|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@IngoB
quote:
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.
The crucial difference between what you are talking about and modern science is the latter includes means to evaluate success or lack of it. A common objection to the metaphysical proof you speak of is simply that it is unwise to draw conclusions from extrapolations about causality way beyond our experience.
For instance our observations of natural reality at this moment in time means that in the Standard Model of particle physics we have a fairly good account of around 4% of the Universe. So the best understanding we have of the fundamental nature of our universe is restricted to 4% of it. The other 96% that we think is made of dark energy and dark matter is a pretty much a closed book. And if we are wrong about the existence of the 96% then we possibly know a lot less about the 4% than we think we do. This is hardly a rich seam of data to draw conclusions about universals, especially when you consider our - ahem - universe may well be only a small part of reality as a whole.
quote:
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.
No it doesn't, if he doesn't accept that metaphysical speculation and scientific knowledge are one and the same thing. He might reasonably ask how you think the human mind determines success when extrapolating "...these "universals" by logic to deduce the existence of previously unknown and otherwise not readily accessible entities."
We have had long discussions about this before, so this is all repetition, but hey ho. Under naturalism/materialism, the collective endeavours of human minds and human reason in philosophy, science and beyond (including our everyday lives) have built up incomplete, imperfect maps of the territory we find ourselves existing in. When we discover something new about the territory, we update the maps. Of course, we all have different versions, and some people's maps are a more accurate reflection of reality than others, and there is much disagreement about this, which is why the Internet was invented, apparently.
Some people are so taken with their map that they confuse it with the territory, thinking if they study it hard enough they will get a full account of all the unmapped parts without having to visit them. Some others of a theistic bent further think their map is a gift from God that could point them to ultimate truth if only they learn to read it correctly.
I'm interested in where you stand on this. You seem to believe that there's a map existing now, heavily influenced by the work of Aquinas, that, regardless of what we might discover in the uncharted areas of the actual territory, is accurate enough to tell us about any territory that exists. If I have that right, how do you justify that belief? If not, what have I got wrong about it?
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Alright Grokssk? You wrote
So the best understanding we have of the fundamental nature of our universe is restricted to 4% of it. The other 96% that we think is made of dark energy and dark matter is a pretty much a closed book. And if we are wrong about the existence of the 96% then we possibly know a lot less about the 4% than we think we do.
Didn't follow this. Taking your figures as read, so what? There may be virtually sod all to know about 96% of the universe. If the 4% is all the interesting stuff, that really matters, having a thorough knowledge of nothing useful isn't going to help much. Think of it this way. Having an in--depth knowledge of a motorway ain't much help in understanding the socialnmake up, economy, crime rate, design, architecture etc of the cities in between.
Never got the argument that empirically testable methodologies are better than untestable ones. Depends what you're testing. If your trying to discover something that is empirically untestable then the model's not going to help much. Metaphysical theories are testable by logic. Sounds a bit like a category error.
Still, let's have a look at what Ingo says since you asked him in his professional capacity as a scientist.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think the point is just that knowing only of 4% means it is hard to extrapolate accurately to the rest. Our little bit might be quite different to everything else.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@mr cheesy
Exactly that.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Grokssk? You wrote
So the best understanding we have of the fundamental nature of our universe is restricted to 4% of it. The other 96% that we think is made of dark energy and dark matter is a pretty much a closed book. And if we are wrong about the existence of the 96% then we possibly know a lot less about the 4% than we think we do.
Didn't follow this. Taking your figures as read, so what? There may be virtually sod all to know about 96% of the universe. If the 4% is all the interesting stuff, that really matters, having a thorough knowledge of nothing useful isn't going to help much. Think of it this way. Having an in--depth knowledge of a motorway ain't much help in understanding the socialnmake up, economy, crime rate, design, architecture etc of the cities in between.
Never got the argument that empirically testable methodologies are better than untestable ones. Depends what you're testing. If your trying to discover something that is empirically untestable then the model's not going to help much. Metaphysical theories are testable by logic. Sounds a bit like a category error.
Still, let's have a look at what Ingo says since you asked him in his professional capacity as a scientist.
The "empirically testable [scientific] method" is very useful for what it's good for, which is, getting information about how the universe works …
The Rules of Baseball are very good for managing a baseball game … but they're not anything about "the fossil record" or stellar nuclear synthesis …
Various different disciplines and ways of understanding have their own (limited) usefulness, but none can legitimately claim to be the route to knowing everything about everything ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the point is just that knowing only of 4% means it is hard to extrapolate accurately to the rest. Our little bit might be quite different to everything else.
