Page 28 of 32 [ 499 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next

KimD
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 576

03 Aug 2021, 2:38 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
Harry Haller wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Number one is a form of fantasy.

I do not disagree.

I hypothesize we all start there; and some evolve.

1. Belief;
2. Observation and reason.

That's what it was like for me. Like any normal child, at first I didn't think to doubt what I was told. I don't know whether it was the contradictory nature of alternative advice / instruction, the contradictory nature of my own experiences, or the development of my mind to understand the notion of disbelief that first taught me that not everything I was told was the absolute truth.

With religion, my family was secular and they never said a word about deities. I was first exposed to religion at the age of 5 at school. Initially I don't suppose I had any particular reason to doubt it. Nothing else the teachers taught me so far had shown itself to be false or debatable. But somewhere along the line I eventually picked up the idea that it could be false. Perhaps it was even the religious teaching itself, which mentioned belief and unbelief, that put such an idea into my head. I do remember feeling anxious because of my doubts. They were telling us that we needed to believe the stories in order to go to heaven, and there was a strong insinuation that there was something seriously wrong with anybody who didn't believe it.

Luckily I heard one story in which I didn't notice any cognitive belief expressed, only actions that merely suggest belief, and that was enough to get whoever it was healed by Jesus, who then declared that their faith had healed them. I can't find the story now, and I may have heard it wrong at the time, or even been taught it wrong, but although the teacher didn't stress the point I'd noticed, I was relieved to conclude that cognitive belief wasn't strictly necessary. Because I knew that I wasn't convinced about the veracity of what I was being told, and that my doubt wasn't something I could unlearn, any more than I can unlearn any other idea that occurs to me that still seems plausible in spite of every argument I can think of to discredit it. And I don't thank the buffoons who put me through that worrying experience. God or no god, my doubt was harming nobody and I didn't deserve the anxiety and guilt feelings their teaching inflicted on me.

During the following 2 or 3 decades I rejected superstition more and more. The last thing to go was the idea that there may be some conscious supernatural thingy that had planned our existence and was somehow looking after us and had some kind of a purpose and an afterlife for us.

I'd dispensed with orthodox Christianity long before that went, because I could see so much wrong with it, so much I disapproved of (such as St. Paul) and I'd never been exposed to the notion that scripture was literally and perfectly true or that there was any particular merit in studying it, except out of academic interest in it as a fascinating set of old documents, and to test its veracity. I find the idea that witches have supernatural power to be laughable, ditto that spiritualists really communicate with the dead, but scripture believes they have that kind of power. So from that perspective I'm damned for not believing in witches and spirit mediums.

One thing that impressed me was in some book (about the Sphinx, the megaliths, and / or the Dead Sea Scrolls), which said that a lot of people find it a struggle to think freely for themselves about matters that might support their rejection of any indoctrination they'd already absorbed, and that strong guilt and fear were likely to be encountered along the way. That resonated with me.

When I was about 40 years old I happened to crack a very irreverent joke about the deity, and had a slightly uneasy time of it travelling through a thunderstorm immediately afterwards. And yet here I am. The superstition I'd absorbed over my life from certain people around me was clearly not quite dead at that age. But imagine the insane magical thinking of it, actually harbouring the notion that the deity was about to strike me with lightning for poking fun at him. It didn't make me stay indoors till the storm was over, or otherwise hamper my activities, but it was there, and to this day it reminds me of how strong the primitive parts of the mind can be, and how easily it can put silly ideas into an otherwise fairly level-headed person.


Much of this rings clear as a bell to my ears! The myths created by people looking to scare others into submitting to their specific doctrine do far more harm than good. (I won't go into detail on this thread, but because of hallucinogenic reactions to anti-inflammatory steroids, I've had to wrestle with them myself.) My husband is a direct descendant of Jonathan Edwards, best known for his sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God;" I owe him and his pervasive influence no thanks at all. I'm certainly not alone!



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

03 Aug 2021, 4:09 pm

I probably should add a caveat that I do not object to people seeking spiritual solace in religion. Belief and faith is actually a beautiful thing when it's sincere.

Belief in this context is helpful when
1. People do it for embarking on their own spiritual journey
2. The teaching reinforces the idea that all humans are on this journey of self-discovery (whether they know it or not)
3. Knowing point 2 we treat all our fellow humans as we would treat ourselves
4. We don't use religion as way of stratifying or manipulating society

My parents are both religious. My father (like me) was once a scientist before retiring. He happily marries his scientific scepticism with belief in Jesus as the saviour of mankind and the son of god. I respect his beliefs and that of anyone who is sincere in their beliefs so long as they don't conflict with my points 1-4.

On the issue of observation and reason, I think this is problematic. The moment you bring in logic into religion then it literally opens a pandora's box of questions which effectively interfere with your spiritual journey.

