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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Big Bird and the Belief that All Beliefs are Equally Improbable

135

Comments

  • #62
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,866 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #63
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,866 ✭✭✭✭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? :confused:

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #64
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #65
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #66
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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? :confused:

    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.


  • #68
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #69
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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"?

    530344.jpg


  • #70
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #71
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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!


  • #73
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,866 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #74
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #75
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #76
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,866 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #77
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #78
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #79
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #80
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #81
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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..


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #83
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #84
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #85
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #86
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #87
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Double post..


  • #88
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • #89
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #90
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement