|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:25 am Post subject: 961 |
 |
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| If I somehow knew that at midnight, I would cease to experience anything, but would continue to function the same as always, to me that would be no different than if I knew I would die at midnight ... |
I probably shouldn't have said "no different". If I knew I were going to die, I could at least consider the possibility that death does not bring cessation of experience. If I knew I would cease to have subjective experiences, that would be like one view of death - the one where all awareness of anything stops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:35 am Post subject: 962 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There's nothing in my model of how consciousness works that is dependent on what the sensation of yellow feels like to you. |
Nor, if it's anything like a scientific theory, is it dependent on my even having sensations. There's no objective evidence I have them. Yet I do. |
OK, thanks, I think I understand what you've been trying to say then.
For me, accepting that everybody has sensations isn't that hard. I know I have them, and everybody I ask say that they have them. That counts as empirical evidence to me, since they're describing something happening inside them. If they were to follow up with statements regarding an almighty deity then I would require additional evidence, since they're no longer claiming something that is internal to them. I mean, I'm perfectly willing to accept that people have faith (an internal mechanism), I'm just not willing to accept that there's a God (an external mechanism) based on that evidence alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:57 pm Post subject: 963 |
|
|
| novice wrote: |
| For me, accepting that everybody has sensations isn't that hard. |
I accept that also.
| novice wrote: |
| I know I have them, and everybody I ask say that they have them. That counts as empirical evidence to me, since they're describing something happening inside them. |
Everybody you ask says so? You must be better at asking the question than I am. I'm getting some denials. But seriously ...
I don't count their saying so as evidence, because their saying so can be explained from pure matter and energy following the laws of physics. I believe a robot can be programmed to say so as convincingly as a human.
But that leads to the next problem: Whether these indescribable subjective experiences affect the describable matter and energy behaving according to describable laws of physics? If they don't, our brains would talk about them as they have been for the last few pages whether they exist or not, which seems weird. If they do, we have scientifically unexplainable and unobservable causes. This is possible, without being detectable, if the indescribable subjective sensations have effects on the physical at a quantum level which appear as random uncaused events (and are conjectured to be such within scientific theories).
My whole point in this diversion was that saying "science fails to detect anything like a universal consciousness" is much like saying "my ears didn't hear a bright flash of light". Ear don't hear light, and science doesn't detect consciousness. Now, if we have that indescribable subjective experiences are affecting the describable matter and energy of my brain behaving according to describable laws of physics, then we can extend this to saying, as many often bother to do, that "science fails to detect anything like a universal consciousness, and fails to detect such a consciousness violating the laws of physics".
A few pages back, Zag expressed a common sentiment:
| Zag wrote: |
Sure it is 'simple' in the English sense of the word, just to say, "well, there's this super-being who can do anything it wants, including violate our laws of physics when it suits him, but he is completely undetectable otherwise.
In the physics sense of the word, though, it is ridiculously complex. |
Well, if some undetectable consciousness of indescribable subjective sensations is affecting matter or energy in my brain, such that my speaking of them is evidence of them ... and is affecting matter or energy in my brain in a way not described by (nor contradicting) any laws of physics, that too, in the physics sense of the word, is ridiculously complex.
And it's right about now that someone will probably again conflate things, and equate consciousness of indescribable subjective sensations with describable physical processes, as if they're on and the same. We let our little knowledge through science become a dangerous thing to our understanding of the universe when we take it as a matter of faith that science is universally applicable.
Maybe Einstein was right when he said "God doe not play dice with the universe" (atheist, I know). Maybe what science conjectures is random (causeless and statistically random) isn't actually causeless. There's no way to tell. Give me a random sequence of 0s and 1s, without looking at it. I will make a copy of it, and select certain bits to flip. I return both copies to you. Can you tell which is the original (random) and which I affected? Randomness, in the sense of there being no cause (not in the sense of statistical properties) is an untestable hypothesis.
