Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins' Preachings
Delbert Grady 
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 25 (164349)
12-01-2004 12:06 PM


This book is based in its entirety on a simple mistake. It is not often that one can find exactly the point where an author goes off the track, but here one can. It is in the fifth sentence of the preface of the book, which begins, "Similar accusations of barren desolation, of promoting an arid and joyless message, are frequently flung at science in general." However, what people object to in Dawkins is not the science but the atheism. Because he cannot see the difference, he writes a book that is a 300—page non sequitur. In answering the charge that his atheism is a joyless creed, he says, in essence, that his atheism allows him to derive pleasure from the beauty and magnificence of Nature as revealed by science. He may as well have said that his atheism allows him to enjoy a good steak or a game of baseball, or that his atheism gives him the great advantage of having a nose, two eyes, and ten fingers.
Those who believe in God, including the very substantial proportion of scientists who do, are every bit as able to thrill to scientific discovery as Dawkins is. They embrace scientific understanding and rejoice in it, as he does. But they have as well the joy of their faith, which tells them that the beauty of Nature points to something higher, to a Wisdom greater than their own. For Dawkins it points to nothing. He is welcome to that conclusion, but there is not the slightest reason why any scientist or scientifically minded person should share it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Barr is a theoretical particle physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware.
This was ofcourse, referring to the book, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder.
What always strikes me about these sort of dogmatic and determined atheists, who tell us to grow up and stop believing in pink unicorns orbiting Saturn, is that they assume a position that no evidence means evidence of nothing pertaining to their own mindsets. In this way - we don't see air, so it's not there. And what I mean by that analogy, is that we are at the dawn of Science at best. Isn't it a bit silly - to conclusively dismiss higher levels of reality at this stage? Isn't it more sensible, to regard the possibility of a higher intelligent agancy - like people like Einstein did?
People usually say, "I have no reason to believe because science doesn't say anything about God".....Forgive me - but what a get out, who's asking science? Is science the only way to know things?
If we see, through the systematic realities of this universe - the incredible collection of coincidental random activity, then cannot we share a common knowledge - through our very witnessing the matter, and thereby conclude a genuine and true conclusion based on this knowledge?
I say we can. I say that God is evidenced in the very universe. Just because science can't say anything about this evidence, doesn't mean it isn't there. Here is the simple construct that atheists partake of, concerning shifting common knowledge over to science.
"Dear atheist, look at all the knowledge of God - our very existence etc.."
Atheist shifts goal posts; "Science doesn't evidence God"
Believer; "What the fu** - who's science - was I asking him?".
This happens far too much, because of 2D thinking from unbelievers. They're like drones in this regard - maybe they just have no imaginitive capabilities. But knowledge doesn't require evidence. I know I have wonderful feelings which I cannot evidence. I know that any investigation into them will not satisfy or live up to them. It's like trying to describe how good Shakespeare is, by examining the letters in the words. Listen - you're far too fascinated with science! But it doesn't suggest God doesn't exist. Even if the universe is indifferent - I am not. Why? You see - Dawkins uses science as a way of trying to disprove God. Why bother? All the texts from millenias - are documentation, just like any other document. So if the bible is a fairytale to you - yet it speaks truly to me - and gets things right in reality, in my life - and in the same way you could test a science book - then a science book is just as much fairytale to those who subjectively create atheistic positions from it. Indeed - my reality is dictated from a book called a "fairytale" by you atheists, how much fantasy can it be? The only difference is that you have used an objective story - to fulfill a subjective mindset. And I have used a subjective story to fulfill a subjective mindset. Atleast I'm consistent. All you're doing is post-creating your subjective atheist fairystory from an objective science book.
I totally agree with physicist S. Barr. I noticed the logical error of assuming positions concerning Newton etc...In essence, using the science but not the opinion of the one who theorized, despite forcing his opinion on us - and telling us to grow up. Mindsets, *Ho hum*. I suppose Dawkins doesn't care for the minds who discover the science - despite no science ever being possibly found out without minds. So indeed - the opinion of theistic scientists who make great discoveries - is very necessary! Why should anyone take on this neo-Darwinian fantasy, and random poppycock?
