Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

I did say it depends on the subject, didn't I. Meaning the specific facts you deny depend on the subject to which those facts apply.But if you want me to just chose one then I will opt for a most controversial treatment and open up a hornets' nest.What fun!All the facts we possess about supernatural entities, from the gods of the Greek pantheon, volcano gods, Santa, Tinkerbell, witches, ghosts, goblins, unicorns (pink), Persian gods, Egyptian gods, Assyrian gods, African, Native American, Australian, all we have in the way of evidence on these supernatural things shows that they are all false and made up. That's thousands of data points right there. We have additional evidence that humans are psychologically prone to create from nothing but imagination various and sundry supernatural things. And we have found one area in the brain that appears to be the seat of religious euphoria and we can flip it on and off like a light switch.There is no evidence, none, zero, showing anything other than that supernatural stuff is made up by us clever and creative humans with a touch of euphoria for spice.You're already familiar with the evidence here. I won't continue.When such a heavy weight of evidence points all in the one direction there can logically be only the one path to follow to a conclusion.Now here is the controversial part. You cleverly never stated outright that you were denying the individual evidences presented. Instead you devised a subjective conclusion that lead off the inevitable path onto one more agreeable to your religious irrationalities.I submit, GDR, that by denying the inevitable logical path that all the empirical evidence points in, you have de facto denied all the empirical evidence. First, you should be proud. You're a good guy.Second, I couldn't be more overt than I was. I came right out and stated so flatly, in living color. You are a religionist, therefor you were brainwashed. It doesn't matter that you evolved your present beliefs by some circuitous route. That fang of faith, the psychological need for a sky daddy with a really big stick to watch over you, was set very early and all you have done is read, explore and experiment different ways of satisfying the fangs needs. It's got you, GDR, and it doesn't want to ever let you go. No, I did not know that. It's so hard to tell with religionists. If you have any empirical evidence of this, maybe I'll try my hand at some subjective conclusions of my own to deny it. No, it's just me. This is one of the reasons I'm not the poster child for the new Age of Reason. That and the beard, of course.Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual culprits

Thanks GDR, one small quibble Thanks, nice to see agreement. I would say "any belief that supports (male or) female genital mutilation should be marginalized" -- I think it is more appropriate to marginalize\expose specific beliefs that are counter to a more uniform and egalitarian moral code, rather than a whole religion.This would be similar to marginalizing\exposing specific beliefs that are contradicted by scientific evidence (ie- young earth).Enjoy.

Hi Otto Tellick, thanks. Documentation that shows the specific entity in question was invented.The problem though is not that some supernatural beliefs may be due to imagination, but that Straggles et al claim that ALL supernatural beliefs are due to imagination, and thus far they have not (and apparently cannot) provide the evidence to demonstrate or support that claim. All they are doing is guessing, based on their beliefs. Do you think that the specific evidence that shows the cargo cults to be imaginary applies to concepts like the IPU as well? Is there cross-over from one concept to the next? How do you calculate probability when you don't know the possibilities? What I have said is that without specific evidence that {A} does not exist, that one cannot conclude that it does not exist, AND that without specific evidence that {A} does exist, that one cannot conclude that it does exist. This means that either {A} or not{A} is possible.If you cannot show that there is zero probability of supernatural concepts not originating from human imagination, then aren't you de facto admitting a non-zero probability of not originating from human imagination?But "probability" is the wrong word here as it is assumed rather than calculated - better to use possibility. Even then you have problems:If you cannot show that there is zero possibility of supernatural concepts not originating from human imagination, then aren't you de facto admitting a non-zero possibility of not originating from human imagination? Can you demonstrate that they don't exist? Can you demonstrate evidence that specifically shows they each are products of human imagination? And? Isn't that part of what supernatural means? A means of testing for supernatural presence, so you can apply the test and show empirical (rather than assumed) negative results.Consider Ben Franklin flying his kite in a rain storm without a means to test for the presence of electricity: lightening strikes the kite repeatedly, but in spite of all the bright lights and loud sounds, no electricity is detected. Is it proper to conclude that electricity is not present, or should you conclude that the neither the presence nor absence of electricity in lightening has been adequately supported by evidence, and that (without further evidence) either one is possible? As a Deist I "posit" the creation of the universe and thus the "natural" laws that govern its operation, including the evolution of thinking rational beings and their subsequent use of intelligence. Sufficient does not mean truth or seeking of truth. Is it sufficient to assume that human imagination is responsible for all supernatural concepts? Doesn't that mean that you stop looking at other possibilities?Atheists complain about the theists "god-did-it" as a get out of jail free card to explain things, and here we see atheists using "human imagination" as a get out of jail free card to explain things, while neither of them is necessarily true.I prefer being an open-minded skeptic -- open-minded in the consideration of the possibility of concepts that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence, while remaining skeptical of concepts that are not supported by objective empirical evidence. And we see similar development via evolution of various traits that are increasingly beneficial. Guess the "supernatural entity" did an excellent job of planing and implementing, then.Enjoy.

