What would it take to make you believe in a supernatural entity?

Sarky

Northclare wrote: »

LOL the reason your so content is because someone is praying for you

I was wondering why my recent flu developed a chest infection, would you mind NOT praying for me? It's having about the same effect as poisoning a well in Africa. You monster.

Northclare

Sarky wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

LOL the reason your so content is because someone is praying for you

I was wondering why my recent flu developed a chest infection, would you mind NOT praying for me? It's having about the same effect as poisoning a well in Africa. You monster.

You will be ok in a few days I wish you well drink bottled water the next time

Mark Hamill

Northclare wrote: »

Well it just goes to show how your wiring works can you scientifically explain how your neuro transmitters came up with that one,demonstrate it according to your sound thinking it sounds good.....

Eh what? Can I get this in English please?

robindch

^^^ northclare, there are instructions on how to use the boards quote feature here:

https://www.vbulletin.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

aidan24326

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you can show that these "epiphanies" are explained in terms of brain chemistry then its a perfect rebuttal to them coming in from god

Oh I know, and I've no doubt that they are wholly explainable by brain chemistry and physiology and that someone will properly figure that stuff out one of these days. But the truly deluded believer will still stick to their default position of 'god made it happen', and I doubt throwing a bit of biochemistry at them would change much.

Northclare

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Well it just goes to show how your wiring works can you scientifically explain how your neuro transmitters came up with that one,demonstrate it according to your sound thinking it sounds good.....

Eh what? Can I get this in English please?

You went on about snakeoil or something which had nothing to do with anything on this forum.

As for getting this in English can you not read. My knowledge of the English language is none of your business and this forum isn't about people's ability on how to read or write just because I'm well able for you, it doesn't mean you have to get personal Mavis

vibe666

did anyone mention "proof" yet?

i mean proper proof obviously, scientifically verified, peer reviewed proof. i'm pretty sure most of us militant secularists would accept that.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

You mean it remains subjectively pointless, I think, since “use” is a subjective quality.

Besides, “it’s useless” is a long way from saying “it’s unreal".

No, I mean objectively pointless. When I say "what is it for", I'm not asking what do people use it for, I'm asking what aspect of reality is it describing or relating to? If something doesn't relate to anything, anywhere, in any way, then what is the point in examining it? What will it tell us?

Peregrinus wrote: »

“Just logic” is unscientific, Mark, because “just logic” does not necessarily proceed from or operate on observable data.

It doesn't have to, logic is how we determine if an hypothesis is scientifically examinable. Unfalsifiable statements are not scientifically examinable because they are illogical.

Peregrinus wrote: »

By definition of what, exactly?

By the definition of empirical. If something cannot be measured in any way, then that means it has no measurable effect on anything in existence.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the God-claim postulates that God does have an effect - viz, the phenomenon of existence, which is observable (and, by any definition, useful). Consequently we cannot say that God might as well not exist unless we can first refute the God-claim. And it is not refuted simply by pointing out that it cannot be scientifically verified.

But, as I said already, the god claim is flawed logic, meaning we dont need to refute scientifically, it refutes itself.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, you don’t. The whole point of something like maths is that it deals with things which are not observable, like numbers. Since science proceeds from observations, the scientific method cannot be used to test mathematical propositions. It seems to me that you are taking, e.g., mathematical reasoning and arbitrarily labeling it as an example of science purely in order to maintain your assertion that science is all-encompassing.

You don't observe with your eyes in maths, but you can still "observe" the abstract world of numbers, hypothesise connections between them and test, in various ways, your hypotheses.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’re defending the making of fundamental assumptions here, Mark, and you don’t need to.
....
And it’s wholly uproven, since it’s just a particular application of an unproven general assumption.

I'm really trying to see your point here. You say you recognise the need for fundamental assumptions in all forms of enquiry and observation, but then denounce or attack science for relying on unprovable assumptions. So what? If all forms of enquiry require assumptions, then all conclusions using those assumptions will end up as circular arguments. Therefore all forms of enquiry have this same weakness of science. But what alternative is there? You have been going on in this thread as if you know of an alternative form of query that doesn't require these assumptions, but still can provide us with confirmable conclusions, but you wont tell us what it is. Something which can give us all of what science gives us without relying on any assumptions?

