|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Rubbish, because if that was universal logic, we'd all agree. Clearly we do not.
In an imaginary world in which people never get anything wrong this might be an argument. In this world, you are simply in error.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As I said earlier, these things are in the realms of philosophy not pure logic, science and observation. By necessity.
Point out where I have not employed logic, science and observation, if you can. In reality, you are simply trying to restrict logic, science and observation unduly. In particular:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is no reason why. It just is. Why is entirely the wrong question.
You are simply asserting here in order to protect your beliefs. The reason we must not ask such questions is that you do not like the answers that can be found. This is simple obscurantism, and it does not become rational just because it dons a lab coat.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You might have persuaded yourself that an eternal God is different to eternal stuff, but internal consistency is not the same as truth.
That's true. But internal incoherence is a sign of falsehood. Your assertions about the universe are incoherent, since you consider the universe to be contingent, but a series of universes not, without giving reason why such multiplying of contingencies should be less contingent.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, that is because you are insisting that others work within the parameters you have set by repeatedly insisting that this is the only way to think. It isn't.
Sure. There are also more limited and even incorrect ways of thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wisdom is clearly a subjsective, cultural and temporal thing. Hence this is not something which can be used to argue anything.
Human nature does not change, hence while wisdom has to deal prudently with the cultural contingencies of time and place, it also invariably transcends them, and consequently its expressions have universal value to humans at all times and in every place. The idea that wisdom cannot speak to us is self-refuting individualism.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
IngoB
quote:
You are simply asserting here in order to protect your beliefs. The reason we must not ask such questions is that you do not like the answers that can be found. This is simple obscurantism, and it does not become rational just because it dons a lab coat.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I do love you so when you claim that you are the only one who is capable of holding an idea and that when it disagrees with you it is a duff argument. Sorry, pal, I'm not taking your opinion on this.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Even if you can argue that a deity exists you cannot be certain from such an argument that the god so deduced is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Zeus or a flying spaghetti monster. Actually knowing God is dependant on something else entirely.
The arguments for the existence of a deity are more precisely for the existence of an unmoved mover, or a supreme good, who is then argued to have to possess such and such features by virtue of the argument, which features warrant the name God.
Zeus and the flying spaghetti monster don't possess the relevant features or else possess features that the argument rules out.
For example, if the unmoved mover is necessarily the way it is - it has to be to satisfy the argument - and the universe is contingent, the universe cannot be necessarily derived from the unmoved mover. Therefore the unmoved mover must be free to create the universe one way or another.
That means that the unmoved mover must have features analagous to knowledge and will.
The argument doesn't go: we need an explanation for the universe, therefore God. It is we need an explanation for the universe; any explanation has to have certain features; an entity with those features may be reasonably called God.
It's true that you can't deduce that the unmoved mover revealed themselves to the Israeli people, or that they became incarnate as Jesus. For that you need faith. But you can show that there's no incompatibility there.
Interesting points Dafyd.
I suppose the point is that Abram didn't come to the idea of God or prime mover watching the stars while shepherding his sheep and goats one night. God strikes up a conversation so the story goes.
We are rather short of texts that talk about what God is rather than relating to God. When texts do try to talk about what God is they seem to become numinous and the metaphors get over loaded until they break down into partial images.
I read Genesis 1-3 in a similar way to Revelation. I think they are accounts of visions rather than literal statements of how the world came to be; certainly not direct experiences (naturally no one was there until late on day 6).
@ Mr Cheesy.
Solomon or The Teacher may well have been the wisest person. Solomon also became a fool when power and a harem full of nagging wives got the better of him(so the story goes). It is as well not to confuse wisdom with knowledge. Wisdom is knowing how to use the knowledge you do have. I agree with the above- Ecclesiastes doesn't claim a scientific knowledge.
I don't see mismatch between the two halves. Ecclesiastes is a meditation on the mortality of man and the limit of his knowledge. It seems a logical progression. I don't have the knowledge of ancient Hebrew to talk about styles of authors and the like. Such a discussion is probably better off in Kergymania.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So.. a being which is bigger than the galaxy, has an intelligence far outwith of the total of all humanity etc and so on should not be worshipped because he/she has not created it all.
Even were the being causally responsible for the existence of the solar system or for life on earth or for the existence of humanity, it wouldn't command our worship. Respect, certainly - maybe even affection if it was benevolent. But the existence of such a being would have no importance for morality, or aesthetics.
