Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
83 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 80 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,260 Year: 5,906/14,102 Month: 54/438 Week: 98/83 Day: 21/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 2716 of 2755 (885122)
03-24-2021 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2715 by jar
03-24-2021 10:53 AM


Re: You The Man
Welcome back, Lord. We need your help everywhere.

Sign me up.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2715 by jar, posted 03-24-2021 10:53 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15709
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 2717 of 2755 (885145)
03-25-2021 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2711 by jar
03-22-2021 4:28 PM


GOD vs God vs god
Now the crazies that believe in Phat's creation should rightfully be feared but certainly not the picayune creation Phat markets.
How is the God I market any different than the one you market? My God also expects us to feed, clothe, and encourage. And he is not religious.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2711 by jar, posted 03-22-2021 4:28 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2718 by jar, posted 03-25-2021 7:42 AM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33496
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 2718 of 2755 (885146)
03-25-2021 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2717 by Phat
03-25-2021 3:55 AM


Re: GOD vs God vs god
Phat writes:

How is the God I market any different than the one you market?

Do you claim some personal relationship and communion?

Do you claim that the God you market is the one true God?

Phat writes:

And he is not religious

Really Phat?

How can you say such utterly stupid things?

Any and Every God humans describe is simply the product of a human imagination. The "Christian Gods" (because there are at least as many Christian Gods as there are Christians) are not GOD. They are symbols, fantasies, things we create to fill in the blank spots in mental maps. They exist only as long as there is a believer.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2717 by Phat, posted 03-25-2021 3:55 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2719 by Phat, posted 03-25-2021 1:20 PM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15709
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 2719 of 2755 (885152)
03-25-2021 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2718 by jar
03-25-2021 7:42 AM


Re: GOD vs God vs god
When you tell AZPaul3 that he will only "burn" if he fails to do as Jesus suggested commanded, you are essentially speaking on behalf of God as you understand Him. I realize that you can support such a God based on scripture, but I sometimes get the idea that your idea of God is closer to the lovey-dovey never get angry God of Spinoza.

But lets go with what you say for a moment. We all create the "Gods" we market. If so, why isn't GOD communicating with we humans? Are you seriously suggesting that it is up to us to interpret what He wants us to do with our lives? Are you seriously suggesting that He is incapable of giving you encouragement or teaching you anything? Are you seriously suggesting that GOD is too busy to worry and fret over humans on a dust-speck in the midst of His magnificent universe?

jar writes:

Do you claim that the God you market is the one true God?

I DO believe that there is only One God. I DO believe that God is quite capable of personal Communion and relationship with humans. I can support such ideas with scripture.
jar writes:

Any and Every God humans describe is simply the product of a human imagination.

So you don't believe that GOD could commune/communicate with us. Got it.And yet you speak for Her. You tell AZPaul that he is not in trouble unless he wants to be. You tell him indirectly that he can attack the whole concept of belief and that GOD would be perfectly fine with it.

I would say that humans may or may not be perfectly fine with it. And I would say that the God I "market" wants AZPaul3 to think a bit deeper about his impact on humanity through what he teaches. (Not that I am exempt from this same charge) And the same goes for you, jar. We all know that the God you market does not care whether we believe in Her, can be safely "thrown away" (ignored) and that we are only responsible for how we treat each other. I believe only in that last point.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2718 by jar, posted 03-25-2021 7:42 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2720 by jar, posted 03-25-2021 2:41 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33496
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 2720 of 2755 (885155)
03-25-2021 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2719 by Phat
03-25-2021 1:20 PM


Re: GOD vs God vs god
Phat writes:

Are you seriously suggesting that it is up to us to interpret what He wants us to do with our lives?

Of course it is up to us. That is the only possibility.

Phat writes:

Are you seriously suggesting that He is incapable of giving you encouragement or teaching you anything?

I have asked repeatedly for you or anyone else to explain how it might be possible for any God to communicate with any human; and you and everyone else have failed to answer the question.

Phat writes:

I DO believe that there is only One God. I DO believe that God is quite capable of personal Communion and relationship with humans. I can support such ideas with scripture.

Have you never learned anything? Scripture can only support the fact that someone wrote what is contained in that particular piece of scripture.

