tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1821853442483975229..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: A Discussion I'm Having With a Scholar Friend on FacebookUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36924805249899732302009-10-05T14:02:14.466-04:002009-10-05T14:02:14.466-04:00post 3 of 3
I have 100 percent confidence that ...post 3 of 3<br /><br /><br /><br />I have 100 percent confidence that the external world is real though I recognize the fact that it cannot be proven absolutely thus it takes a degree of faith. I believe the epistemic risk here is very low, so low that it is understandable that people scoff at the idea. I know I do. But as I mentioned before, there is no objective way to arrive at a calculation of the degree of that epistemic risk. So what is the epistemic risk of Christianity, which (of course like scientific understanding) is something that is still developed and needs to be interpreted with our best skill? On some measures, it just does not compare to belief in an external reality. On some measures, I could agree that there is a much higher epistemic risk. But I contest that existential risk and existential import deserve to be considered in weighing epistemic risk. Interestingly, John Loftus' post on the validity of emotional reasons is a huge boost for existential considerations for the purpose of knowledge. So considerations such as our cry for justice, our deep value for other people and terrible grief for their suffering or loss of their lives, our near universal spirituality, our wonder at the majesty of nature all deserve to be trusted as pointers to the truth and if Christianity harmonizes and explains these better than other religious and non-religious views, that deserves to be considered a reduction in epistemic risk. As an example of that explanation and contrast to materialism, as I said to steven elsewhere, our terrible grief and sadness for a terrible loss such as with a loved one deserves to be trusted as indicating truth. That truth is that the way the world is is not the way it was intended and there is something very wrong. If that is true, then there is a way that the world ought to be. Christianity gloriously fits this picture not only affirming that the way things are aren't right but better yet, God has a rescue plan to bring it back to the way it should be.<br /><br />Just as our senses are to be signposts of an external reality, our existential concerns deserve to be trusted for the sign posts that they are that affirm our sense that we have transcendence and there is far more to life than mere matter and space can tell us alone.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6900062634673225132009-10-05T14:01:16.746-04:002009-10-05T14:01:16.746-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14331356700187591532009-10-05T14:00:58.875-04:002009-10-05T14:00:58.875-04:00post 2 of 3
We can also intentionally expose ou...post 2 of 3<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>We can also intentionally expose ourselves to particular sensory data that can trick this process into returning false information.</em><br /><br />you can have a fiction that involves deception within the fictitious world. this is not a problem for solipsism.<br /><br />Scott, do you understand that I think solipsism is as absurd as the next guy? The problem is that you're empiricism cannot support that intuition as true if you do not allow us to go beyond the five senses to weigh truth. You just have to embrace it and bite the bullet and say to know, we need not just the five senses but more. No we don't need a sixth sense that is also conceivably deceivable. we need interpretation, we need faith, we need existential considerations. These things do not happen in a the world without the senses and they are frequently concerned with the senses, but they cannot be reduced to the senses. Hence the senses cannot stand alone as arbiters of truth.<br /><br /><em>You seem to be equating the conversion of sensory data to knowledge with some kind of six sense in which can reveal things to us our current five cannot. But revelation is something all together different.</em><br /><br />as said, a sixth sense will not help. and yes, revelation is something different all together. it tells us things that we couldn't figure out on our own. Allowing for it contributes to a much richer epistemology that empiricism can offer, one that takes advantage of more of our faculties for knowing.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>Rob, what we have are claims about real-world states. This implies that the real world exists and are based on real-world concepts. You're staring out in the real world and creating an elaborate, contrived path that leads back to assertions about God's existence and assertions that God has very specific properties. These assertions do not enjoy the same kind of support as the assertion that a real world exists. While they may ultimately both be start as assertions at some level, they are not equivalent.</em><br /><br />You yourself rightly feel that the consistency of our senses strongly cries out to be trusted in conveying a real world, though again, it is still a trust whether it is taken for granted or not.<br /><br />The normal view of a real world reported to our senses IS consistent with a view that there is an external world. That's good reason to trust it. But the picture painted in the Christian world view is also consistant with the senses, and more importantly, it is consistent and adquate for our existential concerns that go beyond the five senses.<br /><br />I'm very well aware that epistemically speaking, our truth claims about God and his rescue plans for the world through the teachings, life, death and the resurrection of Jesus are not equivalent to the belief in an external reality. They have different degrees or perhaps more accurately different kinds of epistemic risk. You misunderstand my point in bringing up solipsism. <br /><br />It's not to say that our view is justifiable for exactly the same reasons that belief in an external reality is justifiable, though there is definitely overlap in the various reasons. it's that some of the reasons you and John Loftus (the comment of his I quoted.. he has far more serious considerations that that one) use against religion would do something as silly as undermining belief in an external reality.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57184703639375654922009-10-05T13:58:59.293-04:002009-10-05T13:58:59.293-04:00post 1 of 3
Scott,
