Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Naturalism and human faculties...

1…45679

Comments

  • #242
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Oldrnwisr, again, I appreciate all the effort you've gone to in writing such long and well thought-out posts. And I thank others posters who have contributed positively to the discussion. But it's time for me to thrown in the towel and admit defeat.

    To quality this, I mean I don't see how I can convince anyone of my claims and at the same time, I don't think I've had my claims destroyed. It's just a stalemate.

    I might just come back with something, but this is a marker of sorts.

    Thanks.

    [Edit, oldrnwisr, I intend to go back and read your post]


  • #243
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    I have heard it said, those that study the bible in detail are most likely to discard it, as the road to atheism is strewn with well read bibles...


  • #244
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    To quality this, I mean I don't see how I can convince anyone of my claims and at the same time, I don't think I've had my claims destroyed. It's just a stalemate.

    You said before that you think atheist are closed minded, but does this position not make you the close-minded one? Can you understand why we aren't convinced of your claims?


  • #245
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    In a naturalistic framework, what is this 'I' of which you speak? Is it physically locate somewhere in the brain? Or your heart?
    It's the "me" who drives me - my motivations, interests, feelings and so on.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    If people refuse to accept any philosophical arguments, then I don't see that any progress can be made.
    As soon as you introduce anything beyond the nihilistic point of view you've produced to date, as I said above, we'll be on it like fruitflies to the fruitbowl :rolleyes:


  • #246
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    I have noticed some of the best atheist apologetics were once theist, they wanted to be a better theist apologetic and made great efforts to achieve that goal, yet their conclusions led to the opposite view of of what they set out to do, so what was that caused this, a change of mindset and a greater knowledge of what the bible was advocating what accept as morally correct? or the amount of contradiction? or a combination of factors?


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You said before that you think atheist are closed minded...
    I stand by that in the sense that the majority of atheists accept only scientific evidence. I suppose it depends on what's acceptable as evidence. Does a philosophical argument count? If not, why not?

    We all know there are lots of fundamental questions that science hasn't answers, and I suspect never will. And the mantra seems be, "We don't know yet, but we're working on it...". Kind of an science of the gaps argument.

    Take for example the problem of consciousness. To my mind, it's inconceivable how matter could possibly explain (self-)consciousness. It should at least make a person wonder. But the science keeps saying, we're getting closer. It seems to me that science is seeing secondary effects of thought (in the brain), not the ultimate source of thought itself.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    , but does this position not make you the close-minded one? Can you understand why we aren't convinced of your claims?
    Kinda. The big assumption among scientists is that science will inevitably progress until we arrive at a theory-of-everything. I also have issues with the anti-religion element of many scientists.


  • #248
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    When I find myself repeating "I don't understand", "it's inconceivable" "what will it take for you to understand" and "it's reasonable to assume" I begin to realise that it could be me that has a problem... When you say "I don't know" you are already agnostic, like it or not...

    I am curious, I search for knowledge, information, answers, new angles, peoples opinions, I came on Boards.ie for these reasons, no hidden agenda to enter a "den of vipers" to make "converts" of the non-believers...

    When a child awakes on Christmas day and sees the empty glass and plate, he does not assume, he knows Santa has been and left presents...


  • #249
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I stand by that in the sense that the majority of atheists accept only scientific evidence. I suppose it depends on what's acceptable as evidence. Does a philosophical argument count? If not, why not?

    We all know there are lots of fundamental questions that science hasn't answers, and I suspect never will. And the mantra seems be, "We don't know yet, but we're working on it...". Kind of an science of the gaps argument.

    Take for example the problem of consciousness. To my mind, it's inconceivable how matter could possibly explain (self-)consciousness. It should at least make a person wonder. But the science keeps saying, we're getting closer. It seems to me that science is seeing secondary effects of thought (in the brain), not the ultimate source of thought itself.

    Kinda. The big assumption among scientists is that science will inevitably progress until we arrive at a theory-of-everything. I also have issues with the anti-religion element of many scientists.

