quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: "Reason isn't the only way to find truth."
It's not just about reason, it's about reason and evidence.
And this concentrating on truth is completely missing the point.
The virtue of reason and evidence is that it reliably tells you when you are holding to a mistruth, so you can stop believing that mistruth.
Religion, guesswork, fortune cookies, whatever won't do that. You will never have a handle on the truth unless you have a mechanism of throwing out false beliefs, and reality testing is the best antidote for error.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are no misses at all, except where some people with a prior agenda may deliberately try to misinterpret the prophecies.
Ron, if I thought for a moment that you would honestly consider what I had to say on this topic, I would engage you in conversation on it. But as you've previously conceded, there is no evidence that could be presented to you that might persuade you otherwise.
quote:I doubt that God considers it important how long the Cubs would go without winning the World Series.
That's not the point. The point is that it would be an unequivocal statement, preserved in an era when no one reading it could possibly have known what it even meant. If you want important prophecies -- certainly more important than the ancient fracturing of the Roman Empire -- why not a cure for polio? Or cancer? Why not instructions for constructing a solar cell? All of these would be infinitely more important than, say, seven years of drought in one pathetic little patch of the Middle East.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It all depends on whether you think truth is unknowable if it can't be demonstrated from one person to another in a provable, scientific way. And if you believe that, then you must also believe there is no truth where it can't be scientifically, externally proven.
It's not irrational not to believe that.
The issue is not whether someone can be convinced of something in the absence of scientific proof - it is abundantly clear that people 'know' both true and untrue things. The issue is how one verifies that something is true. The scientific method provides a way of verifying truth. The justification of the scientific method is its incredible success. Religious-type statements do not find support from the scientific method, but, for various reasons, they also resist be categorically falsified by the scientific method. No alternative to the scientific method has been shown to be successful thus far.
I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think that's a limited way of looking at it. Science has its limits. It is limited to what we ourselves can discern and conclude with our powers of observation and reason. It limits what we can call evidence to its own set of rules. It is very useful, obviously, for a great deal of things, including informing religious beliefs. I wouldn't call it reliable, however, as a measuring stick for all circumstances, somewhat the same way a hammer does really well pounding a nail but can't turn a screw.
quote:Religion, guesswork, fortune cookies, whatever won't do that. You will never have a handle on the truth unless you have a mechanism of throwing out false beliefs, and reality testing is the best antidote for error.
I put "religion" in quotes in my last post because it's become almost a meaningless term on this board. But I suppose my treatment of science is helping to do the same thing for that word. You categorize religion as fortune telling and guesswork, and do not look any further to ask whether there is in fact a method for separating truth from falsehood in religious worship.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do we agree that there is a subjective component to at least the demonstration of 'religious truths' that is not present in the demonstration of 'scientific truths'?
I think both religion and science do have subjective components, but I will agree that science follows strict rules that makes it far less subjective. (Although the cost of following those rules is that science is very limited in the sort of questions it can properly answer.)
But subjective reasoning can be completely rational. If I feel pain when I touch something then it is normally rational for me to stop touching it, whether or not I have any objective means of showing I felt the pain.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You categorize religion as fortune telling and guesswork, and do not look any further to ask whether there is in fact a method for separating truth from falsehood in religious worship.
If there were, don't you think there would be rather more agreement among theists on what is true?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think both religion and science do have subjective components, but I will agree that science follows strict rules that makes it far less subjective. (Although the cost of following those rules is that science is very limited in the sort of questions it can properly answer.)
Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
quote: But subjective reasoning can be completely rational. If I feel pain when I touch something then it is normally rational for me to stop touching it, whether or not I have any objective means of showing I felt the pain.
True. But if other people do touch that thing without exhibiting any pain, it is now rational to investigate further.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: wbarnes:
I think that's a limited way of looking at it. Science has its limits. It is limited to what we ourselves can discern and conclude with our powers of observation and reason.
I.e. what we know to be the real world.
Once you start making claims that are divorced from the reality we can reality test, you are back where you started...making claims that you can never falsify or verify.
quote:It is very useful, obviously, for a great deal of things, including informing religious beliefs. I wouldn't call it reliable, however, as a measuring stick for all circumstances, somewhat the same way a hammer does really well pounding a nail but can't turn a screw.
In what circumstances is it not a good idea to be able to recognize false beliefs?
quote:You categorize religion as fortune telling and guesswork, and do not look any further to ask whether there is in fact a method for separating truth from falsehood in religious worship.
You think there is one?