Should you want to head down...post 1 of 3<br /><br /><br />Scott,<br /><br /><em>Should you want to head down this path, it would appear we can never know anything more than we exhibit a sense of self which can experience "things."</em><br /><br />I'm not heading down this path. This is the path you are on. I'm just showing you were the road leads. My road doesn't lead there because I know better than to make the five senses the primary arbiter of truth. We have other faculties available to us.<br /><br /><em>But even these experiences could be an illusion. The fact that there is an "I" who seems to be experiencing "something" (real or illusionary) seems to be the only thing we can actually know, because we're the one experiencing something.</em><br /><br />yes, that's right IF you reject the place of faith in knowledge, that is almost the only thing you can know, albeit, the "I" inn't even on absolutely solid grounds. But that goes a bit beyond my head and I won't promote that as a consequence.<br /><br /><em>To say that I experience "things" implies we have a "mechanism" for process them.</em><br /><br />That may be true, but it is also irrelevant as evidence against solipsism. It's just another one of those faith commitments that we have that a narrative of a mechanism and the comprehensibility of the true mechanism should be available to us. And all those mechanisms that we speak of still can be apart of the solipsist narrative of a fictitious external reality.<br /><br /><em>I don't know what you mean by "going beyond sensory data." When presented with ambiguous interpretations, we need to make additional observations. If none are available then agnosticism is appropriate.</em><br /><br />the existential considerations are not dictated by the senses, that is what brings meaning to life and what could detract from it. That is one instance in going beyond.<br /><br />But if you want your agnosticism, again, apply it to an external reality. <br /><br /><em>Furthermore, we use our sense of touch as additional feedback which supports that objects exist where they we perceive them to exist.</em><br /><br />scott, there is no difference between this picture of implied external reality and a picture where it is all a perfect deception, not on the grounds that the senses themselves can tell you. just because all our senses are consistent which include feedback doesn't mean that you can rule out solipsism merely on the grounds of the senses.<br /><br />I know that our senses cry out to be trusted. the problem is when you take that trust, that faith for granted and suggest we don't need faith and we don't need anything beyond the senses.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6960289630887972522009-10-01T15:24:20.452-04:002009-10-01T15:24:20.452-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65614574104569878742009-10-01T14:49:31.676-04:002009-10-01T14:49:31.676-04:00Rob wrote: I don't know that I'd say our k...Rob wrote: <b>I don't know that I'd say our knowledge can be isolated from the five senses. I'm reacting to the idea that our five senses should become the arbiter of truth, and my discussion on solipsism demonstrates that it can't.</b><br /><br />Should you want to head down this path, it would appear we can never know anything more than we exhibit a sense of self which can experience "things." But even these experiences could be an illusion. The fact that there is an "I" who seems to be experiencing "something" (real or illusionary) seems to be the only thing we can actually know, because we're the one experiencing something.<br /><br />To say that I experience "things" implies we have a "mechanism" for process them. To use a computer analogy, we can accept, process, store and retrieve information. But we do not know if this data is accurate. Nor can it operate in a vacuum.<br /><br />Even then, it's not clear that what I experience isn't a subset of some larger entity and that our boundaries of individuality are an illusion.<br /><br /><b> More than one interpretation will fit the data so we need to be willing to go beyond sensory data.</b><br /><br />I don't know what you mean by "going beyond sensory data." When presented with ambiguous interpretations, we need to make additional observations. If none are available then agnosticism is appropriate. <br /><br />That we perceive a three dimensional space from two dimensional stereo fields of vision does not require some kind of revelation or sixth sense. Furthermore, we use our sense of touch as additional feedback which supports that objects exist where they we perceive them to exist. We can also intentionally expose ourselves to particular sensory data that can trick this process into returning false information. We can reproduce this in the lab and in the field. <br /><br /><b>What does it matter that we don't observe that some forms of the golden rule aren't unique to Christianity to the claim that it comes from God? There is no inconsistency there and the empirical data won't tell you so. Does this effect our interpretation of the situation? yes. Does it determine our understanding? certianly not </b><br /><br />You seem to be equating the conversion of sensory data to knowledge with some kind of six sense in which can reveal things to us our current five cannot. But revelation is something all together different. <br /><br /><b>you could say that it just shows that the claims that good morals cannot uniquely come from the God who is the alleged source of Christian revelation. </b><br /><br />Rob, what we have are claims about real-world states. This implies that the real world exists and are based on real-world concepts. You're staring out in the real world and creating an elaborate, contrived path that leads back to assertions about God's existence and assertions that God has very specific properties. These assertions do not enjoy the same kind of support as the assertion that a real world exists. While they may ultimately both be start as assertions at some level, they are not equivalent. <br /><br />A recent study also indicates noticeably different levels of brain activity when thinking about religious beliefs vs non-religious beliefs. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007272" rel="nofollow">The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief</a>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9854479508518802009-09-28T21:08:44.576-04:002009-09-28T21:08:44.576-04:00post 2 of 2
FYI here's comments on a post of...post 2 of 2<br /><br /><br />FYI here's comments on a post of your's that I missed.<br /><br /><em>It's not that knowledge is linked directly to our five senses - knowledge is at the intersection of our five senses. It's influenced and molded by our five senses. It exists in the light of our five senses and cannot be isolated.</em><br /><br />I don't know that I'd say our knowledge can be isolated from the five senses. I'm reacting to the idea that our five senses should become the arbiter of truth, and my discussion on solipsism demonstrates that it can't.<br /><br /><em>Where does any of this interest with our fives senses? In a wide variety of ways. In fact, most of the concepts above comes from our five senses. The very idea of a personal being is derived from having personal relationships with people, which we experience with our five senses. The wind can effect us yet be invisible, etc.</em><br /><br />And my beef with this is twofold. One is to be aware that the five senses here that are relevent aren't just my own. They are the church's, the communities. Secondly, the data from the five senses doesn't interpret itself. We are actively interpreting and the data from the senses cannot dictate that interpretation thoroughly. More than one interpretation will fit the data so we need to be willing to go beyond sensory data.<br /><br /><em>But to the idea that God told us so cannot exist in isolation from our five senses, which tells us this concept is not unique to Christianity or even theism.</em><br /><br />What does it matter that we don't observe that some forms of the golden rule aren't unique to Christianity to the claim that it comes from God? There is no inconsistency there and the empirical data won't tell you so. Does this effect our interpretation of the situation? yes. Does it determine our understanding? certianly not. you could say that it just shows that the claims that good morals cannot uniquely come from the God who is the alleged source of Christian revelation. Or equally (or actually much much better) you can note that God's revelatory activities are not restricted to the Judeo-Christian narrative. Interestingly, that is precisely what the Bible indicates in so many places.<br /><br /><em>It seems the best you can do is say the Golden Rule is beneficial, because we can observe it's beneficial. </em><br /><br />A much richer interpretation is that the Golden rule is beneficial because all people have deep worth and value, so deep that they reflect the image of God.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76659978593814917582009-09-28T21:08:00.427-04:002009-09-28T21:08:00.427-04:00post 1 of 2
