In regards to any knowable object, it is commonly understood that because of the way something exists it can be known in a certain way.
For example heat and cold. Due to its nature, it is perceived in certain ways (i.e. with thermometers). If you want to know what time it is, you can stare at a thermometer all day ...yet you will not be enlightened.

There is an epistemological great divide that separates all knowable things into two categories –those things we can control and those things we cannot control.

Some things we cannot control simply because we don’t have the technology or knowledge to control them yet (as one bumper sticker reads “Earth First. We can mess up the other planets later”). So in principle we could control them. But there are some things we cannot control even in principle.

For example the sun. In a physical sense it is vastly more powerful than us. Because we are conscious and can think however and the sun can’t, we tend to think that perhaps one day we might be able to control it. But if we are dealing with things that are conscious and in fact much more conscious than us, the controlled experiment would be irrelevant and useless. Imagine a being that is physically and cognitively much more powerful than we are. There is no way in the world that we can study them through a controlled experiment

As a simple example , take an ant and a human. Because of my advantages I assume I am more intelligent than the ant – I can divert the ant – it can crawl on my finger – I can catch it and control it. And throughout it all the ant appears to have no real way to understand human anatomy (the ant is not thinking “I am now walking on the finger of a human sapien sapien”). The ant is more conscious of my arm than I am (aware of topography like hairs and freckles ). But in terms of knowing that it is an arm, that it belongs to a body, that it belongs to a particular body etc etc .... all this is beyond the ants cognitive horizons . Similarly there is a sense that we may know about the topography of the earth and can also launch a few substantiative guesses about the surrounding universe– but what is it? Is the earth part of a cosmic body (as socrates suggests) What is the earth really? It’s not simply different knowledge – Like the ant knows the freckles and I know the hairs - It’s not like lateral or horizontal variation of knowledge. It’s a different order of knowledge. If there are things /beings in the universe that are physically and cognitively greater than ourselves , we can no more examine such things in a controlled environment anymore than an ant can bring me into an ant laboratory.
That is one aspect of things one cannot control, even in principle.


Another is it’s not possible for one to have experienced one’s own conception, therefore one cannot speak with absolute certainty where one came from. When something is the source of something else (in the biological sense) it sets up an epistemological relationship (a relationship of knowability). If I produce something, I know what I produce, but the product cannot know. The product depends on me to become informed. If you have absolute truth as a god as the source of everything it sets an asymmetrical epistemological relationship (meaning that god can know us perfectly, being the source of our existence, but we cannot symmetrically know god like he knows us).

In fact you design a scientific experiment based on what you are trying to understand because every knowable object is known in certain ways. So you design it around what you “think” will be the knowable qualities of the object.

For example the search for Brown Dwarfs (stars that never made it – the minor leagues of stellar bodies). There was actually a theory that they exist but they weren’t discovered. So astronomer Eric Becklin built his studies around what he felt were the knowable characteristics of brown dwarfs.


If we believe that everything has to be known through controlled experiments (bread and butter of empiricism), this limits the knowable universe to things that are less than us. When I choose a particular process to know, the very choice of a method predetermines the range and extent of things I can know. If I chose the thermometer as an instrument, that predetermines what I can know ( namely temperatures).

Similarly if I choose as my primary method of knowing the controlled experiment I am predetermining that I will only be able to know things that are inferior to me (since that is the only thing I can control)
There is something tragically comic about going out in the universe wielding the controlled experiment as the primary means of knowing and coming back reporting there is nothing out there but things we can control.
And of course the self referential incoherence of “only those things known by controlled empirical experiments can be accepted as the definitely known” – the problem is that that statement cannot be empirically verified – if you tried to empirically establish the philosophical claim you would have a text book example of circular reasoning.

The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you.
For e.g. - suppose you want to get into a prestigious graduate school or trying to get a job in a particular firm that is extremely difficult competitive . There are books “the successful job interview”, “the successful graduate application” . And what is the common denominator? Trying to persuade or to somehow please them or impress them, to know what are their likes and dislikes, to somehow communicate “l will be good for you” “ I will please you “ etc ..... the point is that you have to satisfy them.
Now if for some company that’s true , what to speak of god?
How much more is the burden on us to make an impression on god? I mean suppose you entered an application interview for a graduate school and said “If you’re really lucky I may go here, and if you really want me, I’ll let you try and convince me that you are worth my trouble – go ahead I will give you five minutes” ... that’s probably not the best way.
Yet with something infinitely greater than graduate school , god, some people do exactly that. Like, “ ok if god exists I’ll give him two minutes.... I want to see a flash of light some thunder ... go ahead god , impress me”

So something is deeply wrong with this picture - it’s irrational because there is no rational connection between the methodology and the object one is trying to understand.

I read through all this, and you did make some good points. However, I didn't see a problem with atheism. A problem with some particular atheists, yes, but not atheism in general. What you touch on at the very end isn't something I've ever asked or proposed. I don't pretend to know what to expect from God or what would qualify as proof of it. Rather, I come from ignorance. Rather, I ask theists to tell me what I should do, what I should read to get me convinced. And from what I've done, what I've been told from my Christian friends, what I've been told by my Muslim family, some of whom are formally trained in South Africa, I've still yet to be convinced by anything. That's my atheism, and I see nothing in your post that suggests a problem with it.

I read through all this, and you did make some good points. However, I didn't see a problem with atheism. A problem with some particular atheists, yes, but not atheism in general. What you touch on at the very end isn't something I've ever asked or proposed. I don't pretend to know what to expect from God or what would qualify as proof of it. Rather, I come from ignorance. Rather, I ask theists to tell me what I should do, what I should read to get me convinced. And from what I've done, what I've been told from my Christian friends, what I've been told by my Muslim family, some of whom are formally trained in South Africa, I've still yet to be convinced by anything. That's my atheism, and I see nothing in your post that suggests a problem with it.
so what was the methodology.
I mean what did you gather you were supposed to "do" in order to know god?

Reading (Bible and Quran), praying (Muslim only, as far as I know there's no Christian equivalent), going to church/mosque (Mosque was part of the praying obviously, but there would be sermons similar to the ones given at Churches post prayer). That, along with discussions with my theist family and friends.

Reading (Bible and Quran),
So what did you read exactly and how do you assess comprehension?
I mean you could say that reading plays an important part in any knowledge based discipline, but generally you see that assessment deals alomost exclusively with the issue of comprehension and application


praying (Muslim only, as far as I know there's no Christian equivalent),
praying for what?


going to church/mosque (Mosque was part of the praying obviously, but there would be sermons similar to the ones given at Churches post prayer).
I mean this is a bit simplistic.
Suppose I was a university student and I explained how I was doing everything just like the other students - reading, placing my backside in lecture halls etc - but I still didn't pass the exams so there was something wrong with the university or it was all some subjective issue ("faith" or whatever) ... I mean these things don't even begin to really address an analysis of how one approaches knowledge - rather it begins with "well what did you read?" "what did you hear?" "how did you apply what you read and heard?" etc etc

I mean this is a bit simplistic.
Suppose I was a university student and I explained how I was doing everything just like the other students - reading, placing my backside in lecture halls etc - but I still didn't pass the exams so there was something wrong with the university or it was all some subjective issue ("faith" or whatever) ... I mean these things don't even begin to really address an analysis of how one approaches knowledge - rather it begins with "well what did you read?" "what did you hear?" "how did you apply what you read and heard?" etc etc

Half a fair point, except I've never ran into that problem and I've honestly never understood that problem in others. Reading, placing my backside in lecture halls and paying attention did let me pass the exams and get As. So I always assumed problems that other people had were external and independent from the method.


