Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9035 total)
92 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 91 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,594 Year: 3,240/14,102 Month: 181/724 Week: 30/93 Day: 1/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 286 of 1406 (765498)
07-30-2015 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Omnivorous
07-29-2015 11:15 AM


Anti-Fundies Say The Darnedest Things
Omnivorous writes:

It's long past time to stop sucking on the childish, sugar-tit myth of divine justice and take this world in hand.

"sugar-tit myth"

Because there's nothing childish in ranting about how your enemies presume knowledge of God's will when you presume knowledge of the "brute facts of the world," now is there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Omnivorous, posted 07-29-2015 11:15 AM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Omnivorous, posted 07-30-2015 9:25 AM MrHambre has responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 288 of 1406 (765504)
07-30-2015 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Omnivorous
07-30-2015 9:25 AM


Rant In One Hand
Omnivorous writes:

Go collect fundie evidence for the "will of God" in one hand, and secular evidence for the "brute facts" of the world in the other.

See which one fills up first.


Funny you should mention that. I've long thought that "evidence" is the secular equivalent of "God's will," in that what we already believe defines what we accept as evidence. And if your only defense of your, ahem, reasons is that they're better than fundie hogwash, well, that's not saying much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Omnivorous, posted 07-30-2015 9:25 AM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 07-30-2015 9:42 AM MrHambre has not yet responded
 Message 290 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 9:52 AM MrHambre has responded
 Message 291 by Omnivorous, posted 07-30-2015 10:08 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 292 of 1406 (765508)
07-30-2015 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Stile
07-30-2015 9:52 AM


Re: Rant In One Hand
Stile writes:

There is always only 1 honest interpretation of evidence.

Oh come now. Data have to be arranged and interpreted in some sort of context before they can be meaningful. The way we approach information depends on what we already believe.

I'm nonreligious, and I spent plenty of time excoriating the religious for what I considered the flaws in their worldview (check my posting history if you want "evidence"). But a lot of the time, we approach discussion with believers as a game we rig to our advantage: we demand that they reorganize their beliefs as an evidentiary construct, then we criticize the construct for its shortcomings as something it was never meant to be in the first place. Note that I'm not talking about creationism here, which is just a garbled pseudoscientific conspiracy theory; I'm talking about a religious perspective, the kind of thing Omnivorous was so rabidly attacking.

The point is that we demand "evidence" from believers because we've already defined "evidence" as data from the natural sciences, i.e. something that we know won't support claims about the existence of the big-magic-guy the way it can the existence of gingko trees and glaciers.

Is that, strictly speaking, "honest"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 9:52 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 10:27 AM MrHambre has responded
 Message 298 by ringo, posted 07-30-2015 11:44 AM MrHambre has responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 294 of 1406 (765511)
07-30-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Stile
07-30-2015 10:27 AM


Re: Rant In One Hand
Stile writes:

Can you give an example?

Okay. How about the way we process information about social and cultural matters? We always emphasize the importance of information that reinforces what we already believe, and dismiss information that challenges what we believe. The numerous statistics, factoids, and opinion pieces floating around on subjects like abortion or gun control are impossible to approach one by one; we usually just judge them by their sources and whether they tell us what we want to hear.

One question of "is this evidence really indicative of reality" does not leave you with no where to go... it leads you back to validate the information against reality again... which can be done. And can always be done so that all (honest) people will agree. Like having 2 apples on the table.

If ever matter were as simple as the number of apples on the table, sure. But in most other issues in our personal and social spheres, things are much more complex and there's a lot less hard data available.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 10:27 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 11:05 AM MrHambre has responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 299 of 1406 (765519)
07-30-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Stile
07-30-2015 11:05 AM


Re: Rant In One Hand
Stile writes:

As soon as you're dismissing information... you're being dishonest.
And "we" don't always do that.

Sure we do. Do you really think only other people are prone to cognitive biases and self-validating modes of thinking?

I mentioned the abortion debate, in which two facts are always brought up: the fetal heartbeat and that the fetus gestates inside a woman's body. It's not that either pro-lifers or pro-choicers dispute these points. But pro-lifers emphasize the fetal heartbeat and make it seem all-important in the matter; deliberately stopping a heart, even a fetus's heart, is murder. Pro-choicers emphasize the second fact, and stress that the personhood and responsibility of the woman are of utmost importance; if she doesn't want to undergo pregnancy and childbirth, she shouldn't be forced to do so against her will.

Two facts, at least two interpretations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 11:05 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 12:24 PM MrHambre has responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 300 of 1406 (765520)
07-30-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by ringo
07-30-2015 11:44 AM


Re: Rant In One Hand
ringo writes:

You're stepping on your own tail there. "We" don't all have the same beliefs, so there is no such thing as "our" beliefs to colour our collective conclusions.

I didn't mean to imply only nonbelievers do this. Every person individually has beliefs and assumptions through which he or she defines what constitutes "evidence," and what the "evidence" means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by ringo, posted 07-30-2015 11:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by ringo, posted 07-30-2015 12:26 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 303 of 1406 (765528)
07-30-2015 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Stile
07-30-2015 12:24 PM


Re: Rant In One Hand
Stile writes:

It can happen.
It does happen with counting 2 apples on the table.

Since you're determined to handwave away anything I present, let me use your example. What if the apples are wax apples instead of real ones? What if they're pears that look like apples? What if there are more than two apples, but from the vantage point of the viewers there appear to be only two? What if they are holograms?

Wouldn't it be possible for there to be different interpretations of the "brute facts" in these instances?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 12:24 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 2:25 PM MrHambre has responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 305 of 1406 (765530)
07-30-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Stile
07-30-2015 2:25 PM


Then Jump Through More Hoops
Stile writes:

Feel free to move forward with your 5th attempt to prove me wrong. I'm looking forward to it.

Oh, so you're still pretending this is some kind of serious, fair-minded challenge and not just a crackpot shell game?

That's priceless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 2:25 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2015 5:52 PM MrHambre has responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 307 of 1406 (765536)
07-30-2015 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Dr Adequate
07-30-2015 5:52 PM


Sorry, Charlie
The bait's a little stale. Best of luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2015 5:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2015 11:11 PM MrHambre has not yet 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