Northclare

vibe666 wrote: »

did anyone mention "proof" yet?

i mean proper proof obviously, scientifically verified, peer reviewed proof. i'm pretty sure most of us militant secularists would accept that.

If there was real proof I'm sure it would make headlines all over the world LOL why did I join this debate ? I'm being corrected with my Queens English it gets personal and its not very consistent .

I'm a believer I should walk away and get on with it I'm not good at debating so ill accept I'm getting no where anyway iv a lot of work to do.

Thanks for the craic ladies and gents

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

this forum isn't about people's ability on how to read or write

If people want to understand you, and if you want to be understood, then it's not unreasonable for you to write in prose which makes sense, and for people to ask you this

.

Mark Hamill

Northclare wrote: »

You went on about snakeoil or something which had nothing to do with anything on this forum.

Ah, so you didn't even read the post. Explains why your response made so little sense.

Northclare wrote: »

As for getting this in English can you not read. My knowledge of the English language is none of your business and this forum isn't about people's ability on how to read or write just because I'm well able for you, it doesn't mean you have to get personal Mavis

Well for one, English usually involves a bit more grammar, punctuation marks and the like, just so I can understand what the hell you are asking of me. Five fullstops at the end don't count:
"Well it just goes to show how your wiring works can you scientifically explain how your neuro transmitters came up with that one,demonstrate it according to your sound thinking it sounds good....."

I also never questioned your English ability, less of the oppression complex please.

What's a Mavis?

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What's a Mavis?

Possibly wrt Mavis Beacon? Though the company that used that contrived name flogged software which teaches typing and never had anything to do with grammar + punctuation so far as I'm aware.

Pwpane

aidan24326 wrote: »

From frequenting these forums I've noticed that religious people, especially those who've had some sort of epiphany, really do seem genuinely convinced that it's real, and the lack of a full understanding of how the brain works makes refuting their (imo) delusions difficult. To them it's real, and aaying 'it's your brain playing tricks on you' isn't a good enough rebuttal.

Nobody has a full understanding of how the brain works. So nobody knows it's their brains playing tricks on them. That's why it's not a good enough rebuttal!!

Dades

Pwpane wrote: »

Nobody has a full understanding of how the brain works. So nobody knows it's their brains playing tricks on them. That's why it's not a good enough rebuttal!!

It's a good enough rebuttal when dismissing the droves of rednecks who claim to have been abducted by aliens though, right?

Pwpane

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it’s not a problem of semantics, but of epistemology. If, as Mark says, it’s a fundamental assumption of science that everything real is observable, then science cannot investigate the reality of unobservable things - not only can it not refute their reality, but it cannot prove it either. We cannot, through science, know whether a postulated unobservable thing is real or not. In that sense, science is not “interested” in the reality of unobservable things - i.e. it does not concern itself with that question.

Neutrinos or dark matter, anybody? But I think I'm with Mark here, in this sense. Things are observable in two ways, of themselves and by their effects on other things (that already exist). If something is not observable, then we cannot by definition know it is there or know what it is. And then it is of no use to us to propose its existence except for the pleasure of the theoretical exercise and we cannot know the truth of anything we imagine about it.

You wouldn't agree with this part I assume: 'or know what it is'. Would you extrapolate backwards from qualities of what exists? How would you choose which qualities to use?

... is there any fundamental reason why the “why” could not be something intangible, and yet not an intention?

Not a direct answer but if something is intangible but not sentient, then it's not a god.

And the fact that the “how” is easier might highlight the difficulty of the “why” question, but the fact that a question is difficult to answer doesn’t mean that it is unimportant or uninteresting.

I knew the word 'safer' would cause difficulty but couldn't think of an alternative! I certainly don't mean easier. Perhaps more likely to be true.

And I think sceptics don't run from the idea of mystery. Something mysterious is exciting, something to investigate. The mystery of God doesn't seem to have any substance. You even seem to accept that it's just a concept, a state of mind and not a reality, so there is nothing to investigate.

Pwpane

Peregrinus wrote: »

The reason you give for your unbelief is entirely subjective, which I think is correct, and entirely honest, and I cannot think of a single argument against it that I would expect to weigh with you.

