say what? (The atheist delusion)
by scoobypoo 
, Friday, January 27, 2012, 21:55 (4685 days ago)
The author's supposed smackdown of Dawkin's work is shoddy and ridiculous. I think you're a christian pretending to be an agnostic.-The simple premise is that there is no logical reason to believe in a supreme being. And there isn't. -Dawkin's doesn't need to "prove" anything, that's the burden of the theist and no one has done so. Nobody proves a negative, as otherwise I will claim my pink unicorn created the universe and you can't prove that is false.-I was excited when I first found this site, but now know it to be a sham. Too bad.
say what?
by David Turell , Saturday, January 28, 2012, 01:08 (4684 days ago) @ scoobypoo
I was excited when I first found this site, but now know it to be a sham. > Too bad.-You are all wet. Read through the entries and you find true atheism, true agnosticism, and some theism. There are careful discussions here, and we are very polite. Frankly, I prefer pink elephants. Elephant turds weight 22 pounds, so be careful.-Do you know the real definition of Agnostic? They will not get off their picket fence. They don't know what they don't know. If you want an atheist site, this isn't it.
say what?
SCOOBYPOO: The author's supposed smackdown of Dawkin's work is shoddy and ridiculous. I think you're a christian pretending to be an agnostic. The simple premise is that there is no logical reason to believe in a supreme being. And there isn't. Dawkin's doesn't need to "prove" anything, that's the burden of the theist and no one has done so. Nobody proves a negative, as otherwise I will claim my pink unicorn created the universe and you can't prove that is false. I was excited when I first found this site, but now know it to be a sham. Too bad.-You appear to be unaware that agnostics, as David Turell has pointed out, are neither theist nor atheist. Nowhere in any of my writing will you find me requiring proof that a supreme being does not exist. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a supreme being. You clearly understand why I do not believe, but are apparently unable or unwilling to consider the many good reasons for not disbelieving, which by some extraordinary act of intellectual contortion you seem to equate with Christianity! Here are three good reasons for not disbelieving: the astonishingly complex mechanisms of life and evolution, the mystery of consciousness, the mystery of certain experiences such as NDEs in which information, corroborated by third parties, is obtained by no explicable means. Dawkins hopes that science will one day explain all of these: "If there is something that appears to be beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural" (p. 14 of The God Delusion). The absolute rejection of one possible explanation in the hope that the other will prove correct is an act of faith in which I do not feel able to indulge. This applies as much to chance as to design. If you share Dawkins' faith, that is entirely up to you, but don't kid yourself that atheists have any more reason for belief in chance than theists have for belief in a designer. If you yourself are indeed an atheist, perhaps you would provide us with whatever evidence convinces you that materialism holds all the answers to the above problems. l would also welcome an example of what you consider to be "shoddy" and "ridiculous" in my rejection of Dawkins' arguments, but only if you are prepared to dispute my words and not your own made-up version.
say what?
by scoobypoo , Sunday, January 29, 2012, 15:41 (4683 days ago) @ dhw
To posit that "believing" is just as rational as "not believing" is, IMHO, just silly.-You mention, among other things, that the complexity of the universe might reasonably lead one to "believe".-The flaw in that is simply that a creator would need to be more complex than the creation, and of course, the big one: where then, did the creator come from? If our complex universe requires a creator then so too does its creator and so on to infinity.-I think atheists likely have it right, but I refer to myself as agnostic simply because I don't claim I can prove that no god exists, but I see no "reason" for believing that one does.-This is absolutely not the same thing as giving equal credulity to both sides of the fence, which is what seems to be the point in this forum (but I could be wrong about that).
say what?
