Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

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


(1)
Message 211 of 468 (629048)
08-15-2011 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Straggler
08-15-2011 6:32 AM


Re: Weight of Evidence
Straggler writes:
But the objective scientific facts tell us that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none because of the evolutionary selection advantage associated with perceiving false positives.
That is circular reasoning. You say humans perceive intelligent agency when there is none. You start by assuming there is none.
If I use circular reasoning starting with the premise that an intelligent agency exists I could say this: the objective scientific facts tell us that humans will perceive false attributes for the actual intelligent agency in situations to suit their own purposes.
Straggler writes:
A preference for false positives is present for the same reasons that a preference for attractive mates, high calorie foods and adrenaline inducing pursuits is present. Evolutionary selection/survival advantage.
Once again to go back to my sprinkler system analogy. Through research an alien finds out why and how the sprinkler system goes off and on when he discovers the timer and then assumes he has discovered the basic first cause for the system. Yes, evolutionary processes have been a large part of what make us what we are, but my subjective belief is that the evolutionary process works as designed by a pre-existent intelligence. You are of the belief, (I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong ) that the evolutionary process came about naturally from a fortunate coming together of atoms that just fortunately happened to exist.
You are confusing the mechanism for creation with the cause.
Straggler writes:
But I haven't said that the evidence precludes the existence of gods. I have simply said that that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims and that human invention is more objectively evidenced than the evidentially baseless claim that gods actually exist.
There really is nothing subjective about it.
Of course it's subjective. You are claiming that the fact that people invent false god(s) as evidence that there is no god(s). Objectively that tells us absolutely nothing. Subjectively you can quite rightly suggest that it is an indication that god(s) doesn't exist but I can also subjectively say that the invention of false god(s) suggests that the real thing exists to be counterfeited.
It is a also strictly a subjective conclusion as to which of the two conclusions is most strongly indicated by the objective facts. Whichever case you pick as being the stronger is going to be based on circular reasoning again.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 08-15-2011 6:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2011 2:51 PM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 212 of 468 (629243)
08-16-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by GDR
08-15-2011 11:04 AM


Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Straggler writes:
But the objective scientific facts tell us that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none because of the evolutionary selection advantage associated with perceiving false positives.
GDR writes:
That is circular reasoning. You say humans perceive intelligent agency when there is none. You start by assuming there is none.
But have I assumed this?
Do you accept that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke intelligent agency where we know that there is none in non-god-related areas?
Do you acknowledge that conspiracy theorists see the hidden hand of the puppeteer at every opportunity? That every unusual large-scale event in the world will be met with a host of assertions about undetectable manipulators in our midst? That humans will naturally but irrationally construct explanations for disturbing events or social phenomena in terms of the actions of powerful individuals and organisations? Even where the evidence suggests that these explanations are even more outlandish than the things they purport to explain? Do you accept that we have all irrationally feared malevolent monsters, armed murderers or other forms of terrifying intent when alone in the dark? Do you agree that humans will see patterns, meaning and intent in demonstrably random and disconnected events because it aids survival to overestimate these things (i.e. false positives) rather than the opposite of missing these things when they are actually there?
Our knowledge of these human tendencies is not based on assumptions about gods. We have objective evidence of humans exhibiting a deep proclivity to invoke intelligent agency where we know that there is none. This proclivity isn't limited to untestable gods. We display it in all sorts of situations where the absence of intelligent agency can be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt.
So no - There is no assumption in the evidenced fact that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none. It is just a fact of human psychology that happens to be relevant to the question at hand.
GDR writes:
You are claiming that the fact that people invent false god(s) as evidence that there is no god(s).
A distinction needs to be made between:
A) Evidence that favours gods as human constructions
B) Evidence that precludes the existence of gods
Do you understand that I am talking about A) but not B).....?
GDR writes:
Whichever case you pick as being the stronger is going to be based on circular reasoning again.
My position just doesn't require the same circular thinking that yours does. No-one needs to assume anything at all about gods to accept the evidence that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none because of the evolutionary selection advantage associated with perceiving false positives.
