Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 8:15 AM
22 online now:
Percy (Admin), Pressie, RAZD, Theodoric, vimesey (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,247 Year: 5,284/19,786 Month: 1,406/873 Week: 302/460 Day: 2/52 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 61 of 74 (153878)
10-28-2004 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
10-21-2004 8:01 PM


Re: Rational?
now reply to message #43 ... if you are able?

http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=140&m=43#43

try without the christian name calling this time? as you accuse others of doing?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-21-2004 8:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1159 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 62 of 74 (154306)
10-29-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
10-22-2004 4:10 PM


Re: and the answer is ... 42?
RAZD writes:

The Philosophy of Pragmatism:

The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue.) Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience.

The above philosophical creed is also known as "idealism" and it is the antithesis of "realism".

Idealism says nothing can be proven to exist because only relationships exist, that is our relationship with any given reality.

Realism says that is nonsense. Whether you or I have a relationship or not natural reality exists - regardless.

Now for the real difference between the two:

Idealism: No such thing as eternal truths. What is true is only what I have relationship with. If I have no relationship with it then it does not and cannot be proven to exist.

Realism: Eternal truth exists. My relationship with anything, whether there is one or not does not affect the existence of reality.

The classic question posed in these agruments is: When a tree falls in the forest and if no one is around to hear it does it still make a sound ?

Idealists say you cannot prove it.

Realists say nonsense - obviously it does.

Gary Zukav writes:

The mind can only deal with ideas. For it to deal with an idea it must first either (a) be presented with the idea from an outside source, (b) deduce the idea from observation of the (individual's) perceived reality, or (c) combine previous ideas (including the ideas of observations) into a new idea.

(a) Is the essence of education.
(b) Is the essence of rational thought.
(c) Is the essence of creating theories.
For any of these ideas to be perceived by an individual as true, they must be consistent with the experiences of that individual. But each experience is recalled as an idea of what occurred, so the experiences of an individual are the all the previous ideas of that individual. The individual combines all previous ideas into a reality map against which new ideas are tested.

Where there is a conflict between two ideas, then either one or the other or both must be incorrect (or incomplete) and it is time for a new idea. The new idea can either be a test to see which old idea is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved.

Because it is de facto impossible for the {experiences / ideas} of one person to match the {experiences / ideas} of another person, it follows that perceived truth for one person is necessarily different from perceived truth for another person.

Where there is a conflict between two perceived truths, then either one or the other or both must be incorrect (or incomplete) and it is time for a new idea. The new idea can either be a test to see which perceived truth is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved.

The entire blue box says:

Truth is what works for you = the Bible and its unseen eternal truths are nonsense.

Romans tells us why it is nonsense to some people.

Please respond RADZ and I will also.

sincerely,

WT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2004 4:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AdminNosy, posted 10-30-2004 3:07 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2004 1:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 63 of 74 (154365)
10-30-2004 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 11:07 PM


Thanks WT
I'm not following or reading this very closely. But your post here seems to be an honest attempt to answer the question put to you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 11:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 64 of 74 (154433)
10-30-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2004 11:07 PM


Re: and the answer is ... 42?
Thanks willowtree. Other than mixing up the relative authors of the different blue boxes (first one is a direct quote from Gary Zukav's book, the second is my writing) this is a good answer.

willowtree writes:

The entire blue box says:
Truth is what works for you = the Bible and its unseen eternal truths are nonsense.

How you get to that is a mystery to me. Not only is the bible not mentioned at all, it specifically allows for a world view in which the bible plays a prominent role in the interpretation of ideas -- "The individual combines all previous ideas into a reality map against which new ideas are tested" -- that reality map can just as easily contain a strong belief in the bible as not. In fact I see this as the crux of the problem between such divergent views of the world -- very different reality maps based on different basic accumulated ideas each one internally valid.

The problem is how to discern which is closer to your realist viewpoint that "Eternal truth exists" and to search for what those "unseen eternal truths" actually are -- how do you "peel the layers off the onion" when there are no {logical \ rational \ scientific} methodologies to guide one. (ignoring the fact there is only one layer to an onion).

willowtree writes:

The classic question posed in these agruments is: When a tree falls in the forest and if no one is around to hear it does it still make a sound ?

Idealists say you cannot prove it.

Realists say nonsense - obviously it does.

And yet {you\we} cannot prove it: any proof you could have would be based on some manner of "listening" and so you take it on faith that it makes a sound based on your experience with past falling trees and their sounds of falling (though each makes a different sound? and certainly you could not predict what the exact sound would be ... but that is a different issue). This is your worldview based on the ideas you have of past experiences. It is also the worldview of most people, and as such does not present a conflict in ideas between those people.