by David Turell , Sunday, January 29, 2012, 18:03 (4683 days ago) @ scoobypoo
To posit that "believing" is just as rational as "not believing" is, IMHO, just silly.-I don't agree. Not believing in God takes just as much faith as believing. > > You mention, among other things, that the complexity of the universe might reasonably lead one to "believe". > > The flaw in that is simply that a creator would need to be more complex than the creation, and of course, the big one: where then, did the creator come from? If our complex universe requires a creator then so too does its creator and so on to infinity.-That the creator must be more complex is just atheist creed. How do we know that? Religious philosophers thru the ages have pictured God as very pure and simple. As for where the creator came from brings us back to the most famous question of all: Why is there anything? If there always was something eternal, it is energy. And then one has to ask, where did that come from, so we have infinite regression. To me that is not a very satisfying ending. Why should the energy exist? Obviously many philosophy books have been written, but I've never seen or read an adequate answer. > > I think atheists likely have it right, but I refer to myself as agnostic simply because I don't claim I can prove that no god exists, but I see no "reason" for believing that one does. -That is dhw's position. I've tried but can't budge him off his picket fence. And I respect that. No one can absolutly prove God, nor disprove Him. As everyone here knows I follow Mortimer J. Adler: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Antony Flew finally accepted that approach. And so did the famous atheist scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle, as the science of cosmology unfolded: 'the universe looks like a put-up job'. > > This is absolutely not the same thing as giving equal credulity to both sides of the fence, which is what seems to be the point in this forum (but I could be wrong about that).-What is wrong with equal credulity? That is best for an open discussion. I have my side, you have yours and lets discuss! Always polite, no invective. Dawkins gives us enough of that emptiness. Hope you will stay around and add to reasonable discussion.
say what?
SCOOBYPOO: To posit that "believing" is just as rational as "not believing" is, IMHO, just silly.-First of all, I'm delighted that you have responded. Your first post made me suspect that you were not interested in rational discussion but only in ridiculing opposition to Dawkins. This second post suggests a rather more balanced approach, but it would be helpful if you would quote the arguments you disagree with. The above quote and the one below are both misrepresentations of what I said:-SCOOBYPOO: You mention, among other things, that the complexity of the universe might reasonably lead one to "believe".-I did not. My various statements were: "Here are three good reasons for not disbelieving", and "don't kid yourself that atheists have any more reason for belief in chance than theists have for belief in a designer." And I stated categorically that "I neither believe nor disbelieve in a supreme being." Like many committed theists and atheists you have fallen into the philosophical trap of assuming that if someone argues against one side he is advocating the other. No, I am advocating open-mindedness. I find the materialist faith in chance as impossible to swallow as the theist belief in a supreme being, the latter for the reasons you have summed up very neatly in your post ... the complexity and provenance of a creator. That is a point on which I disagree with David. I do not give "equal credulity to both sides of the fence". I give them both equal incredulity, and you are indeed wrong if you think credulity is the point of the forum. The point is simply to discuss the issues from all angles, in the hope that we shall be able to gain a deeper understanding of them. Some of our correspondents are committed one way or the other, and apart from the utterly wacky or the insultingly fundamentalist, I have respect for their views even if I don't share them. After all, one of these polar opposites (chance v. design) must be more or less true and one more or less false, so one aspect of my scepticism is bound to be wrong! It might perhaps also be worth mentioning that design doesn't necessarily involve a conventional father figure, as posited by the major monotheistic religions. David, for instance, is a panentheist, and we have had many theists who are scathing about conventional religion. -SCOOBYPOO: I think atheists likely have it right, but I refer to myself as agnostic simply because I don't claim I can prove that no god exists, but I see no "reason" for believing that one does.-As you pointed out in your first post, no-one can prove that no god exists, but if that were my only reason, I would probably jump down on the atheist side of the fence. What stops me from doing so, as I explained in my first response to you, is the various mysteries that humans with their extraordinary intelligence have so far completely failed to solve: origin of life and of the mechanisms for evolution, nature of consciousness, experiences inexplicable in terms of the material realities we know. Some atheists attempt to make light of these problems (Dawkins actually doesn't), but the deeper you delve, the more puzzling they become. Over the four years or so that this forum has been in existence, there have been many extremely well-informed posts on all these subjects, and correspondents like David, George, Matt (xeno) and others have constantly kept us up to date with all the new scientific discoveries ... but we are no nearer to finding the answers. I agree emphatically that not knowing the answers does not give us "reason" to believe either way; nor does it give us "reason" to disbelieve either way. That is my brand of agnosticism.
say what?
by scoobypoo , Monday, January 30, 2012, 13:26 (4682 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I agree emphatically that not knowing the answers does not give us "reason" to believe either way; nor does it give us "reason" to disbelieve either way. That is my brand of agnosticism.-I think not knowing the answers is precisely the "reason" to disbelieve. Do you give equal credulity to all religions? Even the most extreme? If not, even if you disavow just one, then I think your argument falls apart. To say that something is possible is one thing; but to "believe", without credible evidence, is something else entirely.-Maybe this is just semantics, as 'believe' actually means knowing without proof. So, using that definition, yeah you can believe anything. My point is you can't "know" [meaning provable] and for me that is reason _not_ to believe, and not only that; it's also reason to state that someone who does believe has no valid reason to do so. -If I say my pink unicorn created the universe, that is just as credible as any religion, and you can't disprove it. So why give credence to silly beliefs just because children are successfully brainwashed over and over again?