I get that. The 4%'s easier to know about since it's easier to investigate. The 96% may be harder to analyse since there's nothing much there to find out anything about.
All scientific endeavour (and historical research for that matter) draws conclusions from the information that's available. We run with that until we find something new to worry us that we've got it wrong. We don't worry that we got it wrong because we know there's more to learn.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Teiilhard. When you said
Various different disciplines and ways of understanding have their own (limited) usefulness, but none can legitimately claim to be the route to knowing everything about everything ...
....I nodded approvingly ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
FWIW
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So what evidence is there for God in Onchocerca volvulus boring children's eyes inside out?
Fool is right.
As I walked away from an old friend's hospital bed for the last time four months ago, although he took another month to die elsewhere, and his wife died of Alzheimer's in the meantime, as I walked away from his unrecognizable cancerous ruin, where we'd talked and laughed and cried, where he'd spoken of long distant love affairs, never mentioned to a living soul before, that haunted him still after 50 years (know THAT feeling!), as I walked away, I thanked God for His kindness.
I forgot why last night when I played it back. Then I remembered this morning. It was that in the collapsing ruins there was love.
That.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well said, Martin. I don't see love as evidence really, but as I get older it is everything there is, and makes everything. 50 year old love affairs, oh no, let's not go there.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what evidence is there for God in Onchocerca volvulus boring children's eyes inside out?
Fool is right.
As I walked away from an old friend's hospital bed for the last time four months ago, although he took another month to die elsewhere, and his wife died of Alzheimer's in the meantime, as I walked away from his unrecognizable cancerous ruin, where we'd talked and laughed and cried, where he'd spoken of long distant love affairs, never mentioned to a living soul before, that haunted him still after 50 years (know THAT feeling!), as I walked away, I thanked God for His kindness.
I forgot why last night when I played it back. Then I remembered this morning. It was that in the collapsing ruins there was love.
That.
Life is what it is … Suffering and incompleteness and death are part of the deal …
There have always been people who complain that, "Life isn't fair … " … and, "Why me … ???" … and some go on to conclude that, "There is no God …" (which is quite an illogical leap, IMHO) …
See: the Book of Job … Toward the end of that amazing insightful book of wisdom, God answers Job's complaint with a question of His own (38:1ff) -- "Where were you during the Initial Conditions of the Big Bang … ???"
[ 28. March 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: Teilhard ]
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Doubly agreed q! It was the presence of humble love in my friend in the utter absence, nullity of the kindness of God that enabled me to invoke it then and again last night. It's NEVER there unless we invoke it. And the starting point is gratitude. As one very mainly forgets.
--------------------
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
Teilhard. PART?! I don't see the connection of your second paragraph in response to anything I've said. Life, like apologetics and the fact of the supernatural, is the only way it can possibly be: absurd. The book of Job has always been my favourite book of The Books.
--------------------
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
For sure, "God" is not the Cosmic Errand Boy Sugar Daddy who comes down the chimney at midnight and fixes everything that has gone wrong today …
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Teilhard. PART?! I don't see the connection of your second paragraph in response to anything I've said. Life, like apologetics and the fact of the supernatural, is the only way it can possibly be: absurd. The book of Job has always been my favourite book of The Books.
Concluding that, "Life is 'absurd' …" … ???
Who says so … ???
I think life is terribly interesting, even when it's simply mostly terrible …
But the observed fact is that, indeed, I am not the center of the universe, no matter how much I may sometimes wish it otherwise, especially when I'm in trouble … I was not present at the Initial Conditions of the Big Bang correcting the Creator's mistakes and omissions as (S)he laid out the foundations …
I don't see that as "absurd" … It's just a fact ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Life says so. Faith says to trust God regardless. The conclusion of Job. I've been given that in infinite depth, but I'm just too shallow for it. Despite the absurd simple contingency of meaningless existence, I can't not believe God and in the supernatural although I see no evidence for them whatsoever and never will in this life - just like everyone else without exception. Beyond my contingent disposition including the disposition to invoke Him, His kindness, His infinite patience, tolerance, efficacy, Love. Despite the even greater absurdity of levels, dimensions of existence beyond our 4%
[ 28. March 2015, 17:35: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
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.