The problem is not when there is a concordance in {idea worldviews}, but when there is a discrepancy. Arguing that one (or the other) is THE true view and the other is false will not make that discrepancy go away nor resolve the conflict. The only thing that can do that is a new idea, and as I said before:

"The new idea can either be a test to see which perceived truth is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved."

This is where I get to my "nonsense quotient" -- again from Zukav's book:

Gary Zukav writes:

The importance of nonsense hardly can be overstated. The more clearly we experience something as "nonsense," the more clearly we are experiencing the boundaries of our own self-imposed cognitive structures. "Nonsense" is that which does not fit into the prearranged patterns which we have superimposed on reality....

Nonsense is nonsense only when we have not yet found that point of view from which it makes sense.

...the creative mind...is characterized by a steadfast confidence that there exists a point of view from which the "nonsense" is not nonsense at all - in fact, from which it is obvious.

What is nonsense and what is not, then, may be merely a matter of perspective.

What is true for me may not be true for you and vice versa. The test of the truth of any view is how well it explains everything in a consistent, logical, manner versus how many things are label as "nonsense" - the higher the "nonsense" quotient the more inconsistent the view.

Thus almost everyone would agree that it is nonsense to say that the tree does not make noise if there is nobody there to hear it (or nor manner or method of perceiving the vibrations caused by the fall), because that does not fit their worldview.

Now consider a person who claims that it is nonsense for the tree to make a sound: he needs to claim that the relation of sound to falling tree in every previous experience is just a coincidence or the result of some interaction between the tree and the listener and not a basic part of the release of energy of the falling tree: that all those previous associations are nonsense, that the concept of energy causing sound is nonsense, possibly that there is a conspiracy of people who are associating the sound with the falling tree.

Enough for now ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 11:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2004 11:59 PM RAZD has not yet responded

happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3025 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 65 of 74 (154669)
10-31-2004 9:16 PM


Willowtree has a number of times said that the scientific methodology is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't tread on the toes of theism. I'd like to know how exactly evolution treads on the toes of theism though?

Evolution contains no religious claims, it is a theory much like any other that is infered from the evidence from a number of fields of science. Surely by saying that evolution is wrong purely based on theistic concerns you're committing the equally bad crime of letting theism tread on the toes of science! You're placed in the situation of saying that the scientific method is the way to find truths about the naturualistic world, but for purely theistic (and not scientific) reasons, it can't be used in this situation in the naturalistic world.

I agree completely with you that science cannot be used to prove/disprove a god (theistic issues), and it cannot be used to prove that the christian message of salvation through jesus christ is wrong (theistic issues). Why then allow theism to be used to invalidate scientific claims about the natural world?

(Added in edit) Sorry, its late here. I also meant to include that science cannot disprove that a god is the creator and sustainer of life on earth, and evolution doesn't attempt to do that. If you take evolution to be an attempted proof that there is no god, then your view of it must have been tainted by your theistic worldview

This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 10-31-2004 09:24 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2004 9:25 PM happy_atheist has not yet responded
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2004 9:26 PM happy_atheist has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 74 (154674)
10-31-2004 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by happy_atheist
10-31-2004 9:16 PM


I'd like to know how exactly evolution treads on the toes of theism though?

The problem is that WT can't tell the difference between science making religious claims and religion making scientific claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by happy_atheist, posted 10-31-2004 9:16 PM happy_atheist has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 67 of 74 (154677)
10-31-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by happy_atheist
10-31-2004 9:16 PM


toes and froes
and there is the question also of which theistic toes are being stepped on ... the fundamentalist hindus think that the scientific age of the world and universe is wrong because they are not old enough, and many religions do not have any problem with evolution and other sciences ...

... so for the comment to have validity it would have to apply to all religions wouldn't it?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by happy_atheist, posted 10-31-2004 9:16 PM happy_atheist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by happy_atheist, posted 11-02-2004 8:27 AM RAZD has responded

happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3025 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 68 of 74 (155175)
11-02-2004 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
10-31-2004 9:26 PM


Re: toes and froes
There would be an interesting excercise. Construct a scientific model of the universe that either agreed with all religions, or stayed out of issues that couldn't be resolved without contradiction. How much of science would remain?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2004 9:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2004 9:01 AM happy_atheist has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 69 of 74 (155179)
11-02-2004 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by happy_atheist
11-02-2004 8:27 AM


Re: toes and froes
Construct a scientific model of the universe that either agreed with all religions, or stayed out of issues that couldn't be resolved without contradiction.

