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

It seems that there is no real basis for a belief in god beyond "It subjectively seems reasonable to me". And "Lots of other people believe in similar things". Surely you can see why in this "Age of Reason" these are not considered a valid basis upon which to draw conclusions? As a method of knowing Argumentum ad populum is a demonstrably unreliable tool. Deeply prone to flawed human intuitive thinking. Democracy may well be the least worst form of choosing government that we have devised. But it is a desperately poor method of deciding what is and isn't objectively true. I don't have any idea what a "generic idea of an undefined god(s)" even means? How can anyone hold any belief at all (including agnosticism) towards something when they have no idea what it is they are even considering? That is absurd. I believe that the correct term for my attitude to such things is ignostic.ignostic (plural ignostics)1. one who holds to ignosticism.
2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive.ignostic - Wiktionary To get the "ALL" conclusion requires inductive reasoning. The sort of reasoning essential to all scientific conclusions. A method of drawing conclusions with a proven track record of success. This "Age of Reason" isn't about selecting one set of baseless beliefs over another. It is about only taking seriously conclusions based on demonstrably reliable methods of knowing. And rejecting demonstrably flawed methods of knowing such as the ones you seem to be advocating. I am not for one moment seeking to suggest that you do, or that you should, believe in the truth of Last Thursdayism. The reason I bring it up is because it is entirely unfalsifiable and entirely evidentially equivalent to claims regarding the existence of God. The reason I reject Last Thursdayism is exactly the same as the reason I reject notions of God. So I am genuinely perplexed as to why you think one conclusion is any more reasonable than the other. Beyond mass belief in some idea of God there doesn't really seem to be any basis for making any distinction at all. If there is can you explain what it is?

In a Faith & Belief context, I would vote for "Not." Faith is often unreasonable. I would argue that rejecting flawed methods is entirely up to the individual. Pointing out the flaws in reasoning should be done in the discretion of a light touch. Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : trying to make sense

Like I said earlier - I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that humans are incapable of an "Age of Reason" as this term is generally used in recent times (I didn't invent it BTW)I think that humans are just too innately irrational as a species to actually end up rejecting irrational beliefs. They are just too ingrained in our DNA. Given what I have said above this is arguably a very sensible approach. But it also means that we have to accept that people are going to believe in utter nonsense some of which will be outright dangerous but most of which will be entirely harmless.With this social context in mind - Identifying whcih is which and where certain religious beliefs fall into that spectrum might be a better basis for challenging them on than just how ridiculous any given belief actually is in evidential terms.

It seems that there is no real basis for not believing in god beyond "It subjectively seems unreasonable to me". Surely you can see why in this "Age of Reason" this is not considered a valid basis upon which to draw conclusions?Not trying to be too clever here but the point is that we exist, intelligence exists, there seems to be a moral code or sense of fairness that deep down we all understand, and of course there is the appearance of design. I don't think it is a huge step to conclude that there is an intelligent mover, (insert whatever term you like), involved in our existence. Actually my point wasn't that it made it true. My point was that as a large percentage of the world is having its world view shaped by the idea, then the "AOR" should be informed by that voice unless the intent is to maintain the AOR by force. (When it has been attempted previously it hasn't worked out all that well.) You're right. Bad wording. I only meant a non-specific god(s). A deist would probably fall into the category of believing something like that. In order to say that my method, (whatever method that is), of understanding God can be demonstrated to be flawed requires you to use one of your demonstrably reliable methods to show that my conclusion is wrong. You can't just lump my method of determining truth in with anyone or everyone else. Everyone is an individual. In order to show that my method is demonstrably wrong you have to show that my conclusion is wrong. Belief in Last Thursdayism is also the same as belief in the Easter Bunny as well. This of course makes belief in the Easter Bunny the same as belief in god(s). Would you consider that belief in the Easter Bunny is as reasonable as belief in god(s)? I don't agree that Last Thursdayism is as reasonable a conclusion as it is to conclude that there is an intelligent first cause in the universe.

