RE: Freedom of Religion
February 10, 2012 at 11:01 am
(This post was last modified: February 10, 2012 at 11:12 am by The Grand Nudger.)
You don't have testable evidence? That's unfortunate. At least we've made it very clear that this is not a scientific hypothesis. I'll have to mention at this point that if you don't have evidence, and this is not a scientific question, then any attempt to shoehorn science or some principle of science into what you're about to explain is a pointless endeavor. In other words, the very minute you invoke some part of science as a "reason to believe" you are claiming scientific evidence. I hope we don't see any of that. If we do, it's entirely likely that you're simply using science as a smoke screen (much like a creationist or ID'er), or using "sciency" sounding concepts to make something sound more credible than it is (to yourself, to me, to whomever, who knows).
I definitely didn't mean to ask you why you felt these things were worthy of consideration. I was asking for evidence. There isn't much that I feel is "worthy of consideration" if there is no evidence attached, but to each his own. If the reasons you believe are "deeply philosophical" then you should avoid constructing philosophies out of fallacy (or explaining/defending/proposing fallacious arguments in support of your philosophy). At least afford yourself the courtesy of intellectual rigor. If you do not do this, at least, then your reasons are not deeply philosophic at all. In light of your admission that you have no testable evidence, and without a valid or sound argument, then your beliefs are neither scientific, nor philosophic, but incoherent and unfounded by either metric. You're absolutely correct, your intuitive reasons for believing are not impressive to me. No more than a christian's intuitive reasons for believing are impressive to you. Scientists do often pursue a line of inquiry based on a gut feeling, but gut feelings do not figure in their conclusions at all. There is no parity here, and so this comparison is meaningless. It sounds very much like you're trying to level the ground but it simply is not possible to do so under the conditions you've laid out. Your gut feelings are as valid as anyone else's, which is to say, not valid at all in and of themselves.
That was quite the preamble. What people find compelling and what actually is are often not the same things Abra (christians find the bible and the concept of the abrahamic god extremely compelling. Are their beliefs worthy of consideration simply because they believe them to be compelling? Are yours? That's not the "alternative secular explanation, that's the conclusion reached by evaluation of all available evidence, and demonstrated by experimentation about as well as anything can be. Our brains might just be a little more complicated than your summary. In fact, I think you've used this summary precisely because it is a very underhanded strawman that allows you to argue an ancillary point instead of defending or supporting your own. If your argument is that our physical brains cannot have conscious experience than this is just the first place where science does weigh in on the issue. Your continued reference to a reduced summary of what brains are does not strengthen your argument. Let me give you an example of exactly why.
"It is ludicrous to propose that airplanes can fly. As we know, they are made of heavy metals that absolutely cannot fly. Have you ever seen aluminum levitate?"
This is exactly equivalent to the statement you're making. If you understand why this statement is in error then you understand why your own criticisms are also baseless (and I'm sorry, but extremely ignorant). Perhaps you should brush up on biology? Or maybe audit a course that focuses on nueroscience? This is not a subject that science has not weighed in on. If you're claiming that our thoughts and experiences are somehow spiritual rather than arising out of our machinery, then yes, science has ruled that out (at least as far as it can with the vagueness you've allowed in your proposition). Our experiences, thoughts, personalities etc are seated in our brains, which are "biological machines". Emergent properties, btw, are not abstractions. They are well evidenced, and well demonstrated. In any case, you've made claims, I engaged you in a discussion about those claims, let's try to avoid shifting the burden of proof, which is again, not deeply philosophic, but deeply flawed. As a matter of fact, if you believe that your own conclusions on these matters are worthy of consideration without any evidence, then why are you asking anyone else for evidence of anything in the first place? If you've shielded your own conclusions from this requirement but expect it of others (specifically with regards to claims that run counter to your own) you're engaging in special pleading. Which is again not deeply philosophic, but deeply flawed.