So what did you read exactly and how do you assess comprehension?
I mean you could say that reading plays an important part in any knowledge based discipline, but generally you see that assessment deals alomost exclusively with the issue of comprehension and application

It's been a good couple of years so I don't remember exactly off the top of my head. Various suras and NT verses, no OT. No hadith as I wanted to be inspired by the source.


praying for what?

It doesn't work exactly like that. Praying is sort of a ritual that you do, a performance while reciting parts of the Quran. You don't pray for something. Rather you recite the opening surah, and then go on to recite other suras while praising Allah throughout. It's not until the very end where you perform dua that you ask for something. I always asked for the knowledge to be better and the forgiveness of my straying. Of course, there is the problem that praying is pretty much invalidated if you're not sincere. That whole time I didn't believe in God, but I was trying my best to put sincerity into it. Like, if you exist please hear this, or something like that you know? After all, it's how we're taught to pray as kids, by imitation, and that for most people seems to end up turning into belief. The thought was that if I did the same, it would do the same for me.

ashura


I mean this is a bit simplistic.
Suppose I was a university student and I explained how I was doing everything just like the other students - reading, placing my backside in lecture halls etc - but I still didn't pass the exams so there was something wrong with the university or it was all some subjective issue ("faith" or whatever) ... I mean these things don't even begin to really address an analysis of how one approaches knowledge - rather it begins with "well what did you read?" "what did you hear?" "how did you apply what you read and heard?" etc etc
”
Half a fair point, except I've never ran into that problem and I've honestly never understood that problem in others. Reading, placing my backside in lecture halls and paying attention did let me pass the exams and get As. So I always assumed problems that other people had were external and independent from the method.
unless you studied something that you already knew, the simple act of placing your backside on a certain seat in a certain building or opening a book and sticking your nose in it certainly wasn't what made you get straight A's


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So what did you read exactly and how do you assess comprehension?
I mean you could say that reading plays an important part in any knowledge based discipline, but generally you see that assessment deals alomost exclusively with the issue of comprehension and application
”
It's been a good couple of years so I don't remember exactly off the top of my head. Various suras and NT verses, no OT.
well thats a bibliography but what about the content?
I mean I'm sure you could mention a few issues of comprehension from your lecture hall days


“
praying for what?
”
It doesn't work exactly like that. Praying is sort of a ritual that you do, a performance while reciting parts of the Quran. You don't pray for something. Rather you recite the opening surah, and then go on to recite other suras while praising Allah throughout. It's not until the very end where you perform dua that you ask for something. I always asked for the knowledge to be better and the forgiveness of my straying. Of course, there is the problem that praying is pretty much invalidated if you're not sincere. That whole time I didn't believe in God, but I was trying my best to put sincerity into it. Like, if you exist please hear this, or something like that you know? After all, it's how we're taught to pray as kids, by imitation, and that for most people seems to end up turning into belief. The thought was that if I did the same, it would do the same for me.
so how does praying "work"?

Half a fair point, except I've never ran into that problem and I've honestly never understood that problem in others. Reading, placing my backside in lecture halls and paying attention did let me pass the exams and get As. So I always assumed problems that other people had were external and independent from the method.

There is a branch of knowledge dealing with how we learn; the branch is comprised of findings from psychology, pedagogy, didactics, medicine, economics, philosophy and some others. It is a fairly popular field of interest, people are interested in how to learn, how to teach others, and how to learn better.

Internet sites are devoted to the topic, such as Study Hacks (http://calnewport.com/blog/), skills4study (http://www.palgrave.com/skills4study/studyskills/index.asp), Study Guides and Strategies (http://www.studygs.net/), universities have pages devoted to the topic (e.g. * (http://studytips.admsrv.ohio.edu/studytips/)).

As an example, I have here the book Accelerated Learning Systems (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Accelerated-Learning-Colin-Rose/dp/other-editions/0905553128/ref=dp_ed_all) and it lists six steps necessary in the process of successful learning (I have the book in a translation and I am translating back into English, so the terms here in my post may not be the same as in the English version):

1. Mental preparation that enables succesful learning
2. Adapting facts to one's abilities
3. Studying the material
4. Memorizing key facts
5. Showing that one knows
6. Assessing how one has learned

Each step is then discussed from various aspects and detailed instructions given on how to do this and that - e.g. how to set goals, how to plan study time, how to relax, how to make notes, tricks for memorizing etc.


So you see, some people do think there is more to passing exams than just "reading, placing my backside in lecture halls and paying attention".

If we believe that everything has to be known through controlled experiments (bread and butter of empiricism), this limits the knowable universe to things that are less than us.You need to go back for your second year of university classes. Your understanding of science and the scientific method is woefully incomplete. (Or if you're impatient a quick read of the Wikipedia article on "Experiments" will fill in some of the gaps while you're waiting for the fall quarter to start.)

The controlled experiment is only one type of experiment. There is also the field experiment, in which control is limited. Then there is the natural experiment (less reverentially called the quasi-experiment), in which one must settle for observing the variables of the system under study and the only "control" is the diligent search for instances of the system that maximize the scope of combinations of values. Furthermore, observational studies can be used in lieu of experimentation, and a thorough study of the scientific method will turn up several other acceptable methods for testing a hypothesis when experimentation is impossible.

Astronomy is arguably the oldest science. Yet its "experiments" are clearly not controlled and much of its body of knowledge is derived from passive observation. Nonetheless its theories are among the most trusted tenets of human knowledge. Even the most ardent religionists accept as "fact" (a poor choice of words but more on that in a moment) that the moon will be full this coming November 13. No one questions the wisdom of the government engineers who spend millions of our tax dollars preparing for the launch of a rocket to another planet based on astronomical predictions of the date when it will be closest to earth, not even those who vehemently question the cost-effectiveness of the space program and would be expected to raise every conceivable objection.

While it is true that hypotheses that are not tested by controlled experiments are weaker than those that are, still those hypotheses can ultimately satisfy the scientific method's requirements of testing and peer review, and achieve the status of theories. (To wrap up the earlier digression of the Linguistics Moderator, these are "theories" in the scientific meaning: proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Not "theories" in the popular sense of a "hunch," but also but not "facts," which are proven true beyond all possible doubt. I crusade for the use of the language of the law in science, since the language of science seems deliberately crafted to impair communication with laymen.)

Since this is the Religion board, the one corner of SciForums where the theory of evolution can be debated without twelve moderators pouncing on every lapse in the scientific method, the theory of evolution is a perfect example. We're only beginning to develop the ability to conduct controlled experiments in evolution, and so far they have not transcended the species level. Nonetheless the observational evidence in the records of fossils and DNA is so complete, consistent and detailed that evolution is accepted as a canonical theory of science, rather than a hypothesis still under examination. Notice that most evolution denialists tend to concentrate on either challenges to the validity of the evidence or the sheer obfuscation of deliberatelly confusing evolution with abiogenesis (for which there is no convincing evidence), and seldom attack the methodology itself.

So it is a fallacy to state that we feel that we know something only after performing controlled experiments. We "know" just as well as you do that the sun will come up tomorrow morning.

If you're working up to an assault on science-based refusal to believe in gods and other supernatural phenomena, this is based on a different component of the scientific method, not precisely the requirement for experimentation.

The fundamental principle of science is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. It's important to recognize that this principle is not taken on faith, but rather that the scientific method is recursive. This principle has been tested exhaustively for five hundred years, and more casually for many centuries before that, and it has never been disproved. Our understanding of the natural universe has grown steadily and mightily since the Enlightenment; its mysteries continue to yield to the scientific method. There has never been a phenomenon which required us to say, "Well, this is not consistent with the Laws of Nature, so there must be an unobservable, illogical supernatural universe full of beings who capriciously toy with the workings of the natural universe just to assert their superiority."

This is the basis for scientific atheism. At this point in history the assertion that there is a supernatural universe inhabited by supernatural creatures qualifies as an extraordinary assertion. The Rule of Laplace (another component of the scientific method) insists that it must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence, before anyone is obligated to treat it with respect. To date the only evidence is hearsay, dreams and other revelations that defy corroboration, and preprogrammed instincts manifested in the archetypes of mythology that comprise a portion of the collective unconscious.

LG, are you really claiming that it is rational to believe in the superstitous and /or supernatural?

LG, your prose wanders around various subjects, but is merely allegory.

Your post falls on the first hurdle too, 'In regards to any knowable object...'

You didn't establish what was 'knowable' before going off to use an analogy.

You also seem to imply from the title of your post that atheism is an active viewpoint. That is not so, people who have never considered the existance of god are atheists, so you seem to be falling into the same old trap of attributing more to the term than is correct.

Imagine a being that is physically and cognitively much more powerful than we are. There is no way in the world that we can study them through a controlled experiment.
Sure you can. Just randomly divide the people in hospitals into two large groups. Have people pray to a deity asking for one group to get better. Compare the results between the two groups. If the group that is prayed for recovers/survives better with any statistical significance, you have evidence that your deity exists and answers prayers. If there isn't any difference then you have evidence that either your deity doesn't exist, or it doesn't answer prays asking for people in hospitals to be healed. However it turns out, congratulations - you have performed a controlled experiment that has given you more information about our proposed deity.

Sure you can. Just randomly divide the people in hospitals into two large groups. Have people pray to a deity asking for one group to get better. Compare the results between the two groups. If the group that is prayed for recovers/survives better with any statistical significance, you have evidence that your deity exists and answers prayers. If there isn't any difference then you have evidence that either your deity doesn't exist, or it doesn't answer prays asking for people in hospitals to be healed. However it turns out, congratulations - you have performed a controlled experiment that has given you more information about our proposed deity.

Is that true? Suppose I divide a group of people [e.g. cancer patients] into two groups: I give them a treatment that I believe is good for cancer. Out of 1000 people only one person is cured. Did the treatment work? Did it fail?

Is that true? Suppose I divide a group of people [e.g. cancer patients] into two groups: I give them a treatment that I believe is good for cancer. Out of 1000 people only one person is cured. Did the treatment work? Did it fail?

Too simplicistic. You are not allowing for spontaneous remission, the fact that some patients may have been incorrectly diagnosed and a host of other factors.

You should think a bit more become asking silly questions. ! Are you aware of what it nmeans to have control groups, double-blinfd trials and so on ?

Ina nutshell, your question makes no sense, so it cannot be answered.

There has never been a phenomenon which required us to say, "Well, this is not consistent with the Laws of Nature, so there must be an unobservable, illogical supernatural universe full of beings who capriciously toy with the workings of the natural universe just to assert their superiority."

Do you think that this is what religions say - "Well, this is not consistent with the Laws of Nature, so there must be an unobservable, illogical supernatural universe full of beings who capriciously toy with the workings of the natural universe just to assert their superiority." -? And that every person who believes in God thinks that way?



At this point in history the assertion that there is a supernatural universe inhabited by supernatural creatures qualifies as an extraordinary assertion. The Rule of Laplace (another component of the scientific method) insists that it must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence, before anyone is obligated to treat it with respect.

What would be such extraordinary evidence that science would accept?
I mean, how could they even recognize it as evidence, if it is extraordinary?



To date the only evidence is hearsay, dreams and other revelations that defy corroboration, and preprogrammed instincts manifested in the archetypes of mythology that comprise a portion of the collective unconscious.

So much for accepting the extraordinary ...

Is that true? Suppose I divide a group of people [e.g. cancer patients] into two groups: I give them a treatment that I believe is good for cancer. Out of 1000 people only one person is cured. Did the treatment work? Did it fail?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Are you saying that 1 person in the treated group survives and zero people in the untreated group survive? If that's what you mean then no, the treatment probably did not work. You might want to look up "statistical significance calculations" for details on how you determine whether or not something was a real effect or simply random chance.

Do you think that this is what religions say - "Well, this is not consistent with the Laws of Nature, so there must be an unobservable, illogical supernatural universe full of beings who capriciously toy with the workings of the natural universe just to assert their superiority." -? And that every person who believes in God thinks that way?
Not all of them, surely, but a very very large number. Just look around at this board for all the people who try to argue that god must exist because science can't explain where species came from, or how the universe got here, or any number of other things that theists want to attribute to the supernatural.

What would be such extraordinary evidence that science would accept? I mean, how could they even recognize it as evidence, if it is extraordinary?
By "extraordinary" he simply means evidence that is extraordinarily convincing. Things like people with missing limbs regrowing them when they pray to a certain god, followers of a certain god who are able to consistently make specific, unambiguous prophecies about the future, or other things along that line.



So much for accepting the extraordinary ...
Such subjective internal experiences are very unconvincing for most people. They are not extraordinarily convincing.

Sure you can. Just randomly divide the people in hospitals into two large groups. Have people pray to a deity asking for one group to get better. Compare the results between the two groups. If the group that is prayed for recovers/survives better with any statistical significance, you have evidence that your deity exists and answers prayers. If there isn't any difference then you have evidence that either your deity doesn't exist, or it doesn't answer prays asking for people in hospitals to be healed. However it turns out, congratulations - you have performed a controlled experiment that has given you more information about our proposed deity.
and what happens every time a proper study is conducted? Right god comes out dead even. Look at the 2006 Harvard study.

and what happens every time a proper study is conducted? Right god comes out dead even. Look at the 2006 Harvard study.
Yes, there have been a number of studies that tried to show a connection between prayer and recovery. All failed.