Phat writes:

So you don't believe that GOD could commune/communicate with us. Got it.And yet you speak for Her. You tell AZPaul that he is not in trouble unless he wants to be. You tell him indirectly that he can attack the whole concept of belief and that GOD would be perfectly fine with it.

And that is a conclusion based on the evidence of what is actually written in the Bible and you should know by now I can and have presented you with the passages.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2719 by Phat, posted 03-25-2021 1:20 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 171
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 2721 of 2755 (885170)
03-25-2021 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2707 by AZPaul3
03-21-2021 3:48 AM


Re: You The Man
Apologies on my slow response time friends, middle of seminary midterms for me so a bit swamped haha.

Phat writes:

*Tags raph.* I'll step in the ring for a moment, Raph. Go have a Gatorade...or some Holy Water.

Haha, appreciate you, Phat my friend! Though these days I'm a bit more partial to La Croix

AZPaul3 writes:

Everything else involved in a specific creed is not important.

You believe.

You believe in the god of Genesis. Yet, you don't believe in the full narrative of the Genesis account. Interesting. But not now.

You are not wrong! I do believe. Words are important though. I do believe in the full Genesis account Just...perhaps not in the way you might assume I do. A piece of my perspective on that question in particular is I don't think the writer(s) of Genesis care(s) about scientific questions. The questions we ask the text are sometimes even more important than the answers....sometimes we get the wrong answers because we are asking the wrong questions

Quite the contrary, the scientific method is known as the only method that does work, if by 'work' we mean accurately modeling the reality being examined. My bias is not negotiable. The science rules.

Well all due respect, but of course your bias is negotiable, as is any bias. The assumption that the scientific method is the only arbiter for how knowledge about truth is gained (epistemology) is an unproveable faith claim. I honor and value your belief that it is, but it is a belief. Where did you find this faith claim, and what objective knower of Truth verified it? Until those questions are verified I will question your bias just as you question mine

The bare essence, to me, is the fact that you believe in a supernatural being, specifically YHWH. You believe this being is actual, real, has influence over this universe, has worked his special will on this universe, with a special interest in Earth and a tribe of violent destructive people in the Levant.

Despite my political comments is this pretty much correct?

Have we filled in the vacuum?

Mostly, yes! Though I may add a couple nuances. It seems to me you are wanting to isolate and debate about the "what," ("you believe in a god") and what I am saying is, the "why" and even the "how" are equally as important and cannot be separated from the whole. So, why I believe, and, in particular how believe it, in my view, are connected so deeply to what I believe, that to deal with only the "what" seems too reductionist to me. (LOL tbh this paragraph is a bit of a tongue twister )

I understand that. That's why we narrow the target, eh the subject, to the most basic concept reasonable. The only idea I wish to attack and dismiss is this concept of belief.

Ah I understand now! And so to reiterate what is above, in response, I feel that to attempt to attack and dismiss the idea of belief without taking any consideration as to what is believed and how it is carried is too limited to come to an accurate conclusion.

It would be like dismissing all donuts because you only ever had an apple fritter and hated it, and then assumed all donuts must be the same. You've never even had a bearclaw!

Thank you, but I am quite comfortable with my understanding of things.

I respect and hear where you're at. I feel a similar way! I'm glad we can talk about this though!

I hate 'em. That's why I'm a scientist. Gotta fill those holes. Problem is every time we fill a hole, new ones open up. It's a never ending cycle of endless hole filling. Endless learning. And god I do love it so, like the smell of cordite in the morning.

Haha. I can see where you're coming from and that the process is valuable to you. I am with you on the endless learning, I feel the exact same way. I think that is perhaps part of why I am a person of faith. I am far too skeptical and interested in the "holes" to accept that we know all there is to be known. What if we are operating with only 1% of knowable information? We have no way of knowing. So I am with you man!

So now you're going to tell me how special your god is over all the others.

You realize that's been beat to death, right? Hardly seems to matter. They are all pretty much the same. Other than for different hair styles, fancy dress, various numbers of arms, hands, faces, they're all pretty much the same.

But, before I ask my major question, you seem to have some issues you feel need addressing. Please do.