The fact that humans have continuously applied false attributes to god(s) is only evidence that we apply false attributes to any possible god(s). It is not evidence pointing to the thought that there is no god(s) but we've been down this road several times in this thread. It doesn't point in any direction but if it were to be argued I'd suggest it is an indication that god(s) exist. We seem to have a desire to understand our origins. Atheists and theists alike do that but of course come to very different conclusions. The thought that we get thirsty is a pretty good indication that water exists. We have a need to be loved and which is a good indication that love exists. We have a need to understand lasting purpose for life which is a pretty good reason to believe that there is a lasting purpose to our existence which can't be found in a finite universe.Is that argument conclusive.? No. It is based on empirical evidence? No. It is a subjective conclusion that along with other observations about our lives and our world has led me to the conclusion I have come to. In that case then we are all brainwashed. You are just an anti-religionist and have been brainwashed to think that way. If you are interested there is a 12 step program available.

Well, indeed. Did you check the pages you've linked to? The "dictionary" link actually gives a definition for "Pathological Skepticism" rather than pseudoskeptism. "Pathological skepticism" is (like pseudoskepticism) a phrase thought to have been initially used by sociologist Marcello Truzzi. It's closely related to pseudoskepticism, but there are significant differences.At the bottom of the "dictionary" page, there are five links which purport to give examples of current usage. You have dutifully copied and pasted these in the post I'm replying to.All five link to the same page. This seems to be deliberate, and it's possible that the site owner might be a volunteer author for the "dictionary". Here's the page linked to: http://t.co/t1QJ7QSIt is a pseudoscience website. Look around, and we can find a piece by the owner telling us how irreducible complexity has destroyed Darwinism. "Pseudoskeptics", to the author, are scientists who are skeptical of such wonderful "new" scientific ideas. This is hardly what Truzzi mean't.The site's bull, and you should have checked it and spotted this.On a different but related note: Here are Truzzi's main points about the approach that he wanted to call pseudoskepticism:

quote:

---

1) The tendency to deny, rather than doubt

​

2) Double standards in the application of criticism

​

3) Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate

​

4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

​

5) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof

​

6) Making unsubstantiated counter-claims

​

7) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

​

8) Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim

---

For those wishing to follow RAZD's advice above, and familiarize themselves with "pseudoskepticism" (and also for those who enjoy a good ironic laugh), I'd recommend bearing those 8 points in mind, and starting here.

So it seems pointless to propose a source of objective source of morality since we can never access it! We use our brains to make decisions about the collection of salient facts. For instance, we might try and establish when sufficient brain function exists so as to make decisions about abortion. So it sounds exactly as if you were behaving as if there was no objective moral source, and instead it boils down to subjective tastes. Why is proposing this objective prime moral mover useful in any way? Which is the system I'm proposing (along with trying to make it more objective by appealing to empirically established facts rather than trying to make it more objective by claiming it is the work of a prime moral mover) I didn't say it did mean that. I'm saying God is tool whose use has expired, regardless of whether it exists. That wasn't my point. My point was that when we relied almost entirely on a prime moral mover, an objective moral authority, our morality basically stagnated. I fail to see what pragmatic use doing so serves. As we started trying to develop moralities that didn't rely on prime moral authority, we call that period the enlightenment.But yes, it is a problem that you credit the moral prime mover for the good things but have issues when it comes to the bad things. My position accounts for both the good and the bad without any such problems - perhaps something to think about. So now you are saying that our moral instincts differ from the moral guidelines imposed by the prime mover? It seems there is no way to know what the moral prime mover wants since we cannot even consult our moral instincts according to you. What a mess! Well obviously there are points of agreement between the Abrahamic religions. They are Abrahamic! There are points of agreement with the various Ancient Egyptian religions too. How does this consillience help us determine how we should live our lives, exactly?

I particularly liked 8:

quote:

---

Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim.

---

I was surprised that Chuck77's support had not set off alarm bells in RADZ's head.
But it seems that RADZ has actually turned to the dark side...

The validity of scientific investigation as a route to knowledge is necessarily reliant on rejecting (albeit tentatively) untestable propositions which negate our confidence in empirical evidence. Do I need to remind you that you have provided a logical proof demonstrating that any such rejection of untestable claims is logically invalid and pseudoskeptical?Here it is from Message 273:

1. Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
2. Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
3. Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
4. Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
5. Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
6. Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
7. Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)

You have deductively proved the logical invalidity of science itself. Or have you changed your mind about the logical validity of rejecting inherently untestable claims?Where do you place yourself on your own scale of belief above with regard to the untestable notion that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created 1 second ago?You can't answer this without fundamentally contradicting yourself can you?