Yes, there have been a number of studies that tried to show a connection between prayer and recovery. All failed.

Yes they did and will continue to do so because
A) there is no god
B)a god exists but ignores us
If there is a third rational reason I'd love to hear it. But I don't really expect to.:rolleyes:

Do you think that this is what religions say - "Well, this is not consistent with the Laws of Nature, so there must be an unobservable, illogical supernatural universe full of beings who capriciously toy with the workings of the natural universe just to assert their superiority." -? And that every person who believes in God thinks that way?




What would be such extraordinary evidence that science would accept?
I mean, how could they even recognize it as evidence, if it is extraordinary?




So much for accepting the extraordinary ...


When I see a man going to Lourdes with one leg and coming back with two, I'll believe in miracles. Let's face it, one miracle is as easy as another.

and what happens every time a proper study is conducted? Right god comes out dead even. Look at the 2006 Harvard study.

That's because the Romas and the Jews put Jesus to death. You have the proof but you won't accept it.

That's because the Romas and the Jews put Jesus to death. You have the proof but you won't accept it.

A person who never existed was "put to death" and that's why (you claim) god doesn't answer prayers. Sure:rolleyes:

A person who never existed was "put to death" and that's why (you claim) god doesn't answer prayers. Sure:rolleyes:

I'll pray for you, my son. Do you read the word of god in the Holy Bible ?

I'll pray for you, my son. Do you read the word of god in the Holy Bible ?

You are not the only person wasting his/her time on prayer. I no longer read the bible- it's not real, factual, or even entertaining. For the record I don't read much other fiction either.

That's because the Romas and the Jews put Jesus to death. You have the proof but you won't accept it."Proof" of what??? We have no proof that Jesus was even an actual historical figure! All we ever had to support it were the writings of Josephus, and that portion of his work was proven to be a forgery in the last half of the 20th century.

All we have "proof" of is that the Christians "put Jesus to life," as it were, by believing in his existence despite the lack of decent evidence.

It's one thing to believe in your own fairytale. It's quite another to base your opinion of an entire ethnic group on the role you imagine that they played in your fairytale. This is one of the myriad things that should make any rational person absolutely LOATHE religion. Throughout the past millennium and a half, there have actually been people--lots of them--who hated and persecuted Jews because, in their fairytale version of history, the Jews killed a person who only existed in that fairytale.

I've got a great idea. Let's make up a new religion, and in our fairytale the Christians murdered Winnie the Pooh. Then we can persecute them.

Wait a minute... thinking back on my favorite Saturday morning kids' shows...the Christians actually DID kill Pee-Wee Herman! Not Paul Reubens, but Pee-Wee, with their intolerance and narrow-mindedness. We loved Pee-Wee. Even though my wife and I were in our 40s, we always looked forward to catching his show and we were really pissed off when it was canceled.

It's time to start persecuting Christians! We've got a really good excuse! They killed Pee-Wee! Spread the word! Put them in ghettoes! It doesn't matter if Pee-Wee is imaginary, he's exactly as real as Jesus!

"Proof" of what??? We have no proof that Jesus was even an actual historical figure! All we ever had to support it were the writings of Josephus, and that portion of his work was proven to be a forgery in the last half of the 20th century.

All we have "proof" of is that the Christians "put Jesus to life," as it were, by believing in his existence despite the lack of decent evidence.

It's one thing to believe in your own fairytale. It's quite another to base your opinion of an entire ethnic group on the role you imagine that they played in your fairytale. This is one of the myriad things that should make any rational person absolutely LOATHE religion. Throughout the past millennium and a half, there have actually been people--lots of them--who hated and persecuted Jews because, in their fairytale version of history, the Jews killed a person who only existed in that fairytale.

I've got a great idea. Let's make up a new religion, and in our fairytale the Christians murdered Winnie the Pooh. Then we can persecute them.

Roger that.

phlogistician

LG, your prose wanders around various subjects, but is merely allegory.
why?


Your post falls on the first hurdle too, 'In regards to any knowable object...'

You didn't establish what was 'knowable' before going off to use an analogy.
you have serious doubts whether atheism establishes god as knowable or not?
I mean surely in 4000+ posts you have seen (and probably even mentioned some yourself) a few means that atheists use to determine how there is no proof for god


You also seem to imply from the title of your post that atheism is an active viewpoint.
ditto above

Snake River Rufus


“
Originally Posted by snake river rufus
and what happens every time a proper study is conducted? Right god comes out dead even. Look at the 2006 Harvard study.
”
Yes, there have been a number of studies that tried to show a connection between prayer and recovery. All failed.

Myles


When I see a man going to Lourdes with one leg and coming back with two, I'll believe in miracles. Let's face it, one miracle is as easy as another.

you would expect different results from an irrational methodology?
:rolleyes:

Nasor

“

Imagine a being that is physically and cognitively much more powerful than we are. There is no way in the world that we can study them through a controlled experiment.
”
Sure you can. Just randomly divide the people in hospitals into two large groups. Have people pray to a deity asking for one group to get better. Compare the results between the two groups. If the group that is prayed for recovers/survives better with any statistical significance, you have evidence that your deity exists and answers prayers. If there isn't any difference then you have evidence that either your deity doesn't exist, or it doesn't answer prays asking for people in hospitals to be healed. However it turns out, congratulations - you have performed a controlled experiment that has given you more information about our proposed deity.
god is cognitively superior to us ... not a prayer machine or something

Maybe your issue is more with the necessity of suffering in the material world. There are other threads that deal with that ....

"Proof" of what??? We have no proof that Jesus was even an actual historical figure! All we ever had to support it were the writings of Josephus, and that portion of his work was proven to be a forgery in the last half of the 20th century.

All we have "proof" of is that the Christians "put Jesus to life," as it were, by believing in his existence despite the lack of decent evidence.

It's one thing to believe in your own fairytale. It's quite another to base your opinion of an entire ethnic group on the role you imagine that they played in your fairytale. This is one of the myriad things that should make any rational person absolutely LOATHE religion. Throughout the past millennium and a half, there have actually been people--lots of them--who hated and persecuted Jews because, in their fairytale version of history, the Jews killed a person who only existed in that fairytale.

I've got a great idea. Let's make up a new religion, and in our fairytale the Christians murdered Winnie the Pooh. Then we can persecute them.

Repent before it is too late.Believe and you will be spared the torments of the Lake of Fire.,

All Praise the Son of God !

Snake River Rufus


LG, are you really claiming that it is rational to believe in the superstitous and /or supernatural?
I am claiming that the atheistic methodology for determining god as an "object" is irrational since it obviously only works in paradigms for examining things inferior to us.

Fraggle


You need to go back for your second year of university classes. Your understanding of science and the scientific method is woefully incomplete. (Or if you're impatient a quick read of the Wikipedia article on "Experiments" will fill in some of the gaps while you're waiting for the fall quarter to start.)

