Religion,superstition and spirituality

Zombrex

Geomy wrote: »

If everything was turned around,could it be that the experience is controlling the reaction rather than the reaction controlling the experience...

Just say someone has a spiritual experience or sees a ghost etc

Could it be that this specter,ghost,God, angel, emotions, imagination to some is projecting something onto the observer.

Therefore causing the chemical reactions and various firing of the brain...

We are back into anything-is-possible territory here.

Like all these pondering the question isn't could this be what is happening. The question is rather is this what is happening.

The could questions are largely irrelevant, as we could ponder an infinite number of things that could be happening and be no closer to knowing what is happening.

We also do not want to fall into the fallacy of thinking that any particular possible explanation has greater significance simply because it is the explanation we presented.

Brian Shanahan

Geomy wrote: »

Zombrex have you ever had a spiritual experience or something of an unexplainable nature happen to you,and not look for a rational explanation and see it as it is...

Why would Zombrex have something happen to him that he couldn't explain and not bother to try and figure out why or how it happened?

That is essentially what you are asking him here, whether he had something happen to him and he not bother to figure out the reasons behind the event.

Brian Shanahan

Magnetics wrote: »

To completely discount any sort of 'higher power' or universal 'knowledge' is just as ignorant and presumptuous as blindly religious people in my opinion.

How do you figure this, "my friend"*? We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 observed evidence for the existence of a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof, therefore until the situation changes the default logical position is to assume that there, like with the celestial tea-pot, is no such being.

It is not ignorance or blindness which persuades me that there is no god, it is the fact that I've looked at the available evidence (and other things, like figuring out which position is better for maintaining sanity) and come down on the side which that evidence most persuasively supports.

* There is something deeply offensive about that phrase, probably the fact that it is most often use by people who are not of a friendly demeanour, and mean to do the person they are speaking to harm. For example look at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and how those two glorious old hams William Shattner and Ricardo Montalban use it and variations (e.g. "old friend")when insulting each other the whole film.

Geomy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

How do you figure this, "my friend"*? We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 observed evidence for the existence of a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof, therefore until the situation changes the default logical position is to assume that there, like with the celestial tea-pot, is no such being.

You're on a roll tonight's Brian,are you at a fancy dress,let me see you decided to dress as a dice.

Roll on there now let's see what comes up next.

What about Q in The Next Generation

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 observed evidence for the existence of a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof..

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?

Pherekydes

nagirrac wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?

The lack of evidence for a higher power?

Hotblack Desiato

*facepalm*

nagirrac

Pherekydes wrote: »

The lack of evidence for a higher power?

Perhaps you should let Brian answer for himself as it sounds like you did not read his post. These are his exact words:

"We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 evidence for a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof"

In the context of Brian's claim above, you cannot claim that the "plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack of a higher power" is the lack of evidence for a higher power. That is not a rational argument.

In the first place there is plenty evidence for a higher power, should one choose to consider it. I am more interested though in the plenty of persuasive evidence that a higher power does not exist.

I truly hope we are not talking about scientific evidence, as in science there is no evidence either way.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

Perhaps you should let Brian answer for himself as it sounds like you did not read his post. These are his exact words:

"We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 evidence for a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof"

In the context of Brian's claim above, you cannot claim that the "plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack of a higher power" is the lack of evidence for a higher power. That is not a rational argument.

Brian may have over-egged the pudding but you can't ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of the existence of any deity.

In the first place there is plenty evidence for a higher power, should one choose to consider it.

Should one choose to disable one's critical faculties, you mean?

I am more interested though in the plenty of persuasive evidence that a higher power does not exist.

I truly hope we are not talking about scientific evidence, as in science there is no evidence either way.

Asking atheists to prove a negative is a fallacy.
Theists maintain there is a god, they have no evidence, call it faith, then ridicule science for being unable to prove a negative, but ignore the scientific evidence which directly contradicts the bible.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?

From "Thinking of Answers" by A.C Grayling, from the "proving a negative section".

For a simple case of proving a negative, by the way, consider how you prove the absence of pennies in a piggy-bank. You break it open and look inside: it is empty. On what grounds would you assert nevertheless that there might possibly still be pennies in there, only you cannot see or hear or feel or spend them?

