Big Bird and the Belief that All Beliefs are Equally Improbable

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

"When something in religion is found to be false, it becomes a metaphor"

When something in science is found to be false it becomes yet another footnote in Science-ism's great march towards knowing everything about everything.

Until then, this transient assembly of parts is assumed to be the Final Truth: Somewhat, But By No Means Fatally, Veiled.

antiskeptic

karlitob wrote: »

Again you’ve yet to respond to the points I raised that you requested - twice.

You're not exactly a barrel of answers yourself

Extra-ordinary means beyond ordinary.

Okay

You claim because lots of people believe in god it’s not an extraordinary claim.

Its not extraordinary in the sense that lots of people make it. In that sense its an ordinary claim.

As to whether the claim is extraordinary in the other sense. Well, that would depend on whether you hold God exists or not. You don't and so it seems extraordinary to you (just like the existence of zombies would appear extraordinary to both of us).

Its the same as someone who believes in empiricism. To them empiricism is an ordinary belief. But to someone else it seems extraordinary. And the empiricist cannot evidence the truth if his belief (which is why someone might find it an extraordinary claim)

I think the place where you err is right there: the presumption that because you find the claim extraordinary, it is extraordinary. But its not for the bulk of the worlds population.

Oh, I know you'll say there are so many versions of God. That it's not as if the vast bulk of the world believes in one version of one God - which go some way to showing atheists are perhaps on the wrong track.

No matter: your belief system just tacks onto the myriad of belief systems, theistic and non theistic. And is as extraordinary to me as my belief system is to you.

Your central point in the last thread was on your interpretation of the word evidence.

You mean it didn't match your interpretation of the word evidence. Read Mr. Rogers above. If he can't produce Big Bird then encounter Big Bird he did not. In your view it seems.

This thread seems to be your interpretation of the word extraordinary.

Its always in the eye of the beholder. Take a smart phone back 100 years. Extraordinary - even without mobile data.

If I claimed that a magical pink unicorn created the world in 2 days by spouting the universe from its magical horn and then ate fairy dust for another 5. And that you have to make your children go to a state school where the patron is a priest of this religion and be taught that that’s how universe was created.

That would merely be a matter of who holds the power. The hand that rocks the cradle. Imagine living in a society that supposes the unborn a blob of cells that can be disposed of for whatever reason one choses. Extraordinary!

I'm sorry its not as simple as you make out. Your position relies on everyone aligning with what you and your beliefs find to be the case. When they don't, your argument is toast. Or rather, belief.

antiskeptic

@smacl.

Empiricism a belief system just as religion is a belief system.

Empiricism is the belief that all reality is to be apprehended through the senses. Robindch's Mr Rogers and Big Bird is a case in point. If you can touch it, taste it, see it .. then it is real. If not then it is imaginary. Whilst a simplified view, it nevertheless cuts to the chase.

Now that view isn't demonstrable.

You say the difference has been thoroughly addressed by posters. In my experience posters point to the wonders of scientific progress and ask do I use aspirin. They point to many gods. They point to dictionary definitions of evidence which a) don't demand that evidence need be empirical in order to be evidence b) if they do demand that evidence be empirical, don't say where that idea arose from. These aren't demonstrations of empiricism being other than a belief system.

Since their position, you say, has been so frequently laid out, you should be able to say what the main arguments are. What, in a nutshell are the things which differentiate belief in empiricism from belief in God?

Heck, give me even the main one..

You say I play the ball and not the man. That canard, supposing people who give signs of being empiricists (Robindch and his Big Bird video)not being allowed to be labelled such (whatever else they might believe in addition) is protectionism on your part.

I'm quite happy to hold off discussing with folk until such time as they lay out their philosophical beliefs, if that salves your concern. And when they do list their philosophical underpinnings I'll ask them to demonstrate the supremacy of their system such that it escapes the conclusion: belief.

Belief their philosophies remain, until such time as it can be demonstrated in non-circular reasoning fashion.

I think you conflate quantity with quality when it comes to these posters demonstrating anything.


A new thread has been created here to discuss, debate, dispute, deny... and stalemate if desired... all "Empiricism is a belief/ oh no it's not" posts. The first batch have been hived off from the Feedback thread where they absolutely did not belong. It will become the home for all future posts on this general topic.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

@smacl.

Empiricism a belief system just as religion is a belief system.

Empiricism is the belief that all reality is to be apprehended through the senses. Robindch's Mr Rogers and Big Bird is a case in point. If you can touch it, taste it, see it .. then it is real. If not then it is imaginary. Whilst a simplified view, it nevertheless cuts to the chase.

Now that view isn't demonstrable.

You say the difference has been thoroughly addressed by posters. In my experience posters point to the wonders of scientific progress and ask do I use aspirin. They point to many gods. They point to dictionary definitions of evidence which a) don't demand that evidence need be empirical in order to be evidence b) if they do demand that evidence be empirical, don't say where that idea arose from. These aren't demonstrations of empiricism being other than a belief system.

Since their position, you say, has been so frequently laid out, you should be able to say what the main arguments are. What, in a nutshell are the things which differentiate belief in empiricism from belief in God?

Heck, give me even the main one..

You say I play the ball and not the man. That canard, supposing people who give signs of being empiricists (Robindch and his Big Bird video)not being allowed to be labelled such (whatever else they might believe in addition) is protectionism on your part.

I'm quite happy to hold off discussing with folk until such time as they lay out their philosophical beliefs, if that salves your concern. And when they do list their philosophical underpinnings I'll ask them to demonstrate the supremacy of their system such that it escapes the conclusion: belief.