The controlled experiment is only one type of experiment. There is also the field experiment, in which control is limited.
so there is an element of control, yes?


Then there is the natural experiment (less reverentially called the quasi-experiment), in which one must settle for observing the variables of the system under study and the only "control" is the diligent search for instances of the system that maximize the scope of combinations of values.
so there is an element of control, yes?


Furthermore, observational studies can be used in lieu of experimentation, and a thorough study of the scientific method will turn up several other acceptable methods for testing a hypothesis when experimentation is impossible.
all of which involve having a controllable element ....



Astronomy is arguably the oldest science. Yet its "experiments" are clearly not controlled and much of its body of knowledge is derived from passive observation. Nonetheless its theories are among the most trusted tenets of human knowledge. Even the most ardent religionists accept as "fact" (a poor choice of words but more on that in a moment) that the moon will be full this coming November 13. No one questions the wisdom of the government engineers who spend millions of our tax dollars preparing for the launch of a rocket to another planet based on astronomical predictions of the date when it will be closest to earth, not even those who vehemently question the cost-effectiveness of the space program and would be expected to raise every conceivable objection.
Basically anything that involves measurement involves control. I thought the eg about the sun (and as it compares to god) in the OP made that clear



So it is a fallacy to state that we feel that we know something only after performing controlled experiments. We "know" just as well as you do that the sun will come up tomorrow morning.
ditto above


If you're working up to an assault on science-based refusal to believe in gods and other supernatural phenomena, this is based on a different component of the scientific method, not precisely the requirement for experimentation.

The fundamental principle of science is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.
if you can say it in your own words, you should be able to read it in others


It's important to recognize that this principle is not taken on faith, but rather that the scientific method is recursive. This principle has been tested exhaustively for five hundred years, and more casually for many centuries before that, and it has never been disproved. Our understanding of the natural universe has grown steadily and mightily since the Enlightenment; its mysteries continue to yield to the scientific method. There has never been a phenomenon which required us to say, "Well, this is not consistent with the Laws of Nature, so there must be an unobservable, illogical supernatural universe full of beings who capriciously toy with the workings of the natural universe just to assert their superiority."
there are however two points that cannot be empirically determined, even in principle (as mentioned in the OP)


This is the basis for scientific atheism. At this point in history the assertion that there is a supernatural universe inhabited by supernatural creatures qualifies as an extraordinary assertion. The Rule of Laplace (another component of the scientific method) insists that it must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence, before anyone is obligated to treat it with respect.

so given this statement


The fundamental principle of science is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived from empirical observation of its present and past behavior

and the information presented in the OP (namely the inherent limitations of that methodology), certain problems ensue ... namely how can we determine the nature of something that is cognitively and physically greater than ourselves


To date the only evidence is hearsay, dreams and other revelations that defy corroboration, and preprogrammed instincts manifested in the archetypes of mythology that comprise a portion of the collective unconscious.

so how would this solve the problem of studying something cognitively and physically superior to ourselves?

.. namely how can we determine the nature of something that is cognitively and physically greater than ourselves How do dogs do it, with people?

Empty question anyway - if we can't determine anything about its nature or even establish its existence, asserting that it is "cognitively and physically greater than ourselves" is obviously just talking.

lightgigantic:


In regards to any knowable object, it is commonly understood that because of the way something exists it can be known in a certain way.
For example heat and cold. Due to its nature, it is perceived in certain ways (i.e. with thermometers). If you want to know what time it is, you can stare at a thermometer all day ...yet you will not be enlightened.

Notice, however, that many of the most useful scientific instruments (thermometers included) work by extending our "natural" perception, often from one mode to another. Thus, a thermometer, for example, can translate heat concepts from the realm of feeling to sight. A microscope allows us to see things that were previously invisible.


Imagine a being that is physically and cognitively much more powerful than we are. There is no way in the world that we can study them through a controlled experiment.

Astronomers, for example, have to cope with that problem all the time. So do historians. And yet, we still know about the universe and about history.


Another is it’s not possible for one to have experienced one’s own conception, therefore one cannot speak with absolute certainty where one came from. When something is the source of something else (in the biological sense) it sets up an epistemological relationship (a relationship of knowability). If I produce something, I know what I produce, but the product cannot know.

Another wonder of the scientific method is that we have been able to deduce the operation of processes that apply generally, such as evolution. One does not need to know the details of one's own conception in order to deduce how humans in general are conceived.


There is something tragically comic about going out in the universe wielding the controlled experiment as the primary means of knowing and coming back reporting there is nothing out there but things we can control.

It's a good thing that scientists have other tools at their disposal, then.


The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you.

How can spirituality give you reliable knowledge?

How do dogs do it, with people?
so if you asked an american dog who was, say, the president of the USA, they could give an accurate answer?
I mean seriously, you don't see how cognitive horizons of a dog make for a mostly incomplete picture of human affairs?


Empty question anyway - if we can't determine anything about its nature or even establish its existence, asserting that it is "cognitively and physically greater than ourselves" is obviously just talking.
the issue is that you can't establish that with the controlled experiment... so its kind of like calling upon a thermometer to tell us what time it is.

phlogistician

why?

Because it's all allegeorical?


you have serious doubts whether atheism establishes god as knowable or not?

It's not the job of atheists or atheism to do that. Atheists simply do not believe in god. It's not a quest to prove the contrary viewpoint to theism, as too many theists see it, it's just a null position on the subject.


I mean surely in 4000+ posts you have seen (and probably even mentioned some yourself) a few means that atheists use to determine how there is no proof for god

Like I said, atheism isn't a quest for proof of anything. It seems you don't understand what atheism is, and hence your rambling and badly thought out posts.

JamesR


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In regards to any knowable object, it is commonly understood that because of the way something exists it can be known in a certain way.
For example heat and cold. Due to its nature, it is perceived in certain ways (i.e. with thermometers). If you want to know what time it is, you can stare at a thermometer all day ...yet you will not be enlightened.
”
Notice, however, that many of the most useful scientific instruments (thermometers included) work by extending our "natural" perception, often from one mode to another. Thus, a thermometer, for example, can translate heat concepts from the realm of feeling to sight. A microscope allows us to see things that were previously invisible.
Well thats how empiricism "works" isn't it?
What else do you expect?
That claims of love be clarified with a tape measure?
:bugeye:


“
Imagine a being that is physically and cognitively much more powerful than we are. There is no way in the world that we can study them through a controlled experiment.
”
Astronomers, for example, have to cope with that problem all the time. So do historians. And yet, we still know about the universe and about history.
Astronomers cope with the problem of studying objects cognitively greater than themselves?