That's not my reason for unbelief, it's a rejection of a reason for belief. Why don't I believe anymore? I think I just started to look around me, at the plethora of religions and the unreliability of all their 'evidence', and at man's place in the universe, and conviction of the total illogic of believing in a God kept growing in me. To misquote, it felt like scales falling from my eyes.

By the way, what was my 'null hypothesis'?

I’m perfectly aware of the fact that my religious beliefs could be wrong....certainty is impossible.....I have to choose belief or unbelief, and I have to do so knowing that I cannot know that my choice is correct.

I choose belief, ultimately, because I would rather live as a believer, and be wrong, than live as an unbeliever, and be wrong.....I am a believer because I value meaning and significance, and I would rather live in a universe in which everything is invested with meaning and significance than one in which it is not.

Thank you for that.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

Isn't that intellectually dishonest?

The words "choose" and "belief" do not belong in the same sentence. You seem like a reasonable guy/gal, how do you reconcile claiming to actually believe something when that belief is based on little more than a wish that it be true?

Pwpane and I are in agreement that beliefs are subjective choices. The issue is not whether we choose our beliefs, but whether we acknowledge to ourselves that we have chosen them. Acknowledging that your belief is a choice is intellectually honest; denying it is, if not dishonest, then delusional. And, if not delusional, then simply mistaken.

Peregrinus

Liamario wrote: »

Isn't this the theological equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming until you "win"?

No. It’s the theological equivalent of forming your beliefs on the basis that all reality is empirically observable, even though you understand that premise is unproven and unprovable.

Peregrinus

Sarky wrote: »

You're perfectly aware that you might be wrong, but not willing to make any attempt to find out? Why not? The only possibilities I can think of would be laziness or fear. Are there others I'm missing?

Yes. You’re missing the one that I spelled out in my post. I do not believe that certainty on this question is attainable.

And, for the record, I hever said that I was not willing to attempt to find out if my beliefs are wrong. I have abandoned many beliefs when I concluded that they were (probably) wrong. I’m all iln favour of making the fullest possible investigation; I just accept that it’s only going to get you so far and, in the end, you are always going to have to accept the possibility that what you believe may be wrong. That’s why we call it “belief”, as opposed to “knowledge”.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I mean objectively pointless. When I say "what is it for", I'm not asking what do people use it for, I'm asking what aspect of reality is it describing or relating to? If something doesn't relate to anything, anywhere, in any way, then what is the point in examining it? What will it tell us?

Well, the god-claim mentioned earlier relates to the phenomenon of existence, which undoubtedly an aspect of reality.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It doesn't have to, logic is how we determine if an hypothesis is scientifically examinable. Unfalsifiable statements are not scientifically examinable because they are illogical.

I accept that logic is how we determine if a hypothesis is scientifically examinable. If the hypothesis makes no claim about any empirically-observable phenomenon then, logically, it cannot be scientifically examined.

It doesn’t follow from that, though, that the hypothesis is illogical.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By the definition of empirical. If something cannot be measured in any way, then that means it has no measurable effect on anything in existence.

No, it does not have any measurable effect on anything observable.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But, as I said already, the god claim is flawed logic, meaning we dont need to refute scientifically, it refutes itself.

You’ve said it, but you haven’t demonstrated it. You just keep reasserting that, if it’s untestable, it’s illogical. I reject that. I see no reason why it should be so.

Consider the following:
1. Every member of set A has the property X
2. Q is a member of set A.
3. Therefore Q has the property X.

That’s untestable, since A, X and Q are undefined and, if defined, could well be defined as something not empirically observable (e.g. set A could be the set of all prime numbers). But it’s perfectly logical.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You don't observe with your eyes in maths, but you can still "observe" the abstract world of numbers, hypothesise connections between them and test, in various ways, your hypotheses.

And those “observations” are empirical, are they, and that makes maths into “science”?

Maths is a science in exactly the sense that theology is a science; both are subsets of the science of philosophy. But to make these statements we have to appeal to a wide definition of science, embracing any disciplined and systematic way of investigating questions of a particular class, and not to the more restricted definition which embraces only investigations which proceed from empirical observations.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm really trying to see your point here. You say you recognise the need for fundamental assumptions in all forms of enquiry and observation, but then denounce or attack science for relying on unprovable assumptions. So what? If all forms of enquiry require assumptions, then all conclusions using those assumptions will end up as circular arguments. Therefore all forms of enquiry have this same weakness of science. But what alternative is there? You have been going on in this thread as if you know of an alternative form of query that doesn't require these assumptions, but still can provide us with confirmable conclusions, but you wont tell us what it is. Something which can give us all of what science gives us without relying on any assumptions?

