|
Author
|
Topic: I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 119 of 693 (709964)
10-31-2013 11:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by Straggler
10-31-2013 10:37 AM
|
|
Re: Theological Claims
In that message you listed a bunch of stuff that can be tested scientifically and spouted some obviously erroneous nonsense about how "the scientific method is totally useless and worthless" when it comes to investigating how peoples and cultures are formed. The question was whether or not the stories in the Bible helped to create a culture. You could ask if British imperialism helped or hurt aboriginal australian art. That's not something you could investigate scientifically.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 10:37 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:37 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 136 of 693 (709984)
10-31-2013 12:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
10-31-2013 11:37 AM
|
|
Re: Theological Claims
If one wants to believe things that are likely to be true Do you think it is likely to be true that British imperialism was helpful in improving aboriginal australian art? Could you use the scientific method to determine that? How would you determine it?
how does one decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance? Figure out what you mean by helpful, find a way to determine if something is helpful or not, look at a part of the bible, use that way to see if it helpful.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 11:37 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 139 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 12:47 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 144 of 693 (709996)
10-31-2013 2:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
10-31-2013 12:47 PM
|
|
Re: Theological Claims
Straggler writes: If one wants to believe things that are likely to be true how does one decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance?
CS writes: Figure out what you mean by helpful, find a way to determine if something is helpful or not, look at a part of the bible, use that way to see if it helpful. You have taken the same route as jar and abandoned the "likely to be true" stipulation. Well no, you would have found if it is likely to be true that the particular part of the Bible is helpful.
Belief in biblical stories may well be "helpful" in the sense it invokes feelings of comfort or whatever. But so what? You can use science to determine if the stories were true, like how we know there wasn't a Flud.
Well I certainly think looking for empirical evidence of British Imperial influence on Aboriginal art would have to be starting point for even considering such a question. Far more helpful than seeking divine revelation for example. Looking for empirical evidence for the part of the Bible helping you would also be better. I don't think I'm getting your point.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 12:47 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 146 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 2:15 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Theological Claims
You seem to be suggesting that theological claims can be assessed empirically much like theories of gravity can. Well that would depend on the claim, wouldn't it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2013 2:15 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 152 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 8:31 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Theological Claims
Straggler writes: You seem to be suggesting that theological claims can be assessed empirically much like theories of gravity can.
CS writes: Well that would depend on the claim, wouldn't it? If you say so.... What's the alternative? That whether or not the claim can be assessed is independent of the claim, itself? Are you just defining theological claims into being unable to be assessed empirically? Is the all just one big tautology? Well here's one claim: God flooded the planet 4500 years ago. We can test that empirically and it turns out to be wrong. Here's another one: Following Jesus' teachings throughout your life will make it fulfilling. We can't really test that empirically. But you can come to a likelihood of that being true or not.
If we want to test the veracity of a theistic claim using these non-empirical methods you allude to how do we do that? Define the claim. Determine an output. Measure it. Analyze it against what was defined. Figure out if the claim was right. How do I follow Jesus' teachings? How do I know if my life is fulfilling? Did following the teachings have an impact on my fulfillment? Was the claim likely to be true or not?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 152 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 8:31 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 156 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 9:57 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 163 of 693 (710054)
11-01-2013 10:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 156 by Straggler
11-01-2013 9:57 AM
|
|
Re: It's All In your Mind
Given the rest of your post, that's quite an ironic question. How so?
Subjective notions of whether one feels fulfilled (whether fulfilment be attributed to reading the bible, eating a chocolate bar, praying to Zeus, buying a fast car or anything else one can cite as leading to fulfilment) obviously aren't going tyo be subjected to any assessment of veracity beyond what one has already internally decided in one's own mind. Well no. A devout Christian could life their life according to Jesus' teachings and then figure out: "Well this isn't fulfilling at all. That theological claim was wrong. And since I want to believe things that are likely to be true, I no longer believe that following Jesus' teaching will make my life fulfilling. I suppose I'll rethink this whole Christian thing." They tested the claim against what they experienced and determined the likelihood of the claim being true.
