Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Once you accept God is pretty much whatever the specific theist believes in, it can mean pretty much anything.

That's one of the memetic innovations which christianity seems to have introduced - the idea of an anonymous god. Prior to that, all deities seem to be referred to by name and once you have names, you develop characteristics. Delete the names though and it's always seemed to me that the deity can exist entirely in the abstract - thereby presenting an entirely blank canvas upon which the believer can paint their religious needs as they wish.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

That's one of the memetic innovations which christianity seems to have introduced - the idea of an anonymous god. Prior to that, all deities seem to be referred to by name and once you have names, you develop characteristics. Delete the names though and it's always seemed to me that the deity can exist entirely in the abstract - thereby presenting an entirely blank canvas upon which the believer can paint their religious needs as they wish.

It is certainly a trick that Christianity uses, that the word 'God' with a capital 'G' is both a proper name yet anonymous. As per this post it is also my opinion it can be used to mislead people to conflating the notion of a 'god or gods' with this particular 'God'. The anonymous bit certainly isn't a Christian innovation, as the Taoists were talking about "the Tao" in much in same way in the 6th century BC, albeit without any sentient agent. Zoroastrianism also predates Christianity by about 600 years and has a single god, Ahura Mazda, which simply translates as 'Wise lord' so still pretty anonymous.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have a general question which seems to fit the thread but I do not want to direct at anyone in particular.

As many of you know I have impinged myself on many forums over the years. This one. City data. God is not great. the aussie atheists. Why doesnt god heal amutees. Is god imaginary. atheist.ie. I could list maybe 100 more.

One issue I hit with time and time again is the one of people saying "well how the hell do you define "god" anyway" and conversation tends to break down over time when that happens.

So over 26ish years of posting, from way back in the days of usenet and bulletin boards...... I have tried to evolve and refine a definition of "god" that offends or triggers the least amount of people, or more specifically is the LEAST inclined to derail the thread into a pedantic linguistic debate (though I realise the irony here is me ASKING this is the most likely move to turn the thread into a pointless linguistic debate but..... well the thread was kinda lost anyway wasnt it).

So now when I ask for evidence of "god" from a theist the evolved, refined, contrived, malicious, generous, general, workable, useful definition of the word "god"I work with is below. Can you guys improve it? Whether you be atheist or theist. Remembering the goal is not to please YOU but in general the most amount of deists, theists, atheists you might encounter.

I must note before I give it that the ONLY definition of "god" that is ACTUALLY important in a debate of the existence of a god is the one coming from the person who claims a god exists. I provide this definition ONLY for when a theist does not provide theirs.

.....

A non-human intelligent intentional agent responsible for the creation of.... and or the ongoing maintenance of....... our universe as a whole and everything within it.

Again as above I promise not to respond to any replies to this post. Given my tendency for walls of text. I will just observe replies with interest. Which is how I have decided to treat this thread in general

The reason I added "as a whole" to that though would amuse many. I added it because the person who objected to it pointed to the cleaner in my company who happened to be swiping down spider webs at the time.... and suggested she was maintaining the universe. I still love him for that.

I would define God as love. Everything else, including intentionality, creativeness, hatred of sin, self sacrifice, joy, righteous anger, etc. etc. seem to spring from that.

God would have to be non-human since humans, whilst they can love can't be defined only by it.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

That's one of the memetic innovations which christianity seems to have introduced - the idea of an anonymous god. Prior to that, all deities seem to be referred to by name and once you have names, you develop characteristics. Delete the names though and it's always seemed to me that the deity can exist entirely in the abstract - thereby presenting an entirely blank canvas upon which the believer can paint their religious needs as they wish.