say what?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 15:48 (4681 days ago) @ scoobypoo
DHW: I agree emphatically that not knowing the answers does not give us "reason" to believe either way; nor does it give us "reason" to disbelieve either way. That is my brand of agnosticism. > > I think not knowing the answers is precisely the "reason" to disbelieve. > Do you give equal credulity to all religions? Even the most extreme? If not, even if you disavow just one, then I think your argument falls apart. > To say that something is possible is one thing; but to "believe", without credible evidence, is something else entirely. > > Maybe this is just semantics, as 'believe' actually means knowing without proof. > So, using that definition, yeah you can believe anything. > My point is you can't "know" [meaning provable] and for me that is reason _not_ to believe, and not only that; it's also reason to state that someone who does believe has no valid reason to do so. > > If I say my pink unicorn created the universe, that is just as credible as any religion, and you can't disprove it. > So why give credence to silly beliefs just because children are successfully brainwashed over and over again?-In the nearly three years since I've contributed to this forum, NONE of the theists that have spoken here advocate the kind of simple evangelical claptrap that you keep confusing as the "theist position."-I'm a Buddhist (and by extension, automatic agnostic) and Buddhism highlights in a rational way, exactly what most theists talk about: Transcendant experience. I'll return to that later.-You speak of knowing. What role then, does inference play? If you live near vesuvius, and you see smoke at the mountaintop... are you going to investigate if there's fire? You're going to make a decision. But it will be inference and NOT material, "in your hand" knowledge. Your decision to leave or stay in Pompeii will be based on the odds you place that the mountain is going to blow. When you realize--on a deep level--how much of our knowledge is based on inferential reasoning, you should become more skeptical. (I am a computer scientist by training.) -The realization I'm talking about is the realization that much of our knowledge is projected onto things, and is always limited by language, and what is already known. Science is about model building, and the program of Dawkins asserts ultimately--that all things will be explained by math. I don't think so.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
say what?
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 18:41 (4681 days ago) @ xeno6696
Scoobydoo: If I say my pink unicorn created the universe, that is just as credible as any religion, and you can't disprove it.So why give credence to silly beliefs just because children are successfully brainwashed over and over again? > Matt: In the nearly three years since I've contributed to this forum, NONE of the theists that have spoken here advocate the kind of simple evangelical claptrap that you keep confusing as the "theist position."-Matt, I don't think his mind is open enough to properly debate. Don't waste your time. If we get rational discussion, then we can.
say what?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, February 03, 2012, 00:45 (4678 days ago) @ David Turell
Scoobydoo: If I say my pink unicorn created the universe, that is just as credible as any religion, and you can't disprove it.So why give credence to silly beliefs just because children are successfully brainwashed over and over again? > > Matt: In the nearly three years since I've contributed to this forum, NONE of the theists that have spoken here advocate the kind of simple evangelical claptrap that you keep confusing as the "theist position." > > Matt, I don't think his mind is open enough to properly debate. Don't waste your time. If we get rational discussion, then we can.-My posts are rarely meant soley for the person I'm responding too. It helps sometimes to show you and dhw for example, where I may have changed on past issues.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
say what? (Epistemology)
DAVID (regarding Scoobypoo): Matt, I don't think his mind is open enough to properly debate. Don't waste your time. If we get rational discussion, then we can.-Matt: My posts are rarely meant solely for the person I'm responding too. It helps sometimes to show you and dhw for example, where I may have changed on past issues.-I was delighted to read your post, Matt, as it's an important step forward in our long-lost discussion on epistemology. I've deliberately waited a few days to see whether Scoobypoo would reply to my own post or yours, but it seems that David is right. His idea of rational discussion appears to be a matter of ignoring the interlocutor and dismissing as "silly" anything he doesn't believe, because no-one knows or has proved what is unknowable and unprovable. (But if you are still there, Scoobypoo, I hope you will "prove" me wrong by replying to the arguments set out in these posts.)-Matt, your recognition of the subjective arbitrariness of hierarchies is indeed a welcome change of direction, and the only section of your post I'd like to comment on ... not as a criticism but as an extension of the argument ... is the following:-"The other part is the order of rank over epistemology. What is "The Order of Rank?" It is that subjective piece that we all have in our own mental frameworks, that informs us as to what types of information we place the most reliance upon. Where I diverge from David, for example, is that for me, an explanation must be predictable and reliable, where reliability is essentially dictated by the scientific method. (I only make claims upon those things that I can study.)"