The two conclusions are not equally circular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by GDR, posted 08-15-2011 11:04 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by GDR, posted 08-16-2011 5:23 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 213 of 468 (629257)
08-16-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Straggler
08-16-2011 2:51 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Straggler writes:
Do you accept that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke intelligent agency where we know that there is none in non-god-related areas?
I as a Theist contend that in the final analysis everything is the result of a pre-existing intelligence. To answer your question fully I need to know more precisely what you mean by a "non-god-related area". Can you give me an example we can work with.
Straggler writes:
Do you acknowledge that conspiracy theorists see the hidden hand of the puppeteer at every opportunity? That every unusual large-scale event in the world will be met with a host of assertions about undetectable manipulators in our midst? That humans will naturally but irrationally construct explanations for disturbing events or social phenomena in terms of the actions of powerful individuals and organisations? Even where the evidence suggests that these explanations are even more outlandish than the things they purport to explain? Do you accept that we have all irrationally feared malevolent monsters, armed murderers or other forms of terrifying intent when alone in the dark? Do you agree that humans will see patterns, meaning and intent in demonstrably random and disconnected events because it aids survival to overestimate these things (i.e. false positives) rather than the opposite of missing these things when they are actually there?
Yes.
Straggler writes:
Our knowledge of these human tendencies is not based on assumptions about gods. We have objective evidence of humans exhibiting a deep proclivity to invoke intelligent agency where we know that there is none. This proclivity isn't limited to untestable gods. We display it in all sorts of situations where the absence of intelligent agency can be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt.
Once again you are mixing up mechanism for the source of the mechanism. In order to discuss this you need to give me an example to work with.
Straggler writes:
So no - There is no assumption in the evidenced fact that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none. It is just a fact of human psychology that happens to be relevant to the question at hand.
What is relevant is the source of human psychology. Human psychology is the timer running the sprinkler system.
Straggler writes:
A distinction needs to be made between:
A) Evidence that favours gods as human constructions
B) Evidence that precludes the existence of gods
Do you understand that I am talking about A) but not B).....?
Yes. you are talking about the subjective conclusion that you have come to as a result of the evidence referred to in A).
Straggler writes:
My position just doesn't require the same circular thinking that yours does. No-one needs to assume anything at all about gods to accept the evidence that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none because of the evolutionary selection advantage associated with perceiving false positives.
It is the same circular reasoning. We are only talking about atheism vs theism or deism. Neither position assumes anything about god(s). Either position is equally circular.
Also I don’t see where there is any evolutionary advantage for the false positives you are inferring. I do see personal advantage in creating false images of god(s) to suit one's own purposes. For myself I don't see where I'm benefitting from my theistic beliefs. In fact my specific brand of theism is rather expensive both in terms of time and money. I'm just looking for truth like most of us are.
Straggler writes:
The two conclusions are not equally circular.
I agree, but I'm not sure whose position you are referring to.
In order to advance the discussion though, I need specific examples rather than just terms like non-god-related area.
Cheers
PS: Glad things have settled down in that wonderful city of yours.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2011 2:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2011 8:07 AM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 214 of 468 (629667)
08-19-2011 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by GDR
08-16-2011 5:23 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
GDR writes:
Also I don’t see where there is any evolutionary advantage for the false positives you are inferring.
Perhaps the best way to consider this question is to consider the reverse situation. To try and imagine what it would be like if we had no agency detection capabilities at all. Severe autistics are probably the closest examples of this state of mind. I once read a description of how psychologists think those with severe autism see the world. Humans and animals are utterly and terrifyingly baffling. These strange bags of skin move and make noises in ways that have no discernible cause and which display no rhyme or reason. Their actions are unpredictable and utterly incomprehensible. So whether in the role of predator, prey or sexual suitor the evolutionary selection benefits reaped from the ability to discern the motivations and intentions of other conscious intelligent beings (i.e. other humans and animals) should be obvious.
The selection advantage of over attributing agency arises because the cost of a false positive (being spooked by non-existent monsters, concocting conspiracy theories or inventing false gods) is less than that of failing to perceive an actual positive (being killed or otherwise harmed as a result of failing to detect the intentions of others). Hence the proclivity to perceive agency when it isn't there rather than fail to detect it when it is. As a result the human ability to detect agency is overly sensitive, hyper-active, and has a hair trigger. It therefore generates perceptions of agents that are non-existent and attributes agency to things that lack it.