It is certainly a trick that Christianity uses, that the word 'God' with a capital 'G' is both a proper name yet anonymous. As per this post it is also my opinion it can be used to mislead people to conflating the notion of a 'god or gods' with this particular 'God'. The anonymous bit certainly isn't a Christian innovation, as the Taoists were talking about "the Tao" in much in same way in the 6th century BC, albeit without any sentient agent. Zoroastrianism also predates Christianity by about 600 years and has a single god, Ahura Mazda, which simply translates as 'Wise lord' so still pretty anonymous.

I fail to see how a name affects anonymnominity thingy. If a God is called Fred or Zeus or Diana, what does that tell us?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

That one I already know. One of my best friends. He's a buddhist: spiritual to the extent that he's certain there is more to life than the naturalistic atheist considers there to be. That makes him interested and open to talking about subjects involving the deeper aspects of a person: spirit, psychology, emotion.

He's a good listener, sensitive and gracious.

He's a mechanical engineer like me - which means he joins the mechanistic dots (a theology or psychology lend themselves to mechanistic analysis and analogy) and can leap along knowing what's a central component in the mechanism and whats a trivial one. This avoids getting bogged down and sidetracked by the details.

But as soon as the talk turns to sin. And especially man infected with it, such that it bend man towards a propensity to do evil, his gracious countenance darkens, he interrupts, his ability to join dots evaporates. The shutters, literally, come down. And the conversation is moved on to other things. He sees man as intrinsically good.

He is lost and for all his spirituality, blind. So his reponse is completely expected.

Zero chance of progress then, in a direct, spirit of the thread way, on an anonymous discussion forum I'm afraid.

Lost vs. found. Blind vs. see. Under the sway and rule of the wicked one vs. Son of God. Utter darkness vs radiant light. Good vs evil

My worldview doesn't involve analogue, such as to approach, if not achieve, an impartial observer.

It's digital. Either 1 or 0 with nothing in between. And so I don't try.

So now we have atheists that "don't get it", other Christians (not real Christians) that "don't get it" and Buddhist that "doesn't get it".

It reminds me of the Ron White story about the woman who lives beside a large air force base and over a period of time has sex with each and every soldier from the base. When she's done she pronounces that each and every one of them is lousy in bed. But you know, sometimes there can be another common denominator.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

That one I already know. One of my best friends. He's a buddhist: spiritual to the extent that he's certain there is more to life than the naturalistic atheist considers there to be. That makes him interested and open to talking about subjects involving the deeper aspects of a person: spirit, psychology, emotion.

He's a good listener, sensitive and gracious.

He's a mechanical engineer like me - which means he joins the mechanistic dots (a theology or psychology lend themselves to mechanistic analysis and analogy) and can leap along knowing what's a central component in the mechanism and whats a trivial one. This avoids getting bogged down and sidetracked by the details.

But as soon as the talk turns to sin. And especially man infected with it, such that it bend man towards a propensity to do evil, his gracious countenance darkens, he interrupts, his ability to join dots evaporates. The shutters, literally, come down. And the conversation is moved on to other things. He sees man as intrinsically good.

He is lost and for all his spirituality, blind. So his reponse is completely expected.

Zero chance of progress then, in a direct, spirit of the thread way, on an anonymous discussion forum I'm afraid.

Lost vs. found. Blind vs. see. Under the sway and rule of the wicked one vs. Son of God. Utter darkness vs radiant light. Good vs evil

My worldview doesn't involve analogue, such as to approach, if not achieve, an impartial observer.

It's digital. Either 1 or 0 with nothing in between. And so I don't try.

So now we have atheists that "don't get it", other Christians (not real Christians) that "don't get it" and Buddhist that "doesn't get it".

It reminds me of the Ron White story about the woman who lives beside a large air force base and over a period of time has sex with each and every soldier from the base. When she's done she pronounces that each and every one of them is lousy in bed. But you know, sometimes there can be another common denominator.

Indeed. The question is whether its a 1 or a zero.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

My worldview doesn't involve analogue, such as to approach, if not achieve, an impartial observer.

It's digital. Either 1 or 0 with nothing in between. And so I don't try.