There absolutely is an objectively evidenced basis for concluding that gods are human constructions though. The objective evidence clearly demonstrates that humans have a psychological proclivity to invoke false positive agency. As demonstrated by everything from conspiracy theories to fasle gods via imaginary friends and the imbuement of human-mind-like properties to inanimate objects and aspects of nature. And the "ALL" aspect is derived from inductive reasoning.So we have objective evidence combined with inductive reasoning leading to high cofidence but tentative conclusions. Methods of knowing that form the bedrock of all scientific conclusions. Methods of knowing that are demonstrably reliable. Then you are going to need to be more explicit about what method of knowing it is that you are applying. So far you have mentioned 1) Mass belief and 2) Something akin to "It seems subjectively reasonable to me". Both of these are demonstrably woeful as methods of coming to reliable and accurate conclusions about reality. Both are demonstrably prone to all sorts of human psychological biases. I know you don't. But the question is what method of knowing are you applying in order to come to that conclusion? You said it - Not me. If you think there is a basis for making a distinction what is it? I would say that they are all almost certainly human inventions but that some are more directly derivable as such than others. The idea of the Easter Bunny, for example, I understand is derived from some sort of pagan fertility goddess. Humans false positively applying agency to the mystery of fertility............ Like I said to Phat - I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that humans are just not a rational species and that the sort of Age of Reason under discussion isn't something we are capable of.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The objective evidence that you keep repeating tells us nothing at all about whether or not an actual intelligent first cause exists or not. It is completely and totally irrelevant. Sorry. My point, not well explained is that we are all individuals with individual minds, and as a result everyone has come to their general and specific conclusions in their own unique way.There is no point in criticizing my opinion because it is subjective when your belief is just as subjective as mine. You subjectively believe that your view is more solidly grounded than mine, but frankly I see it the other way around.Everyone is the same when it comes to what we believe about god(s). You can call it inductive reasoning if you like. I look at what I do know and then form opinions based on that - just like everyone else. The irrational ones would be the ones that don't share your views I suppose.

Hi GDR, how goes the battle? It's worse than that. Straggler's much hyped "inductive reasoning" is really nothing but his own intuitive thinking (guessing), and his much ballyhooed "objectively evidenced basis" is nothing more than confirmation bias that has not yet shown that a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination while ignoring other possibilities.The human ability to create fictional characters does not mean that non-fictional ones don't exist. Cowboy fiction stories do not mean that all cowboys are the product of human imagination. This is just another example of the all A Is B, B, therefore A logical fallacy. Because something is in the B category does not mean it is in the A category: because a cowboy is in the B category does not mean it is in the A (fictional cowboy) category.This is how "inductive reasoning" gives you false results.Enjoy.

In exactly the same way that it tells us "nothing" about whether Last Thursdayism is correct, whether Immaterial Unicorns actually exist or whether the Easter Bunny is real or fictional. Or indeed any other concept that can be defined so as to be unfalsifiable.What it does tell us is that these things are more likely to be human constructions than real entities. Well that sounds lovely. But the end result is that any belief in anything unfalsifiable is equally valid. Do you really think that an 'Age of Reason' can be meaningfully conceived on that basis? It isn't a question of what I like. That is what it is. Inductive ReasoningALL scientific conclusions are inductive to some degree. So to denounce inductive reasoning is to denounce one of the key components of scientific conclusions.

Your little logical constructions, as ever, fail to take into account that it is evidence rather than deductive logic that we are talking about.Do you understand the role of inductive reasoning in science? Are you suggesting that all of science is illogical because it makes generalised conclusions from specific instances?IF SOME THEN ALL as you foolishly translate it in the deductive terms that you are obsessed with.

Typical Straqgler bias. Curiously, when anyone, atheists included, employs logical fallacies, pseudoskeptic arguments and pseudoscience, they are not contributing to a trend to increase rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry.The first step then, to promote a new age of reason, is to rid oneself of false logic and pseudoskeptical and pseudoscientific arguments.http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
http://usabig.com/autonomist/fallacies.htmlOne should become familiar with logical fallacies so that one can recognize them when they appear.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism - Definition

​

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

​

Pseudoskepticism - Example Usage

​

• Kaviraj2: RT @onlinerepertory: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (3) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof - http://t.co/t1QJ7QS
• Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
• Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH
• postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
• OpenMinded2010: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (5) Making unsubstantiated counter-claims - http://t.co/v7qJeRg

---

One should become familiar with pseudoskepticism (and the false types of arguments used) so that one can recognize it when it appears.Pseudoscience - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. ...
... Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5]

---

Equally, one should be aware of the pitfalls of pseudoscience (and the false types of arguments used) when it involves theistic and atheistic topics/arguments/positions, so that one can recognize them when they appear.A (much) better basis, imho, is open-minded skepticism and the honesty to say "we don't know" when the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive, meaning we can be open to the possibilities that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence while remaining skeptical of views\positions that are not (or insufficiently) supported by evidence.Neither is an "age of reason" necessarily at odds with theism.The Age of Reason - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology is a deistic pamphlet, written by eighteenth-century British radical and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, ... was a bestseller in the United States, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival. ... The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; ....

