit (and its potential to connect beyond itself to its Creator)
and who excludes evidence of it from his perception of reality is one with a very limited scope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
I have real problems with the notion of a religion being "true." Normally, we say that a sentence is "true" or "false." What would we be claiming if we said, for example, that physics is "true?" Would we mean that everything said in the name of physics is true? Would we mean that anything said about the physical world that was not expressed in a recognized equation of physics is "false?" What on earth would such a weird category mistake of a sentence possibly mean? And what could "my religion is true" possibly mean? This is blather masquerading as common sense. Or so ISTM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Thank you for your explanation as to why you think I should not use such terms to describe any aspect of my faith. I accept that my approach may be seen as child-like, in that it's simple observation of what my experience tells me are failings in what's being presented.

In this case, there seems to be an enormous failing in a scientific outlook which will accept the inter-personal reliability of what we receive through our physical senses, but not of what we receive spiritually. It greatly limits its scope if it narrows down what is acceptable human experience to be taken seriously and applied, and what must be discounted, based on the lack of predictable reproduction.

Of course we may revise our interpretations as new ideas and tests provide more information as to the sources and nature of our experiences and how we express them, but the events stand as true experiences, and should not be written off as imaginary simply because we can't reproduce them at will.

Much as I dislike what I see as Dawkins' cynical exploitation of the doubts and fears held concerning religion, I think that by raising his concerns he has provided the impetus for some people of faith to take theology seriously and haul themselves out of a pit of complacency. A sideways-on childlike observation may make a difference, as in the emperor's new clothes.

For me, one science doesn't end where another begins. There's a considerable overlap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Put at its most simple, the phrase "Christianity is true" means that there is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son, and so forth. It means that the tenets of the faith are really real, not just made up.
<snip>
I wouldn't have thought that statements about the truth or otherwise of religion(s) would be a controversial topic in Purgatory...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
If you can hand-wave the differing theologies of Calvinism, Orthodoxy, Arminianism, Catholicism, and Coptics, my guess is it wouldn't require a whole lot more effort to hand-wave Islam into your "true" tent...

---

I'm not hand-waving those differences. What I said holds for any situation where one person believes one thing, another person believes another thing, and the two things cannot both be true.

How I resolve the problem is by saying that we don't know which beliefs are the true ones - we merely believe that ours are true. But when others claim the status of absolute, objective truth for their beliefs despite having no better evidence than all the others whose beliefs must therefore be false, well I feel that needs arguing against
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Logically, it is impossible for both religions to be true.

---

I have real problems with the notion of a religion being "true." Normally, we say that a sentence is "true" or "false." What would we be claiming if we said, for example, that physics is "true?" Would we mean that everything said in the name of physics is true? Would we mean that anything said about the physical world that was not expressed in a recognized equation of physics is "false?" What on earth would such a weird category mistake of a sentence possibly mean? And what could "my religion is true" possibly mean? This is blather masquerading as common sense. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Logically, it is impossible for both:

A: There is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son.

and

B: there truly is no God but Allah, and that Muhammed was Allah's last and most important Prophet.

to both be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Actually, strictly and literally speaking both statements can be true as phrased. The incompatibility comes in when (A) asserts that Muhammed was a false prophet and (B) asserts that Jesus (Isa) was not divine, which are both points that I implied but did not specifically state.

But the overall point stands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I hope Marvin doesn't mind me butting in and appropriating his words here but I'd be interested to hear an answer to his question.

If "both religions can't be true" isn't palatable then how about Marvins follow up.

Logically, it is impossible for both:

A: There is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son.

and

B: there truly is no God but Allah, and that Muhammed was Allah's last and most important Prophet.

to both be true. So how can both people's experiences be true? And if one is false and the other is true, how can we tell which is which?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Maybe it's just the difference in our approaches to the faith. ISTM that faithful people spend their life deciding what they mean when they say Christ is divine, or that their sins are forgiven, etc. The notion that even precisely the same words mean anything like the same thing to two different Christians is just naive.

---

quote:

---

Insisting that "Christ died for your sins" is truth-functional and transparent like "Snow is white" is truth-functional and transparent is just plain false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Why do you suppose that the way they express it theologically would make any difference to the religious experiences of each of the above?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As I said, the claim has to be either true or false. Whether we can actually know which it is doesn't change that. Neither does throwing multiple possible interpretations of the claim into the mix - all that does is increase the number of possible options, it doesn't change the fact that only one of them can really be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As I said, the claim has to be either true or false. Whether we can actually know which it is doesn't change that. Neither does throwing multiple possible interpretations of the claim into the mix - all that does is increase the number of possible options, it doesn't change the fact that only one of them can really be true.

---

No. This is just a primitive understanding of language. Religious language seems to have more in common with poetry (bad poetry, admittedly) than it has with declarative statements like, "It is raining outside."

The point of religious discourse is to capture the inner state of a person, not the external reality of the work-a-day world. "How is it with your soul?" may be rather wooden, but it strikes me as a quintessentially religious query. You don't "disprove" "April is the cruelest month" by showing that you got a raise at work then. But you may be moved to respond, "It was the best of times: it was the worst of times."

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Religious language seems to have more in common with poetry (bad poetry, admittedly) than it has with declarative statements like, "It is raining outside."

---

quote:

---

The point of religious discourse is to capture the inner state of a person, not the external reality of the work-a-day world.

---

quote:

---

You don't "disprove" "April is the cruelest month" by showing that you got a raise at work then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
Religious language seems to have more in common with poetry (bad poetry, admittedly) than it has with declarative statements like, "It is raining outside."

---

In which case, it cannot be considered as empirical evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
I have real problems with the notion of a religion being "true." Normally, we say that a sentence is "true" or "false." What would we be claiming if we said, for example, that physics is "true?" Would we mean that everything said in the name of physics is true? Would we mean that anything said about the physical world that was not expressed in a recognized equation of physics is "false?" What on earth would such a weird category mistake of a sentence possibly mean? And what could "my religion is true" possibly mean? This is blather masquerading as common sense. Or so ISTM.

---

Put at its most simple, the phrase "Christianity is true" means that there is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son, and so forth. It means that the tenets of the faith are really real, not just made up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Depends what you mean by 'true' and 'real'. Christian 'claims' might work for someone psychologically regardless of whether God exists and whether Jesus rose again etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Depends what you mean by 'true' and 'real'. Christian 'claims' might work for someone psychologically regardless of whether God exists and whether Jesus rose again etc.

---

Well I certainly don't mean "works for someone"! What a wishy-washy pile of crap that phrase is!

By "true", I mean that (for example) there really is a God, who really, genuinely and in point of fact exists, and that when I die I really will go to Heaven (or Hell).

Whether those things are true or false is completely independent of what I happen to believe about them. I can be the most fervent believer in Christianity that there has ever been, but if it's not actually true that belief won't create God or grant me an afterlife. And I can be the most fervent atheist that has ever been, but if Christianity is true then God is still watching and I'll still be meeting Him when I die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
'God is still watching' - isn't that some sort of childish fear fantasy?

---

quote:

---

Fundamentalists want things to be 'true' in a literal sense.

---

quote:

---

The universe is bigger, more multi-faceted than that.

---

quote:

---

My science is fairly weak but I think many intuit that there are multiverses, multiple realities and, thus, multi truths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

The universe is bigger, more multi-faceted than that.

---

It doesn't matter how big or multi-faceted the universe is, "There Is A God" and "There Is No God" cannot both be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
, "There Is A God" and "There Is No God" cannot both be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You started the thread by arguing that empirical evidence for Christianity exists. If you're saying that the theological expression of any given experience isn't relevant then you're saying that such empirical evidence does not exist, because once you take away the theological expression all you're left with is empirical evidence for a funny feeling that could have been caused by anything. You can't even describe the experience as religious, because that too is a theological expression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
, "There Is A God" and "There Is No God" cannot both be true.

---

Well, neither are true according to christianity. there is not 'a' God because such a god would not be God but merely one object among many - not a subject.

---

Oh look, another argument about the phrasing rather than the point
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If I have found through God through Christianity and someone else has found God by way of another religion, my argument is that we could know that it's the one God we've found by recognising the shared experiences of God - each of which is something extraordinary, nothing at all like a 'funny feeling which could have been caused by anything' - rather than by comparing notes as to how we express and understand our faith theologically. The latter is derived from human thought, tradition, and related scriptures.

---

quote:

---

It is valid to call them 'religious' experiences, as religion is known to be about our relationship with God, as well as to use such words as experience of 'the Divine Spirit' or 'God', recognisable as being a personal entity other than us and greater than us but who intimately connects with us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
, "There Is A God" and "There Is No God" cannot both be true.

---

Well, neither are true according to christianity. there is not 'a' God because such a god would not be God but merely one object among many - not a subject.

---

Oh look, another argument about the phrasing rather than the point

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But the idea, found in classical theism, that God does not exist, is very important, surely, and goes to the heart of what we mean by such terms. Some anti-theist critiques seem to depend on the idea that God is an empirical entity, or an item in the universe, and so on, so it is important to bring those premises out into the daylight, as opposed to them languishing in a kind of twilight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
, "There Is A God" and "There Is No God" cannot both be true.

---

Well, neither are true according to christianity. there is not 'a' God because such a god would not be God but merely one object among many - not a subject.

---

Oh look, another argument about the phrasing rather than the point

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Your phrasing indicates a lack of understanding - ask the wrong question and you get the wrong answer; empirical evidence for something different than for what you are intending.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure. And if it's known that goblins cause back pain then it's valid to call back pain an experience of goblins at work.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not here to say you shouldn't believe that if you wish. But you started this thread by offering your experience as empirical evidence that the things you believe are real, and it's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Your pixie/goblin analogy comes nowhere near what I'm talking about.

---

Sure it does. You just think it doesn't because you're not taking into account all the starting assumptions you're factoring into your analysis. The chief one being that God is real (or however leo would prefer I phrased that ).

To the people who start from the assumption that pixies/goblins exist, my back pain analogy is exactly the same as what you're talking about.

quote:

---

What might begin to approach it is when a crowd of people share the experience of bouncing a ball. Some may call it turquoise, some green, some blue, some may say that it bounced to the left, others to the right, but they all saw the same ball and all touched it, and so there is empirical evidence, applied in its broadest sense, of the existence of the ball.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the OP, I can't really see the point in theists arguing that there is empirical evidence for God, for theism, or for Christianity. It sounds like a kind of faux-scientific argument, which is just phoney.

I use the word 'grounds', which is less redolent with associations to do with science and the law. Thus, I would say that a nice sunny day might give me grounds for believing in God, but it is not evidence for God, clearly.

Talking of empirical evidence sounds a bit like science envy. I know that there are various arguments for God, but they are not empirical evidence either. And don't start on fine tuning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the OP, I can't really see the point in theists arguing that there is empirical evidence for God, for theism, or for Christianity. It sounds like a kind of faux-scientific argument, which is just phoney.

I use the word 'grounds', which is less redolent with associations to do with science and the law. Thus, I would say that a nice sunny day might give me grounds for believing in God, but it is not evidence for God, clearly.

Talking of empirical evidence sounds a bit like science envy. I know that there are various arguments for God, but they are not empirical evidence either. And don't start on fine tuning.

---

There's no envy in me at all. I don't see why the term should be reserved for scientists. I agree that there are many grounds for believing in God, and for me the most persuasive is genuine experience of connection with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Your phrasing indicates a lack of understanding - ask the wrong question and you get the wrong answer; empirical evidence for something different than for what you are intending.

---

Go on, then - how would you suggest I phrase it?

And don't try to pretend that you don't know perfectly well what it is I'm saying, because we both know that you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
'God' is subject, not object. The ground of all that is, not simply one thing among others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
We can observe that many (perhaps the majority) of people have had 'spiritual experiences'

---snip---

These days lots of people claim never to have had a spiritual experience,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
'God' is subject, not object. The ground of all that is, not simply one thing among others.

---

Fine, so shall I phrase it as "God Is" v.s. "God Is Not" then?

Sooner or later, I'll tie you down to a phrasing that you can't argue with, at which point you'll have to respond to the point I'm actually making. Or you could save us both the bother and just answer it now. Up to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
'God' is subject, not object. The ground of all that is, not simply one thing among others.

---

Fine, so shall I phrase it as "God Is" v.s. "God Is Not" then?

Sooner or later, I'll tie you down to a phrasing that you can't argue with, at which point you'll have to respond to the point I'm actually making. Or you could save us both the bother and just answer it now. Up to you.

---

Better phrasing but same response as original.

The question still remains as to what sort of truth one is talking about.

'God is.' psychologically true for some and not for others.

There may be 'objective truth' but we can only grasp it subjectively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:


Personally I believe in God and follow Jesus' teachings, but I know I can't claim empirical evidence for these beliefs, despite having spiritual experiences that can't be explained scientifically. On a doubtful day I sometimes wonder if it's all in my mind. Is the spiritual realm real or a figment of our imaginations? If it's not real, why do we feel compelled to invent realities outside of the reality we can observe with our physical senses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
We can observe that many (perhaps the majority) of people have had 'spiritual experiences' and also that humans throughout history have been interested in creation and have created or followed religions of various sorts. These days lots of people claim never to have had a spiritual experience, but they are still interested in finding out about the world's origins. None of this proves or disproves God's existence.

---

quote:

---

from wikipedia: The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times spirituality is often separated from religion,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.

---

quote:

---

Personally I believe in God and follow Jesus' teachings, but I know I can't claim empirical evidence for these beliefs, despite having spiritual experiences that can't be explained scientifically. ...

---

quote:

---

On a doubtful day I sometimes wonder if it's all in my mind. Is the spiritual realm real or a figment of our imaginations? If it's not real, why do we feel compelled to invent realities outside of the reality we can observe with our physical senses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...for me the experience of God is as real as the experience of looking at the sky or holding someone close, and, in my simple way of looking at it, it seems that if the latter counts as empirical evidence so should the former.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...for me the experience of God is as real as the experience of looking at the sky or holding someone close, and, in my simple way of looking at it, it seems that if the latter counts as empirical evidence so should the former.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The disanalogy between God and swans is that a swan is in a definite location. If you have visual access to a location in the space-time continuum that is occupied by a swan you can see the swan. If you don't have visual access you can't see that swan. But God is equally accessible or inaccessible to human beings whatever their circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...for me the experience of God is as real as the experience of looking at the sky or holding someone close, and, in my simple way of looking at it, it seems that if the latter counts as empirical evidence so should the former.

---

I appreciate that's how you feel. Can you appreciate my position? I can see the sky but I've yet to see God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...for me the experience of God is as real as the experience of looking at the sky or holding someone close, and, in my simple way of looking at it, it seems that if the latter counts as empirical evidence so should the former.

---

I appreciate that's how you feel. Can you appreciate my position? I can see the sky but I've yet to see God.

---

I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you have in mind when you talk about being able to see God, because it sounds like you want to see him as a part of the universe, as an agent operating within his own creation. I'm having trouble seeing how what you are asking for is any different than searching entirely within a virtual reality "world" for evidence of the programmer who created it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
I do question why God seems so obviously real to some of us and ridiculous to others.

---

quote:

---

Susan Doris, I was referring to spiritual in the religious sense, but I do find it fascinating that some atheists and secularists believe that spirituality is an important part of the human experience, even if there is nothing beyond the physical universe.

---

To associate spirituality only with freligious belief is a very narrow definition, isn't it? It could just as easily be called the aesthetic aspect of our total personality, but it's slightly more likely to be spelt incorrectly!

quote:

---

I would really like to know why we invent religions and spiritual beings if they are not real.

---

quote:

---

Having read various studies on the issue it seems scientists and social scientists are moving away from then idea that religions are just a way to explain the physical world when there is an absence of scientific knowledge and explanations. There seems to be more of a view that religious or spiritual beliefs can be helpful to humans and have evolved for a reason, even if they are not necessarily 'true'.

---

quote:

---

My friend posted an interesting article on Facebook Today Why Clever People Believe in Silly Things . While the author, Craig Cormick, ridicules pseudo science and astrology etc, he acknowledges that religious beliefs can coincide alongside scientific beliefs ...

---

quote:

---

...and that many scientists are religious.

---

I understand that is a small percentage, around 10% and falling. It is very clear that there will always be unevidenced beliefs and faiths, and the right to hold those beliefs should be upheld, but in 50? 100? years, they will be a minority. I suppose 500 or 1000 might be more realistic! ... and *sigh*!
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
Raptor Eye, I too have a strong faith (though as I said above I still have days when I question my beliefs). I have been brought up in a Christian home and have been a Christian since I was three, though obviously my faith has grown and developed since then! I know many Christians who have had similar faith experiences to me, and newer Christians who have had their lives transformed by Christ as adults, some dramatically. These experiences all increase my faith.

---

quote:

---

However these experiences don't explain why some people who are brought up as Christians or who seek a spiritual path as adults never experience God. To them God seems absent - just a human created fairy tale. I do question why God seems so obviously real to some of us and ridiculous to others. Or why some Christians feel they have a relationship and direct guidance from God while others see Him as more distant and less interventionist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

It's affirming to our faith and helps to build it up when others share their experiences, I agree, and it's a witness to the evidence of God's existence for those willing to accept the truth. Those unwilling to accept it seem more willing to believe that we're all deluded and living in an imaginary world rather than accept us as intelligent people who challenge and reason with caution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

It's affirming to our faith and helps to build it up when others share their experiences, I agree, and it's a witness to the evidence of God's existence for those willing to accept the truth. Those unwilling to accept it seem more willing to believe that we're all deluded and living in an imaginary world rather than accept us as intelligent people who challenge and reason with caution.

---

The ancient Egyptian religion endured for over 3000 years. I why is their witness to each other, their faith, less valid than yours? Buddhism and Hinduism have lasted longer than Christianity, why are those beliefs less than yours?

Understand, I've no issue with theism in general. I am not anti-theist, nor even a true atheist.
The problem I have is when theists attempt to equate faith with evidence.
They may be as important to some, but they are not equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The ancient Egyptian religion endured for over 3000 years. I why is their witness to each other, their faith, less valid than yours? Buddhism and Hinduism have lasted longer than Christianity, why are those beliefs less than yours?

Understand, I've no issue with theism in general. I am not anti-theist, nor even a true atheist.
The problem I have is when theists attempt to equate faith with evidence.
They may be as important to some, but they are not equal.

---

quote:

---

Of course religious beliefs are very much in place throughout the world, necessarily alongside Science, as they cannot, fortunately, avoid it; unfortunately there are far too many cases where science is ignored. I'll look at the link later (although I've heard of something similar before) but how much confirmation bias do you think there is in the conclusions drawn?

---

quote:

---

My friend posted an interesting article on Facebook Today Why Clever People Believe in Silly Things .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili
He doesn't seem overly supportive of religion but acknowledges that it serves a a positive purpose in many people's lives. Also that people can achieve "a compatibility of divergent beliefs" that allow them to follow a religion while also holding a scientific world view. Therefore he doesn't believe it is necessary to wipe out religious belief in order for scientific discoveries to be made or for the general population to support the use of new technologies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If human reason really is nothing more than an emergent property of mindless instinct, then it is not of much use to real science (hence the reason why naturalistic scientists steal concepts from the theistic world view, such as free will, purpose, value and objectivity).

---

Not that nonsense again
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...for me the experience of God is as real as the experience of looking at the sky or holding someone close, and, in my simple way of looking at it, it seems that if the latter counts as empirical evidence so should the former.

---

The difference between those experiences is the phrase "for me" at the start of the God one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Not that nonsense again

---

Not another unsubstantiated one-liner again
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Not another unsubstantiated one-liner again

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If human reason really is nothing more than an emergent property of mindless instinct, then it is not of much use to real science

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
No more unsubstantiated than your "if reason wasn't given to us by God Himself then it's completely useless".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I believe Elizabeth Anscombe mounted a formidable riposte to C. S. Lewis with regard to this. He had argued that if reason or cognition are the product of evolution, there is no reason why they should be reliable, since they are not the product of rational causes.

However, she attacked this, and argued that rational logic stands or falls as a self-contained system. As far as I can see, this seems to suggest that Lewis's argument is an example of the genetic fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what? Your brain has just excreted the above thought. Since it is nothing more than a bit of cerebral spillage, I don't need to pay any more attention to it than I would to any other excreta from your body.

---

quote:

---

Now a train of reasoning has no value as a means of finding truth unless each step in it is connected with what went before in the Ground-Consequent relation. If our B does not follow logically from our A, we think in vain. If what we think at the end of our reasoning is to be true, the correct answer to the question, 'Why do you think this?' must begin with the Ground-Consequent because.

On the other hand, every event in Nature must be connected with previous events in the Cause and Effect relation. But our acts of thinking are events. Therefore the true answer to 'Why do you think this?' must begin with the Cause-Effect because.

Unless our conclusion is the logical consequent from a ground it will be worthless and could be true only by a fluke. Unless it is the effect of a cause, it cannot occur at all. It looks therefore, as if, in order for a train of thought to have any value, these two systems of connection must apply simultaneously to the same series of mental acts.

But unfortunately the two systems are wholly distinct. To be caused is not to be proved. Wishful thinkings, prejudices, and the delusions of madness, are all caused, but they are ungrounded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune
More to the point, if reason arose from evolution, it presumably survived because it had value to the organism. The notion that something that arose via evolution is therefore not reliable is bizarrely ignorant

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, according to this kind of thinking, God definitely exists, and creationism is true, because both ideas have been held by billions of people throughout history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Yes, I see Anscombe's argument as a variety of instrumentalism - reason and logic are tools, not the truth. Whereas Lewis seems stuck in a sort of genetic fallacy, as if their origin militates against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
...your idea of the human mind just being a download from God or somesuch...

---

 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Yes, I see Anscombe's argument as a variety of instrumentalism - reason and logic are tools, not the truth. Whereas Lewis seems stuck in a sort of genetic fallacy, as if their origin militates against them.

---

But Lewis was not guilty of the genetic fallacy, because he was not simply talking about origins, but the nature of reason itself. The philosophy of naturalism / materialism obviously is not simply concerned with origins. And it hardly needs pointing out that if the origin of something does have a bearing on the present moment, then it is not fallacious to point this out.

Furthermore, to say that evolution is only to do with origins is to tacitly admit that evolution is not true. How convenient to be able to shut a theory up in the distant and unobserved past, where it can have no bearing on what we actually observe and experience today!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune
More to the point, if reason arose from evolution, it presumably survived because it had value to the organism. The notion that something that arose via evolution is therefore not reliable is bizarrely ignorant

---

Terrible reasoning. Presumably you think that usefulness is the same as truth?

Lies can be useful. They can even help survival.

I thought that was obvious to anyone with any intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune
Your notion that lies and reason are comparable is faulty. A lie is useful because you know what is true and wish to keep that truth from someone else.

---

quote:

---

Simply being ignorant has no such advantage for the person under its sway

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Another interesting point here, which perhaps Lewis and Anscombe would not have considered, is the rise of instrumentalism, so that many philosophers of science today would argue that science does not aim for truth. This is too grand an ambition, and in fact, science made the brilliant step, several centuries ago, of separating itself from such philosophical considerations.

Thus, scientists make observations about appearances, and aim to make predictions about further observations. In none of this, do they consider their work to be aimed at truth or reality.

Personally, I find this to be a very useful step, since considerations of truth generally get bogged down in arcane philosophical arguments. Well, OK, these can be very interesting, but science is practical above all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Another interesting point here, which perhaps Lewis and Anscombe would not have considered, is the rise of instrumentalism, so that many philosophers of science today would argue that science does not aim for truth. This is too grand an ambition, and in fact, science made the brilliant step, several centuries ago, of separating itself from such philosophical considerations.

Thus, scientists make observations about appearances, and aim to make predictions about further observations. In none of this, do they consider their work to be aimed at truth or reality.

Personally, I find this to be a very useful step, since considerations of truth generally get bogged down in arcane philosophical arguments. Well, OK, these can be very interesting, but science is practical above all.

---

Presumably, therefore, we can't assume that there is any truth in what you have just written?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Someone could be living in a state of great danger, and not be aware of the fact. This ignorance provides a peace that knowledge of the danger may not have done. And if nothing bad actually happens, despite the high risk, then that person's ignorance would indeed have turned out to be 'bliss'.

This really isn't your best day, reasoning-wise, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune
More to the point, if reason arose from evolution, it presumably survived because it had value to the organism. The notion that something that arose via evolution is therefore not reliable is bizarrely ignorant

---

Terrible reasoning. Presumably you think that usefulness is the same as truth?

Lies can be useful. They can even help survival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Well, do you find it useful? That's the question I would ask. As I said, considerations of truth immediately get bogged down in philosophical discussions as to what truth is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune
You routinely confuse arrogance with intellect. I will respond to this post, and then ignore your rants going forward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Well, do you find it useful? That's the question I would ask. As I said, considerations of truth immediately get bogged down in philosophical discussions as to what truth is.

---

But everything you have written presupposes that there are things which you believe are true. For example, that I exist, and therefore you address me on that assumption. That also presupposes that you believe that objective reality exists outside your own mind. You assume that there really is meaning in the word 'useful'. You assume the existence of scientists, whose work really is valid. And so on...

Playing the ultra avant garde post-modernist card sounds cute and trendy, but actually it is self-refuting the moment you open your mouth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Queztalcoatl
Actually, I have no idea if there is reality outside my mind, (how could I know that?), but it's a useful as-if.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by etymological Evangelical
Susan Doris talks about 'science', she is, of course, not referring to science at all, but philosophical naturalism - a quasi-religion in which she puts her whole faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris
I'd just like to add a comment here. I do not put my 'whole faith' in anything. I am a practical person, always reading and learning and looking for the latest news and discoveries. The things I have faith in, whether you call them philosophical naturalism or science, have evidence behind them. If this evidence changes and becomes better and more securely based, then my faith in whatever it is will follow; never blindly though.

---

quote:

---

I will agree that Science is still working on an understanding of 'free will' and 'consciousness' but I accept that all these states of being are much closer to a complete definition because of research into the way the brain works. Complexity is part of evolution and morals too are explained by it. First cause is one that eludes an exact explanation, especially as it happened so very long ago, and of course the Science required is still very recent.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
You are actually putting your faith in an assumption that, in the future, the empirical scientific method will vindicate the philosophy of naturalism. That is certainly a 'faith' position of a kind of which many so called 'religious' and 'superstitious' people would be proud!

---

Yes, to a certain extent that is right. However, the increasing sum of evidence and proofs of many things and, just as importantly, the discarding of theories that didn't work, provide a much firmer basis for my faith in it. I very much like the view I read a while back: The only thing in which faith without evidence is required, is belief in God.

---

quote:

---

I agree that it is very difficult for those of us who have ceased to believe in any God/god/s to think of any proof which would convince us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
More to the point, if reason arose from evolution, it presumably survived because it had value to the organism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
Conclusion: reason is a non-naturalistic power that has evolved as a spandrel, a side-effect of something adaptive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
Conclusion: reason is a non-naturalistic power that has evolved as a spandrel, a side-effect of something adaptive.

---

How is that a conclusion?

An alternative conclusion (which appears to me to be far more consistent with your reasoning) is this: reason did not evolve, but in (imperfect) human minds is a reflection of a truly objective rationality that eternally exists behind the universe, and by which the universe came into being and functions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
Conclusion: reason is a non-naturalistic power that has evolved as a spandrel, a side-effect of something adaptive.

---

How is that a conclusion?

An alternative conclusion (which appears to me to be far more consistent with your reasoning) is this: reason did not evolve, but in (imperfect) human minds is a reflection of a truly objective rationality that eternally exists behind the universe, and by which the universe came into being and functions.

---

It's not an alternative conclusion. It depends on whether you're considering reason as an activity of human subjects or as the objective norms governing that activity. The one implies the other, but you oughtn't to confuse the two.

Compare: mathematical truths may be eternal and objective, but the mental equipment that makes human beings better at coming to know those truths than toads are must depend upon contingent evolved facts about human beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm not comparing faith with evidence, simply claiming evidence of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm not trying to say that the science of theology is like the science of physics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

What I am claiming is that physical human experience is as valid as spiritual human experience, and vice versa. Neither should be discounted out of hand as if it were more likely to be imagined than real.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Please show me where I have claimed that other religions are less valid than mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
it's a witness to the evidence of God's existence for those willing to accept the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mili:
Craig Cormick, the author, is a writer and a science journalist, and works for the Australian Government to communicate the benefits of new technologies to the Australian public. So he is not a scientist himself, but views the world from a scientific view point. He is worried about non-scientific beliefs that could be detrimental to the development and use of science and technology eg. people rejecting vaccination, GM foods or nanotechnology without scientific basis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That reminds me of the peacock's tail - isn't it just too absurd to have evolved in order to aid reproduction? Why not have a tail half as long? Wouldn't it do the job as well?

---

Empirical evidence that peahens have free will?
 

---

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Double post to add for clarity.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That reminds me of the peacock's tail - isn't it just too absurd to have evolved in order to aid reproduction? Why not have a tail half as long? Wouldn't it do the job as well?

---

Empirical evidence that peahens have free will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That reminds me of the peacock's tail - isn't it just too absurd to have evolved in order to aid reproduction? Why not have a tail half as long? Wouldn't it do the job as well?

---

Empirical evidence that peahens have free will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
There isn't really a good naturalistic account of how a set of molecules can be about some other arrangement of matter. If naturalistic accounts require physicalism (i.e. all entities must be reducible to something that can be described in the notations of physics) then such an account is in principle impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So in your long summary above, are you arguing that human reason is just too powerful to be required for survival? Or that we might have been much dumber, and survived just as well? That reminds me of the peacock's tail - isn't it just too absurd to have evolved in order to aid reproduction? Why not have a tail half as long? Wouldn't it do the job as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
There are perfectly good explanations...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So in your long summary above, are you arguing that human reason is just too powerful to be required for survival? Or that we might have been much dumber, and survived just as well? That reminds me of the peacock's tail - isn't it just too absurd to have evolved in order to aid reproduction? Why not have a tail half as long? Wouldn't it do the job as well?

---

Obviously it is more powerful than is required for survival, since there are lots of species of animal with no brains at all that are doing perfectly fine thank you.
There are perfectly good explanations about how we can have such hypertrophied brains, and sexual selection is one of them. But nobody thinks peacock tails give peacocks any insight into particle physics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
There isn't really a good naturalistic account of how a set of molecules can be about some other arrangement of matter.

---

(...)
Completely automatic, no "thought" involved. Then as organisms become more complex the ability to process such inputs improves to the point where organisms can override the automatic response, staying in the cold place for the sake of something else (getting food, say). This obviously requires a vast amount of processing power, but that's what brains are for. And as we postulate the ability to override the automatic response, we can easily postulate the ability to associate the concepts of "hot" and "cold" with certain other inputs (images from the eyes, say).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The first is that when you talk about the organism overriding the automatic response, you're suddenly positing an organism that is somehow not the set of automatic responses. What you should have said is one automatic response (food) overrides the other automatic response (cold/heat). But if we say that we're not making any progress away from automatic responses towards thinking that can be about things.

---

quote:

---

The second is that it's not clear to me how it's benefitting our organism to picture how its warm den looks rather than say, a map of the path back. But that's not a serious hurdle.

---

quote:

---

The third, and most serious one, is that we haven't explained what makes a thought about something yet. Suppose our primitive primate has an image of a nice warm den come in front of his eyes. But what makes it an image of a particular den? Why is it the den that the primate slept in last night and not the den that the primate grew up in.

---

quote:

---

If it's an accurate recreation of the visual impression the primate had at the time, that might work. But most memories are not accurate recreations of visual impressions. We need to explain thoughts that are wrong or inaccurate about their subject matter, so mere accuracy of reproduction isn't enough.

---

quote:

---

A response to a stimulus isn't about that stimulus. Saying that a complicated set of responses to a lot of stimuli can be about any of those stimuli is so far just handwaving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, you do not only put your faith in things with evidence behind them. What about your comment on a recent thread, as follows:

quote:

---

I will agree that Science is still working on an understanding of 'free will' and 'consciousness' but I accept that all these states of being are much closer to a complete definition because of research into the way the brain works. Complexity is part of evolution and morals too are explained by it. First cause is one that eludes an exact explanation, especially as it happened so very long ago, and of course the Science required is still very recent.

---

You believe that there must be a naturalistic explanation for free will and consciousness, even though "science is still working on it".

---

quote:

---

In other words, there is no evidence for a naturalistic explanation.

---

quote:

---

You assume that evolution explains complexity ...

---

quote:

---

...and morals. That is not a belief based on evidence, but assumption.

---

quote:

---

The naturalistic explanation for 'first cause' is again pushed into the future, based on faith in the expected future trajectory of scientific research.

---

Can you offer an alternative, more probable resolution of the first cause question? If you say God, then you know my question will be, who first-caused God?

quote:

---

Again, therefore, no evidence.

---

quote:

---

So you've made up your mind about where the evidence leads, even though you admit (as the above quotes show) that science does not, as yet, have all the answers (and obviously you cannot possibly know whether science ever will!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
There are perfectly good explanations...

---

Please define what you mean by the words "good" and "explanations" in this context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The first is that when you talk about the organism overriding the automatic response, you're suddenly positing an organism that is somehow not the set of automatic responses. What you should have said is one automatic response (food) overrides the other automatic response (cold/heat). But if we say that we're not making any progress away from automatic responses towards thinking that can be about things.

---

It's essentially the same thing. When two automatic responses are in conflict, the organism requires a means of deciding which shall override the other. In primitive organisms that may in itself be an automatic response, but it's not hard to see how evolution would favour those organisms that developed a means of deciding which response to favour for themselves.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The second is that it's not clear to me how it's benefitting our organism to picture how its warm den looks rather than say, a map of the path back. But that's not a serious hurdle.

---

Not serious at all. I'm sure that in more primitive organisms the image wouldn't have been of a specific den, but of the elements (walls and a roof, say) that make one.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The third, and most serious one, is that we haven't explained what makes a thought about something yet. Suppose our primitive primate has an image of a nice warm den come in front of his eyes. But what makes it an image of a particular den? Why is it the den that the primate slept in last night and not the den that the primate grew up in.

---

I don't see that as a problem. The specificity of the image will increase as the processing power of the organism's brain increases. As that processing power increases, so does the ability to identify specific images as being of specific things - to apply the label to the image, if you like.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it's an accurate recreation of the visual impression the primate had at the time, that might work. But most memories are not accurate recreations of visual impressions. We need to explain thoughts that are wrong or inaccurate about their subject matter, so mere accuracy of reproduction isn't enough.

---

All we need to do to solve that problem is admit that the memory storage/retrieval capability of our processing units isn't perfect. Which should be clear to everyone!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A response to a stimulus isn't about that stimulus. Saying that a complicated set of responses to a lot of stimuli can be about any of those stimuli is so far just handwaving.

---

What exactly do you mean by "about", here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Evidence that people have Faith? No problem there. Evidence of what they have faith in? Show me something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Please show me where I have claimed that other religions are less valid than mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
it's a witness to the evidence of God's existence for those willing to accept the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The personal evidence received through my experience remains valid regardless of whether or not you believe it or consider it a delusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Please show me where I have claimed that other religions are less valid than mine.

---

Right here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
it's a witness to the evidence of God's existence for those willing to accept the truth.

---

In what way does this make such a claim?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If an organism decides which automatic response overrides the other via an automatic response that is a means of deciding which response to favour for themselves. It's not a means by which some other organism decides for them(*). If we don't have free will then all we are is nothing other than a highly sophisticated set of automatic responses.

---

quote:

---

I'm puzzled about the relevance of that comment to the part of my post that you quote. Why is a simplified image of a den more helpful compared to a route plan?

---

quote:

---

Er... stop there. You've introduced a new idea - applying the label to the image. Where does this idea of applying labels come from?
(Also, the label idea is not going to work because it produces an infinite regress.)

---

quote:

---

It's this business of the labels. What makes 'den I slept in last night,' the right label to apply to the image of the den, and 'den I grew up in,' not?

---

quote:

---

It can't be that the image is an accurate image of the one and not of the other, because as you've just said our images are not accurate. If I have a memory of my old home it needn't contain any details that distinguish it from any other home I may have lived in. Indeed, even if it contains details imported from a different home, it can still be a memory of the one home and not of the other.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What exactly do you mean by "about", here?

---

That is, as they say, the question.
I mean about in the sense that we are now talking 'about' primitive primates. That is, our sentences refer to those primates. Note that the primitive primates are not causally responsible for those thoughts.

---

quote:

---

A thought is about something when it refers to that thing, or represents that thing specifically, or so on.
Note that sticking a label on an image won't explain how the image can be an image of something specific. Because then we have to explain how the label refers to that thing. If we explain reference by sticking labels on, then we'd have to explain the label by sticking a label on the label, and so on, which would be pointless.

---

You've got hung up on my use of the word "label", but it's not like I meant to say that there's actually some extra entity called a "label" floating around in our brains waiting to be attached to something. What I referred to as a "label" is merely the additional memories that are associated with any given image. None of them exist before the experiences they are associated with happen, and we all build them up from scratch as we go through life. I'm watching it happen right now with my baby nephew, seeing him watch and feel and test and learn. He didn't know who I was when he first met me, but now that we've had fun together on a number of occasions he has learnt to recognise me - the image of me, if you will - as someone he has fun with. In the future when he develops the ability to speak and remember words he'll have a name (Uncle Marvin ) to associate with that image. That's the sort of thing I'm referring to when I talk about "labels".
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You say God's existence and truth as in your god, you are by default saying just that. Do I expect you to believe you chosen faith is the correct one? Absolutely. Do I have an issue with that belief? None whatsoever. The problem I have is with "evidence." Again, what makes your experience any more evidence than that of a devout Hindu? They cannot both be true. At least one of you is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was wondering what the difference is between this idiosyncratic use of 'evidence' and the scientific usage - I suppose the latter refers to repeatable evidence, which is relatively impersonal. Thus it must be openly verifiable by others.

Take the example of evidence for the Big Bang, say, the redshifting observable for distant objects, which indicates that space is expanding. It is not enough for an astronomer to say 'I have experienced redshift, and here is my testimony'. It is essential that other astronomers can now attempt to observe the redshifting.

Thus the evidence is shared, public, and relatively impersonal. (An old definition of science was 'public knowledge').

If somebody wants to argue that their experience of God is 'evidence', they are free to do so, of course, but they are now using the word quite differently, and in fact, with rather a circular meaning - 'this is my evidence, I mean, this is my experience'.

And clearly it can be immediately contradicted by others' personal experiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was wondering what the difference is between this idiosyncratic use of 'evidence' and the scientific usage - I suppose the latter refers to repeatable evidence, which is relatively impersonal. Thus it must be openly verifiable by others.

Take the example of evidence for the Big Bang, say, the redshifting observable for distant objects, which indicates that space is expanding. It is not enough for an astronomer to say 'I have experienced redshift, and here is my testimony'. It is essential that other astronomers can now attempt to observe the redshifting.

Thus the evidence is shared, public, and relatively impersonal. (An old definition of science was 'public knowledge').

If somebody wants to argue that their experience of God is 'evidence', they are free to do so, of course, but they are now using the word quite differently, and in fact, with rather a circular meaning - 'this is my evidence, I mean, this is my experience'.

And clearly it can be immediately contradicted by others' personal experiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Religious experience is shared by others too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
A good explanation in this context is one that is coherent, doesn't presuppose the existence of the thing explained, is consistent with whatever we know, and makes as much use as possible of processes and facts that we already know about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Including those whose beliefs are completely incompatible with yours. If your experience is evidence, then surely so is theirs. But your beliefs can't possibly both be true, which means that, logically, at least one of your experiences must be of something that isn't real.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

My own personal spiritual experience can count as evidence for me. It convinces me personally, even if it cannot convince anyone else. If 'evidence' is defined as that which can convince someone of the truth of something, then experience can certainly count as valid evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Many personal experiences are given an objective status, such as consciousness and the sense of taste. I cannot possibly know if strawberries taste the same to you as to me. We may try to describe the taste of strawberries to each other by way of analogies, but this will only be a crude approximation. But no sane person could possibly doubt that strawberries have a taste.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
It is only valid evidence for you...

---

quote:

---

...and, in future, you could easily come to the conclusion that you were wrong...

---

quote:

---

... - as many do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All experiences are of something which is real, otherwise the experience itself would not be real.

---

quote:

---

I suspect that what you meant to say is something along the lines of "whatever you think caused your experience may not be real" - in other words, the real cause of your real experience is not the cause you think it was.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, you have to take into account apparent contradictions, which could possibly be harmonised with greater knowledge and understanding. Thus some apparently divergent religious experiences could be from the same source. That is logically possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha
Sane people do indeed believe god(s) do not exist.

---

quote:

---

Your analogies are crude because they are not apt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
It is only valid evidence for you...

---

Errrm... that's what I said!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
That too, though I would add that the real cause may just be the person's own brain making it up.

---

quote:

---

But it still means that nobody can say that their experiences, which they believe to be spiritual, are empirical proof of the truth of their spiritual beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha
The taste of strawberries is repeatable, consistent and exists whether or not you believe in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Me thinks we have hit upon qualia, upon which many a philosopher has broken his balls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Me thinks we have hit upon qualia, upon which many a philosopher has broken his balls.

---

And it's also where EE is confusing apples and oranges. You can't use scientific terminology to describe philosophical or theological ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
That too, though I would add that the real cause may just be the person's own brain making it up.

---

True, though you can't prove that, even if you could detect brain activity. The only way you could conclude that it was only their brain causing the experience is through a prior commitment to a philosophy which rules out any reality other than the material. That, of course, is an unproven assumption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If an organism decides which automatic response overrides the other via an automatic response that is a means of deciding which response to favour for themselves. It's not a means by which some other organism decides for them(*). If we don't have free will then all we are is nothing other than a highly sophisticated set of automatic responses.

---

That may well be the case. I would argue, however, that a sufficiently complex and sophisticated set of automatic responses might appear indistinguishable from the classical definition of free will.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Er... stop there. You've introduced a new idea - applying the label to the image. Where does this idea of applying labels come from?
(Also, the label idea is not going to work because it produces an infinite regress.)

---

I'm merely referring to the ability to identify a specific image as being of a specific thing.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's this business of the labels. What makes 'den I slept in last night,' the right label to apply to the image of the den, and 'den I grew up in,' not?

---

The image is not just of the den, though - it is also of the organism itself as it relates to the den. Thus what makes 'den I slept in last night' the right label to apply to the image of the den and 'den I grew up in' not is the organism itself being its current version rather than its previous version. Other features, such as the presence of the organism's mother, will be factored in as well.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A thought is about something when it refers to that thing, or represents that thing specifically, or so on.
Note that sticking a label on an image won't explain how the image can be an image of something specific. Because then we have to explain how the label refers to that thing. If we explain reference by sticking labels on, then we'd have to explain the label by sticking a label on the label, and so on, which would be pointless.

---

You've got hung up on my use of the word "label", but it's not like I meant to say that there's actually some extra entity called a "label" floating around in our brains waiting to be attached to something. What I referred to as a "label" is merely the additional memories that are associated with any given image. None of them exist before the experiences they are associated with happen, and we all build them up from scratch as we go through life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha
The taste of strawberries is repeatable, consistent and exists whether or not you believe in it.

---

So please explain how you would cause me - or anyone else - to know what strawberries taste like to you.

My point was not that strawberries have a taste, but what that taste actually is. This taste is entirely experiential and personal (and therefore incommunicable), and yet it is also real.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

The same goes for consciousness. It is experienced, personal and incommunicable. But it is also real.

Are you disputing that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
In order to have the ability to identify a specific image as being of a specific thing, we have to have images that are of things. What I'm arguing is that there's no way to make sense of that 'of' using physicalist concepts.

---

quote:

---

Invoking the additional memories associated with the image as an explanation will be either circular or prone to an infinite regress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
That too, though I would add that the real cause may just be the person's own brain making it up.

---

True, though you can't prove that, even if you could detect brain activity. The only way you could conclude that it was only their brain causing the experience is through a prior commitment to a philosophy which rules out any reality other than the material. That, of course, is an unproven assumption.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But it still means that nobody can say that their experiences, which they believe to be spiritual, are empirical proof of the truth of their spiritual beliefs.

---

Nobody could say that to others, but they can certainly say it to themselves to their own satisfaction, even if certain other people think they are deluded.

---

quote:

---

After all, no one has to have their personal experiences validated by the scientific community (unless you think that scientists are the new clergy, and the most intrusive and mind-controlling clergy of all).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
In order to have the ability to identify a specific image as being of a specific thing, we have to have images that are of things. What I'm arguing is that there's no way to make sense of that 'of' using physicalist concepts.

---

I simply do not understand the objection. It seems the simplest thing in the world to say "that's a tree". Perhaps you could explain why it's not?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Invoking the additional memories associated with the image as an explanation will be either circular or prone to an infinite regress.

---

It is circular, ultimately. The brain references itself, and influences itself. What's the problem with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Consciousness is, to a large extent, quantifiable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha
Strawberries have a taste. That taste is consistent. How I experience this vs. how you experience it is irrelevant. The chemicals which cause their particular flavour can be measured, quantified, replicated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What "particular flavour"? There is no objective flavour (empirically speaking) to strawberries (or any food), . . .

---

quote:

---

The greatest weakness of the Scoville Organoleptic Test is its imprecision, because it relies on human subjectivity. Tasters taste only one sample per session. Results vary widely, up to 50%, between laboratories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
The article you link to says

quote:

---

The greatest weakness of the Scoville Organoleptic Test is its imprecision, because it relies on human subjectivity. Tasters taste only one sample per session. Results vary widely, up to 50%, between laboratories.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Also, why would 'heat' detection levels correspond to flavour? There is more to flavour than its heat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Because it's not a tree. It's a bunch of neurons firing in your head.

---

quote:

---

So if we are deterministic computers then we can be modelled by a Turing machine.

---

quote:

---

But all that is going on in a Turing machine is the reading and writing of ones and zeroes, and the switching of states, which states are entirely defined by what happens if the current entry on the chain is a one or a zero. There is nothing going on that is either true or false or 'is a tree' or anything like that. The point is that the string output is merely the output associated with that input;

---

quote:

---

there's no question of whether it's true or false unless a human programmer comes along and decides that the program is buggy (and all that means is that the program isn't the program that the human programmer wanted).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
"True" and "false" are just concepts that we have invented to help us describe the world we observe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
So the Scoville scale is just a useless bit of subjective opinion?

---

quote:

---

The greatest weakness of the Scoville Organoleptic Test is its imprecision, because it relies on human subjectivity. Tasters taste only one sample per session. Results vary widely, up to 50%, between laboratories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Depends on what you mean by "false".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I quote directly from the very Wikipedia article you linked to:

quote:

---

The greatest weakness of the Scoville Organoleptic Test is its imprecision, because it relies on human subjectivity. Tasters taste only one sample per session. Results vary widely, up to 50%, between laboratories.

---

These tasters are having real experiences of something which is essentially subjective. The precise experience that each taster has cannot be communicated objectively. Therefore this proves that something real falls outside the scope of the empirical method of observation and replication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And the very next paragraph is all about why that method has been abandoned in favor of high performance liquid chromatography. So what is your point exactly? That the "hot" flavor was subjective and no one could agree whether a habanero or a poblano was hotter before the the invention of the liquid chromatograph, after which everyone suddenly found they agreed? That's rather amazing. Did the peppers manage to reconfigure themselves, or was human psychology and/or taste buds drastically changed with this new advent in chromatography?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Depends on what you mean by "false".

---

Are you sure about that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
And the very next paragraph is all about why that method has been abandoned in favor of high performance liquid chromatography. So what is your point exactly? That the "hot" flavor was subjective and no one could agree whether a habanero or a poblano was hotter before the the invention of the liquid chromatograph, after which everyone suddenly found they agreed? That's rather amazing. Did the peppers manage to reconfigure themselves, or was human psychology and/or taste buds drastically changed with this new advent in chromatography?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Depends on what you mean by "false".

---

Are you sure about that?

---

Depends on what you mean by "sure".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So what is your point exactly? That the "hot" flavor was subjective and no one could agree whether a habanero or a poblano was hotter before the the invention of the liquid chromatograph, after which everyone suddenly found they agreed? That's rather amazing. Did the peppers manage to reconfigure themselves, or was human psychology and/or taste buds drastically changed with this new advent in chromatography?

---

quote:

---

The question is whether "heat" can be tasted. If it can, then it's a flavor. If it can't, then it's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Because it's not a tree. It's a bunch of neurons firing in your head.

---

Sure. And what you just wrote isn't a post (or even words) it's just a bunch of pixels on a screen.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But all that is going on in a Turing machine is the reading and writing of ones and zeroes, and the switching of states, which states are entirely defined by what happens if the current entry on the chain is a one or a zero. There is nothing going on that is either true or false or 'is a tree' or anything like that. The point is that the string output is merely the output associated with that input;

---

Yes. The string output that is associated with a picture of a tree (provided by the eyes) equates to the thought "that is a tree".

"True" and "false" are just concepts that we have invented to help us describe the world we observe. There's no need for them to be objective realities that would exist even if there were no human beings in existence, and without that need your objection falls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You seem to think you're being sarcastic. I think it's rather more difficult than you allow for your position to explain why a bunch of pixels on a screen amounts to words.

---

quote:

---

But while a bunch of pixels does amount to words, a bunch of neurons do not amount to wood and chlorophyll and the other constituents of a tree.

---

quote:

---

It may be simple to look at a tree and say that it's a tree. The problem is that on your theory the elements required for it to happen don't exist. If you're right, it oughtn't to be possible, let alone simple.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

"True" and "false" are just concepts that we have invented to help us describe the world we observe. There's no need for them to be objective realities that would exist even if there were no human beings in existence, and without that need your objection falls.

---

They can't be concepts, since on your assumptions, we do not have anything that Turing machines don't have, and Turing machines don't have concepts. Therefore, there are no such things as concepts and therefore 'truth' and 'falsehood' aren't concepts. And therefore they can't help us describe the world we observe since we don't have them.

---

quote:

---

The string output can equate to someone saying or writing or typing, 'that is a tree'. It does not equate to a thought. Saying, writing, and typing are outputs. Thought is not an output. Who or what is it being output to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
... Those sounds being the ones we have chosen to use...

...

... as being of what we choose to call a tree...

...

Those words are simply the ones we have chosen to use to describe them. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In other words, let's lose the 'problem' of free will in the complexity of the human brain, so that we can quietly ignore the fact that this reality challenges our deeply held philosophical presuppositions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Religious experience is shared by others too.

---

Including those whose beliefs are completely incompatible with yours. If your experience is evidence, then surely so is theirs. But your beliefs can't possibly both be true, which means that, logically, at least one of your experiences must be of something that isn't real.

How sure are you that your experience is the True one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You seem to think you're being sarcastic. I think it's rather more difficult than you allow for your position to explain why a bunch of pixels on a screen amounts to words.

---

Because we see the patterns they make and recognise them as the patterns we have chosen to use to represent the sounds we make when we speak. Those sounds being the ones we have chosen to use to refer to the things we see and feel in the environment around us.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But while a bunch of pixels does amount to words, a bunch of neurons do not amount to wood and chlorophyll and the other constituents of a tree.

---

No, they don't. Their interactions within our brains amount to the recognition of an image provided by our eyes as being of what we choose to call a tree.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It may be simple to look at a tree and say that it's a tree. The problem is that on your theory the elements required for it to happen don't exist. If you're right, it oughtn't to be possible, let alone simple.

---

The elements required are image viewing (eyes), image processing and recognition (the visual centre of the brain), matching the image to a word (the memory centre of the brain), and vocalisation (the speech centre of the brain and vocal chords).

You could in theory program a computer to receive the same input from a camera, process it and output the word "tree" from a speaker. Human information processing may be a lot more complex than that, but it's not an utterly different process.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore, there are no such things as concepts and therefore 'truth' and 'falsehood' aren't concepts. And therefore they can't help us describe the world we observe since we don't have them.

---

A turing machine could be able to recognise whether a specific output is the correct one to associate with an input. So if the input is an image of what it has learnt (or been programmed to recognise - same thing) is a tree, it will know that the correct output is "tree" rather than "buffalo".

And theoretically, there is nothing to stop a sufficiently complex turing machine from analysing its own processes, and observing that there exist correct and incorrect responses to given inputs.

---

quote:

---

That ability to recognise the correct and incorrect responses equates to what we call "true" and "false". Those words are simply the ones we have chosen to use to describe them.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The string output can equate to someone saying or writing or typing, 'that is a tree'. It does not equate to a thought. Saying, writing, and typing are outputs. Thought is not an output. Who or what is it being output to?

---

Thought is the process that happens between input and output. Besides which, there's no reason why the output can't be to a different part of the brain, is there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
My experience is as true as the next person's. I might only be imagining the room I am in, I might be deluded in thinking that it's real, but as I can see it and touch the walls, I believe that it exists. The difference regarding religious experience is that it's not sensory in the physical but in the spiritual sense. That does not make it less valid as evidence.

---

quote:

---

You're assuming that if people don't share the same religious beliefs, they can't share the same religious experiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm asking you to explain how those relationships can be described in the language of physics.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that it's rather odd to say that the camera is referring to the tree without involving an implicit reference to the human programmer. (For example, whether the camera says 'tree' when it's pointed at a rosebush or an oak or a banana plant is just a fact about its programming. It's only when you refer back to the human programmer that it counts as right or wrong.)

---

quote:

---

If you could write such a program, you could equally well write a program that gives the wrong answer by swapping the output around.

---

quote:

---

Feed the program that gives the wrong answer into itself. That would say that it would give the wrong answer if it would give the right answer but then that would be the right answer. That's a contradiction. Therefore it's not possible to write the program with the output swapped around. Therefore it's not possible to write the program with the output the right way around.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, whatever goes on in a Turing machine, however complicated, is that it is in a particular state, has a particular set of instructions, and is reading a symbol. Nothing going on corresponds to 'observing' or 'recognising'. Invoking complexity without further explanation is hand waving.

---

quote:

---

You said that 'true' and 'false' have no objective reality. It follows that if 'correct' and 'incorrect' equate to something with no objective reality, they have no objective reality either. So they cannot be 'recognised' only projected. And so they cannot describe the workings of a Turing machine. QED.

---

quote:

---

To return to the original point, reason can only work on things to which the concepts of 'truth' or 'correctness' apply.

---

quote:

---

So if there's nothing going on to which those concepts apply then reason doesn't work. And if you're right there's nothing going on to which they apply - and nothing going on that can apply them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
The lack of universal repeatability in spiritual experiences means they cannot be considered as empirical evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I have an experience, and it convinces me of the truth of something, then for me personally it counts as evidence, even if such evidence may not be able to convince other people.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, even if such evidence could convince other people, it doesn't follow that it would automatically convince everyone, because some people may have some ulterior motive for rejecting it.

---

Yes, yes - everybody who disagrees with you does so for nefarious ulterior reasons. It's never just because they honestly disagree.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Marv -

quote:

---

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

George Bernard Shaw

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Furthermore, even if such evidence could convince other people, it doesn't follow that it would automatically convince everyone, because some people may have some ulterior motive for rejecting it.

---

Yes, yes - everybody who disagrees with you does so for nefarious ulterior reasons. It's never just because they honestly disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But somehow you have managed to twist this into suggesting that I am making some kind of claim about those who disagree with my position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Well, you do have a history of saying anyone who disagrees with you is being illogical and unreasonable.

---

What, you mean to say that I have honest disagreements with people?

Next time someone says the equivalent of "2+2=5", I must remember to say that that is perfectly logical, even though I honestly think 2+2=4.


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
It's common sense that some people may not accept evidence for personal reasons (duh!).

---

I apologise for the tone of this comment, Marvin.

Another rush of blood to the head. But no excuse.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm asking you to explain how those relationships can be described in the language of physics.

---

I don't know. But that doesn't mean it must have been God.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The problem is that it's rather odd to say that the camera is referring to the tree without involving an implicit reference to the human programmer. (For example, whether the camera says 'tree' when it's pointed at a rosebush or an oak or a banana plant is just a fact about its programming. It's only when you refer back to the human programmer that it counts as right or wrong.)