No issues, really! Just enjoying the conversation tbh. But I do recognize the argument I am presenting is a common one....in part. I feel I have perhaps beaten to death my point in my responses already haha. But at the risk of doing so again, I think if I were to attempt to synthesize it all it would be: I perceive that you reject a pretty specific conceptualization of faith. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but the more you share the more I am convinced it is so. Statements like this indicate this to me:

quote:
First create evil, suffering, anguish and death, let them fester for millennia then claim to be The Warrior Against Evil. The cheek.

and

quote:
your goal here is to minister to us heathens in order to save our souls from the vengeance of your imagined gods

From these quotes I can see you reject some pretty specific theological systems and ways of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures. You reject the idea that God created evil/suffering/anguish/death and then claims to be the warrior against those things. You reject the idea that God comes with punitive vengeance and as a Christian my goal is to save you from this paradox.

In response, I also reject those ideas In fact I think these ideas are the opposite of what the whole thing teaches. What say ye?

Oh! And what is your major question?? I'm ready

- Raph

Edited by Raphael, : Some grammar/spelling issues lol

Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2707 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2021 3:48 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2722 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2021 12:29 AM Raphael has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 2722 of 2755 (885174)
03-26-2021 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2721 by Raphael
03-25-2021 9:55 PM


Re: You The Man
This is going to be difficult to explain. I don’t think you can wrap your head around the concept. You are so steeped in belief you cannot imagine a philosophy that eschews such a thing.

I cannot accept a belief statement. I need the science to accept and approve such a statement.

You have already tried to argue that science is a belief system on par with your made up religious bs. As I’ve already said to Phat in another thread the difference in efficacy has been established and recognized for quite some time, now. I'm afraid it's well past time to think anyone here could effectively challenge the conclusion already reached that science is the superior ontology. Belief-based systems have no efficacy since they have no reality.

The assumption that the scientific method is the only arbiter for how knowledge about truth is gained (epistemology) is an unproveable faith claim.

I look forward to seeing your evidence of this conjecture. Show us these other arbiters of knowledge. Show us their fruits. Show us the reality they reflect and model. We will determine their worth.

And you should certainly understand that, in science, provable and unprovable are concepts with no meaning. We deal only with what is called best evidence and, the amount of it, the preponderance of the evidence. No matter how strong the evidence, no matter how conclusive the facts can be, science realizes we cannot ever know everything so all conclusions, even our most sacred and cherished laws of the universe, are tentative pending further data.

We don’t believe anything.

Where did you find this faith claim, and what objective knower of Truth verified it?

In a high school physics text. From there things got complex.

There is no objective knower of truth. There is only the consensus of the priests, potentates and professors for whom a specific topic is a scientific passion. A consensus of the scientific community, we call it. No, not every biologist is as influential in a discussion of the CMB as a physicist would so the consensus is reserved to the knowledge experts in the specific field. That leaves out anyone who thinks they can speak to any scientific endeavor without the intellectual and academic chops to stand, be recognized and be heard.

My opinion, your opinion, my interpretation, your interpretation mean nothing. The science is tentatively what the chorus of the discipline says it is today with provision to change with new data tomorrow.

Fortunately, most of what we are finding is quite stable and allows us to predict what should happen next and then watch the universe unfold just as predicted. That is the true sign of understanding reality. Accurate prediction is an imperative for our best science. Accurate prediction is the key to any ontology that seeks to claim an understanding of reality.

I'll probably be stressing those keys to reality in this discussion. I'm a scientist. I can't help it.

Until those questions are verified I will question your bias just as you question mine

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I intend to bias everything with the science. Everything.

If you make a statement without evidence I will challenge its reality, as you should me.

It would be like dismissing all donuts because you only ever had an apple fritter and hated it

Who could hate an apple fritter? I’ll take both that and the bearclaw.

From these quotes I can see you reject some pretty specific theological systems and ways of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures

No, you don’t see. You haven’t fathomed the depth of the rejection of all things belief-based. I do not reject some specific theological systems. I reject them all. I am not just atheist I am anti-theist.

And what is your major question?? I'm ready.

Let's do it.

You believe.

Why?

I know it’s complicated. You want to get into how and what and other elements, please feel free.

What is it you believe? What informed your belief? What caused you to open your eyes and see?

What evidence, however you care to define it, convinced you to drink the kool-aid?