Such a being might or might not exist; if so, it is of no relevance to human fulfilment.
There are quite a lot of atheist arguments that worshipping a god, any god, constitutes alienation from ourselves. Any Christian argument to the effect that worship does not consist of alienation depends upon God being genuinely constitutive of reality and goodness, such that worshipping such a being does not constitute alienation. And anything short of the unmoved mover or supreme good can't meet that requirement.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
First of all, there is no reason to DOUBT that David and Solomon were historical figures …
David scroll down to Historicity
Solomon scroll down to Historicity
David again
For good measure there is, AIUI, no reason other than the stories of the Bible (or subsequent works) to believe that Abraham, Noah or Moses existed. Whilst we're at it there's no independent confirmation (and, in each case, a lot of negative indication) for the stories of the Flood, the Exodus and the census which allegedly got Mary to Nazareth.
quote:
Second, "Ecclesiastes" is obviously not a scientific treatise … so expecting it to be one and then dismissing it for not being such is hardly reasonable ...
I agree with you that Ecclesiastes (as with the rest of the Bible) is not a scientific treatise – it is therefore appropriate to treat any conclusions based on it as, at best, tentative.
I took the quoting of Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 as being an endorsement of a viewpoint considered to be authoritative. If I was wrong I apologise.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
First of all, there is no reason to DOUBT that David and Solomon were historical figures …
David scroll down to Historicity
Solomon scroll down to Historicity
David again
For good measure there is, AIUI, no reason other than the stories of the Bible (or subsequent works) to believe that Abraham, Noah or Moses existed. Whilst we're at it there's no independent confirmation (and, in each case, a lot of negative indication) for the stories of the Flood, the Exodus and the census which allegedly got Mary to Nazareth.
quote:
Second, "Ecclesiastes" is obviously not a scientific treatise … so expecting it to be one and then dismissing it for not being such is hardly reasonable ...
I agree with you that Ecclesiastes (as with the rest of the Bible) is not a scientific treatise – it is therefore appropriate to treat any conclusions based on it as, at best, tentative.
I took the quoting of Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 as being an endorsement of a viewpoint considered to be authoritative. If I was wrong I apologise.
The historicity of many persons and recorded/reported events cannot be definitively *proven* … but that does not mean that they are therefore fictional … Even Jesus of Nazareth Himself is in that category, yes … ??? Yet very few reputable historians doubt His historicity ...
In any other cases, many "conclusions" (even in the natural sciences) are properly understood to be "tentative" … so that does not bear upon their veracity ...
[ 27. March 2015, 02:47: Message edited by: Teilhard ]
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@Hugh. On the historicity of David, if you had read to the end of the article you referenced (Academic assessment) you would see that most of the scholars referenced accepted the existence of an historical David whilst seeking to reconstruct his story. That's what academic scholars do Hugh - it's what they need to do to make a living.
You also perpetuate a fallacy in suggesting that the Old Testament record should only be accepted in the light of independent evidence. What independent evidence would carry more weight? Interpreting fragmentary archaeological findings is notoriously difficult, as you can see from the different views expressed in the articles you referenced. The Old Testament writings are ancient historical texts and should be treated in the same way as other texts from the same milieu. They are intrinsically no more nor less reliable than texts from Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia or or any other ancient society.
A number of ancient creation myths refer to a great flood. It appears to be an ancient historical memory. Your suggestion to the contrary is simply inaccurate.
Whilst is much discussion over Luke's account of the census, it has not been shown to be false. The current scholarly consensus is that he has made an error or got censuses confused. The question is, however, still open, largely because Luke is generally regarded as a firs rate ancient historian. He has detailed knowledge of local customs and practices which point to a contemporary record from a writer interested in detail.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I agree with you that Ecclesiastes (as with the rest of the Bible) is not a scientific treatise – it is therefore appropriate to treat any conclusions based on it as, at best, tentative.
By coincidence, I just read the following relevant comment by Ed Feser (made in a different context):
quote:
... he was impressed by the logical positivists’ famous verification principle, and their application of it to a critique of metaphysics. The basic idea, as is well known, is that any meaningful statement must (the verification principle claims) be either analytically true (like “All bachelors are unmarried”) or empirically verifiable. Yet metaphysical statements are (the argument continues) neither. Therefore they are strictly meaningless, not even rising to the level of falsehood.
There are various problems with the verification principle, the most notorious being that it is self-refuting, insofar as the principle itself is neither analytically true nor empirically verifiable. It is thus no less “meaningless” and indeed “metaphysical” (as verificationists conceived of metaphysics) as the claims it was deployed against. Alternative formulations of the principle have been attempted, but the trouble is that there is no way to formulate the principle in such a way that it both avoids self-refutation and still has the anti-metaphysical bite the positivists thought it had.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I agree with you that Ecclesiastes (as with the rest of the Bible) is not a scientific treatise – it is therefore appropriate to treat any conclusions based on it as, at best, tentative.
By coincidence, I just read the following relevant comment by Ed Feser (made in a different context):
quote:
... he was impressed by the logical positivists’ famous verification principle, and their application of it to a critique of metaphysics. The basic idea, as is well known, is that any meaningful statement must (the verification principle claims) be either analytically true (like “All bachelors are unmarried”) or empirically verifiable. Yet metaphysical statements are (the argument continues) neither. Therefore they are strictly meaningless, not even rising to the level of falsehood.
There are various problems with the verification principle, the most notorious being that it is self-refuting, insofar as the principle itself is neither analytically true nor empirically verifiable. It is thus no less “meaningless” and indeed “metaphysical” (as verificationists conceived of metaphysics) as the claims it was deployed against. Alternative formulations of the principle have been attempted, but the trouble is that there is no way to formulate the principle in such a way that it both avoids self-refutation and still has the anti-metaphysical bite the positivists thought it had.
Yes …
The death of Logical Positivism has been widely underreported, and even when known, not always positively welcomed ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think positivism of that kind confused scientific method with philosophy, thus producing a rather strange hybrid. Maybe the modern equivalent is scientism, but then that is not itself a scientific claim. Science is not aiming to describe truth or reality.
Most of the atheists that I chat to, seem pretty clued up on these distinctions, although there are always some of the village variety.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is not aiming to describe truth or reality.
That is only one possible position; I don't think scientific realism has been made untenable yet.
Oddly, it seems to me that many people who reject scientific realism still hold naive scientific empiricist views about scientific method.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is not aiming to describe truth or reality.
That is only one possible position; I don't think scientific realism has been made untenable yet.
Oddly, it seems to me that many people who reject scientific realism still hold naive scientific empiricist views about scientific method.
There are certainly some interesting arguments for realism, for example, that science works quite well! But scientific method does not seem dependent on it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool
Apprentice
# 18359
|
Posted
Returned from holiday. Malta was rather nice but unseasonably cool. Been busy doing post holiday admin.
I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages as frankly some of the more arcane philosophising went over my head but it seems to me that most people believe in the supernatural because they were indoctrinated into it in childhood and then spend a life time trying to convince themselves and others that they believe. The clever they are the harder they have to work at convincing themselves the more arcane their thought processes are.
Nobody has offered a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural let alone that demonstrates that the supernatural has ever manifested its self in anyway at all.
I wish I could win the Euromillions Lottery tonight. In fact 'aberercadabera'. I've cast a magic spell to make it happen. If it does happen would anyone think it was the result of magic? If I pray for it would you think its happening is the intervention of god?
If I feel unwell, pray a bit and get better is it really likely that its the intervention of god? Considering that I get unwell from time to time and don't pray but get better how should we account for that?
If I have a dream featuring Kirstan Dunst and a bottle of baby oil is this proof of the supernatural? Why then if I dream of an imaginary friend should this be accepted as evidence of the supernatural?
Posts: 16 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
hmmm
Not worth a well-thought-out response. That's what I though from the beginning.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages…
Nobody has offered a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural let alone that demonstrates that the supernatural has ever manifested its self in anyway at all.
If you haven't been through all the pages, what is the basis for your belief that "[n]obody has offered a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural"? Or have you just started with the presupposition that no such evidence could exist, and concluded, therefore, that no such evidence can have been offered?
In the OP you said quote:
<snip>I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists, and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.
I am interested in two things about this. First is the question of what you would count as evidence? My first training was as a lawyer, and therefore when people talk about 'proof' of something, or 'evidence' for something those are the terms I tend to think in, whereas many people seem simply to mean scientific evidence. It does at least make me alert to the idea that different questions demand different kinds of evidence.
Secondly, I wonder what proof you are able to advance that the supernatural has "never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents". In general people have considered it philosophically impossible to prove a negative. I wonder if you simply mean that no-one has so far produced evidence which has satisfied you that the supernatural has manifested itself. That is, of course, a rather different statement.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Fool:
I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages as frankly some of the more arcane philosophising went over my head but it seems to me that most people believe in the supernatural because they were indoctrinated into it in childhood and then spend a life time trying to convince themselves and others that they believe.
I agree with everything up to "but it seems to me."
To my fellow shipmates who waste their time responding to this pseudo-intellectual new atheist bullshit...as we say back home...bless your hearts.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Fool:
I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages as frankly some of the more arcane philosophising went over my head but it seems to me that most people believe in the supernatural because they were indoctrinated into it in childhood and then spend a life time trying to convince themselves and others that they believe.
I agree with everything up to "but it seems to me."
To my fellow shipmates who waste their time responding to this pseudo-intellectual new atheist bullshit...as we say back home...bless your hearts.
Amen
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
It certainly is rude behaviour to post a question, and then to come back and say you haven't read the multiple replies, but you know your question hasn't been answered. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
Before Fool's reappearance I was going to compare him to the classic Fool in a medieval court. As a jester, the fascinating discussion ensuing from his o/p has entertained us royally.
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages as frankly some of the more arcane philosophising went over my head but it seems to me that most people believe in the supernatural because they were indoctrinated into it in childhood and then spend a life time trying to convince themselves and others that they believe.
If this is a comment on the posters of this thread, then I would describe it as so remarkable as to be considered as a serious candidate for supernatural insight (given that no-one appears to have said anything about their childhood).
But alas, since I for one was not indoctrinated as a child, but converted to faith from being a professing atheist, Fool will need to look elsewhere for his evidence.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
My parents were atheist and agnostic while I was growing up, so not much indoctrination there. Given that you haven't read many of the responses to your original post, I'm puzzled as to why you would expect people to engage with you now.
One thing I would say is that when I discuss my faith, I never use the term 'supernatural' as it is always misunderstood. If defending my beliefs philosophically, I would do so from a mixture of Philosophical Idealism and Scholasticism. From these perspectives, God is the most 'natural' of realities. I did post earlier in the thread regarding avenues which you may find helpful if you wished to increase your knowledge regarding the philosophical basis for belief in God.
Certainty your crude and superficial response to what has been posted previously shows only that you fail to understand in any real way what you claim to not believe in.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Fool--
If you're going to insult us, you might as well read the thread so you can do it accurately!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Spare me from dogmatic atheists!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool
Apprentice
# 18359
|
Posted
Touchy aren't we. I've read quite a lot of it but as I say I haven't read all of it so if anyone has offered even the the remotest shred I apologise.
I was careful to avoid using the word proof because if there was any some body would have mentioned it. Nobody has even managed to come up with the remotest suggestion beyond their own imagination. They offer the fact that other people have the same fantasies as proof.
I'm not a dogmatic atheist. I have no dogma. I see no evidence or suggestion of the supernatural and therefore no reason to believe in it. Nobody can give me any reason to do so.
Posts: 16 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
So, in the interests of a discussion, what is your response to the three questions I posed in my post?
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I see no evidence or suggestion of the supernatural and therefore no reason to believe in it. Nobody can give me any reason to do so.
I agree with you.
I am a Christian, but my belief is in God and Jesus, not anything supernatural. Plenty of Christians say this is not possible, but there we are.
I think God can be described as 'that which is good' and Jesus was a real person, as full of God's spirit (that which is good) as it's possible for a human to be.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
So, in the interests of a discussion, what is your response to the three questions I posed in my post?
Really?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents
Seeing as you've now returned, perhaps you could oblige us by explaining the nature of this proof you have discovered.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I was careful to avoid using the word proof because if there was any some body would have mentioned it. Nobody has even managed to come up with the remotest suggestion beyond their own imagination. They offer the fact that other people have the same fantasies as proof.
The observation of contingency and change in the world by logical deduction requires the existence of a necessary being. This being is commonly identified with God. A considerable chunk of the discussion upthread was about that. My own posts concerning this are here, here, here and here.
The metaphysical proof of the existence of God I'm defending there does not require any observation of miracles or apparitions, nor does it rely on Divine revelation, prophetic visions or what have you. It is simply a logical analysis by applying human natural intelligence to empirical observations of the world, if in a different mode to modern natural science. The usual atheist shtick of simply refusing all evidence of the miraculous or Divine in the world as delusional fantasies shared by many due to wishful thinking simply does not work against this kind of proof. I need nothing "special" or "supernatural" to make it work. What I do need however is the belief that human reason can extract useful information from observing natural reality, can abstractly analyse "universals" from such concrete data, and can then successfully extrapolate these "universals" by logic to deduce the existence of previously unknown and otherwise not readily accessible entities. Since however the same mental skills are needed to successfully create and employ theories in modern science, I assume you have no principle objection to that.
This leaves you in the weak position of having to argue why the human mind falters at certain apparently reasonable questions, but not at others. mr cheesy has at least tried to do that above, which is honest engagement (though in my opinion he managed little more than detailing his non-intellectual prejudices in the end). You have not done so this far. Maybe this was simply because you have skipped the "more difficult" posts, something you can and should rectify now. If however you continue to pretend that people here are simply making fantastical assertions of blind faith, then you are demonstrating that you are atheism is mere agitprop.
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I'm not a dogmatic atheist. ... Nobody can give me any reason to do so.
The former is simply a label for the latter. (Not that I like the label much, because it insults dogma...) If we cannot reach you by reason and argument, then what exactly do you wish us to do here, in a place of public discussion? Are you asking us to pray for you, that God may gently open the closed fist of your mind?
[ 27. March 2015, 20:18: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is not aiming to describe truth or reality.
That is only one possible position; I don't think scientific realism has been made untenable yet.
Oddly, it seems to me that many people who reject scientific realism still hold naive scientific empiricist views about scientific method.
There are certainly some interesting arguments for realism, for example, that science works quite well! But scientific method does not seem dependent on it.
Yes … The Natural Sciences are not a branch of "Philosophy" …
Further, if "Philosophy" is such a sure and certain dependable way of getting in touch with the nature of real Reality (via "Logic" and "Reason" and "Metaphysics" and such), one wonders why the Philosophers ( "Sages, Luminaries and other Paid Professional Thinking Persons") still find anything signifiant to fuel their arguments and disagreements with each other …
*shrug*
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Teilhard said:
quote:
The Natural Sciences are not a branch of "Philosophy" …
Actually, they were, for a long, long time.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard said:
quote:
The Natural Sciences are not a branch of "Philosophy" …
Actually, they were, for a long, long time.
Emphasis on: "they WERE … "
The devotees of Logical Positivism, Reductionism, et al., want to remain stuck in those Good Old Days … but especially in these post-Modern times, the entire realm of Epistemology is thrown considerable more wide open ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
well, whether they are a branch or not, the natural sciences are still grounded in a philosophy - and it is a big mistake to think that they are not.
Castles on sand. But worse.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
well, whether they are a branch or not, the natural sciences are still grounded in a philosophy - and it is a big mistake to think that they are not.
Castles on sand. But worse.
The Natural Sciences are an excellent way of getting information about how the universe works -- understanding stellar nuclear synthesis, studying and interpreting the fossil record, decoding the relationship between nucleic acid structure and protein synthesis in living cells, measuring the mass of a proton, etc., etc. -- and that's all …
Some well-meaning people, however, then take the unfortunate step of over-interpreting the data provided via the Natural Sciences and make a leap of faith into Materialism and Reductionism … and some then go on to promulgate a dogmatic stance derived from that leap of faith ...
[ 28. March 2015, 00:10: Message edited by: Teilhard ]
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No it doesn't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I'm not a dogmatic atheist. ... Nobody can give me any reason to do so.
The former is simply a label for the latter. (Not that I like the label much, because it insults dogma...)
I like this bit of gentle self-deprecating wit. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
You gotta love the intellectual tenor of this place. So unlike the mindless wrangling that happens on other internet sites.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
You gotta love the intellectual tenor of this place. So unlike the mindless wrangling that happens on other internet sites.
Yes, I do … LOL ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are certainly some interesting arguments for realism, for example, that science works quite well! But scientific method does not seem dependent on it.
If you're going to say that scientific method works as long as it works, you need to come up with a definition of 'works' that isn't circular, which applies to say palaeontology as well as to quantum physics, and doesn't depend on actual technological applications.
Realism works for that. I'm not sure instrumentalism can do anything that isn't circular (no doubt instrumentalists disagree).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Philosophising is not arcane, but it does require a capacity for abstract thought. Here's the standard definition of philosophy.
quote:
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
I think what you have confessed, Fool, is that you have difficulty following some of the more abstract arguments here. I'm not alone in thinking that IngoB has written with remarkable clarity in this thread. It may be worthwhile looking at his posts again, and his subsequent response.
