Tuned-In

[ShaMan]

Consider an analog radio dial.



On one side of the dial you have Reason and Logic as the means by which you receive signals, and thus data, which informs your world view. Let's presume that this scale is FM, and that the Logic/Reason band runs from 88.0 - 97.9 MHz. Now, on this same dial are the Faith and Belief bands which begin at 98.0 MHz and carry-on through the end of the dial to 108 MHz.

Atheists naturally tune in to the frequencies which best comport with their 'tuning' ability - their 'sets' can only receive these signals because they are not made in the same way as 'tuners' (theists) that receive differing frequencies. Now, is it reasonable for an atheist, who only receives certain signals, to disallow other receivers (theists) from tuning-in to signals that are just as receivable on their sets as atheist signals are on their own respective sets? And what about theists who refuse to allow atheists to tune-in to their own frequencies - calling their signals static?

A simpler example may be...

Atheists and theists are the same. Atheists receive signals on one end of the spectrum, while theists (of all stripes) receive signals on the opposite end of the SAME scale using the SAME methodological technology (means) [NOTE: This is a philosophical premise and is not being presented as a position of belief]

There may be cases where 'tuners' (individuals) are capable of receiving signals on the full scale, or parts of the scale which overlap (i.e. 92.0 - 106.0 MHz) whereby such a person might claim measures of both logic and faith to express their receptive experience (consciousness).

My point is that we are more similar than dissimilar - even, and perhaps especially in our ability/inability to experience the "Truth" of another, and in our projections/assertions that others must share our experience to be taken seriously.

One man's static is another man's gospel, and vice-versa.

[Faith No More]

Total bullshit. One side wants to make shit up and pretend that it has the validity of empiricism without demonstrating any merit. When these "frequencies" of yours start coming up with something productive and demonstrable, we'll talk about considering it legitimate. Until then, you've got nothing but wishful thinking.

[ShaMan]

Total bullshit. One side wants to make shit up and pretend that it has the validity of empiricism without demonstrating any merit. When these "frequencies" of yours start coming up with something productive and demonstrable, we'll talk about considering it legitimate. Until then, you've got nothing but wishful thinking.

(BOLD added by me)

You're asking for the frequency of 105.5 MHz to present itself clearly on the setting of 95.5 MHz - that was my point - atheists and theists cannot reconcile this without finding some common ground.

Perhaps if your 'set' could receive the frequencies, then you'd be able to hear the program more clearly based in what you would consider legitimate. Until then, at least we're still thinking and discussing the matter, rather than settling on "Logic" as the absolute empirical measure - but that would be as arrogant as a theist claiming "God" did it, and I'm sure you were't doing that.

"Logic" is the authority on one end of the scale, and all other ideas must submit to "Logic".

"God" is the authority on the other end of the scale, and all other ideas must submit to "God".

This is a philosophy exercise and not a religious debate.

[ThePinsir]

Let's play along with this analogy:

Every time anyone with a skeptical mind attempts to turn their dial to a "god frequency", so as to see if anything is actually there, nothing comes up but noise. So, until someone can demonstrate that the frequency is somehow more than meaningless atmospheric nonsense, I'll keep my dial tuned in to the stations that actually produce something useful.

Like Queen or something.

[FreeTony]

You'll find that when it comes to important things, like investments, jobs, safely driving around etc people do rely on empirical evidence and not on faith.

[ShaMan]

Let's play along with this analogy:

Every time anyone with a skeptical mind attempts to turn their dial to a "god frequency", so as to see if anything is actually there, nothing comes up but noise.

Precisely my point, and it can go the other way with theists. When they attempt to tune-in to logic - they only hear static.

[Nine]

You'll find that when it comes to important things, like investments, jobs, safely driving around etc people do rely on empirical evidence and not on faith.

Screw that, just keep your foot down and have a nap at the wheel. It worked fine in the National Lampoons.

[ShaMan]

You'll find that when it comes to important things, like investments, jobs, safely driving around etc people do rely on empirical evidence and not on faith.

You'd be surprised. And while most theists won't admit that their receivers pick-up general logic frequencies, they'd also never admit that they generally deny those frequencies for their preference of the "higher" ones which contradict logic.

[ThePinsir]

Precisely my point, and it can go the other way with theists. When they attempt to tune-in to logic - they only hear static.

If I can be allowed to stretch the metaphor a bit:

It was a scientist, adhering to the scientific method - that is, logic and reason - that actually discovered how radio waves work, and it was also a scientist who figured out how to make the FM receiver. It was a scientist or engineer, adhering to the principles of reason, who figured out how to get the radio receivers mass produced and and a scientist who designed the trucks that delivered them to the stores...and so on.

My point - my end of the frequency actually produces tangible results and makes accurate predictions. The other end of the frequencies offers nothing but empty promises and wishful thinking. Indeed, they never, literally never, produce anything that can be tested and verified.

Think about everything, every manner of phenomenon that once had a supernatural explanation but was replaced by a natural, logical, scientific explanation (lightning, volcanoes, the diversity of life, etc.) However, there are zero phenomena that once had a natural, logical, scientific explanation that was later discarded for a better, supernatural explanation.

If I accept your analogy that we can't tune in to their station and they can't tune in to ours, that's fine with me. Mine actually works.

[ShaMan]

If I accept your analogy that we can't tune in to their station and they can't tune in to ours, that's fine with me. Mine actually works.

Once again, you're precise. Your scientific explanation is accurate. Now, is it not also reasonable that (since the radio dial is merely an analogy), when attempting to measure the "spiritual" frequencies with the "logical" ones, that they cannot be received, and vice-versa? Yes, you can demonstrate your logic on your scale (using science), and they can demonstrate faith on theirs (using belief), and just as you cannot convince them of your reception, neither can they convince you of theirs.

Once again, I'm not taking either position as a hard-line. This is not about religion, but perception and cognition, which lead to a world-view.