nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

achtungbarry

"US scientists, led by controversial biologist Craig Venter, have succeeded in generating an "artificial life" form in the laboratory for the first time. "

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0521/science.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

Interesting Q and A article on BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10134341.stm

Obviously this raises all kinds of other ethical questions but is this another nail in the coffin of religion and the idea that only a supernatural being could have created life.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

strobe

sierra117x wrote: »

god being omnipotent isnt it at all possible that he chose to impliment this "6th sense" at a time of his choosing . for example he didnt think people would be physically or mentally evolved to handle this new ability and therefore chose to delay its implimentation.

The above is basically the whole point of Skep's obsession with the idea of empiricism. If God is the omnipotent creator of everything, couldn't he have decided to only reveal himself in a non-empirically verifiable way to people?

Firstly, if Abrahamic God exists and the bible is the truth then he has done plenty of things that should be empirically verifiable, Noah's Flood, raining frogs from the sky, turning water into wine, etc etc etc......so we know that that isn't how God goes about things. If we are to believe the bible to be true, he is mad for empirically verifiable demonstrations of his power, can't get enough of them so he can't.

Secondly, (and I have said this plenty of times before), if Abrahamic God exists and he is the omnipotent creator of everything......then he can do whatever the hell he pleases, he makes the rules. That's no reason to believe he exists. I could just as easily say if the three main Hindu creator gods exist couldn't they decide to pretend to be revealing themselves as Yahweh for some reason. The answer to that question is also: Yes, of course they could. It's meaningless in both cases.

The thing is, and this is the part Skep seems to struggle with so much is, even if I start on the presumption that God only ever reveals himself in non empirically verifiable ways (which as as shown above isn't even the case), it can't be demonstrated to anyone else ever, because it's non-empirical obviously. Also the vast majority of human beings on the face of the planet that have ever lived have never experienced it themselves, or in the case of other religions often claim to have experienced completely contradicting non-empirically verifiable revelations of there various Gods or Spirits or Mystic Time Aliens. They can't all be right and there is no reason whatsoever to believe Christians are right over believing Raliens or Hindus are right. So in short, as Skep himself so elequently put it, it is quite clear that Empiricism Uber Alles.

robindch

FISMA

Having read the buzz over the "new" research that claims that scientists have just created new life I have concluded the following: (1) there's nothing new here, (2) nothing was created, and (3) life was not created.

If you are an objective scientist you will conclude the same.

Anyone that believes this research created life is factually wrong and should do their homework.

Why are religious implications so important for some Atheists? A quick view of this board demonstrates the fevered pitch on the matter. Shouldn't this be a non issue?

This case reminds me of the Shroud of Turin. I remember vividly the exuberance that some Atheists displayed when the results appeared to demonstrate that the shroud was medieval - silly Christians.

Now that the results of the tests that dated the Shroud to medieval times has been invalidated, the old beliefs and attitudes linger on.

If you are an objective scientist, please review the samples and methods and come to your own conclusion.

The lead scientist who vigorously fought bad science for decades (to prove that the shroud was medieval) acknowledged on his deathbed the errors of which I speak, admitted the samples used were tainted, and that the shroud was probably a first century cloth.

Fortunately, it will not take long to quell those seeking to use these scientist's data for their own beliefs. This one is stopped in its tracks. There's a reason why it is already off of the news cycle: (1) old news and (2) misleading title.

If you are going to be an Atheist, fair enough. If you are going to be a scientist, fair enough. Please do not be a scientist with an atheist agenda. Scientists must be objective and not allow their personal beliefs get in the way. When scientists go down the road of activism, science suffers.

Galvasean

FISMA wrote: »

This case reminds me of the Shroud of Turin. I remember vividly the exuberance that some Atheists displayed when the results appeared to demonstrate that the shroud was medieval - silly Christians.

Now that the results of the tests that dated the Shroud to medieval times has been invalidated, the old beliefs and attitudes linger on.

If you are an objective scientist, please review the samples and methods and come to your own conclusion.

The lead scientist who vigorously fought bad science for decades (to prove that the shroud was medieval) acknowledged on his deathbed the errors of which I speak, admitted the samples used were tainted, and that the shroud was probably a first century cloth.