Apologies on my slow response time friends, middle of seminary midterms for me so a bit swamped

As a teacher or a student or both? If you’re a grad student trying to get by I can understand you treading frantically trying to stay upright. I was a teaching grad student in a former life. NoDoze and coffee, with the occasional pizza. Good times. Enjoy.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : considerable polish

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2721 by Raphael, posted 03-25-2021 9:55 PM Raphael has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2723 by FLRW, posted 03-27-2021 4:09 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 2724 by Raphael, posted 03-29-2021 10:35 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
FLRW
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 10-08-2007


Message 2723 of 2755 (885196)
03-27-2021 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2722 by AZPaul3
03-26-2021 12:29 AM


Re: You The Man
If you search for the most intelligent person to ever live, you will find the name William James Sidis. If you look up information on him you will find: In 1919, Sidis was arrested for participating in a socialist May Day parade in Boston that turned violent.

He was sentenced to 18 months in prison under the Sedition Act of 1918. Sidis' arrest was featured prominently in newspapers, as his early graduation from Harvard had garnered him considerable local celebrity.

During the trial, Sidis stated that he had been a conscientious objector to the World War I draft, he was a socialist, and an atheist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2722 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2021 12:29 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2725 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 10:46 AM FLRW has responded

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 6 days)
Posts: 171
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


(1)
Message 2724 of 2755 (885249)
03-29-2021 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2722 by AZPaul3
03-26-2021 12:29 AM


Re: You The Man
AZPaul3 writes:

This is going to be difficult to explain. I don’t think you can wrap your head around the concept. You are so steeped in belief you cannot imagine a philosophy that eschews such a thing.

Nah that makes a lot of sense! Though I am a person of faith I have not always been, so I understand personally and grasp intellectually alternate philosophies/worldviews. I like to live life with a healthy intellectual openness, never assuming I have all the answers. Rather, respectfully, I get the sense it is you that approach science with the type of dogmatism you seem to be projecting onto me

I cannot accept a belief statement. I need the science to accept and approve such a statement.

But you already accept a belief statement. Haha. You believe the scientific method is the only path to knowing truth. That is not provable or testable and so, a belief statement.

You have already tried to argue that science is a belief system on par with your made up religious bs. As I’ve already said to Phat in another thread the difference in efficacy has been established and recognized for quite some time, now. I'm afraid it's well past time to think anyone here could effectively challenge the conclusion already reached that science is the superior ontology. Belief-based systems have no efficacy since they have no reality.

Interesting. Is science a superior ontology? How is such a thing determined? When was this decided? By what objective source was this determined? You claim belief-based systems are not based in reality, but you can't possibly know this for certain. In reality, you believe, by faith, for this to be the case.

I look forward to seeing your evidence of this conjecture. Show us these other arbiters of knowledge. Show us their fruits. Show us the reality they reflect and model. We will determine their worth.

Hmm I could, I have done before here in other threads, however I don't know that you would find compelling the evidence I would present . I'll say this though; Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz gifted us with a great many things and their influence on epistemology was one of them. The thinkers of the Enlightenment prioritized reason - and eventually the scientific method - above all things. In part this was for good reason, the West moved largely away from superstition and towards an evidence-based approach to understanding reality. This is great! However in the process of it all the thinkers totally abandoned any other way of discerning reality. Again, I admit there were good reasons for this, the evidence led us in a direction and so much unfounded superstition leads to chaos. However, the decision to prioritize reason above all other things as the epistemological tool is merely that, a decision, a faith choice.

So nowadays we are now left with a paradox. The scientific method is a method used to test things. And yet scientists who hold to a more strict scientism (as I perceive you to be) are not open to testing the test or even considering other epistemological tools.

In summary, I think I am more skeptical than you I am skeptical of any person who claims to have a process with a monopoly on truth discernment, religious or non-religious alike. Perhaps you are surprised to hear this from me , but nobody really knows anything about anything. Rather, all is faith. Therefore, the question is, in what will you put your faith?

We don’t believe anything.

But of course you do! You enter into your entire process with an epistemology bias towards a certain process (the scientific method). What if there are truths untestable by that process? (I would argue there are). How might you go about testing whether or not we are living in a simulation by an unobservable entity? How would you test whether or not you love your mother, or even if love exists at all?