Why should any Darwinistic atheistic and rare philosophy be more prevailent than another scientists? Even your science puts its barriers up and says "no opinions allowed" - therefore any agreement with Dawkins is your subjective mind, wishfully disregarding the objective truths in order to derive subjective falsehoods.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mikehager, posted 12-01-2004 2:29 PM Delbert Grady has replied
 Message 17 by sidelined, posted 12-02-2004 9:43 PM Delbert Grady has not replied
 Message 22 by tsig, posted 12-08-2004 5:48 AM Delbert Grady has not replied

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


Message 2 of 25 (164372)
12-01-2004 1:29 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 3 of 25 (164390)
12-01-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 12:06 PM


I think I understand you...
If I am reading your post correctly, some of your points are:
1. Science cannot say anything about the existence of a god, so it is reasonable to believe in one.
What always strikes me about these sort of dogmatic and determined atheists, who tell us to grow up and stop believing in pink unicorns orbiting Saturn, is that they assume a position that no evidence means evidence of nothing pertaining to their own mindsets. In this way - we don't see air, so it's not there.
2. Science is not the only way of knowing things anyway.
But knowledge doesn't require evidence. I know I have wonderful feelings which I cannot evidence. I know that any investigation into them will not satisfy or live up to them. It's like trying to describe how good Shakespeare is, by examining the letters in the words.
3. There is evidence that god exists that science cannot address and atheists are wrong for putting it to the test of science.
I say we can. I say that God is evidenced in the very universe. Just because science can't say anything about this evidence, doesn't mean it isn't there.
4. "Unbelievers" are unimaginative drones for for not accepting "knowledge" obtained without evidence.
This happens far too much, because of 2D thinking from unbelievers. They're like drones in this regard - maybe they just have no imaginitive capabilities.
5. Accepting the ideas of science without considering the beliefs of the one who proposed them is somehow a fallacy.
I noticed the logical error of assuming positions concerning Newton etc...In essence, using the science but not the opinion of the one who theorized...
I will reply by corresponding number.
1. You are correct. Science doesn't tell anything about god or orbiting unicorns. But if one accepts the possible existence of a god on these terms, one must give equal credence to all possible forms of existence, including a totally naturalistic universe. Are you willing to do that?
2. Science is the only system that exists that produces results that are reliable. If a stone is dropped from a height of 32 feet on earth, it will fall to the ground in one second. It doesn't matter where or when you do it. A body dropped from 96 feet will take two seconds, and so on. Thus, science tells us that falling bodies accelerate (on earth and up to terminal velocity) at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. We know this. No system of subjective opinions can result in such information because such opinions vary from person to person. So yes, science is the only way we have of more then one person "knowing" a thing, unless you can show that the good feeling you get from literature is the same as another person's.
3. Anything that cannot be out to a test is not evidence. It is opinion. Neither I nor anyone else has any reason to give your opinion any credence. You could be insane or a fool.
4. As above, what you are calling evidence is actually opinion. How dare you call me names for not accepting your opinion as evidence? It is my opinion that I am not a drone. How can you show your opinion is any more valid then mine?
5. Ah... yes. This is my favorite ground. If you read any of my old posts, I'm all about the logic. Which fallacy is being committed? It seems to me that the exact opposite of what you say is true. It is a fallacy to address the person behind an argument or their beliefs rather then the argument itself.
There are more examples of bad logic and poor thinking in this rambling post, but I will be satisfied with responses to the points I have raised. Perhaps we can address the others, including the flawed basic assumptions, later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 12:06 PM Delbert Grady has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 3:53 PM mikehager has replied

  
Delbert Grady 
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 25 (164411)
12-01-2004 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mikehager
12-01-2004 2:29 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
You make the logical assumption that I am specifically and personally attacking you. But really, I'm attacking these atheists who support Dawkins, who says I should "grow up" etc..concerning a believer's religious beliefs.