Belief their philosophies remain, until such time as it can be demonstrated in non-circular reasoning fashion.

I think you conflate quantity with quality when it comes to these posters demonstrating anything.

1) You stomp around declaring people here who engage you in discussion are empiricists (which some may be but unless they themselves declare it you have no basis for making that claim) and then extrapolate that this means all atheists are empiricists. This is nonsense.
2) Empiricism is a philosophical methodology for interrogating the world, existence, nature of reality etc etc, it is no better or worse than rationalism (considered it's opposite), or skepticism. Different philosophical strokes for different folks. What it is not is a Belief.
Now, it may be - for some folk - a means to help them form a belief, support a belief, or even dismiss a belief. It is not, however, a belief in and of itself, it is a methodology.
3) You are critical of how other posters deal with your statements, I put it to you that as someone who consistently attempts to shut down discussion by bringing threads to stalemate - in fact you have boasted about this being your aim - you are on shaky ground complaining here about others.

Synopsis: Empiricism - that word does not mean what you claim it means. Stop telling other people what they believe. You are in a glasshouse, put down that stone.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

. . . 2) Empiricism is a philosophical methodology for interrogating the world, existence, nature of reality etc etc, it is no better or worse than rationalism (considered it's opposite), or skepticism. Different philosophical strokes for different folks. What it is not is a Belief.
Now, it may be - for some folk - a means to help them form a belief, support a belief, or even dismiss a belief. It is not, however, a belief in and of itself, it is a methodology.

I agree. But, to be fair, you can hold that empiricism is a superior methodology to the alternatives, or that it is uniquely valid, or that an empirically-obtained understanding is in some way privileged over understandings arrives at by other methods, and those are beliefs. And beliefs of this kind are sometimes professed in this forum.

And in fact that is another sense of the word empiricism: "A doctrine or theory that emphasizes or privileges the role of experience in knowledge, esp. claiming that sense experience or direct observation rather than abstract reasoning is the foundation of all knowledge of reality".

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree. But, to be fair, you can hold that empiricism is a superior methodology to the alternatives, or that it is uniquely valid, or that an empirically-obtained understanding is in some way privileged over understandings arrives at by other methods, and those are beliefs. And beliefs of this kind are sometimes professed in this forum.

And in fact that is another sense of the word empiricism: "A doctrine or theory that emphasizes or privileges the role of experience in knowledge, esp. claiming that sense experience or direct observation rather than abstract reasoning is the foundation of all knowledge of reality".

Believing a particular methodology is superior to other methodologies is not the same as the methodology itself being a belief system - which is what antiskeptic claims. No matter how fervently one believes one's preferred methodology is the gosh darn bestest - it is still a means of interrogation not the end in itself.

He/She has also on numerous occasions extrapolated that because some posters may have expressed such belief in the superiority of empiricism as a methodology that all who disagree with him/her share that belief. This is patiently incorrect.
Antiskeptic quite rightly takes exception to being categorised as sharing the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church (although trying to get an answer as to what he/she actually believes is like pulling hen's teeth) but with clockwork regularity goes off on a "as an atheist you are an empiricist and therefore you believe..." lengthy tirade.

Antiskeptic has only two strings to their bow - i) claiming a thing is a belief, ascribing that alleged belief to whomever they are responding to, and then arguing that point. ii) Trying to shut down discussion.

There have been enough examples of both across multiple threads (plus warnings/sanctions to cease and desist) that continuing to play these two strings is most definitely in the soapboxing category and against the charter.

If antiskeptic wishes to mount a defence I would be interested to hear how, ITO, telling people what they believe and then arguing against that alleged belief and/or seeking to shut down discussion is arguing in good faith and not soapboxing.

nozzferrahhtoo

The users ongoing inability to stop telling people what they believe as a cover for not defending his own positions.... and the misconstrual of a methodology as a belief aside.... I would also find problems with the use of subjectivity alone to define whether a claim is "extraordinary" or not. Above that is exactly what happened, as whether a belief or claim is "extraordinary" or not was painted in the light of whether one believes that claim/belief. And as such it was suggested that what is "extraordinary" to one person might not be to the next.

I am not sure what use a completely subjective and individual definition of "extraordinary" would be therefore. I think a better methodology for defining the word is required.... lest everyone be talking at/past each other rather than WITH each other. Because the user involved is not offering a description of the claim at all... but a given individuals reaction to that claim.

I think looking at a claim that is NOT extraordinary helps to offer contrast. Instantly George Washington leading his troops across the Delaware jumps to mind. And I am not sure why. I have a funny feeling someone used exactly this example in exactly this discussion in the past, and so it is stuck in my sub-conscious. And a niggling tickle in the back of my brain suggests it was Sam Harris. But I can genuinely not recall. So apologies if I am stealing it from him/anyone.

If you break down that claim it is not all that extraordinary. Why? It involves leaders.... and we see many leaders. It involves troops. We see many troops. It involves a military manoeuvre. We see many military manoeuvres. And so on. The claim this event occurred, whether it did or not, is not "extraordinary" in that every constituent part of it is plausible, credible, comparable and can be isolated and evaluated. Even if no evidence for the event were available, or if evidence showing the claim to be positively false were found.... it would still remain a rather ordinary claim on it's own merits.

Now contrast this with the claim that a completely non-human intelligent and intentional agent exists that is responsible for the creation and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe and life within it. We do not even have a shred of evidence for non-human intelligence outside our planet even WITHIN our universe. Let alone extraneous to it or causally linked with it's creation. Aside from the existence of intentional intelligence at all (ours) there is no constituant part of the claim about the existence of a god that can be credibly isolated in the same way as an analysis of a historic military maneuver. So whether there is a god or not is irrelevant.... whether one believes the claim there is a god or not is irrelevant..... it stands as an extraordinary claim in and of itself on it's own merits. And even if 100% conclusive evidence were offered tomorrow that there is in fact a god... the claim itself is STILL an extraordinary one.

Definition: Extraordinary: "very unusual or remarkable."
Definition: remarkable: "worthy of attention; striking."
Definition: Striking: attracting attention by reason of being unusual, extreme, or prominent.

The dictionary definitions fit this conclusion too. But it would not be the first time that I suspected the user in question was A) using a dictionary entirely different to the one I use and that said dictionary was of his own authorship and invention.

In short though I think the users ongoing short answer to the thread "How do you convince people god exists?" remains "I can't and do not intend to try" and the thread "Is there a rational reason to believe in god?" remains "Not at this time and I do not intend to offer one".

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Trouble for him though, is that unless he could produce a 7ft English speaking bird, nobody is going to believe he encountered one.

Big Bird is actually a real puppet character known to, and loved by millions - just about all of whom, save possibly very, very young children, are fully aware that Big Bird is neither an actual "Big Bird", or a bird at all, but in fact, a guy dressed up in a yellow costume (whose name was Caroll Spinney and who, sadly, died in December last year).

You seem to be having a little trouble distinguishing reality from fiction.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

1) You stomp around declaring people here who engage you in discussion are empiricists (which some may be but unless they themselves declare it you have no basis for making that claim) and then extrapolate that this means all atheists are empiricists. This is nonsense.

I assume those who display evidence of being empircists are empiricists on the looks like a duck basis.

If you prefer I wait until they declare which philosophy to believe in I'll wait.

You are, I suggest, engaging in protectionism when its not exactly a secret that posters display their adherence to empiricism.

2) Empiricism is a philosophical methodology for interrogating the world, existence, nature of reality etc etc, it is no better or worse than rationalism (considered it's opposite), or skepticism. Different philosophical strokes for different folks. What it is not is a Belief.

Whether it is better or worse lies in the eye of the beholder. That it is better than a theistic approach to interrogating reality is assumed by those who congregate here.

But until such time as that can be demonstrated (without arguing in a circle) a belief about the superiority of empiricism over theism it remains.

Isn't that the position here? That you show your work. Otherwise the empiricists claim is just a claim as any other.

Now, it may be - for some folk - a means to help them form a belief, support a belief, or even dismiss a belief. It is not, however, a belief in and of itself, it is a methodology.

The belief is in the superiority of the method as a way of interogating reality. Indeed, the circular reasoning is that all reality is to be interrogated by the senses because thats all the reality being detected.

3) You are critical of how other posters deal with your statements, I put it to you that as someone who consistently attempts to shut down discussion by bringing threads to stalemate - in fact you have boasted about this being your aim - you are on shaky ground complaining here about others.

I suggest stalemate is the end we will arrive at. That nobody will be able to demonstrate the superiority of their empiricism method over alternatives.

That conclusion is not shutting down the discussion. If that conclusion then the discussion might move to the need for members of this forum to step down from their high horse. For instance.

Synopsis: Empiricism - that word does not mean what you claim it means. Stop telling other people what they believe. You are in a glasshouse, put down that stone.

Summary. Empiricism is a methodology. Supposing empiricism a superior way to approach and interogate reality is a belief.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Supposing empiricism a superior way to approach and interogate reality....

Superior to what? And measured how?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Antiskeptic was responding to Mr Fegelein's characterisation, in post #1 in this thread, of belief in God an as "extraordinary claim".

A claim to the existence of a supernatural entity which exists outside of space and time yet is claimed to intervene in our universe in all sorts of ways including:

- knowing the thoughts and actions of all humans
- being able to interfere with the thoughts and actions of humans
- being able to bring dead humans back to life
- being able to bring itself to life in human form and perform all sorts of supernatural tasks, die and then resurrect itself
- flooding the globe and drying it out again, moving mountains, etc.
- turning a wafer into human flesh

all while leaving no physical evidence of its existence never mind such interventions

... is an extraordinary claim by any stretch.

You only can regard it as not extraordinary because for a long time society has conspired to normalise such bizarre beliefs.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

You certainly hear that here all the time but nah, no one was told that by their atheist parents.

Except most of us here didn't have atheist parents - quite the opposite in many cases.

Funny that 2 of the 6 kids knocking at my door say their parents told then God doesn't exist ( 1 being told that Santa and the Tooth Fairy don't either)

You randomly have kids knocking on your door and engaging you in conversations about god?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I assume those who display evidence of being empircists are empiricists on the looks like a duck basis.

You assume wrongly. Many people employ empirical methods when addressing certain classes of problem but that in no way implies they subscribe to some kind of exclusively empiricist philosophy and can hence be considered 'empiricists' whatever that may or may not mean. For example, many theists work in the sciences and will address problems from an empirical, theological or entirely different stance depending on context. Dividing the people of into two groups labeled empiricists and others is thus clearly a false dichotomy. Calling any other poster an empiricist and then critiquing their argument on that basis is straw manning. As already thoroughly dealt with by Bannasidhe, comparing empiricism to religious belief is a false equivalence. Your argument is logically nonsensical and repeating it ad nauseam while ignoring well reasoned counter argument is soap boxing which will not be tolerated as per the charter.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You assume wrongly. Many people employ empirical methods when addressing certain classes of problem but that in no way implies they subscribe to some kind of exclusively empiricist philosophy and can hence be considered 'empiricists' whatever that may or may not mean. For example, many theists work in the sciences and will address problems from an empirical, theological or entirely different stance depending on context. Dividing the people of into two groups labeled empiricists and others is thus clearly a false dichotomy. Calling any other poster an empiricist and then critiquing their argument on that basis is straw manning. As already thoroughly dealt with by Bannasidhe, comparing empiricism to religious belief is a false equivalence. Your argument is logically nonsensical and repeating it ad nauseam while ignoring well reasoned counter argument is soap boxing which will not be tolerated as per the charter.

In so far as someone supposes empirical method a superior way to approach and negotatiate and comment on the nature of reality (vs.say theism) then I'll suppose them an empiricist for the purposes of this narrow discussion.

If they have additional approaches then we can look as those as they arise.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

In so far as someone supposes empirical method a superior way to approach and negotatiate and comment on the nature of reality (vs.say theism) then I'll suppose them an empiricist for the purposes of this narrow discussion.

If they have additional approaches then we can look as those as they arise.

And in so far as you assume that someone supposes empirical method a superior way and you proceed to argue along those lines based on nothing but your belief that they quacked and therefore are a duck even when they have informed you they are in fact a mocking bird you will be sanctioned for soap boxing.

However, if you ask the person if they are an empiricist and they affirm they in fact are (quacking merrily) then you may naturally then proceed with that very same argument we have heard time and time again that is convincing no-one.
Although repeating the same argument ad nauseum does, in itself, eventually become soapboxing so there is a limit to how repetitious you can be with that.

If you have other approaches to discussion they would be very welcome.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Except most of us here didn't have atheist parents - quite the opposite in many cases.

So where does that leave things? Kids with atheist parents come to believe, kids of theist parents come to be without belief. And some happen to align with the view of their parents on either side.

Presumably if someone is able to independently come to a conclusion which doesn't align with their parents, then others are able to do the same but align.

What use the brainwashed argument with that pile of mish mash data?

Well, assume you're right in your charge of brainwashing seems to be the operating principle here.

You randomly have kids knocking on your door and engaging you in conversations about god?

No. But I have kids saying to mine that they don't believe - presumbly as part of the conversations that kids have about such things.

But you prefer to skip the point.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And in so far as you assume that someone supposes empirical method a superior way and you proceed to argue along those lines based on nothing but your belief that they quacked and therefore are a duck even when they have informed you they are in fact a mocking bird you will be sanctioned for soap boxing.

Quite easily determined. I simply ask the question before proceeding along the lines already taken.

How long do you think it will take before I'm dealing with a bunch of self declared empiricists?

A can kicked not very far down the road.

However, if you ask the person if they are an empiricist and they affirm they in fact are (quacking merrily) then you may naturally then proceed with that very same argument we have heard time and time again that is convincing no-one.

The problem isn't my convincing anyone. The problem is the self declared empiricist demonstrating the superiority of their method. Since they won't, I suggest, be able to do that without:

- sidestepping with appeals to arguments from incredulity (pink unicorns)

- asking me do I not value empirical method (I do)

- pointing to squillions of theistic belief systems

...and all the rest of the deflecting tricks used to avoid the problem: you claim superiority, you show superiority else yours is just a belief claim.

If you have other approaches to discussion they would be very welcome.

Let's get past first base: non theists showing themselves other than mere believers. That would be progress indeed.


But they won't be able to do it. And you already know it.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Kids with atheist parents come to believe, kids of theist parents come to be without belief. And some happen to align with the view of their parents on either side. Presumably if someone is able to independently come to a conclusion which doesn't align with their parents, then others are able to do the same but align.

What use the brainwashed argument with that pile of mish mash data?

You must have enormous difficulty dealing with those very, very young kids who believe that Big Bird really is a big bird.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But you prefer to skip the point.

But what happens if Big Bird is real, or represents reality? Doesn't that make him "real"?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

You must have enormous difficulty dealing with those very, very young kids who believe that Big Bird really is a big bird.But what happens if Big Bird is real, or represents reality? Doesn't that make him "real"?

He is real. Real to kids who assess reality as they do. And real to us who assess reality as we do.

The issue is how to elevate one way of assessing reality over another in some objective fashion. Given you elevate yours over mine, its reasonable for me to ask you how you manage that.

But you won't have anything much to say about that. You never do.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue is how to elevate one way of assessing reality over another in some objective fashion. Given you elevate yours over mine, its reasonable for me to ask you how you manage that.

Quite easily - your beliefs are quite clearly made up out of old sackcloth. And it's not even good sackcloth. Instead, it's cheap sackcloth, it leaves scratch marks on the skin and it doesn't smell good. It's sold by the unprincipled to the foolish to help them part with their respect and their cash. Worst of all, the overheated, under-lubricated looms whizzing back and forth a few inches behind your eyes haven't even managed to come up with original sackcloth.

On the contrary, it's the same kind of sackcloth which barnyard preachers have pulled down over the dulled eyes of rednecks since time immemorial, the same kind of sackcloth which wine connoisseurs use to sell a bottle of red horse urine for five hundred shekels, the same kind of sackcloth which the emperor chose to have his new clothes made from.

In short, it's bad sackcloth.

