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

Straggles still not understanding the issue/s ... Curiously, I haven't ignored them, I've shown them to be false\poor thinking, while you have ignored my responses. ALL of which amounts to wishful thinking, confirmation bias, personal opinion and pseudoskeptical rhetoric, not scientific investigation.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

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.

​

Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH

---

Do you agree that pseudoskepticism is not a good foundation for a "new age of reason"? (can you answer yes or no?)AND, fascinatingly, after almost a year of debate this conjectural concept has STILL not identified a single supernatural entity as being a product of human imagination. Logically this means that you have no such evidence and are de facto operating based on personal opinion rather than facts that would actually substantiate your intuitive\inductive conjecture (==guess).It amuses me no end, that after long debates with you concerning the value of subjective evidence, that you are now trying to use YOUR subjective evidence in a debate. So how do you test for supernatural essence? Or are you just assuming that it is absent?... is this like a Ben Franklin in a field without a means to test for the presence of electricity in lightening, deciding that electricity was not present when his kite was struck by lightening?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : Curiously, "disliking" a post does not show it is wrong. You can dislike the truth, but that won't change it.

The summary I provided was posted by Mod in Message 1292. That post is notable for your own lack of response. If you can show where you have tackled this evidence and feel that your rebuttal has been ignored then feel free to link to those posts and I have no doubt you will get the response you deserve.But in all honesty I have never seen you get past the whole falsification thing. The problem being that your definition of "pseudoskeptic" seems to only apply to testing the unfalsifiable things that you happen to believe in whilst not applying to those things that you don't.Thus you will describe the Earth as "old, very, very, old" Message 30 despite never having tested Last Thursdayism.Thus you will insist that evolution is an evidenced fact despite never having tested the genuinely belived but unfalsifiable notion that all the evidence for evolution has been undetectably planted to lead us to ungodly conclusions about creation.But you dismiss any evidence suggesting that the concept of god is likely to be a human inventions on the basis that your particular version of god cannot be falsified.It just isn't very consistent.

Do you accept that not all methods of knowing result in equally subjective conclusions?Do you accept that the human invention conclusion is based on methods of knowing - Namely Objective evidence of human invention and inductive reasoning - that are different to whatever method (still unspecified) it is you are using to conclude god(s)?Are you honestly saying that all methods of knowing are equally reliable and lead to equally subjective conclusions? Really? Think about that for a moment. Not all methods of knowing lead to equally subjective conclusions. This is just a false assertion. According to this approach everything we know is just as subjective as everything we believe. This is not a tenable position. As I said elsewhere in this thread - Evidence based conclusions can never result in certainty. But which part of my position - God(s) are more likley to be human inventions than real entities - Sounds like a statement of certainty about the existence of god(s)to you? There is no such thing as a vacuum of all objective evidence. All human claims are made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, psychology and culture. Simply untrue. There is plenty of objective evidence to suggest that the entire notion of an intelligent, conscious, logical agent that is the prime mover, source of love and morality etc. etc. etc. is just a human anthropomorphisation of the things we find significant and inexplicable. Who says we need to, or even can, objectively know what is moral and what isn't? As long as we apply some form of the golden rule I don't see why in this Age of Reason we would need to dictate things like the marriage rules for different cultures.

Straggles again, My response can be found on the Great Debate thread that the Peanut Gallery is supposed to be discussing rather than discussing the topic, and where I have been asked not to participate. Amusingly we haven't even begun to get to the "whole falsification thing" -- because there is not much point in trying to falsify every unsubstantiated assertion of opinion and wishful thinking that pops up, and that hasn't even been demonstrated to be an hypothesis yet. You have work to do first. Curiously, it is not MY definition but THIS definition I've quoted: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.

---

Again: do you agree that this type of behavior is NOT one that would be an appropriate foundation for "ushering" in a new age of reason? Yes or No (if you can). Again, that is what the evidence and information show. The post linked details how that is shown by the evidence. Whether Last Thursdayism is true or not is (a) not testable and (b) irrelevant compared to the much broader question of whether or not evidence truthfully represents reality, which we also cannot test.We\science assume\s that the evidence truthfully represents reality, but we don't know that this is fact. We do not know that any scientific conclusion is fact.If you disagree with this, do you have a way to test this broader question? No, what I keep telling you is that you have not yet demonstrated this for a single god, all you have done is assert that this is so.And I keep telling you that without such demonstration with objective empirical evidence specific to a single god that your assertion of "likely" amounts to a typical pseudoskeptic argument:http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism - Example Usage
Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH

---

Again, this is not my definition or description, it is a description of behavior that is not, imho, appropriate for founding a "new age of reason" -- do you think it is?Enjoy.

Having established that your stance on "pseudoskepticism" leaves you in a position where all knowledge, no matter how well evidenced, amounts to mere opinion (see Message 379) I really see no need to take anything further you say seriously.