By all means, describe it. Tell us how you know it does what you claim it does.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think both religion and science do have subjective components, but I will agree that science follows strict rules that makes it far less subjective. (Although the cost of following those rules is that science is very limited in the sort of questions it can properly answer.)
Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
quote: But subjective reasoning can be completely rational. If I feel pain when I touch something then it is normally rational for me to stop touching it, whether or not I have any objective means of showing I felt the pain.
True. But if other people do touch that thing without exhibiting any pain, it is now rational to investigate further.
One subjective component in science may be deciding what questions to ask, what answers you expect to get, and how you couch them.
Other people having the same experience, despite the lack of an objective way to show you had it, could be the basis of either religious or scientific inquiry.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We live in a world governed by such complexity it is difficult to deny a creator. Evolution and all the conditions it takes for us to be fortunate to exist in this state take assume ideas of infinite time to account for what is seemingly so unlikely.
Come now, Armoth. You have got to have run into the obvious counterargument for this, to wit, the creator has to be even more complex, so it is even more unlikely to arise by chance. Whatever reason you give for the creator to arise are just as applicable to the universe. Why are you ignoring this?
Who says I'm ignoring it? Present your questions, I'll present my counter-arguments.
This is not making sense. Your argument is that the universe and/or human life is too complex to arise without a creator. The hypothetical creator is even more complex. Where does the creator come from that isn't an equally good source for the universe?
quote:I'm sure you know all about non-overlapping magisteria ala Stephen Jay Gould.
Yes, I just don't agree. See my link to the story of Elijah's experiment, earlier.
quote:In order to explain the universe via a creator, you need to posit a creator that is beyond the rules of this universe. Judaism's Creator has no form, no body, no physical qualities, and is not subject to the laws of time (See - The preservation of free will if God knows what choices you will make). He is outside of this universe as He created it.
Either a first cause is required, or a first cause is not required. If it is not needed, there is no need for your god. If it is needed, there is still no need for your god, because the first cause can just as well be the Universe itself, or the Big Bang, or fluctuations in a quantum soup. The timeless, formless stuff is just words around this single fact, which you have no response for.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: In general, different religions take the same truths and use them how they will. They rarely coordinate their interpretations and applications; hence many different viewpoints. In kind of a similar vein, different scientists using the same scientific method can and have arrived at different conclusions and argued about them. I guess it's up to you whether that means there is no single truth to be found.
swbarnes: I believe God does in fact have an open line of communication with us, a means of communication, and does in fact speak truth to us to the effect that we cannot deny it is true. I can witness for it, as can many others. There is a difference between that communication and my own abilities to reason truth for myself. This is no secret if you are familiar with Mormonism. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I am referring to the Holy Ghost.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
afr: could you give some examples of such truths that both 1) are the 'same truths' among different religions and 2) are not also routinely arrived at by non-religious reasoning?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right...Three big truths: that there is a God, that there is a divine purpose for this life, and that we can return to live with God after this life. Three truths that are shared across many religions and that haven't been proven by science, although just to be consistent I will hold that they weren't arrived at by human reasoning, either.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
quote:This is no secret if you are familiar with Mormonism. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I am referring to the Holy Ghost
There are members of other faiths that claim the exact same mechanism for their knowledge that the Mormon church is false.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: KOM: In general, different religions take the same truths and use them how they will. They rarely coordinate their interpretations and applications; hence many different viewpoints. In kind of a similar vein, different scientists using the same scientific method can and have arrived at different conclusions and argued about them.
But then scientists collect more evidence, and one or more interpretations is found to not fit the facts, and it is discarded.
Religions have been at it for thousands of years, any hope of reconciliation yet? By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
quote:swbarnes: I believe God does in fact have an open line of communication with us, a means of communication, and does in fact speak truth to us to the effect that we cannot deny it is true.
And if I believe that there is a pink teapot orbiting Mars? Simply reiterating what you believe is not the same as demonstrating it to be true, don't you know that?
quote:I can witness for it, as can many others.
Lots of people will "witness" that there's no way for Joseph Smith to have been anything but a fraud and a liar.
Lots of people can "witness" for their abduction by aliens.
I don't see how this helps demonstrate that what you "witness" to is accurate.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Religions have been at it for thousands of years, any hope of reconciliation yet? By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
Yeah. Pretty much for the most part.
quote:And if I believe that there is a pink teapot orbiting Mars? Simply reiterating what you believe is not the same as demonstrating it to be true, don't you know that?
I responded respectfully to your question.
This is a point we seem to arrive at frequently: you want me to demonstrate, incontrovertibly according to the rules of scientific evidence and in terms you're ready to accept, something I know to be true. Immediately, in a text-based forum environment. Using links to other Web pages if applicable.