Last edited by extropalopakettle on Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:12 pm Post subject: 964 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, if some undetectable consciousness of indescribable subjective sensations is affecting matter or energy in my brain, such that my speaking of them is evidence of them ... |
I don't think the sensations are affecting my brain, I think they're produced by my brain. My hypothesis is that my subjective sensations and my consciousness are produced by my brain's biochemistry. It's a simple hypothesis that fits the observable facts. That hypothesis can't explain the existence of a universal consciousness though, since there's no universal brain. That's why I find the existence of subjective sensations to be in accordance with my understanding of the laws of physics, whereas the existence of an almighty God is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:13 pm Post subject: 965 |
|
|
| novice wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Well, if some undetectable consciousness of indescribable subjective sensations is affecting matter or energy in my brain, such that my speaking of them is evidence of them ... |
I don't think the sensations are affecting my brain, I think they're produced by my brain. My hypothesis is that my subjective sensations and my consciousness are produced by my brain's biochemistry. |
If they don't affect the brain, then we would function the same way, including having this entire discussion, even if we didn't have sensations. That seems weird.
| Quote: |
| It's a simple hypothesis that fits the observable facts. |
I don't think there are any observable facts that that hypothesis fits. What observable facts suggest a brain produces consciousness or subjective sensations?
| Quote: |
| That hypothesis can't explain the existence of a universal consciousness though, since there's no universal brain. |
But if what human and/or animal brains do is unaffected by consciousness, we have no objective evidence of consciousness arising from brains. By "universal brain" you mean something (not necessarily squishy grey matter) that would support consciousness. We don't have any sensible theory about what that might be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:35 pm Post subject: 966 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| novice wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Well, if some undetectable consciousness of indescribable subjective sensations is affecting matter or energy in my brain, such that my speaking of them is evidence of them ... |
I don't think the sensations are affecting my brain, I think they're produced by my brain. My hypothesis is that my subjective sensations and my consciousness are produced by my brain's biochemistry. |
If they don't affect the brain, then we would function the same way, including having this entire discussion, even if we didn't have sensations. That seems weird. |
Also, if that's the case, we don't get awareness of subjective sensations being a product of evolution. It would have no selective advantage. It would be just a "happy accident", as I earlier put it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:26 am Post subject: 967 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| Nsof wrote: |
I am trying to describe an atheist's view.
From a critical standpoint, there are the same amount of evidence for FSM as there are for god - none.
From a scientific perspective if you accept one "imaginary" being you have to accept all of them. |
I don't think either of those positions actually hold.
For the first, you have to assume that every single person who has any sort of belief in God (or even a god) is deluded and that the actions they have performed in the belief that they are serving said God are merely coincidentally good things that they might well have done anyway because of a universal moral code.
At present, I have several thousand years of evidence of people acting because they believed in God*, and zero years of evidence of people acting because they believed in the FSM.
Now it is certainly true that you may indeed chose to reject such evidence as not admissible due to being anecdotal, circumstantial, or not reproducible, or, indeed, that believers are all, in fact, deluded; I wouldn't contest your right to do so (except insofar as to suggest that delusion is in the eye of the beholder.  ). All I know is that I am not unique in saying that this sort of evidence was a major contributory factor to my own faith.
*you may also argue that some people did their "good works" out of fear of Going to Hell. This may be true, but I think that's a theological argument and probably belongs elsewhere.
My issue with your second point is pretty much the same argument actually, quite apart from requiring an acceptance of the basic premise that God is an "imaginary being" (which I think requires a much more precise definition of both "imaginary" and "being".) And it's that I will draw my evidence for God from observation of human action (both good and bad.) I cannot do the same for unicorns - or even Santa Claus come to that, although he certainly has some darn fine evidence on his side!
|
My bold.
We probably disagree about whether all the things you mention above are considered scientific evidence (of God).
I dont understand how you can disagree with the second statement. it states (or at least i wanted it to state ) that if you have two things in the same "scientific bucket" then you have to treat them the same. I think I should have used "unproven" rather than "imaginary".
1) The following hypothesized beings in the set of "unproven" beings: God and all different pantheons with their host of gods.
2) All members of the set (any set) should be treated the same.
I dont think an atheist would agree that the number of followers+time this has been going on is evidence (or at least support for) God nor do these criteria uniquely puts him in his own set.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:26 am Post subject: 968 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
At present, I have several thousand years of evidence of people acting because they believed in God*, and zero years of evidence of people acting because they believed in the FSM.
Now it is certainly true that you may indeed chose to reject such evidence as not admissible due to being anecdotal, circumstantial, or not reproducible, or, indeed, that believers are all, in fact, deluded; I wouldn't contest your right to do so (except insofar as to suggest that delusion is in the eye of the beholder. ). All I know is that I am not unique in saying that this sort of evidence was a major contributory factor to my own faith. |
Two observations on that:
1) There are contradictory religious beliefs with huge numbers of adherents. Mass delusion is a fact.