I would focus on the benefits of what religion means for you rather than theological questioning. There is salience in having family members part of a community who look out for one another. In that respect there is nothing absurd about that.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

03 Aug 2021, 4:32 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Oh, I’m sorry, I don’t recall naming names. :lol: If you fit that description, that’s not my problem. :mrgreen: At any rate, the whole “evidence, evidence” does come across as a little screechy at times.

By that I mean specifically those who demand evidence with no intention of ever accepting it.

No, I don't think I said anything that would make you think I was accusing you of getting personal, though your words here seem to be fast heading that way. Before, I suspect you were just using the term to help dismiss those who want things to be evidence-based. I'll leave it to observers to decide for themselves which arguments they find the most coherent, clear and credible. If you provide anything like that, there will likely be a spectrum of different personal reactions to it, some expressed, some not.

Naw, bro. We good. :heart:

ToughDiamond wrote:
For my part, I think much of what you say is either without evidence or just unclear. There's a lot of it, and I doubt I'll ever get through it all. But occasionally I see something where at least the error seems plain, such as your syllogism about Trump and charity, though you might see my reply as being just me rejecting your evidence. Nobody who uses their intelligence well can swallow an idea that doesn't make sense to them, or an idea that looks seriously faulty, and if your syllogism had been correct then I wouldn't have rejected it - indeed I didn't reject it out of hand, I carefully explained the problem with it, and I think I was clear.

I wanted to respond re Trump, but the internet ate it and I can’t edit my post. Oh well. But you are correct, and point taken.

Even so, I’ve never known anyone to go along with any evidence or proof if they disagreed with the conclusion from the outset.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,147

03 Aug 2021, 5:17 pm

KimD wrote:

Much of this rings clear as a bell to my ears! The myths created by people looking to scare others into submitting to their specific doctrine do far more harm than good. (I won't go into detail on this thread, but because of hallucinogenic reactions to anti-inflammatory steroids, I've had to wrestle with them myself.) My husband is a direct descendant of Jonathan Edwards, best known for his sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God;" I owe him and his pervasive influence no thanks at all. I'm certainly not alone!


You may have had it worse than I did then. The religionists around me seemed nice enough, it was all done very gently, just that some of the messages they conveyed weren't so nice.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,147

03 Aug 2021, 6:39 pm

AngelRho wrote:
I’ve never known anyone to go along with any evidence or proof if they disagreed with the conclusion from the outset.

It probably is rare. Even in the science jobs I've had, not everybody was keen on being contradicted, to say the least, but quite a lot of them understood the value of staying open to their ideas being challenged by reason.

In one place I worked, there was a meme that you had to have a rigid-walled piece of tubing on a vacuum suction device to get a decent flowrate of liquid through it. As such tubing wasn't always available or convenient to use, I used a flexible tube, and drew criticism for doing that. So I did a simple experiment to compare the flowrates of flexible and rigid tubing. There was no measurable difference, but I couldn't get them to take me seriously. My results were a little counter-intuitive, because the flexible tube would visibly collapse when under vacuum, and it appeared to be thus so constricted that it was superficially hard to see how the flowrate through it wouldn't be reduced. If you tread on a hosepipe the water is supposed to stop, isn't it? But my empirical findings were that the water didn't stop, wasn't even slowed down, presumably because the tubing wasn't totally flattened and occluded, but for whatever reason it did the job, though they never accepted my findings. I think one of the reasons was that they'd have had to stick around for half an hour or so to watch the experiment carefully, and as they already thought I was wrong, they thought it would be a waste of their time. Or maybe they suspected I was right, but they didn't want to spend the time only to being proved wrong by somebody below their rank.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

03 Aug 2021, 9:15 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
The weakness of screaming for evidence is no one can force you to accept evidence when you have it.
Interesting that you say we scream. How many people do we know of who raised their voices to that level when asking for evidence? I can't think of one.
Good point ToughDiamond. It's like AngelRho is trying to paint his opponents in a bad light. Is it wrong to ask for evidence?

If AngelRho wants them to believe something without presenting evidence, he's first going to have to drastically change their world view to one where evidence is irrelevant before he even presents them with the thing he wants them to believe. I don't envy him because doing that would be no easy task.
AngelRho wrote:
I don’t think you understand the fallacy. Adjusting an argument that doesn’t work as well as one would like it to work until it does work is not a fallacy.
This sounds an awful lot like trying to adjust the argument to fit the conclusion. You wouldn't happen to be a creationist would you?
Image
AngelRho wrote:
You’re the one claiming that using a different argument is moving the target.
Am I now. Ok, show me when I claimed that using a different argument is moving the target. You can put it in a quote box.
AngelRho wrote:
The weakness of screaming for evidence is no one can force you to accept evidence when you have it.
Who says I need to be forced? Who says I won't accept evidence when I get it? It sounds like you're trying to paint atheists as irrational people who scream a lot and don't accept evidence when they get it.
AngelRho wrote:
If evidence is that important, please explain to me why anyone should use the scientific method when there is no evidence for it.
I already gave you evidence for the success of the scientific method. Which one of us doesn't accept evidence when we get it?