“
Another is it’s not possible for one to have experienced one’s own conception, therefore one cannot speak with absolute certainty where one came from. When something is the source of something else (in the biological sense) it sets up an epistemological relationship (a relationship of knowability). If I produce something, I know what I produce, but the product cannot know.
”
Another wonder of the scientific method is that we have been able to deduce the operation of processes that apply generally, such as evolution. One does not need to know the details of one's own conception in order to deduce how humans in general are conceived.
and also an examination of the past 50 years of say, deductions about the age of the universe, tends to confirm the level of certainty in such fields


“
There is something tragically comic about going out in the universe wielding the controlled experiment as the primary means of knowing and coming back reporting there is nothing out there but things we can control.
”
It's a good thing that scientists have other tools at their disposal, then.
none of which can hope to approach a subject that is physically and cognitively greater than themselves


“
The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you.
”
How can spirituality give you reliable knowledge?
if you think that the words "reliable" and "empirical" are synonymous, this will not go anywhere

phlogistician

why?
”
Because it's all allegeorical?
and?
I mean using allegory is a valuable tool in communication and making an issue comprehensible, don't you think?


“
you have serious doubts whether atheism establishes god as knowable or not?
”
It's not the job of atheists or atheism to do that.
I know.
Yet for some reason they take it upon themselves


Atheists simply do not believe in god. It's not a quest to prove the contrary viewpoint to theism, as too many theists see it, it's just a null position on the subject.

yet here you are, to inform the world
:rolleyes:
“

I mean surely in 4000+ posts you have seen (and probably even mentioned some yourself) a few means that atheists use to determine how there is no proof for god
”
Like I said, atheism isn't a quest for proof of anything. It seems you don't understand what atheism is, and hence your rambling and badly thought out posts.
tell me once again how god doesn't exist.

:D

I mean seriously, you don't see how cognitive horizons of a dog make for a mostly incomplete picture of human affairs? So? Who needs "complete" ? Your contention was that the cognitively and physically "greater" were forever completely beyond our investigations or reasoning, that we could learn nothing about them.

Empty question anyway - if we can't determine anything about its nature or even establish its existence, asserting that it is "cognitively and physically greater than ourselves" is obviously just talking.
”
the issue is that you can't establish that with the controlled experiment... s No, the issue is that given such condition (claimed by you) you can't establish that in any way whatsoever. Hence "empty".

and?
I mean using allegory is a valuable tool in communication and making an issue comprehensible, don't you think?

No I don't think. I think you should make clear concise statements about the subject, not try and prove one thing by discussing another.


I know.
Yet for some reason they take it upon themselves

No, that's just you claiming they do.


yet here you are, to inform the world
:rolleyes:

I'm just clearing up after you stuffing that straw man. You make claims about atheists that are false. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong.


tell me once again how god doesn't exist.

:D

I haven't told you once before, so I cannot do it again. That's you making claims, and stuffing that straw man again.

Now, say something honest, and we'll see if we can find a debate here.

But in terms of knowing that it is an arm, that it belongs to a body, that it belongs to a particular body etc etc .... all this is beyond the ants cognitive horizons .One does not need to be able to conceive and understand something in its entirety to understand components of it or that something is occurring. If the effects of something can be experienced and measured its existence can be detected.

To borrow your analogy, if one periodically dropped food near an ant mount the ants would quickly discern that something was changing their environment in a way that was beneficial for them. Indeed they do respond to such stimulus even though they are incapable of understanding or even conceiving a sentient human. We can take the analogy further and speculate that conscious ants might even develop religion, praying and building alters to an unknowable deity in hopes of eliciting a response. If indeed one decided to respond to such behavior, offering food more often or only to those who did, the ants would easily be able to determine that something was indeed occurring even if they didn't know how or exactly why.


Another is it’s not possible for one to have experienced one’s own conception, therefore one cannot speak with absolute certainty where one came from. When something is the source of something else (in the biological sense) it sets up an epistemological relationship (a relationship of knowability). If I produce something, I know what I produce, but the product cannot know.You mistake the difference between experience and knowledge here. While it may be impossible, due to temporal restrictions, for one to have direct experience of one's conception there are other methods of obtaining knowledge. See FR's excellent post.


When I choose a particular process to know, the very choice of a method predetermines the range and extent of things I can know. If I chose the thermometer as an instrument, that predetermines what I can know ( namely temperatures).This much is indeed true, though I had to excise the first sentence. Knowledge is not limited to that which is inferior or less than us. Valuations such as "less" or "inferior" are ethical determinations in the first place and have no bearing on upon epistemology. The universe is certainly "greater" and "superior" to us in many regards. It is likely that we will never be able to understand or conceive of it in its entirety. Yet we still have knowledge of it. Indeed there is nothing that we have complete knowledge of. I can ascertain the existence of an apple on my desk yet it is impossible to know it in its entirety (quantum states, history of its component atoms through time, etc, etc, etc).


The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you.If spirituality is indeed an epistemologically valid method of obtaining knowledge where are its results? What are the facts thusly derived and where is the evidence to support its assertions?

~Raithere

There is evidence of spirituality in the insect world. Who has not heard of the PRAYING MANTIS ?

There is evidence of spirituality in the insect world. Who has not heard of the PRAYING MANTIS ?

They fake it, they never close their eyes.

If you want to know what time it is, you can stare at a thermometer all day ...yet you will not be enlightened.


There's a problem with this analogy, as there is some relationship between time of day and temperature.

Yes, there have been a number of studies that tried to show a connection between prayer and recovery. All failed.

What such studies tend to fail to take into account is that spiritual practice is not about improving physical health just for the sake of it.
In traditional Buddhist meditation, for example, it is clearly pointed out that one should not meditate for the sake of improving one's physical health. Improved physical health may be a side-effect of meditation, but it is not the goal of meditation.

From what I have seen of those studies researching the effects of prayer and meditation, the researches either had a vastly different conception of life, the mind/body connection than the studied subjects and as such could not take this difference into account, or the studied subjects had a materialistic conception of life, the mind/body connection to begin with.

My pointing this out might seem like a cop-out. My point is, however, that if we study something with criteria which are extraneous to it, surely we won't get meaningful results or it will seem that the study failed.
People normally do not measure time with thermometers. But somehow, many people think it would be okay to study spiritual practice by employing non-spiritual criteria!

They fake it, they never close their eyes.

Good 'un ! lmao

There's a problem with this analogy, as there is some relationship between time of day and temperature.

Rubbish. When the temperature peaks, you will know it is midday.

Rubbish. When the temperature peaks, you will know it is midday.


What's rubbish?

Your poor ability at reading comprehension?

What such studies tend to fail to take into account is that spiritual practice is not about improving physical health just for the sake of it.
In traditional Buddhist meditation, for example, it is clearly pointed out that one should not meditate for the sake of improving one's physical health. Improved physical health may be a side-effect of meditation, but it is not the goal of meditation.

From what I have seen of those studies researching the effects of prayer and meditation, the researches either had a vastly different conception of life, the mind/body connection than the studied subjects and as such could not take this difference into account, or the studied subjects had a materialistic conception of life, the mind/body connection to begin with.

My pointing this out might seem like a cop-out. My point is, however, that if we study something with criteria which are extraneous to it, surely we won't get meaningful results or it will seem that the study failed.
People normally do not measure time with thermometers. But somehow, many people think it would be okay to study spiritual practice by employing non-spiritual criteria!