I can't do it. This isn't the time or place.
Nevertheless, I hold to my position that there are more ways to knowledge of truth than science, and this is one of them.
quote: Lots of people will "witness" that there's no way for Joseph Smith to have been anything but a fraud and a liar.
Lots of people can "witness" for their abduction by aliens.
I don't see how this helps demonstrate that what you "witness" to is accurate.
And maybe I'm not answering this very well, but you're right--a witness can only go so far. A witness on a witness stand in court presents evidence that is admissible to the trial proceedings. Ultimately, however, it's the jury that is convinced one way or another and makes the decision.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
One subjective component in science may be deciding what questions to ask, what answers you expect to get, and how you couch them.
Notice that this level subjectivity is present, basically, in any type of inquiry. A key facet of science is that 'scientific truths' (i.e. repeatedly confirmed hypotheses) are true for each and every tester (this is basically a tautology, as if a test falsified a hypothesis, this would no longer be regarded as a 'truth'). This sense in which scientific results are independent of the particular tester is a key way in which science tries to move beyond the subjective.
posted
Well, where does the inquiry end and the science begin? Is science strictly the process of testing something and gathering data, or do we say it extends to the recognition of the need for knowledge, the formulation of questions, and the conclusions that are drawn and publicized?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
Me, too.
I believe they would claim that faith *is* verification of the truth of their beliefs. I think the better critique, one that could just as easily be leveled against those who are anti-religious as those who are religious, is that one should not force society at large to live in accordance with those beliefs, and whether you are a theist or not, that critique should apply. Basically, that means that if you want society to be free to think anything, if you want society to be free of any intellectual force or even faith itself, then you must also give up your own influence on society, even if what you embrace is "clearly" correct.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Religions have been at it for thousands of years, any hope of reconciliation yet? By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
Yeah. Pretty much for the most part.
You mean yes, they've all reconciled?
Hindus accept that Jesus is the redeemer? Muslims accept that Jospeh Smith was a prophet of God?
quote:
quote:And if I believe that there is a pink teapot orbiting Mars? Simply reiterating what you believe is not the same as demonstrating it to be true, don't you know that?
I responded respectfully to your question.
That's no guarentee that your answer is accurate, or even sensible. I asked you how one demosntrates that a religious belief is true, and your answer was "I believe what I believe".
quote:This is a point we seem to arrive at frequently: you want me to demonstrate, incontrovertibly according to the rules of scientific evidence and in terms you're ready to accept, something I know to be true.
I'm not looking for "incontrovertible". I'm looking for "could have been falsified by rigorous reality testing carried out by skeptics, but was confirmed by it".
Humans make mistakes. We can't get to truth without a reliable way of purging mistakes from our beliefs. That's where reality testing comes in. If you throw that away, it's just inevitable that you'll believe all sorts of wrong things. Especially if those wrong beliefs are beliefs you relaly wish were true. Those are the hardest mistakes to catch.
quote:Nevertheless, I hold to my position that there are more ways to knowledge of truth than science, and this is one of them.
You can hold to whatever you like, but when billions of people "hold" to completely contradictory things, with no more or less evidence supportinng them than you have supporting what you "hold", there's no reason for anyone to think that any one of you is right.
But if "I hold what I hold" really is your answer to "How do you tell true religious claims from false ones", you do have to admit that it is a singularly lame answer. But the honesty in not trying to prove yourself like Ron does is refreshing.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Well, where does the inquiry end and the science begin? Is science strictly the process of testing something and gathering data, or do we say it extends to the recognition of the need for knowledge, the formulation of questions, and the conclusions that are drawn and publicized?
My interest was in the 'truth' of scientific knowledge versus other things that are known.
Certainly the practice of science involves doing many of the things that you describe above.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Religions have been at it for thousands of years, any hope of reconciliation yet? By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
Yeah. Pretty much for the most part.
You mean yes, they've all reconciled?
Hindus accept that Jesus is the redeemer? Muslims accept that Jospeh Smith was a prophet of God?
quote:
quote:And if I believe that there is a pink teapot orbiting Mars? Simply reiterating what you believe is not the same as demonstrating it to be true, don't you know that?
I responded respectfully to your question.
That's no guarentee that your answer is accurate, or even sensible. I asked you how one demosntrates that a religious belief is true, and your answer was "I believe what I believe".
quote:This is a point we seem to arrive at frequently: you want me to demonstrate, incontrovertibly according to the rules of scientific evidence and in terms you're ready to accept, something I know to be true.