But you can throw it away if you wish and I'm sure some posters can help you do that.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Quite easily - your beliefs are quite clearly made up out of old sackcloth. And it's not even good sackcloth. Instead, it's cheap sackcloth, it leaves scratch marks on the skin and it doesn't smell good. It's sold by the unprincipled to the foolish to help them part with their respect and their cash. Worst of all, the overheated, under-lubricated looms whizzing back and forth a few inches behind your eyes haven't even managed to come up with original sackcloth.

On the contrary, it's the same kind of sackcloth which barnyard preachers have pulled down over the dulled eyes of rednecks since time immemorial, the same kind of sackcloth which wine connoisseurs use to sell a bottle of red horse urine for five hundred shekels, the same kind of sackcloth which the emperor chose to have his new clothes made from.

In short, it's bad sackcloth.

But you can throw it away if you wish and I'm sure some posters can help you do that.

Try as I have no reason to, I see no argument there.

NEXT!

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Kids with atheist parents come to believe

A small enough proportion, I'd wager. It's no coincidence that religions seek to control the education of children from a young age - and control the formation of families in the first place.

kids of theist parents come to be without belief

We can demonstrate that from personal testimony of many posters on this forum, as well as the generational decline in religious affiliation in the census.

No. But I have kids saying to mine that they don't believe - presumbly as part of the conversations that kids have about such things.

But you prefer to skip the point.

Ok so one-third of your kids' friends say they have been told by their parents there is no god. Which means, based on your tiny and statistically very dubious sample, two-thirds have either been told there is, or that we don't know.

antiskeptic

he/she can be elsewhere in the forum to propound his belief that all beliefs are equally unlikely to be true:

Folk here regularily propound the belief that their non-theistic philosophical beliefs are profoundly superior to theistic belief. See Robindch's post above for an expression of the depth to which that belief is held.

And so I look for some kind of argument to support that extraordinary claim. Something that raises it above the level of blind faith.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A small enough proportion, I'd wager. It's no coincidence that religions seek to control the education of children from a young age - and control the formation of families in the first place.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree that cultural Christianity produces Christians by brainwashing, your position need deal with all Christians.

Cultural Christianity is as much an abomination' to my beliefs as a Christian as they are to yours.

Your presumption is that I have anything in common with cultural Christianity. That all Christians are culturally made so.

So: Mohammed brought up in a Muslim culture who becomes a Christian. Cultural? Hardly.


You'll have some glib supposition for that, doubtlessly. Crutches and the like. But I'm not so much interested in the products of your belief system (which drives you to these conclusions). I'm more interested in how you elevate your philosopical believes to such heights by tugging on bootstraps.

Your beliefs. How supported?

Ok so one-third of your kids' friends say they have been told by their parents there is no god. Which means, based on your tiny and statistically very dubious sample, two-thirds have either been told there is, or that we don't know.

Indeed. Point is, that atheist parents tell their kids there's no God. Raising cultural atheists just as there were raised, cultural Christians. Fast forward 100 years and a few generations under the belt and what might we see? A society full of athiests brainwashed so...

Or do you really suppose the man in the street is going to be digging down to the roots of why he believes as he does anymore that cultural Christians of today did?


If the hand that rocks the cradle can produce a society of blind, unquestioning churchgoers, it can produce a society of blind, unquestioning non-churchgoers. Unless you think humanity has gone through some startling evolutionary change..


That you don't see any difference between a cultural Christian and a Christian isn't necessarily.my problem. You are relying on a presumption about what a Christian is.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your presumption is that I have anything in common with cultural Christianity.

My response had nothing to do with your beliefs at all, in fact. It seems that you are the one being presumptious.

Indeed. Point is, that atheist parents tell there kids there's no God.

Bzzzt. As has been pointed out to you already, some atheist parents tell their kids there is no god.

Raising cultural atheists just as there were raised cultural Christians.

Yeah my kids aren't very fond of their Sunday morning no-god school, but they'll get used to it in the end :rolleyes:

That you don't see any difference between a cultural Christian and a Christian isn't necessarily.my problem. You are relying on a presumption about what a Christian is.

You're off on your own here as it in no way relates to anything which I have posted.

That RCC / CoI efforts in this country are these days predominantly producing (at best) cultural Christians rather than firm believers is entirely their problem.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A claim to the existence of a supernatural entity which exists outside of space and time

This is empiricism outing itself. Space, time and all the rest falls under the empirical umbrella. The underlying 'argument' is incredulity. Incredulity born from the belief that the empirical realm (a.k.a all YOU can detect) is all there is.

What I'm interested in is how you ground that belief. Grounding isn't accomplished by 'but that's all I can detect'. That would be circular.

yet is claimed to intervene in our universe in all sorts of ways including:

- knowing the thoughts and actions of all humans
- being able to interfere with the thoughts and actions of humans
- being able to bring dead humans back to life
- being able to bring itself to life in human form and perform all sorts of supernatural tasks, die and then resurrect itself
- flooding the globe and drying it out again, moving mountains, etc.
- turning a wafer into human flesh

This is only extraordinary when measured with an empiricist ruler. And so, the need to first establish the empiricist ruler before claiming objectively extraordinary.

..all while leaving no physical evidence of its existence never mind such interventions

Evidence contested is not the same as no evidence (e.g. the new testament). Besides, there are many things that happened in the past for which we have only written accounts which can be contested. Their being contested doesn't mean they didn't happen. Indeed, if there were no written accounts it doesn't mean they didn't happen.

You are supposing that God wants to evidence himself in a general way. Whereas the biblical account gives reasons why he doesn't. His not doing so fits your position ("ha! thats convenient") but it also fits mine (or His).