2) That you acknowledge other people believing contributed, in a major way, to your believing, would suggest delusion would propagate more delusion. I mean, maybe they were all like you (you're "not unique in saying so"), in basing their believing on the fact that others believe. Some people believe something that's false, so others believe it, and then more, etc. If all these people believed because others before them believed, that would suggest others believing is NOT a good reason to believe (if you want to believe what is true), though it may be a common reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:22 am Post subject: 969 |
|
|
| extro wrote: |
| 1) There are contradictory religious beliefs with huge numbers of adherents. Mass delusion is a fact. |
Out of interest, if a belief is partially true and partially invented, is it still a delusion, or does it have be entirely invented to qualify as a delusion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:14 am Post subject: 970 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
| 1) There are contradictory religious beliefs with huge numbers of adherents. Mass delusion is a fact. |
Out of interest, if a belief is partially true and partially invented, is it still a delusion, or does it have be entirely invented to qualify as a delusion? |
I'd say it's possible to believe completely true things for delusional reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:02 pm Post subject: 971 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
| 1) There are contradictory religious beliefs with huge numbers of adherents. Mass delusion is a fact. |
Out of interest, if a belief is partially true and partially invented, is it still a delusion, or does it have be entirely invented to qualify as a delusion? |
Not sure. How do you measure closeness to truth? If I say there's a chimpanzee driving the bus, and it turns out to be a man, how far off was I? If I say the bus driver is a vampire ... well, they're both bipedal hominids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:28 pm Post subject: 972 |
|
|
| jadesmar wrote: |
I'd say it's possible to believe completely true things for delusional reasons. |
Example?
| extro wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| extro wrote: |
| 1) There are contradictory religious beliefs with huge numbers of adherents. Mass delusion is a fact. |
Out of interest, if a belief is partially true and partially invented, is it still a delusion, or does it have be entirely invented to qualify as a delusion? |
Not sure. How do you measure closeness to truth? If I say there's a chimpanzee driving the bus, and it turns out to be a man, how far off was I? If I say the bus driver is a vampire ... well, they're both bipedal hominids. |
If measuring closeness to truth is in question, how can we possibly say with any confidence that a belief is a delusion? Even if a belief seems to contradict another one, they might both be close to being true in the ways in which they don't contradict each other. Unless, of course, a delusion is entirely defined by being an unfounded belief, in which case the question must be asked of what makes a founded belief so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:59 pm Post subject: 973 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| jadesmar wrote: |
I'd say it's possible to believe completely true things for delusional reasons. |
Example? |
Just because you're paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:05 pm Post subject: 974 |
|
|
Scurra used the word "deluded". I didn't go back to see if he picked it up from someone else. I'm not sure what good it does to hash out a definition for "delusion" if just to apply it as a label to things, and go nowhere with it from there. I guess I might define it as a false belief about something of an objective nature held for reasons which are not rational. By "of an objective nature", I simply mean not an opinion ("I believe she's beautiful" versus "I believe God exists").
I tried using Merriam Webster online and got: delusion - something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
Unfortunately, delusively was defined in terms of delusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:22 pm Post subject: 975 |
|
|
It's probably helpful though if everyone uses words to mean the same thing.
Even truth can be ambiguous.
Is truth universal? Must it be knowable?
For me truth is universal but not necessarily knowable.
The statement "There is a blue planet beyond the observable universe where liquid water is more abundant than on Earth, but where there are no forms of life" may be true, but we will never know it. However, if it is true for me, then it is true for everyone.
In order to ascertain trueness, the actuality must be knowable.
If you make a statement that you claim to be true, then it must be knowable before it can be accepted.
The fact that God exists might be true, but it is fallacious to assert its trueness unless you can prove it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:39 pm Post subject: 976 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| jadesmar wrote: |
I'd say it's possible to believe completely true things for delusional reasons. |
Example? |
Just because you're paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you. |
Which points to delusion being defined as a belief based more on assumptions than observations. The more assuming it is, the more delusional it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:33 pm Post subject: 977 |
|
|
I observe you put an apple in the bag, then observe you put another apple in the bag. Based on my observations, and my calculation that 1+1=3, I know there are at least 3 apples in the bag.
