Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1276 of 1324 (708606)
10-11-2013 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1275 by Straggler
10-11-2013 10:16 AM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
Straggler writes:
What epistemological techniques are you applying (i.e. what methods of knowledge acquisition)? Why do you consider conclusions borne from these techniques to be accurate or reliable? What verifiable discoveries have resulted as a consequence of applying these epistemological techniques (i.e. what is their track record)?
I'd largely repeat what I just wrote to style here. Message 43
In the end though it is belief and faith but the track record of that belief and faith appears reliable.
Straggler writes:
The 'Golden Rule' has been arrived at by numerous philosophies many of which are entirely secular. It seems to be based on the sort of recipricocity and empathetic abilities that we know are evolved traits. Certainly it is just wrong to say that knowledge of the golden rule depends on the sort of divine revelation and subjective religious expereince that you are promoting as worthwhile methods of knowledge acquisition here.
So - I ask - What objective knowledge have these methods ever led to?
There is no objective knowledge. I do contend though that my subjective beliefs are reasonable. The fact that The "Golden Rule" is so widely held does indicate that it has considerable validity. If there is a god then it seems reasonable that in some way that form of morality has divine origins but that does not mean that divine revelation is the only way of acquiring that as a world view.
Even if it is an evolved trait that does not mean that it doesn't have divine origins.
Objectively we can understand the value of the "golden rule" but objectively we can't know whether the origins are divine or not so again it does come back to belief.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1275 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2013 10:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1279 by Stile, posted 10-11-2013 1:40 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1298 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2013 12:49 PM GDR has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1277 of 1324 (708610)
10-11-2013 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1275 by Straggler
10-11-2013 10:16 AM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
So - I ask - What objective knowledge have these methods ever led to?
GDR consistently throws around the word "objective" inappropriately. He keeps using that word...I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Why, just a few posts ago, he said:
quote:
We know that there is a distinction between right and wrong. We know those things objectively.
And we know that there is no objective difference between "right" and "wrong." Those are subjective labels applied by intelligent beings; just like a stop sign, they lose all meaning without intelligent minds to apply subjective meaning to them.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1275 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2013 10:16 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1278 by GDR, posted 10-11-2013 1:31 PM Rahvin has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1278 of 1324 (708626)
10-11-2013 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1277 by Rahvin
10-11-2013 12:10 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
Rahvin writes:
And we know that there is no objective difference between "right" and "wrong." Those are subjective labels applied by intelligent beings; just like a stop sign, they lose all meaning without intelligent minds to apply subjective meaning to them.
You are of course right. Thanks.
AbE After I posted that I thought of this comment of mine. "Objectively we can understand the value of the "golden rule""
That would in my view be objective as we can see the results on society of following "The Golden Rule". Would you agree with that?
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1277 by Rahvin, posted 10-11-2013 12:10 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1280 by Rahvin, posted 10-11-2013 1:43 PM GDR has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1279 of 1324 (708634)
10-11-2013 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1276 by GDR
10-11-2013 11:40 AM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
GDR writes:
I'd largely repeat what I just wrote to Stile here. Message 43
In the end though it is belief and faith but the track record of that belief and faith appears reliable.
The track record only speaks for itself... not about where it came from.
We know - The Golden Rule works and has a very good track record.
You can't then say:
"I believe that Golden Rule comes from God... therefore, since the Golden rule is so reliable... it's confirmation that my belief in God is reasonable!"
It doesn't make any sense.
Even if you believe that a God who gave out the Golden Rule would give us a rule that would be reliable.
Still not reasonable.
Just even more circular.
You may as well claim that you invented the wheel because your car's so good at taking you down the highway.
The logical twisting that needs to be done in order for you to think that these two things are correlated in a reasonable manner defies understanding.
You certainly can have faith that the Golden Rule comes from God. But there's no "reasonable conclusion" to deduce from a working Golden Rule about where the Golden Rule came from. Just a very strange way for you to "confirm" exactly what you're assuming in the first place.
It's the same for me:
I can't say "I believe the Golden Rule was created by humans. See how well it works! Therefore - humans!!."
I can, however, say that I think humans created the Golden Rule because humans are very good at creating social structures and figuring out what works best through a process of trial and error.
--that may not be correct, but it's certainly reasonable because it's based on things that can be (and have been) verified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1276 by GDR, posted 10-11-2013 11:40 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1282 by GDR, posted 10-12-2013 11:41 AM Stile has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1280 of 1324 (708635)
10-11-2013 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1278 by GDR
10-11-2013 1:31 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
AbE After I posted that I thought of this comment of mine. "Objectively we can understand the value of the "golden rule""
That would in my view be objective as we can see the results on society of following "The Golden Rule". Would you agree with that?
To a point. We can objectively measure certain statistics (population growth rates, how long the societies last, etc) about various societies for comparison, and compare those societies with some version of the Golden Rule against those without.
Not sure how many societies would not have some Golden Rule analogue, simply because empathy is a basic human trait, like the ability to see or hear or think abstractly. But the results of such a comparison would be objective - they would be true even if no intelligent observer were around to measure them.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1278 by GDR, posted 10-11-2013 1:31 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1281 by GDR, posted 10-12-2013 11:17 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1281 of 1324 (708683)
10-12-2013 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1280 by Rahvin
10-11-2013 1:43 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
Rahvin writes:
To a point. We can objectively measure certain statistics (population growth rates, how long the societies last, etc) about various societies for comparison, and compare those societies with some version of the Golden Rule against those without.
Not sure how many societies would not have some Golden Rule analogue, simply because empathy is a basic human trait, like the ability to see or hear or think abstractly. But the results of such a comparison would be objective - they would be true even if no intelligent observer were around to measure them.
That is how I see it as well. It is my contention that we can make the comparison objectively but it then becomes a subjective conclusion about whether or not it is a universal truth when there is no intelligent observer around.
Thanks again.
Edited by GDR, : typo