I'm not looking for "incontrovertible". I'm looking for "could have been falsified by rigorous reality testing carried out by skeptics, but was confirmed by it".
Humans make mistakes. We can't get to truth without a reliable way of purging mistakes from our beliefs. That's where reality testing comes in. If you throw that away, it's just inevitable that you'll believe all sorts of wrong things. Especially if those wrong beliefs are beliefs you relaly wish were true. Those are the hardest mistakes to catch.
quote:Nevertheless, I hold to my position that there are more ways to knowledge of truth than science, and this is one of them.
You can hold to whatever you like, but when billions of people "hold" to completely contradictory things, with no more or less evidence supportinng them than you have supporting what you "hold", there's no reason for anyone to think that any one of you is right.
But if "I hold what I hold" really is your answer to "How do you tell true religious claims from false ones", you do have to admit that it is a singularly lame answer. But the honesty in not trying to prove yourself like Ron does is refreshing.
Glad I'm refreshing. Sorry I haven't satisfied your skeptic. Care for tea, Deimos?
You want me to bludgeon you into admitting that I'm right using evidence that defies your very best efforts to disprove it.
I'm saying it doesn't work that way. I'm not going to present my religious beliefs that way. I'm not trying to be evasive. It just doesn't work with skeptics. Heck, even if I did have some incontrovertible evidence I could present here, would you accept it? I told you how I know the difference between some truths and falsehoods. I knew full well what a skeptic would think of that answer. You're going to have to go ahead and keep thinking I'm mistaken.
And you're making me feel like some Zen dude, being all mysterious. I admit I'm more interested in getting the discussion away from the hardliner scientific evidence terms it always gets mired in, than carrying on a point by point debate.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
You want me to bludgeon you into admitting that I'm right using evidence that defies your very best efforts to disprove it.
Yes. Because that's how I learn that I'm wrong. That's how everyone learns they are wrong.
quote:I'm saying it doesn't work that way. I'm not going to present my religious beliefs that way. I'm not trying to be evasive. It just doesn't work with skeptics. Heck, even if I did have some incontrovertible evidence I could present here, would you accept it?
If it were real evidence, sure. What do you have?
I know it is a point of faith for you that I wouldn't, but the way to prove it is to show the evidnece, and see what I do.
Ah, but you don't feel the need to demonstrate that your belief about me is even slightly grounded in reality. God told you that I am immune to the very evidence that I claim I privilage, so you won't bother to test your belief. And therefore, you will never know it's wrong.
Thanks for demonstrating my point exacxtly.
quote:I told you how I know the difference between some truths and falsehoods.
Because God tells you?
Muslims believe that God tells them that Mohammad was the last prophet of God. If you are LDS, you believe that this is a false belief.
So what should Muslims do? Disregard what they believe God is telling them and listen to what you say God is telling you?
quote:I admit I'm more interested in getting the discussion away from the hardliner scientific evidence terms it always gets mired in, than carrying on a point by point debate.
Wanting to keep the discussion grounded in things for which there is actually evidence of their existance is a "hardliner" stance?
So if we started a discussion of whether more angels can dance on a silver pin than a gold pin, you'd find that more interesting?
Sorry, but the virtue of a point by point discussion is that weak arguments get shredded. I understand completely why you wouldn't care for such a thing.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue is not whether someone can be convinced of something in the absence of scientific proof - it is abundantly clear that people 'know' both true and untrue things.
Of course it's part of the issue. 'Evidence' and 'rationality', to folks such as KoM and Tom, means, "What can be proven to someone else," among other things. If it cannot be tested in such a way that it can be proven or disproven to someone else, it's neither rational nor evidence.
quote:The justification of the scientific method is its incredible success. Religious-type statements do not find support from the scientific method, but, for various reasons, they also resist be categorically falsified by the scientific method. No alternative to the scientific method has been shown to be successful thus far.
Largely I agree with this.
quote: I am completely fine that those who wish to be religious be religious. However, it would be nice if the religious accepted that the absence of a system whereby they can provide verification of the truth of their beliefs to others meant that it was not legitimate to try and force society at large to live in accordance with these beliefs.
What would be even better is if people would accept that it's not legitimate to force society at large to live in accordance with their own specific beliefs. Religious folks hardly have a lock on that.
Frankly, there haven't been large numbers of (publicly) atheist and agnostic people for very long in the course of human history, so even if the record of atheists and agnostics were all but blemishless in the world today, it would still be too soon to say whether religion is what makes things worse.
And of course that record isn't spotless, it's human.
quote:True. But if other people do touch that thing without exhibiting any pain, it is now rational to investigate further.
But not rational to insist that just because some other people don't feel pain, or feel a different kind of pain, then the first person must not really be feeling pain at all. ---------
KoM,
quote:If there were, don't you think there would be rather more agreement among theists on what is true?
Interesting. So now a lack of consensus is 'evidence'?
---------
quote:afr: could you give some examples of such truths that both 1) are the 'same truths' among different religions and 2) are not also routinely arrived at by non-religious reasoning?
Fugu, I do wonder just how far the notion that certain concepts are arrived at by non-religious reasoning can be stretched.
Certainly atheists and agnostics have created their own moral codes, absent religious motives, that are quite in tune with many religious values. But it's not as though those thinkers sprang fully formed from the head of Dawkins, is it?
Would those conclusions have been reached had they not been rooted in civilizations and cultures steeped in religious traditions? Who can say?
-----------
swbarnes,
quote:By reconciling, I don't mean "burning everyone who disagrees with you" which is how a lot of religious disagreements are solved.
This is actually a pretty human way of resolving disputes, unfortunately.
quote:Yes. Because that's how I learn that I'm wrong. That's how everyone learns they are wrong.
There are other ways.
quote:So what should Muslims do? Disregard what they believe God is telling them and listen to what you say God is telling you?
Where in anything afr has said is this a reasonable interpretation of what he might say about Muslims and Mormons?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting. So now a lack of consensus is 'evidence'?
Yes, obviously. All truthful maps agree with each other; if N maps disagree, at least (N-1) people have not looked at the dang terrain.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You want me to bludgeon you into admitting that I'm right using evidence that defies your very best efforts to disprove it.
Yes. Because that's how I learn that I'm wrong. That's how everyone learns they are wrong.
quote:I'm saying it doesn't work that way. I'm not going to present my religious beliefs that way. I'm not trying to be evasive. It just doesn't work with skeptics. Heck, even if I did have some incontrovertible evidence I could present here, would you accept it?
If it were real evidence, sure. What do you have?
I know it is a point of faith for you that I wouldn't, but the way to prove it is to show the evidnece, and see what I do.
Ah, but you don't feel the need to demonstrate that your belief about me is even slightly grounded in reality. God told you that I am immune to the very evidence that I claim I privilage, so you won't bother to test your belief. And therefore, you will never know it's wrong.
Thanks for demonstrating my point exacxtly.
quote:I told you how I know the difference between some truths and falsehoods.
Because God tells you?
Muslims believe that God tells them that Mohammad was the last prophet of God. If you are LDS, you believe that this is a false belief.
So what should Muslims do? Disregard what they believe God is telling them and listen to what you say God is telling you?
quote:I admit I'm more interested in getting the discussion away from the hardliner scientific evidence terms it always gets mired in, than carrying on a point by point debate.
Wanting to keep the discussion grounded in things for which there is actually evidence of their existance is a "hardliner" stance?
So if we started a discussion of whether more angels can dance on a silver pin than a gold pin, you'd find that more interesting?
Sorry, but the virtue of a point by point discussion is that weak arguments get shredded. I understand completely why you wouldn't care for such a thing.
Dude, you're kind of taking me off the deep end here. I'm shocked by what I'm apparently telling you. Your own ideas of what I think and believe are straight out of a stock religious freak file. Complete with the watermark.
I can't argue point by point with you because I am evidently not grounded in reality and we must make sure that I remember that. I was trying to establish some ground for discussing different ways we acquire knowledge; I obviously did not do a good job of that. I cannot bring up the idea of knowledge through spiritual means without you nixing it preemptively. Like I said, this is not the place for it. We like our terrain and our trenches too much to leave them. I shouldn't have jumped in.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yes, obviously. All truthful maps agree with each other; if N maps disagree, at least (N-1) people have not looked at the dang terrain."
I don't ask religious people to justify the existence of souls/God/soulishness. That's not their job, should they wish to convert me to their religion. I merely ask them to prove to me that their version of the spiritual aspect/level of life is the correct one. None have so far. I await the day when some earnest person gives me their spiel, and it actually holds together logically.
That'd be cool. I'd love to have a religion that I could defend to KoM or TomD, or, heck, to myself.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ron, if I thought for a moment that you would honestly consider what I had to say on this topic, I would engage you in conversation on it. But as you've previously conceded, there is no evidence that could be presented to you that might persuade you otherwise.