GDR writes:
What is relevant is the source of human psychology.
Yes - The evolutionary advantage of false positives over false negatives. What are you proposing as the cause of this psychological disposition?
GDR writes:
Can you give me an example we can work with.
Where to start? Humans see pattern, meaning, causation, purpose, agency and intent absolutely everywhere and anywhere.
Want to know what fate plans for you personally? Find the answer on the palm of your hand, in the entrails of sheep, in tea leaves or in the arbitrary groupings of stars. Lonely as a child? Then invent an imaginary friend. Both preschoolers and (interestingly) Alzheimer patients explain objects like the Sun and moon in teleological terms and will commonly attribute inanimate objects with human mind-like attributes. Show normal functioning adult test subjects some simple geometric shapes moving around on a screen and ask them to create a narrative — Invariably and predictably those shapes will be imbued with wants, desires, aims and frustrations. Even when we don’t actually believe that there is any agency present inventing it comes as second nature to us. Why does the Sun cross the sky? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary Apollo riding his flaming chariot or Scarab the Egyptian godly dung beetle dragging it across the heavens are intuitively considered perfectly viable explanations. What are those unnatural looking lights in the sky? Must be hyper-advanced aliens seeking to enslave us or some super secret and uncharacteristically efficient wing of the US military harnessing the alien technology they have been hiding for decades. What is the real cause of the global financial crisis? Unregulated bankers? Apparently not. Apparently president Obama rather than being the disappointing and rather ineffectual president of the US that many perceive him to be is in fact the highly effective anti-Christ intent on bringing about the end of days. What was that strange looking shadow? Must be the ghost of a tormented soul. Why is the world in such a mess? Ask David Icke and his followers about the race of reptiles that are undetectably using the moon to mentally enslave humanity. Too far fetched? Then maybe Icke himself is being manipulated by the Illuminati in order to mask their plans for world domination by making those who propose such dastardly plots sound like crazy nutjobs. Is there a simple biological explanation for Chuck77’s shoulder story? Or did the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all that is seen and unseen take time off from passively observing the suffering victims of drought, disease, floods, tsunamis, Earthquakes and volcanoes in order to deal with Chuck’s shoulder twinge?
I could go on. But the point is this - Invoking intelligent agency isn't something that humans are just a bit partial to. It is utterly endemic and not at all restricted to gods. If this is god's way of revealing himself to us it would be difficult to conceive of a more inefficient or scattergun approach.
GDR writes:
I as a Theist contend that in the final analysis everything is the result of a pre-existing intelligence.
When smart but innately flawed (as we all are) human beings start invoking undetectable intelligent agents as explanations for events or phenomena that they find significant or baffling they are treading a well worn path. From false gods, to conspiracy theories via imaginary friends and attributing mind-like properties to inanimate objects we just cannot help ourselves.
Your behaviour is entirely predictable and reassuringly human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by GDR, posted 08-16-2011 5:23 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by GDR, posted 08-19-2011 11:47 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 215 of 468 (629790)
08-19-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Straggler
08-19-2011 8:07 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Straggler writes:
Perhaps the best way to consider this question is to consider the reverse situation. To try and imagine what it would be like if we had no agency detection capabilities at all. Severe autistics are probably the closest examples of this state of mind. I once read a description of how psychologists think those with severe autism see the world. Humans and animals are utterly and terrifyingly baffling. These strange bags of skin move and make noises in ways that have no discernible cause and which display no rhyme or reason. Their actions are unpredictable and utterly incomprehensible. So whether in the role of predator, prey or sexual suitor the evolutionary selection benefits reaped from the ability to discern the motivations and intentions of other conscious intelligent beings (i.e. other humans and animals) should be obvious.