I feel pitty for you so,
The world is not black and white or "digital" as you are putting it. There are many other variables.

For you it seems somebody must agree with your specific brand of Christianity and anyone else just doesn't get it, that shows a very closed mind.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I fail to see how a name affects anonymnominity thingy. If a God is called Fred or Zeus or Diana, what does that tell us?

You use the term a God, that should be a god. The former is a proper noun, the latter isn't.

The confusion between God, i.e. your God or the singular god referred to in monotheistic traditions, and a god, i.e. any god from any tradition, works in favour of suggesting your God is the only god. So for example another post here linked a paper that showed a significant number of atheists stopped being atheists after using psychedelic drugs. The paper then went on to ask "Can psychedelic drugs occasion genuine God encounter experiences?" and later talked about "sudden religious conversion experiences that are well-described in the psychology of religion literature, with Paul’s experience of encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus as the prototype". The data however shows that those who stopped being atheist declared that they did not believe in any traditional monotheistic god, and a large proportion of previous monotheists also stopped believing in any traditional monotheistic god. There is a clear non-sequitur between the data and the conclusions drawn from it by confusing the simple noun 'god' and the proper noun 'God'. Whether or not this is a deliberate mechanism used to impose the bias of the authors is open to speculation, but it is certainly a mechanism Christianity has used elsewhere, notably in religious syncretism. Substitute your anonymous God in for another god from a different tradition while keeping the same festivals in place and Christianity starts looking like a cuckoo.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no need to justify my position to a believer (obviously). I can't justify (although I can explain, a different threshold altogether) to a blind person.

We can say that you can't explain or justify your position unless the impartial hypo onlooker possesses a particular set of characteristics.

Clearly characteristics are important.

And I have accepted that you may not be able to convince the onlooker, hence I asked 1) how would you try to, even knowing it may not work? and 2) why are you convinced?

antiskeptic wrote: »

As to why elsewhere? I have no problem talking about my worldview elsewhere. I take account of the blindness and argue a particular way for a particular reason.

So why can't you do that here, with a hypothetical person who may be blind but isn't approaching your argument from an inherently empirical worldview?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Typically the reason is as here, to drive things to stalemate. Stalemate is an end in itself.

An end to what though? Why do say this as if it is a good thing? Stalemates literally get discussions nowhere.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I seem to be the only person who wants to look under hypo's bonnet. When I see he is powered by an empirical, rational engine... well that's why I won't get on board.

But this is a blatant strawman, the onlooker specifically doesn't have an empirical worldview. How many times do I have to tell you to get your own goalposts if you want to move some.

antiskeptic wrote: »

True enough. All that's left is the argument.

Careful argument.

And your chief problems in argument are that:

a) your hypoman is stacked with characteristics that favour your view.

b) he can't have characteristics that permit him to look at my view without destroying his impartiality.

Now you either dismantle that or we stalemate.

I have, your "a)" is a strawman and "b)" is circular logic which begs the second question I've been asking from the start - how are you convinced?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It satisfies me the most

Why do you believe that reality should align to what satisfies you the most?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know why you stop at empiricism and reason: it's the limit of the environment you operate in, so you hold to it because that makes most sense to you. I know why there are so many gods (and have pointed out their common feature and source elsewhere).

There is nothing external to my view which can't be explained ( to my satisfaction) within my view.

And self-satisfaction is the root of all knowledge.

I do not believe in empiricism because it most self-satisfactory to me. It is, in part, because of the opposite - I do not believe that my satisfaction has any bearing on reality. Things are how they are regardless of whether I like them that way or not. Empiricism is just the best way we have to explain things as it primarily tries to removes the ego when looking at why things are.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

My worldview doesn't involve analogue, such as to approach, if not achieve, an impartial observer.

It's digital. Either 1 or 0 with nothing in between. And so I don't try.