No, I’m not denouncing science for relying on unprovable assumptions. I agree that all forms of enquiry proceed from fundamental assumptions and, if you regard that as a weakness, they all have the same weakness. I am more comforable thinking of this as a limitation of science, rather than a weakness, but your mileage may vary.

I have never said or implied that I know of an alternative form of enquiry which does not have this limitation. I don’t.

All I’m saying is that we have to recognize the limitations in the forms of enquiry that we use. In particular, if “everything real is empirically observable” is a fundamental assumption of science, then you cannot claim that there is or ever can be any scientific demonstration or proof that everything real is empirically observable. And if you believe that “everything real is empirically observable” is in fact a truth, and not merely an assumption made for the purpose of constructing an internally coherent framework of enquiry, then your reasons for forming and holding that belief must necessarily be non-scientific. Which in turn means that you must accept that forming and holding beliefs for non-scientific reasons may be valid.

The other thing that recognising assumptions should to is teach us a little humility on behalf of our favoured investigation technique. "Everything real is empirically observable" is not a scientific claim; it is unfalsifiable. Yet, far from protesting that the claim is illogical, meaningless, irrelevant, useless, self-refuting, etc, we employ the claim as a fundamental building block for our entire system of scientific enquiry and verification. We cannot do this, and then say that in general unfalsifiable claims are illogical, useless, and so forth.

Peregrinus

Pwpane wrote: »

Neutrinos or dark matter, anybody? But I think I'm with Mark here, in this sense. Things are observable in two ways, of themselves and by their effects on other things (that already exist). If something is not observable, then we cannot by definition know it is there or know what it is. And then it is of no use to us to propose its existence except for the pleasure of the theoretical exercise and we cannot know the truth of anything we imagine about it.

Well, that neat little parenthesis “(that already exist)” is a pretty large carve-out, isn’t it? If the god-claim is true, then god does have a very real effect on other things; he causes them to exist, which is certainly observable.

The reason why science can’t investigate that is because of another fundamental assumption of the scientific method - the universe is real, and not illusory; i.e. there is something to observe. Because this is an assumption, the question “why existence?” is an unscientific question, in the sense that it’s a question unexaminable by the scientific method, in which existence is a given.

That doesn’t mean that we can’t enquire into it by other methods, of course, but none of them are likely to produce the kind of knowledge that we hope and expect to get from scientific enquiry into scientific subjects. The end result is always going to be a degree of uncertainty, which is why anyone’s position on this is going to be a matter of belief, rather than direct knowledge.

Pwpane wrote: »

Not a direct answer but if something is intangible but not sentient, then it's not a god.

Why not? The god-claim we are considering so far ascribes only one quality to god; that of being the fundamental ground for the existence of everything else.

You are introducing an additional quality; sentience. I don’t see that it’s necessary. Could not the fundamental ground of existence be something like an intangible force?

But park that; even if we consider conventional western notions of “god”, it’s not obvious to me that sentience is quality necessarily ascribed to god. Sentience the power or function of perception by the senses, and to ascribe “senses” to god implies a material, tangible god. God could hypothetically be omniscient without being sentient, couldn’t he? He could be intentional without being sentient, surely?

Pwpane wrote: »

And I think sceptics don't run from the idea of mystery. Something mysterious is exciting, something to investigate. The mystery of God doesn't seem to have any substance. You even seem to accept that it's just a concept, a state of mind and not a reality, so there is nothing to investigate.

But they use the word “mystery” in a different sense. If they see a “mystery” as something to investigate, they conceive of a mystery as something unknown, but potentially unknowable. What they could be running from is acknowledging the reality, or even the possiblity, of mystery as something unknowable.

Peregrinus

Pwpane wrote: »

That's not my reason for unbelief, it's a rejection of a reason for belief.

I’m working with a (perhaps oversimplified) model here, in which a person either believes (and that condition is “belief”) or does not believe (and that condition is “unbelief”). In this model, a reason why you don’t believe is a reason for unbelief.