​

Paine's book followed in the tradition of early eighteenth-century British deism. These deists, while maintaining individual positions, still shared several sets of assumptions and arguments that Paine articulated in The Age of Reason. The most important position that united the early deists was their call for "free rational inquiry" into all subjects, especially religion. ... They also demanded that debate rest on reason and rationality. ... and argued that such evidence was neither sufficient nor necessary to prove the existence of God. Along these lines, deistic writings insisted that God, as the first cause or prime mover, had created and designed the universe with natural laws as part of his plan. They hold that God does not repeatedly alter his plan by suspending natural laws to (miraculously) intervene in human affairs. ....

---

Open-minded skepticism is neither religious nor anti-religious, it is unbiased in its evaluation of issues, topics, and positions.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : It appears that Panda thinks that logical fallacies, pseudoskeptic arguments and pseudoscience do contribute to a new age of reason if he dislikes this post. Amusingly, disliking a post doesn't make it false or invalid.Edited by RAZD, : inglash

LOL. Straggles has consistently failed to present any such evidence to show that his pet conjecture is anything but opinion, wishful thinking and bias.

quote:

---

Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW

---

EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : disliking a post does not change the truth of what is posted, it just exposes bias in the person that dislikes those truths.

Absolutely No it doesn't. Each case is subjectively judged on its own individual merits. Whether the easter bunny, unicorns or the FSM are real or fictional tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of a prime mover for the universe. It's absolutely necessary. It is unfalsifiable whether or not it is better to help feed the starving in the third world or not, but I sure wouldn't want to live in the Age of Reason where we do nothing. I wasn't denouncing inductive reasoning at all.What I said was:

quote:

---

There is no point in criticizing my opinion because it is subjective when your belief is just as subjective as mine. You subjectively believe that your view is more solidly grounded than mine, but frankly I see it the other way around.

​

Everyone is the same when it comes to what we believe about god(s). You can call it inductive reasoning if you like. I look at what I do know and then form opinions based on that - just like everyone else.

---

My point was to show how we have come to our different conclusions and I was fine with that method being called "inductive reasoning" or any other label you want to put on it.

This is a recipe for ridiculousness. ALL becomes equally subjective.Did evolution occur? The answer "Yes I believe evolution did occur because the scientific evidence tells us this" becomes no more or less subjective than "No I don't believe evolution occurred because I believe that the world was created omphamistically Last Thursday".Are all rabbits born from other rabbits? The answer "Yes I inductively conclude this to be so" becomes no more or less subjective than "No because I believe that some rabbits came into existence Ex-nihilo".How do we decide anything if objectively evidenced and inductive conclusions are no more or less valid than anything that sounds subjectively plausible? And my point is that labels are irrelevant because it is demonstrable record of reliability that counts when applying different methods of knowing. Nobody is disputing that moral philosophy would be included in an age of reason. Because morality doesn't have to be about objective truths. It is about how we want to live and reasoning our way to the best way to achieve that.

I can only repeat the things you have ignored previously. Mod's summary is the most succinct. So here it is again:The proclivity for humans to embellish, confabulate, imagine, speculate. The proclivity for confirmation bias in superstitious behaviour and beliefs. The hyper active agency detection of human minds, the need for 'false positives' in survival. The tendency to pay more mental attention to entities that are minimally counter-intuitive. The sheer number of conceptions of supernatural beings which have been shown false by science. The fact that no evidence supporting the existence of any supernatural entity has been forthcoming in an age where we figured out time dilation and quantum physics.The very existence of 'wishful thinking' that you point out and the very 'wishful' nature of many supernatural concepts. The hierarchical mind set of primates. Our strong desire for narrative, even or especially ones that circumvent our common notions in interesting ways. The connection between epilepsy and religious ideas, the common content of delusions and so on and so forth.

Omphamistically eh? If you are trying to impress me let me tell you it’s working. When I googled this beauty the only reference that google could find for it was in your post on this forum. It appears that you are the first person on the planet to have employed this very impressive word. Now the trick is going to be how to fit this into my own conversations with the guys down at the pub. If you want to look at it that way then all conclusions are equally subjective in terms of process but not all conclusions are equally plausible. Also of course some people are objectively better informed than others and are more likely to come to a reliable conclusion. (Evolution is a good example.) There are lots of answers in life that are ambiguous - there are many things on which we won't have certainty and never will.The question of whether there is a prime mover or not isn't, at least directly, objectively evidenced so we are left with coming to a subjective conclusion based on things such as intuition etc. with neither conclusion being objectively superior. However, I am firmly convinced that subjectively my conclusion is superior to yours which of course you disagree with. So now you are incorporating unfalsifiable belief. How do you choose which unfalsifiable beliefs are going to be part of this Age of Reason. Some cultures believe in polygamy and some don't. As your view is that moralism has come from a totally natural evolutionary process the there are no absolutes, how are you going to objectively know what is moral and what isn’t?