|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 07/09/2005 : 10:42:04 [Permalink]
|
Hi guys, sorry for the absence but we've had company for about two weeks and I didn't have a good opportunity to respond.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Okay... why will its "transcendence" prevent our understanding?
Good one. If I knew the technical answer to the 'why' question, it would no longer be transcendent.
Suffice it to say that, just like we understand that the brain of a mouse does not have the wiring to enable it to comprehend certain things about the cosmos, so too the brain of man may have it's conceptual limitations.
This of course should in no way prohibit the exploration of what we *can* conceive of.
|
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 11:20:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert: Science is only capable of uncovering objective reality. It does not deal with subjective opinions. That's why science cannot deal with the meaning of Hamlet, since there is no objective "meaning" behind Hamlet other than the literal.
Yet it is a 'subjective' drive for truth finding which drives the scientist/skeptic to uncover more of external objective reality. So which is the more real, the mind which tries to gain mastery over the mechanism, or the mechanism?
While we necessarily access mind through an interior route which is unique with each individual, even so we might still agree that the mind phenomenon itself is an objective reality, something that science can only touch on rather indirectly as it is correlated with physical (brain) activity. If the mind phenomenon is objective reality, it is not much of a leap to see that meanings (and values) have objective reality as well (even though the are necessarily accessed via interior and subjective routes).
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert: But claims of a diety are objective claims. They claim such a being exists in external reality. There is no reason why one person could detect the presence of this being and another could not. The only similar cases of this are ones of opinion, where some men find a particular woman attractive and others do not. Markie, your god shares all the traits of a subjective preference or personal delusion not in any way connected to external reality. It is what we would expect if you were clinging to a mythology. That is good evidence that your god is a fiction. All the evidence fits this hypothesis.
I could say that nobility of character, trustworthiness, etc are mere subjective preferences as well, but I won't, because I believe that they touch on profound and objective aspects of reality.
Do people differ on their (supposed) detection of Deity? Perhaps so, but just like anything there is also effort involved. The person who leads a virtuous life is, imo, is in more contact with Deity than the one who speaks in 'tongues' in one moment and snaps at his wife the next.
I would be interested in knowing if skeptics here experience the occassional and profound impression that he or she *ought* to believe in Deity.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 11:40:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: Your statement is patently false. Imagination and creative problem solving are an integral part of the scientific method. Your claim that scientists only "know" to look inside some pre-defined box is complete and utter nonsense.
Even the 'box' I am thinking of has enough mystery of it's own to keep creative scientists busy for a long time.
Filthy also brings up a good point, that many scientific discoveries are rather accidental in nature. Most of these I imagine would fall inside the box somewhere.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 11:59:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
And BTW, my claims have not been shown to be false. quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Do you think they should be conditionally granted "truth" status until they are shown definitively to be false?
Granted truth status by whom? Truth is such a infinite thing (to me), that I don't even grant my own beliefs and convictions much more merit than being very crude approximations to the truth.
Even Einstein said something to the effect that no amount of positive confirmation of his theories could actually prove them as true, yet just one experiment could diprove them. So I'm certainly not going to say that my claims should be granted truth status before the world.
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.: Or, is it more reasonable to assign them a truth value based upon the evidence which can be found to support them?
Don't forget the fairy poop.
By 'truth value' are you envisioning some kind of 'possibily true' rating from 1 to 10 or some such thing? If so, regarding God's existence, I imagine that the rating would be all over the board, for the very reason that what comprises evidence for God to one person comprises evidence against God to another.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 12:07:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I could say that nobility of character, trustworthiness, etc are mere subjective preferences as well, but I won't, because I believe that they touch on profound and objective aspects of reality.
Do people differ on their (supposed) detection of Deity? Perhaps so, but just like anything there is also effort involved. The person who leads a virtuous life is, imo, is in more contact with Deity than the one who speaks in 'tongues' in one moment and snaps at his wife the next.
Virtue is as virtue does, I think. Historically, "virtue" is defined by the culture. For example, "virtuous" people ran the Catholic and Protestant inquisitions. Cotton Mather was "virtuous" as were the Aztec priests who cut out so many living, human hearts. Even Hitler considered himself a man of virtue.