There's always the existence of Christianity: I'm not aware of any particularly convincing explanation of why there's a new movement within first century Judaism that believes its Messiah got crucified and then rose from the dead that doesn't involve the Messiah being crucified and rising from the dead.
You can certainly say you don't believe the supernatural is an explanation and therefore although we don't have a naturalistic explanation that doesn't count as evidence. But in that case you're ruling out the purported evidence on the basis of a prior commitment to there being no supernatural rather than dismissing the explanation on the basis that there's no evidence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I agree Dafyd. But I would. My disposition is such that the beguilingly simple stories of the gospel with their outrageous claims and impact on ordinary people sufficient to bring civilization to its knees are completely credible. Nothing can possibly convince Fool apart from dying first.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
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 …
I'm struggling to understand this post.
Is it that you think that atheism (the absence of belief in the existence of a god or gods) is a faith based claim? If so; it isn't.
In case anyone thinks that atheism is a faith-based claim I offer the following:-
The rule is simple - when a disputed claim is made it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim (not the responsibility of the doubter to disprove it) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you think the rule untrue consider the consequences of such a stance.
1) If you were religious you would have to be able to disprove the validity of every other religious belief that has ever existed because otherwise they would be equally as valid as your religious belief. (Merely being certain that if it isn't Christianity/Islam/Scientology etc. it must be untrue does not constitute proof)
2) If I claim that there is a three inch high, purple unicorn wearing an orange jumpsuit and sitting on your left shoulder whilst reciting unpublished Shakespearian sonnets in your ear you have to prove that I'm wrong? You can't see or hear it, well neither can I, that simply proves that our brains, via our eyes and ears, are incapable of detecting said unicorn; but I still believe it so it's true until you produce evidence proving that my belief is wrong.
The problems are that, ISTM, every argument you use against purple unicorns in orange jumpsuits
a) could be applied equally to the existence of god(s) and
b) none of them would disprove the existence of the unicorn.
Martin Luther apparently said, several times and presumably in German, that if you wish to be a Christian you must first pluck out the eye of reason - some of us can't do so.
--------------------
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
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
..... some of us can't do so.
doesn't mean we're right of course, but we rather suspect we may be and, anyroadup, we can't do so - that's how we are.
[ 28. March 2015, 23:05: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But that statement by Luther (pluck out the eye of reason), can be applied to many things. For example, could I find love via reason, or trust, or hope? In fact, I'm not sure that I can find reality via reason.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
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 …
I'm struggling to understand this post.
Is it that you think that atheism (the absence of belief in the existence of a god or gods) is a faith based claim? If so; it isn't.
In case anyone thinks that atheism is a faith-based claim I offer the following:-
The rule is simple - when a disputed claim is made it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim (not the responsibility of the doubter to disprove it) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you think the rule untrue consider the consequences of such a stance.
1) If you were religious you would have to be able to disprove the validity of every other religious belief that has ever existed because otherwise they would be equally as valid as your religious belief. (Merely being certain that if it isn't Christianity/Islam/Scientology etc. it must be untrue does not constitute proof)
2) If I claim that there is a three inch high, purple unicorn wearing an orange jumpsuit and sitting on your left shoulder whilst reciting unpublished Shakespearian sonnets in your ear you have to prove that I'm wrong? You can't see or hear it, well neither can I, that simply proves that our brains, via our eyes and ears, are incapable of detecting said unicorn; but I still believe it so it's true until you produce evidence proving that my belief is wrong.
The problems are that, ISTM, every argument you use against purple unicorns in orange jumpsuits
a) could be applied equally to the existence of god(s) and
b) none of them would disprove the existence of the unicorn.
Martin Luther apparently said, several times and presumably in German, that if you wish to be a Christian you must first pluck out the eye of reason - some of us can't do so.
I am not aware that anyone has proposed or embraced a claim about the reality if a three inch high purple unicorn dressed in an orange jumpsuit … So, who cares about that … ???
Nor is the issue any particular claim made by the late Rev. Fr. Prof. Dr. Martin Luther, OSA ...
But, yes … "A-Theism" is a religious faith claim when the positive truth claim is made that, "There is no God …" …
An "A-Theist" OTOH who simply passively does not actively believe in any God (or, gods) believes NOTHING about "God" (or, gods) ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, yes … "A-Theism" is a religious faith claim when the positive truth claim is made that, "There is no God …" …
An "A-Theist" OTOH who simply passively does not actively believe in any God (or, gods) believes NOTHING about "God" (or, gods) ...