Right. But to know this requires kno...post 1 of 2<br /><br /><br /><em>Right. But to know this requires knowledge that they are illusions and therefore not individuals.</em><br /><br />What I said to which this is a response is true regardless of whether external reality (including the existence of other individuals) is true or not. Perhaps you misinterpreted me, but what I intended to convey is that the individuals do not have much value as individuals if they are not autonomous real persons and if they are, then that value is possible after all.<br /><br /><em>If you're truly a brain in a vat</em><br /><br />the mechanism is irrelevant to the problem of the possibility of solipsism. (you may just not want to deal with the problem of solipsism, but my criticism of making all truth claims judge-able via the five senses referred to solipsism and if you intend to defend against it, then that concern sets the agenda).<br /><br /><em>. At best, you'd have to detect some kind of logical behavioral inconstancy in the illusion, which gives way that they are not individuals.</em><br /><br />no, you just have to be a hard nosed absolutist on empircism, like insisting that all knowledge must come through or be judged on the basis of the five senses.<br /><br /><em>But it's highly unlikely that people are illusions. And this is based on overwhelming evidence, such as the video I referenced. </em><br /><br />The empirical evidence that distinguishes senses that are correctly connected to an external reality and a solipsism where a perfect narrative (that is perfectly imitating an external reality) is nil. Their is one excellent way to get around this problem. Faith and trust in the intuitions that tell us that what we experience is real.<br /><br /><em>We can observe people thinking about other people's thoughts.</em><br /><br />you mean I experience the narrative of the experiences that imply that there are other peoples thoughts. I'm going to trust it though the narrative can't validate itself.<br /><br /><em>I think much this "problem" hinges on the fact that we don't understand exactly how consciousness works</em><br /><br />A technical narrative about how consciousness works isn't going to solve your problem. It's still part of the narrative that is delivered through the senses. It's just best to abandon empiricism.<br /><br /><em>But, if we were the creation of God, who intentionally designed us to have a personal relationship with him, it seems odd that we're so ill equipped to detect him and understand his revelation. Especially on critical matters, such as salvation.</em><br /><br />I don't have a problem with this. I don't think we are ill equipped at all. And while working for God's kingdom is not easy, that hardly means that it isn't possible and successfully done by those who follow Jesus.<br /><br />And it matters not that our understanding of revelation continues to develop since that is God's intention. The fact that we are to have a personal relationship just demonstrates that development and growth is a necessary part of the process because that's what relationships do. they develop.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2806519267987137882009-09-28T13:42:24.812-04:002009-09-28T13:42:24.812-04:00Rob wrote: whether you are technically right or no...Rob wrote: <b>whether you are technically right or not, the essence of my point remains, that those specific individuals we know and value as valuable being equivalent to my own do not have that value as illusions.</b><br /><br />Right. But to know this requires knowledge that they are illusions and therefore not individuals. If you're truly a brain in a vat, you can't know anything about the external reality as you'd have no way to sense it. Otherwise, this scenario would be the equivalent of having artificial eyes, etc. At best, you'd have to detect some kind of logical behavioral inconstancy in the illusion, which gives way that they are not individuals. But this requires them to act in ways that does not indicate they are individuals, which requires to you to somehow know how individuals act, etc. <br /><br />If you went to sleep as a normal person, unknowingly had your brain surgically removed, then woke up as a brain in vat, you'd have a reference point.<br /><br />But it's highly unlikely that people are illusions. And this is based on overwhelming evidence, such as the video I referenced. We can observe people thinking about other people's thoughts. We can see this ability mature in children. This activity goes far beyond instinctual responses to actions they might observe. <br /><br />And while we currently can't directly experience someones else's thoughts, this doesn't mean we won't be able to at some point in the future. <br /><br />I think much this "problem" hinges on the fact that we don't understand exactly how consciousness works at our own level, even though we experience it. (Why we experience anything as an individual, etc.)<br /><br />However, if we evolved to function at a significantly different level than we've become aware of, this really wouldn't come as a surprise. Like atoms and quarks, the idea of consciousness is likely to be a relatively recent discovery that we're not very well equipped to understand how it works. <br /><br />But, if we were the creation of God, who intentionally designed us to have a personal relationship with him, it seems odd that we're so ill equipped to detect him and understand his revelation. Especially on critical matters, such as salvation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89260459236347853872009-09-26T12:24:52.066-04:002009-09-26T12:24:52.066-04:00If there is no external reality, then we're ta...<em>If there is no external reality, then we're talking about a single individual, instead of many individuals. The value of an individual does not necessarily change just because there would be fewer of them.</em><br /><br />whether you are technically right or not, the essence of my point remains, that those specific individuals we know and value as valuable being equivalent to my own do not have that value as illusions.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47536903414773167592009-09-25T23:20:39.240-04:002009-09-25T23:20:39.240-04:00post 4 of 4