---

Firstly, the camera doesn't refer to anything. It just captures an image of whatever's in front of it.

Secondly, yes right and wrong do depend on our "programming". The majority of that "programming" (what we call "teaching") is done by our parents during infancy and our teachers during childhood.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Feed the program that gives the wrong answer into itself. That would say that it would give the wrong answer if it would give the right answer but then that would be the right answer. That's a contradiction. Therefore it's not possible to write the program with the output swapped around. Therefore it's not possible to write the program with the output the right way around.

---

I'm not sure why either of your "therefore"s follow on from what went before.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Anyway, whatever goes on in a Turing machine, however complicated, is that it is in a particular state, has a particular set of instructions, and is reading a symbol. Nothing going on corresponds to 'observing' or 'recognising'. Invoking complexity without further explanation is hand waving.

---

If my use of words like "observing" or "recognising" invokes so much complexity, why doesn't your use of the word "reading"? It's the same fucking thing!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You said that 'true' and 'false' have no objective reality. It follows that if 'correct' and 'incorrect' equate to something with no objective reality, they have no objective reality either. So they cannot be 'recognised' only projected. And so they cannot describe the workings of a Turing machine. QED.

---

Subjective things can still be defined and measured.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To return to the original point, reason can only work on things to which the concepts of 'truth' or 'correctness' apply.

---

That does not require those concepts to be objective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Secondly, are you really saying that adults are incapable of adult human beings are incapable of applying right and wrong unless they have a parent or a teacher around in order to apply the concept for them? Because if that's not what you're saying your point isn't really relevant.

---

quote:

---

If Predictor is possible, then we can write Paradox. But it is not possible to write Paradox since Paradox could produce an impossible state of the machine. So it cannot be possible to write Predictor either.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Subjective things can still be defined and measured.

---

If they could be defined and measured then they would be objective.

---

quote:

---

So why do you care whether evidence is repeatable or empirical or reliable again?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"The language of science"?

What is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
OK, I'm going to give a little example of how I'm defining evidence.

Claim: that piece of metal is hot.

Incontestable evidence: using a thermometer to establish the exact temperature of the metal.

Reliable evidence: touching the metal oneself.

Unreliable evidence: watching someone else touch the metal, and taking their word for it (depends on whether you trust the other person or not).

Not evidence in any way: having a dream that tells you the metal is hot, or believing that God has told you the metal is hot.

The first two count as empirical evidence because they are able to be repeated by anybody, regardless of the person's beliefs or prior assumptions, with the same result. The third can be seen as evidence, but it's not empirical because it relies on the trustworthiness of the person doing the reporting. The fourth is complete tosh, and does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate the heat of the metal in any kind of meaningful or repeatable way.

The lack of universal repeatability in spiritual experiences means they cannot be considered as empirical evidence. At best they're in the "if you find the person telling you about it trustworthy then it's evidence" category.

---

quote:

---

If the exact same experience can be had by anyone, regardless of their beliefs, then it cannot be used as evidence for any specific belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the second example to touch the metal for yourself is reliable empirical evidence, when you might be deluded and only imagine that it's hot, then experience of God is also reliable empirical evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
I've already granted that there exist levels of evidence for God that work on a subjective individual basis, so if all you're concerned with is a reason for you to believe why aren't you content with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

"of course, we all understand that there is no objective evidence for any religious claims". This is extremely patronising, as well as entirely false. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu
Why don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Secondly, are you really saying that adults are incapable of adult human beings are incapable of applying right and wrong unless they have a parent or a teacher around in order to apply the concept for them? Because if that's not what you're saying your point isn't really relevant.

---

I'm saying we're incapable of applying right and wrong without first being taught what those things are.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If Predictor is possible, then we can write Paradox. But it is not possible to write Paradox since Paradox could produce an impossible state of the machine. So it cannot be possible to write Predictor either.

---

I think this may be using two definitions of "impossible", but I'm not sure.

After all, it's "impossible" to divide by zero, but that doesn't make it "impossible" to divide by any other number. The logic you appear to be using here would suggest that it is impossible to divide by any number, on the grounds that it's impossible to divide by zero.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Subjective things can still be defined and measured.

---

If they could be defined and measured then they would be objective.

---

An interesting conundrum. There's nothing objective about a metre - it's merely a measure of distance created by humans - but we can still measure how many of them there are in a given distance.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So why do you care whether evidence is repeatable or empirical or reliable again?

---

It's mainly because I bloody hate it when people try to use the language of science to discuss matters of belief and faith. It makes the latter look like they're empirically real, and they're not. They're just not. And I say that as someone who does believe in God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm saying we're incapable of applying right and wrong without first being taught what those things are.

---

True, but as far as I can see not really relevant. Once we are taught, we can and are expected to apply right and wrong for ourselves. The camera-computer assemblage cannot apply right and wrong at all.

---

quote:

---

I don't think you've got a coherent objection here. I mean, you make what might be a valid point when you talk about differing definitions. I think it isn't valid, but I at least could think about it for a moment. But then your divide by zero has nothing to do with that. The definition of 'impossible' on which it is impossible to divide by zero is exactly the definition on which it is possible to divide by anything else.
The reasoning I'm using is something like: if it's possible to divide by zero, then it's possible to prove that 1 = 2. 1 /= 2, so it can't be possible to prove that it does. So it can't be possible to divide by zero.

---

quote:

---

A metre is defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second". ([URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre]wikipedia[/URL). That is certainly something objective. The definition is arbitrary, but once defined the thing itself is not.

---

quote:

---

Devil's advocate: There's no need for 'empirically' and 'real' to be objective realities. They're just concepts we've invented to help us describe the world. What constitutes 'empirically' and 'real' is not set in stone nor handed down from on high - it's defined by us - where us includes EtymologicalEvangelical just as surely as it includes you and me.

Try explaining what's wrong with that without also explaining, implicitly or explicitly, that the same thing is wrong with your claims about 'true' and 'right'.

---

I thought we'd just established that "true" and "right" can be objective even though they are defined by us. You know, the same way that a metre is objective despite being defined by us.

Of course, nothing is stopping someone from defining a metre as being any arbitrary distance they feel like defining it as. I'm just not expecting tape measures to agree with them any time soon .
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But a scientific experiment can be replicated by another group of scientists, using the same apparatus, under the same conditions, and with the same method. Clearly, one of the aims is to see if the same results ensue, and hence the standardization of equipment, conditions, and method is essential.

We can also add here the importance of prediction - whereby an experiment can be conducted to see if a predicted result actually occurs or not. But such experiments also tend to get repeated, to check that the same results ensue.

To compare this with religious experience is ludicrous.

If religious experiences are being tested in like manner somewhere in the world by groups of experimenters, then please show a link to an experiment repeated along those lines, and written up in a peer-reviewed journal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

If the argument is valid which says that no matter how many people witness an experience their word can't be taken as true unless the event may be replicated, then much of our lives may be discounted as imaginary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
A metre is defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second". That is certainly something objective. The definition is arbitrary, but once defined the thing itself is not.

---

Well then, it seems we agree. After all, "truth" and "falsehood" are things that have been defined by humans (so have an arbitrary and subjective heritage), yet once defined they can be judged and measured.

Does that make them objective by your definition?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's not about trying to test religious experiences, as I've said above. It's about recognising that valid human experience doesn't start and end with the five senses.

If the argument is valid which says that no matter how many people witness an experience their word can't be taken as true unless the event may be replicated, then much of our lives may be discounted as imaginary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either way, this rather voids your earlier contention that truth and falsehood don't have to be objective realities in order to apply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Experience cannot end with the five senses, as they are merely input devices. Concepts, such as string theory, are not processed by the senses. Though they are concepts, they have logic: proofs. And, the proofs are repeatable no matter the belief system of the experimenter.
Not so with gods. That experience is all in your head.
Even should brain imaging come to the point of being able to recreate perfectly the images and thoughts generated by ones brain, the best we will be able to do is show what one thinks one saw or experienced.
The best we can honestly say is "I accept that you believe you had a religious experience."

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0