You are overlookink a small detail. People who take part in these experiments believe in the power of prayer. That is why they pray in the first instance.When the result is a lemon, they will have some get-out clause that takes the form of "god knows best " so their prayers were not answered for a reason. They cannot, of course, say what the reason is.

What's rubbish?

Your poor ability at reading comprehension?

You are obviously not cut out to be a scientist, Try this;

Sit outdoors with a thermometer which is shaded from direct sunlight. Use graph paper and a pencil to plot time on the x axis and temperature on the y axis. Plot temp against time at intervals until temperature peaks indicating midday. The rest is easy. Continue plotting and at sunset join up the dots and divide tour graph into an equal number of segments. 12 is useful in this respect. Now , from your midday point, you will have am to the left and pm to the right. Simple.

This method was used with great success by Colonel Percy Fawcwett during a trans-Saharan expedition when his watch was trodden on by a camel, as he performed his morning ablutions.

What such studies tend to fail to take into account is that spiritual practice is not about improving physical health just for the sake of it.
In traditional Buddhist meditation, for example, it is clearly pointed out that one should not meditate for the sake of improving one's physical health. Improved physical health may be a side-effect of meditation, but it is not the goal of meditation.

From what I have seen of those studies researching the effects of prayer and meditation, the researches either had a vastly different conception of life, the mind/body connection than the studied subjects and as such could not take this difference into account, or the studied subjects had a materialistic conception of life, the mind/body connection to begin with.

My pointing this out might seem like a cop-out. My point is, however, that if we study something with criteria which are extraneous to it, surely we won't get meaningful results or it will seem that the study failed.
People normally do not measure time with thermometers. But somehow, many people think it would be okay to study spiritual practice by employing non-spiritual criteria!

That's not the point of the tests for prayer. They are not testing wether prayer or mediation helps the person who practices it. The people praying for quick recovery were other volunteers. Most people do accept that prayer or meditation can have physical and psychological benefits.

What's rubbish?

Your poor ability at reading comprehension?

Do you make allowances for poor eyesight ? Your manner of posting and the sentiments you express are so like LG's that I have difficulty telling you apart.

You are obviously not cut out to be a scientist,


Maybe not, but I'd suggest for your own sake you steer clear of the laboratory (and the road for that matter).


Your manner of posting and the sentiments you express are so like LG's that I have difficulty telling you apart.


Are you sure your reading the posts right?

LG,


How much more is the burden on us to make an impression on god? I mean suppose you entered an application interview for a graduate school and said “If you’re really lucky I may go here, and if you really want me, I’ll let you try and convince me that you are worth my trouble – go ahead I will give you five minutes” ... that’s probably not the best way.
Yet with something infinitely greater than graduate school , god, some people do exactly that. Like, “ ok if god exists I’ll give him two minutes.... I want to see a flash of light some thunder ... go ahead god , impress me”And when that doesn’t work we move onto more appropriate questions of how do we even know this entity even exists if it won’t show itself? There really is little point in trying to impress something where there is no meaningful degree of certainty that it actually exists.

The graduate school comparison fails in that we know its existence, protocol, and requirements is a certainty. Not so with an imagined entity.

LG,


The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you.That’s fine but you have no mechanism that shows that spirituality contains any truth or is a viable mechanism for establishing knowledge. Empiricism can.

Why ever choose an alleged mechanism that has a zero track record of success over one that has been shown to be phenomenally successful?

lg,

If we are to a god what an ant is to a human then there can be no mechanism for us to know such a god. The chasm is too huge.

Maybe not, but I'd suggest for your own sake you steer clear of the laboratory (and the road for that matter).




Are you sure your reading the posts right?

I'm reading the posts right,right.Next time I'll explain how to find outwhere you are with an analogue watch.

“ Raithere



Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But in terms of knowing that it is an arm, that it belongs to a body, that it belongs to a particular body etc etc .... all this is beyond the ants cognitive horizons . ”
One does not need to be able to conceive and understand something in its entirety to understand components of it or that something is occurring. If the effects of something can be experienced and measured its existence can be detected.
Hence measurement is the first aspect of control. Being able to measure something is what distinguishes between something we can and cannot control in principle


To borrow your analogy, if one periodically dropped food near an ant mount the ants would quickly discern that something was changing their environment in a way that was beneficial for them. Indeed they do respond to such stimulus even though they are incapable of understanding or even conceiving a sentient human. We can take the analogy further and speculate that conscious ants might even develop religion, praying and building alters to an unknowable deity in hopes of eliciting a response. If indeed one decided to respond to such behavior, offering food more often or only to those who did, the ants would easily be able to determine that something was indeed occurring even if they didn't know how or exactly why.
It’s not clear how this analogy addresses a point of any different than what was originally offered – namely the limitations of empirical methods in determining the nature of something cognitive and physically greater than ourselves
“
Another is it’s not possible for one to have experienced one’s own conception, therefore one cannot speak with absolute certainty where one came from. When something is the source of something else (in the biological sense) it sets up an epistemological relationship (a relationship of knowability). If I produce something, I know what I produce, but the product cannot know. ”
You mistake the difference between experience and knowledge here. While it may be impossible, due to temporal restrictions, for one to have direct experience of one's conception there are other methods of obtaining knowledge. See FR's excellent post.
And I responded, you just have to examine the history of that knowledge to determine how reliable it is … especially in comparison to experience.
For instance who do you think would be in a better position to determine the actual age of the universe?
Someone who was actually present there are the time or someone who is trying to make a guess by extrapolation?
I mean, why are eye witnesses such an important element in legal proceedings?

“
When I choose a particular process to know, the very choice of a method predetermines the range and extent of things I can know. If I chose the thermometer as an instrument, that predetermines what I can know ( namely temperatures). ”
This much is indeed true, though I had to excise the first sentence. Knowledge is not limited to that which is inferior or less than us. Valuations such as "less" or "inferior" are ethical determinations in the first place and have no bearing on upon epistemology.
So ants are in just as good a position to be knowledgeable about human affairs as humans?


The universe is certainly "greater" and "superior" to us in many regards. It is likely that we will never be able to understand or conceive of it in its entirety. Yet we still have knowledge of it.
Sure
Just like an ant has knowledge of hairs, freckles etc


Indeed there is nothing that we have complete knowledge of.
There is the issue however of which methodologies give a more complete run down than others - I mean you can determine compass points with an analogue watch, but most seafarers would prefer a compass


I can ascertain the existence of an apple on my desk yet it is impossible to know it in its entirety (quantum states, history of its component atoms through time, etc, etc, etc).
The cognitively inferior aspect of an apple certainly makes your investigations easier
“
The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you. ”
If spirituality is indeed an epistemologically valid method of obtaining knowledge where are its results?
In practice, just like any other epistemology


What are the facts thusly derived and where is the evidence to support its assertions?
Never encountered a normative description within scripture or encountered a claim of appositive result from following such normative descriptions?