You mentioned this logical fallacy of focusing on the arguer rather than the argument?
If anything, I think I spoke clearly concerning this. Dawkins has left his objective science - to hark on about atheism and indifference, as the Physicist S.Barr referenced in the pertaining quote. Dawkins has left his science and entered the opinionated arena. Yet in his book, he uses scientist's theories, such as Newton, without giving any credit or thought to the opinions of those scientists.
Everybody agrees concerning the knowledge of the universe and the realities of the partakers of it. This common knowledge, if you like - or even what one feels - is just as real and/or valid as what one thinks.
If Newton comes up with a theory, I know his opinion cannot effect the science. Big deal, that's shifting goal posts. Dawkins has made his "opinion" known, if it is so great - let's bring in some more scientific opinions.
. Science is not the only way of knowing things anyway.
That's correct, you are starting to learn this now - I can see you have intelligence. Because we all know through CN, that our hearts beat. We feel it beat, we don't need evidence to "know" it beats. The knowledge is preceding the evidence in this example. So we don't need science to know things. This CN is ignored by those atheists who choose to dismiss reality in favour of a naturalistic random fantasy.
So if my bible is subjective, and science is objective, why would I seek to objectify my subjective?
Anyone can share common knowledge - even subjectively - yet truthfully and factually. I can have a real walk with God - and he can foretell me all things through my subjective bible, yet I remain consistent, factual and true, in that - the bible effects reality and is knowledge of truth.
Epistemology is the key here. One can know many things without science. people knew all about the sun and sky before science. This modern atheistic Dawkinist mindset, focuses on random activity as explaining all, yet with very little evidence and mostly theory. Infact - it's a big atheistic collusion, focusing in on the science. It works like this;
Science cannot say anything about God
The scientist cannot have his opinions mentioned concerning his science.
But the question is about the epistemological truths that atheists and theists agree on, so it's one big wussie fence-sitter of a strawman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mikehager, posted 12-01-2004 2:29 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 12-01-2004 4:23 PM Delbert Grady has not replied
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 12-01-2004 4:47 PM Delbert Grady has not replied
 Message 7 by mikehager, posted 12-01-2004 4:50 PM Delbert Grady has replied
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 12-01-2004 6:26 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 25 (164419)
12-01-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 3:53 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
quote:
That's correct, you are starting to learn this now - I can see you have intelligence. Because we all know through CN, that our hearts beat. We feel it beat, we don't need evidence to "know" it beats. The knowledge is preceding the evidence in this example. So we don't need science to know things. This CN is ignored by those atheists who choose to dismiss reality in favour of a naturalistic random fantasy.
But how do you know it is a heart?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 3:53 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 25 (164428)
12-01-2004 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 3:53 PM


Unweaving the Rainbow
Delbert Grady writes:
quote:
One can know many things without science. people knew all about the sun and sky before science.
But the point is that they didn't. They believed the sun was the flaming chariot wheel of Apollo the sun-god, didn't they?
I know you don't claim to have read Dawkins's book (or any of his work), and other folks on this board and elsewhere have criticized Dawkins on the basis of someone else's review. Unweaving the Rainbow is an amazing work that I highly recommend.
You would know this if you had read the book, but Dawkins's point is not that atheists understand science differently or more completely than believers. His argument is that science (and its naturalistic methodology) is traditionally regarded as taking the poetry and mystery out of life. The poet Keats criticized Newton for literally unweaving the rainbow, reducing a thing of beauty into mere wavelengths of light. Dawkins uses this image to make the point that Newton's work was the basis for advances in physics and cosmology which made our view of the universe much more astounding in its breadth and complexity. The expansion of our scientific knowledge always dispels long-held myths and offends those who cherish them, but it brings with it a renewed sense of wonder that is much more honest and healthy.