There is no objective knower of truth.

I might beg to differ The Scriptures contend that Truth is actually a person, that Truth is aware of you and has an agenda: your freedom, healing and joy. But also that Truth is wild and totally free. For all intents and purposes though, I actually agree! I might modify your statement from my perspective though, to "Any objective knower of truth is not testable or controllable by the scientific method."

My opinion, your opinion, my interpretation, your interpretation mean nothing. The science is tentatively what the chorus of the discipline says it is today with provision to change with new data tomorrow.

I am on board with this, or at least the spirit of it. A healthy skepticism to absolute certainty is healthy, imo. I just think it is important to be honest about the places where we only believe things by faith. I have been honest about mine, and yet you seem reluctant to... That's ok, but I am interested in why certainty is so valuable to you? You say you are a scientist, and yet I sense a refusal to be skeptical about your foundational presuppositions.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I intend to bias everything with the science. Everything.

If you make a statement without evidence I will challenge its reality, as you should me.

Interesting. Well that is fine, haha, as long as you know it is a bias based on an unproveable faith claim and is not actually objective or necessarily true .

To your second statement here, while I am a person of belief I am a person of evidence. I go where the evidence leads. Contrary to popular belief, faith is based on evidence. However, not all true things are testable, and not all testable things are true.

For clarity, what I am saying is I agree we should question truth claims without evidence, and so that is exactly what I am doing when you claim science is an objective lens for discerning truth

Who could hate an apple fritter? I’ll take both that and the bearclaw.

Nice! If nothing else is said in this discussion, let it be known that this is all I need to call someone a friend. Donuts rule

No, you don’t see. You haven’t fathomed the depth of the rejection of all things belief-based. I do not reject some specific theological systems. I reject them all. I am not just atheist I am anti-theist.

Ah gotcha. You're right, I did not grasp the depth of your rejection. I'm curious to understand, why are you anti-theist? Surely a scientist would acknowledge there are unknowable things about the universe and take more of an agnostic stance, no?

Raph


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2722 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2021 12:29 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2726 by nwr, posted 03-30-2021 11:26 AM Raphael has not yet responded
 Message 2730 by AZPaul3, posted 03-31-2021 2:49 AM Raphael has responded
 Message 2731 by AZPaul3, posted 03-31-2021 2:53 AM Raphael has responded
 Message 2732 by Percy, posted 03-31-2021 11:55 AM Raphael has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 2725 of 2755 (885254)
03-30-2021 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2723 by FLRW
03-27-2021 4:09 PM


Re: You The Man
I see your William James Sidis and I raise you a Bertrand Russell (not how it's actually done in poker according to my poker class in OLLI where we just say what we are raising the bet to whatever (without splashing the pot, which is just plain rude, as I keep saying when watching movies)).

Bertrand Russell was a pacifist in the UK during WWI, a criminal offense that could land you in jail. His story of being in-processed for incarceration includes a withered old female clerk asking him personal questions. "Religion?" "Agnostic." "Well, I guess they all worship the same god anyways." He said that that bit of humour kept his spirits up throughout his incarceration.

Edited by dwise1, : minor grammatical correction (raising the bet to what?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2723 by FLRW, posted 03-27-2021 4:09 PM FLRW has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2727 by FLRW, posted 03-30-2021 3:54 PM dwise1 has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5833
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.0


(2)
Message 2726 of 2755 (885256)
03-30-2021 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2724 by Raphael
03-29-2021 10:35 PM


Re: You The Man
Though I am a person of faith I have not always been, so I understand personally and grasp intellectually alternate philosophies/worldviews. I like to live life with a healthy intellectual openness, never assuming I have all the answers.

I don't have any problem with that version of faith (as described by Raphael).

Is science a superior ontology?

Probably. And that's because science is pragmatic. So, whenever there is a change, the pragmatism is likely to move to a better direction.

Note, however, that pragmatism tends to be subjective. So what one person sees as better, another may see as worse. We might say that science depends on the collective pragmatism of the scientists.

I might modify your statement from my perspective though, to "Any objective knower of truth is not testable or controllable by the scientific method."