Could you give me evidence that people will get into heaven using your methods?
AngelRho wrote:
Earlier you said something to the effect that apologists are Texas sharpshooters for correcting older ideas with newer ideas
That's not what I said. I said they're Texas sharpshooters for changing an arbitrary set of hypothetical preconditions until it matches their unhanging conclusion.
AngelRho wrote:
now you’re complaining about older ideas?
No I'm not. Show me where I said old ideas are bad. It really seems like you're trying to have an argument with someone else who said other things rather than with me.
AngelRho wrote:
Evidence based reasoning did not lead to my iPad.
Yes it did. The scientific discovered that lead your iPad all used evidence in some form.
AngelRho wrote:
It produces results? Such as…?
The result is in your hand.
AngelRho wrote:
I do also doubt the mind.
Everything you've written came from the mind.
AngelRho wrote:
You’re basically arguing sola indicio when the people or robots or who/whatever they were assembled my iPad from parts, which themselves were in turn designed and manufactured by people operating under the unproven, untested assumption that certain principles worked together to yield desired results.
I'm not talking about the manufacturing process. I'm talking about the scientific discoveries that were needed before we could have the technology.
AngelRho wrote:
By your reasoning the battery in my iPad shouldn’t be changed unless the tech guy personally handled the lithium himself.
Ummm, no. This whole by your reasoning non-sequitur thing isn't going to get you very far. For your own sake don't rely on strawmen.

I'd tell you to rely on evidence but you're trying to argue against evidence. I'd speculate that's because you don't have any and that you and perhaps others are trying to create an entire world view to justify a conclusion that was set in stone long before you were born but that's just speculation.
AngelRho wrote:
Nobody actually relies on evidence. Considering the number of cell phone users and iPad users, there is a tiny, select minority of people who have limited internal access (evidence) to the inner workings of devices. Everyone else, like myself, just use the devices.
Nobody? Nobody in all the history of the world? I'm not talking about the users. I'm talking about scientists, some of whom lived a long time ago. The science came first. Later, inventors relied on evidence from scientists experiments', some of which may initially seemed to have no practical application.
AngelRho wrote:
Why? Because the scientific method is not a “fact.” It is a method, or process.
Who says it's a fact? I've never heard anyone claim the scientific method is a fact.
AngelRho wrote:
Scientists operate under the assumption of its reliability, not it’s “actual existence” in physical reality.
This is strange. Who would think the scientific method has "actual existence in physical reality".
AngelRho wrote:
The reliability of the method justifies belief in it whether or not the scientist actually can cognitively grasp it or can produce evidence of it.
The reliability of the method. That's some good evidence you've found there.

What has Christianity done reliably that can be used as evidence in its favour? Get people into heaven?
AngelRho wrote:
So if you insist on internalist skepticism denouncing, for instance, ontological argument, then be consistent and denounce the scientific method as well.
They're not really the same thing though, are they.
AngelRho wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
There is actually an easy way to fix this: Admit that science assumes faith in things that have been tested in the past, or faith in the reliability of the senses.
So faith is a bad thing now? This reminds me of people who try to insult atheists by saying atheism is a religion while also trying to defend a religion.

Honestly science assumes very little in the reliability of the senses. That's why they use instruments and not direct observation. Unless you're going to say that our senses are so poor that that all scientists involved in testing or retesting the experiment consistently misread the readout in the exact same way.

If science assumes faith in things that have been tested in the path then why does it keep running the same experiments from the past?
Ummm…if scientists don’t use their senses, how do they even know the readout from the instruments? Knowing the results from instruments does require direct observation from the experiments. Without the senses, how can scientists communicate and verify results from repeated experiments?[/quote]I've already explained this to you patiently. Refer to the bolded part.

If you doubt human senses to the point where they can consistently misread the same readout in the same way, how can you trust your eyes when you read the Bible? It might say something totally different but your imperfect eyes misread it. Apply the same standard to yourself.

All these attacks on science. I've seen a lot of Christians do this sort of thing. Not all Christians. I've met some Christians who were very knowladgable on science. Indeed many scientists past and present have been or are Chrisitans and their contributions are welcomed by the scientific community just as much as anyone else's.

I'm not saying it's wrong to attack science. The problem is certain Christians (often creationist ones) who rely so exclusively on attacking the opposing position that they take little time to defend their own.

It's like they're taking the view that if they disprove the opposing position, their position will win by default. Sometimes they outright state this view.

They can't prove their claims or directly so they try to disprove other claims instead. Creationists particularly try to disprove evolution while doing very little to defend their own claims.