Claiming that there is no God(s) is done, but it isn't atheism. It's usually referred to within the atheist community as either "Atheism+" or as "Strong Atheism". There are groups who call themselves Christians but whose claim would be denied by most mainstream believers.
I, and all the atheists I know, consider the concept of God(s) provable but unproven whilst the proof of a negative (there is no god) is rationally impossible.
It is conceivable that something which, were it detectable, would be considered to be a God (rather as a disinterested prime mover might be called a/the "God") could exist without there being any way of either proving or disproving it.
--------------------
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
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that statement by Luther (pluck out the eye of reason), can be applied to many things. For example, could I find love via reason, or trust, or hope? In fact, I'm not sure that I can find reality via reason.
It may be that love, trust, hope etc. are found through our unconscious mind and it may not - AIUI we just don't know enough (yet?). There is evidence of a chemical change in the brains of those who fall in love (which usually lasts about 6 years when requited and, if we're fortunate may continue as a deep, caring relationship). That the changes exist seems certain - ascribing cause and effect may be premature.
Or possibly Luther just lucked out!
--------------------
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 quetzalcoatl:
But that statement by Luther (pluck out the eye of reason), can be applied to many things. For example, could I find love via reason, or trust, or hope? In fact, I'm not sure that I can find reality via reason.
It may be that love, trust, hope etc. are found through our unconscious mind and it may not - AIUI we just don't know enough (yet?). There is evidence of a chemical change in the brains of those who fall in love (which usually lasts about 6 years when requited and, if we're fortunate may continue as a deep, caring relationship). That the changes exist seems certain - ascribing cause and effect may be premature.
Or possibly Luther just lucked out!
Regarding the experience of falling and being 'in love" -- As it is written (and has been sung), "Fools rush where wise persons never go, but wise ones never fall in love, so who are they to know … ???"
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I am not aware that anyone has proposed or embraced a claim about the reality if a three inch high purple unicorn dressed in an orange jumpsuit … So, who cares about that … ???
You might do if his followers banded together to tell you that you could not be married to the person you love, if those who believed in his unicorn-ness were to be privileged in their access to power and to have their own internal legal system which they used to trump the laws that apply to you.
What if his followers fought to prevent you having affordable healthcare, insisted that you were liable for repairing their temples, gained massive financial subsidies from your involuntary state taxes or set out to convert you by offering inducements and/or promising eternal torment to you, your children or your vulnerable elderly relatives who didn't agree with them.
How would you feel sending your children to state-funded schools run by Unicornians, or being told that it was OK for Unicornian priests to perform marriages but that your marriage could only be validated by an official of the state and your priest was unacceptable?
Think you might care then?
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that statement by Luther (pluck out the eye of reason), can be applied to many things. For example, could I find love via reason, or trust, or hope? In fact, I'm not sure that I can find reality via reason.
It may be that love, trust, hope etc. are found through our unconscious mind and it may not - AIUI we just don't know enough (yet?). There is evidence of a chemical change in the brains of those who fall in love (which usually lasts about 6 years when requited and, if we're fortunate may continue as a deep, caring relationship). That the changes exist seems certain - ascribing cause and effect may be premature.
Or possibly Luther just lucked out!
Well, I've found his comments useful in working with people. For example, I've worked a lot with people who didn't believe in love, (partly because they hadn't had much), (I mean in therapy).
Anyway, it was apparent to me that I could not use rational arguments against this, as their skepticism was existential. Nonetheless, it is possible to help people discover love, or rediscover it, but not via the power of reason.
I'm not saying that finding God is exactly analogous, but I can see a connection.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I am not aware that anyone has proposed or embraced a claim about the reality if a three inch high purple unicorn dressed in an orange jumpsuit … So, who cares about that … ???
You might do if his followers banded together to tell you that you could not be married to the person you love, if those who believed in his unicorn-ness were to be privileged in their access to power and to have their own internal legal system which they used to trump the laws that apply to you.
What if his followers fought to prevent you having affordable healthcare, insisted that you were liable for repairing their temples, gained massive financial subsidies from your involuntary state taxes or set out to convert you by offering inducements and/or promising eternal torment to you, your children or your vulnerable elderly relatives who didn't agree with them.
How would you feel sending your children to state-funded schools run by Unicornians, or being told that it was OK for Unicornian priests to perform marriages but that your marriage could only be validated by an official of the state and your priest was unacceptable?
Think you might care then?
Facts not in evidence ...
I care about what IS happening and what may happen in the future … So, no, I'm not concerned about the social misbehavior of a hypothetical Purple Unicorn Sect ...
I would of course care very much if some group of people -- for any reason or none at all -- advocated and passed laws requiring that my firstborn child must be ground up into sausage and fed to dogs … But it's not happening, so I'm not really too worried about it …
Setting up a "what if ???" straw man doesn't constitute a valid point in a discussion ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Regarding the experience of falling and being 'in love" -- As it is written (and has been sung), "Fools rush where wise persons never go, but wise ones never fall in love, so who are they to know … ???"
I'm struggling again - the only relevance that I can conjure is the assumption that those who have not been religious can't know......??whatever?? If that's the case I might suggest that rationality could be enhanced by a lack of exposure to religion - I wouldn't know though, both the t-shirt and the (non-physical) scars are still fading.
As to falling/being in love - in my few but exhilarating experiences I was never aware of it being optional.
--------------------
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
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Think you might care then?
Facts not in evidence ...
I care about what IS happening and what may happen in the future … So, no, I'm not concerned about the social misbehavior of a hypothetical Purple Unicorn Sect ...
I would of course care very much if some group of people -- for any reason or none at all -- advocated and passed laws requiring that my firstborn child must be ground up into sausage and fed to dogs … But it's not happening, so I'm not really too worried about it …
Setting up a "what if ???" straw man doesn't constitute a valid point in a discussion ...
1 - The facts are in evidence - it's the justification that's absent, whether it be a purple unicorn or a biblical deity.
2 - and you shouldn't be too worried about it, Christians, AFAIK, aren't doing that. Oooops there I go ...responding to an invalid discussion point.
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Think you might care then?
Facts not in evidence ...
I care about what IS happening and what may happen in the future … So, no, I'm not concerned about the social misbehavior of a hypothetical Purple Unicorn Sect ...
I would of course care very much if some group of people -- for any reason or none at all -- advocated and passed laws requiring that my firstborn child must be ground up into sausage and fed to dogs … But it's not happening, so I'm not really too worried about it …
Setting up a "what if ???" straw man doesn't constitute a valid point in a discussion ...
1 - The facts are in evidence - it's the justification that's absent, whether it be a purple unicorn or a biblical deity.
2 - and you shouldn't be too worried about it, Christians, AFAIK, aren't doing that. Oooops there I go ...responding to an invalid discussion point.
Human beings throughout history and across cultures are prone to sinful selfish actions and often make use of whatever ideology or excuse -- even religion -- is handy …
Are "science" and "technology" a bad deal because they have been used to invent and use poison gas and nuclear weapons … ??? Are architects evil because some of them designed the Nazi death camps … ???
"'Abuse' does not negate 'use' … "
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Regarding the experience of falling and being 'in love" -- As it is written (and has been sung), "Fools rush where wise persons never go, but wise ones never fall in love, so who are they to know … ???"
I'm struggling again - the only relevance that I can conjure is the assumption that those who have not been religious can't know......??whatever?? If that's the case I might suggest that rationality could be enhanced by a lack of exposure to religion - I wouldn't know though, both the t-shirt and the (non-physical) scars are still fading.
As to falling/being in love - in my few but exhilarating experiences I was never aware of it being optional.
So how far do you take the logic there me ol' son? Someone leaves their spouse and kids and runs off with someone else and say "Couldn't help it guv, it's the chemicals in me brain.' That alright with you?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The rule is simple - when a disputed claim is made it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim (not the responsibility of the doubter to disprove it) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Who says that is the rule? And is it in their own argumentative interests to say that's the rule? Why should we believe them?
If one person claims that there is a real external world and the other that there is not, which one is the claimant? Who has to demonstrate the validity of their claim? How extraordinary is the claim that there is a real external world? Does the fact that lots of people believe it make it less extraordinary?
It's a stupid and arbitrary rule that falls apart if you ask what counts as a 'claim' and how you quantify 'extraordinary'.
A more convincing maxim is that the person who wants the other person to change their mind needs to offer reasons to do so. (This deals with both your examples.)
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The rule is simple - when a disputed claim is made it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim (not the responsibility of the doubter to disprove it) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Who says that is the rule? And is it in their own argumentative interests to say that's the rule? Why should we believe them?