The problem need not hinge on assumptions, but can also come from bad math or logic. You can say I only assumed my calculation was correct, but then I'd have done the same if I calculated 1+1=2. In that case, would I only be right accidentally? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:54 pm Post subject: 978 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Scurra used the word "deluded". I didn't go back to see if he picked it up from someone else. I'm not sure what good it does to hash out a definition for "delusion" if just to apply it as a label to things, and go nowhere with it from there. |
It looks like a point of contention between you and Scurra. Scurra suggested delusion is in the mind of the beholder, and you said it's a fact.
| extro wrote: |
| I guess I might define it as a false belief about something of an objective nature held for reasons which are not rational. By "of an objective nature", I simply mean not an opinion ("I believe she's beautiful" versus "I believe God exists"). |
I'm happy to go by that definition, but by defining it in a way where falsity is essential, then...again...you can't apply it to a belief in God since the concept of God is not falsifiable. I would take out the "false" part and just go with belief about something of an objective nature held for reasons that are not rational. Of course, this brings up the question of how much of an objective nature the concept of God entails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:00 pm Post subject: 979 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
I observe you put an apple in the bag, then observe you put another apple in the bag. Based on my observations, and my calculation that 1+1=3, I know there are at least 3 apples in the bag.
The problem need not hinge on assumptions, but can also come from bad math or logic. You can say I only assumed my calculation was correct, but then I'd have done the same if I calculated 1+1=2. In that case, would I only be right accidentally? |
Well, that's what I'm asking: is the first example really a case of being deluded, or simply mistaken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:08 pm Post subject: 980 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| If you make a statement that you claim to be true, then it must be knowable before it can be accepted. |
Knowable by who and accepted by who? If I claimed it's true that I dreamt of a frog last night, that's only knowable by me, but I don't see why others wouldn't accept it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:18 am Post subject: 981 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| ... deluded, or simply mistaken? |
I think they're different points on the same spectrum, with no clear line between them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:28 am Post subject: 982 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| If you make a statement that you claim to be true, then it must be knowable before it can be accepted. |
Knowable by who and accepted by who? If I claimed it's true that I dreamt of a frog last night, that's only knowable by me, but I don't see why others wouldn't accept it. |
It must be knowable to those you expect to accept it or to trustworthy surrogates.
For example, if a surgeon tells me I need my leg amputated, then I would consider this to be possibly true. If my barber told me that his brother had the same thing and that he needed his leg amputated, it would lend some credence to the statement, but not much. If a second opinion comes to the same conclusion, then I can accept it as a true statement.
It's OK for the surgeon to claim that his statement was a truth, but it is not OK for him to expect me to accept it purely on his word.
In the same way, statements coming from religious hierarchy are accepted as truth because of the trust of their followers and the belief that these truths have been handed down unchanged from trustworthy person to trustworthy person all the way back to the original message directly from God. That's a lot of trust. Especially given the absolute truth of corruption within the various religions and the fact that they contradict each other and yet all claim to be messages directly from God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:10 pm Post subject: 983 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
It's OK for the surgeon to claim that his statement was a truth, but it is not OK for him to expect me to accept it purely on his word.
In the same way, statements coming from religious hierarchy are accepted as truth because of the trust of their followers and the belief that these truths have been handed down unchanged from trustworthy person to trustworthy person all the way back to the original message directly from God. |
And there's also "read the Bible" .... "but how do I know it's true?" ... "accept Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will tell you!" The Holy Spirit speaks clearly to all these people (in English, but an older dialect wherein 'thou' is more common). You're either saved or you're not. And critical thinking? To me, critical evaluation requires freedom to doubt. To them, the Holy Spirit leaves no room for doubt. If the Holy Spirit says 1+1=3, then 1+1=3. To confess you're capable of doubting, or that you might check the math yourself, is to confess you're the one in your flock who isn't really saved. I.e., don't pack a sweater. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:22 am Post subject: 984 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| And critical thinking? To me, critical evaluation requires freedom to doubt. |
And therein lies the paradox. I doubt all the time. I actually find people without doubt to be the most terrifying of all - on both sides... For me, my faith is like any other area of my life and knowledge; the more I learn, the more I realise I don't know. But it's made me a lot stronger in my faith, simply because I engaged (and still engage) in critical evaluation rather than being told by someone else "this is what you believe." In overly simplistic terms, I guess you could call me a scientist!
What is most upsetting in these sorts of arguments is the presumption that someone else can speak on my behalf. That someone can assert that "Scurra believes X" - or, far worse, "Person A is a Christian. Person A believes X. Therefore Scurra believes X." (The really horrible one is "The Bible says X. Therefore Scurra believes X.")