If you want to defend Christianity from dorkseid's claim that it's absurd, spend less time talking about science and more time talking about Christianity. Not that science and Christianity should be in opposition to each other. I just think relying too much on the offence is a sign of a poor defence.
AngelRho wrote:
Moreover, do YOU know all the results from every experiment ever run from the beginning of time? Did YOU personally calibrate every instrument?
The wonderful thing about experiments is that you can do them again. Ever taken a science class? The sort of experiment that could have taken years of research to get to many years ago can now be conducted in an afternoon because you're repeating an experiment rather than devising a new one.

Your teachers didn't want you to take the results of some experiment from more than a hundred years on faith. They give you the chance to run the experiment yourself. So there's no need to go back in time hundreds of years or run every experiment since the beginning of time.

At higher levels of education, professors are given tenure so they can challenge established knowledge without fear of losing their position. Except professors of theology that is. They have to sign statements of faith. Maybe they don't have all that much faith if they need to sign a contract to make sure they still have some. Maybe they don't have so much faith if they're afraid of being challenged on certain things from within their own field.

Anyway, rather than asking if I'm seen every experiment run since the beginning of time, ask yourself if you've seen every part of the Bible written down. Ask yourself if you've personally seen every event it describes. Apply the same standards to yourself.
AngelRho wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
I even heard a preacher of the old fire-and-brimstone type, and half thought myself to have walked into the 19th century. It was such a spectacle that I made a sound recording of him, though apparently it's not seen as unusual in the area he preached in.
The fire and brimstone thing is dated even for much of southern society. I’ve heard a number of theologians teach about the reality of hell and complain that others are too scared to preach about it for fear that it’s unattractive to seekers.
Dated? Why does the perfect revelation keep changing? Why does it change from region to region or church to church, not only their practices (different ceremonies for example) but the actual beleifs.

If people in different times and places derive different beliefs from the same source material, how can you trust your own beliefs from it?
AngelRho wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Exactly what, for instance, is getting in the way of logically concluding that aliens exist because of Mesoamerican and Egyptian pyramids? The civilizations that were active in building those structures are long gone, those who initiated those building projects have left little clues as to their purpose, and inscriptions are not entirely forthcoming in their meaning.
They actually left behind some pretty good clues as to their purpose if you study them.
Who left behind some clues? The ALIENS? Yeah, Puma Punku surely was an alien landing/launching pad that “they” destroyed on their way out. Clues, indeed!
"They" in response to "the civilizations that were active in building those structures". I wasn't referring to the aliens.

Neither one of us believes aliens built the pyramids. I realise that you brought this up for the sake up argument but taking ancient aliens beyond that point would be tangential to our discussion.
The point is, how do you know any differently? Have you personally been to Puma Punku? Or do you just take my word for it, or Wikipedia’s word for it, or…idk, The Smithsonian Channel or Discovery or History Channel or whoever the heck made the documentary about it? No, I don’t buy into ancient astronauts theory, but the History Channel series is entertaining. But for all you really know, ancient astronauts is just as valid as anything.
Is that how your religious beleifs work as well? For all we know, they're just as valid as anything so we might as well believe in them? I'm not trying to make a strawman, I'm genuinly asking.
AngelRho wrote:
All knowledge is revealed by God, regardless. If it’s good enough for God, it’s good enough for me.
If he exists. If you don't like evidence than your own methods to demonstrate his existence. Until you have done that, talking about whether or not all knowledge comes from him is putting the cart before the horse.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,147

03 Aug 2021, 10:58 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
The weakness of screaming for evidence is no one can force you to accept evidence when you have it.
Interesting that you say we scream. How many people do we know of who raised their voices to that level when asking for evidence? I can't think of one.
Good point ToughDiamond. It's like AngelRho is trying to paint his opponents in a bad light. Is it wrong to ask for evidence?

Yes, and I think debate would be better if everybody stuck to more accurate language, but most people don't, and I don't think they're always deliberately using emotive language as a brainwashing tool. I think sometimes it's just down to genuine strong feelings. I just much prefer it when what people say is devoid of the faintest suspicion of propaganda, when the assertions are clearly and soberly stated, owned as opinion when they're not (as yet) universally acknowledged to be true, and backed up by coherent reasoning with externally-verifiable evidence. Most of us, self included, fall short of the mark at least sometimes, and few are used to hearing propaganda-free language, because there's not that much of it about.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

03 Aug 2021, 11:23 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
The weakness of screaming for evidence is no one can force you to accept evidence when you have it.
Interesting that you say we scream. How many people do we know of who raised their voices to that level when asking for evidence? I can't think of one.
Good point ToughDiamond. It's like AngelRho is trying to paint his opponents in a bad light. Is it wrong to ask for evidence?