It's only through the limiting of individual perspective that we can achieve anything scientifically. Scientists can't use as evidence their "feeling" that certain variables may have an effect on the outcome of a controlled experiment. The factors are either verifiable and detectable or they don't belong in science. The science of statistics is used to counteract people's tendency to filter their experiences to arrive at whatever conclusions they desire. Science has only advanced by excluding the subjective, and for good reason.
I can't possibly recommend Unweaving the Rainbow highly enough. I don't consider it an anti-religious polemic. It is based on the notions that the wonders of science are much more staggering than the myths they have replaced, that scientific methodology is necessarily naturalistic, and that an informed scientific imagination always has room for the poetic and the beautiful.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 12-01-2004 05:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 3:53 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 7 of 25 (164429)
12-01-2004 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 3:53 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
I am one of those atheists who is generally in agreement with Dawkins, so I am a member of the group you were ignorantly attacking. I don't agree that believers need to grow up; individuals can hold whatever ideas they choose. I do assert that they have no right to expect anyone else to believe them, accept their ideas, or even take them seriously without evidence.
Also, before going any further, I must protest your quote mining. This is a fine example of the disgusting tactics of creationists. You quoted me without pointing out that I was paraphrasing you, trying to make it look as if I in some way agreed with you. That is dishonest and despicable, even if done in a weak attempt at humor.
To proceed, your main error is a simple one. Your opinion is not of equal value to the results of scientific enquiry and to claim so is hubris of the highest order. You can be of the opinion that 2+2=5 all you want. It won't change the math. Similarly, you can be of the opinion that you "can have a real walk with god", but that opinion is no more valid or better supported then 2+2=5.
Another choice fault is that common knowledge is a good way of getting information about the world. It simply isn't. The facts of quantum physics are an example of this.
So, I do not say that you need to grow up by leaving belief in god. I am saying that you need to grow out of the idea that your personal opinions and beliefs have any value or validity for other people or the world at large.
This message has been edited by mikehager, 12-01-2004 05:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 3:53 PM Delbert Grady has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 6:34 PM mikehager has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 25 (164474)
12-01-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 3:53 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
Delbert,
That's correct, you are starting to learn this now - I can see you have intelligence. Because we all know through CN, that our hearts beat. We feel it beat, we don't need evidence to "know" it beats.
In addition to Charles Knight's post, above. How do you know "something" (because it may not be a heart, rather presumptuous of you to assume that without evidence, wouldn't you say?) is beating?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 3:53 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
Delbert Grady 
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 25 (164475)
12-01-2004 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mikehager
12-01-2004 4:50 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
To proceed, your main error is a simple one. Your opinion is not of equal value to the results of scientific enquiry and to claim so is hubris of the highest order. You can be of the opinion that 2+2=5 all you want. It won't change the math. Similarly, you can be of the opinion that you "can have a real walk with god", but that opinion is no more valid or better supported then 2+2=5.
Ahahahahaha! What a prime example of a big old scientific STRAWMAN. I didn't say my opinion is equal to the achievements of science. What I have said is that knowledge can certainly be had, without science, or precede it, and that epistemology is certainly a valid endeavour.
If you had read post one then you'd realize that I am FAR from suggesting I am trying to worship science or include God in it. What an absolute failure of logic from a person who claims it!
I'll make it real simple now;
Common knowledge is agree upon by both the believer and none believer. They both see the purpose to say - lungs. That's right, purpose. We knew the sun was there before science, and we know our hearts beat.
Infact, my opinion as you call it is 2+2=4. What a silly and childish attempt to dismiss all that I have said!
The absolute fact and truth, is that I have walked with God succesfully, according to all that is written in the bible. Sorry to trump your hopes but that's a fact.
Here's what you people do;
Rule 1. Science cannot say anything about God ( Delbert says - I'm not talking science)
Rule 2. The scientists opinion cannot be relevant, concerning God.
So, that's science and the scientist that cannot mention God.
A and B = C (No God, guaranteed and you're LOVING IT)) Infact - it's as stupid as 2+2= whatever number you want.
So Delbert suggests valid logical endeavours concerning the facts OF LOGIC, that knowledge doesn't require evidence. And you people say "science cannot blah blah blah, your opinion isn't relevant." LOL. Then neither is Dawkins'.