Ah the old, "He changed his mind on his deathbed" trick. Now whose being intellectually dishonest?
Seriously, how hypocritical is your post? You accuse atheists of having an agenda and yet you somehow think the case for the Shroud of Turin being from the 1st century is a good one and all of the many tests which showed othewise have been 'invalidated'. Yeah, it's the atheists who have a warped sense of science alright...

strobe

"Scientist Creates Life" is just the headline most news reports went with. What was created was a synthetic genome from scratch. A major stepping stone towards potentially creating an entirely new life form from scratch. I don't recall the scientist in question stating anything different or recal him stating anything about the implications for religion. I'm not sure where you are pulling that out of to compare to all the shroud giberish you posted. So your closing point - "If you are going to be an Atheist, fair enough. If you are going to be a scientist, fair enough. Please do not be a scientist with an atheist agenda. Scientists must be objective and not allow their personal beliefs get in the way. When scientists go down the road of activism, science suffers." - Is completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

If you are refering to specific posts in the thread on here, well then the people commenting on it didn't claim to be scientists and certainly didn't claim to be involved in the project in question. They were just speculating about how the religious that claim the only one to hold the key to creating life is God would be effected by another huge step being taken towards man creating life. Which seems like a perfectly normal thing to have been discussed in an Atheism & Agnosticism forum.

I'm not sure what you are trying get at at all, at all.

eoin5

FISMA wrote: »

Having read the buzz over the "new" research that claims that scientists have just created new life I have concluded the following: (1) there's nothing new here, (2) nothing was created, and (3) life was not created.

If you are an objective scientist you will conclude the same.

Anyone that believes this research created life is factually wrong and should do their homework.

Why are religious implications so important for some Atheists? A quick view of this board demonstrates the fevered pitch on the matter. Shouldn't this be a non issue?

This case reminds me of the Shroud of Turin. I remember vividly the exuberance that some Atheists displayed when the results appeared to demonstrate that the shroud was medieval - silly Christians.

Now that the results of the tests that dated the Shroud to medieval times has been invalidated, the old beliefs and attitudes linger on.

If you are an objective scientist, please review the samples and methods and come to your own conclusion.

The lead scientist who vigorously fought bad science for decades (to prove that the shroud was medieval) acknowledged on his deathbed the errors of which I speak, admitted the samples used were tainted, and that the shroud was probably a first century cloth.

Fortunately, it will not take long to quell those seeking to use these scientist's data for their own beliefs. This one is stopped in its tracks. There's a reason why it is already off of the news cycle: (1) old news and (2) misleading title.

If you are going to be an Atheist, fair enough. If you are going to be a scientist, fair enough. Please do not be a scientist with an atheist agenda. Scientists must be objective and not allow their personal beliefs get in the way. When scientists go down the road of activism, science suffers.

Why dont you elaborate your reasons for what you say instead of just making assertions? If every debate were to work like your post here it would be a series of "you're wrong, do your homework" replied by a "no you're wrong, you do your homework". The explanations of your point of view might stimulate the debate.

[Deleted User]

FISMA wrote: »

Fortunately, it will not take long to quell those seeking to use these scientist's data for their own beliefs.

So I trust you are equally of offended by the creationists who are actually doing what you think atheists are doing?

Can you actually show an atheist using this story like this?

FISMA wrote: »

This one is stopped in its tracks. There's a reason why it is already off of the news cycle: (1) old news and (2) misleading title.

Media use sensationalist headlines?
Stop the presses.

FISMA wrote: »

If you are going to be an Atheist, fair enough. If you are going to be a scientist, fair enough. Please do not be a scientist with an atheist agenda. Scientists must be objective and not allow their personal beliefs get in the way. When scientists go down the road of activism, science suffers.

The guy who lead the project didn't "go down the road of activism".

But hey why like stuff like facts get in the way of your agenda right?

darjeeling

FISMA wrote: »

Having read the buzz over the "new" research that claims that scientists have just created new life I have concluded the following: (1) there's nothing new here, (2) nothing was created, and (3) life was not created.

If you are an objective scientist you will conclude the same.

Anyone that believes this research created life is factually wrong and should do their homework.

It's not nothing new. This research takes our previous efforts in genetic engineering to a new level, and establishes that we have the ability to reconstruct a functional bacterial genome from individual nucleotides.

The research didn't set out to create a radical, new organism unlike anything that has evolved. That wouldn't make any sense at this point. We don't have the understanding yet to figure out whether any entirely novel genes we might design would actually fold up properly into functional proteins. We don't fully understand how a novel set of genes would interact, and whether they would give a viable organism. We don't know how we could contain and control any entirely novel organism. That's why for now it makes sense to test the synthetic genome technology to replicate a well-characterised genome, as Venter's team have done.

What next? The next thing will be to start to modify existing organisms to bring in genes from other species, and to make small changes to the genes. This is similar to what is currently done using other transgenesis techniques, but the new technology will allow much more control. Over time, if the technology is allowed to progress, I'd expect us to produce organisms that are increasingly dissimilar to anything that has evolved naturally.