So here's my sweeping presumptive statement: Both you (extro) and Jack_Ian seem happy to posit that because religions have made statements that assert their truth but which are self-evidently contradictory, this renders all statements from the same sources questionable, if not outright false (especially given other facts about said sources.) But for me, this is a bit like saying that Newton should be disregarded because he wrote a lot of nonsense about alchemy.
I do think you make an interesting point however, but it is not really about religion as much as it is about following authority in general, whether religious, social or political; most people find it a lot easier to be told "this is what you believe", whether it's "God will smite you down" or "we need to cut taxes to encourage rich people". If you want to be an active member of a modern major political party, for instance, then I would keep quiet about your desire for critical evaluation and doubt...
(In passing - and related to a thread elsewhere - your argument isn't helped by making a sarcastic remark about "thou"; was that really necessary?)
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:42 am Post subject: 985 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| What is most upsetting in these sorts of arguments is the presumption that someone else can speak on my behalf. That someone can assert that "Scurra believes X" - or, far worse, "Person A is a Christian. Person A believes X. Therefore Scurra believes X." (The really horrible one is "The Bible says X. Therefore Scurra believes X.") |
 So true.
| Quote: |
| this is a bit like saying that Newton should be disregarded because he wrote a lot of nonsense about alchemy. |
Thank you! That is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to say against bgg, I just didn't have good, ready examples.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:44 am Post subject: 986 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| So here's my sweeping presumptive statement: Both you (extro) and Jack_Ian seem happy to posit that because religions have made statements that assert their truth but which are self-evidently contradictory, this renders all statements from the same sources questionable, if not outright false (especially given other facts about said sources.) |
I wouldn't say that. The sources are certainly questionable ... literally, they must be questioned. The problem I have with many Bible believers is they don't even know the history of the Bible. It can't even assert it's own truth, because any book of the Bible that such an assertion might appear in was written before all the books were glommed together in "the Bible".
My complaint isn't about your thinking or beliefs, but the countless many Christians I've encountered who assert that:
1) God is good
2) God will let you suffer in hell for eternity if you don't accept the Christian scripture, even though there are many scriptures, and most just accept what they were raised in, but ...
My complaint is about the many I've encountered who've literally said that to doubt means to risk losing faith, and thus risk eternal damnation.
| Quote: |
| (In passing - and related to a thread elsewhere - your argument isn't helped by making a sarcastic remark about "thou"; was that really necessary?) |
Is it a problem? When people tell me Catholics ar going to hell, that the Holy Spirit tells them one has to go by the King James Version and no other, or burn in hell, taking offense at that seems silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:58 am Post subject: 987 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| I doubt all the time. I actually find people without doubt to be the most terrifying of all - on both sides... For me, my faith is like any other area of my life and knowledge; the more I learn, the more I realise I don't know. But it's made me a lot stronger in my faith, simply because I engaged (and still engage) in critical evaluation rather than being told by someone else "this is what you believe." In overly simplistic terms, I guess you could call me a scientist! |
You can only truly believe something if you thoroughly examine it. Those who just accept a doctrine are not really believing the doctrine, rather they are believing the messenger.
A belief held after honest critical evaluation will always be stronger than one accepted on blind faith.
As for Newton, I would not suggest that we ignore his findings just because he dabbled heavily in alchemy, but that's because his other findings have been examined and found to have merit. In the same way I would never dream of suggesting that we accept his findings on alchemy purely because of his work on gravity etc. The very fact that so much of his work was disregarded points to a very healthy attitude towards such things. There were many theories about the movements of planets etc. prior to Newton, based on the four classical elements (air, water, earth, fire). It was only necessary to show that your theory was consistent with existing teachings for it to be accepted. The fact that the results differed wildly from the actuality was irrelevant. When the Scientific Revolution came along, hundreds of years of "knowledge" were consigned to the scrapheap.There was massive upheaval among the intelligentsia, but in the end the truth became paramount.
The problem with a lot of religious doctrine is that they are massively interdependent. Each part insists that you accept the it contains a message from God. If you decide, after critical examination, to disregard some of the teachings, then you are accepting that the messages are not actually from God at all and if you cant trust the written word then how do you ascertain the validity of other texts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:05 am Post subject: 988 |
|
|
I think this is going a bit beyond the scope of this thread...
I think accepting the...truth of the Bible is pretty important to most (if not all) orthodox groups of Christianity. (There's a tangle of words needing definitions if ever there was one.) I think it ultimately matters what your starting point is and how you understand "truth".
extro, would you mind telling me your affiliation with Christianity? (Denomination, religious tradition, self-taught...)