This is why science should be described as pragmatic, and not as truth seeking.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2724 by Raphael, posted 03-29-2021 10:35 PM Raphael has not yet responded

  
FLRW
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 10-08-2007


Message 2727 of 2755 (885262)
03-30-2021 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2725 by dwise1
03-30-2021 10:46 AM


Re: You The Man
Yes, Russell claimed that beginning at age 15, he spent considerable time thinking about the validity of Christian religious dogma, which he found very unconvincing. At this age, he came to the conclusion that there is no free will and, two years later, that there is no life after death. Finally, at the age of 18, after reading Mill's Autobiography, he abandoned the "First Cause" argument and became an atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2725 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 10:46 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2728 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 11:07 PM FLRW has not yet responded
 Message 2729 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 11:14 PM FLRW has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 2728 of 2755 (885266)
03-30-2021 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2727 by FLRW
03-30-2021 3:54 PM


Re: You The Man
More than a few decades ago on an afternoon talk show (eg, Mike Douglas, though I do not remember which one) Martin Mull did a similar joke (alongside his one warning to never drop your car keys in Hollywood ... because they'll snatch them up in no time and steal your car (the long pause is important in that joke)).

Martin Mull's initial joke: Two philosophers during that time in WWI pacifism, one having been arrested for pacifism and the other not. The one outside the bars asked why his friend was behind bars, to which his friend responded, "Why are you not behind bars?"

No response from the audience, so Martin Mull's next joke started with "A minister, priest, and a rabbi walk into a bar ... " followed by audience laughter and his "OK, now I know what kind of audience I'm playing to!

Edited by dwise1, : "followed by laughter"

Edited by dwise1, : more correct usage of quotation marks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2727 by FLRW, posted 03-30-2021 3:54 PM FLRW has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 2729 of 2755 (885267)
03-30-2021 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2727 by FLRW
03-30-2021 3:54 PM


Re: You The Man
I really liked Bertrand Russell's assessment of what freethinking meant to Catholics versus Protestants. For Catholics, any deviation from their doctrine was heresy, while for Protestants any deviation just started another church.

So for a Catholic, becoming a freethinker meant becoming an atheist. For a Protestant, it meant just creating yet another church.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2727 by FLRW, posted 03-30-2021 3:54 PM FLRW has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 2730 of 2755 (885268)
03-31-2021 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2724 by Raphael
03-29-2021 10:35 PM


Re: You The Man
I cannot accept a belief statement. I need the science to accept and approve such a statement.

But you already accept a belief statement. Haha. You believe the scientific method is the only path to knowing truth. That is not provable or testable and so, a belief statement.

What do you think the last 300 years have been all about? Do you think the priests, mullahs and sadhus, all of a sudden after millennia, decided to up their game and spiritually conjure technology and innovation the likes of which this species had never seen before?

Unless you want to argue against the reality of history there is no doubt that the pursuit of evidence and the refinement of science, still ongoing, is what spurred the explosive growth in our human knowledge base and understanding of the universe. In 5000 years nothing in religion or woo-woo-anything ever came close to showing us the laws of the universe and the reality of existence that science has given us in less than 300.

You aren’t yearning for the 1500s are you, Raph? My understanding is that time wasn’t all that pleasant. They didn’t have bearclaws back then. Worse yet, that was before Häagen-Dazs chocolate ice cream. It took dedicated scientists working slavishly in test kitchens using all the skills science gave them to conceive and create these wonders of the secular scientific world. At least I don’t think Nestlé’s is a church. I might be wrong.

Interesting. Is science a superior ontology? How is such a thing determined? When was this decided? By what objective source was this determined?

This might help - though I don’t like their syntax using truth for tentative conclusion. Philosophers, what can you say.

Scientific Progress (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now this is just one of dozens of assessments by philosophers, scientists, amateur secular scholars (ASSs) such as myself. You can look them up. They all say pretty much the same thing – science rules.

And that stands very high. Unless you can show me a more productive, more accurate and more useful way to model reality, then science is the standard by which ALL else is to be measured.

You claim belief-based systems are not based in reality, but you can't possibly know this for certain. In reality, you believe, by faith, for this to be the case.