the results are there for all to se...post 4 of 4<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>the results are there for all to see.</em><br /><br />hmmm, let's back up a bit where you recognized the fact that not everyone can go to a particle accelerator. And for that matter, lets also recognize that not everyone can get the skills to interpret the data from that. And this is the case in so many other scientific fields, and yet when the largest population of college students going into some technical field have their biology/chemistry/physics labs, or even more advanced classes, they don't actually see the principals at work as described. Most students will get some other results and then they will have to calculate the percent error and geuss all the reasons as to why their experiment did not go as the principal which is still trusted (rightfully so) described.<br /><br />Well, yeah the results are there to see, but we have to actively interpret the results and make them fit the principals that we trust. <br /><br />Again, I'm not the one who says this is a problem (it is though for those for whom faith is the f-word).<br /><br /><em>the practical output demonstrates the validity of the process.</em><br /><br />sure. not absolutely. It doesn't eliminate some degree of epistemic risk. but sure, the practical output placed within a fairly coherent framework and helps to reduce the epistemic risk.<br /><br /><em>This is the most common argument I see from theists, regardless of theological background when the issue of other ways of knowing comes up. It's what I've experienced, it's all I can base my experience off. If you don't adhere to such arguments, then please don't take offence. I'm eager to understand how others view this supposed "different ways of knowing". Because from what I read, from what others tell me, I get the distinct impression that personal revelation is somehow a legitimate source of knowledge. And the only justification I've seen is akin to whether one knows they are in love or not. If there's better arguments, please point me in the right direction.</em><br /><br /><br />What I immeadiately objected to which you said was that we justified not giving evidence. The data on scientific ground is important for what we say, but we deal with historical evidence, scriptural evidence (not always on the grounds of the legitimacy of our faith, but the issues we deal with do not always revolve around the legitimacy of our beliefs but rather in drawing out their implications), and much evidence that those of an enlightenment bent don't value, like the emotional and existential concerns.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81131710076411797802009-09-25T23:19:40.298-04:002009-09-25T23:19:40.298-04:00post 3 of 4
Philosophers can wax about the mind...post 3 of 4<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>Philosophers can wax about the mind / body problem but really any take on consciousness must ultimately adhere to the findings of neuroscience.</em><br /><br />The findings of neuroscience are more tentative and more flexible to interpretation than many would suppose. And finding that some experience is associated with some strand of neurons firing is a long way from explaining subjective experience. The two are not the same in any way shape or form regardless of causal connections between the two.<br /><br /><em>It's not an appeal to authority,</em><br /><br />appeal to authority is a relative term. Much of science is indeed an appeal to an authority when the claim made relies on someone else's observations and skills). It is often a non-falacious appeal to authority, of course when the claim made is not controversial amongst the experts.<br /><br /><em>rather the process is made objective as humanly possible by having anonymous peer review and millions around the world to try to prove you wrong.</em><br /><br />No, this does not make it objective. philosophical biases that shape how one looks at the data are often shared throughout a community. Thomas Kuhn described this process of how most or all of the scientific community may follow a paradigm that has assumptions that are not challenged. (actually that's an understatement. everything that is done is done within the context of such paradigms).<br /><br /><em>But it's not faith,</em><br /><br />well let's not use the F-word here. cause we only use it as atheists use it emphasizing with negative connotations.<br /><br />but in the context of epistemic concerns, faith = trust. You admit trust, you admit faith. if you don't, you're just playing a pointless game of semantics that only recognizes the inadequate way in which atheists use faith only emphasizing the kinds that qualify as blind faith and irrationality.<br /><br />Faith that is truly relevant here is the confidence that a belief is an item of knowledge even though one recognizes the epistemic risk (ie the fact that what is claimed cannot be absolutely proven, or it is conceivable on some level that that what is believed could be wrong). And if there is absolutely no possibility that it could be wrong, then trust just isn't needed.<br /><br />course that isn't exactly how faith is used in the context of scripture, but it is relevant.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83606698396488825142009-09-25T23:18:44.870-04:002009-09-25T23:18:44.870-04:00post 2 of 4
If one needs God for morality, the...post 2 of 4<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><em>If one needs God for morality, then it should be that only Christians have any sense of morality.</em><br /><br />And even if this were the discussion we were having, that has not been my approach. I don't deny that atheists can act morally or have an ethical system. I just think that a transcendent aspect of reality, particularly spelled out by some theisms which roots much of our deep value in our status as creatures created in the image of God is just a more consistent and more robust foundation for morality than secular humanism can provide.<br /><br /><em>If one needs gods in general, then it's a concession that there is no need for gods, only the belief in gods.</em><br /><br />If you want to deny a place for existential import, and the reduction of existential risk in your view, then that is not a problem. But that we need to believe a lie for such an important aspect of humanity is existentially repugnant.<br /><br />And this becomes a problem for the epistemic project as it denies that we are better off knowing truth.<br /><br /><em>Anyway, I'd like to hear how theism can explain what atheism can't.</em><br /><br />It's not my approach to emphasize that atheism isn't capable of offering an explanation for so much of existence. I just don't think that they are the best explanations.<br /><br />But there are some things that atheism can't explain like the intrinsic worth of individuals. Sure we recognize it and maybe we have it because of survival advantages, but that doesn't explain that it is true that persons are good and valuable in and of themselves.<br /><br /><em>This seems a good bottom-up explanation ... as opposed to wondering if what is good is the arbitrary rules of an amoral higher power</em><br /><br />maybe it is better than that. That's because a simplistic divine command theory isn't a very good theory about morality.<br /><br /><em>At the same time, when doing history we need to conform what is found to the findings of science.</em><br /><br />Science is not more basic than history. The question of whether or not something happened is often though not always more basic than how it happened. There is a give and take of course and each type of knowledge help to expand the other, and yet sometimes the one doesn't do anything for the other and mysteries persist. The road goes both ways.<br /><br /><em>What I was trying to get at with my comment about reality was the question of whether things exist. Science may not be able to answer how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but it is the only discipline that's even remotely capable of showing whether angels exist.</em><br /><br />unless angels aren't interested in taking part in scientific studies about them but would rather reveal themselves in other ways. There just is no good reason for me to embrace the nearly positivistic framework from which you make this claim.<br /><br />Course, it's not as if the existence of angels is at the heart of these discussions, but rather is an extension of other frameworks which are weighed on other issues.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6693092543472856942009-09-25T23:17:47.973-04:002009-09-25T23:17:47.973-04:00Kel
I don't see this as a problem for the s...Kel<br /><br /><br /><em><br />I don't see this as a problem for the scientific method at all. </em><br /><br />excellent. neither do I because I know the limits and I know the folly of trying to make it the center of an epistemology important though as it is.<br /><br /><em>There's no problem with saying "I don't know",</em><br /><br />right on and there is definitely a problem with saying "we can't know because we can't confirm it with the scientific method or our five senses or a non-controversial means to truth."<br /><br />atheists make problems when they try to go down any of these roads.<br /><br />Fact is, if non-controversial means reliable and controversial means unreliable, then we can't know anything period because epistemology itself and the philosophy of science are very controversial fields amongst those who specialize in them. Even what constitutes truth is controversial.<br /><br /><em>We should expect the golden rule to form a part of all ethical systems and all cultures. </em><br /><br />So that's why slavery and the caste system and racism were so rare... wait a minute. actually they weren't.<br /><br /><em>Secondly, there's much about our moral system that is both universal and innate. </em><br /><br />Well, it's interesting you say that. I've always wondered why we have such rampant world peace, political harmony, and legal systems even though no one ever sues anyone and there is no criminal behaviour.<br /><br />I'll grant that much is virtually universal, but then should we give up on the issues that aren't?<br /><br /><em>Only problem is...</em><br /><br />that only problem is enough to illustrate my point that we don't have non-controversial means of determining ethical behavior or at least if some ideas are almost non-controversial such as the golden rule, the application is still tinged with subjectivity leaving much room for what is in fact much debate and arguing over ethical issues.<br /><br /><em>As for what theism does any better than atheism I don't know. </em><br /><br />Which is out of the immeadiate scope of the point I was making in this discussion that I instigated by reacting to a comment John made.<br /><br />But I grant that theism isn't better here. Theistic means towards ethics are controversial. Atheists do not agree with much of it. That's just an extension of my point. it doesn't hurt my position any because I believe that there are reliable means to truth that are not universially recognized.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5465164763474696422009-09-25T23:03:57.791-04:002009-09-25T23:03:57.791-04:00I don't interpret my observations that way.
S...<b>I don't interpret my observations that way.</b><br /><br />Should one start with the assertion that God is evil, then one could associate all of the evil things we observe God. When faced with "the problem of goodness", one could say all of the good things are necessary as part of this evil God's plan. For example, if we had never experienced good, we wouldn't know what we're missing. Therefore, suffering evil without knowing good does not result in the depth of suffering that God wanted. <br /><br /><b> If there is no external reality, then the meaning of life would be drastically different and individual worth of people would be nil (since they are not real).</b><br /><br />If there is no external reality, then we're talking about a single individual, instead of many individuals. The value of an individual does not necessarily change just because there would be fewer of them.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32920810222823167892009-09-25T23:03:10.942-04:002009-09-25T23:03:10.942-04:00by insisting that knowledge must always be directl...<b>by insisting that knowledge must always be directly linked to the five senses.</b><br /><br />Rob,<br /><br />It's not that knowledge is linked directly to our five senses - knowledge is at the intersection of our five senses. It's influenced and molded by our five senses. It exists in the light of our five senses and cannot be isolated. <br /><br />We can have sensory input from a multitude of external things, but this is not knowledge. Knowledge is more than the sum of our senses. <br /><br />Let's take the idea that God reveals things to people, such as the Golden Rule. Should it be the case that you think God revealed the precept to treat others as you'd like to be treated, is this knowledge? We can break this down to…<br /><br />- Treating others as you'd like to be treated is good. <br />- God told you that it is good<br />- God wants you to do what is good. <br />- God is the very essence of goodness <br /><br />This implies… <br /><br />- God like beings can exist<br />- God like beings do exist<br />- Only one God like being exists<br />- God is a personal being and an active agent in our daily affairs<br />- God is capable of personally revealing things to people<br />- God actually reveals things to people<br />- He does this despite the fact that he does not speak or actual reveal himself directly. <br />- You had an experience where God revealed something to you<br />- One of the things God revealed to you was the Golden Rule. <br />- The God that revealed this to you was the Christian God, Yahweh. <br /><br />Where does any of this interest with our fives senses? In a wide variety of ways. In fact, most of the concepts above comes from our five senses. The very idea of a personal being is derived from having personal relationships with people, which we experience with our five senses. The wind can effect us yet be invisible, etc. <br /><br />The idea that God is an agent is based on our five senses detecting agents that are external to us and the changes they cause. The idea that God is an designer is based on our five senses detecting designers and the things they design. <br /><br />But, despite our five sense telling us that God, should he exist, would not like any fathers we know and not like any agents we know and not like any designers we know, God is supposedly all of these things. He's made up of fragments of what our five senses detect. <br /><br />One might say that the Golden Rule is beneficial because, when applied, we can see the benefits with out five senses. But to the idea that God told us so cannot exist in isolation from our five senses, which tells us this concept is not unique to Christianity or even theism. In fact, our five senses tell us that other people think different Gods tell them different things via this same process of revelation. Again, our internal experiences intersect with our senses in a way that is unavoidable, unless you choose to intentionally ignore them. <br /><br />It seems the best you can do is say the Golden Rule is beneficial, because we can observe it's beneficial. <br /><br />Of course, if one starts with the assertion that God is good, then this might lead one to link these two together, but this is based on unsupported assumptions. Instead, this is theological conclusion one reached when you start with the assertion that God exists, is all powerful, all knowing, personal and is the essence of goodness.