Was life created? I don't think so, and to focus on that question is to miss the importance of this work. However, if the work progresses as I've speculated, there won't be a clear point on the continuum at which we can say that new life has been created.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

No, I using logical to mean pertaining to the internal rules of a system…

..You can of course introduce a new preposition, that for example my mum is being held hostage by a drug lord who wants my car destroyed because it is cured with the spirit of his brother. But that changes the system and thus the logic of the system.

Okay. So what you’re saying is that so long as we can daisy-chain further propositions onto things then the system sails satisfactorily on, logically speaking. Or in the case where we simply can’t determine whether it is logical or not, we hit stalemate. Only when the logic fail does the system fail

To my mindyou halt at God demonstrating himself other than empirically when other prepositions are both possible and logical, or indeterminate in terms of logic because of unknowns.

So let’s exhaust that line and withold pronouncing until we do.

The idea than an omnipotent/omniscient being would do a work in progress is illogical based on the initial presumptions of the system we are discussing (ie God). If you want to change the initial presumptions go ahead but after awhile such an exercise becomes some what pointless.

It would be indeed pointless if the initial presumptions logically excluded process. That is something that is up for discussion.

I would have thought an omniscient being is much more likely to be consistent with his own nature than to be merely random. As such it should be relatively easy to gauge likelihood

If you wish to subscribe to a random God then of course it stands to reason that I've no clue what he is doing from any particular point in time and thus cannot gauge the likelihood of any particular behavior over any other. But equally neither can you and as such the discussion becomes rather pointless.

I'm not supposing a random God. Rather I'm supposing one ordered and logical and rational. And that his actions follow suit.

Lets not, shall we. Lets instead stay on this topic and you provide examples of non-empirical systems which have in the past provided accurate knowledge about reality.

I don't think you're appreciating the extent of the problem. What is knowledge? What is reality? What is accuracy? The system you adhere to makes statements and assumptions about the nature of all these notions. So do the other systems. I find it hard to imagine that you're suggesting that such systems would be so deeply discussed by so many great thinkers, for such a long time yet you suppose they don't even field that most basic of requirments: internal reconciliations?

If they do (and let’s suppose they do – is what I’m saying) then your question is answered: not on your terms perhaps, but certainly on theirs.

And your non-empirical systems of ascertaining knowledge attempt to over come this problem in what way?

I gather the rationalists would approach the problem from the standpoint of reason. I’d imagine they’d point out that the empiricists reliance on common observation suffers from the flaw of gross assumption. I mean, the only thing common observation tells you for sure is that lot’s of people see things the same way. It doesn’t mean their seeing things as they are.

In the case of the believer-system the onus isn’t being placed on the person to evaluate whether it’s God or not, the onus is being placed on God to be able to demonstrate himself anyway he chooses (which he logically can it would be argued). Certainly there is a whole raft of avenues open to the believer along which he can find intellectual and psychological satisfaction, but the whole gig relies in the first instance on an act of God.

Which is why you cannot reason a person into the kingdom of God – quite aside from you’re claiming (if falling somewhat short of showing) that Christianity unreasonable

You wish to redefine "knowledge" now as well.

No. I just don’t think it’s realistic to make a request involving the words knowledge and reality when you’re automatically going to exclude the supernatural as part of reality. You ask the question “how do I know”. And I reply “Because God..” It’s a different system to the empirical one and it makes different assumptions than the empirical one. But let’s not forget that both systems rely on their assumptions being correct. And because there is no testing for the correctness of the assumption: not by reason, not by empirical means, not by divine revelation, all claims of accuracy are just that – claims.

Ok, take what ever version of knowledge you are happiest with and then explain who non-empirical methods you mention lead to accurate knowledge about any particular aspect of reality you wish to use as an example.

This isn’t about proof Wicknight. It’s about possibility and likelyhood. As to possibility: you’ve granted it possible that God can reveal himself other than empirically in which case the reliance on me to figure out ways of deciding on accuracy evaporate – my confidence would rely on God’s action.. As to likelyhood: I’ve suggested there is no way to evaluate that.

Globally however, I have confidence in Christianity due to:

- it’s internal consistancy (generally speaking, the various attempts to pick holes in it appear so crude as to be laughable)

- it’s is inconceivable that a group of people dispersed over such a period could stitch so fine a fabric together (once you see the finery of it).