Tom, that sounds to me like a cop-out. When have I ever shown you an unwillingness to consider arguments and evidence? I have never, ever said I would refuse to consider any evidence contrary to my present conclusions. Where Bible prophecy is concerned, I doubt that such evidence exists. But I never said I would not give you a fair hearing if you think you can present such evidence. But be prepared for a rebuttal. Perhaps you suspect that I have a good enough knowledge of the Bible and history that I can refute your favorite arguments, and you don't want to risk that.
For the prophecies of Daniel to specify that Babylon would give way to Medo-Persia, and that to the Greecian Empire, and that to Rome, and that Rome would not be followed by another such empire, but would be subdivided into many parts, is pretty particular. Even those doubters who without any valid evidence claim Daniel was written later than it claims, still cannot explain away the fact that these prophecies of Daniel were in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate the time of Christ, and the division of Rome into subdivisions did not happen until hundreds of years after Christ.
You ask for God to specify a list of detailed things to happen in the future. This sounds like the movie Knowing. But the problem with that kind of circus-act predicting is that it would compromise free will. If God had said that Christopher Columbus was going to sail across the Atlantic and find America in 1492, then perhaps Queen Isabella (or some other member of her government) would have been perverse enough either to not send Columbus, or else to send him earlier.
If God had said that Adolph Hitler would plunge Europe into a ruinous World War, which Germany would lose, and would be responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, then perhaps someone would have killed Adolph Hitler while he was still a babe in his crib--or maybe Klara and Alois would have decided not to name their son Adolph.
God is not motivated by a desire to be sensational. He is concerned with being fair, even as He lets His servants know in advance what He is going to do, so they can be prepared to play the role He needs them to play in coming events. "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)
This God does for a reason--which does not include our entertainment.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's a pretty big assumption that is demonstrably false.
Maps are captures of subjective experience which can be and often are contradictory without being false.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When have I ever shown you an unwillingness to consider arguments and evidence?
Ron, I don't know how to demonstrate that behavior to you if you don't see it in a casual review of your own posts.
quote:But the problem with that kind of circus-act predicting is that it would compromise free will.
But Daniel interpreting dreams doesn't compromise free will? Why is free will preserved when God is suitably cryptic?
quote:If God had said that Adolph Hitler would plunge Europe into a ruinous World War, which Germany would lose, and would be responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, then perhaps someone would have killed Adolph Hitler while he was still a babe in his crib--or maybe Klara and Alois would have decided not to name their son Adolph.
We have a pretty detailed prophecy about Revelations. Does that mean that if people refuse to take the Mark of the Beast -- because they don't want to bring about the apocalypse -- then it won't happen?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron, I don't know how to demonstrate that behavior to you if you don't see it in a casual review of your own posts.
You can't demonstrate it to Ron if he can't see it himself, eh? That's a very ironic thing for you to say in this thread....
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you describe the subjective component found in science?
Yes - the subjective components are mainly the assumptions on which scientific models are based. The biggest one is probably the assumption that the future and past will and have followed the same laws as the present, because scientific induction is based upon that. Others include things along the lines of "Occam's Razor".
Beyond that, science is also based originally in sets of observations, which themselves come from subjective senses.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Revelation is subject to a huge number of differing interpretations--mainly because people seem to view it as a competitiion to see who has the most original imagination, instead of simply allowing the Bible to define its own symbols. That is the course I followed in my recently-published book Genuine New Light from Revelation and Daniel, available from www.Amazon.com, and from the publisher, www.TeachServices.com
I take seriously the prohibition against wild speculation based on subjective imagination, given in 2 Peter 1:20: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation."
I took the prophecies of Daniel as an example, because comparing the four outlines of history given therein are for the most part quite straight-forward, and the text explicitly tells us to apply them to future history.
The untrue calumny that I can't be persuaded to contrary views because I refuse to consider them or am somehow blind, is again just the self-serving rationalization of those who have found that I can in fact refute their arguments, and lying about me is their only recourse.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's a pretty big assumption that is demonstrably false.
Maps are captures of subjective experience which can be and often are contradictory without being false.
And different maps of tyhe same place can show different things and look completely different. A climate map won't look like a topographic map.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a very ironic thing for you to say in this thread.
Only if you don't understand what we've been talking about.
--------
quote:The untrue calumny that I can't be persuaded to contrary views because I refuse to consider them or am somehow blind, is again just the self-serving rationalization of those who have found that I can in fact refute their arguments...
Believe me, Ron, I have never once worried that you have refuted one of my arguments. But your mind is rather set on the "correctness" of your interpretation of Scripture, and attempting to show you another perspective is doomed to fail. I mean, you've actually attempted to "educate" Lisa and Rivka on the Old Testament; there's a truly staggering amount of hubris there, and I'm just not willing to try to penetrate it when I know you're going to fight it the whole way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a very ironic thing for you to say in this thread.