If science cannot mention God, and neither can the scientist, then that's formula for "removing" God so that no person is in a position to give God any credence.
Look at it again;
Science says nothing about God
The scientist's opinion about God cannot be deemed relevant.
So this is a categorically HUGE error of atheist/agnostic arrogance.
It's just like saying "We MUST be all there is as we cannot detect anything else".
You're a man of logic. Does no evidence evidence nothing?
All that MrHambre said, is still happening. You are guilty of saying "There is no God, because science hasn't found him".
Here's another one;
There is no life in the universe apart from on earth.
STOP worshipping science, and trying to get me to worship it like you. This is VALID knowledge of God, by great minds who have been great enough to succeed in science. If Dawkins views you agree with, then you're favouring your subjective atheistic inclinations!
How can you conclude no higher intelligent agency? Does a microbe on a dunghill say "there are no stars"?
This message has been edited by Delbert Grady, 12-01-2004 06:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mikehager, posted 12-01-2004 4:50 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 12-01-2004 7:09 PM Delbert Grady has not replied
 Message 11 by mikehager, posted 12-01-2004 7:15 PM Delbert Grady has not replied
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 12-01-2004 7:27 PM Delbert Grady has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 25 (164480)
12-01-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 6:34 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
quote:
Common knowledge is agree upon by both the believer and none believer. They both see the purpose to say - lungs. That's right, purpose. We knew the sun was there before science, and we know our hearts beat.
Before science, people used to think that the brain was an organ for cooling the various humors of the body.
Before science, people did not understand the the Sun was actually a star, and that the moon reflected the sun's light and was not a light source itself.
Remember, Europe's Dark Ages were rife with religious superstition and beliefs that evil spirits and demons were the cause of disease. The Age of Enlightenment saw the birth of real scientific inquiry and many challenges to the commonly held myths and falsehoods of the past.
quote:
How can you conclude no higher intelligent agency?
Because I know of no evidence of a higher intelligent agency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 6:34 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 11 of 25 (164481)
12-01-2004 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 6:34 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
I note with interest but without surprise that you do not address my comment on your quote mining.
I never said that your opinion was that 2+2=5, I said that a person could easily hold that view, contrary to the facts. That was an illustration of the fact that people can have strong opinions that are wrong. The second point that I was attempting to make was that there is as much evidence that 2+2=5 as their is that some god exists... none.
Yes, I am quite good at logic. So, let us approach this purely as a logical question. I purpose that you formulate your point in a concisely worded form so that we can address it as an argument. Your contention is that knowledge does not require evidence. Show us the logic you claim to have used to reach that conclusion. Understand that I may ask for definition of some terms before proceeding. You invoked logic, lets see you use it.
In closing, I do not worship science. The very idea is ludicrous. I do not worship anything.
I look forward to your formulation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 6:34 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 25 (164482)
12-01-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 6:34 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
Delbert Grady,
The absolute fact and truth, is that I have walked with God succesfully, according to all that is written in the bible. Sorry to trump your hopes but that's a fact.
Easily demonstrated, do it again in front of me. I will of course require evidence that the "being" walking alongside you is in fact a deity. Strange how "facts" can be annoyingly unrepeatable, non? That's why no-one believes you.
Common knowledge is agree upon by both the believer and none believer.
Which is generally non-contentious & arrived at observationally anyway, ie with evidence. Failure to demonstrate that with evidence renders it a myth, & not "common knowledge".
Rule 1. Science cannot say anything about God ( Delbert says - I'm not talking science)
Rule 2. The scientists opinion cannot be relevant, concerning God.
So, that's science and the scientist that cannot mention God.
A and B = C (No God, guaranteed and you're LOVING IT)) Infact - it's as stupid as 2+2= whatever number you want.