Why can you only answer the hypothetical if you know if the onlooker is a 1 or 0? If it's a case that you are afraid that a 0 answer won't work for a 1, and vice versa, can you give us both answers?

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would define God as love. Everything else, including intentionality, creativeness, hatred of sin, self sacrifice, joy, righteous anger, etc. etc. seem to spring from that.

Based on what evidence though? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

antiskeptic wrote: »

God would have to be non-human since humans, whilst they can love can't be defined only by it.

Well for that matter we're still waiting for any sort of explanation as to why God can be defined by love.

Also, is there a difference between defined by love and defined as love, which was what you said above? Or are you just being careless with language? (Which would seem to contradict the very basis of what you claim prevents you from engaging with the questions asked.)

Seanachai

antiskeptic wrote: »

I fail to see how a name affects anonymnominity thingy. If a God is called Fred or Zeus or Diana, what does that tell us?

It tells us the attributes of that particular god through etymology and their relationship to our psyche\soul. They aren't actually separate entities, but representations of our qualities.

smacl

volchitsa wrote: »

Based on what evidence though?

Don't think we're doing evidence in this thread

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Huic rogationi responsum mirum detexi - sed hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvYeLxMKN8

smacl wrote: »

Zoroastrianism also predates Christianity by about 600 years and has a single god, Ahura Mazda, which simply translates as 'Wise lord' so still pretty anonymous.

The god of light bulbs, and Japanese cars.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've little interest in flogging dead horses - all that tedious talk of precisely which year which gospel was written? Yawn. That apologetic tack plays to the empiricist and is doomed to failure of itself in my view.

I'm sure if you encountered someone who believed the Harry Potter series of books to be factual and tried to convince you of same, you'd be quite happy to use the ample empirical evidence available to counter them. Actually it's you who is closed-minded; who is quite happy to apply evidence, logic and reason to each aspect of life, but refuses to do so to one very very glaring exception.

And so my tack is as always: stalemating and talking about God along the way.

No shít.

If you had anything better than perilously-close-to-trolling we'd have heard it by now.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you had anything better than perilously-close-to-trolling we'd have heard it by now.

Mod: Perilously close to being moderated and slapped with a card for that comment. Do not imply/suggest/state/insinuate/intimate other posters are trolling as per shiny new charter.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect antiskeptic, I cannot help but wonder what you will respond to.

I'll engage with any number of components of the God debate, the common aim being to counter, if not necessarily overcome, the objections the unbeliever has to God.

- I might highlight what I consider to be a fatal flaw in Calvinism (where it says man is predestined to salvation by God without man having anything at all to do with it). Calvinism paints a picture of an aloof God operating unfairly. By arguing that God's way of salvation is as fair as fair can be, I'm countering a basis for objection in the unbeliever (God isn't fair)

- I might tackle the surprisingly common "follow his rules/be good.. or go to hell" objection. Such a God has a dictatorial flavour and folk find that objectionable. It's as if they never heard of The Reformation.

- I might point out that the other gods are invariably performance based (what you do or don't do affects blessing in this life and your afterlife destination) as a way to begin to address the 'many gods' problem

- or the problem of pain (where pain always points to something unhealthy going on)

- or, or, or

By neutralising objection you don't prove God, you merely remove the objection. Or attempt to.

The apostle Paul encouraged believers to give a reason for the (certain) hope that they have.

That God is fair rather than not, that he isn't a dictator, that he doesn't save by divine lotto but is supremely interested in our will, that sin, not God brought about pain and suffering... might give some hope to an unbeliever who finds himself seeking one day. The now-at-emnity people on here needn't always occupy that position. They might become seekers one day. They might be seekers now but won't admit it.

Such was it for me. I once told the mam I loved, who had recently been born again and was banging on about God at every single opportunity, to "stick your f****n God up your arse"

Two years later, much to my surprise and despite my objections, the lights went on for metoo.