or conversly to disallow {conflict\contradiction} if only with one or two religions -- ie must be pervasive {conflict\contradiction} to take seriously into the question.

and when do you seperate out branches of a religion where one branch has problems and other branches don't?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by happy_atheist, posted 11-02-2004 8:27 AM happy_atheist has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1159 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 70 of 74 (155335)
11-02-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
10-30-2004 1:46 PM


The problem is how to discern which is closer to your realist viewpoint that "Eternal truth exists" and to search for what those "unseen eternal truths" actually are -- how do you "peel the layers off the onion" when there are no {logical \ rational \ scientific} methodologies to guide one. (ignoring the fact there is only one layer to an onion).

Theistic methodology and our unseen eternal truths are based upon evidence and facts - just like yours (supposedly).

Your error is this assumption that "logic and rationality" are absent in theistic methodologies.

Faith is based upon evidence contrary to its reputation.

IF Jesus rose from the dead as He said He would prior to His death THEN this IF TRUE becomes the basis to conclude everything else He said to be objective truth.

If someone says they are going to die and raise from the dead according to the promise of the Father THEN if they do indeed raise this makes them the most important Person of all time.

Did Jesus raise from the dead ?

The evidence says He did:

http://www.drgenescott.com/thearchives.htm then click "subject" then click "The Resurrection".

VF-424 WebTV 4/7/85 The Resurrection: A Factual Basis; Who Moved the Stone by Morison; Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (taught at the Shrine Auditorium)

VF-631 WebTV 03/26/89 The Resurrection: Facts & Theories

VF-681 WebTV 03/11/90 Faith: Three Disciple's Reactions to the Reality af a Miracle - The Resurrection Message (John 6)

VF-687 WebTV 04/22/90 The Choice Forced by uhe Unique Claims of Jesus Christ - A Background for The Resurrection

VF-688 WebTV 04/29/90 The Resurrection: Proof of Our Faith - A Look At The Evidence

VF-792 WebTV 04/19/92 The Resurrection

VF-990 WebTV 2/11/96 The Basis For Our Faith, Part 1

VF-991 WebTV 2/18/96 The Basis For Our Faith, Part 2

VF-992 WebTV 2/25/96 The Basis For Our Faith, Part 3

VF-993 WebTV 3/3/96 The Basis For Our Faith, Part 4

VF-995 WebTV 3/17/96 The Basis For Our Faith, Part 5

VF-998 WebTV 04/07/96 Proof of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

VF-999 WebTV 04/14/96 The Resurrection via Deuteronomy 8:2

VF-1042 WebTV 02/09/97 Basic Christianity Defined: The Church's "Self" via the Resurrection

VF-1047 WebTV 03/16/97 Basic Christianity Defined: The Law, Resurrected Christ & Bond of Faith

VF-1049 WebTV 03/30/97 Basic Christianity Defined and The Resurrection (Easter)

VF-1055 WebTV 05/11/97 Basic Christianity Defined: The Resurrection & the Sign of Jonah

VF-1064 WebTV 07/13/97 Basic Christianity Defined: - A Basis For Faith: The Resurrection (Part 1)

VF-1065 WebTV 07/20/97 Basic Christianity Defined: - A Basis For Faith: The Resurrection, The Facts (Part 2)

VF-1066 WebTV 07/27/97 Basic Christianity Defined: - A Basis For Faith: The Resurrection, Faith Not Perfection (Part 3)

VF-1103 WebTV 04/12/98 The Resurrection (Part 1)

VF-1104 WebTV 04/19/98 The Resurrection: The Evidence (Part 2)

VF-1154 WebTV 04/04/99 The Resurrection 1999

VF-1208 WebTV 04/23/00 Romans 1 Verse 17 (G) - The Resurrection (Part 1)

VF-1209 WebTV 05/07/00 Romans 1 Verse 17 (H) - The Resurrection (Part 2)

VF-1210 WebTV 05/14/00 Romans 1 Verse 17 - The Resurrection (Part 3)

VF-1211 WebTV 05/21/00 Romans 1 Verse 17 - The Resurrection (Part 4)

VF-1212 WebTV 05/28/00 Romans 1 Verse 17 (K) - The Resurrection (Part 5)

VF-1256 WebTV 04/18/01 Romans 1 Verses 21 & 22 - The Resurrection (Part 1)

VF-1257 WebTV 04/15/01 Romans 1 Verses 21 & 22 - The Resurrection (Part 2)

VF-1303 WebTV 3/31/02 Romans 2 Verses 4 & 5 - The Resurrection

VF-1357 WebTV 4/20/03 The Resurrection

VF-1407 WebTV 4/11/04 Romans 3 Verse 25 - The Resurrection

Therefore because Jesus raised this is the basis to believe in all the unseen eternal truths that He spoke of.