    But do you understand why we accept scientific evidence above all else? Do you understand why we do not accept your belief/non-belief as evidence? Do you understand what science is and how it works?


  • #250
    Blowfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I stand by that in the sense that the majority of atheists accept only scientific evidence. I suppose it depends on what's acceptable as evidence. Does a philosophical argument count? If not, why not?
    On it's own, no.

    We can generalise the scientific method into 3 parts, namely observation, reason and experiment. Advancement can come from new methods/techniques in any of these 3, but for verifying the scientific truth of a claim, all 3 must be in alignment.

    'Philosophical' arguments are largely in the 'reason' part of this where they reason out potential new ideas or approaches based on what's currently observed. On it's own, there's nothing wrong with them, in fact in some senses they are in the same arena as theoretical physicists. Without the experimental verification though, all they present is a possible reality rather than a verified one.


  • #251
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I stand by that in the sense that the majority of atheists accept only scientific evidence.

    As per my post on your other thread, on what basis do you think you know what the majority of atheists will or wont do? You seem to working on the basis of unverified stereotypes.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But do you understand why we accept scientific evidence above all else? Do you understand why we do not accept your belief/non-belief as evidence? Do you understand what science is and how it works?
    Yes * 3.
    Blowfish wrote: »
    'Philosophical' arguments are largely in the 'reason' part of this where they reason out potential new ideas or approaches based on what's currently observed. On it's own, there's nothing wrong with them, in fact in some senses they are in the same arena as theoretical physicists. Without the experimental verification though, all they present is a possible reality rather than a verified one.
    I would think theories/hypotheses/speculation aren't in themselves, philosophy. But philosophy could be employed in the process.
    smacl wrote: »
    ...on what basis do you think you know what the majority of atheists will or wont do? You seem to working on the basis of unverified stereotypes.
    Really? In any debate with atheists, the most common word is "evidence".
    My impression is that atheists value scientific evidence *way* more than pure reasoning. But I think atheists are a little too quick to dismiss philosophical arguments as "word salad" and so on.


  • #253
    sKeith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    People don't blindly take other peoples word for everything. There are too many snake-oil salesmen, charlatans, grifters etc. about to take advantage of easy marks.

    If someone said to you, i tell you yellow light and blue light make green light. you could blindly believe that person for as long as you want, and even go about mixing yellow and blue paints to reinforce your belief. But if one day, somebody gets a yellow light and a blue light and shows you the result (the evidence) would you still believe white is green?


  • #254
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Really? In any debate with atheists, the most common word is "evidence".
    My impression is that atheists value scientific evidence *way* more than pure reasoning. But I think atheists are a little too quick to dismiss philosophical arguments as "word salad" and so on.

    But for everyone you've met, have you asked them if they believe in god? And of all the people that you've met, unless you're extremely well travelled, what would suggest to you that those people are typical of people in general (if such a thing even exists)? Since we're talking evidence, what evidence do you have that people who are vocal about being atheists are typical of atheists? Is there any possibility for example that the majority of those that don't believe in god in this country are simply indifferent to religion and as grown-ups no more believe in god than the tooth fairy nor care less.

    When people start an argument along the lines of 'the majority of atheists...' or 'the majority of Catholics..' to my mind they're engaging not just in a weak argumentum ad populum fallacy but in one with an unconfirmed supporting group.


  • #255
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    But I think atheists are a little too quick to dismiss philosophical arguments as "word salad" and so on.
    seamus has already pointed out that Bush's prose advocates reductionism to the point of absurdity.

    Would you like to try to rescue Bush's point, or should we leave it where it lies?


  • #256
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Yes * 3.

    What is * 3?


  • #257
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What is * 3?

    Yes to all three questions asked.


  • #258
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    smacl wrote: »
    Yes to all three questions asked.

    OK

    :rolleyes: Well the obvious follow up questions for kelly1 (so obvious I was hoping they would answer them the first time) is:
    Will you explain why we accept scientific evidence above all else? Will you explain why we do not accept your belief/non-belief as evidence? Will you explain what science is and how it works?