- it’s timeless commentary on the condition of man. The Bible’s insights into the core motivations and desires of man are so pinpoint accurate as to cause you to draw breath. Even at this remove, modernities attempt to explain things is again, grossly crude by comparison. Even with the whole of history literally at our fingertips there are people who suppose that mankind is evolving himself ever so gradually upwards. It would be hilarious were it not so tragic. “Peacefulness in our time” my eye..

- Personal interaction with a God who I find operates precisely as explained on the page. It’s as if you read about eg: love on the page and found it explained the feeling love when you felt it. I’ve no more reason to doubt I’m interfacing with another individual than I have to doubt I’m interfacing with you. The only difference is the empirical one – which, as I’ve outlined, needn’t be an issue: I don’t subscribe to empiricism uber alles anyway.

Suppose you actually answer the question rather than stalling with appeals to arrogance (see my previous post about how found I am of that particular theist stalling tactic)

Hopefully answered. From our own viewpoint on reality – if not yours.

For example it is illogical for a loving god to torture his subjects.

You can change that to be logical if you introduce the parameter that in order to save his subjects for a faith worse than (temporal) torture he has to (temporally)torture them.

I’ve inserted a pertinant alteration above. Wrathfulness against our sin shouldn’t be forgotten (a man reaps what he sows seen in negative light). It would appear his wrath finds expression utilising the same device as his love uses in it’s attempt to save.

This is why these discussions are some what pointless because when ever you guys run into problems you simply introduce what ever new prepositions that make your beliefs work.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to tie us in knots given that the more complex things become (with added propositions), the harder it is to sustain the logic. If you don’t feel you’d like to, or the process exhausts you (there is no shame in that) then that’s fair enough – but don’t simply shift the blame to us.

I have no reason to believe it is necessary for God to wait for us to make our decisions in order to introduce this 6th sense of yours. You can ask me to consider a What if, but there is a limitless number of What ifs You only seem to consider the ones that lead to your comforting solution.

The 6th sense occurs at the beginning of your relationship with God as a child of God rather than an enemy of God. It’s a consequence of a decision for God. There is no place for that relationship before we decide (effectively, not directly) for it and so no need for a 6th sense. The lack of 6th sense also permits the what-do-you-say-to-God mechanism to continue to operate for those who aren’t yet saved.

Given the constraints of our discussion: possibility and likelyhood, I see nothing on substance here to impinge negatively on either.
.

We are still left with the problem that there is no empirical evidence for this 6th sense in a universe that God designed humans to require empirical evidence to accurately gauge reality.

As stated earlier – although empiricism plays an important part in folks interaction with reality, it isn’t the only way in which folk arrive at knowledge of reality. Few are empiricists Wicknight and I'm about done pointing out the patent obviousness of that.

The lack of empirical evidence for a 6th sense isn’t a problem in a universe that God designed to act as a staging post for ones own personal decision wrt God. Especially since no one but the empiricists are claiming an empirical imprimateur the Final Word on anything.

But heck you can introduce any preposition you like to get around this. What IF God lost a a game of cards to Satan where he said to Satan that if he lost he would make a new sense that was undetectable. What IF wicknight, What IF.

You might as ask me to consider What if God is exactly as you say he is, now based on the logic of that system is it illogical that he does what you say.

It gets real silly real fast.

Possibility/likelyhood - substantive argument. Argument that takes account of the fact that empiricism doesn't rule the roost.

Not throwing your hands in the air.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not supposing a random God. Rather I'm supposing one ordered and logical and rational. And that his actions follow suit.

And do you feel that getting oneself executed to seal a deal one has made with oneself is the action of a rational being?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic, to somewhat rehash our previous discussion, there's something I asked you that either you didn't answer or I can't remember the answer.

your logic at the time was that if you have a personal experience and it's caused by god then you can know that it's god. There is no requirement on you because god has shown you himself.

But what if it's not caused by god? You say that someone who has experienced god can know but someone who hasn't experienced god can still think they know so how does someone who hasn't experienced god tell the difference between knowing and only thinking they know?

Is it not the case that:
If it was god there is no requirement on you to be able to tell the difference between a true revelation and a false one
If it wasn't god there is a requirement on you to be able to tell the difference between a true revelation and a false one, since you've just had a false one.

So surely there is first a requirement on you to determine if it was god or not before you can say that there is no requirement on you to be able to tell the difference?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

As stated earlier – although empiricism plays an important part in folks interaction with reality, it isn’t the only way in which folk arrive at knowledge of reality.

Yes it is. What you have described throughout this discussion is you simply making stuff up as a starting point.

Which is fine, all exploration of reality is based on prior assumptions. But it is inaccurate to say that you arrive at these assumptions. You don't, you start from them.