But if you reject that model as too reductive well, fine. You’re probably right.

Pwpane wrote: »

Why don't I believe anymore? I think I just started to look around me, at the plethora of religions and the unreliability of all their 'evidence', and at man's place in the universe, and conviction of the total illogic of believing in a God kept growing in me. To misquote, it felt like scales falling from my eyes.

Lots of specific (and common) beliefs about God can be shown to be illogical, but basic belief in God is not (as far as I can see). Which makes me suspect that your “conviction of the total illogic of believing in God” is possibly underpinned by some other factor, necessarily subjective, and this suspicion is reinforced by the fact that you experience your conviction as being validated by your feelings. We’re back into psychology here, and (leaving aside the fact that I have absolutely no expertise in the area) I am not going to engage in the impertinence of attempting to analyse what your underlying motivation here might be. I’m sure it's at least as creditable as mine.

Pwpane wrote: »

By the way, what was my 'null hypothesis'?

I didn’t intend to ascribe that to you. It’s an argument I’ve come across more than once in this context. Basically, the null hypothesis is a tool of enquiry which can be expressed in the maxim “if a phenomenon is not shown to be, it should be taken not to be”, and people argue from that that, therefore, we should take God not to exist.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s arguable, yes. But the argument has to be made; it can’t be assumed.

And the argument has to deal with the fact that we face such questions all the time and we do, in fact, attempt to answer them, and that we often do answer them in a way that is practically satisfactory. I suppose that invites a consideration of what we mean by “usefully answered”

It certainly does. A satisfactory answer simply raises the question of by what standard one considers an answer satisfactory. When dealing with a methodology such as science that answer is pretty well understood and more importantly the reasons for the standards of satisfaction are understood. Take something like theology and things become much more muddled.

Or as we like to say on this forum, 1 theory of electromagnetism 4,000 religions.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But lit. crit. and aesthetics are just examples of fields of enquiry in which we employ non-scientific techniques.

They are also fields of enquiry where it could be argued we never actually know anything beyond our own personal feelings on the matters and the feelings of others.

This is perfectly satisfactory for lit. crit. It is much less satisfactory for say exploration of the true nature of reality.

You would agree I assume that there is a stark difference between simply knowing that you believe in the existence of God and actually knowing that it is highly likely that God exists.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is not generally true of all such fields that they are “matters of opinion”. Euclidean geometry, for example, is not. Formal logic is not.

I didn't say they were matters of opinion. We do though define the axioms of such systems, similar to how we might define the basic rules of chess.

Exploration of reality is difference, as we do not get to define how it is starting off. As Richard Feynman famously stated once, science is like trying to figure out the rules of chess by simply watching someone play it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The natural sciences deal with what is empirically observable.

Yes but they don't just randomly do that. They do that because there is a great problem with humans knowing anything about what is not empirically observable.

If we had methodologies that could accurately discern the true nature of reality in areas that were not empirically observable then science would include these methodologies too.

Or put it another way, if theology actually worked (worked being defined as consistently produces accurate theories) then theology would be part of science as well.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whether ethical questions are statements about reality is a matter of debate, surely?

Well I woud argue that debate is settled but by jove it doesn't stop people from still having it :P

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, ethics is just an example. Correct me if I misunderstand you, but your position seems to be that no statement which cannot be investigated by the scientific method - i.e. no statement which cannot be empirically investigated - is a statement about reality.

No, you are missing the point. Anyone can make a statement about reality, the question is can you accurately assess if it is true or likely to be true over any other statement in the same area.

I could say that it is objectively wrong to steal food to feed your starving baby. You could say that it is objectively right to steal food to feed your starving baby.

Great we have just both made statements about the true nature of reality. Do either of us have any idea if either of those statements are true? Nope. Do either of us have any methodology to actually help determine if either of those statements are true? Nope.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think that’s just flat-out wrong. Pre-modern cultures abound with stories of unvisited places, monsters, myths, lost worlds, other planes of existence, etc. I think you are assuming that, because they had such stories, they must have received them in the way that modern biblical literalists receive the bible. There’s no evidence for this assumption and, given that we are dealing with pre-moderns, it seems a fairly improbable assumption.

