Atheism

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

No. You were deflecting from the original point that people's religious experiences mirror the culture that they are immersed in and that rather than rely on a single brain that interprets reality, it's better to rely on hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way.

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.

[Amarok]

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.

No. You were deflecting from the original point that people's religious experiences mirror the culture that they are immersed in and that rather than rely on a single brain that interprets reality, it's better to rely on hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way.

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.

And indeed science is that way .There simply is no serious alternative.And The accusation that Mat is relying on circular reasoning is absurd .But theists love to attack " scientist ism "

[LastPoet]

Gods, the thing every human wants to be.

Wants?

Not all of us are so divinely designed

[SteveII]

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.

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.

No. You were deflecting from the original point that people's religious experiences mirror the culture that they are immersed in and that rather than rely on a single brain that interprets reality, it's better to rely on hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way.

Two points, 

1. We have hundreds of millions of brains relating their experiences for 2000 years. 
2. What do you think that "hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way" has indicated? It seems you are just asserting some observation that disproves people's religious experiences. How is that NOT: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. If you are not going to put up some recognized proof, you are asserting your conclusion, you are question begging.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Perhaps you are interacting with a Mathilda in an alternate universe. That doesn't describe the Mathilda I know at all.

[SteveII]

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.

Perhaps you are interacting with a Mathilda in an alternate universe. That doesn't describe the Mathilda I know at all.

Go ahead, summarize her argument about why Christian experiences are not real.

[Angrboda]

 
2. What do you think that "hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way" has indicated? It seems you are just asserting some observation that disproves people's religious experiences. How is that NOT: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. If you are not going to put up some recognized proof, you are asserting your conclusion, you are question begging.

You are straw manning. First you note that the conclusion is based upon observation, and then you turn around and suggest rather that it's based on an assumption. Your restatement misrepresents the position in a fundamental way. So no, I don't think you get to the conclusion of question begging except by misrepresentation. Which makes me wonder why you want so badly to drive towards that conclusion? Having watched you on this forum, you seem to find a way to restate any position you don't like as being question begging. I don't think you're being charitable to your opponent. Your approach, at least superficially, seems to be one of choosing the worst representation of the opposing position, rather than the best.

[Mister Agenda]

Perhaps you are interacting with a Mathilda in an alternate universe. That doesn't describe the Mathilda I know at all.

Go ahead, summarize her argument about why Christian experiences are not real.

No one is maintaining that the experiences aren't real. They're real experiences. It's their nature that we're disputing. Because religious experiences differ depending on culture, different people interpret similar experiences differently, and the experiences can be simulated with drugs and/or electronics, religious experiences fit the profile of a neuro-cultural phenomenon. Evidence that there is more going on would be advisable before concluding that there's more going on. That is, the null hypothesis has not been defeated.

And if religious experiences are an argument for Christianity being true, they are equally an argument for Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Jainism being true. That is incoherent.

[SteveII]

 
2. What do you think that "hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way" has indicated? It seems you are just asserting some observation that disproves people's religious experiences. How is that NOT: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. If you are not going to put up some recognized proof, you are asserting your conclusion, you are question begging.

You are straw manning your own argument.  First you note that the conclusion is based upon observation, and then you turn around and suggest rather that it's based on an assumption.  Your restatement misrepresents the position in a fundamental way.  So no, I don't think you get to the conclusion of question begging except by misrepresentation.   Which makes me wonder why you want so badly to drive towards that conclusion?  Having watched you on this forum, you seem to find a way to restate any position you don't like as being question begging.  I don't think you're being charitable to your opponent.  Your approach, at least superficially, seems vto be one of choosing the worst representation of the opposing position, rather than the best.

Not so. My contention is there is nothing underlying her statement I quoted: "hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way". It was a way to make her assertion (that Christian experiences are not real) sound scientific.

I have been using that a lot lately. My post count is way down--replying to you mostly and then defending that reply. It seems that most people here don't realize when they say such-and-such is not true that it is an assertion. When pressed 'why?' the obvious underlying principle of "you can't prove a negative" applies (whether they know it or not) and if they persist that such-and-such is not true it almost always can be reduced to question begging.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Sure.  So, from Wikipedia (if I may):

categorical mistake, or mistake of category is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.

Its own name and definition put “supernatural” in a seperate and distinct category from “natural”.  Unless you are going attempt to draw some kind of false equivalence between the two, I don’t see how they could be rationally considered as categorically equal.