|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2005 : 21:52:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The simple answer of "I don't know" is far superior to groundless speculation.
Let me say it as a matter of record: (Of course) I don't "know" these things are *fact*; however I do happen to "believe" them to be more or less true.
But I can say that it *is* a fact that I do experience what I "feel" is the Divine. (And yes I fully expect such an experience to be correlated with certain brain functions.)
|
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 22:14:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Anytime anyone makes a claim, they have a the responsibility to provide evidence to back that claim.
Certainly that is true if a scientist is making a claim that something is a "fact". I'm just a religionist stating my beliefs. I don't claim it as fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Your insistence that "supermaterial beings" are real and interact in some way with the universe is an unevidenced claim.
Logic does not disprove your claim, it merely doesn't consider your claim to have merit, due to the lack of evidence.
That is why it isn't logical for anyone to accept your claim as having merit.
Does logic state that only those things which are evidenced have merit? Furthermore, I don't even think logic has to do with the concept of merit, only self consistency with given axioms. (Although, not being a student of philosophy I can't say that for sure.)
But I would certainly agree to the proposition that it isn't "logical" for anyone to deduce that my "beliefs" are fact. They may well observe however that they are at least self consistent and not *contradictory* to what is observed as fact.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 22:23:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
But what's a skeptic to do if he wakes up, after death, in a new kind of body? [quote]Originally posted by H. Humbert
Reach a new tenative conclusion based upon the new evidence. What else?
Hehe, spoken like a true skeptic. Would such a "new tentative conclusion" go along with a changed attitude, an altered apprehension of meanings, and a reordered value priority? That would be the kicker.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 23:10:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Would such a "new tentative conclusion" go along with a changed attitude, an altered apprehension of meanings, and a reordered value priority? That would be the kicker.
Let's see. Changed attitude? I don't see why, no. An altered apprehension of meanings? Of the state of things, maybe, but I don't think my understanding of any meanings would change. And there would definitely be no reordering of priorities, unless you meant such things as eating or sleeping, which may or not be necessary depending upon the needs of my new body.
What's the purpose of this little mental exercise anyway? I'm assuming you're driving at some ultimate point.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 23:27:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does logic state that only those things which are evidenced have merit? Furthermore, I don't even think logic has to do with the concept of merit, only self consistency with given axioms.
An argument based upon false premises can be a valid argument, but it is not considered a sound argument.
In order for a premise to be considered true, it must be supported by evidence.
For a deductive argument to be in proper form, it must be valid (the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises) and sound (the premises are true).
Here is a brief explanation of the concept of validity.
More info here that will help you understand basic arguments.
And some FAQs on logic and argument.
quote:
But I would certainly agree to the proposition that it isn't "logical" for anyone to deduce that my "beliefs" are fact. They may well observe however that they are at least self consistent and not *contradictory* to what is observed as fact.
And my claim that the IPU (invisible pink unicorn, fyi) lives in my garage is also not contradictory with observed fact. It is, however, nothing more than an unevidenced assertion. Same for your "supermaterial" beings.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 03:20:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Which is why many people will require the experience of waking up after death in a new body in order to overcome intellectual disbelief. Yet even that won't do it for many. They will merely assume "that's just the way it is" , just as they assumed "that's just the way it is" when confronted with their own self conscious self in this life. quote:
Originally posted by filthie
Mined quote in bold: are you now suggesting reincarnation? Or have I read it out of context?
Actually I'm referring to a new kind of (resurrection) body, in a new world. (Reincarnation I don't happen to believe in, although there may be some phenomena occuring that might make it seem so.}
But what's a skeptic to do if he wakes up, after death, in a new kind of body?
Oh, I dunno, he might say something like, "Have moicy, but what's this? Guess I got's it wrong back there, huh?" And then bitch about the weather.
But that is the 'What If?' game and it can be played endlessly with any topic and remain meaningless. I do not expect to 'wake up' in a new body either spiritual or corporeal simply because I have no reference for such beyond the claims and stories of people who also have no reference beyond the same books that are available to and have been discounted by me. And 'round and 'round we go.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2005 : 10:27:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
??? It is a reasonable proposition that there is objective reality which is beyond our ability to probe. It is not so outlandish to postulate that some objective reality exists which we do not (subjectively) experience via science or whatever. I don't see how imagination or delusion anything to do with that. To limit the possibilities of universe reality to that which is compatible with our human probing is rather anthropomorphic imo.
And to expand it is folly, since "God exists" is no more supported by evidence than "dark matter is made of fairy poop." Imagination and delusion are as equally evidenced as religious beliefs about the nature of God. When every "beyond measurable reality" claim has precisely the same objectively determinable "truth value" (zero), there is no logical reason to "believe" one of them more than any other. After such a point, what you want to believe is based upon nothing more than personal preference.
The number of "possibilities of universe reality" is infinite. So, the chance that any one of them - such as your own personal conception of God - is actually true is exceedingly small. I feel sorry for people who choose to spend their valuable time and resources chasing such phantoms, with such a teensy-weensy chance of being correct.
Far better, it seems, to bet on what we can verify. This is a matter of both practicality and rationality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 06:57:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Let's see. Changed attitude? I don't see why, no. An altered apprehension of meanings? Of the state of things, maybe, but I don't think my understanding of any meanings would change. And there would definitely be no reordering of priorities, unless you meant such things as eating or sleeping, which may or not be necessary depending upon the needs of my new body.
What's the purpose of this little mental exercise anyway? I'm assuming you're driving at some ultimate point.
One of the things I'm getting at is that, at just about any environment we find ourselves in, there will be ample room to doubt what I believe is our ultimate Source and Destiny. Even if there was no hardship and injustice in this life, people would be doubting the reality of God. Even if someone was to wake up in a new kind of body, there would be room to doubt. The concept of what is "natural" may be expanded, but that would be about as far as it goes. So here we find outselves as biological entity capable of contemplating beauty and goodness and ideals, and ... God. Is this 'just the way it is', the way of the natural order of things, or is there more to it?
The sketpic's dilemna is that - socially at least - he doesn't want to be found to believe what can't be 'proven', and yet he may personally 'want' to believe there is indeed more, something which is compatible with what I shall call the "God urge" within.
Perhaps there comes a point when the capacity to even want to believe is lost if it is not nurtured. Gone is the desire to progress in perfection towards the perfect Source of all. Ultimately (imo) we get what we ask for. "Where your heart is, there will your treasure be also."
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 07:12:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
An argument based upon false premises can be a valid argument, but it is not considered a sound argument.
I agree, and thanks for the references.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
In order for a premise to be considered true, it must be supported by evidence.
I would rather say, "In order for a premise to be considered true, it must not contradict known evidence."
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
For a deductive argument to be in proper form, it must be valid (the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises) and sound (the premises are true).
The problem of course is determining if the premises are true.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
And my claim that the IPU (invisible pink unicorn, fyi) lives in my garage is also not contradictory with observed fact. It is, however, nothing more than an unevidenced assertion. Same for your "supermaterial" beings.
Thanks, I was wondering what IPU stood for. Not to invoke that wrath of the IPU, but there could be a consistency problem in how a being can be both pink and invisible at the same time. And I am left wondering, what is the purpose of the IPU?
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 07:21:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
But that is the 'What If?' game and it can be played endlessly with any topic and remain meaningless. I do not expect to 'wake up' in a new body either spiritual or corporeal simply because I have no reference for such beyond the claims and stories of people who also have no reference beyond the same books that are available to and have been discounted by me. And 'round and 'round we go.
One may not "expect" to wake up in a new body, yet at the same time one may actually "want" to.
The "What If" game can be useful even in scientific endeavours as new theories are sought which better or more cleanly explain the data. Think of them as thought experiments 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 07:22:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The sketpic's dilemna is that - socially at least - he doesn't want to be found to believe what can't be 'proven', and yet he may personally 'want' to believe there is indeed more, something which is compatible with what I shall call the "God urge" within.
There is no dilemma here, so long as the skeptic understands that what he/she wants is not necessarily what is.
I want to have superpowers. I want my conception of what a good and just god would be like to exist (especially as compared to the Christian ideas of what God is like). I want to read peoples' minds, and to heal all my ills through diet. I want my car to get 200 miles per gallon, and never need another oil change. I want a billion dollars to suddenly appear in my bank account.
But I'm realistic enough to know that I won't ever get even a fraction of what I want. Many problems we face today, with skeptics and non-skeptics alike, arise when people allow their desires to dictate what they consider to be fact, through simple greed, or romantic idealism, or ignorance, or whatever motivation you care to name. And people are, indeed, motivated to this position, as they value their desires more than they value reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 07:27:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I would rather say, "In order for a premise to be considered true, it must not contradict known evidence."
You would seriously consider the premise "dark matter is made of fairy poop" to be true? Such a premise contradicts no known evidence.quote:
The problem of course is determining if the premises are true.
And your conditions for assessing the truth of a premise just confuse the logic, and make that determination more difficult. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 08:14:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markieTo limit the possibilities of universe reality to that which is compatible with our human probing is rather anthropomorphic imo.quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.And to expand it is folly, since "God exists" is no more supported by evidence than "dark matter is made of fairy poop."
Or invisible pink poop from the IPU.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Imagination and delusion are as equally evidenced as religious beliefs about the nature of God.