The selection advantage of over attributing agency arises because the cost of a false positive (being spooked by non-existent monsters, concocting conspiracy theories or inventing false gods) is less than that of failing to perceive an actual positive (being killed or otherwise harmed as a result of failing to detect the intentions of others). Hence the proclivity to perceive agency when it isn't there rather than fail to detect it when it is. As a result the human ability to detect agency is overly sensitive, hyper-active, and has a hair trigger. It therefore generates perceptions of agents that are non-existent and attributes agency to things that lack it.
I agree with all of that but that in way includes or excludes the existence of an actual agent. Your statement is agnostic on the subject.
I'll pick one example out of the several you listed.
Straggler writes:
What are those unnatural looking lights in the sky? Must be hyper-advanced aliens seeking to enslave us or some super secret and uncharacteristically efficient wing of the US military harnessing the alien technology they have been hiding for decades.
Sure the see the northern lights, (man are they beautiful from the air over the Canadian Arctic), and start looking for explanation of how they came to be there. Here is the explanation from wiki.
An aurora (plural: auroras or aurorae) is a natural light display in the sky particularly in the high latitude (Arctic and Antarctic) regions, caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere (thermosphere). The charged particles originate in the magnetosphere and solar wind and are directed by the Earth's magnetic field into the atmosphere.
Once again though that is the mechanism of how they exist. It doesn't however explain the existence of the mechanism. Again, we have discovered the timer but have no explanation of how the timer came into existence.
Straggler writes:
I could go on. But the point is this - Invoking intelligent agency isn't something that humans are just a bit partial to. It is utterly endemic and not at all restricted to gods. If this is god's way of revealing himself to us it would be difficult to conceive of a more inefficient or scattergun approach.
I think that He reveals himself to us through the moral code that we seem to understand instinctively. (As a Christian I believe he speaks to us through the Bible and specifically through Jesus.) I think that we can learn about him through human wisdom in the fields of philosophy and science. I suggest that we learn about God every time we hold our loved ones in our arms.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2011 8:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2011 5:22 PM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 216 of 468 (629976)
08-21-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by GDR
08-19-2011 11:47 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
It seems that we both agree that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke agency and intent in all manner of circumstance and situations. Yes? The question is "Why". Where I cite the evolutionary selection advantage of false positives with regard to detecting agency and intent you instead contend that this objectively evidenced human proclivity is intentionally instilled in us by some over-arching intelligent agent (i.e. a god of some description). Is that right?
A) Are you really suggesting that everything from preschoolers thinking traffic lights operate on the basis of a personal choice to conspiracy theories about Obama as the anti-Christ via imaginary friends and tales of advanced undetectable aliens seeking to take over the Earth are the result of God instilling in us a psychological proclivity to come to such false conclusions?
B) How are you suggesting that this psychological proclivity has been instilled in humans? Some form of godly supernatural interventional magic? Or by some natural mechanism?
C) Why should anyone consider your own invocation of intentional agency as an explanation as anything other than a symptom of the objectively evidenced proclivity of humans to invoke such agency to explain things they find significant or baffling?
Straggler on false positives writes:
It therefore generates perceptions of agents that are non-existent and attributes agency to things that lack it.
GDR writes:
Your statement is agnostic on the subject.
The selection advantage of false positives is not at all agnostic about the falseness of the positives. Hence the name. It tells us that humans will see agency and intent regardless of whether it is there or not. It tells us that we will imbue inanimate objects (for example) with agency and intent where we know that there is none.
GDR writes:
I suggest that we learn about God every time we hold our loved ones in our arms.
What makes you think we don't learn about God everytime we stab our friends in the back as well? Why is God only ever responsible for the positive and not the negative? Suffering and pain are every bit as much an innate part of nature and existence as the things you want to attribute to God. So why isn't He responsible for those things too?
Is God responsible for everything or only some things? How do we decide which things to attribute to God and which things to attribute to nature? Did God design the screwworm?
quote:
To find its host, an adult female screwworm seeks out exposed flesh on an animal (usually some sort of livestock, but an injured soldier or a human baby isn’t out of the question) in search of a place to lay her eggs. She prefers wounds, but may also settle on using the eyes, nostrils, or anus of her victim to construct a nursery. Next, the 200-or-so eggs hatch, and the larvae start burrowing into their host’s flesh. Once they’re situated in their cozy little meat tunnels, the infant flies continue to feed and grow. The bigger they get, the more they have to eat. Eventually, this creates a whole lot of festering and oozing on the host, which attracts more flies, which lay more eggs, which do more feeding and burrowing. It’s a brutal onslaught, and a swift one. Screwworm larvae are reportedly capable of consuming an entire sheep or dog from the inside out in five to seven days.