Yes, and I think debate would be better if everybody stuck to more accurate language, but most people don't, and I don't think they're always deliberately using emotive language as a brainwashing tool. I think sometimes it's just down to genuine strong feelings. I just much prefer it when what people say is devoid of the faintest suspicion of propaganda, when the assertions are clearly and soberly stated, owned as opinion when they're not (as yet) universally acknowledged to be true, and backed up by coherent reasoning with externally-verifiable evidence. Most of us, self included, fall short of the mark at least sometimes, and few are used to hearing propaganda-free language, because there's not that much of it about.

You put it better than I could. When I speculate about something I try to remember to say something like "this is just speculation".

I think, unintentionally or not, too much repetition can also be part of the emotive language. Or perhaps it's just caused by having strong feelings about something. I value AngelRho's advice on other topics but on this thread it was almost like he was screaming that atheists are screaming for evidence. Not literally of course but the repetition of accusing other people of having the wrong emotions while asking for evidence made it seem that way.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

03 Aug 2021, 11:46 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
The weakness of screaming for evidence is no one can force you to accept evidence when you have it.
Interesting that you say we scream. How many people do we know of who raised their voices to that level when asking for evidence? I can't think of one.
Good point ToughDiamond. It's like AngelRho is trying to paint his opponents in a bad light. Is it wrong to ask for evidence?

If AngelRho wants them to believe something without presenting evidence, he's first going to have to drastically change their world view to one where evidence is irrelevant before he even presents them with the thing he wants them to believe. I don't envy him because doing that would be no easy task.
AngelRho wrote:
I don’t think you understand the fallacy. Adjusting an argument that doesn’t work as well as one would like it to work until it does work is not a fallacy.
This sounds an awful lot like trying to adjust the argument to fit the conclusion. You wouldn't happen to be a creationist would you?
Image
AngelRho wrote:
You’re the one claiming that using a different argument is moving the target.
Am I now. Ok, show me when I claimed that using a different argument is moving the target. You can put it in a quote box.
AngelRho wrote:
The weakness of screaming for evidence is no one can force you to accept evidence when you have it.
Who says I need to be forced? Who says I won't accept evidence when I get it? It sounds like you're trying to paint atheists as irrational people who scream a lot and don't accept evidence when they get it.
AngelRho wrote:
If evidence is that important, please explain to me why anyone should use the scientific method when there is no evidence for it.
I already gave you evidence for the success of the scientific method. Which one of us doesn't accept evidence when we get it?

Could you give me evidence that people will get into heaven using your methods?
AngelRho wrote:
Earlier you said something to the effect that apologists are Texas sharpshooters for correcting older ideas with newer ideas
That's not what I said. I said they're Texas sharpshooters for changing an arbitrary set of hypothetical preconditions until it matches their unhanging conclusion.
AngelRho wrote:
now you’re complaining about older ideas?
No I'm not. Show me where I said old ideas are bad. It really seems like you're trying to have an argument with someone else who said other things rather than with me.
AngelRho wrote:
Evidence based reasoning did not lead to my iPad.
Yes it did. The scientific discovered that lead your iPad all used evidence in some form.
AngelRho wrote:
It produces results? Such as…?
The result is in your hand.
AngelRho wrote:
I do also doubt the mind.
Everything you've written came from the mind.
AngelRho wrote:
You’re basically arguing sola indicio when the people or robots or who/whatever they were assembled my iPad from parts, which themselves were in turn designed and manufactured by people operating under the unproven, untested assumption that certain principles worked together to yield desired results.
I'm not talking about the manufacturing process. I'm talking about the scientific discoveries that were needed before we could have the technology.
AngelRho wrote:
By your reasoning the battery in my iPad shouldn’t be changed unless the tech guy personally handled the lithium himself.
Ummm, no. This whole by your reasoning non-sequitur thing isn't going to get you very far. For your own sake don't rely on strawmen.

I'd tell you to rely on evidence but you're trying to argue against evidence. I'd speculate that's because you don't have any and that you and perhaps others are trying to create an entire world view to justify a conclusion that was set in stone long before you were born but that's just speculation.
AngelRho wrote:
Nobody actually relies on evidence. Considering the number of cell phone users and iPad users, there is a tiny, select minority of people who have limited internal access (evidence) to the inner workings of devices. Everyone else, like myself, just use the devices.
Nobody? Nobody in all the history of the world? I'm not talking about the users. I'm talking about scientists, some of whom lived a long time ago. The science came first. Later, inventors relied on evidence from scientists experiments', some of which may initially seemed to have no practical application.
AngelRho wrote:
Why? Because the scientific method is not a “fact.” It is a method, or process.
Who says it's a fact? I've never heard anyone claim the scientific method is a fact.
AngelRho wrote:
Scientists operate under the assumption of its reliability, not it’s “actual existence” in physical reality.
This is strange. Who would think the scientific method has "actual existence in physical reality".
AngelRho wrote:
The reliability of the method justifies belief in it whether or not the scientist actually can cognitively grasp it or can produce evidence of it.
The reliability of the method. That's some good evidence you've found there.