But who is to say whether we can access it or not? Maybe that still small voice that we hear inside of us when we come to moral decisions actually can connect to this absolute moral source. All we know is that we do have a conscience. You have no way of knowing that. Is there more than objective truth? My position does as well but frankly it would be going off topic and I'm already spending a huge chunk of time on this forum. I'd like to get back to that book "Guns Germs and Steel". It is interesting but he seems to take a lot of words to make one point. Let's try it this way. Our moral instincts can sort out right and wrong. I'm getting out of my car and just then someone walks by and a 20 dollar bill drops out of his pocket. What do I do? I'd like the 20 dollars myself but at the same time I know I should run after the man and return it to him. My basic instinct is to keep the money but my moral instinct says that I should return it.It is that still small voice that is our conscience. What is the root cause of that still small voice and can that voice become louder and clearer by aligning, joining, connecting or whatever to a pre-existing prime moral mover? But when the point of agreement is, for lack of a better or shorter term, the "Golden Rule" then we have a starting point to bring a peaceful and friendly co-existence.

Hi bluegenes, still trying, I see. I did. Curiously they do not affect the definition of pseudoskepticism. What are those differences? Curiously, you do not provide, show or demonstrate any. I don't see them as being significantly different, but more as synonyms.If you would rather identify yourself as a Pathological Skeptic than a Pseudoskeptic, then I won't stand in your way. Which doesn't mean that they aren't valid characteristics of pseudoskepticism. Certainly they are characteristics that you have exhibited, which is what shows you to be a pseudoskeptic. Curiously, this does not mean that the definition given is bull or that the examples given are bull. You need to show that this is a fact rather than just trying to discredit (oops) the source. Yes, they describe your posts on that thread quite well, as I have frequently shown.Let's look at the page is linked from the pathological skeptic page:

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism

​

Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) refers to arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. The term was coined by Marcello Truzzi, who argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves negative hypotheses — theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong — without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.

​

Pseudoskepticism is related to the more common term ‘pseudoscience‘: the term was originally used to refer to rhetorical arguments which relied on ‘non-proof’ as a demonstration of ‘disproof’, usually made in opposition to an assortment of questionable claims (from UFOs and paranormal phenomena to alternative medical practices to religious ideas). The term has gradually been expanded to include any unsubstantiated invalidation of a theory.

​

The term ‘pseudoskepticism‘, like the term ‘pseudoscience‘, is generally considered pejorative because it implies poor scientific reasoning. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoskepticism normally dispute the characterization.

---

The astute observer will note that this is the same definition that was provided in the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread, where the term pseudoskeptic was introduced to this forum (and which you tried to discredit rather than refute as well).Compare that to the pathological skepticism definition:

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism Pathological Skepticism - Definition

​

Pathological Skepticism is closedmindedness with deception: it is an irrational prejudice against new ideas which masquerades as proper Skepticism. A person under the sway of Pathological Skepticism will claim to support Reason and the scientific worldview while concealing their strongly negative emotional response against any questioning of contemporary accepted knowledge. The primary symptoms of Pathological Skepticism are the presence of scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate. In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.

​

The terms Pathological skepticism and Pseudoskepticism were coined in the early 1990s in response to members of skeptic groups who apply the label of "Pathological Science" to fields which are actually protoscience.

---

Pseudoskeptics - use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism, and negative hypotheses — theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong — without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.Pathological skeptics - use scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate, employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion, and present a falsely scientific facade that is pseudoscientific.The major difference I can see is that Pathological Skeptics may be a little bit nastier and a little less bound by rational scientific processes with an open-minded evaluation of the possibilities.If you would rather identify yourself as a Pathological Skeptic than a Pseudoskeptic, then I won't stand in your way.Are you ever going to present actual objective empirical evidence showing that any supernatural beings are figments of human imagination, evidence that shows anything of real substance for your hypothetical conjecture?Enjoy.

Well can we or not? If we can, how? Maybe, but that's just speculation. It is not known. You said: when it comes to morality there really is nothing we can know objectively. So what's the point of supposing an objective moral source if we can not access it (that is to say, we cannot know it objectively). If we can do the job without employing appeals to God (for instance by appealing to our 'little voice in our head' or some other method), if I can employ non-God methods for persuading others to act in the way I feel is right, then I know that God is a tool whose use has expired.If you can think of some role for which God is necessary in moral discourse, you have but to say what that role is. As a human being though, I do not to speculate as to God's motivations to make moral decisions. I can consult secular moral guidelines, and my own personal 'little voice' and try to navigate through to make my decision. OK, no God needed here. If religion was sidelined, you could still play this scenario in the exact same way. The root cause of that small voice is not important. It will still be there even if we didn't ascribe divine origins for it.And yes, it could potentially become louder by aligning to a prime moral mover, but since there is no way to know if you allegiance is accurately placed you may end up with a loud voice telling you to practice socially harmful morality. For instance, I'm sure the little voices in the heads of the 9/11 hijackers was very loud telling them they should strike against the Great Satan or whatever and become martyrs. But that point of agreement is more or less in line with secular moralities too. So no prime mover is required, and if religion was sidelined we'd still have the Golden Rule.