Link
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by GDR, posted 08-19-2011 11:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by GDR, posted 08-21-2011 7:59 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 217 of 468 (629992)
08-21-2011 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Straggler
08-21-2011 5:22 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Straggler writes:
It seems that we both agree that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke agency and intent in all manner of circumstance and situations. Yes? The question is "Why". Where I cite the evolutionary selection advantage of false positives with regard to detecting agency and intent you instead contend that this objectively evidenced human proclivity is intentionally instilled in us by some over-arching intelligent agent (i.e. a god of some description). Is that right?
Yes
Straggler writes:
A) Are you really suggesting that everything from preschoolers thinking traffic lights operate on the basis of a personal choice to conspiracy theories about Obama as the anti-Christ via imaginary friends and tales of advanced undetectable aliens seeking to take over the Earth are the result of God instilling in us a psychological proclivity to come to such false conclusions?
I think the fact that we have instilled in us a curiosity and a desire to provide answers to difficult questions has served us well. Probably as often as not it has led to the wrong conclusions however, I think it is this desire for answers that has led to the great discoveries in medicine and science. I also think that over time it is leading us closer to theological truth as well.
Straggler writes:
B) How are you suggesting that this psychological proclivity has been instilled in humans? Some form of godly supernatural interventional magic? Or by some natural mechanism?
My opinion is that it would be by a natural mechanism as designed by God.
Straggler writes:
C) Why should anyone consider your own invocation of intentional agency as an explanation as anything other than a symptom of the objectively evidenced proclivity of humans to invoke such agency to explain things they find significant or baffling?
We have all come to our subjective conclusions. Frankly IMHO my answer is the most reasonable and so I expect others would agree with me. But we all feel that way - don't we?
Our perceived world is made up of matter, but there are things such as ideas that don't fall into that category. You can view activity in the brain but you can view that activity all day long and still have no clue as to the idea that caused the activity. You can't measure an idea and you can't weigh an idea. It is something that is non-material and yet it exists. What you are suggesting requires something that is non-material to be generated from a simply material cause. Once again, I don't think it unreasonable to look for non-material causes for non-material psychological proclivity in humans.
Straggler writes:
What makes you think we don't learn about God everytime we stab our friends in the back as well? Why is God only ever responsible for the positive and not the negative? Suffering and pain are every bit as much an innate part of nature and existence as the things you want to attribute to God. So why isn't He responsible for those things too?
I think that when we stab friends in the back, that because of our conscience, we often do learn something about God. I see God as pulling us toward that which is good but our nature seems so often to pull us in a different direction. It is that struggle between selfish love and unselfish love.
A couple of other thoughts.
As we exist now I think we have to be able to know sorrow to be able to know joy, and we have to know evil if we are going to able to choose goodness.
Also, (going off topic here ), as a Christian I don't believe that the life that we know now is the end of the story. I'll look forward to going over all of this with you in the next life and I'll have an answer for why we have screwworms then.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2011 5:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Chuck77, posted 08-22-2011 4:58 AM GDR has replied
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2011 10:08 PM GDR has replied
 Message 225 by Straggler, posted 08-23-2011 8:23 AM GDR has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 468 (630042)
08-22-2011 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by GDR
08-21-2011 7:59 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
GDR to Straggler
Also, (going off topic here ), as a Christian I don't believe that the life that we know now is the end of the story. I'll look forward to going over all of this with you in the next life
Ok GDR, I have one question for you. As a Christian, do you think Straggler (who you are refering to in the comment above) in His current #6 dawkins scale beliefs and NOT being a Chriatian nor having repented from his sins nor accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savoir will be where you are in the life after this one to discuss what it is you are talking about?