You are sort of demonstrating the point there. Pre-modern cultures looked at the world around them and didn't say they don't know where it came from, they instead invented a creation myth to explain it. They heard rumors of strange creatures in distant lands and instead of saying we don't know what creatures these are they invented stories of dragons and other fantastical explanations. They encountered structures and natural formations that they didn't understand but they didn't say we don't know what these are, they instead provided supernatural explanations for them, this is where the Giants used to live, this is where Zeus has his palace, this is where Odin fell to Earth.

You seem to think that if they give some fantastical mythical explanation to something they aren't really explaining it. But that is modern thinking. We obviously don't think these things are real explanations, but back then they really did.

Zombrex

Northclare wrote: »

Why are some of ye hell bent on the fact there isn't any God and yet those who do believe seem to be more content with their lives.

Do you care if your beliefs are accurate or not, or do you simply care that they provide you with comfort.

If it is the latter fair enough. I personally care more about the former.

vibe666

Northclare wrote: »

If there was real proof I'm sure it would make headlines all over the world LOL

that's my point exactly.

contrary to popular religious belief, science in general and those that choose to follow scientific method are not anti-god and would find proof of a supernatural entity the greatest scientific discovery in the history of mankind and we'd all be shouting it from the rooftops.

what we ARE against is the blind belief in a supernatural entity that there is absolutely no proof for whatsoever, particularly when there is a huge volume of scientific evidence to the contrary.

religion demands 'faith' from believers because there is simply no proof that stands up to solid scientific scrutiny.

the simple truth is that we're not for or against anything, it just IS and that's the way we take it. we observe, examine, catalogue and investigate and whatever our findings are, they just ARE, with no prejudices or preconceptions.

so, when i said that all i'd need to believe would be proof, that's exactly what i meant. nothing more, nothing less.

Peregrinus

Zombrex wrote: »

It certainly does. A satisfactory answer simply raises the question of by what standard one considers an answer satisfactory. When dealing with a methodology such as science that answer is pretty well understood and more importantly the reasons for the standards of satisfaction are understood. Take something like theology and things become much more muddled.

Or as we like to say on this forum, 1 theory of electromagnetism 4,000 religions.

Except this isn’t true of just theology, is it? There’s a huge swathe of fields of enquiry of which a similar point could be made. But, imperfect as they are, those fields of enquiry may be the best tools available to us in relation to their fields. Theology or philosophy may be able to tell us little about unobservable realities, but science can tell us absolutely nothing at all about them - not even whether they are likely to exist.

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but they [the natural sciences] don’t just randomly do that [deal with what is empirically observable]. They do that because there is a great problem with humans knowing anything about what is not empirically observable.

No, the reason is more fundamental than that; it’s definitional. The natural sciences proceed from empirical observations; once you stop doing that you’re not doing natural science any more. This is so regardless of the degree of confidence you feel about whatever it is you are doing.

Zombrex wrote: »

If we had methodologies that could accurately discern the true nature of reality in areas that were not empirically observable then science would include these methodologies too.

No, it wouldn’t. Unless you are going to redefine “science”.

Zombrex wrote: »

No, you are missing the point. Anyone can make a statement about reality, the question is can you accurately assess if it is true or likely to be true over any other statement in the same area.

I could say that it is objectively wrong to steal food to feed your starving baby. You could say that it is objectively right to steal food to feed your starving baby.

Great we have just both made statements about the true nature of reality. Do either of us have any idea if either of those statements are true? Nope. Do either of us have any methodology to actually help determine if either of those statements are true? Nope.

We don’t have techniques which will answer those questions in a demonstrably definitive way, but it doesn’t follow that we can have “no idea” about them. People have such debates all the time, and have been having them for centuries. They construct arguments about this, they identify axioms and proceed from them, they appeal to one another’s convictions, they seek to change one another’s minds about what is objectively true in moral terms and often succeed. There is a real and serious discourse about this, and you can’t dismiss it simply by pointing out that it’s not a scientific discourse, and doesn’t arrive at conclusions comparable in certainty to scientificl conclusions.

Zombrex wrote: »

You are sort of demonstrating the point there. Pre-modern cultures looked at the world around them and didn't say they don't know where it came from, they instead invented a creation myth to explain it. They heard rumors of strange creatures in distant lands and instead of saying we don't know what creatures these are they invented stories of dragons and other fantastical explanations. They encountered structures and natural formations that they didn't understand but they didn't say we don't know what these are, they instead provided supernatural explanations for them, this is where the Giants used to live, this is where Zeus has his palace, this is where Odin fell to Earth.

You seem to think that if they give some fantastical mythical explanation to something they aren't really explaining it. But that is modern thinking. We obviously don't think these things are real explanations, but back then they really did.

No, they didn’t.

Consider Mount Olympus, home of the classical Greek pantheon. It lies about 100km from Thessaloniki, and is just under 3,000 m high. Because of its latitude and closeness to the sea, for most of the year it is not snowbound. (In fact, it rarely snows.) It’s an easily climbable mountain, though the very last section is a bit of a scramble. These days probably 10,000 people make the ascent each year, mostly on Saturdays or Sundays.

The ancients didn’t climb it all that frequently, mostly because they knew there was little of interest up there. How did they know this? Well, the lower reaches of the mountain are wooded, but most of it is well grassed, and it provides good grazing for goats and mountain sheep. Goatherds and shepherds were all over the mountain. While they rarely went to the top, which is bare rock and therefore of little interest to them, they would have gone close to the top all the time. And presumably curiosity, or a desire to see the view, brought some of them to the top occasionally.

In other words, everyone knew, from common and reliable experience, that there was nothing on top of Mount Olympus.

But that never stopped them telling the stories of the Greek pantheon. Those stories were handed on for centuries, and the pantheon formed the basis of a highly active civic religion.

The Greeks gave us Plato and Aristotle, and it defies common sense to think that absolutely believed that the gods really actually lived on top of Mount Olympus and it never occurred to them that common observation refuted this. An altogether more plausible explanation was that they were perfectly aware that this story, and other stories about the Pantheon, operated not as descriptions of experienced actuality, but as modes of talking about things unknown.

No offence, but your reading of the pre-modern treatment of myth is basically that pre-moderns could not distinguish between myth and actuality, which really comes down to saying that pre-moderns were driveling idiots. This is not a very plausible view.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pwpane and I are in agreement that beliefs are subjective choices. The issue is not whether we choose our beliefs, but whether we acknowledge to ourselves that we have chosen them. Acknowledging that your belief is a choice is intellectually honest; denying it is, if not dishonest, then delusional. And, if not delusional, then simply mistaken.

I don't believe that simply acknowledging that you have chosen your belief lets you off the hook intellectually. It completely undermines that belief and suggests that the truth is secondary in the thought process.

Northclare

I heard a theory years ago that a lot of us have lost the ability to to see or feel the supernatural due to being too caught up in modern society.

A lot of us don't take short cuts by walking through fields, old boreens and country roads any more and a lot of these places have a history of ghosts and other unexplainable phenomenon which were seen by a lot of locals.

For me I would have share the experience with someone else to believe it.

A few people on this went off on a rant about what seemed to remind me of the spin talk intelligent idiots go on with.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the god-claim mentioned earlier relates to the phenomenon of existence, which undoubtedly an aspect of reality.

Which means that it does relate to something, which means that we can empirically observe it, by observing the thing it relates to. Which would make god empirically observable, yadda yadda yadda, I said this already. You have to make a choice, either god does relate to something in reality, or reality itself, which means we can scientifically examine it by observing reality (your claim would still be flawed), or it doesn't relate to anything in reality and therefore has no relation or effect on us whatsoever.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I accept that logic is how we determine if a hypothesis is scientifically examinable. If the hypothesis makes no claim about any empirically-observable phenomenon then, logically, it cannot be scientifically examined.

It doesn’t follow from that, though, that the hypothesis is illogical.

Its illogical because its based on a demonstrably invalid assumption (as demonstrated by inserting literally anything else instead of god into the claim and getting the same result).

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it does not have any measurable effect on anything observable.

You do understand what is meant by observe in science right? It doesn't necessarily mean "look at", in fact nearly everything in science is observed by inference. We see an effect, and infer by the effect what is actually occurring. So if something cannot be in any way inferred to exist (because there is no measurable effect on anything in existence that can be attributed to it alone) then it might as well not exist, because it has no effect on existence.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’ve said it, but you haven’t demonstrated it. You just keep reasserting that, if it’s untestable, it’s illogical. I reject that. I see no reason why it should be so.