I fully accept that you are reasonable in comcluding as you do, its reasonable to frame things as you do given the evidence at your disposal. But you have no basis for extrapolating this into a general statement that is applicable to all. If others have a different evidence set then they can conclude other than you do.

antiskeptic

Lorddrakul wrote: »

I would contend that, while no one has definitive answers, the parameters of the discussion are not as unknowable as they might appear.

For example, it has been known since ancient times, that a bang to the head can fundamentally alter a person's nature.

We now know that to be brain injury. The Egyptians sent us along the wrong path for millennia, with the heart as the seat of emotions, even though we now also know that there are ganglia of brain-like neurons in the heart too.

The point is, conscious resides and emanates from the brain and an impaired brain, through injury or disease, can show a deterioration in a person's consciousness.

Therefore, if consciousness cannot be separated from the brain, then it makes the idea of a soul, spirit, whatever, very difficult.

Prof Brian Cox put it very succinctly when he said that we have now, for about 150 years, refined what has become known as the standard model, which includes the sum of all knowledge about how matter, space and energy interact.

All we know thus far, he said, indicates that energy on its own, without physical structure, will dissipate. Therefore, if the soul can exist independently of the body, it does so in a manner not just completely unknown, but also completely unevidenced - as in, no hint or indication what or which might be at play.

This is tantamount to the very idea of gods themselves - unknowable. And therefore, mere conjecture, up there with teapots orbiting the other side of the sun.

From a logical perspective, I have to say: feck that from a height.

Everything we associate with the personal experience of the divine, from the all consuming presence, to the feeling of oneness with the universe, or even the demon presence, can be induced with drugs, or other physical stress. This would indicate that what we are experiencing is not the divine, but a biological interpretation of a set of stimuli that tends to go in one direction. But, that one direction has resulted in the veritable cornucopia of belief, religions and daftness that we enjoy today.

I do not claim to know why we do this; there are probably evolutionary advantages to having religious ideas, such as social cohesion, order and species distribution, but it does result in some awful behaviour by our species.

The more we refine our ability to measure what is going on in our brains and nervous systems, the more we understand how our brains work.

We now know that there is a level of precognition in our decision making that is breathtaking in its effect but very hard to understand in its effectiveness. It has been shown that the certain decisions are made by certain parts of the brain milliseconds before the conscious part becomes aware of it, or responds.

But the fact remains, consciousness, in every single test that has ever been devised or carried out, does not survive the destruction of the brain that produced it.

Not only that, everything else we have learned about the environment it exists in supports that position.

To ignore this and persist in an unsupported belief, or worse still to insist that others alter their lives to conform to it, is the very height of madness.

I fully believe in people's rights to believe in whatever the feck they like, but as soon as someone thinks that right allows them to compel someone else to do something, then they lose the that right.

As one wag put it, if one person has an imaginary friend, they are a bit odd. If everybody has the same one, it's religion.

What if there is no intention that the soul exists apart from a body? In Christianity the idea is that we be raised with an immortal, but physical body and that rather than residing in float-like fashion in the clouds, we will occupy a re-created Earth. Pretty much like now, but without the more negative elements.

That notwithstanding, trying to extrapolate what we know (the consciousness needs a physical brain in order to exist) so as to comment on what can be or is even likely to be is a fools errand.

All we know is all we know and that is true at all times. When we thought the Earth was flat for example...

You really think we have come so far that folk 1000 years from now won't laugh at the things we knew, through science, were true? That somehow everyone in the past lived in the dark but we have transcended ignorance? Seems to me that if science shows anything it's that current knowledge is always.capable of being overturned

But back the the original point, if one considers the vastness of time before and after one's own birth, look at the wonder there is to cherish the time you have. Look at the choice you have to either make the world a better place by being kind to all, not because of an eternal reward or the threat of hellfire, but because it's just a good thing to do, or just be a dick and always been known for that.

I think making that choice, not to be good, but to do good with the time you have, is the most human thing you can do because it contributes to something larger than one's self - the species well being as a whole, with the small resource you have: your time.

Or something, I dunno.

What?

You would have to wonder why you might do that - other than by supposing yourself to be subject to evolutionary forces pressing you in that direction.

But since evolution has no goal as such, and since the decision to be bad is as much a product of evolutionary force as the decision to be good, what matter what you pick? Indeed, how can you say you are picking when that picking is an illusion: you, a product of evolution, are merely doing what you have evolved to do. You no more chose than does a cat chose to catch.mice.

-

You might deepen your knowledge of Christianity by the way if deciding to.comment. Its hardly a minority view that no one is saved through trying to do good. The whole point is that no matter how hard you try you can't be good enough.

As a Christian, it matters not one wit whether I am good or bad for the rest of my days. Saved I am and will remain. How does that fit with your be good for eternal reward paradigm?

This works based view is very prevalent. Islam, Hinduism, Roman Catholicism. Indeed even Christians I know who understand they are saved by grace rather than their good work still suppose God frowning down on their misdeeds and have a niggling thought that they might still be cast into Hell fire.

It probably stems from the underlying sense (sown in by conscience) that there are and ought to be, consequences for our bad behaviour. I don't suppose even atheists would disagree with this - although they might argue with the degree of consequence involved.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might deepen your knowledge of Christianity by the way if deciding to comment.