Scientific methodologies are only defective in ONE aspect:

IF they EXCLUDE the Creator then the Bible tells us why.

God sense DOES NOT require belief in Jesus - just the genuine acknowledgement that there is a universal God and a word of thanks. (Romans 1)

Those two requirements cannot be faked and forestall any revocation of God sense.

But the point is that TM are based upon facts - objective facts IF Jesus rose. IF He rose then His subjective views as found in the Bible become objective eternal truth.

OTOH, scientific methodologies only cover natural reality but regularly trespass into supernatural realities via a philosophic position usually offered as scientific proof.

I wish SM would obey their own Divine neutral clauses but as I have argued relentlessly the alleged neutrality is non-existent. EVERYBODY has conclusions about God whether they admit it or not.

Zukav writes:

What is nonsense and what is not, then, may be merely a matter of perspective.

Not a bad conclusion by Zukav at all.

The Bible says ones perspective is ultimately determined by God.

If true this makes N.T. christianity esotericism.

What is true for me may not be true for you and vice versa. The test of the truth of any view is how well it explains everything in a consistent, logical, manner versus how many things are label as "nonsense" - the higher the "nonsense" quotient the more inconsistent the view.

Okay, but the nonsense quotient is determined one radical way or the other via the existence of God or His non existence.

If He exists THEN theistic methodology has a zero quotient and if He does not then the quotient is off the scale ?

You ended by further examining the tree falling.

Sound exists whether we possess the ability to hear it or not ?

Idealism, at its root, makes themselves the center of attention/reality instead of God.

I hate to cut your post short but I must suddenly go off-line.

WT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2004 1:46 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2004 2:40 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Loudmouth, posted 11-03-2004 12:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14826
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 71 of 74 (155352)
11-03-2004 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Cold Foreign Object
11-02-2004 11:59 PM


Willowtree, we already know that your methods lack logic and lead to false conclusions.

So far as I can tell if you see something you would like to be true you assume that it is true unless strong evidence is produced against it and even then you are reluctant to let go of it. Witness your continued reliance on Milton after it jas been proven that Milton's claims cannot be trusted, and that he speaks from bias and not knowledge.

Although Milton's bias is clear - as is your own - yo have certainly not proven that your opponets are equally biased. Indeed your idea of bias seems to be disagreement with you. But the only bias that shows is yours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2004 11:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 74 (155464)
11-03-2004 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Cold Foreign Object
11-02-2004 11:59 PM


quote:
Theistic methodology and our unseen eternal truths are based upon evidence and facts - just like yours (supposedly).

Theistic methodology relies on subjective, non-empirical data. Science relies on objective, empirical data. The two are quite different.

quote:
Your error is this assumption that "logic and rationality" are absent in theistic methodologies.

Your error is in thinking that subjective opinion should sway objective fact. That is neither logical nor rational.

quote:
IF Jesus rose from the dead as He said He would prior to His death THEN this IF TRUE becomes the basis to conclude everything else He said to be objective truth.

If Buddha did reach enlightenment, then reincarnation is an objective fact. If Mohammed was really a prophet of Allah, then the Quran is an objective fact. If Shiva is real, then Hinduism is an objective fact. We can play ifs all night. The simple fact is that the resurrection of Jesus must be taken on faith, which lends itself to religious and theologic methodologies, not scientific ones.

quote:
Therefore because Jesus raised this is the basis to believe in all the unseen eternal truths that He spoke of.

Then there is the same proof that David Koresh was the second coming of Christ, or Hallie Selassie in the case of Rastafarians. Oral traditions and religious fervor are no way to judge the objective facts surrounding the event. Simply, the resurrection of Jesus is taken on faith as are the tenets of every other religion.

quote:
IF they EXCLUDE the Creator then the Bible tells us why.

And this is exactly what you have done by saying that the creator could not use evolution in the way that is described in science. You have jerked the Creator away from the creation table because you don't like the way he created. Your inability to properly address the Creation is due to the removal of Godsense.

This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-03-2004 12:19 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2004 11:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14826
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 73 of 74 (155466)
11-03-2004 12:30 PM


Move to Boot Camp ?
Shouldn't this thread also be placed in the Boot Camp forum?
  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 74 of 74 (155488)
11-03-2004 1:44 PM


Thread copied to the The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview thread in the Boot Camp forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019