Might I remind you of the essence of this topic that you yourself started: Lets stick to this basic question.Edited by AdminPhat, : spellcheck

I think I have answered the basic question. I think the whole "Age of Reason" idea as espoused recently by the New Atheist set takes a rather naive view of human nature. I increasingly think that an Age of Reason is beyond humanity because we are naturally not particularly rational or reasonable as a species.But everyone here seems more interested in debating exactly what an Age of Reason should be. Which is fine by me as long as everyone realises that it wasn't me that came up with the idea or me who defined what it is.

I think you might be struggling with an idealization of an Age of Reason and not the more practical realization. You are most certainly correct that humans are not, apparently by nature, the most rational of creatures. But this Age of Reason is not intended, IMO, to reverse this but to compensate for this known trait when making decisions especially in government and social policy.Again by comparison, the Age of Enlightenment curbed the absolute power of the church and the monarchy. It did not do away with either but greatly lessened their power to dictate policy in all spheres. Other voices, other ideas, gained a greater influence in government and in society. And this change had a significant effect on humanity around the world. Not total absolute change but enough that we today look back on those times as having an enormous affect on humanity's path into the future.The new Age of Reason has begun. It will not in the next 150 years supplant all irrational thoughts and practices in government and society. It most certainly will not magically make all humans rational logical thinkers. But it will lessen these effects as other more rational voices are given room and rise to be heard.Frankly, I think this new Age of Reason is inevitable. If we do not kill or poison ourselves first, this now, this today, is the time future historians will look upon as another great era for the significant change in humanity's path that is being taken.

Hi StragglerSorry to be slow getting back. There are health issues in my family. Sure My only point was that the process is the same. We take what we know objectively to form a subjective conclusion. Obviously some subjective conclusions are objectively better grounded than others. We know that mankind has invented numerous false gods. If we arbitrarily pick one of the gods that has been proposed the odds are that the one we pick will be false. But that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about any one of them, or even one that hasn't been identified yet existing. We are only talking about an intelligent prime mover. The fact that mankind has invented numerous false gods tells us nothing about whether this prime mover actually exists or not, with the possible exception that the fact we look for one could be an indication that the real thing exists. For our purposes we are only really talking about an intelligent prime mover. The conversation about loving and moral would only arise once it has been conceded that an intelligent prime mover actually exists and at this point, (for some inexplicable reason ) you haven't concede that yet. You still insist on believing that intelligence and thought can come from non-thinking unintelligent origins. In this Age of Reason with no moral absolutes why would the golden rule, which comes from the Bible, be followed. That would be no more moral than just following the law of the survival of the fittest. Actually I would suggest that logically the survival of the fittest would make more sense as you would wind up with humans being smarter and stronger by eliminating those that are weaker and less intelligent from the gene pool.

Most cultures have independently derived the Golden Rule, which is really just a rewording of 'empathy' - an innate behavioural trait we have. We do follow the law of survival of the fittest, its a natural law and we cannot subvert it or choose to ignore it any more than we can the laws of motion. Fittest does not just mean 'strongest and smartest'. Fitness can mean many things. In a social species, it might be more 'fit' and conducive to survival to cooperate with one another. Then, slaughtering the weakest of group might harm the group as a whole, thus harming the slaughterer making being a slaughterer less fit.I should also point out that the evidence suggests this might the case. Simply examine the life expectancy in hunter gathererer societies where the closest thing you are imagining goes on. Where the thing most likely to kill you is another man. I'd suggest that cooperation is a better strategy than this, evolutionarily and as far as enjoyment of life is concerned.We must look to the way we interact with one another and try to structure those interactions so as to bring about the consequences we desire. This is the rational way of structuring morality, and even the religious do it. The differences usually spring up over differing desired consequences (and differences in estimating how to obtain certain consequences).I suggest in an Age of Reason we look principally at what we want, not what we believe some God wants on the word of some ancient priests. We should surely want for ourselves a world where there was maximum opportunity for human flourishment. Where we all feel safe and can strive for happiness etc. If a moral question arises, we should try to answer it so as to maximise those consequences, and we should try to encourage others to do likewise.I doubt many people would reason themselves into murdering the weak, but some may. In any natural population there will almost always be mixed strategies in play. In an age of reason we hopefully will recognize this and tailor our justice system appropriately.

No rush. Sorry to hear that. Hope all is now well? OK then. Let’s take it from there and try to stick to Phat’s request to stay (at least somewhat) on the ‘Age of Reason’ topic.An age of reason as envisaged by those most recently advocating such a thing is essentially about embracing methods of knowing which are able to demonstrate themselves as leading to reliable and accurate conclusions whilst abandoning those methods of knowing which we have no reason to consider as leading to reliable or accurate conclusions. Obviously this also includes abandoning those methods of knowing which we know to lead to unreliable and inaccurate conclusions.We know as an objective fact that humans can and do invent gods. So we know as an evidenced fact that human invention is potentially responsible for the existence of godly beliefs. But there is no corresponding factual basis upon which to conclude gods even can exist, never mind conclude that they actually do, is there?Unless there is some method of knowing being applied other than the two you have mentioned so far, namely It seems subjectively reasonable to me and Lots of other people believe in something similar there really is no basis upon which to include god(s) in this age of reason is there?If you are applying another as yet unstated method of knowing that is as demonstrably successful as the objective-evidence-inductive-reasoning combination on which the human invention conclusion is based, then you need to tell us what it is. Without one I don’t really see that you have a case. Actually the golden rule predates the bible by quite some considerable time. It seems to be a something that practically all ethical traditions (religious or otherwise) have concluded as necessary for a workable moral system. It forms the basis of all the humanistic moral philosophies I have ever seen. Research in evolutionary psychology suggests the exact opposite.
As the fan of Robert Wright that I know you are you should really investigate his main area of expertise. Namely non-zero sum game theory and reciprocal altruism as the basis of human morality. His analysis argues the very opposite to your intuitively derived conclusion above. Wright’s book The Moral Animal is as good a place to start as any other.I guess your own conclusion exemplifies why intuitive methods of knowing are not to be relied upon for accurate results....