Consider the following:
1. Every member of set A has the property X
2. Q is a member of set A.
3. Therefore Q has the property X.

That’s untestable, since A, X and Q are undefined and, if defined, could well be defined as something not empirically observable (e.g. set A could be the set of all prime numbers). But it’s perfectly logical.

Its logical until you define it, and then you need to need to reassess it. The god claim fails this reassessment because part 1. is an invalid assumption to make.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And those “observations” are empirical, are they, and that makes maths into “science”?

You dont empirical observations in an abstract, human defined system such as maths.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maths is a science in exactly the sense that theology is a science; both are subsets of the science of philosophy. But to make these statements we have to appeal to a wide definition of science, embracing any disciplined and systematic way of investigating questions of a particular class, and not to the more restricted definition which embraces only investigations which proceed from empirical observations.

Except that theology doesn't examine the logical conclusions of the statements it makes and it doesn't experiment on its hypotheses (conjectures), so its not really anything like maths or science. We only need empirical observations for empirical systems. Maths is an abstract system, so we don't use empiricism, we still use logic, deduction and experimentation though.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All I’m saying is that we have to recognize the limitations in the forms of enquiry that we use. In particular, if “everything real is empirically observable” is a fundamental assumption of science, then you cannot claim that there is or ever can be any scientific demonstration or proof that everything real is empirically observable. And if you believe that “everything real is empirically observable” is in fact a truth, and not merely an assumption made for the purpose of constructing an internally coherent framework of enquiry, then your reasons for forming and holding that belief must necessarily be non-scientific. Which in turn means that you must accept that forming and holding beliefs for non-scientific reasons may be valid.

Its not unscientific reasoning to accept a fundamental assumption of science as you can't perform scientific reasoning without accepting. It is fundamental to scientific reasoning to accept the assumption, which is itself a perfectly valid scientific assumption to make, as it supported by available observational, empirical and logical evidence we have.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The other thing that recognising assumptions should to is teach us a little humility on behalf of our favoured investigation technique. "Everything real is empirically observable" is not a scientific claim; it is unfalsifiable. Yet, far from protesting that the claim is illogical, meaningless, irrelevant, useless, self-refuting, etc, we employ the claim as a fundamental building block for our entire system of scientific enquiry and verification. We cannot do this, and then say that in general unfalsifiable claims are illogical, useless, and so forth.

Why not? We know that unfalsifiable claims are bad, but every system of knowledge requires one, so we make the one assumption that actually makes sense and then don't make any more because we know they are bad. It makes sense to say "Everything real is empirically observable" because if something wasn't empirically observable (ie had no effect on anything in existence, that could be used to uniquely infer its existence) then it might as well not exist for all the effect it has on existence and our human defined system for examining it. It simply doesn't matter if something exists but can in no way at all interact with anything else (assuming its possible for something to exist without interacting with anything at all). The other beauty of science is that every test and experiment tests the assumption anyway.

Still, if you can come up with another way to reliably examine stuff, without any assumptions, then I'll drop science like a ton of bricks.

Mark Hamill

Northclare wrote: »

I heard a theory years ago that a lot of us have lost the ability to to see or feel the supernatural due to being too caught up in modern society.

A theory? What evidence did they present to support it?

Northclare wrote: »

A lot of us don't take short cuts by walking through fields, old boreens and country roads any more

You mean those places where there are no lights when it gets dark, you could be alone for miles around and there are shadows and small but surprisingly loud wild animals just out of sight?

Northclare wrote: »

and a lot of these places have a history of ghosts and other unexplainable phenomenon which were seen by a lot of locals.

You mean back in the past, before people knew how our minds play tricks on us at the drop of a hat?

Northclare wrote: »

For me I would have share the experience with someone else to believe it.

You mean you would only believe it if you convinced someone of it, or if they told you a similar experience they had? What do you mean?

Northclare wrote: »

A few people on this went off on a rant about what seemed to remind me of the spin talk intelligent idiots go on with.

Who? The people you told you ghost stories went off on a rant about it? This makes them intelligent idiots? What's an intelligent idiot?