You start from "God exists therefore...", you don't arrive at this knowledge. When things which should tie you in knots such as the Fall or the Resurrection are present this initial premise is simply expanded up. You can make any system logical if you have the freedom to define and redefine the start premises.

You can see this because if you start with God doesn't exist then your entire system changes. It is not a conclusion of your system, it is the fundamental assumption of it. You have not methodology that doesn't require the prior existence of God.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong but so far you have stalled when requested to give real examples of these non-empirical systems people can use to arrive at knowledge

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes it is

Could you demonstrate that particular piece of knowledge empirically? Not rationally, not intuitively - empirically.

I'm truly flabbergasted that your response to well respected philosophies of knowledge (that aren't based on empiricism) is to dismiss them out of hand.

I'm even more amazed that you see no issue in demanding that other philosophies of knowledge display their credentials empirically when the basis of knowledge in such philosophies isn't actually empirical.

Which is fine, all exploration of reality is based on prior assumptions. But it is inaccurate to say that you arrive at these assumptions. You don't, you start from them.

You start from "God exists therefore...", you don't arrive at this knowledge.

That's not actually the case.

I start with an assumption and that starting assumption is exactly the same as your starting assumption. I assume that what I percieve to be real actually is - I'm the judge of that. I am also the judge of whether a particular perception is to be doubted at times. If I judge such a case to exist, then I can put it through a test as a double check.

What I (and you) can't do however, is take something I assume to be a part of reality (empirical testing) and use it as ultimate judge. Even when I use such a tool to test my perceptions, it's commentary only has the value I assign to it in my deploying it. I am the final judge in what I figure to be real or not - whether I judge directly or decide to judge the results of an empirical test. And so are you - for all your supposed deference to empiricism.

When things which should tie you in knots such as the Fall or the Resurrection are present this initial premise is simply expanded up. You can make any system logical if you have the freedom to define and redefine the start premises.

What way should they tie me in knots? In what way have I redefined the start premise?

You can see this because if you start with God doesn't exist then your entire system changes. It is not a conclusion of your system, it is the fundamental assumption of it. You have not methodology that doesn't require the prior existence of God.

Of course it changes: if I start with "the God I perceive exists doesn't actually" then I cannot trust my perceptions. Which means I can't trust that the external reality exists either - for that is another perception

Which methodology would you suggest employing where both I and you to assume the external reality doesn't exist?

By all means correct me if I'm wrong but so far you have stalled when requested to give real examples of these non-empirical systems people can use to arrive at knowledge

So far you've utilised the word "empirical" or "fact" in your request - the dottiness of which I've pointed out a number of times. Now you use the word "real". Can I suggest you haven't budged from demanding an empirical answer from a philosophy that doesn't see knowledge as necessarily empirical? If you have then let me know and I do my best to oblige.

sonicthebadger*

antiskeptic wrote: »

I start with an assumption and that starting assumption is exactly the same as your starting assumption. I assume that what I percieve to be real actually is - I'm the judge of that. I am also the judge of whether a particular perception is to be doubted at times. If I judge such a case to exist, then I can put it through a test as a double check.

Pah! You're nothing but a Philosophical empiricist! Or am I getting very confused here...

I was doing a bit of reading over the last couple of days there and I looked up what Philosophical Empiricism actually is: "According to the empiricist view, for any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained ultimately from one's sense-based experience." Markie, P. (2004), "Rationalism vs. Empiricism" in Edward D. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Which is not a very scientific way to look at the world: "Our senses are limited and can be fooled" An Introduction to Physical Science By James Shipman, Jerry D. Wilson, Aaron Todd (a basic textbook)

It is not really possible to gain knowledge through our senses, at least not any that is useful to anyone but the individual having the experience, who's to say you experience the blue of the sky as the same blue I do? This is where Philosophical Empiricism fails. Only an independent test can provide us both with an explanation of the sky's blueness that is properly independent of our limited senses.

This last paragraph has been explained before, but to no avail I think.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

your logic at the time was that if you have a personal experience and it's caused by god then you can know that it's god. There is no requirement on you because god has shown you himself.

That's more or less it. The point was to address the "how do you know it's God and not a delusion" query by shifting things around a bit. "Could God do it" was the question - which (pretty obviously) must a "yes" answer if God exists.

But what if it's not caused by god? You say that someone who has experienced god can know but someone who hasn't experienced god can still think they know so how does someone who hasn't experienced god tell the difference between knowing and only thinking they know?