Science does not preclude God. When people talk of science having nothing to say about god, they mean that in the current environment there is no evidence of god. Of course, if a being appeared & could repeatedly alter the rules of physics on demand, then this would be excellent scientific evidence of god. You are confusing metaphysical naturalism (there absolutely is no god), with methodological naturalism, which potentially allows for god, but requires evidence.
The scientific method (which works quite happily outside of science, incidentally) requires a hypothesis to explain an observation. That hypothesis must then be tested by having evidence uncovered that is consistent with it, & none contradicting it. Since there is none of god either way, the "hypothesis" is rendered equal to fairies & unicorns.
Your summary of the alleged atheistic conclusion that absolutely denies god is, IMHO, correct. But to an agnostic atheist this is 1/ false, & 2/ not evidence of god. Ergo, until I see you walking around with what is demonstrably the supreme being as you have claimed as being factual, I'll hold off of hurling myself at any particular religion, if that's OK by you?
Furthermore, you seem to think having knowledge of a beating heart requires no evidence. I would love to know how you know you have something /1 beating, & 2/ that it is a heart, ie. a pump?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 6:34 PM Delbert Grady has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 9:13 PM mark24 has replied

  
Delbert Grady 
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 25 (164517)
12-01-2004 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mark24
12-01-2004 7:27 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
Furthermore, you seem to think having knowledge of a beating heart requires no evidence. I would love to know how you know you have something /1 beating, & 2/ that it is a heart, ie. a pump?
This is irrelevant. The fact is that we know we have something beating in us preceding the science. It doesn't matter if I cannot articulate the various natural structures "made up" by humans, what matters is that I feel it before it's evidenced. I notice what we feel is given far less importance than what we think, despite the two being both equally true/valid.
The rest is similar jive concerning your precious one, science.
The fact is, that logic dictates that we do not need evidence to have knowledge.
We can know many things, so define evidence. You'll have a job I'm guessing, if your definition has to remove all possibilities pertaining to evidence of God.
If my feeling my heart is evidence, then feeling God is also evidence. So please, define. And if you don't want to - then tie your epistemological shoes, and realize that science will not be the end all of knowledge.
The scientific method (which works quite happily outside of science, incidentally) requires a hypothesis to explain an observation.
That's nice. But isn't the topic at hand.
That's why no-one believes you.
I'm so upset.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 12-01-2004 7:27 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 12-01-2004 9:24 PM Delbert Grady has not replied
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 12-02-2004 4:17 AM Delbert Grady has not replied
 Message 16 by nator, posted 12-02-2004 7:51 AM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 25 (164521)
12-01-2004 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 9:13 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
Let me try to show you the difference.
You said:
If my feeling my heart is evidence, then feeling God is also evidence.
Here is the difference.
I can independantly verify that you have a heart and that it is beating. Other folk can also independantly verify the facts.
That is not true of feeling GOD. That cannot be independantly verified.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 9:13 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 25 (164587)
12-02-2004 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 9:13 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
Delbert,
The fact is, that logic dictates that we do not need evidence to have knowledge.
No it doesn't, logic dictates that you can't know anything without evidence. Mike challenged you to demonstrate this, might I suggest you do so?
We can know many things, so define evidence. You'll have a job I'm guessing, if your definition has to remove all possibilities pertaining to evidence of God.
Evidence is something we can observe through our five senses.
And please, please read what I write, not what you want me to write. I have shown that methodological naturalism/scientific method allows for god. I am not removing the possibilities of god, & neither is science.
If my feeling my heart is evidence
Whoa! I asked you how you know that 1/ you have something beating, & 2/ that it is a heart. Please show your reasoning that leads you to conclude that you have a beating heart.
then feeling God is also evidence
Then feeling that god doesn't exist means he doesn't, right?
What you internally feel in your mind is not evidence. Schizophrenics hear voices, very real to them, but are in fact totally imaginary. It is the total giving over to mental subjectivism such as this that shows the untrustworthyness of feelings of the mind. What you feel may be directly contradicted by what someone else feels, & mutually exclusive positions can't both be right. So how do you tell who is right, & who is wrong without real-world evidence gathered by observation?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 9:13 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024