-I don't actually understand your first sentence, but any hierarchy has to suit the subject under consideration. I'm sure there would be a consensus that the scientific method is best for unravelling the complexities of the purely material world. But every subject one can think of will entail different "types of information" and, as you've indicated, the scientific method will be of little assistance in many of those that matter most to us (e.g. love, human relations, ethics, aesthetics). As I see it, there simply cannot be a clear epistemological hierarchy when it comes to questions concerning the source of the universe or of life, or the nature of consciousness in all its manifestations. This is a category all on its own. To give the scientific method priority is tantamount to saying that there is nothing beyond the material world as we know it, which is already a decision. That is not meant as a devaluation of science, but David Attenborough's recognition of Darwin's claim that evolution (which we can extend to science generally) is not incompatible with religion is acknowledgement of the need for a balanced perspective as opposed to a hierarchy. And so for me (I can only speak for myself), any belief should remain compatible with those scientific findings on which there is a general consensus, but at the same time it must take into account all those phenomena that science is not able to cover. Among these I would include the long history of psychic experiences, with special emphasis on those that have resulted in the acquisition of information corroborated by independent witnesses (NDEs being only one form). There is no hierarchy, because a hierarchy is itself a judgement. "Taking into account" does not, of course, mean jumping to conclusions, but by now it should be pretty clear that I am not one for jumping to conclusions!
say what? (Epistemology)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 05, 2012, 17:15 (4676 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > Matt, your recognition of the subjective arbitrariness of hierarchies is indeed a welcome change of direction, and the only section of your post I'd like to comment on ... not as a criticism but as an extension of the argument ... is the following: > -I had to ponder this for a bit... I must have been speaking Gibberish last year as I started that Epistemological Framework thread... because I recall that it was exactly that subjectivity that I had set out to squash, and realized near the end that it wasn't possible. In fact, I know you were disappointed to see it end... but subjectivity is precisely why I ended it. -> "The other part is the order of rank over epistemology. What is "The Order of Rank?" It is that subjective piece that we all have in our own mental frameworks, that informs us as to what types of information we place the most reliance upon. Where I diverge from David, for example, is that for me, an explanation must be predictable and reliable, where reliability is essentially dictated by the scientific method. (I only make claims upon those things that I can study.)" > > I don't actually understand your first sentence, but any hierarchy has to suit the subject under consideration. I'm sure there would be a consensus that the scientific method is best for unravelling the complexities of the purely material world. But every subject one can think of will entail different "types of information" and, as you've indicated, the scientific method will be of little assistance in many of those that matter most to us (e.g. love, human relations, ethics, aesthetics). As I see it, there simply cannot be a clear epistemological hierarchy when it comes to questions concerning the source of the universe or of life, or the nature of consciousness in all its manifestations. This is a category all on its own. To give the scientific method priority is tantamount to saying that there is nothing beyond the material world as we know it, which is already a decision. That is not meant as a devaluation of science, but David Attenborough's recognition of Darwin's claim that evolution (which we can extend to science generally) is not incompatible with religion is acknowledgement of the need for a balanced perspective as opposed to a hierarchy. And so for me (I can only speak for myself), any belief should remain compatible with those scientific findings on which there is a general consensus, but at the same time it must take into account all those phenomena that science is not able to cover. Among these I would include the long history of psychic experiences, with special emphasis on those that have resulted in the acquisition of information corroborated by independent witnesses (NDEs being only one form). There is no hierarchy, because a hierarchy is itself a judgement. "Taking into account" does not, of course, mean jumping to conclusions, but by now it should be pretty clear that I am not one for jumping to conclusions!-Nietzsche is often considered the beginning of Postmodern thought, precisely, I think, for the reason that he's the first philosopher (I'm aware of) that kept hinting at this "Order of Rank" problem in all his writings, and of course, when people figured it out, they got it all wrong. The bottom of any dispute is in most cases boiled down to this problem of rank--an atheist values rational logic above all else, but doesn't realize he/she adopts just as rigid a position as Bertrand Russell... who's program of axiomatically uniting all of mathematics failed when Godel ushered in his amazing incompleteness theorem.-The fundamental flaw if this line of thinking--one I shared until around the time I joined this forum--is exactly the fact that by not confronting the fact of this *lack* of understanding there is a strong tendency to paper over this weakness by appeals to some mystic future when all will be revealed, logically. A faith as strong as Christ, though not recognized as such by its own believers. -David might even still think that some remnant of this thought underpins my views, considering that I'm willing to wait however many lifetimes it takes to solve these problems. -I think there will be a fundamental shift of mysticism coming to our culture soon, as there will undoubtedly have to be a backlash for the utter dominance of materialistic thinking over the last 100 years...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