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8156959738135876992009-09-25T22:50:02.652-04:002009-09-25T22:50:02.652-04:00Rob wrote: But it remains to be seen as to whether...Rob wrote: <b>But it remains to be seen as to whether it is a good interpretation and dealing with the issue at the general level doesn't get to it. </b><br /><br />Rob, I'm not advocating this view. I'm merely noting that the very same thing we observe could be explained by non-supernatural beings that are much more advanced than we are. <br /><br /><b>Secondly, This alien view is about equivalent with atheism on existential issues of the meaning of life, intrinsic worth.</b><br /><br />It seems the only difference here is that you assert God is the very essence of goodness. It is only because of this assertion that God cannot arbitrary give commands and his actions are alway good. But what is this based on?<br /><br />C.S. Lewis said... <i>"But it might be permissible to lay down two negations: that God neither obeys nor creates the moral law. The good is uncreated; it could never have been otherwise; it has in it no shadow of contingency; it lies, as Plato said, on the other side of existence. [But since only God admits of no contingency, we must say that] God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.<br /><br />These may seem like fine-spun speculations: yet I believe that nothing short of this can save us. A Christianity which does not see moral and religious experience converging to meet at infinity … has nothing, in the long run, to divide it from devil worship."</i><br /><br />When presented with the Euthyphro Dilemma, it's an assertion you must make to save the Christian God. <br /><br />Otherwise, we have intelligent agents intentionally creating us with a purpose, and interacting with us because we have value to them. These aliens could have existed for millions of years longer than us. They could have a far greater understanding of the results of their actions and how they effect others. And they might know far more than we do about the nature of consciousness and how their decisions are influenced. Therefore, they might have evolved a far greater sense of morality which "transcends" our own.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84539958453426713362009-09-24T22:19:31.510-04:002009-09-24T22:19:31.510-04:00Scott, you are right about the interpretation of t...Scott, you are right about the interpretation of the five senses and aliens and replacing God with evolution directed by aliens. But it remains to be seen as to whether it is a good interpretation and dealing with the issue at the general level doesn't get to it. Secondly, This alien view is about equivalent with atheism on existential issues of the meaning of life, intrinsic worth.<br /><br /><em>To say that such a test is equal is to say one is justified in walking rush hour traffic as the experience of being hit and possibly killed by a car might be an illusion.</em><br /><br />If I were to grant your claim, then that'd be fine with me if you find this problematic because this is the picture you still allow (unintentionaly) by insisting that knowledge must always be directly linked to the five senses.<br /><br />But Pain and suffering is very much a part of the illusion, and that there is no knowable external reality behind it doesn't mean that it is desirable to be careless with choices in the dream. (of course this is granting that there is a unified subject/mind which receives the experiences (but that is an issue that just starts to go over my head)).<br /><br /><em>Regardless if God is waiting until some time in the future or that he does not exist, the outcomes we currently observe point to random chance just as much as they point to God.</em><br /><br />I don't interpret my observations that way.<br /><br /><em>If we have no way to test this then we have no way to test anything at all. </em><br /><br />Actually we do have some tests. If there is no external reality, then the meaning of life would be drastically different and individual worth of people would be nil (since they are not real). Those are examples existential considerations which I believe deserve a much more prominent role in epistemology.<br /><br /><em>The problem of other people's minds is regarding…. people.</em><br /><br />Okay, it's not exactly what I said it is, but it is a parallel and for the solipsist and/or the radical skeptic, the arguments against the existance of other minds can be asserted in tandem with arguments against the knowability of an external reality.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55055936421222960262009-09-23T09:37:39.981-04:002009-09-23T09:37:39.981-04:00(continued)
Actually, if someone behaves ethicall...(continued)<br /><br /><i>Actually, if someone behaves ethically, I'd say that his ethics is precisely telling us how he behaves.</i><br />I would argue that to measure how someone behaves under an ethical system is a scientific question.<br /><br /><i>As John noted, science can tell us that smoking is bad, but only when it's already in a framework that tells us that human life is worth living and preserving, and science cannot speak to what has worth and value.</i><br />Agreed, science cannot tell us that. Science can, however, tell us how we've been wired to find life itself valuable. Beyond all else, if I'm wired to find value and meaning in existence, is an atheist existence really going to be nihilistic for me? <br /><br /><i>So would you say that ethics aren't an aspect of reality? I'd say that'd be synonymous with saying that the conclusions of ethics are just false.</i><br />Ethics is an aspect of <i>our</i> reality. But I want to clarify this point as regards to what I meant, it seems I poorly communicated what I was trying to say. Consider history. While it's not science, it doesn't mean that it's not part of our reality or that we can learn nothing. At the same time, when doing history we need to conform what is found to the findings of science. We don't believe in staves turning into snakes, because we know that to be scientifically impossible (or so improbable that it is effectively impossible). Art would also be covered in such a discipline. It could tell us a lot about ourselves, but ultimately how the grey matters perceives art is a scientific endeavour.<br /><br />What I was trying to get at with my comment about reality was the question of whether things exist. Science may not be able to answer how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but it is the only discipline that's even remotely capable of showing whether angels exist. Philosophers can wax about the mind / body problem but really any take on consciousness must ultimately adhere to the findings of neuroscience. Just as any philosophy on the nature of man needs to take into account evolution and ethology. <br /><br /><i>And we can't just deal with these issues on the individual level. Individuals are inept arriving at much knowledge by themselves. We REALLY take for granted just how big of a role the community plays in advancing our knowledge (this is especially true in science) since as individuals, we cannot personally verify everything that we'd like to claim to know.</i><br />Indeed, there ultimately has to be a level of trust. I haven't done the experiments at the particle accelerators, or checked the stratum under which a fossil was said to be uncovered. Yet I rely on the process because ultimately I can see that the process works. Again, it is a feature of the scientific method that it is community based. It's not an appeal to authority, rather the process is made objective as humanly possible by having anonymous peer review and millions around the world to try to prove you wrong. But it's not faith, the results are there for all to see. Even without reading the primary literature or secondary literature, the practical output demonstrates the validity of the process. If science lived or died on the workings of an individual, the sheer scope of what the process handles means we wouldn't get anyway. <br /><br /><i>Who does that? Not me, and certainly not the vast majority of theologians out there.</i><br />This is the most common argument I see from theists, regardless of theological background when the issue of other ways of knowing comes up. It's what I've experienced, it's all I can base my experience off. If you don't adhere to such arguments, then please don't take offence. I'm eager to understand how others view this supposed "different ways of knowing". Because from what I read, from what others tell me, I get the distinct impression that personal revelation is somehow a legitimate source of knowledge. And the only justification I've seen is akin to whether one knows they are in love or not. If there's better arguments, please point me in the right direction.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27728662701992095822009-09-23T07:19:18.002-04:002009-09-23T07:19:18.002-04:00Rob R,