I am genuinely interested in hearing/learning/ understanding (even with-in the limits of my world view - not a lot I can do about those) about your worldview. I find it is possible to understand other people's views/beliefs without agreeing with them but in order to even attempt to do that there has to be some actual discussion which contains actual information.

Fire away so.

Among your lengthy posts are hidden nuggets of your beliefs, but when people try and find out why you believe what you believe (i.e the theological basis) which is often not 'mainstream' or shared by others who call themselves Christian it all gets wordy nothinghood.

I don't think that's accurate. On Calvinism, for instance, you would find me using pretty mainstream ideas to arrive at the conclusion I arrive at. Or something that isn't at all outlandish from a common reasoning point of view.

That an idea isn't mainstream is neither here nor there - a very significant mainstream was blown asunder by something that wasn't then mainstream but became thus (The Reformation). Not that I suppose myself Martin Luther & Co. But there is no imperative to suppose that any settled view is a bang on correct view.

Take the problem of the warlike Old Testament God: a smithin' and a smothin'. Talk to your average born again Christian and ask them to reconcile God as represented by Jesus with the Old Testament God of war and you'll draw a blank stare. Mainstream theology won't do much better.

Who's to say that at this juncture we aren't but 10% along in having a theology that aligns with the reality? Ought Columbus to have supposed the earth flat just because that was mainstream? Or da Vinci the sun orbiting the earth?

There is a natural tendency to suppose whats modern as correct. History has taught us otherwise. There are still many rivers to cross.

It took me a long time to understand Calvin, I could even see why he believed what he believed as he provided a thorough theological roadmap I could follow. I do not agree with Calvin as we differ in the core principle of considering the Bible as the word of God but I could read what he read and think yes, I see how Calvin came to that conclusion based on the texts.
Same with Luther. Same with Knox. Same with Zwingli. Same with the Anabaptists. I would like to do the same with antiskeptic as I am interested.

I don't see how you can see all those views as correct (within the confines of the bible).
One must make the most compelling case, (whilst holding the overarching view that the bible isn't the word of God.)

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm sure if you encountered someone who believed the Harry Potter series of books to be factual and tried to convince you of same, you'd be quite happy to use the ample empirical evidence available to counter them. Actually it's you who is closed-minded; who is quite happy to apply evidence, logic and reason to each aspect of life, but refuses to do so to one very very glaring exception.

There's a few posts upstream (one to smacl, another to nozz and one above to Bannasidhe) which outline my approach and why. Logic and reason do form the basis of my talking about God within the confines of that strategy.

I did mention a consequence for accepting the need for and failing to produce the impartial onlooker.
It underlines the partiality of everyone else.

And so, a strategy employed to engage with partial onlookers. Which isn't to fight their partiality on their own turf.

No shít.

If you had anything better than perilously-close-to-trolling we'd have heard it by now.

I can understand the frustration. But stalemate is a legitimate aim.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But stalemate is a legitimate aim.

Your stalemate only exists in a game of pigeon chess as I see it.

If you consider this thread analogous to a game of chess, it has rules as laid down by the OP that created the thread. Their game, their rules, your choice to engage or not on that basis. I certainly see zero progress towards a stalemate here as you're openly refusing to play the game on that basis.

In terms of convincing anybody on this thread, to any extent whatsoever, that your worldview is more reasonable than they had thought it to be prior to the outset of this thread, or that their worldview is less reasonable, do you think you've made any progress?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Your stalemate only exists in a game of pigeon chess as I see it.

If you consider this thread analogous to a game of chess, it has rules as laid down by the OP that created the thread. Their game, their rules, your choice to engage or not on that basis. I certainly see zero progress towards a stalemate here as you're openly refusing to play the game on that basis.

Rules have been proposed: necessitating an impartial onlooker. This onlooker hasn't been produced.

In terms of convincing anybody on this thread, to any extent whatsoever, that your worldview is more reasonable than they had thought it to be prior to the outset of this thread, or that their worldview is less reasonable, do you think you've made any progress?