No. The empirical evidence is pretty straight forward. Belief-based, reality-based. It’s all kinda right there in the name isn’t it? It wouldn’t be belief-based if it wasn’t … well … belief-based. Rather self-evident there Raph?

I understand your motivation to obfuscate. If science really is THAT powerful at revealing reality then what chance do emotional delusions, ouija boards or faith have as explanatory frameworks? None. After science there appears nothing in reality that any of these others can discover.

Unless you can show otherwise.

However in the process of it all the thinkers totally abandoned any other way of discerning reality.

Oh? Like what? Tea leaves? Wishful thinking? Communion? Entrails? Ahh! I know – astrology!

However, the decision to prioritize reason above all other things as the epistemological tool is merely that, a decision, a faith choice.

It’s a choice of appropriate tool for the appropriate job. Not based on faith but on demonstrable success in the past.

You’re really having a hard time with that concept.

Tools that actually give accurate results are superior. As far as anyone … anyone … can show the only tools with that demonstrable body of success are ones provided by our science.

So nowadays we are now left with a paradox. The scientific method is a method used to test things. And yet scientists who hold to a more strict scientism (as I perceive you to be) are not open to testing the test or even considering other epistemological tools.

No paradox. I’m thinking you don’t do much science. Science is tested multiple gazillion times a day. Every time our knowledge base increases, every time the science works, every time science (like with covid) saves humanity or saves the life of an 8-year old from leukemia, science has met and passed its test.

The facts we have show that religion fails. Miserably. Prayer, faith, devotional mumbling in an apse somewhere, fails to solve any of these, or any other, problems.

Again, can you show otherwise?

I am skeptical of any person who claims to have a process with a monopoly on truth discernment, religious or non-religious alike.

Truth discernment? What is that? Another religious strawman?

Again, I don’t think you science much. You are not familiar enough with its use and limitations.

We may love our equations, theories and mathematics but no one ever confuses evidence, even the strongest evidence, with truth or proof. It’s a philosophy thing. Our creed. A mantra. Everything is tentative. There is no proof. There is no universal truth. There is only evidence and its rational, agreed upon, interpretation.

In fact the only universal truth ever is that religious people are nuts. I have that from an impeccable source that cannot be questioned, seen, felt, heard, or if catholic, tasted.

Perhaps you are surprised to hear this from me, but nobody really knows anything about anything. Rather, all is faith.

No. Objective reality exists and is discernible, and understandable, using our properly functioning senses. Yes, those senses are objectively calibrated by group feedback. Peer review. Mom and dad, friends and colleagues, all telling you it’s there. The chair really is there. Maybe. Try kicking it.

Therefore, the question is, in what will you put your faith?

Reality.

We don’t believe anything.

But of course you do! You enter into your entire process with an epistemology bias towards a certain process (the scientific method).

As I said, I don’t think you can conceive of a philosophy without belief. We are not talking a definition of “belief” like opinion or favorite flavor but something much deeper. You seem to need that rote blank unexplainable emotional feeling of surety based on hope. Faith. Belief.

I have actual facts, a demonstrable history, of the success of science modeling reality. You have abandoned your evidence-based lip service for your belief-based foundation. Objective reasoning has not been evident in your words here. It appears as all subjective emotion.

What if there are truths untestable by that process? (I would argue there are).

Like what? Specifics, please.

How might you go about testing whether or not we are living in a simulation by an unobservable entity?

Serious? You and company haven’t thunk this one through?

Well, if this is a simulation it is sooo good it is indistinguishable from a reality. It is, de facto, our reality. That will not stop us from continuing to study our reality, wherever that leads us, using our scientific methods.

How would you test whether or not you love your mother, or even if love exists at all?

My departed mommy said she loved me. I felt that. I knew the emotion. In the context of my humanity that emotion was real. The chemical stew that is me really had the feels. That feeling is a fact. It is an evident part of my reality. And by observation I see/hear/read the same emotion in others. Emotions are demonstrable products of human existence. Love exists.

The science says it’s the release of oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin in response to physical stimuli, like hearing my mommy’s words or feeling her embrace.

Better living through chemistry.

Too long. I'm going to break this up into two posts.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2724 by Raphael, posted 03-29-2021 10:35 PM Raphael has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2734 by Raphael, posted 04-01-2021 11:10 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021