Only if you don't understand what we've been talking about.
Explain then - because you seemed to be arguing earlier that in order to rationally believe something, you must be able to demonstrate it. But now you seem to be suggesting you believe Ron is unwilling to consider arguments and evidence, yet agree that you can't demonstrate that to him. Do you have scientific proof that Ron is unwilling to consider arguments and evidence?
My suspicion is that you haven't done a scientific study on Ron, but rather have based this conclusion on your anecdotal observations of him... the same sort of evidence that I offered to you of people who find religion valuable.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I have discussed many things with Lisa and Rivka, partially with an eye to finding out what the main arguments are that Jews use in an attempt to counter Christian arguments. I was genuinely surprised to hear that the second "Lord" in Psalms 110:1 is supposed by them to refer to Abraham! That required considerable thought, and scholarly digging.
Are you suggesting it is hubris for me to dare to disagree with Lisa and Rivka over the proper interpretation of the Old Testament--presumably because they went to Hebrew School as children? There are qualified experts on Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and I have taken recourse to those. It was not hubris for me to note that the vowel pointings (which were not in the original text), on which Jewish attempts to explain away such Christian proof-texts as Psalms 110:1, was imposed artificually upon the text by Jewish scribes in the seventh century, A.D.--obviously as a deliberate attempt to counter the Christian argument that the second "Lord" in the verse is the same word used for the second "Lord" in Psalms 97:5 and other texts, which clearly are referring to God. Nor did I rely upon my own reasoning in this. I quoted a qualified scholar who made this point.
If there are some people whom you think I have no right to disagree with, then I think you have a serious problem of attitude, which can only handicap you in any attempt at intelligent debate. I do not bow to your authority, nor to Lisa's or Rivka's authority. If you demand that I should, then consider me a revolutionary, revolting against your tyranny.
And Tom, the actual truth is that you have refused to acknowledge my refutations of your arguments. That does not mean that I have not presented valid refutations. For example: will you acknowledge that in the previous paragraph I did in fact refute your implication that I must be somehow guilty of "hubris" because I dare to disagree with Lisa and Rivka about the proper interpretation of the Old Testament text?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's a pretty big assumption that is demonstrably false.
Maps are captures of subjective experience which can be and often are contradictory without being false.
And different maps of tyhe same place can show different things and look completely different. A climate map won't look like a topographic map.
Yes, yes. I'm going to assume that you are not actually so stupid you didn't understand what I was saying, and leave it to you to answer the actual argument instead of trying to pick holes in the analogy.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the maps thing, I found this in Wickipedia:
"A map projection is any method of representing the surface of a sphere or other shape on a plane. Map projections are necessary for creating maps. All map projections distort the surface in some fashion. Depending on the purpose of the map, some distortions are acceptable and others are not; therefore different map projections exist in order to preserve some properties of the sphere-like body at the expense of other properties. There is no limit to the number of possible map projections." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
There are cylindrical projections, and projections which appoximate the pattern of an orange peel flattened out, etc. But does this falsify MrSquicky's statement that all truthful maps agree with each other? No, of course he is right. But maps do have to be interpreted. And it is possible to do so intelligently, without being arbitrary.
That last is probably the point best relating to the theological discussion. The Bible tells us that those who do not partake of the Spirit of God cannot discern some things that those who do, can: "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2: 13, 14; NKJV) But that does not mean that the things spiritually discerned are not perfectly reasonable. It is a matter of the prior assumptions, the spiritual axioms of faith, which makes some things discernable to the person of faith which the person who resists faith cannot see.
But the Bible tells us that "God has dealt to each one a measure of faith." (Romans 12:3; NKJV) So even professed unbelievers do have the capacity of faith, if they can be reached. And so we who have faith keep trying to present the reasonable arguments that we have.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, it is relevant because (expanding your analogy) you seem to want all maps to be used for the same thing and use the same method.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, yes. I'm going to assume that you are not actually so stupid you didn't understand what I was saying, and leave it to you to answer the actual argument instead of trying to pick holes in the analogy.
The thing that gets me about these discussions isn't the attempts to bludgeon the religious people. There's no change that;s going to happen there.
It's the lack of understanding of basic scientific epistemology that many of the "pro-science" people demonstrate (as well as the fallacious portrayal of science = materialism). The map-territory distinction/disparity is incredibly important to scientific reasoning and theory of mind. But you don't understand that because you don't really know what you are talking about.