Let me apply the above "Yes" answer to another realm you might have some experience of (if you're under 18 then look away now)

Let's suppose we're all around 15 years old and that you're a person whose never had an orgasm/sexual experience but you've heard that such a thing exists and that it's great. And your faced with me who says that I've had a real orgasm (which for the sake of discussion I have had) and another person who only thinks they had an orgasm (he felt tremendously sexually thrilled during an intimate embrace with their girlfriend - and though he got quite excited (with all that that entails) he didn't actually have an orgasm.)

How does the other guy person know that what he had wasn't an orgasm? As far as he's concerned he felt the best he ever felt - "this must be it!"

How do I convince you that what I've had is an orgasm but what he had wasn't - we both talk about our experience in similar terms?

Isn't the only way for you to know whether you've had a real orgasm or not to experience one personally? Is there any amount of talking about the qualititive differences between my experience and the other guys experience that could truly separate our experiences for you?

If it was god there is no requirement on you to be able to tell the difference between a true revelation and a false one

If it wasn't god there is a requirement on you to be able to tell the difference between a true revelation and a false one, since you've just had a false one.

So surely there is first a requirement on you to determine if it was god or not before you can say that there is no requirement on you to be able to tell the difference?[/QUOTE]

Does the above parallel help in anyway? The difficulty isn't so much my knowing it's God (because God-real would clearly be able to do things that God-imagined couldn't even begin to do - just as orgasm real can be known for what it is in a way that orgasm-imagined can't). The issue is: from your perspective you can't tell the difference in the accounts. Nor can the one who imagines it.

Which represents more of a problem for you than it does one for me

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's more or less it. The point was to address the "how do you know it's God and not a delusion" query by shifting things around a bit. "Could God do it" was the question - which (pretty obviously) must a "yes" answer if God exists.

Let me apply the above "Yes" answer to another realm you might have some experience of (if you're under 18 then look away now)

Let's suppose we're all around 15 years old and that you're a person whose never had an orgasm/sexual experience but you've heard that such a thing exists and that it's great. And your faced with me who says that I've had a real orgasm (which for the sake of discussion I have had) and another person who only thinks they had an orgasm (he felt tremendously sexually thrilled during an intimate embrace with their girlfriend - and though he got quite excited (with all that that entails) he didn't actually have an orgasm.)
!
How does the other guy person know that what he had wasn't an orgasm? As far as he's concerned he felt the best he ever felt - "this must be it"

How do I convince you that what I've had is an orgasm but what he had wasn't - we both talk about our experience in similar terms?

Isn't the only way for you to know whether you've had a real orgasm or not to experience one personally? Is there any amount of talking about the qualititive differences between my experience and the other guys experience that could truly separate our experiences for you?

If it wasn't god there is a requirement on you to be able to tell the difference between a true revelation and a false one, since you've just had a false one.

So surely there is first a requirement on you to determine if it was god or not before you can say that there is no requirement on you to be able to tell the difference?

Does the above parallel help in anyway? The difficulty isn't so much my knowing it's God (because God-real would clearly be able to do things that God-imagined couldn't even begin to do - just as orgasm real can be known for what it is in a way that orgasm-imagined can't). The issue is: from your perspective you can't tell the difference in the accounts. Nor can the one who imagines it.

Which represents more of a problem for you than it does one for me

You're still not getting the point. This is not about you having the ability to explain it to others, it's about how you can know yourself. You supposed two guys, one of whom had an orgasm and the other of whom didn't have one but thought he had. Both are absolutely convinced that they had one but one of them is wrong. How can you know that you are not the one that's wrong? Not how can you explain it to someone else, how can you know yourself? You can know exactly how good your orgasm experience was but how can you possibly know that his wasn't better?

And please don't answer "if you had one you'd know" because we are supposing someone who hasn't had one but still thinks he knows. What you need to do is explain how one discerns between knowing and thinking you know, how you can know that the experience you had is the best possible experience and no one has ever had a better one.

antiskeptic

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Pah! You're nothing but a Philosophical empiricist! Or am I getting very confused here...

I most certainly think you are - much as I like the empirical world

I was doing a bit of reading over the last couple of days there and I looked up what Philosophical Empiricism actually is: "According to the empiricist view, for any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained ultimately from one's sense-based experience." Markie, P. (2004), "Rationalism vs. Empiricism" in Edward D. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That's about what I've been saying about it these last few days.

Which is not a very scientific way to look at the world: "Our senses are limited and can be fooled" An Introduction to Physical Science By James Shipman, Jerry D. Wilson, Aaron Todd (a basic textbook)

To realise our senses are limited and can be fooled takes a non-sense part of use to figure that out. And that part* would need to be 100% right in order for the quoted statement to be true.