However the statement "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" isn't talking about things which exist only as one's internal state of mind are they? I don't see how that has anything to do with this. FWIW, my belief in God isn't anything like my belief in gravity. I know that gravity exists. I think there is a God.
If these non-empirical methods you speak of are limited to internal states of mind then what relevance do they have to either God or gravity? I don't think they're limited to internal states of mind.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 156 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 9:57 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 164 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 10:43 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 167 of 693 (710060)
11-01-2013 10:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 164 by Straggler
11-01-2013 10:43 AM
|
|
Re: It's All In your Mind
I'm not following you and I don't see that you have a point.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 164 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 10:43 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 169 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 11:04 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 175 of 693 (710071)
11-01-2013 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by Straggler
11-01-2013 11:04 AM
|
|
Re: It's All In your Mind
You also asked:
quote:
If one wants to believe things that are likely to be true how does one decide which parts of the bible are helpful and which are a hindrance?
That is what I answered. But now you've moved the goalpost to:
Are these non-empirical methods you allude to relevant to theological claims (i.e. claims pertaining to God) or are they only relevant to internal states of mind (e.g. feeling happy, fulfilled etc.)? So you are just creating a convoluted tautology. How can I give you an example of something that can be tested and that is external to the mind but is also non-empirical?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 11:04 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 177 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 12:08 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 189 of 693 (710089)
11-01-2013 1:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by Straggler
11-01-2013 12:08 PM
|
|
Re: It's All In your Mind
The parts of the Bible that make empirical claims can be tested using the scientific method. The claims in the Bible that can be scientifically tested are going to be empirical claims. The parts of the Bible that make non-empirical claims are not going to be able to be tested using the scientific method. The claims in the Bible that cannot be scientifically tested are going to be non-empirical claims. You asked how the latter can be tested at all and I explained how. Now you're saying that they are not comparable to the former. Well.... duh.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 12:08 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 191 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 1:08 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: It's All In your Mind
If these non-empirical methods you speak of are entirely useless with regard to things external to one's own mind then they continue to have no real relevance to examining the statement " I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" because both God and gravity are being put forward as things extant to human minds. That's fine. I chimed in to explain to you how you could test some of the non-empirical claims to figure out if they're likely to be true or not.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 191 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 1:08 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 196 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 1:57 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: It's All In your Mind
CS writes: I chimed in to explain to you how you could test some of the non-empirical claims to figure out if they're likely to be true or not.
And instead you ended up talking about things like 'personal fulfilment' which don't require any testing beyond one's own wholly internal subjective feelings as to whether one feels fulfilled or not. Oh I'm sorry, I thought when you were talking non-empirical things that you were talking about things that were, you know, not empirical.
All experiences, whether empirical or not, involve the brain. Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 1:57 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 198 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 2:58 PM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 199 by Omnivorous, posted 11-01-2013 3:17 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: It's All In your Mind
CS writes: Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain.
The mechanism of the elicited patellar refelex doesn't involve the brain; the experience of an elicited patellar reflex certainly does.
That is a nitpick; yours was merely an error. Just sayin'.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 199 by Omnivorous, posted 11-01-2013 3:17 PM | | Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 335 of 693 (710876)
11-12-2013 6:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 334 by AZPaul3
11-12-2013 2:02 AM
|
|
Re: The hypothetico-deductive method
Beer is good
Beer is good
Beer is good
n'stuff http://youtu.be/O-jOEAufDQ4
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 334 by AZPaul3, posted 11-12-2013 2:02 AM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 411 of 693 (711127)
11-15-2013 9:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 368 by Tangle
11-13-2013 2:11 PM
|
|
conflating believes
If belief rested on evidence, it wouldn't be belief, it would be fact. That's why people think its silly to conflate the two and say that you "believe" in gravity. My "belief" in gravity isn't like my belief in God. I know that gravity exists. I think there is a God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 368 by Tangle, posted 11-13-2013 2:11 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 412 of 693 (711128)
11-15-2013 9:42 AM
|
|
|
What happened to methodological naturalism?
In principle, the supernatural could be witnessed by a scientific approach, but scientific explanations are supposed to be natural.
RationalWiki writes: Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
source
|
™ Version 4.2