Hi everyoneNow that AdminPhat has directed a return to the topic, perhaps we can actually discuss why these different things should or should not be used to usher in a new age of reason:

quote:

---

Message 70 (reply to Message 1):

​

It seems to be the expectation (or at least hope) of the new atheists that an age of reason be ushered into existence. An age in which religious and other superstitious beliefs are sidelined into irrelevance by a near universal acceptance that rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry hold the key to human advancement and progress.

​

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
Authorization

​

One 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.

---

In other words:Is it good or bad to employ logical fallacies?

• if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering a new age of reason.
• if you think it is bad, then you should like and agree with the comment "One should become familiar with logical fallacies so that one can recognize them when they appear."

Is it good or bad to employ pseudoskeptic arguments?

• if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering a new age of reason.
• if you think it is bad, then you should like and agree with the comment "One should become familiar with pseudoskepticism (and the false types of arguments used) so that it can be recognize it when it appears."

Is it good or bad to employ pseudoscience?

• if you think it is good, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a good approach to ushering a new age of reason.
• if you think it is bad, then you should like and agree with the comment "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."

andIs it good or bad to employ openmindedness?

• if you think it is bad, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a bad approach to ushering a new age of reason.
• if you think it is good, then you should like and agree with the comment "A (much) better basis, imho, is open-minded ... meaning we can be open to the possibilities that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence ...."

Is it good or bad to employ skepticism?

• if you think it is bad, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a bad approach to ushering a new age of reason.
• if you think it is good, then you should like and agree with the comment "A (much) better basis, imho, is ... skepticism ... meaning we can be ... skeptical of views\positions that are not (or insufficiently) supported by evidence"

Is it good or bad to employ honesty?

• if you think it is bad, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a bad approach to ushering a new age of reason.
• if you think it is good, then you should like and agree with the comment "A (much) better basis, imho, is ... the honesty to say "we don't know" when the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive, ..."

If you dislike or disagree with any of these items, then you should provide reasons and examples to counter them.If, on the other hand, you agree/like them and still mark this (andEdited by RAZD, : fixed quote for logical fallacies

Hi AZPaul3 Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia

quote:

---

"Age of Reason" redirects here. For other uses, see Age of Reason (disambiguation).

​

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was an elite cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe that sought to mobilize the power of reason in order to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted intellectual interchange and opposed intolerance and abuses in Church and state. Originating about 1650—1700, it was sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632—1677), John Locke (1632—1704), and Pierre Bayle (1647—1706) and by mathematician Isaac Newton (1643—1727). Ruling princes often endorsed and fostered Enlightenment figures and even attempted to apply their ideas of government. The Enlightenment flourished until about 1790—1800, after which the emphasis on reason gave way to Romanticism's emphasis on emotion and a Counter-Enlightenment gained force.

---

We also have: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, ... Published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807, it 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. ....

---

The age of reason, imho, is still under development, but it has already resulted in various social innovations, from science to politics (democracy). The progress is slow, and there are (inevitably?) some back-slides.Personally I think we should push-back against anti-science fundamentalists and vocally support better education of science and philosophy (especially including logic and open-minded skepticism). And I don't think we need to necessarily be anti-theistic to do this.Enjoy.

Except for the fact that most of the "anti-science" crowd are openly theistic AND use that theism as the basis for their anti-science stance (at least in the US anyways). So it almost comes as defaulting to being anti-theist as well, IMO. What other reason do people have for being anti-science if not for the conflict with their belief?

Ok - I'll address this false dichotomy first.
Oh - you are using a logical fallacy! (Are logical fallacies good or bad?) Ok - my true answer is: "It depends - different situations require different amounts of open-mindedness".
But you are not allowing me to answer honestly. (Is honesty good or bad?)As an example (which someone else referred to previously):
I received an email from a stranger. They told me about the death of their wife. They needed my help.
All I have to do is send them 100.You think that I should be "open to the possibilities that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence", yes?
Well, I have no reason to not believe him - I do not know anything about him.I do know about other emails from different people claiming similar things.
But to use those other emails as evidence against this new email would be closed-minded pseudo-scepticism.To follow your structure:
Is it good or bad to employ open-mindedness?
If I think it is bad, I should not send him any money.
If I think it is good, then I should send him the 100.I know what I would do.
What would you do, RADZ?