Mod note: While I realise the above is advice rather than instruction, I'd remind you that you are on an atheist and agnostic forum. There is no necessity for any poster to have an in-depth knowledge or any knowledge of Christianity to comment on any post other than arguing matters of Christian theology. It is your point of view that is the exception here and I'd suggest you move from that rather than expecting others to do so when posting here. Thanks for your attention.

robindch

Mod:

antiskeptic wrote: »

[...] the underlying sense (sown in by conscience) that there are and ought to be, consequences for our bad behaviour. I don't suppose even atheists would disagree with this - although they might argue with the degree of consequence involved.

As per the note in the feedback thread here, the consequence of you posting with the aim of denying discussion is that your posts will now be restricted to this thread, where the forum's usual requirement that posters must engage in good faith discussion is temporarily vacated.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Mod:As per the note in the feedback thread here, the consequence of you posting with the aim of denying discussion is that your posts will now be restricted to this thread, where the forum's usual requirement that posters must engage in good faith discussion is temporarily vacated.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see whether any of the regular posters would take a stab at briefly stating how it is they elevate their philosophical beliefs beyond ... well belief.

The silence could be deafening..

antiskeptic

To clarify on Mod's opening note top of thread

Empiricism (etc) isn't a belief (at least, I'm not saying it is). Empiricism is a philosophy. The belief arises when someone says the philosophy is superior to other philosophies/theistic belief systems. Superior, that is, as a way of approaching and understanding the objective reality.

The objective reality is what's there, aside from whether or not an approach (philosophical or otherwise) is able to access it.

For example: if God exists and God not approachable via empirically demonstrable means, he would still be part of the objective reality. That the empirical method may not detect God (at least not in the test tube way atheists are wont to demand) would say something about the limitations of the empirical method.

And something about the belief that empircial method is a superior way to investigate reality (namely, that it would be a false or incorrect belief).

Just thought to straighten that out.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

if God exists and God not approachable via empirically demonstrable means

Except of course, most christians (indeed, most religious people) seem to believe that praying will achieve something. We can test this empirically, and people have. Multiple studies show quite adequately that prayer does not do what religious people say it does.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11761499/

Conclusion, Study on Intercessory Prayer, 2001 wrote:

As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/

Conclusion, Study on Intercessory Prayer, 2006 wrote:

Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Except of course, most christians (indeed, most religious people) seem to believe that praying will achieve something. We can test this empirically,

I didn't think you'd step up to the plate and start revealing all the subjective ways in which you believe empiricism is a superior approach to whatever the reality happens to be.

Instead, an old canard. I'm afraid to say that whilst you can set up an experiment to test the efficiacy or otherwise of prayer you make no mention of an experiment to test the efficiacy or otherwise of the experiment.

Tell me: say I was to tramp through the woods shouting out "are there any lesser spotted shy kites here?" And none showed up. Would I be safe in saying I've empirically demonstrated there are none of these birds in the woods.

Of course I would not. Yet you seem to assume your experiment is "adequate"

The mind boggles at this sort of 'science'. You would be making a supposition that God (if he exists) is interested in dancing to your experimental tune. To think of but one fatal flaw.

Yet this is cited research, presumably peer reviewed. What does that say about the objective, go where the truth leads claims made about science and the proponants of Science-ism.

The Fathers of Science would be turning in their graves, were they still there.

antiskeptic

Interesting title for the thread. The belief
(i.e. my belief) that all beliefs are equally improbable.

For a forum which prides itself on demanding claims be demonstrated, an forum-contradicting attempt on behalf of whoever framed the title to put the shoe on my foot.

But I am not the one claiming empiricism (which is our representative belief system, there are many other such philosophies ) is superior to other avenues for approaching and interrogating reality. That's a claim made (directly but usually indirectly) by folk here.

The normal course of events here is to show your work. You claim it, you show it.

It is no belief of mine that all approaches are equally improbable. By default they all are, until such time as they can elbow their way to the top of the pile.

What we shall see, I suspect, is that most folk who consider empiricism superior:

a) don't know that they are empiricists

b) haven't the first clue how to defend the belief that empiricism reigns supreme. I say so because the philosophy section of this forum is a surprisingly inactive forum, given the certainty displayed on here.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The objective reality is what's there, aside from whether or not an approach (philosophical or otherwise) is able to access it.

For example: if God exists and God not approachable via empirically demonstrable means, he would still be part of the objective reality. That the empirical method may not detect God (at least not in the test tube way atheists are wont to demand) would say something about the limitations of the empirical method.

I'm confused. My understanding of objective reality is that it's independent of the observer, which in turn opens the question of how a consensus can be arrived at as to what's real.

You seem to disparage empiricism as a method of arriving at such a consensus, but - for all your sniffing about test tubes - its advantage is that it is, ipso facto, independent of beliefs. That which can be empirically measured can be measured by anyone, no matter what they believe.

To coin the old phrase, it works, bitches. I still haven't seen a useful definition from you of "better", but if you can describe a way by which people can agree on what is objectively real that is "better" than empiricism, I'm curious to know what it is.

You seem to suggest that something that exists outside of spacetime can be objectively real, but how can you know something is real if you can't observe it?

antiskeptic

Double post..

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm confused. My understanding of objective reality is that it's independent of the observer

And potentially independent of whatever tool the observer utilizes to approach the objective reality.

which in turn opens the question of how a consensus can be arrived at as to what's real.

I'm not sure where consensus comes into it.

The personal decision to incorporate the views of others into your reckoning - supposing that that gives a more accurate take on reality - is just that: a personal decision.

It need not necessarily be or always be the right decision.

And so, the only added value in obtaining a consensus view is the value you decide to attribute to it.

In other words: you're on your own as to what you conclude is real. You can appeal to no other. Even you appeal to another (consensus) is founded in you and your granting consensus authority.