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

From "Thinking of Answers" by A.C Grayling, from the "proving a negative section".

A.C. Grayling is closer to a 7 on Dawkin's atheist scale than Dawkins himself!

The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable. As Julian Baggini put it in the Observer it is like a bad marriage, where the couple "prefer the dysfunctionality of their relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond a divorce".

The only hope in my view to move forward, just like in a bad marriage, is to either divorce and stop niggling each other, or to accept that atheist humanism and religious humanism have far more in common than they disagree on. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of human evolution than arguing over whether Jesus literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

A.C. Grayling is closer to a 7 on Dawkin's atheist scale than Dawkins himself!

The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable. As Julian Baggini put it in the Observer it is like a bad marriage, where the couple "prefer the dysfunctionality of their relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond a divorce".

The only hope in my view to move forward, just like in a bad marriage, is to either divorce and stop niggling each other, or to accept that atheist humanism and religious humanism have far more in common than they disagree on. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of human evolution than arguing over whether Jesus literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

Oh if only certain theists would stop trying to force everyone to abide by their rules we could happily divorce.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

A.C. Grayling is closer to a 7 on Dawkin's atheist scale than Dawkins himself!

That doesn't address the content of my post. How does a theist/deist say "there are still pennies in the pigg-bank" when there is no evidence to support the claim? And why should others behave as if the theist actually did have the pennies?

The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable. As Julian Baggini put it in the Observer it is like a bad marriage, where the couple "prefer the dysfunctionality of their relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond a divorce".

The only hope in my view to move forward, just like in a bad marriage, is to either divorce and stop niggling each other, or to accept that atheist humanism and religious humanism have far more in common than they disagree on. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of human evolution than arguing over whether Jesus literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

I wouldn't personally consider Christianity to fall under humanism given that there's a deity at the top of totem. And atheism and religion will be banging heads for a while yet when you religious groups lobbying to curtail the rights of people not affiliated with their group, gay marriage being an example.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh if only certain theists would stop trying to force everyone to abide by their rules we could happily divorce.

All it takes is for elected officials to act like leaders rather than sheep

.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

Brian may have over-egged the pudding but you can't ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of the existence of any deity.

Brian didn't just over egg the pudding, he walked into quicksand and is still probably struggling to extract himself.

His claim was there is "plenty of plausible evidence for the lack of a deity", a nonsense claim. What he should have said, which I agree with btw, is there is no compelling empirical scientific evidence to prove a higher power exists. There is plenty of scientific evidence that suggests a deity to many people, such as a universe with a beginning, the natural laws of the universe, life emerging from inanimate matter, etc. These can be argued to death, but the existing evidence does not prove either side of the argument. The fact that many scientists argue for a deity based on existing scientific evidence defeats the "no evidence" argument. It is an open question.

If you want to seriously consider evidence for a higher power, then this is primarily based on subjective evidence, which atheists reject. This is in itself a fallacy, as other than the God question, atheists like everyone else accept subjective evidence in all other areas. The whole field of Psychology is based on subjective evidence, do atheists refuse to go to a therapist because of a lack of scientific evidence? One has to be careful in rejecting subjective evidence. The only statement in terms of any type of evidence of reality that you can declare with 100% certainty is that you personally exist, which is subjective evidence. Beyond that, evidence gets a little less certain in terms of what it tells us. What "you" and "out there" are becomes more mystifying the more you contemplate it seriously with an open mind.

Alsolutely nothing is proven regarding our reality by science, as science by its definition has to be falsifiable. The subjective evidence from mystical traditions going back to the dawn of human civilization is actually quite consistent, the perennial philosophy which is described best in Aldous Huxley's book of the same name. If you are unwilling to consider subjective evidence for a higher power then it is best to stop asking questions on the subject as you find yourself going around in endless circles.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

That doesn't address the content of my post. How does a theist/deist say "there are still pennies in the pigg-bank" when there is no evidence to support the claim? And why should others behave as if the theist actually did have the pennies?

Its a very poor analogy. The correct analogy is Schroedinger's thought experiment, we have no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until we open the box. As "we" have no means of opening the piggy bank, we have no way of knowing whether there are pennies in the piggy bank or not. The primary thing we have in terms of evidence is from mystics and those that claim to have experienced spiritual enlightenment, and there we simply have to either consider their evidence or reject it.