In some cultures, murder, rape and theft against other peoples, and even neighbors, were considered to be sterling acts of virtue. This continues today, under certain conditions, notably in India and Pakistan (and Iraq, but we won't go there). quote:
I would be interested in knowing if skeptics here experience the occassional and profound impression that he or she *ought* to believe in Deity.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I never have. But then, I never got much of a religious indoctrination as a child. Of any sort. However, that shouldn't be taken to mean that I don't feel the poetry of the natural world, a rhyme and meter that I'm addicted to. But alas, I've yet to contemplate a "Higher Power" beyond idle musings and in one, failed short story that I'd rather not discuss. It was pretty awful.... 
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 12:41:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
While we necessarily access mind through an interior route which is unique with each individual, even so we might still agree that the mind phenomenon itself is an objective reality, something that science can only touch on rather indirectly as it is correlated with physical (brain) activity.
Yes, indirectly, but science may touch on it nonetheless. This is because "minds" actually exist in reality, if by mind you mean people's individual consciousnesses. We can see on brain scans various areas of activity as people "think" different thoughts. It has a direct physical, real world correlation that is testable and repeatable. Notice how god does not. quote:
If the mind phenomenon is objective reality, it is not much of a leap to see that meanings (and values) have objective reality as well (even though the are necessarily accessed via interior and subjective routes).
Abstract qualities are objectively defined, but that does not mean that they exist in reality. "Justice" has a definition that most can agree upon. "Justice," however, doesn't exist in the same sense that an apple exists. Justice is merely a concept, a mental construct that resides nowhere else except in the human brain.
quote:
I could say that nobility of character, trustworthiness, etc are mere subjective preferences as well, but I won't, because I believe that they touch on profound and objective aspects of reality.
Then I'll say it for you. They are subjective. Common preferences, maybe, but still subjective.
quote:
Do people differ on their (supposed) detection of Deity? Perhaps so, but just like anything there is also effort involved. The person who leads a virtuous life is, imo, is in more contact with Deity than the one who speaks in 'tongues' in one moment and snaps at his wife the next.
So your deity is a transcendent being beyond human understanding, yet your claim is that those people who exhibit the subjective traits you prefer are in communion with it? Is that about right?
quote:
I would be interested in knowing if skeptics here experience the occasional and profound impression that he or she *ought* to believe in Deity.
Speaking only for myself--never. In fact, I often reflect on how incomprehensible it is to me that anyone can.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 16:17:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I would be interested in knowing if skeptics here experience the occassional and profound impression that he or she *ought* to believe in Deity.
I have been born of a righteously religious mother, whose entire life was based on the firm belief of a Deity and who attempted her best to pass said beliefs to her children.
Sometimes, yes, I do revert to that mental state I was reared to accept and do think, on a purely speculative base, that there might be something else to this world - however, I do not have this pressing feeling that I ought to believe anything.
Let me explain. Sometimes, at night, I let my mind run wild and consider the possibility of, oh, reincarnation (and other things, but let's consider reincarnation for now). That is a personal philosophical point of view that sometimes I like to debate with myself; I don't, or at least try not to, pretend that there is any more truth to it than there is on Cune's IPU. I do not have any pressing need to believe reincarnation is real. I merely speculate.
Like Filthy (though probably to a lesser extent), I have this strong sense of nature and the natural world. Maybe you can label it a sense of divine - and indeed, it is an awesome feeling as magical things are said to be. The only difference is that they don't need anything invisible to exist. Their beauty is purely, solely and wonderfully material. Such small, simple things such as the sun through palm trees early in an awful cold morning, or the sun shining over the ocean, they're far more divine to me than any idea of deity that I've ever seen. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 19:36:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Suffice it to say that, just like we understand that the brain of a mouse does not have the wiring to enable it to comprehend certain things about the cosmos, so too the brain of man may have it's conceptual limitations.
This seems obvious to me. It is easy to imagine, for example, some set of physical laws so complex that no single human brain could comprehend them all at once. Or, even worse, so complex that even if a single sub-atomic particle could store one bit of information and every particle could be utilized, the laws would be too complex to write down within the universe we occupy. (The laws could operate within our universe, but a description of them would be impossible.)
Of course, neither of these things are "transcendent" in the way that I understand the word (sorta like, "within another level of reality"), they just represent examples of where "walls of understanding" could sit (as we discussed before), for perfectly good reasons, all within this 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
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 19:56:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markiequote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: quote:
Originally posted by markie
And BTW, my claims have not been shown to be false.
Do you think they should be conditionally granted "truth" status until they are shown definitively to be false?