You seem to disparage empiricism as a method of arriving at such a consensus, but - for all your sniffing about test tubes - its advantage is that it is, ipso facto, independent of beliefs. That which can be empirically measured can be measured by anyone, no matter what they believe.

Having decided the consensus view is worthwhile I'm happy to utilize it - where I think appropriate.

The problem occurs when someone (lets say you) decides that their decision as to the utility of the consensus view means the consensus view is supreme for everyone in deciding what reality is.

You decide consensus is supreme and suppose that everyone ought share your view. That the consensus be what you say it is.

But that's a bootstrap argument: the value attributed to the consensus view is your subjective decision. If someone else (me) decides the consensus view has limits, or even has no value in certain areas, then that too is a subjective decision of mine.

Stalemate beckons - since one subjective view cannot trump another subjective view.

You seem to suggest that something that exists outside of spacetime can be objectively real, but how can you know something is real if you can't observe it?

But I can observe it. That I can't demonstrate that to you is irrelevant - unless you are right in your decision that the consensus view is superior to the solo view in all cases.

But that cannot be shown.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The mind boggles at this sort of 'science'. You would be making a supposition that God (if he exists) is interested in dancing to your experimental tune. To think of but one fatal flaw.

Not in the slightest. You claim that your deity listens to your prayers. It's quite clear that, on checking, your deity entirely ignores your prayers.

That nothing happens could be because your deity is mean and capricious, or because your deity does not listen to your prayers.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Not in the slightest

What do you mean not in the slightest? You mean there is no presumption that God is interested in partaking of this experiement?

What kind science takes no interest in whether its experiments are well designed?

That nothing happens could be because your deity is mean and capricious, or because your deity does not listen to your prayers.

Or has no interest in being empirically demonstrated. Something that doesn't appear to have crossed the minds of these 'scientists'

You'd have thunk that the scientists would have asked themselves the question "if God didn't mind being empirically demonstrated, why would he sit around and wait for us to do it on his behalf?"

Maybe he was listening to their prayers "Please God, don't show up!"

-

Your position appears to be: "if science attempts to measure something, then that thing is, per definition, measurable by science"

Now that is faith. Mind bogglingly faith.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

But I can observe it. That I can't demonstrate that to you is irrelevant...

You're describing subjectivity. I thought we were talking about objective reality.

You seem to be operating off a different definition of objective reality to me, or, frankly, pretty much anyone else. Worse, your argument seems to be that your objective reality is different from mine, which is a logical contradiction in terms.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're describing subjectivity. I thought we were talking about objective reality.

We were. And you were going to tell me why a consensus view would objectivize a your solo subjective view - outside it being your subjective view that it achieves such a thing.


Wouldn't you have to be right in your subjective view as to the value of the consensus view?


Me, I don't see how a subjective view can pull itself up by it's bootstraps so as to produce an objective view. What it can do, is to provide you with more confidence that your subjective view is indeed accurately detecting the objective reality. That confidence too is subjective (i.e. it stems out of yourself / you decide to assign the consensus view with authority over your own view) though.

You are, as I say, on your own. There is no authority outside yourself you can defer to - since it is your choice and assessments which would be doing the deferring and assigning the authority

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Me, I don't see how a subjective view can pull itself up by it's bootstraps so as to produce an objective view.

So how do you define objective reality?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

So how do you define objective reality?

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it. Worthwhile defining subjective too.

Subjective: the solo view. It might correctly detect the objective. Or it might not.

Point is: it is up to us alone to decide. Whether we decide our solo view is correct. Or we decide our solo view might be incorrect and take the solo decision that deferring to others would help us.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

So how do you define objective reality?

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it. Worthwhile defining subjective too.

Who gives you the authority to define objective reality like that?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to define objective reality like that?

No one. If we're to talk about it we might as well define it though

And if the definition is agreeable to someone then we can proceed. If not then they are welcome to have a stab themselves

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it.

How do you know what is? What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you know what is? What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

Firstly, are we in agreement as to what objective reality is: that reality which is independent of what we might make of it?

Whether we can know anything about it is a secondary question.

-

What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

It would be a subjective (i.e. solo) decision of yours, for instance, that a consensus view better enables you to know what the objective reality is.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Firstly, are we in agreement as to what objective reality is: that reality which is independent of what we might make of it?

Sure.

Whether we can know anything about it is a secondary question.

Well, let's take an example. The north pole of a magnet will tend to repel the north pole of another magnet. This happens whether I believe it will, or whether you believe it will, or whether or not either of us ever bothers to experiment with magnets. Is this objectively true?

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure. Well, let's take an example. The north pole of a magnet will tend to repel the north pole of another magnet. This happens whether I believe it will, or whether you believe it will, or whether or not either of us ever bothers to experiment with magnets. Is this objectively true?

The question antiskeptic raises is not whether this is objectively true, but whether we can know that this is objectively true.

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question antiskeptic raises is not whether this is objectively true, but whether we can know that this is objectively true.

Which leads neatly in turn to the question of whether we can know that anything is objectively true.

If the argument is that we can't know what is objectively true, then there is no basis for rational discussion between subjective beings. And yet, antiskeptic and I appear to be having what has, so far, been a reasonably rational discussion, which suggests that there's some hope for at least the concept of knowable objective reality.

We're interacting through this website, which tends to imply that we both accept that it exists (setting aside for the moment the question of what "existence" means for a website). Given that we can both observe it, we have arrived at sufficient consensus as to its objective reality to be able to use it as a means of communication.