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1280 by Rahvin, posted 10-11-2013 1:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1282 of 1324 (708684)
10-12-2013 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1279 by Stile
10-11-2013 1:40 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
Stile writes:
You certainly can have faith that the Golden Rule comes from God. But there's no "reasonable conclusion" to deduce from a working Golden Rule about where the Golden Rule came from. Just a very strange way for you to "confirm" exactly what you're assuming in the first place.
It's the same for me:
I can't say "I believe the Golden Rule was created by humans. See how well it works! Therefore - humans!!."
I can, however, say that I think humans created the Golden Rule because humans are very good at creating social structures and figuring out what works best through a process of trial and error.
--that may not be correct, but it's certainly reasonable because it's based on things that can be (and have been) verified.
By your definitions I don't agree that it is reasonable to conclude that humans created the Golden Rule. It would be reasonable to conclude that humans have been able to successfully put the Golden Rule into practice but that doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it is a universal truth that exists whether or not humans utilize it.
As I understand your position on what is reasonable it seems to me that there is no reasonable position and so we are back to faith and belief regardless of what we believe or don't believe.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1279 by Stile, posted 10-11-2013 1:40 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1283 by Stile, posted 10-12-2013 12:09 PM GDR has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1283 of 1324 (708692)
10-12-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1282 by GDR
10-12-2013 11:41 AM


How would you ever know
GDR writes:
It would be reasonable to conclude that humans have been able to successfully put the Golden Rule into practice but that doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it is a universal truth that exists whether or not humans utilize it.
Exactly.
It is very important to realize that it is fundamentally impossible to ever understand anything about any possible "universal truth that exists whether or not humans utilize it."
All we can ever do is make reasonable conclusions. There is no answer section in the back of the book of reality where we can check our work.
I don't think you fully grasp this concept. Once you do, all these scientific ideas will make more sense.
As long as you don't understand it, you will continue to make fundamental errors in all of your ideas about knowledge; scientific and religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1282 by GDR, posted 10-12-2013 11:41 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1284 by GDR, posted 10-12-2013 12:37 PM Stile has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1284 of 1324 (708697)
10-12-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1283 by Stile
10-12-2013 12:09 PM


Re: How would you ever know
Stile writes:
It is very important to realize that it is fundamentally impossible to ever understand anything about any possible "universal truth that exists whether or not humans utilize it."
All we can ever do is make reasonable conclusions. There is no answer section in the back of the book of reality where we can check our work.
But it seems that you have just agreed that there are no reasonable conclusions.
Stile writes:
I don't think you fully grasp this concept. Once you do, all these scientific ideas will make more sense.
As long as you don't understand it, you will continue to make fundamental errors in all of your ideas about knowledge; scientific and religious.
But I don’t see that the scientific knowledge should try and answer the same questions as religious belief. I don’t look to my religion to tell me how God does things. I hold my subjective religious beliefs which, moist simply put, is that God is responsible for the existence of life, that He loves us and wants us to reflect that love into the world. As a Christian I believe that God has spoken clearly through Jesus Christ and vindicated the life of Jesus by resurrecting Him, and that He continues to reach out to us through our hearts, minds and imaginations.
I look to science to give me the answers as to how and when the world came into existence, how life has evolved to where it is today and even as to how it might evolve further, how altruism and morality evolved in our society and the myriad of other things that science works on.
Other than belief that God did it, I don’t let my religious beliefs affect what I believe from my basic understanding of science. I have been accused of rejecting the science that says the resurrection is impossibility but I don’t buy that. Science simply tells us that natural laws as we currently understand them precludes it happening, but it does not tell us that those natural laws can never be suspended. Maybe they can and maybe they can’t.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1283 by Stile, posted 10-12-2013 12:09 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1285 by Stile, posted 10-12-2013 1:18 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1286 by onifre, posted 10-12-2013 1:31 PM GDR has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1285 of 1324 (708702)
10-12-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1284 by GDR
10-12-2013 12:37 PM


