Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 29, 2018 at 3:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: I disagree. A dream can be dismissed by the "dreamer" very quickly as additional facts become available. The human mind, when functioning correctly, is capable of distinguishing what is a dream and what a Christian claims: that the presence of God is felt daily, evidenced by strength, support, peace, hope, and gentle guidance on living one's life.
Your theory depends on the normal functioning mind to make regular, lasting mistakes that are not self corrected. That seems to only apply to religious-leaning people, and if so, that is simple question-begging: Religions people don't have religious experience because religious people don't have religious experiences.
Why do you think that propaganda works?
This is religious binary thinking again. This time assuming True and False exist. When in reality no one is omnipotent. We are all given a subset of facts and perspectives and this can be manipulated in corectly functioning minds. No one is 100% correct or incorrect.
There is no reason to doubt the vast majority of any enduring experiences or intuitions. You want this to be true so you can dismiss religion. This is circular reasoning.
Quote:Then there are the brains which are not working properly. These are more suspectible to religious experience.
If all you know is religion then you will see the world through the eyes of the religious. But it's not as effective as relying on the minds and written and reproducible impartial observations of hundreds of thousands of scientists who are each looking out for the flaws in their own hypotheses and those of others.
For any of this to be valid, you would have to show that science has disproved/called into question religious experiences. It has not come even close, not a little, at all. You are repeating a theory that you backed into: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. This is question begging.
(June 30, 2018 at 7:20 am)SteveII Wrote: For any of this to be valid, you would have to show that science has disproved/called into question religious experiences. It has not come even close, not a little, at all. You are repeating a theory that you backed into: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. This is question begging.
Science has not come close to proving those experiences are supernatural, involve contact with disembodied minds, or are actually divine. Not a little, not at all. This is asking for disproof of something not in evidence in the first place.
My "books have been written" line was meant to show that all of these topics have been given a lot of thought and can be expounded on. Note the comment I was replying to.
Books have been written about false things all the time
There is a whole series of books written by various authors about Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels. Handbooks and guides galore.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
(June 30, 2018 at 7:20 am)SteveII Wrote: For any of this to be valid, you would have to show that science has disproved/called into question religious experiences. It has not come even close, not a little, at all. You are repeating a theory that you backed into: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. This is question begging.
Science has not come close to proving those experiences are supernatural, involve contact with disembodied minds, or are actually divine. Not a little, not at all. This is asking for disproof of something not in evidence in the first place.
I wasn't asking anything at all. I was pointing out Mathilda's mis-step as she relies on her underlying scientism/logical positivism philosophy sprinkled with a healthy dose of circular reasoning.
July 2, 2018 at 10:49 pm (This post was last modified: July 2, 2018 at 10:56 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(June 29, 2018 at 9:09 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(June 29, 2018 at 2:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:
These are all good questions. First, I want to say yes; we’re all at risk of inherent biases effecting our standards of evidence for any given claim. I think there is a latent danger of our subconscious processing nudging us to accept claims and assumptions a priori, for emotional reasons rather than well-evidenced ones. Because of this, it’s important that we constantly challenge the claims we’re most certain of. This is the only way to self-correct for bias.
What evidence would it take for me to be convinced a god exists? I honestly don’t know. It would probably have to be scientific in nature. In the case of Cosby, we know (or can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt) of several facts surrounding the claim that increase the likelihood of it being true. We know:
1. Bill Cosby exists.
2. He was/is a wealthy, influential, and well-respected celebrity
3. There is a clear pattern of men with such status preying on vulnerable women
4. The women offering testimony exist, and we can interview them.
Note that we don’t have to take any of the above on faith or assumption, because there is a plethora of actual evidence to support each of the numbered. Additionally “Bill Cosby is a rapist”, is a mundane claim in the sense that it does not require I accept any propositions that violate established, scientific principles describing our physical universe.
Now, let’s look at the various supernatural claims of Christianity, including but not limited to: an Omni-god exists outside of space and time, he created the universe, Jesus was the son of god and also god, Mary was impregnated by god absent intercourse, Jesus was dead for three days and came back to life, heaven and hell exist, angels exist, souls exist, and Jesus performed miracles. What facts do we know beyond reasonable doubt about any of these claims? We know:
1.The claims are contained in a book called the Bible that was catalogued thousands of years ago.