It is not flattery to describe IngoB as "sky high bright". And his occupation is stated as computational neuroscientist. You can be sure that he has an excellent understanding of the scientific method, of the nature of evidence and of what constitutes proof. He's demonstrated those things very well in this thread.
I recommend you do that part of the review and then ask any questions, make any criticisms you like.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed you have mousethief. Rolling out the same old circular arguments that are the sound of one bodged stool leg clapping has been going on since Aristotle. Like all apologetics they play to a draw using special pleading and therefore lose.
The reason why this week I've had to re-inoculate the pre-modern in to the postmodern, is because Mary and Jesus dealt with Archangels in person.
Nothing to do with four million self-repudiated Thomist words.
It's all about the credibility of the witnesses, as every juror knows.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@IngoB. I was particularly attracted to your conclusion that the only way to avoid contingency is through necessity. Whilst self-evident when I think about it, it's elegantly put.
I also liked your point that you can't avoid contingency with respect to a cyclic universe theory since one universe is contingent on a previous one. How then, does one get from contingency to necessity?
And the point that materialists stop thinking though an issue before theists is well made. Materialism, by definition, hits a boundary of knowledge which theism comfortable traverses.
It's an interesting argument, but I'm not sure why it's a boundary of knowledge. It's guesswork, isn't it, not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think it's more a case of how far you allow yourself to take a logical argument. If you rule out metaphysics and philosophy as a way of understanding the universe (as some materialists do stridently, and others decide to do because they can find no practical use for these perspectives) then you are creating a boundary to knowledge. "Guesswork" feels a little pejorative.
Feel free to come up with an alternative if I'm missing your point.
I don't think the idea of guessing is a negative one; surely science uses it quite a lot - there is a famous film by Feynman, in which he explains the use of guesses, although they are usually tested.
I am reminded of Hume's idea that causation is a human intellectual preference, rather than a direct perception. This connects for me with the idea found in some Eastern religions, that this moment cannot be anything else, (not the same as necessity maybe). Does this lead to God? Well, hmmm.
No time to pursue this right now, unfortunately.
Says it all really.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's all about the credibility of the witnesses, as every juror knows.
Not all, surely? But the credibility of witnesses, or the general witness, is undoubtedly important.
And I don't think causation and first cause arguments are just a matter of self-interested preference. Whereas a preference for free lunches may definitely show a kind of self-interested preference, don't you think?
[BTW your PM box is full]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
When it comes down it in my acute and days long experience. The doctors of the law were foolish children in the playground compared with the stories of the witnesses.
To argue that there must be an exception to the rule for all the other rules to work is ... rule based. I thought Gödel had something to say about that? By way of analogy on my part of course.
Write a story and summarize it with a poem and put that to music. If that doesn't work, NOTHING will.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are certainly some interesting arguments for realism, for example, that science works quite well! But scientific method does not seem dependent on it.
If you're going to say that scientific method works as long as it works, you need to come up with a definition of 'works' that isn't circular, which applies to say palaeontology as well as to quantum physics, and doesn't depend on actual technological applications.
Realism works for that. I'm not sure instrumentalism can do anything that isn't circular (no doubt instrumentalists disagree).
We get ourselves into small boxes and tight corners when we try to formulate a Universal Process which then quickly becomes held up as an ideology (an "-ism") which we then try to use as THE standard recipe-formula-method ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
So, in the interests of a discussion, what is your response to the three questions I posed in my post?
Really?
Well, yes. If there is to be a discussion then Fool has to do more than simply pop back in, announce that he hasn't read what people have posted, and then restate his views. But it's probably fair cop on the first of my questions which was mainly rhetorical.
As for the others, in the OP Fool talked about "not one shred of evidence" - I happen to think there's more than a shred, but there's not much point in making the case if we don't have some commonality of mind about what constitutes evidence.
He talked about "plenty of proof that [the supernatural] has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents". I think there is some discussion to be had about proving a negative.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
It is interesting, yes … ???
People who confidently (I might say, brashly) make the claim, "There is NO evidence for the reality of God …" none the less do not bother to provide any evidence -- not one shred of evidence -- for THEIR religious faith claim …
"Isn't it ironic, don't you think … ??? … a little too ironic …"
-- St. Alanis Morissette
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