What has Christianity done reliably that can be used as evidence in its favour? Get people into heaven?
AngelRho wrote:
So if you insist on internalist skepticism denouncing, for instance, ontological argument, then be consistent and denounce the scientific method as well.
They're not really the same thing though, are they.
AngelRho wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
There is actually an easy way to fix this: Admit that science assumes faith in things that have been tested in the past, or faith in the reliability of the senses.
So faith is a bad thing now? This reminds me of people who try to insult atheists by saying atheism is a religion while also trying to defend a religion.

Honestly science assumes very little in the reliability of the senses. That's why they use instruments and not direct observation. Unless you're going to say that our senses are so poor that that all scientists involved in testing or retesting the experiment consistently misread the readout in the exact same way.

If science assumes faith in things that have been tested in the path then why does it keep running the same experiments from the past?
Ummm…if scientists don’t use their senses, how do they even know the readout from the instruments? Knowing the results from instruments does require direct observation from the experiments. Without the senses, how can scientists communicate and verify results from repeated experiments?
I've already explained this to you patiently. Refer to the bolded part.

If you doubt human senses to the point where they can consistently misread the same readout in the same way, how can you trust your eyes when you read the Bible? It might say something totally different but your imperfect eyes misread it. Apply the same standard to yourself.

All these attacks on science. I've seen a lot of Christians do this sort of thing. Not all Christians. I've met some Christians who were very knowladgable on science. Indeed many scientists past and present have been or are Chrisitans and their contributions are welcomed by the scientific community just as much as anyone else's.

I'm not saying it's wrong to attack science. The problem is certain Christians (often creationist ones) who rely so exclusively on attacking the opposing position that they take little time to defend their own.

It's like they're taking the view that if they disprove the opposing position, their position will win by default. Sometimes they outright state this view.

They can't prove their claims or directly so they try to disprove other claims instead. Creationists particularly try to disprove evolution while doing very little to defend their own claims.

If you want to defend Christianity from dorkseid's claim that it's absurd, spend less time talking about science and more time talking about Christianity. Not that science and Christianity should be in opposition to each other. I just think relying too much on the offence is a sign of a poor defence.
AngelRho wrote:
Moreover, do YOU know all the results from every experiment ever run from the beginning of time? Did YOU personally calibrate every instrument?
The wonderful thing about experiments is that you can do them again. Ever taken a science class? The sort of experiment that could have taken years of research to get to many years ago can now be conducted in an afternoon because you're repeating an experiment rather than devising a new one.

Your teachers didn't want you to take the results of some experiment from more than a hundred years on faith. They give you the chance to run the experiment yourself. So there's no need to go back in time hundreds of years or run every experiment since the beginning of time.

At higher levels of education, professors are given tenure so they can challenge established knowledge without fear of losing their position. Except professors of theology that is. They have to sign statements of faith. Maybe they don't have all that much faith if they need to sign a contract to make sure they still have some. Maybe they don't have so much faith if they're afraid of being challenged on certain things from within their own field.

Anyway, rather than asking if I'm seen every experiment run since the beginning of time, ask yourself if you've seen every part of the Bible written down. Ask yourself if you've personally seen every event it describes. Apply the same standards to yourself.
AngelRho wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
I even heard a preacher of the old fire-and-brimstone type, and half thought myself to have walked into the 19th century. It was such a spectacle that I made a sound recording of him, though apparently it's not seen as unusual in the area he preached in.
The fire and brimstone thing is dated even for much of southern society. I’ve heard a number of theologians teach about the reality of hell and complain that others are too scared to preach about it for fear that it’s unattractive to seekers.
Dated? Why does the perfect revelation keep changing? Why does it change from region to region or church to church, not only their practices (different ceremonies for example) but the actual beleifs.

If people in different times and places derive different beliefs from the same source material, how can you trust your own beliefs from it?
AngelRho wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Exactly what, for instance, is getting in the way of logically concluding that aliens exist because of Mesoamerican and Egyptian pyramids? The civilizations that were active in building those structures are long gone, those who initiated those building projects have left little clues as to their purpose, and inscriptions are not entirely forthcoming in their meaning.
They actually left behind some pretty good clues as to their purpose if you study them.
Who left behind some clues? The ALIENS? Yeah, Puma Punku surely was an alien landing/launching pad that “they” destroyed on their way out. Clues, indeed!
"They" in response to "the civilizations that were active in building those structures". I wasn't referring to the aliens.