No. Not least because the thread has been stalemated before it could commence on the terms proposed.

That stalemate achieved an arguable victory elsewhere: namely the highlighting of the fact that the empiricist approach ("where's the empirical evidence") is a partial one.

Whereas the empiricist suppose their worldview an impartial one.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rules have been proposed: necessitating an impartial onlooker. This onlooker hasn't been produced.



No. Not least because the thread has been stalemated before it could commence on the terms proposed.

That stalemate achieved an arguable victory elsewhere: namely the highlighting of the fact that the empiricist approach ("where's the empirical evidence") is a partial one.

Whereas the empiricist suppose their worldview an impartial one.

Your wrong in that your so called empricist is no more real the the OP's impartial onlooker. People who regularly use empirical techniques only do so where they're appropriate, they do not apply them where they're inappropriate. So for example as I type this post, I'm running a performance analysis on an algorithm to spatially index a huge data set. This is clearly an empirical analysis. Last night I took the family to see a rather wonderful choir at the Olympia theatre and we discussed the merits of the performance on the bus home. Non empirical analysis which was largely subjective. So on that basis are we empriricists or not?

The stated binary approach your own worldview is entirely at odds with the universe in which we live. Our universe is dynamic, fluid and multi-faceted with very few discrete variables outside of the abstract constructs of our own imagination. At a much smaller level so are people and how they behave. You chose to group them into sinners and saved, but this is an abstract grouping that does not exist outside of your own imagination.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Your wrong in that your so called empricist is no more real the the OP's impartial onlooker. People who regularly use empirical techniques only do so where they're appropriate, they do not apply them where they're inappropriate. So for example as I type this post, I'm running a performance analysis on an algorithm to spatially index a huge data set. This is clearly an empirical analysis. Last night I took the family to see a rather wonderful choir at the Olympia theatre and we discussed the merits of the performance on the bus home. Non empirical analysis which was largely subjective. So on that basis are we empriricists or not?

You don't know the choir was wonderful. Empiricists hold that knowledge comes via the methods of empirical analysis. So when it comes to the question of how I know God exists, empirical methods are the go to.

The stated binary approach your own worldview is entirely at odds with the universe in which we live.

Don't you mean the empirical universe? What about the spiritual universe? Oh yeah, that awaits empirical verification.

You chose to group them into sinners and saved, but this is an abstract grouping that does not exist outside of your own imagination.

Q.E.D.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't know the choir was wonderful. Empiricists hold that knowledge comes via the methods of empirical analysis. So when it comes to the question of how I know God exists, empirical methods are the go to.

I don't know the choir was wonderful, it was my subjective opinion of them, but I would have thought this was blindingly obvious so didn't state it explicitly. So I'll ask again, would you consider me to be and empiricist on that basis?

Don't you mean the empirical universe? What about the spiritual universe? Oh yeah, that awaits empirical verification.

Nope, there's just the one universe which concurrently contains things that can be measured and my subjective appreciation for a good choir. Any 'spiritual universe' is an abstract in your own mind which is also part of the one and only universe.

Q.E.D.

You have yet to demonstrate anything other than that you have a set of beliefs that don't seem to be shared by anyone else here.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I don't know the choir was wonderful, it was my subjective opinion of them, but I would have thought this was blindingly obvious so didn't state it explicitly. So I'll ask again, would you consider me to be and empiricist on that basis?

That would depend on your answer to the question: by what means can we know things or at least gain the closest possible approach to knowing things?

It's not like an empiricist is precluded by that philosophy from preferring Coke to Pepsi.

Nope, there's just the one universe which concurrently contains things that can be measured and my subjective appreciation for a good choir. Any 'spiritual universe' is an abstract in your own mind which is also part of the one and only universe.

Is this a belief (subjective) or do you know this / reckon you have the closest thing to knowledge possible on the matter?