Which means that non-sense part of us couldn't be fooled - else the statement you quote wouldn't be true.

It is not really possible to gain knowledge through our senses, at least not any that is useful to anyone but the individual having the experience, who's to say you experience the blue of the sky as the same blue I do? This is where Philosophical Empiricism fails. Only an independent test can provide us both with an explanation of the sky's blueness that is properly independent of our limited senses.

I wouldn't quite agree here.

The empiricist wouldn't say "I know the sky is blue" is knowledge. He'd say that's subjective opinion - and he'd be right. Rathwer, the empiricist would say "I know the sky reflects light at such and such a wavelength" And all the empiricists standing beside him would nod in objective agreement - whilst all having (perhaps) a different perception of blue.

Notice that it would be our senses that are involved in the objective evaluation: we use our eyes to read the wavelength-ometer for instance. Empiricists would say that we can trust our wavelength-ometer reading eyes to tell us the truth somewhat more when there are lots of people around all nodding in agreement as to the wavelength-ometers reading

This last paragraph has been explained before, but to no avail I think.

* the part of me I'm talking about as being trustworthy isn't my sense part. It's my nonsense(sic) part. You need to take your criticisms to the philosophical empiricists here.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

To realise our senses are limited and can be fooled takes a non-sense part of use to figure that out. And that part* would need to be 100% right in order for the quoted statement to be true.

Which means that non-sense part of us couldn't be fooled - else the statement you quote wouldn't be true.

Are you serious?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

so far you have stalled when requested to give real examples of these non-empirical systems people can use to arrive at knowledge

And neither has antiskeptic explained why one would bother trying to interact with something that, by definition, cannot respond.

As far as I can make out through the profligate prose, antiskeptic appears to believe that there exist (unspecified) ways of deducing something about an external reality that do not involve interacting with that external reality. Which puts us firmly into the area of logic.

But the position seems to be adopted more as an epistemological escape hatch to permit a non-interacting deity to exist. Which seems strangely pointless, since the christian deity is anything but non-interacting.

shrugs.

the_syco

achtungbarry wrote: »

Obviously this raises all kinds of other ethical questions but is this another nail in the coffin of religion and the idea that only a supernatural being could have created life.

So you are of the opinion that some alien created us for sh|t and giggles?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which methodology would you suggest employing where both I and you to assume the external reality doesn't exist?

I don't assume the external reality doesn't exist, I assume my personal ability to accurately discern accurate knowledge from the external reality is flawed compared to other measurement equipment

For example, I can accurately read the number off a laser pointer better than I can judge the distance the pointer is measuring.

I can accurately view a video of when I was drunk better than I can recall the events themselves when I was drunk.

If you think the opposite then you are just being silly.

Your argument seems to be that all observation is subjective, therefore all observation is equally subjective therefore I can trust my feeling that God exists as well as you can trust your reading of an empirical instrument.

That is frankly stupid, and should be easily contradicted to you by spending five minutes trying to accurately gauge things humans are not good at, one of which is accurately gauging the supernatural.

strobe

the_syco wrote: »

So you are of the opinion that some alien created us for sh|t and giggles?

I think he was more going for the "nobody in particular" created us, school of thought.

A belief that some alien created us for sh1ts and giggles would make him a Christian.

sonicthebadger*

antiskeptic wrote: »

To realise our senses are limited and can be fooled takes a non-sense part of use to figure that out. And that part* would need to be 100% right in order for the quoted statement to be true.

Which means that non-sense part of us couldn't be fooled - else the statement you quote wouldn't be true.

No, there is no part of us that is not the senses. The recording equipment we use to get around that is not part of us and sciencey boffin types are open to their equipment being faulty; broken or badly designed, but to claim it can be "fooled" makes no sense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't quite agree here.

The empiricist wouldn't say "I know the sky is blue" is knowledge. He'd say that's subjective opinion - and he'd be right. Rathwer, the empiricist would say "I know the sky reflects light at such and such a wavelength" And all the empiricists standing beside him would nod in objective agreement - whilst all having (perhaps) a different perception of blue.

Notice that it would be our senses that are involved in the objective evaluation: we use our eyes to read the wavelength-ometer for instance. Empiricists would say that we can trust our wavelength-ometer reading eyes to tell us the truth somewhat more when there are lots of people around all nodding in agreement as to the wavelength-ometers reading

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that people take measurements of stuff and that measurement is more true the more people look at it. If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it does it make any sound? Yes. The fact that I can read the numbers on a ruler doesn't make them more or less correct if many other people can read them. The sky has a particular colour (wavelength of the EM spectrum) even if no one reads a wavelength-o-meter. So it doesn't matter if the output of our detector is written in numbers, words or braille, it need not even be read by a human, it will still give the same answer. Human senses will not. No one here is a Philosophical Empiricist. I'm calling Strawman.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Are you serious?