This is an impasse of your own making, not one that you can justify, which you very clearly stated the moment you admitted you had no evidence. Well, unfortunately nuero-scientists do have evidence, and if you want to see any of it you can go ahead and google "brain" or any related term. Your proposal is vastly inferior to theirs. This entire response has been an argument to personal incredulity, a logical fallacy which is not deeply philosophic, but deeply flawed.
I didn't ask you why quantum fields contained information. I asked you why your cosmic mind contained information. If you're basing your beliefs on strong scientific principles, or well established physics than you are claiming verifiable evidence btw. It's disappointing to see you waffle on your own claims so quickly. I didn't ask for a lecture about quantum mechanics, I asked very specific questions, and you didn't address any of them at all. Am I to assume then that for those questions I asked you have no answer?
Then it's good that I didn't ask you for a lecture on quantum mechanics, only to elaborate upon those claims you made. Which you failed to do here as you failed to do above. Is this another area where you don't have any answers?
I'm asking you questions for a couple of reasons. Firstly, so that we're discussing what you believe and not common uses or definitions of the words that you use to describe your beliefs since they are clearly not the same thing. This helps me to try and avoid straw-manning you. Secondly, I'm asking you questions so that you can respond with explanations or claims which are specific and cannot be backpedaled out of, which helps me to insure that you won't be moving any goalposts (or at least, if you do, that it is very visible). I know enough to make the claim that science has ruled out magic, and I know enough to realize when someone is using sciencey sounding words to describe magic, which you are. I'm not a physicist, I'm a farmer, so you should probably be a little disappointed that your claims haven't made it passed my bullshit filter.
Ah, finally, a testable claim (I bet that was an accident). Care to show us the point of interaction? Just how have you determined this to be the case? How have you determined which processes are "clearly on auto-pilot" and which are not. Would you mind making me a short list of a few examples of processes that are not "on auto-pilot"? Nothing wrong with a lengthy explanation. The universe is not designed, not by your god, not by any god. Designed is a very poor choice of word on your part. Perhaps you mean something else, something other than the definition of "designed". I sometimes like to say that this or that part of a plant was "designed" for this or that, but it's always understood that I'm using slightly inappropriate language to convey a concept. If you're claiming that the universe was "designed" you are, btw, making claims to testable evidence, which have been ruled out. We've looked for "designs" and found interactions and effects of those interactions instead. I absolutely detest cosmological arguments btw. Pretty common argument from theists, we see it mostly (on this forum anyway) from creatards. You're starting to associate yourself with some pretty silly people Abra. Knowing what is possible on any given dice throw does not afford one predictive abilities that go beyond chance btw, that's also been ruled out by science. The best you can give are probabilities. You (nor I, nor anyone) is capable of accurately predicting the results of a single six sided die toss with any consistency. Just how are you proposing we make a claim to knowledge out of this, well, lets see? Ah, the dice playing god gambit. Well, the dice would be invoking testable evidence, the toss would be testable evidence. Care to identify one of gods dice, care to identify one of gods throws?
Which "behaviours" of this universe is this spirit capable of altering, and do you have any idea regarding the mechanism that allows this spirit to do so? These are testable claims. You've made a couple of claims here that have been investigated and discarded as nonsense. There are probably a great many more you could make, but I get the feeling you're being very guarded about those claims which you might make to a friendly audience. Your "only claim" is an argument from ignorance (an argument from ignorance regarding at least some things about which we are not ignorant , btw..which is to say, it's an argument from your own personal ignorance/incredulity). That was a pretty amusing sentence in itself, since it comes at the end of a literal wall-o-claims. My imagination may not be so limited as you believe. Why would my imaginative ability matter anyway? We're not talking about what might exist in our imaginations are we? I thought we were talking about a god which you believe exists in reality (and is apparently responsible for a great many things in the real world).
Sure, what you need as a foundation to justify this or that is your own personal decision. Your inability to make your own case has nothing to do with anyone else being ignorant or unimaginative.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