Yet we know that imagination can be a good thing. It can get us places that pure reason and logic cannot. Yet judging by the wide range of imaginative and speculative conclusions (as you point out) regarding God, it pays the price by being very fallible. I personally prefer a synergy of reason and imagination.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.When every "beyond measurable reality" claim has precisely the same objectively determinable "truth value" (zero), there is no logical reason to "believe" one of them more than any other. After such a point, what you want to believe is based upon nothing more than personal preference.
Perhaps there is indeed no strictly logical reason to believe one over another, but there may be considerations of beauty and ideals - which is beyond logic - which favour some over others. As regarding personal preference, that is only partly true. For instance, being what I shall call a "post" christian myself, I know from experience and dialgoue with christians that christians don't actually 'like' (prefer) some of the things they believe, but they are stuck with them because the bible tells them so, and abandoning the bible as 'the word of God', they are taught, is about up there with apostacy from God himself.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.The number of "possibilities of universe reality" is infinite. So, the chance that any one of them - such as your own personal conception of God - is actually true is exceedingly small. I feel sorry for people who choose to spend their valuable time and resources chasing such phantoms, with such a teensy-weensy chance of being correct.
Well you would might agree that pursuing *anything* which helps make one a better person and which also benefits others is worthwhile. And if one's religion doesn't do that, it isn't worthy of the name.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Far better, it seems, to bet on what we can verify. This is a matter of both practicality and rationality.
The difficulty here is timeframe. For instance the probing scientist may invest alot of intellectual energy into a theory he hopes technology may be able to verify perhaps in his lifetime. The religionist bets on something he believes shall be verified at some point in the hereafter. And while he reaps some benefits of his faith choice in this life he is also hopeful of future returns on his investment.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 08:30:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I would rather say, "In order for a premise to be considered true, it must not contradict known evidence." quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: You would seriously consider the premise "dark matter is made of fairy poop" to be true? Such a premise contradicts no known evidence.
What I was intending to convey was more along the lines of "In order for a premise to be even considered as possibly true, it must at least not contradict known evidence". And since I would add that there are more things to be weighed than just scientific evidence, you can rest assured I don't give the fairy poop theory of dark matter much consideration :)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:And your conditions for assessing the truth of a premise just confuse the logic, and make that determination more difficult.
A true skeptic apparently holds his determinations tentatively, and I would assume that this is primarily because of inherent uncertainties regarding the truthfulness of the premises and not the logic itself.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 10:01:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Yet we know that imagination can be a good thing. It can get us places that pure reason and logic cannot.
Yes, indeed, imagination can - and often must - be the starting point for even the soundest scientific theories. The point was, by extending "reality" to include things we can't verify, you open the door to allow anyone's imaginings the same status of being "real" as, for example, the fact of gravity.quote:
Yet judging by the wide range of imaginative and speculative conclusions (as you point out) regarding God, it pays the price by being very fallible. I personally prefer a synergy of reason and imagination.
So does science.
quote:
Perhaps there is indeed no strictly logical reason to believe one over another, but there may be considerations of beauty and ideals - which is beyond logic - which favour some over others.
And what one finds as beautiful or ideal is simply a matter of personal preference.quote:
As regarding personal preference, that is only partly true. For instance, being what I shall call a "post" christian myself, I know from experience and dialgoue with christians that christians don't actually 'like' (prefer) some of the things they believe, but they are stuck with them because the bible tells them so, and abandoning the bible as 'the word of God', they are taught, is about up there with apostacy from God himself.
Right, the basic "personal preference" involved is that the Bible is true. If it tells them something they'd rather not hear, they have a choice to make: reject the Bible, or suck it up and deal. Given that the Bible tells them that they are, effectively, immortal, it isn't difficult to see why they put up with the crappy bits rather than decide it's wrong. It's entirely about personal preferences.
Note that there are also plenty of "liberal Christians" who freely pick and choose among the Bible's verses to create a personal theology they can live with which doesn't include the nasty parts. It's only those who choose to believe that the Bible is an all-or-nothing deal (another personal preference - to "know" all the answers, without question) who find themselves living by rules they don't like.quote:
Well you would might agree that pursuing *anything* which helps make one a better person and which also benefits others is worthwhile. And if one's religion doesn't do that, it isn't worthy of the name.
I do agree with that, but would add that there have been plenty of overtly religious people who see religion as nothing more than an opportunity for a power-grab.quote:
The difficulty here is timeframe. For instance the probing scientist may invest alot of intellectual energy into a theory he hopes technology may be able to verify perhaps in his lifetime. The religionist bets on something he believes shall be verified at some point in the hereafter. And while he reaps some benefits of his faith choice in this life he is also hopeful of future returns on his investment.
But he's got absolutely no guarantees of "pay off," except from his fellow religionists, who may also be dead.
Scientists, on the other hand, have real-world examples of theories coming to fruitition (in terms of making the world a better place, or even just increasing knowledge of the universe) only after their original proponents' deaths. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