Pherekydes

nagirrac wrote: »

Its a very poor analogy. The correct analogy is Schroedinger's thought experiment, we have no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until we open the box. As "we" have no means of opening the piggy bank, we have no way of knowing whether there are pennies in the piggy bank or not. The primary thing we have in terms of evidence is from mystics and those that claim to have experienced spiritual enlightenment, and there we simply have to either consider their evidence or reject it.

Jesus, what are you spouting about? You just break the fcuking thing open, like he said.

Schrödinger? I give up...

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

There is plenty of scientific evidence that suggests a deity to many people, such as a universe with a beginning, the natural laws of the universe, life emerging from inanimate matter, etc.

If people choose to interpret these as suggesting a deity that's up to them. Suggesting is not evidence. God of the gaps argument.

These can be argued to death, but the existing evidence does not prove either side of the argument. The fact that many scientists argue for a deity based on existing scientific evidence defeats the "no evidence" argument. It is an open question.

As I said in the Dawkins Day thread, scientists outside of their field are no more reliable nor less vulnerable to irrationality than the layman.

The whole field of Psychology is based on subjective evidence, do atheists refuse to go to a therapist because of a lack of scientific evidence?

It's a bloody good reason to regard the field with scepticism IMHO. What actions anyone should take in relation to their own health is of course up to them.

One has to be careful in rejecting subjective evidence. The only statement in terms of any type of evidence of reality that you can declare with 100% certainty is that you personally exist, which is subjective evidence. Beyond that, evidence gets a little less certain in terms of what it tells us. What "you" and "out there" are becomes more mystifying the more you contemplate it seriously with an open mind.

This is a rabbit hole which is ultimately pointless to go down.

From wikipedia article on scientific method :

There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.

Alsolutely nothing is proven regarding our reality by science, as science by its definition has to be falsifiable.

Falsifiable does not mean false. You are welcome to disprove the theories of gravity or evolution in your own time

The subjective evidence from mystical traditions going back to the dawn of human civilization is actually quite consistent, the perennial philosophy which is described best in Aldous Huxley's book of the same name. If you are unwilling to consider subjective evidence for a higher power then it is best to stop asking questions on the subject as you find yourself going around in endless circles.

Like Jesus on a slice of toast, the human brain is constantly looking for patterns and explanations even where they do not exist. Just because deistic explanations have been found throughout history does not make them correct.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

Its a very poor analogy. The correct analogy is Schroedinger's thought experiment, we have no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until we open the box. As "we" have no means of opening the piggy bank, we have no way of knowing whether there are pennies in the piggy bank or not. The primary thing we have in terms of evidence is from mystics and those that claim to have experienced spiritual enlightenment, and there we simply have to either consider their evidence or reject it.

why? The quote is showing an example that highlights how it is illogical to claim something exists when there is no evidence to support it. Especially when it is then claimed that the "evidence" can't be tested/detected.

And we still come back to how the world has to try accommodate everyone. People invoking a higher power to justify discrimination for example. This then means the higher power has to be proven to exist otherwise it's entirely unreasonable to impose religious dogma on everyone. The other side of the coin is that you have to rely on something other than deities when deciding how society runs.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

If people choose to interpret these as suggesting a deity that's up to them. Suggesting is not evidence. God of the gaps argument. As I said in the Dawkins Day thread, scientists outside of their field are no more reliable nor less vulnerable to irrationality than the layman.

This is where things start to go around in circles. There are many scientists who look at the scientific evidence within their own field and consider it evidence for a deity. There's no point mentioning them as I will be accused of an argument from authority. For example a deist cosmologist can argue that God is eternal and is the first principle of the universe, an atheist cosmologist can argue that the quantum vacuum (a field, not nothing) is eternal and is the first principle of the universe. To ask a believer in a deity who created the deity makes no more sense than asking an atheist who created the quantum vacuum. If both are eternal the question becomes irrelevant.