Subjective experience is not available to objective analysis and all "truths" carrying the little "wrt" disclaimer with them. This is huge in its implications to scientific epistemology.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have scientific proof that Ron is unwilling to consider arguments and evidence?
I have not been saying that you require scientific proof of something to consider it demonstrable. I have, however, tired of trying to explain this to you, because you always harp on this misapprehension and it takes pages to get you into the right frame of mind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, it is relevant because (expanding your analogy) you seem to want all maps to be used for the same thing and use the same method.
Let us try it in a slightly different form: Truthful maps do not disagree. A climate map shows different data than a relief map, but the two do not contradict each other. Religions contradict each other. (Except yours, of course; it's hard to contradict anything when no positive assertion is made.) Therefore not all religions can be truthful. Therefore the religious 'way of finding truth', whatever it is supposed to be, is exceedingly unreliable.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example: will you acknowledge that in the previous paragraph I did in fact refute your implication that I must be somehow guilty of "hubris" because I dare to disagree with Lisa and Rivka about the proper interpretation of the Old Testament text?
It's not that you dare to disagree. It's that you have chosen your "experts" based mainly on the fact that they have come to the same conclusions you have, and put them forward as unimpeachable authorities while ignoring the oral traditions that Rivka and Lisa are putting forward as authorities.
This is not something that I find uniquely frustrating about you, mind; I think it's human nature. But I would no more attempt to tell you that you've misinterpreted the Bible than I would attempt to tell Lisa; the two of you have a great deal of your sense of self tied up with your opinion of the accuracy of your interpretations. It starts out quite pleasantly, but inevitably descends into personal attacks and presumptive declarations of victory, and I'm just not interested. For that reason, I'm not going to become invested in trying to tell you that you're all wrong about the Bible; it would be the work of ages to change your mind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have not been saying that you require scientific proof of something to consider it demonstrable.
In that case, perhaps a better question is: Do you have more "demonstration" that Ron is unwilling to consider arguments than I have "demonstration" that religious thinking is useful to some people in some situations? If so, what is it?
I do continually harp on this point because you continue to apply a standard of proof to religion that you haven't been willing to apply to your own beliefs. Pointing this out is really my best method of demonstrating why that standard of proof is unreasonably high. If it is rational for you to casually make beliefs about what is going on inside Ron's mind, with no knowledge about him other than posts he writes on an internet forum, then you should not be making the claim that religion requires rock solid proof in order to be rational.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, obviously. All truthful maps agree with each other; if N maps disagree, at least (N-1) people have not looked at the dang terrain.
Should I expect a revision on your opinion on what the majority consensus supporting theism means for what is and isn't correct, then?
Of course not. What you're really saying is, "Consensus counts as evidence. When I agree with it."
quote:Yes, yes. I'm going to assume that you are not actually so stupid you didn't understand what I was saying, and leave it to you to answer the actual argument instead of trying to pick holes in the analogy.
Well, just for clarity, you are in fact assuming she is that stupid-just not about this in particular. Anyway, no, not all truthful maps agree with each other. A Mercator projection map is a truthful map, yet doesn't agree with a globe. Or is a Mercator projection not 'truthful' because it assumes a sphere?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Mercator projection does agree with a globe. We already went through this.
quote:Should I expect a revision on your opinion on what the majority consensus supporting theism means for what is and isn't correct, then?
There is no such consensus, as you well know. You don't get to handwave the huge differences of assertion between the different stripes of theist and call that agreement. People have killed over the issue of whether the Son proceeds from the Father, or through the Father. That's not consensus, that's hardly even meaningful assertion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Mercator projection does agree with a globe. We already went through this.
We did? Where, exactly? A Mercator projection assumes a perfect sphere, which doesn't reflect reality-the Earth is slightly flattened. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, most globes are perfect (or nearly perfect, anyway) spheres as well, so they'd be untruthful too. I'm not so sure about that, I vaguely recall reading it somewhere.
quote: quote:Should I expect a revision on your opinion on what the majority consensus supporting theism means for what is and isn't correct, then?
There is no such consensus, as you well know. You don't get to handwave the huge differences of assertion between the different stripes of theist and call that agreement. People have killed over the issue of whether the Son proceeds from the Father, or through the Father. That's not consensus, that's hardly even meaningful assertion.
Oh, I see. So, I was right. It's not a consensus unless you agree with it. Because the distinctions you're drawing are completely arbitrary. There is a consensus, among the majority of humanity. You're the one deciding that it doesn't count because that's as far as the agreement goes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