Trust me, I pray that Straggler IS in Heaven after this life and finally makes the decision to recieve Christ and everyone else on this forum, so don't get me wrong this is not an ambush on yours or his beliefs, im just wondering your take on it is and curious about your comment is all. Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by GDR, posted 08-21-2011 7:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by bluegenes, posted 08-22-2011 5:20 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 220 by GDR, posted 08-22-2011 2:10 PM Chuck77 has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 219 of 468 (630047)
08-22-2011 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Chuck77
08-22-2011 4:58 AM


Multiple subjective gods.
Chuck77 writes:
Ok GDR, I have one question for you.....
I suspect that you'll have more than one. The problem with this "subjective evidence" business is that different people end up with different gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Chuck77, posted 08-22-2011 4:58 AM Chuck77 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 220 of 468 (630111)
08-22-2011 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Chuck77
08-22-2011 4:58 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Chuck77 writes:
Ok GDR, I have one question for you. As a Christian, do you think Straggler (who you are refering to in the comment above) in His current #6 dawkins scale beliefs and NOT being a Chriatian nor having repented from his sins nor accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savoir will be where you are in the life after this one to discuss what it is you are talking about?
I'd say that is between God and Straggler. It's isn't my call to make. Ultimately everyone chooses between selfish love and unselfish love whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic or atheist. I'd suggest that an atheist who sends anonymously $100 to the third world is much closer to the heart of God than the Christian who sends the $100 with the idea that it has put God on His side. That is not to minimize the many wonderful things that Christians have done with the right motive. It isn't about legalistic tithing; it is about giving from the heart out of love.
Frankly I’m not going to worry about who winds up where. The next life will look after itself, and whatever happens happens. Right now, I just struggle day by day at being the man that Christ wants me to be in this life, and unfortunately, more often than not found wanting.
AbE: I just thought I'd add this. My God is a good God and a just God. In the end, not that I have much a choice , I have faith that true justice will be served.
Edited by GDR, : added thought

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Chuck77, posted 08-22-2011 4:58 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Chuck77, posted 08-25-2011 12:12 AM GDR has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 221 of 468 (630194)
08-22-2011 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by GDR
08-21-2011 7:59 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Hi GDR, been following your discussion here.
I think the fact that we have instilled in us a curiosity and a desire to provide answers to difficult questions has served us well. Probably as often as not it has led to the wrong conclusions however, I think it is this desire for answers that has led to the great discoveries in medicine and science. I also think that over time it is leading us closer to theological truth as well.
One of the things that disturbs me is the degree to which some people feel they must have an answer to these difficult questions. This, imho, ends up in a rush to judgment even when there is no impending reason for coming to a decision.
When there is a rush to judgment, then it seems to me that the likelihood of making a wrong decision increases, and sometimes that results of making a decision are worse than the results of waiting for more information. Bush rushing into Iraq as a case in point, but it also involves the topic of this thread: do we really need to decide whether or not gods exist? Theists rush to affirm that god/s appear to exist, atheists rush to affirm that none appear to exist. I've used this flow chart diagram before:
question
                    |
        is there sufficient valid
     information available to decide
       |                        |
      yes                       no
       |                        |
   decide based               is a
   on empirical             decision
  valid evidence            necessary?
      (A)                  /         \
                         yes          no ... but ...
                         /            |             |
                      decide         why          make a
                     based on       decide       decision
                    inadequate      at this       anyway
                     evidence        time?       based on
                     = guess        = wait       opinion
                       (B)            (C)          (D)
where (B) and (D) are much more likely to be wrong than (A).
My opinion is that it would be by a natural mechanism as designed by God.
As would all "natural mechanisms" ... thus making "Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None" (the subthread title by Straggler) more a blind assertion of opinion than a logical deduction from evidence (another "D" decision rather than an "A" decision).
The main problem to me is that before you can state that "there is none" one would need a methodology that can positively test for a presence of whatever is being investigated.
For example, take the kite experiment of Benjamin Franklin -- if he did not have a means to test for the presence of electricity, the experiment would have detected none. It would then be simple (simplistic?) to claim that there is no evidence of electricity in lightening.