Sorry for the delay, life happens and I fo...Rob R,<br /><br />Sorry for the delay, life happens and I forgot to check back to see whether you replied until now. Moderation does suck, but I can understand why Loftus does so. If you want, we can continue this discussion over at my blog Kelosophy - though I understand if you decline. Thanks for putting in the effort to discuss this with me, I truly appreciate it.<br /><br />But getting back into it...<br /><br /><i>In light of that contradiction between quantum mechanics and relativity, we don't know which (if either) is reality revealing and which is only relatively superficially accurate.</i><br />I can understand the point you are trying to make, though it seems to be against the spirit of what I'm trying to say. Yes, there is a seemingly irreconcilability between quantum mechanics and relativity. Theories are tentative and are subject to change. What is not under question though are the facts themselves. The problem comes from our inadequacy to resolve observations with the theories. <br /><br />I don't see this as a problem for the scientific method at all. There's no problem with saying "I don't know", it gives the opportunity to discover new things and push the knowledge further. It's not a problem with the methodology, it's a feature and one reason why the method is so successful. <br /><br /><i>And we'd agree here and we'd have to note that in one of the most important areas of human experience, the human experience of knowledge, is not something that John Loftus could describe as "reliable" since there is much disagreement on ethics, not just between cultures but within cultures and even within traditions. Even the atheistic preference for making the golden rule central adds a subjectivity that is ripe for disagreement. If the presence of controversy means the absence of reliability, then John has just wiped out the atheistic basis for morality, and for the majority of humans, that is rightfully an indicator of the ineptitude of atheism.</i><br />I disagree with this for two reasons. Firstly the golden rule can be born out of game theory, the notion of reciprocal altruism is a very stable survival strategy and seen in other animals. We should expect the golden rule to form a part of all ethical systems and all cultures. <br /><br />Secondly, there's much about our moral system that is both universal and innate. This can be explained by evolution. Only problem is that the traits work well for groups of 150 or so, but aren't equipped for handling large societies and hence the need for law as a means of control. <br /><br />As for what theism does any better than atheism I don't know. If one needs God for morality, then it should be that only Christians have any sense of morality. If one needs gods in general, then it's a concession that there is no need for gods, only the belief in gods. It's not an argument against atheism, it's an argument against an atheist society. Two very different things. <br /><br />Anyway, I'd like to hear how theism can explain what atheism can't. The process of life itself lends itself to particular survival strategies involving cooperation, so that to me is enough to give an externalised standard. Too much murder? Population decline. Too much lying? No capacity for keeping society together. Too much adultery? Raising children becomes a lot harder. A lot of our morality falls out of the pure virtue of being alive and being big brained social primates. This seems a good bottom-up explanation for objective standards of morality, as opposed to wondering if what is good is the arbitrary rules of an amoral higher power or the desire to be like a higher power that embodies the objective quality of good external to such a being. <br /><br />(to be continued)Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64164828754260158922009-09-22T23:08:27.828-04:002009-09-22T23:08:27.828-04:00The idea that other people are actually robots is ...<b>The idea that other people are actually robots is not the suggestion here. There is no mechanism suggested as none could be directly determined. A mechanism could be suggested, but it is completely unnecessary to solipsism.</b><br /><br />This is not the classic problem of other people's minds, but the problem that we could be brains in a vat. But, should this be true, we might as well throw up our hands as there would be no way to tell what's reality and what's not. Furthermore, we'd have to account for why all of the things we do experience with our five senses seem to add up in a consistent way. And why our experiences seem to correlate with all of those people who appear to have minds. Should we reject all of this, then we have absolutely nothing. All bets are off. This is NOT the kind of skepticism i'm suggesting. <br /><br /><b>Right. But there's no way to test that appearance as reliable as any test and any result has the same quality, that it comes through our experience and we don't have direct access otherwise.</b><br /><br />If we have no way to test this then we have no way to test anything at all. To say that such a test is equal is to say one is justified in walking rush hour traffic as the experience of being hit and possibly killed by a car might be an illusion. <br /><br /><b>I don't receive any input that there are people who exist and populate the third largest town/city of Madagascar. Definitely not overwhelming input, and yet, there isn't a doubt in my mind that such a place populated by such people exists.</b><br /><br />The problem of other people's minds is regarding…. people. So, based on the overwhelming input you receive about people in your immediate vicinity, it's a reasonable conclusion to think that, should there be people in Madagascar, they would also have minds. They are the same "class" of being. <br /><br />We can say the same thing about historical figures to a limited degree. Unless human beings have changed dramatically, and there is some kind of historical conspiracy which has falsified documents and artifacts which only appear to be the result of people with minds (and all of their quirks), then it's reasonable to conclude that people in the relatively recent past had minds. <br /><br /><b>The community of God's people have indeed had vivid interaction with God as is recorded in scripture, but all individuals can have a subjective experience of God and can see God at work in the narrative of their lives should they passionately pursue God (and even some who don't will experience this as well).