Re: How would you ever know
GDR writes:
But it seems that you have just agreed that there are no reasonable conclusions.
No.
I said that there's no way to know whether or not we ever reach some "universal truth."
How would we ever know?
We certainly can make reasonable conclusions.
Reasonable conclusions are those that can be tested and verified.
I can test and verify that ravens are black.
It is a reasonable conclusion that all ravens are black.
However, I will never know whether or not "all ravens are black" is a universal truth or not. How could I? How could anyone?
This is a very important distinction. Do you understand the difference?
Do you see how a reasonable conclusion is not necessarily true? It's quite possible that an albino raven could falsify this conclusion and it would have to be updated to allow for the new facts.
Do you see how it is impossible to ever know if anything is universally true? We are not all-knowing, so there's always a chance that we may learn something new that contradicts what we think we understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by GDR, posted 10-12-2013 12:37 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1288 by GDR, posted 10-13-2013 5:01 PM Stile has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1286 of 1324 (708704)
10-12-2013 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1284 by GDR
10-12-2013 12:37 PM


Re: How would you ever know
Science simply tells us that natural laws as we currently understand them precludes it happening, but it does not tell us that those natural laws can never be suspended. Maybe they can and maybe they can’t.
I wonder, would you be willing to test that, say, by stepping off a tall building? Maybe they can and maybe they can't!
The point is, because you already believe in god, you hold this maybe they can, maybe they can't position for the resurrection. But if YOUR life was on the line, there would be NO maybe.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by GDR, posted 10-12-2013 12:37 PM GDR has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1287 of 1324 (708705)
10-12-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1267 by GDR
10-07-2013 9:14 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
I accept that there is an evolutionary account of altruism.
Good, then we can move past that.
I agree that there is no scientific evidence to come to a conclusion on that question. I also agree that there is no scientific evidence that points to an intelligent planner subtly influencing our thoughts.
Good, then we can move past that as well.
This thread is about what I believe, which although it is subjective does make it relevant to the discussion.
You missed my point. The only reason your belief wasn't relevant in this particular string of posts is because I'm explaining how you've put the cart before the horse.
I was not however saying that your belief in god is not relevant to the entire thread.
In my opinion — yes.
Again, not the point I was making. It is not yet relevant to this discussion whether or not god guides evolution when there is not yet any evidence for god.
Because you have side tracked us into discussions about altruism and god's role in evolution, you have forgotten that one continuous point. You've already jumped ahead to assuming god is real and he acts upon nature. But, when I show you evidence for a natural evolution of altruism, you will jump over the "Where's the evidence for god" question and immediately tell me that doesn't disprove god didn't cause evolution.
Yes, you're right, it doesn't disprove that. But, if you're going to slip that in after you've been shown the evidence for altruism when you were claiming there wasn't any just to make a point. Then I have to remind you that there is no evidence for god, so whether or not he plays a role in evolution is irrelevant.
I believe subjectively that there is more to it than just that though.
Ok, but I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
What scientific evidence am I rejecting?
Sure, now you say you accept the scientific explanation for altrusim. So none, I guess, at this particular point in the discussion. But before, you did reject it. We told you it exists, and you continued to say it didn't.
But it seems as though you have conceded on all that so again, we can move past it.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1267 by GDR, posted 10-07-2013 9:14 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1292 by GDR, posted 10-13-2013 5:26 PM onifre has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1288 of 1324 (708738)
10-13-2013 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1285 by Stile
10-12-2013 1:18 PM


Re: How would you ever know
Stile writes:
I said that there's no way to know whether or not we ever reach some "universal truth."
How would we ever know?
We certainly can make reasonable conclusions.
Reasonable conclusions are those that can be tested and verified.
I can test and verify that ravens are black.
It is a reasonable conclusion that all ravens are black.
However, I will never know whether or not "all ravens are black" is a universal truth or not. How could I? How could anyone?
This is a very important distinction. Do you understand the difference?
Do you see how a reasonable conclusion is not necessarily true? It's quite possible that an albino raven could falsify this conclusion and it would have to be updated to allow for the new facts.
Do you see how it is impossible to ever know if anything is universally true? We are not all-knowing, so there's always a chance that we may learn something new that contradicts what we think we understand.
I understand all that, but what I don’t understand is why you think that I have said anything different than that. I agree that I don’t know that there is a universal truth. Regardless of how strongly I believe that there is I agree that it is impossible to know. However, just because I can’t know the truth of what I believe does not mean that it isn’t a reasonable idea to respond on the basis of what we believe to be true. We do that in all sorts of aspects of our lives.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1285 by Stile, posted 10-12-2013 1:18 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1289 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2013 5:06 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1300 by Stile, posted 10-15-2013 1:24 PM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1289 of 1324 (708739)
10-13-2013 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1288 by GDR
10-13-2013 5:01 PM


Re: How would you ever know
GDR writes:
We do that in all sorts of aspects of our lives
Where?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1288 by GDR, posted 10-13-2013 5:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1290 by GDR, posted 10-13-2013 5:08 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1290 of 1324 (708741)
10-13-2013 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1289 by Tangle
10-13-2013 5:06 PM


Re: How would you ever know
I believe it's going to be sunny tomorrow so I'll plan a picnic.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1289 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2013 5:06 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1291 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2013 5:25 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024