We have all come to our subjective conclusions. Frankly IMHO my answer is the most reasonable and so I expect others would agree with me. But we all feel that way - don't we?
Our perceived world is made up of matter, but there are things such as ideas that don't fall into that category. ...
We perceive the world\universe as made up of matter & energy, but our perception of that world\universe is made up, a human invention, it is a map of how we see what is around us.
You can view activity in the brain but you can view that activity all day long and still have no clue as to the idea that caused the activity. You can't measure an idea and you can't weigh an idea. It is something that is non-material and yet it exists. What you are suggesting requires something that is non-material to be generated from a simply material cause. Once again, I don't think it unreasonable to look for non-material causes for non-material psychological proclivity in humans.
I agree. Measuring brain activity, at best imho, tells you how the brain functions during different general tasks, whether it is mathematical calculations, reading fictional stories or praying, but it cannot recreate from the scan what those thoughts\perceptions\etc are.
... I don't believe that the life that we know now is the end of the story. I'll look forward to going over all of this with you in the next life ...
old joke: man is asked if he believes in reincarnation, and he says "No, but I used to in a previous life ... "
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by GDR, posted 08-21-2011 7:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by GDR, posted 08-23-2011 12:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 222 of 468 (630206)
08-23-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by RAZD
08-22-2011 10:08 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
RAZD writes:
One of the things that disturbs me is the degree to which some people feel they must have an answer to these difficult questions. This, imho, ends up in a rush to judgment even when there is no impending reason for coming to a decision.
When there is a rush to judgment, then it seems to me that the likelihood of making a wrong decision increases, and sometimes that results of making a decision are worse than the results of waiting for more information. Bush rushing into Iraq as a case in point, but it also involves the topic of this thread: do we really need to decide whether or not gods exist? Theists rush to affirm that god/s appear to exist, atheists rush to affirm that none appear to exist. I've used this flow chart diagram before:
Hi RAZD
Thanks for the reply however, sad as it makes me I have to disagree with this. What you are describing isn't analogous at all. Bush making the decision to go into Iraq had a huge downside potential which I suggest we haven't seen the end of yet. Yes, people's religious views have often been used as a justification for all sorts of heinous acts, however, I suggest that if they didn't use religion they would have found some other excuse.
We all form a world view. I base mine on the teachings of Jesus as I understand them. Others, presumably including yourself, base their world view on something else.
It appears fairly obvious that we will never have empirical evidence for the existence or non-existence of a creator, so it isn't a matter of waiting for better evidence to come along. We just form our subjective conclusions based on what we do know and experience. In one sense saying that we can't definitely know so I'm not going to come to a conclusion is something of a cop out.
I know this sounds strange to most people here but I have very little doubt that most of what I believe is correct. (Of course the problem is I don't know which parts I'm wrong about. ) It took me a number of years to come to my conclusions so I just don't see it as a rush to judgement.
RAZD writes:
As would all "natural mechanisms" ... thus making "Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None" (the subthread title by Straggler) more a blind assertion of opinion than a logical deduction from evidence (another "D" decision rather than an "A" decision).
The main problem to me is that before you can state that "there is none" one would need a methodology that can positively test for a presence of whatever is being investigated.
For example, take the kite experiment of Benjamin Franklin -- if he did not have a means to test for the presence of electricity, the experiment would have detected none. It would then be simple (simplistic?) to claim that there is no evidence of electricity in lightening.
There you go Straggler. What he said.
You have no idea of how badly I wish I had thought of that. Brilliant.
RAZD writes:
We perceive the world\universe as made up of matter & energy, but our perception of that world\universe is made up, a human invention, it is a map of how we see what is around us.
From the little I know of Relativity and QM it seems like everything that we perceive is an illusion, but it is the only reality that we can presently experience.
RAZD writes:
old joke: man is asked if he believes in reincarnation, and he says "No, but I used to in a previous life ... "

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2011 10:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Panda, posted 08-23-2011 6:11 AM GDR has replied
 Message 224 by Straggler, posted 08-23-2011 7:36 AM GDR has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 223 of 468 (630230)
08-23-2011 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by GDR
08-23-2011 12:01 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
GDR writes:
You have no idea of how badly I wish I had thought of that. Brilliant.