</b><br /><br />Human beings have had "vivid" interaction with gods as far as recorded human history. What of all the other miracles, virgin births and resurrections? Why did this interaction become essentially nonexistent when our ability to record and document our world improved exponentially?If God actually interacts with us, should we not see such interaction also rise exponentially?<br /><br />And, again, I could easily substitute advanced aliens in place of God, directing evolution, interacting and studying us.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40235252807607266522009-09-22T23:07:18.619-04:002009-09-22T23:07:18.619-04:00Rob wrote: And that just doesn't amount to any...Rob wrote: <b>And that just doesn't amount to anything. What we get from our five senses has to be interpreted and those interpretational faculties extend massively beyond the five senses. You choose not to interpret what you see as evidence of God, I choose otherwise.</b><br /><br />One could also choose to interpret their five senses as evidence that powerful aliens exist and they are using advanced technology to manipulate us and the universe we live in. Does this amount to something? <br /><br /><b>yes, and there are people who see radical effects from that. drop the individualistic epistemology and this becomes a reasonable claim.</b><br /><br />But people can see radical effects from other kinds of sincere expressions of concern and affection. The effects do not specifically point to God any more than they point to aliens that intervene on our behalf or to advance their own mysterious agenda or placebo. <br /><br /><b>If one doesn't just work with bare definitions but pays attention to the Christian narrative, they'd realize that the world in which all ailments are healed and prevented and God's glory is obvious to any pair of eyes has not yet fully arrived.</b><br /><br />Regardless if God is waiting until some time in the future or that he does not exist, the outcomes we currently observe point to random chance just as much as they point to God.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70967905500961306992009-09-22T20:32:00.994-04:002009-09-22T20:32:00.994-04:00Chuck
Can I then be confident that my Christianit...Chuck<br /><br /><em>Can I then be confident that my Christianity and belief in the divine was a symptom of an undiagnosed anxiety disorder and depression and now that I have sought out medical treatment for both I no longer need to rely on divine rescue?</em><br /><br /><br />I don't know your story chuck. for all I know, perhaps you can. Yes people have had hopelessly distorted view of God and need a fresh start. I don't know that you are better off then or now, but if want nothing to do with God, you definitely aren't in a good place.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83759156592038911742009-09-22T20:25:48.252-04:002009-09-22T20:25:48.252-04:00Steven, my comment was to scott. If you didn'...Steven, my comment was to scott. If you didn't read what scott said (and of course in the context of a remark I made against a claim that John Loftus made), you wouldn't know why I brought up these points.<br /><br />John questioned why we should believe in God if we can't experience him with our five senses. Well one could make a parallel claim about external reality itself to begin with since there is no direct access to it.<br /><br /><em>Yes, you do. You can get it from television, from pictures, from reading the newspaper, as well as other places.</em><br /><br />No I don't. I have never heard of the place, don't know what it's called and I never watch tv about madagascar to begin with and even if I did, it most likely would not be about the third largest town. And if it was, then there is always the fifth smallest village in Mongolia.<br /><br /><em>However, since you do admit this is evidence, you can assign some reasonable probabilities for certainty here.</em><br /><br />I don't need to put any effort at all into assigning 100 percent into the idea there is a third largest town. And while I fully recognize that the epistemic risk of belief in God is not equivalent to belief in the third largest town in madagascar, that doesn't make a difference to my point. I wasn't making an analogy between belief in God and belief in the third largest town in Madagascar and I wasn't even arguing for the existence of God in that instance. I was highlighting the inadequacy of a claim made by John Loftus that Scott attempted to develop for it's defense.<br /><br /><em>You appear to be on a road to a mysticism that doesn't give you any reason to believe anything.</em><br /><br />On the contrary steven, I am taking a stand against a claim that has no strength against mysticism or solipsism when it tries to narrow the limits of reasonable knowledge too much.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30654798709680708902009-09-22T12:40:37.527-04:002009-09-22T12:40:37.527-04:00Right. But there's no way to test that appeara...<i>Right. But there's no way to test that appearance as reliable as any test and any result has the same quality, that it comes through our experience and we don't have direct access otherwise.</i><br /><br />Sigh. Rob, I had a feeling it was going to come down to this, you've been arguing in this direction the whole time. Yes, it is in fact impossible to tell if the real world really exists or if we are really just brains in vats. Of what use is this discovery? What insights does it really give us beyond the realization that a great deal of our knowledge is a lot more uncertain than we would like to think? This isn't a mind shattering realization to anyone here.<br /><br />You appear to be on a road to a mysticism that doesn't give you any reason to believe anything. That's fine, but you aren't going to convince anyone here that you presenting anything holding great insight.<br /><br /><i>I don't receive any input that there are people who exist and populate the third largest town/city of Madagascar.</i><br /><br />Yes, you do. You can get it from television, from pictures, from reading the newspaper, as well as other places. If you didn't receive any input at all, you would not have even heard of Madagascar, let alone any of the cities or towns that might be there. Now you can argue that that isn't direct evidence, but in light of your previous statement, the difference is irrelevant. However, since you <i>do</i> admit this is evidence, you can assign some reasonable probabilities for certainty here.<br /><br />You can say that you know people, the people in Madagascar, seem to look and behave in the same way you and the people around you do. Madagascar doesn't appear to be someplace completely foreign where the laws of physics are different, etc. In other words, it looks like a real place that you could visit, and not "gum drop island" with rainbows and unicorns.<br /><br />Now, the important part, you have to gauge whether or not the input you've been provided with is real or has been faked. We can go down that road too if you like, but it comes down to the same thing. You can make a strong inference that the evidence that you've been provided with for the existence of people in Madagascar is good (or at least reasonably believable) because you've been given similar evidence in the past that has also been proven to be reliable. That doesn't mean that pictures or newspaper stories can't be faked, but you now have to come up with a reason to suspect that such things have been faked.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.com