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| If you decide, after critical examination, to disregard some of the teachings, then you are accepting that the messages are not actually from God at all and if you cant trust the written word then how do you ascertain the validity of other texts? |
I think this is a critically important question, yet I have the feeling we would answer it quite differently.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:09 am Post subject: 989 |
|
|
| Anything that Newton said that was not independently confirmed has already been disregarded, and many of those things that have been independently confirmed have been rendered obsolete (except in modelling to a certain level of approximation) by Einstein and those that followed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:08 pm Post subject: 990 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I think accepting the...truth of the Bible is pretty important to most (if not all) orthodox groups of Christianity. (There's a tangle of words needing definitions if ever there was one.) I think it ultimately matters what your starting point is and how you understand "truth". |
I agree with all of that.
My issue is with the many believe-alike people who claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, but won't even think enough about it to examine whether what they believe is simply a literal reading of the Bible, or someone else's "literal" interpretation, and whether that "literal" interpretation could possibly make sense. One example: You must be "born again" to be saved. Those not "born again" (Catholics, for instance) are eternally damned. Once you're "born again", you never doubt.
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| extro, would you mind telling me your affiliation with Christianity? (Denomination, religious tradition, self-taught...) |
Not that I think it's relevant, but I was raised in a Catholic family and went to Catholic schools from 1st through 12th grade. I've also read the Bible quite a bit at various other points in my life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:20 pm Post subject: 991 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| ... deluded, or simply mistaken? |
I think they're different points on the same spectrum, with no clear line between them. |
1+1=2 rationally follows from mathematical axioms and definitions, whereas 1+1=3 does not, so as a calculation, it must contain at least one additional assumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:36 pm Post subject: 992 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| ... deluded, or simply mistaken? |
I think they're different points on the same spectrum, with no clear line between them. |
1+1=2 rationally follows from mathematical axioms and definitions, whereas 1+1=3 does not, so as a calculation, it must contain at least one additional assumption. |
No, it was just a human math error. Just like human errors in reasoning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:47 pm Post subject: 993 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| ... deluded, or simply mistaken? |
I think they're different points on the same spectrum, with no clear line between them. |
1+1=2 rationally follows from mathematical axioms and definitions, whereas 1+1=3 does not, so as a calculation, it must contain at least one additional assumption. |
No, it was just a human math error. Just like human errors in reasoning. |
Errors in reasoning imply assumptions.
Error in reasoning:
1. My name is Aaron
2. I am male
Therefore, only males are named Aaron
In that case, I'm making the assumption that names are exclusive properties of genders.
Some arguments don't have errors in reasoning, but contain faulty premises:
1. Only members of my gender are named Aaron
2. I am female
Therefore, only females are named Aaron.
In that case, I didn't make any assumptions and there is no error in reasoning. I just have a faulty premise. In order to arrive at that premise, however, I would have had to make a whole bunch of assumptions that explain away the biological evidence in favor of my maleness.
In either case, the error breaks down to making assumptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:29 pm Post subject: 994 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
Errors in reasoning imply assumptions.
Error in reasoning:
1. My name is Aaron
2. I am male
Therefore, only males are named Aaron
In that case, I'm making the assumption that names are exclusive properties of genders. |
Given that assumption, there is no error in the reasoning, just a false assumption.
What you're doing is filling in hypothetical assumptions that might make the reasoning valid. If I add two large numbers in my head, and come up with the wrong answer, I think it's silly to say it's because of some false assumption. People make math and logic errors without making false assumptions. That the errors can be explained via false assumption, if their inferences were all valid, does not mean that is how the errors occurred. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:06 pm Post subject: 995 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I think accepting the...truth of the Bible is pretty important to most (if not all) orthodox groups of Christianity. (There's a tangle of words needing definitions if ever there was one.) I think it ultimately matters what your starting point is and how you understand "truth". |
I agree with all of that. |
I see where I had misunderstood you and thought you were saying something different.
As for the religious background question, it just gives me some little information to understand where your arguments might be coming from. That's not to say you stayed with the assumptions of your background (far from it if your current argument is any indication), but then I can easily track where and why you broke from tradition. Suffice to say, it's helpful for me.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:15 am Post subject: 996 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| ... but then I can easily track where and why you broke from tradition. |
You'd probably know me better than I do then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