Do think that we can say something exists because we can't test for it?
Do you think that every single idea that anyone imagines is validated because we can't test for it?
This seems like you are now in a position that all supernatural beings are equally un-testable and are therefore equally likely to exist. (This would include the FSM.)

Always remember: Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by GDR, posted 08-23-2011 12:01 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Straggler, posted 08-23-2011 1:16 PM Panda has replied
 Message 231 by GDR, posted 08-23-2011 7:54 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 224 of 468 (630238)
08-23-2011 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by GDR
08-23-2011 12:01 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
RAZD writes:
The main problem to me is that before you can state that "there is none" one would need a methodology that can positively test for a presence of whatever is being investigated.
GDR writes:
There you go Straggler. What he said. You have no idea of how badly I wish I had thought of that. Brilliant.
Just stop and think about what is being said here.Think of all the unfalsifiables we could apply this to!!!!
What test can be undertaken to determine the existence of the pink fluffy magically undetectable Easter Bunny? What test can be done to confirm or deny Last Thursdayism?
Yet I would suggest that there is sufficient evidence favouring both of these as human inventions to conclude that in all likelihood the Easter Bunny is a fiction and that the Earth is billions of years old rather than a few days.
What do you say?
GDR previoulsy writes:
There is no objective evidence.
There is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. Every human claim is made in the highly objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology.
It mystifies me why believers of all flavours think that defining something such that it is unfalsifiable makes it somehow immune from all forms of objective evidence.
Can you explain why you think there is no objective evidence relevant to the question of god(s)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by GDR, posted 08-23-2011 12:01 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by GDR, posted 08-23-2011 7:51 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 225 of 468 (630241)
08-23-2011 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by GDR
08-21-2011 7:59 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
You previously told me that my conclusion that humans have a proclivity to falsely perceive agency was based on circular reasoning and the assumption that no intelligent agency was actually present.
Since you wrote this I have demonstrated to you (and you seem to agree) that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invent agents in a host of situations to explain all manner of things regardless of whether the agency they perceive is actually present or not. This proclivity is objectively evidenced and experimentally demonstrable.
GDR writes:
My opinion is that it would be by a natural mechanism as designed by God.
The natural mechanism responsible for this human proclivity is generally considered to be the selection advantage of false positives. But a propensity to falsely perceive agency when it is not present hardly seems like a reasonable basis for coming to your conclusion that it is present. So what natural mechanism are you proposing instead?
GDR writes:
We have all come to our subjective conclusions.
The conclusion that humans will invent agency to explain those things which they find baffling or significant is not a subjective conclusion. Your conclusion that an unevidenced intelligent agent is responsible for the things that you personally find baffling and significant (morality, altruism, love etc.) very much is.
The two conclusions are NOT equally subjective.
GDR writes:
Our perceived world is made up of matter, but there are things such as ideas that don't fall into that category. You can view activity in the brain but you can view that activity all day long and still have no clue as to the idea that caused the activity. You can't measure an idea and you can't weigh an idea. It is something that is non-material and yet it exists. What you are suggesting requires something that is non-material to be generated from a simply material cause. Once again, I don't think it unreasonable to look for non-material causes for non-material psychological proclivity in humans.
Do ideas cause brain activity or does brain activity cause ideas?
I already mentioned autism as an example of those who might lack normal levels of agency detection. Interestingly schizophrenics arguably have the opposite problem. They see agency and intent to a degree that is mentally debilitating. Everything has meaning and intent, nothing is random or co-incidental and conspiracy theories result in paranoia and psychosis. Unsurprisingly Schizophrenics are particularly prone to supernatural/paranormal beliefs. The fact that such symptoms are treatable with drugs suggest that there is a definite physical cause for such beliefs.
Furthermore experiments involving the manipulation of dopamine levels in believers and skeptics suggest that people's perception of pattern and meaning can be directly affected. It seems that the physical brain is the cause, not the effect, of beliefs and ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by GDR, posted 08-21-2011 7:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by GDR, posted 08-23-2011 8:14 PM Straggler 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