Quite. How else do you figure your senses prone to being fooled.

I mean, if the part of you that figures your senses prone to error is itself subject to error then it's in no position to comment. Is it?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

And neither has antiskeptic explained why one would bother trying to interact with something that, by definition, cannot respond.

By who's definition?

As far as I can make out through the profligate prose, antiskeptic appears to believe that there exist (unspecified) ways of deducing something about an external reality that do not involve interacting with that external reality. Which puts us firmly into the area of logic.

Is logic part of reality? If so, have we now some knowledge about reality than doesn't involve empiricism?

But the position seems to be adopted more as an epistemological escape hatch to permit a non-interacting deity to exist. Which seems strangely pointless, since the christian deity is anything but non-interacting.

shrugs.

Again, I'm not quite sure where you dredged up the idea of a non-interacting deity.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, if the part of you that figures your senses prone to error is itself subject to error then it's in no position to comment.

In broad terms, you're failing to distinguish between the form of knowledge and the content of knowledge.

The position that you're adopting -- that all knowledge is equally invalid -- is known as Epistemological nihilism and it's not considered a very serious intellectual position.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't assume the external reality doesn't exist, I assume my personal ability to accurately discern accurate knowledge from the external reality is flawed compared to other measurement equipment

I don't assume the external reality doesn't exist either. I assume it does - like you. That is the first step for us both.

The measurement equipment's ability to better report on reality is a judgement you make about both you and it. You then are the ultimate arbitrator as to the nature of reality: whether you decide to employ a piece of measuring equipment or whether you don't.

To attempt to point to some external equipment as being the ultimate decider is a bootstrap argument that founders on the rocks of you being the one who decides you need to employ it.

Look at it another way; it's the very trustworthyness of your own judgement about your 5 senses that leads you suspect those senses might need a helping hand. What you're saying though is that if that same judgement decides that it is not erring in a particular area then that judgement shouldn't be trusted.

Which kind of pulls the rug completely from under your own feet. I mean, if we're to suspect all our judgements then how can we trust the results of the measuring equipment? How can we even trust the judgement which says our senses are prone to error? Which undeniably trustworthy part of ourselves is left over that hasn't been compromised as subject to error?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't assume the external reality doesn't exist either. I assume it does - like you. That is the first step for us both.

The measurement equipment's ability to better report on reality is a judgement you make about both you and it. You then are the ultimate arbitrator as to the nature of reality: whether you decide to employ a piece of measuring equipment or whether you don't.

Nonsense. You are basically saying that because I judge that say a laser pointer is more accurate than my vision if I decided the other way around that would be what reality is.

The question becomes what confidence do I have of that position? Very little

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, if we're to suspect all our judgements then how can we trust the results of the measuring equipment?

We test and it is through accumulation of corresponding results that we build confidence level.

Have you done this with God?

You seem to be using trust in the way we would use prove. You never prove that the laser pointer works properly. You can build up confidence in it though repeated use.

As Robin points out your argument that all experience is equally invalid and thus equally valid, so you thinking God exists is as valid a claim as me thinking the laser pointer says 25km, is a deeply flawed philosophical position.

One that I suspect you don't hold in anything other than the question of God because you wish this to be true.

Can you give an example other than God where you also take this position?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

In broad terms, you're failing to distinguish between the form of knowledge and the content of knowledge.

The position that you're adopting -- that all knowledge is equally invalid -- is known as Epistemological nihilism and it's not considered a very serious intellectual position.

Nor one that he actually wishes to hold since he wants to believe he knows God exists.

It is only dragged out in response to criticism of this position, the idea that if he shows my beliefs are as equally invalid as his then that means his become as valid as mine.

It is silly philosophical slight of hand. I would be very interested in knowning whether he consider this for any other situations

For example antiskeptic do you believe your memory is as trustworthy on LSD as it is not on LSD? Logically you must since all we have is our senses so we must trust our senses equally at all points in time and not attempt to empirically test what we think we have experienced.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

In broad terms, you're failing to distinguish between the form of knowledge and the content of knowledge.

The position that you're adopting -- that all knowledge is equally invalid -- is known as Epistemological nihilism and it's not considered a very serious intellectual position.

.

I've not said that all knowledge is equally invalid. What I've said is that one cannot look outside oneself for an ultimate judge as to what one understands reality to be.