If the latter, by what means did you arrive at this conclusion. Do you know those means are the best means available to humankind.

Or do you merely believe these means to be the best means?

Fourier

antiskeptic as somebody reading this conversation it seems you never really state anything. People are constantly attempting to propose something or suggest something for you to agree or disagree with, but since you never really state anything outright it just reads like a giant guessing game. You just respond to questions with more philosophical questions often in the form of "Well how do you know?"

Could you just state what you think, i.e. what methods of inquiry are valid, why certain methods are restricted or why they shouldn't be over applied. Using this on the canonical case of the Old Testament would be the most enlightening. Standard historical analysis has an understanding of the Old Testament that is at odds with most versions of Christianity. Perhaps you could explicate your philosophy of epistemology and then say how it leads you to reject the common professional historical view and adopt a certain Christian view.

robindch

Fourier wrote: »

antiskeptic as somebody reading this conversation it seems you never really state anything.

"Brexit means Brexit", "alternative arrangements", "technical solutions" etc, etc. Ece Temelkuran was talking about exactly this topic yesterday at the Dalkey Book Festival, specifically, how the debasement of language plus an increasing level of shamelessness leads directly to an inability to engage in discussion.

Any excuse to post Sidney Harris's relevant gag:

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

antiskeptic as somebody reading this conversation it seems you never really state anything. People are constantly attempting to propose something or suggest something for you to agree or disagree with, but since you never really state anything outright it just reads like a giant guessing game. You just respond to questions with more philosophical questions often in the form of "Well how do you know?"

I think that's because things get pulled down side tracks and I endeavour to stretch the conclusions of the main track down the side track - forgetting that the main track hasn't been accepted by 'the other side'

You could argue that the reason for the sidetracking is that folk don't want to accept the main conclusion because of the consequences involved.

-

Also. You might be assuming this is a thread where folk ask and I answer (and I'm avoiding answering)

That would be an incorrect assumption. The 'battle' here is between belief systems (whether theistic or philosophical). There is a tendency here to assume the empirical way dominant/prime and the theistic way having to demonstrate itself according to the rules of the dominant. This is evidenced by the way in which folk want to skip past the empirical (and not so impartial) onlooker and 'get on with it'

I prefer to keep things on track. Hence my questioning the assumptions of dominancy and my returning to the lack of an impartial onlooker.

A problem which has seen a feeble response from those who have seem to have forgotten the title of the thread

Could you just state what you think, i.e. what methods of inquiry are valid, why certain methods are restricted or why they shouldn't be over applied. Using this on the canonical case of the Old Testament would be the most enlightening. Standard historical analysis has an understanding of the Old Testament that is at odds with most versions of Christianity. Perhaps you could explicate your philosophy of epistemology and then say how it leads you to reject the common professional historical view and adopt a certain Christian view.

That would not only be wildly off topic, could attract thread closure from the 'waffle' which would be seen in my answers.

It would also deflect from the main mission here. Where is the impartial onlooker?

I posted a bit upstream to Mark Hamill (iirc). There I speak somewhat on the personal root of knowledge. Knowledge is that which satisfies the individual best.

One reason (there are others) why Christianity would view the scriptures differently than non-Christianity is that Christians have another sense at work that non-Christianity doesn't.

You know when you look at water you can either see your reflection or, with a twist of brain, down to the bottom. It's bit like that

-

Now that the thrust of the thread is known to you, ie overcoming the problem of constructing a suitable onlooker, would you like to attempt a solution?

Fourier

I don't think there is such a thing as an impartial onlooker within a strictly scientific viewpoint, for largely technical reasons.

However you still haven't really said anything. Even within the thread's purview can you just state what your position is directly? A simple request for clarity was instead inverted back at me for me to offer a solution. You've been talking for several pages, maybe you can just clearly state your thesis with regard to the thread title and no meta-discussions about the course of the thread.