    Hell, just explain the last question, kelly1, tell us your understanding of science. What is science, how does it work?


  • #259
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    OMG, FFS, WTF, Yes, it's OK for atheists to say OMG, as it means "I DON'T BELIEVE IT". and Only More Gullible....


  • #260
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Hell, just explain the last question, kelly1, tell us your understanding of science. What is science, how does it work?
    In my own words, science is a method of making discoveries/understanding behaviour (the 'how' questions) about the natural world which goes something like this:

    1. Make observations, collect data
    2. Form a hypothesis to explain the data.
    3. Design experiments to test/falsify the hypothesis
    4a. If experiment disagrees with the hypothesis, modify the theory accordingly.
    4b. If experiment agrees, come up with more experiments. Back to 1.

    Good enough?

    Btw, I thought you would recognize 'Yes * 3' as a pseudo-mathematical expression...


  • #261
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    In my own words, science is a method of making discoveries/understanding behaviour (the 'how' questions) about the natural world which goes something like this:

    1. Make observations, collect data
    2. Form a hypothesis to explain the data.
    3. Design experiments to test/falsify the hypothesis
    4a. If experiment disagrees with the hypothesis, modify the theory accordingly.
    4b. If experiment agrees, come up with more experiments. Back to 1.

    Good enough?

    Actually that is a good explanation of science.
    Have idea (points 1-2)
    Test idea (point 3)
    Adapt idea (points 4a/b).

    But it's odd that you seem to understand this, and yet don't seem to understand how it is superior to philosophy, which at best amounts to points 1 & 2 only?


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    Keep your faith kelly, you're on solid ground if all you have to defend is the supernatural or metaphysical you can argue forever, no evidence available or needed if you have faith...


  • #263
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But it's odd that you seem to understand this, and yet don't seem to understand how it is superior to philosophy, which at best amounts to points 1 & 2 only?
    The way I look at it, it's like concentric circles, science in the middle, philosophy outside that, and theology on the outside. Maybe a Venn diagram would be more appropriate, dunno.

    Science is indeed very powerful but it's not the full picture. Science answers the how questions and philosophy, the why.

    3321ae24766545c0fe68f5a72f3c2758.jpg


  • #264
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    For sure, a Venn diagram with 7 billion circles will give much clearer idea of the problem...


  • #265
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    PS. If you need circles, you are thinking inside a circle inside a box, try it from the outside....


  • #266
    sKeith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    Maybe god is a bit like Schroedinger's cat. Until such a time as evidence comes along to either prove the existence or disprove the existence, then maybe he both exists and does not exist, all at the same time.


  • #267
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    RichieO wrote: »
    For sure, a Venn diagram with 7 billion circles will give much clearer idea of the problem...
    How is that any kind of contribution to the discussion? :rolleyes:


  • #268
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    kelly1 wrote: »
    How is that any kind of contribution to the discussion? :rolleyes:

    7 billion people 7 billion opinions, no 2 in perfect harmony but a few with similar beliefs, all needing some form of guidance, try to quantify that with an old book and you will begin to understand something about human nature...


  • #269
    RichieO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭RichieO


    sKeith wrote: »
    Maybe god is a bit like Schroedinger's cat. Until such a time as evidence comes along to either prove the existence or disprove the existence, then maybe he both exists and does not exist, all at the same time.

    Close but no cigar, they were both imagined, to explain something that was hard to understand...


  • #270
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    RichieO wrote: »
    OMG, FFS, WTF, Yes, it's OK for atheists to say OMG, as it means "I DON'T BELIEVE IT". and Only More Gullible....

    Term your looking for there is OYG ;)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6aK15YLzyw


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    sKeith wrote: »
    Maybe god is a bit like Schroedinger's cat. Until such a time as evidence comes along to either prove the existence or disprove the existence, then maybe he both exists and does not exist, all at the same time.

    If Schroedinger's cat snuck into Pandora's box for a quick nap maybe. There's a few fine lines somewhere between hope, faith and wishful thinking ;)


Advertisement