Hi again Straggles,I noticed that you still have not answered the questions about the various traits one should adopt or avoid in one's approach to ushering in a new age of reason, is there a problem? Please don't imply that your personal opinions are the basis of scientific inquiry or the philosophy of science. It really is a wonder that you fail to understand the issues here when you have had so many opportunities to read them. Of course you would need to let go of some preconceptions. Nope, I have shown why science is necessarily tentative and that there are different degrees. You also obliviously miss the element of objective empirical evidence in the logical breakdown I presented which I've shown in this version: For a more general use we may want to consider the following scale for concepts in general: Then we can discuss the pros and cons of these categories and their value in ushering in a new age of reason. For example we can consider the evidence for evolution and conclude that we have a strong conviction that it is true.However, it appears that the important element that you seem to have missed previously is this:

quote:

---

• any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) is absolutely true

​

... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.

​

As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.

​

OR:

​

• any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
== notX(a) is more likely true than false ...

​

... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.

---

Underlining added for emphasis.The existence of objective empirical evidence changes the logic involved: AND, of course, science relies HEAVILY on objective empirical evidence, evidence that is used to contradict\invalidate false hypothesis. I place myself as a 5, as you would understand if you actually read my positions. Obviously we cannot know for sure, we cannot test, but we can have opinions, and my personal opinion is that it is false.This is no different than making the base foundational a priori assumption of science that objective empirical evidence represents reality, a position that cannot be tested and that we cannot be sure is more or less likely to be true.Everything may be illusion, as the Buddhists say, we don't know.When it comes to doing science we operate within the shell of the a priori assumption regarding evidence: Sorry to disappoint.Enjoy

---

* because this is within the a priori assumption shell you cannot end up at a 1 or a 7Edited by RAZD, : added new scaleEdited by RAZD, : revised new scale for clarityEdited by RAZD, : colors

Prayer, contemplation etc. Because I believe we can know things, (I agree it's a different kind of knowing), that we don't know objectively.C S Lewis says thgis:

quote:

---

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

---

I don't think that will make a lot of sense to you but it does for me. I can't explain why that is the case but we both just might as well accept it. OK but as I said from my own experience that when I brought God into the equation I found I had a clarity and moral discernment and strength that I hadn't had earlier. I can't prove that and you no doubt can rationalize it but all I can do is relate my experience as I understand it. That wasn't the question I was answering. The question had to do with differentiating between moral instincts and moral guidelines. That voice will always be there too so it is important to understand the essential message of love the neighbour so that we can understand just which voice we are listening to.

Nobody here is claiming to know anything "for sure". The 6 position on Dawkins scale doesn't claim certainty. Lack of certainty doesn't preclude knowledge does it RAZ? Oh apparently lack of certainty does preclude knowledge. The entire validity of science is simply an opinion!! Sure. The universe could have been created fully formed 1 second ago and all our notions of evidence regarding the way reality behaves could be false. This is an untested philosophical possibility. But consider the following:If the universe was created fully formed 1 second ago with completely different natural laws (specifically with regard to falling pens) to the ones you falsely remember then any prediction regarding what the pen will do is nothing more than an opinion is it?I am holding a pen above my desk. I am going to let go of it.

What do you think my pen will do?

How confident can we be of this conclusion? Is this conclusion ultimately based on just an opinion? Or something more?

​

Personally - I know (albeit tentatively and without philosophical certainty) that my pen will fall as science predicts. This isn't an opinon. It is knowledge that lacks absolute certainty. There is a difference.

​

RAZD writes:

​

I noticed that you still have not answered the questions about the various traits one should adopt or avoid in one's approach to ushering in a new age of reason, is there a problem?

​

Your whole pseudoskepticism thing is being applied inconsistently.

​

If the tentative rejection of unevidenced but untestable propositions is a sufficiant basis for the validity of science then I put it to you that it is a rational approach to conclusions regarding ALL other unevidenced but untestable propositions too.

​

What do you say RAZ?

You seem to have your hands full with others. So I'll make one last comment and let you get on with debating Mod and AZ. The logical conclusion of the position that you are taking is that ALL unfalsified conclusions are equally subjective. The existence of god(s). Aliens taking over the planet. Obama as the anti-Christ etc. etc.The fact is that some conclusions are more likely to be correct than others. And all conclusions are NOT equally subjective because not all conclusions are equally objectively evidenced.But if you think belief in god(s) is as subjective as belief in an alien take-over then I am not going to argue with you.