2. The Bible contains the alleged testimony of people who lived during that time period and supposedly witnessed these supernatural events (though we have no way to question these witnesses, if they existed at all, because they’re long since dead.)
3. We know a great number of humans believe these claims are true.
4. We know Christians worship and pray to the god they believe in.
5. We know Christians believe they have a personal relationship with god.
In the Bill Cosby example, the numbered facts are pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of the claim being true. In the case of the numbered facts regarding Christianity, they are merely reassertions of the claims themselves. Additionally (and most importantly), accepting these claims requires assumptions that violate what can be demonstrated about the known laws of the universe for no other reason than the sake of the claims themselves.
These two scenarios aren’t even in the same stratosphere in terms of likelihood. So my personal, subjective evidentiary standard for the Bill Cosby claims is far lower than for Christian claims. I’m convinced that Bill Cosby is a rapist. I’m not yet convinced that god exists.
Thank you for your response Lady,
On the subject of biases; I wanted to make a comment first of my opinion. I agree, that we all have biases, and sometimes they can be difficult to spot or get past. We look at the world through our past experience and our individual world view. In my view, the matter of evidence is a logical problem. We apply reason and principles in a systematic and consistent way. This is what the field in philosophy called epistemology is all about. Much like algebra, you can create generic principles, which stand on their own, and then you work to the details of any particular case to apply those principles. And as it is an issue of logic, given certain premises and using these principles and reasons, the conclusion will follow from the premises. You can apply the principles learned from other situations and apply them to something unfamiliar and expect a reasonable outcome (unless there is some reason not to such as a category error).There are disagreements among philosophers concerning epistemology, but these are on what the principles should be (for gaining knowledge), not that different conclusions follow the same reasoning for different things.
Sure, I generally agree with the above. Note my bold; I’ll be revisiting that further down.
Quote:This is a little difficult to me, because in my view, you seem to be talking about persuasion, and not reasoning from the evidence. Perhaps your standards are higher, and I have no problem with that, if they are applied consistently. With subjective and moving standards which aren't even defined, I think it is difficult to tell if you are biased or reasonable in your conclusions. They cannot be evaluated and comparisons can't be made, because it is not defined. If I'm honest, (and I'm not trying to be harsh) it sounds more like a feeling to me, that is un-falsifiable. It can't be tested to see if it is sound or not. As well with such a subjective scale, it seems hard to evaluate or criticize anyone for not believing evidence. The jurors may have loved Cosby, and simply raised the bar for the evidence, not because it wasn't sufficient for knowledge, but because they have difficulty believing that this nice man from TV could do such things. They may be swayed by the evidence or they may not. It has nothing to do with the evidence or what should follow from that evidence. And this same principle could easily be applied to any other type of evidence as well. I admit, that sometimes there are a lot of variables, and it may not be a neat little formula, but I think we should strive to be logically consistent.
I’m not quite sure which part of my post you’re referencing above, but I think you’re going to get more specific further down, so let’s continue.
Quote:Towards your lists; Bill Cosby exists. I agree, I don't think that solipsism is rational and that we are perceiving a real person outside of ourselves. He is wealthy and influential; again I agree. Some men of such status prey on vulnerable women. I agree again, but none of these things give us any knowledge that it would follow that he had raped these women as claimed. The women exists (again I think this as uncontroversial as it is unimportant. I actually only know of these women from what I have heard on the news. We can interview them? I don't think that it is reasonable that everyone be able to interview them personally. I also don't think it is necessary. I think it is enough that they where vetted and their claims tested.
With regard to my lists, let me clarify. They are not meant to be lists of evidence for or against Cosby versus evidence for or against biblical claims. The purpose of the lists was to demonstrate that these these two claims (and I’ll reference your words bolded above) fall into different categories. Supernatural claims should demand a much stricter, more robust body of evidence, because there is an added burden of convincing me that the event is possible in the face of demonstrable, repeatable evidence to the contrary.