Granted truth status by whom? Truth is such a infinite thing (to me), that I don't even grant my own beliefs and convictions much more merit than being very crude approximations to the truth.
Well, you're "my claims have not been shown to be false" is easily interpreted to mean that we (specifically) should consider them to be true until we can demostrate otherwise.quote:
Even Einstein said something to the effect that no amount of positive confirmation of his theories could actually prove them as true, yet just one experiment could diprove them.
That's standard philosophy of science, there. No amount of positive evidence can ever prove anything to be completely, inarguably true. The standard example is "all crows are black." Every black crow we see reinforces this "theory," but we can never prove it true unless we can demonstrate that we have - without question - examined every single crow in the world (and just how could we show that?). Yet a single non-black crow would disprove the theory, and force us to restate it ("most crows are black").quote:
So I'm certainly not going to say that my claims should be granted truth status before the world.
Why else would you state that your claims haven't been shown to be false?quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Or, is it more reasonable to assign them a truth value based upon the evidence which can be found to support them?
Don't forget the fairy poop.
By 'truth value' are you envisioning some kind of 'possibily true' rating from 1 to 10 or some such thing?
Typically, a "true value" would range from 0 (false) to 1 (true, and never-attainable per the above discussion). Most things that nearly everyone considers to be "true," like the Earth moving around the Sun, our own existence as human beings, etc. have "truth values" somewhere around 0.9999999 (add as many nines as you like, but not an infinite number of them). Unknown stuff would be assigned an 0.50, right in the middle.quote:
If so, regarding God's existence, I imagine that the rating would be all over the board, for the very reason that what comprises evidence for God to one person comprises evidence against God to another.
All I was talking about was the claims which you said hadn't been shown to be false. You were talking to us, the other SFN members. Should we grant your not-disproven claims some high truth value just because those claims haven't been shown false (as was implied by your statement), or should we grant them truth values based upon the positive evidence for those claims which is presented to us? Which, in your opinion, is the more "just" method of discussion and inquiry?
To put this in other words, I warned you of the fairy poop because it is yet another claim which hasn't been shown to be false. |
- 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 - 07/10/2005 : 19:01:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy: Virtue is as virtue does, I think. Historically, "virtue" is defined by the culture. For example, "virtuous" people ran the Catholic and Protestant inquisitions. Cotton Mather was "virtuous" as were the Aztec priests who cut out so many living, human hearts. Even Hitler considered himself a man of virtue.
In some cultures, murder, rape and theft against other peoples, and even neighbors, were considered to be sterling acts of virtue. This continues today, under certain conditions, notably in India and Pakistan (and Iraq, but we won't go there).
Yeah, even good intentions can go hand and hand with the most gross superstitious practises. I sincerely hope that later go extinct.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy: Can't speak for anyone else, but I never have. But then, I never got much of a religious indoctrination as a child. Of any sort. However, that shouldn't be taken to mean that I don't feel the poetry of the natural world, a rhyme and meter that I'm addicted to. But alas, I've yet to contemplate a "Higher Power" beyond idle musings and in one, failed short story that I'd rather not discuss. It was pretty awful....
Cool. Well Einstein apparently had a sense of the (impersonal) Mind of the cosmos in the workings of nature, so you're in good company.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2005 : 19:30:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert: Abstract qualities are objectively defined, but that does not mean that they exist in reality. "Justice" has a definition that most can agree upon. "Justice," however, doesn't exist in the same sense that an apple exists. Justice is merely a concept, a mental construct that resides nowhere else except in the human brain.
It seems that the sense of justice has evolved very nicely up from the lower mammals. I've heard studies that show that monkeys have a distinct sense of fair play. My kids (five and under) certainly do. Is this growth into abstraction just accidental, or is there an attractor of sorts, an objective reality which we only vaguely sense in the abstract, which is pulling us towards greater and greater apprehension of such?
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert: Then I'll say it for you. They are subjective. Common preferences, maybe, but still subjective.
The question is whether they are *merely* subjective. A religionist like myself believes in objective perfection of qualities in Deity, which we subjectively perceive.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert: So your deity is a transcendent being beyond human understanding, yet your claim is that those people who exhibit the subjective traits you prefer are in communion with it? Is that about right?
Traits like trustworthiness, sincerity, compassion, etc., yes. People are in communion with Deity without even knowing such. (imo.) Even so, we are still so largely animal in nature that such communion should be considered as only the embroynic stages of an emergent God consciousness. (imo)
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert: Speaking only for myself--never. In fact, I often reflect on how incomprehensible it is to me that anyone can.
Who knows, if you ever find yourself waking up in a 'resurrection' body some day, you may even come to the place where it is incomprehensible that anyone *wouldn't* feel some sense of obligation to the larger cosmos (and God) for bringing them to where they are.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2005 : 19:39:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia: Like Filthy (though probably to a lesser extent), I have this strong sense of nature and the natural world. Maybe you can label it a sense of divine - and indeed, it is an awesome feeling as magical things are said to be. The only difference is that they don't need anything invisible to exist. Their beauty is purely, solely and wonderfully material. Such small, simple things such as the sun through palm trees early in an awful cold morning, or the sun shining over the ocean, they're far more divine to me than any idea of deity that I've ever seen.
Awesome. Well to me that is near tantamount to a religious experience. The way I see it, the ways we perceive Deity (rather indirectly BTW) are as diverse as our personalities, and that's a good thing. Some view God more from the beauty side, some more from the truth side, some from the goodness side, some from the relational side, etc. (imo)
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2005 : 19:57:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: This seems obvious to me. It is easy to imagine, for example, some set of physical laws so complex that no single human brain could comprehend them all at once. Or, even worse, so complex that even if a single sub-atomic particle could store one bit of information and every particle could be utilized, the laws would be too complex to write down within the universe we occupy. (The laws could operate within our universe, but a description of them would be impossible.)
Of course, neither of these things are "transcendent" in the way that I understand the word (sorta like, "within another level of reality"), they just represent examples of where "walls of understanding" could sit (as we discussed before), for perfectly good reasons, all within this reality.
Yeah, the operation of laws can be quite another story than the description or calculation of them. (Witness the 3 body problem, a chaotic system which defies any quick formulaic solution.) Yet who knows, just as 'logic' is simple to us yet impossible for a worm, there may be 'simple' types of super-logic that we are not capable of achieving (in our current bodies), and which say, would serve as a technique to see the conciliation of what we may now see as irreconciliable, like religion-philosophy and science.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2005 : 20:31:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Well, you're "my claims have not been shown to be false" is easily interpreted to mean that we (specifically) should consider them to be true until we can demostrate otherwise.
I would like to be interpretted thusly:
Rather than
"we should consider them to be true"
this is more of what I'm aiming for:
"we *could* consider them to be *possibily* true."
I'm just trying to open the door of possibilities here.
quote:
Originally posted by markie: So I'm certainly not going to say that my claims should be granted truth status before the world. quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Why else would you state that your claims haven't been shown to be false?
Simply so they are at least granted the status of possibly true and not dismissed out of hand.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: All I was talking about was the claims which you said hadn't been shown to be false. You were talking to us, the other SFN members. Should we grant your not-disproven claims some high truth value just because those claims haven't been shown false (as was implied by your statement), or should we grant them truth values based upon the positive evidence for those claims which is presented to us? Which, in your opinion, is the more "just" method of discussion and inquiry?
Heavens no, I wouldn't think that skeptics would grant my claims any more than a .1 "possibly true status", out of possibilities ranging from from 0 to 1. A seed today, but who knows a tree tomorrow.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: To put this in other words, I warned you of the fairy poop because it is yet another claim which hasn't been shown to be false.
Yet Jesus or Jefferson would have rated the fairy poop theory a near 0 while Deity was essentially a 1. But then, Jesus knew for sure that angels have bodies that, while they intake energy, don't excrete waste like ours.
(oh stop me!)
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2005 : 23:05:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dude: Your statement is patently false. Imagination and creative problem solving are an integral part of the scientific method. Your claim that scientists only "know" to look inside some pre-defined box is complete and utter nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by markie
Even the 'box' I am thinking of has enough mystery of it's own to keep creative scientists busy for a long time.
Why do you insist on trying to defend this absurd nonsense? Is there some need in your worldview to marginalize science and scientists?
quote:
I would like to be interpretted thusly:
Rather than
"we should consider them to be true"
this is more of what I'm aiming for:
"we *could* consider them to be *possibily* true."
I'm just trying to open the door of possibilities here.
Again.... its like talking to a wall.
When you provide evidence of a claim, and that evidence is credible on examination, THEN (and only then) do you get your claims elevated to the status of "possibly true".
Does your worldview really have to rely on such a pathetically broken set of arguments? It hasn't been shown false, therefore it "could" be true..... that boggles the mind.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