say what? (Epistemology)
by scoobypoo , Sunday, February 05, 2012, 18:12 (4676 days ago) @ xeno6696
The problem with this forum in general, and recent replies in this post in particular, is they suppose [nay, require] the participant to be the equivalent of a philosophy major.-Now, while I'm a degreed person [with an above-average IQ] and have read some existentialist tomes as well as other philosophical texts, I am no philosophy or logic expert. I can follow your arguments and yet they seem little more than intellectual exercises.-So this forum may be of interest to 1% of the people, but if you can't explain your positions and present your arguments in terms that an average high school graduate will understand then I think something is missing. (c'mon, it can be done, think of Carl Sagan)-Clearly no harm, and perhaps much fun and stimulating conversation, but I prefer to address what I see as the very real danger of organized religion in today's world, and that means [IMHO] pointing out the ridiculous beliefs that children are brainwashed with.
say what? (Epistemology)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 05, 2012, 20:44 (4676 days ago) @ scoobypoo
... > Clearly no harm, and perhaps much fun and stimulating conversation, but I prefer to address what I see as the very real danger of organized religion in today's world, and that means [IMHO] pointing out the ridiculous beliefs that children are brainwashed with.-As for anything that I've written, just tell me what you want re-explained and I'll do it. I assure you, a degree in philosphy is NOT required, as for the 3 main contributors, we have a Shakespearian writer (dhw), a retired heart surgeon (David), and a programmer/mathematician (yours truly). -Dogma in any form is my enemy. Faith is my enemy. Let us be clear about these two things. -You mention ridiculous beliefs--which ones? And, as I have pointed out in the words above--as long as there is no "one true guiding path" we don't exactly have a lot of say and/or leverage to dictate or force a path for people to follow. There will always be people who won't care for logic and will dismiss wide swaths of well-argued positions simply because their direct experience dictates otherwise. And at the end of the day, I have no more say over say, Santorum's beliefs than Dawkins does. -David, our resident theist, argues philosophically for a creator, purely because of life's complexity: because he values intuition more than empiricism and feels strongly that the "God of the Gaps" is bridged by his observations. Is he correct? We can't say. Can he deliver material proof of a creator? Even he dictates that this is impossible. One of his strongest arguments lies in the fact that theories of abiogenesis are little farther along now than they were nearly 60 years ago. (He believes its time to call it quits here.)-^^^You can't neatly refute this. If someone teaches that to their kids, guess who doesn't get a say in it? You or me. We also don't get to call it brainwashing, because as long as people exist that value direct experience/intuition over empiricism (what I called "The Order of Rank") there will exist no basis to call something "brainwashing." The question of which one is superior is subjective.-Phrased in another way: protecting children from what you call "brainwashing" is ultimately an "ought to" question. "We ought to do x..." This is a normative question--meaning its opinion. There exists no objective criteria to say "We ought to teach Christ risen in 3 days is false." Not unless you can make everyone agree that empiricism is fundamentally superior to any and all modes of thinking. -And good luck on that. I wasted 15 years on that windmill. -Some writers also argue that faith is an evolutionary mechanism... considering every society has some kind of religion, I'm inclined to agree.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
say what? (Epistemology)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 05, 2012, 20:48 (4676 days ago) @ scoobypoo
If you want a different way of how I worded the previous post to dhw, it is this:-Any position of strict materialism fails, because of these points:-1. Science ultimately boils everything into mathematics. (A question must be true OR false.) <--If you don't want details, you will take this on faith. 2. Godel's incompleteness theorem dictates that any system of axioms will contain at least one property that you can't explain using the rules of the system. -It is exactly this argument that convinced Einstein a "Theory of Everything" was futile. Some physicists have countered that physics only uses mathematics to describe the natural world, and that because of this Godel's incompleteness theorem doesn't apply. Without getting into the technicals you (again) have to take it on faith that physics, if it wants to be able to use numbers, necessarily takes on ALL of the rules of mathematics--it doesn't get to pick and choose, and by virtue of that alone, you will never create a "theory of everything."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
say what? (Epistemology)
by romansh 
, Sunday, February 05, 2012, 22:42 (4676 days ago) @ xeno6696
I would agree that there is a difference between disbelieving and not believing. And disbelieving has an element of faith; in the same sense believing in a negative statement. eg there are no pixies under my garden shed. -While in practice or pragmatically I might disbelieve in pixies under my garden shed, philosophically speaking I just don't believe in those pixies. Just simply because there is no evidence for the said pixies, other than some Victorian tales.-This is a general comment and not aimed particularly at anyone's post in particular.
say what? (Epistemology)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 06, 2012, 00:02 (4675 days ago) @ romansh
I would agree that there is a difference between disbelieving and not believing. And disbelieving has an element of faith; in the same sense believing in a negative statement. eg there are no pixies under my garden shed. > > While in practice or pragmatically I might disbelieve in pixies under my garden shed, philosophically speaking I just don't believe in those pixies. Just simply because there is no evidence for the said pixies, other than some Victorian tales. > > This is a general comment and not aimed particularly at anyone's post in particular.-No, but its directly pertinent to the discussion we were having.-Thanks for dropping in again!!!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
say what? (Epistemology)
by romansh , Tuesday, February 07, 2012, 02:16 (4674 days ago) @ xeno6696
I would agree that there is a difference between disbelieving and not believing. And disbelieving has an element of faith; in the same sense believing in a negative statement. eg there are no pixies under my garden shed. > > > > While in practice or pragmatically I might disbelieve in pixies under my garden shed, philosophically speaking I just don't believe in those pixies. Just simply because there is no evidence for the said pixies, other than some Victorian tales. > > > > This is a general comment and not aimed particularly at anyone's post in particular. > > No, but its directly pertinent to the discussion we were having. I'm not sure to which part you are saying No to Matt.-It can't be to all of it, while you may disagree with my opinion, you would need magical powers to deduce that I don't have my opinion.-
> > Thanks for dropping in again!!!-Yeah - just keeping you guys on the straight and narrow So to speak
say what?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 21:53 (4681 days ago) @ scoobypoo
I said I'd get to that other bit later.-The ultimate root of problems between theists and non-theists relies not on claims about the material world. -What the root of the problem is a difference in a philosophical problem detailed by Nietzsche in the late 1800's--The Order of Rank.-At root for many theists--especially those of Hinduism, and to a lesser extent famous Catholic mystics such as St. John of the Cross--is a feeling of "holiness" (for lack of a better word) when performing some act analogous to my own meditation. For some people, this feeling is God. And many of them are perfectly willing to admit--that it could just be the firing of neurons in their head--but due to that nature of "the odds" I alluded to in my earlier post, they are willing to go beyond a suspension of belief (the only correct mode for an agnostic) and to believe. -What's at stake between a theist and a non-theist, is partially an argument over the order of rank of evidence. The direct experience of these mystics is the only evidence they need. But to a staunch materialist, the only evidence they accept is something that can be grokked by the 6 senses, but defined by components available to 5. (The mind can take itself as input, hence 6.) Non-theists always claim they win when a claim is presented that can only be experienced, yet I MUST point out that as an everyday fact, nearly EVERY experience we have as a human being is something that falls into the category of "must be experienced." Explain the color green to someone who is color blind. Can you do this? The best you can do scientifically is to give an abstract numerical value, a wavelength of light between 520...570nm. But we're no longer talking about the color green... not really... we're talking about light. -The other part is the order of rank over epistemology. What is "The Order of Rank?" It is that subjective piece that we all have in our own mental frameworks, that informs us as to what types of information we place the most reliance upon. Where I diverge from David, for example, is that for me, an explanation must be predictable and reliable, where reliability is essentially dictated by the scientific method. (I only make claims upon those things that I can study.) -But I recognize that this is a personal distinction, that I devalue direct experience when compared to a good scientific model. I don't have (and am not allowed to have) any say over what someone else's "Order of Rank" should be. -Dawkins often makes arguments akin to, "Theists use logic on everything but their own beliefs." However he misses the point that these theists probably view their experience as surpassing and beyond what logic is capable of describing. It is human nature to be irrational.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"