In the case of Cosby, prosecutors are not burdened with having to first argue his existence, or the existence of the accusers. He doesn’t have to demonstrate that it’s possible (in fact, we already know it happens often) that wealthy men in positions of power prey on vulnerable women. These are simply the facts of the case. So, from that point on, it’s a matter of whether or not the evidence is compelling enough. The claim falls well within the realm of what science has taught us about the natural world.
As far as Bible claims go, it has never been demonstrated that: a person can be dead for three days and then reanimate, or that a woman can get pregnant absent human semen. For many of us here, such an event at odds with the natural world would have to be demonstrated irrefutably in order to be believed.
Quote:Does our knowledge of the past get a little bit smaller every time someone dies? Do we erase events that happened years ago, where we can no longer interview the witnesses? I don't believe that history becomes mere stories as the last witness who can testify passes away.
Not at all. But, it certainly becomes exponentially more difficult to demonstrate what actually happened as time goes on.
Quote:As to claims of the Bible (in particular the new testament) In another thread, I talked with someone about what I see as the difference between claims and evidence. A claim to me, is the conclusion. For example the claim that we evolved through some kind of Darwinian evolution from common species. The evidence would be the information and reasons which support this claim (and any evidence against it). This evidence may be shared through testimony. That is knowledge may be shared, which points to the claim or conclusion. Even in further education I would expect that much of the evidence would be shared through testimony and the knowledge gathered by others. I don't think that we need to go around the globe and re-dig things up, nor would I expect to. In the Bible i would say that there are claims, and there is also evidence.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, I’m sorry. How can a claim be a conclusion?
Quote:The testimony of those who shared what they saw and experienced. The history that followed it. This can't just be compared to some fictional story. The followers of Christ appear right after in the time and place, for which they take their name. Don't confuse the claims from the evidence and reasons for those claims. Look at what they say they saw, is their corroborating evidence. How did they act afterwards? Was their claims self serving or embarrassing? How did they act in the face of persecution?
I mean, no one is questioning that Christianity happened. No one is arguing that religious followers aren’t fervent in their beliefs. But, a religion, no matter how popular, isn’t evidence of its claims.
Quote: Gravity will cause the glass I dropped off my desk to fall and the impact cause it to shatter. If I am quick enough to stop it and lift it back up onto the table. I didn't violate the law of gravity. The law of gravity was acting the same as it always does. The difference is I was able and chose to intervene. Another cause was introduced.
Sure, and you can demonstrate such an event, can’t you? You could drop and catch glasses all day long if you were into that sort of thing. Hell, every human on the planet could do it simultaneously if we wanted to plan it out. Now, show me a woman who was able to get pregnant absent human semen.
Quote:Lastly I want to talk about something which seems circular to me. You seem to be indicating that the evidence is not sufficient because you don't believe that it is possible already. But the reason you appear to give that you don't believe it; is that there is not enough evidence. Despite the it's catchy phrasing there is no epistemological rational for the motto of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I’m not saying, “I don’t believe it’s possible, therefore the evidence isn’t sufficient.” The burden is on the claimant making the extraordinary claim to demonstrate to me that the event is not only possible in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, but probable beyond a reasonable doubt. Or, said another way, the claimant is burdened with demonstrating that the supernatural explanation is the most likely explanation when considering unextraordinary, competing theories. That’s a pretty tall order. If that case can’t be made, then I have no rational obligation to accept the claim as true.
Quote:That’s not rational Why if it is logical and and reasonable wouldn't the same knowledge follow for one thing which is similar to another (without further reason not to).
Because there is a reason not to. It’s a category error.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
I’m sorry, I’ll get to the rest later (may be delayed with the holiday). However, I have a quick question. A catagory error is an ontological error, where a property is inappropriately applied where it doesn’t belong, judging a painting’s worth by how much it weighs would be a category mistake. The worth of a painting is not valued in that way. So what is the category that you are saying is being misused here? A category error is ontological, and therefore objective. So it cannot be based on your knowledge or a priori belief. Your subjective experience doesn’t change the nature of anything. I don’t understand how you are applying this category error.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