Neither one of us believes aliens built the pyramids. I realise that you brought this up for the sake up argument but taking ancient aliens beyond that point would be tangential to our discussion.
The point is, how do you know any differently? Have you personally been to Puma Punku? Or do you just take my word for it, or Wikipedia’s word for it, or…idk, The Smithsonian Channel or Discovery or History Channel or whoever the heck made the documentary about it? No, I don’t buy into ancient astronauts theory, but the History Channel series is entertaining. But for all you really know, ancient astronauts is just as valid as anything.
Is that how your religious beleifs work as well? For all we know, they're just as valid as anything so we might as well believe in them? I'm not trying to make a strawman, I'm genuinly asking.
AngelRho wrote:
All knowledge is revealed by God, regardless. If it’s good enough for God, it’s good enough for me.
If he exists. If you don't like evidence than your own methods to demonstrate his existence. Until you have done that, talking about whether or not all knowledge comes from him is putting the cart before the horse.

I’m not going any further down that path. ToughDiamond has done an excellent job of having this discussion without misrepresenting my views. If you care about a response from me, that’s a good example to follow.

Evidence is not logically necessary to justify a belief. The scientific method is a PROCESS. There is no evidence that any process exists. There are no “parts” to the method that can be internally, intellectually grasped. It is something that exists only in the mind. Belief in the scientific method is considered justified by its relationship to facts that are external to the user’s subjective awareness. It is otherwise impossible to view the scientific method as rational. If it is irrational, then it is unreliable. It is impossible for the method to be rational otherwise because the method holds that things must be externally verified or verifiable. The scientific method isn’t allowed to hold itself to a lower standard. It must itself be externally verifiable. How? It must be observed and reported…except observation and report are actually part of the method itself. That is circular reasoning. It’s not actually possible to externally verify the scientific method and hold it to its own standards. It has a reliability problem.

If you can show that something is reliable, which the method is supposedly known to be, then you can also show that it is rational without need for evidence, or facts outside subjective awareness. If that is true, then it is rational that evidence is not necessary to justify belief. If you can make an exception for the scientific method, you can make an exception for other beliefs, as well.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

04 Aug 2021, 1:46 am

AngelRho wrote:
I’m not going any further down that path.  ToughDiamond has done an excellent job of having this discussion without misrepresenting my views.  If you care about a response from me, that’s a good example to follow.

Whether or not you respond is your choice, not mine.

AngelRho wrote:
Evidence is not logically necessary to justify a belief.  The scientific method is a PROCESS.  There is no evidence that any process exists.  There are no “parts” to the method that can be internally, intellectually grasped.  It is something that exists only in the mind.

Speaking of misrepresenting views, when did I say the scientific method wasn't a process? Methods have steps, not parts. Don't tell me you're trying to educate me in the idea that the scientific method doesn't have a physical existence. Is that what you think I think?

AngelRho wrote:
Belief in the scientific method is considered justified by its relationship to facts that are external to the user’s subjective awareness.

Of course.

AngelRho wrote:
It is impossible for the method to be rational otherwise because the method holds that things must be externally verified or verifiable. 

It does not follow.

AngelRho wrote:
The scientific method isn’t allowed to hold itself to a lower standard.  It must itself be externally verifiable.  How?  It must be observed and reported…except observation and report are actually part of the method itself.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

AngelRho wrote:
That is circular reasoning.  It’s not actually possible to externally verify the scientific method and hold it to its own standards.

It's no more circular reasoning than the valves in a car being pushed by the camshaft which is driven from the crankshaft which could not turn without the action of the camshaft. Does that mean cars are impossible because they're based on "circular reasoning"?

AngelRho wrote:
It has a reliability problem.

It's better than nothing, which is what you've given us.

Speaking of which, as I said before, the problem is attacking science without defending your own version of epistemology.

It's the same thing creationists do when they attack evolution without defending their own version of biology.

You can say what you want but it would be better for you if you defended your own ideas rather than being all offence and no defence. No one does themselves any favours relying on a glass cannon.

AngelRho wrote:
If you can show that something is reliable, which the method is supposedly known to be, then you can also show that it is rational without need for evidence, or facts outside subjective awareness. If that is true, then it is rational that evidence is not necessary to justify belief.

But the process relies on evidence to work.

AngelRho wrote:
If you can make an exception for the scientific method, you can make an exception for other beliefs, as well.

I haven't made any exception.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

04 Aug 2021, 6:05 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
If you can show that something is reliable, which the method is supposedly known to be, then you can also show that it is rational without need for evidence, or facts outside subjective awareness. If that is true, then it is rational that evidence is not necessary to justify belief.

But the process relies on evidence to work.

It relies on evidence to work. It does not provide evidence for itself. You can’t scrape a piece of scientific method into a dish and grow a culture of scientific method. You can’t observe a piece of scientific method under a microscope. You can’t point a telescope at scientific method and track its movement across the sky. You can’t sprinkle scientific method into a glass of distilled water and describe the taste. The scientific method does not exist in the same sense as things you might demand evidence for.

If everything requires internally accessible evidence to be considered true or valid, the scientific method is no exception. The problem is that it is impossible to reasonably do that. As I’ve said, the scientific method lies somewhere beyond our subjective awareness. If the scientific method is external and cannot itself be rationally supported by evidence, why use it? What is the justification for believing in the unseen? Pointing to an iPad is not evidence. The iPad is just evidence of an iPad. I’m referring to the method itself. Without the ability to externally verify the method itself, it is merely accepted without evidence.

RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
If you can make an exception for the scientific method, you can make an exception for other beliefs, as well.

I haven't made any exception.

Ok, good. Please show external verification of the scientific method without using elements or products of the method itself. I want EVIDENCE. :lol:



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

04 Aug 2021, 6:07 am

The evidence is in your hands.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

04 Aug 2021, 6:13 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
The evidence is in your hands.

What evidence? I see an iPad. Are you saying that the iPad IS the scientific method? Or is the iPad a product of the scientific method? If it’s a product of the method, then you are using a product or element of the method to prove itself. That’s circular reasoning—you are assuming the method that you must prove.

Try again.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

04 Aug 2021, 6:15 am

It procues results. You and I both know it. Now why don't you show us some evidence that people have gotten into heaven using your religion.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

04 Aug 2021, 6:16 am

AngeRho wrote:
I want EVIDENCE

I thought you didn't like evidence anyway. What's with this double standard of poo-pooing evidence and then demanding it.

I get the same thing when I debate creationists. They demand evidence from their opponents but they never give any for their own claims.

I think it's very convenient that you've selected a system of epistemology that doesn't require evidence for claims but then you switch it out for evidence based reasoning whenever it comes to dealing with something else.

AngeRho wrote:
Over time I notice patterns, one of those being the absurdity of screaming “Evidence! EVIDENCE!! !”

Now you're screaming for evidence. The irony is delightful.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

04 Aug 2021, 7:37 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngeRho wrote:
I want EVIDENCE

I thought you didn't like evidence anyway. What's with this double standard of poo-pooing evidence and then demanding it.

I get the same thing when I debate creationists. They demand evidence from their opponents but they never give any for their own claims.

I think it's very convenient that you've selected a system of epistemology that doesn't require evidence for claims but then you switch it out for evidence based reasoning whenever it comes to dealing with something else.

AngeRho wrote:
Over time I notice patterns, one of those being the absurdity of screaming “Evidence! EVIDENCE!! !”

Now you're screaming for evidence. The irony is delightful.

Why, yes. Yes, I am. And I agree.

I actually never said that anything is bad about evidence, just that evidence is not all-sufficient. If you find the way I demand evidence to be absurd, then you ALMOST see my point.

It’s not that I’m cherry picking an epistemology that doesn’t require evidence. Evidence is useful. The iPad as evidence is useful in demonstrating the reliability of the scientific method to get results. It is not direct evidence of the method ITSELF since abstract ideas are by nature intangible and immaterial. In order to assert any abstract idea or method that exists only in the mind, you have to look beyond things like facts. In order to assert ANY transcendental thing existing both in tandem with and external to the natural world and human subjective experience, you must look externally in order to justify a belief in those things. Reliability, for instance. It is not reasonable to expect to prove the scientific method. All you can do is show the products of it to demonstrate its usefulness. There is no need for evidence to make a rational case for using the scientific method. If it at least proves reliable, then it is reasonably justified. Everything that FOLLOWS will require evidence because it doesn’t fall under the same epistemic area. Science does require evidence and facts as part of the method and avoids unnecessary assumptions. It’s not a question of whether to require evidence when evidence is genuinely called for by the method, but rather whether faith or belief in the method ITSELF is justified.

Totally tangential, but regarding the defense of any position, the OP made assertions regarding Christianity being absurd. Well, I’m wholly unconvinced that the apparent absurdity really holds up in any factual sense. The purpose of the thread, as I see it, is not to defend Christianity but rather to defend a certain view ABOUT Christianity—that it is absurd. Well…I find the rationale behind such an assertion to be absurd. The same external devices that lead to faith in God are the exact same ones that lead to [Morgan Freeman voice][echo=“on”]”SCIENCE”[/Morgan Freeman][/echo]. You cannot have one be absurd without the other being absurd. If one can accept reliability external to evidence as rational justification for one, then one can accept reliability for other things, meaning if it is possible that science isn’t absurd, it is also possible the Christianity isn’t absurd. If Christians find their beliefs to be reliable external to evidence, then Christianity as a belief is rationally justified. It’s not that no evidence exists. It’s that belief is never ABOUT evidence. If you start from a position that a belief is absurd without understanding that the belief is justified, one could offer up the whole universe as evidence and it won’t matter. So why pretend it’s about evidence, anyway?