In my view the biggest mistake atheists make is claiming that science supports their view, because unless we can measure God by scientific means he cannot exist. As Ken Miller, who defended evolution against ID in the Dover trial wrote: "The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find him there, they conclude he does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, an explanation of why things are the way they are. He is the answer to existance, not part of existance itself".

It is a fallacy to say belief in a deity is irrational and even more so to state that those who lead spirituial lives are irrational. Irrational maybe to an atheist, but since when do atheists get to define what is rational? Believing scientific claims without proper consideration is irrational, but science itself is not irrational. There are clearly lots of people who believe in God for irrational reasons, but there are also lots of poeple who believe in God based on considered evidence and reasoning and these people are not irrational. To call them irrational is insulting and frankly as much an argument from ignorance as a fundamentalist denying evolution.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

And we still come back to how the world has to try accommodate everyone. People invoking a higher power to justify discrimination for example. This then means the higher power has to be proven to exist otherwise it's entirely unreasonable to impose religious dogma on everyone. The other side of the coin is that you have to rely on something other than deities when deciding how society runs.

Nobody should impose their religious dogma (or lack of belief for that matter) on another, on that we fully agree.

Brian Shanahan

Knasher wrote: »

The purpose of science is to lend rigor and credibility to the way we acquire knowledge. It is meant to constrain the conclusions that people can reach until they are properly supported by the evidence. "Knowledge" acquired outside of science barely rises above the level of anecdote. It is always possible that any conclusions reached this way are accurate, but when that happens it is due to blind luck, merely stumbling upon the truth than actually finding it.

Crucially however, any conclusions that cannot be investigated by scientific means, are by definition impossible to validate. Correct conclusions are impossible to differentiate in any way from incorrect ones. The only option is to doubt all of them, until a way is found for science to investigate them, or loosen your grip on reality.

Lads, I've had a few, so it took me about three gos to actually grasp the message in this (and about half an hour to correct all the horrific spelling and grammar). But this is probably the best single post I'll ever read here, so thanks Knasher for that.

@nagirrac, you've liked the post so you obviously know what the scientific method is about, and yet you still ignore it. That is why we are constantly giving out to you, because you simply should know a lot better.

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

@nagirrac, you've liked the post so you obviously know what the scientific method is about, and yet you still ignore it. That is why we are constantly giving out to you, because you simply should know a lot better.

Brian, the scientific method is based on assumptions. The primary assumptions are that "reality is objective and consistent, and that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately". Science can only be conducted within that framework, and anyone conducting science, myself included, must follow the scientific method.

That does not mean that the assumptions are correct, it means you have to accept them if you are to conduct science.

Sarky

All you have to do is show us something that proves reality is not objective and consistent, and you can happily claim whatever bollocks you like without being called on it.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

All you have to do is show us something that proves reality is not objective and consistent, and you can happily claim whatever bollocks you like without being called on it.

Fortunately an Irishman much smarter than I did that already (in 1964)

http://www.weylmann.com/bell.pdf

Brian Shanahan

nagirrac wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?

The fact that not a single thing we've discovered about the universe needs a higher power to happen, and when we use Ockham's Razor on the various theistic and non-theistic explanations, the theistic ones invariably fail the rule of "least causes".

Of course to apply Ockham's Razor we have to pretend that theistic causes are as probable as non-theistic ones.

That good enough for you?

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

Fortunately an Irishman much smarter than I did that already (in 1964)

http://www.weylmann.com/bell.pdf

"There's something missing from current models, therefore magic" is not a very compelling argument. I thought we'd been through this?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sarky wrote: »

"There's something missing from current models, therefore magic" is not a very compelling argument.

But, in fairness, that does bring the implication that objectivity and consistency have to be assumed, as they cannot be demonstrated.

Unfortunately, we do have to acknowledge this. If, erm, we want to be objective and consistent.

ShooterSF

nagirrac wrote: »

The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable.

The only way you can make that comment with certainty is if you assume that an interventionist god that reveals himself to people and may chose to do so in the future doesn't exist. So even you have wrote off the Christians' god :P :pac:

Sarky

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, in fairness, that does bring the implication that objectivity and consistency have to be assumed, as they cannot be demonstrated.

Unfortunately, we do have to acknowledge this. If, erm, we want to be objective and consistent.

Of course we do. It still doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with any old claptrap that appeals to you.