If one person claims that there is a real external world and the other that there is not, which one is the claimant? Who has to demonstrate the validity of their claim? How extraordinary is the claim that there is a real external world? Does the fact that lots of people believe it make it less extraordinary?
It's a stupid and arbitrary rule that falls apart if you ask what counts as a 'claim' and how you quantify 'extraordinary'.
A more convincing maxim is that the person who wants the other person to change their mind needs to offer reasons to do so. (This deals with both your examples.)
Very well said. I believe I agree.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
HughWillRidmee, as well as humble in this toothless lion's den you are of course right. Rationally strong atheism wins hands down. And not just in logos but ethos up against mainstream theism. But God still is. He's in our pathos.
Oh and Teilhard - there are no mistakes.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Ah yes. Job. That would be the one where God allows someone to be tortured over a bet. "Rewards" Job by not lifing a finger to stop his wife and children being murdered and then replacing them with new ones (because I guess women and children are expendable and easily replaced?) and refuses to answer Jobs perfectly reasonable questions but instead rather childishly chants a playground level mantra of "where were you then".
If this story is meant to be an insight into the nature of God, if this God exists and I meet him upon my death I will take great pleasure in spitting in his eye.
Worship that? Never.
[ 29. March 2015, 09:51: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A more convincing maxim is that the person who wants the other person to change their mind needs to offer reasons to do so. (This deals with both your examples.)
That works
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As woodenly literal as any modern YECist or IngoBist.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
HughWillRidmee, as well as humble in this toothless lion's den you are of course right. Rationally strong atheism wins hands down. And not just in logos but ethos up against mainstream theism. But God still is. He's in our pathos.
Oh and Teilhard - there are no mistakes.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, there are.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yes it does.
No there aren't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I can't see how love can be found via a rational argument, so Luther's point about reason is correct here. I've been faced with utter skeptics about love, and rational argumentation would actually be counter-productive.
But love can be found in other ways - like God.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes it does.
No there aren't.
Does not
Are too
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bugger, made me snort out loud and smile. But I'm not telling you that. I maintain my slitty eyed slitty-eyedness.
Strong atheism wins all the arguments by not losing. It's still wrong. And sweet like George: atheistic on the basis of a four thousand year old story. Bless. At least be atheistic like Dr. Fry. Which no apologetics touch.
Mistakes in creation? God could have done it better? By changing what dimensionless constants how?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes it does.
No there aren't.
Does not
Are too
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I, and all the atheists I know, consider the concept of God(s) provable but unproven whilst the proof of a negative (there is no god) is rationally impossible.
What would you consider proof?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Only endless shared reality, surely?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems odd to me, if an atheist is assuming naturalism, empiricism and rationalism, and is then asking to be shown something outside those domains. How would that work?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems odd to me, if an atheist is assuming naturalism, empiricism and rationalism, and is then asking to be shown something outside those domains. How would that work?
Yes …
Think of an utterly devoted baseball fan, "who lives, eats and breathes" the history and rules of baseball, and then complains that, say, "lacrosse" is illegitimate because it isn't baseball ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems odd to me, if an atheist is assuming naturalism, empiricism and rationalism, and is then asking to be shown something outside those domains. How would that work?
Yes …
Think of an utterly devoted baseball fan, "who lives, eats and breathes" the history and rules of baseball, and then complains that, say, "lacrosse" is illegitimate because it isn't baseball ...
Well, I meant it as a genuine question. I don't really understand what atheists mean when they ask for proof or evidence, since scientific evidence is couched in naturalistic terms. So they are asking for naturalistic evidence for something non-natural?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I, and all the atheists I know, consider the concept of God(s) provable but unproven whilst the proof of a negative (there is no god) is rationally impossible.
What would you consider proof?
Moo
Undergoing a little theological training a couple of decades back (I know, I know, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!) we were taken through all the standard "proofs" of the existence of GOd - each one accepted in its time as incontrovertible. And each one honestly subverted by our liberal teacher. He wasn't looking for slam-dunk arguments in any age.
Sadly, there are still many Christians of the "mad, bad, or God" school who can offer you half a dozen proofs for the existence of God before breakfast. The guy you just questioned is probably much more intelligent than I am, but if you asked me the same question, this would be my reply:
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I'm still waiting for the one being argued on this thread to be refuted by the atheists. Anybody can refute a weakened version of those arguments. I don't expect anything different. Attacking straw men with circular arguments is the only tool in the new atheist toolbox.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