“ Phlogistician


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and?
I mean using allegory is a valuable tool in communication and making an issue comprehensible, don't you think? ”
No I don't think. I think you should make clear concise statements about the subject, not try and prove one thing by discussing another.
Even science uses allegory when presenting issues with persons who can’t/won’t accept concise statements eg “the earth is like an orange and the moon is like a ping pong ball and when it orbits the earth it ….. blah blah blah”
“
I know.
Yet for some reason they take it upon themselves ”
No, that's just you claiming they do.
Unless you have been busy deleting your 4000+ posts on sci, your claims on the subject are quite apparent
“
yet here you are, to inform the world

”
I'm just clearing up after you stuffing that straw man. You make claims about atheists that are false. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong.
…. and lo and behold, part of that enlightening gesture involves clearly explaining how god does not exist
:rolleyes:
“
tell me once again how god doesn't exist.


”
I haven't told you once before, so I cannot do it again. That's you making claims, and stuffing that straw man again.

Now, say something honest, and we'll see if we can find a debate here.

“ …. people who have never considered the existance of god are atheists”

Yet you spend your time on a religious forum to make this point clear?
seriously?
Give me a break ....
:rolleyes:

Cris



If we are to a god what an ant is to a human then there can be no mechanism for us to know such a god. The chasm is too huge.
Physically the chasm is too huge
Cognitively it isn’t (hence the eg of the graduate application)



“
The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you. ”
That’s fine but you have no mechanism that shows that spirituality contains any truth or is a viable mechanism for establishing knowledge.
What makes you say that?


Empiricism can.
Albeit to things cognitively and physically inferior to us


Why ever choose an alleged mechanism that has a zero track record of success over one that has been shown to be phenomenally successful?
It only scores a zero for as long as one is relying on empirical standards – kind of like a thermometer scores a zero for as long as one is trying to determine the time with it



“
How much more is the burden on us to make an impression on god? I mean suppose you entered an application interview for a graduate school and said “If you’re really lucky I may go here, and if you really want me, I’ll let you try and convince me that you are worth my trouble – go ahead I will give you five minutes” ... that’s probably not the best way.
Yet with something infinitely greater than graduate school , god, some people do exactly that. Like, “ ok if god exists I’ll give him two minutes.... I want to see a flash of light some thunder ... go ahead god , impress me” ”
And when that doesn’t work we move onto more appropriate questions of how do we even know this entity even exists if it won’t show itself?
We conduct an experiment based on what we would assume to be knowable about it – that is how it worked for brown dwarfs and that is how it doesn’t work with trying to tell the time from a thermometer.


There really is little point in trying to impress something where there is no meaningful degree of certainty that it actually exists.
There is even less point in trying to validate how something can’t possibly exist by methodologies that would fail to determine it even if it did.


The graduate school comparison fails in that we know its existence, protocol, and requirements is a certainty. Not so with an imagined entity.
That’s why we can determine that this approach ….

““If you’re really lucky I may go here, and if you really want me, I’ll let you try and convince me that you are worth my trouble – go ahead I will give you five minutes”

…. won’t work

“ Deep Thought


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you want to know what time it is, you can stare at a thermometer all day ...yet you will not be enlightened. ”

There's a problem with this analogy, as there is some relationship between time of day and temperature.
Actually there is a relationship between meteorology and temperature.
To say the least, if one wants to organize their day by thermometer readings it might be worthwhile to seriously consider one’s vocational choices

“ Ice Aura



Originally Posted by LG
I mean seriously, you don't see how cognitive horizons of a dog make for a mostly incomplete picture of human affairs? ”
So? Who needs "complete" ?
Well if the next USA president starts sniffing other people’s butts and publicly urinating on lamp posts, don’t blame me


Your contention was that the cognitively and physically "greater" were forever completely beyond our investigations or reasoning, that we could learn nothing about them.
Actually the contention is that investigating things that are cognitively and physically greater than ourselves is forever completely beyond our investigation as long as we use empirical methods. The example of the graduate application offers an alternative, however

“
Originally Posted by LG
Empty question anyway - if we can't determine anything about its nature or even establish its existence, asserting that it is "cognitively and physically greater than ourselves" is obviously just talking.
”
the issue is that you can't establish that with the controlled experiment... s ”
No, the issue is that given such condition (claimed by you) you can't establish that in any way whatsoever. Hence "empty".
And once again, it only becomes an issue of “not in any way whatsoever” for as long as empiricism is the length and breadth of what one is prepared to investigate with.
And once again, the example of the graduate applicant offers an alternative

That’s fine but you have no mechanism that shows that spirituality contains any truth or is a viable mechanism for establishing knowledge. Empiricism can.

Knowledge of what? What knowledge can I establish using the standard empirical approach? Does the standard empirical approach help me to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life? So far it has failed completely.
The things that are the most important to me, traditional Western science barely addresses.



Why ever choose an alleged mechanism that has a zero track record of success over one that has been shown to be phenomenally successful?

It depends on what knowledge it is that one seeks.

If one seeks knowledge about how to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life, for example, then some religious practices are more successful than anything else, as one can attest by witnessing advanced practitioners.

LG,

That’s fine but you have no mechanism that shows that spirituality contains any truth or is a viable mechanism for establishing knowledge. This is simply not the case. As the least controversial example: meditation has been shown to have all sort of benefits. Further, given that so many spiritual claims have to do with changes in the experience of participants in rituals, disciplines or other spiritual processes, it is without question false to say what you have said above.

Magnificent post, lightgigantic. Magnificent.

Kadark the Spectacle

Actually the contention is that investigating things that are cognitively and physically greater than ourselves is forever completely beyond our investigation as long as we use empirical methods. And the observation was that dogs (and ants) are in fact capable of investigating humans, and learning something about them.

Now are you contending that such investigations are accomplished by other than "empirical methods" - graduate applications, of a kind, maybe?

This is simply not the case. As the least controversial example: meditation has been shown to have all sort of benefits. Further, given that so many spiritual claims have to do with changes in the experience of participants in rituals, disciplines or other spiritual processes, it is without question false to say what you have said above.

I understood that the question of truth was being discussed, not how to make oneself feel more comfortable. Drug users make similar claims abut altered states , insights and so on.

As Marx said, " religion is the opiate of the masses ". It's about fleeing from reality.

Magnificent post, lightgigantic. Magnificent.

Kadark the Spectacle

And he managed it without once quoting the Bhagavad Gita !

Well if the next USA president starts sniffing other people’s butts and publicly urinating on lamp posts, don’t blame me

Actually the contention is that investigating things that are cognitively and physically greater than ourselves is forever completely beyond our investigation as long as we use empirical methods. The example of the graduate application offers an alternative, however

And once again, it only becomes an issue of “not in any way whatsoever” for as long as empiricism is the length and breadth of what one is prepared to investigate with.
And once again, the example of the graduate applicant offers an alternative
Exactly the same can be said for humans investigating ants. We we'll probably never know everything about them, we certainly do not now.
We don't even know all there is to know about ourselves..
Are ants greater than us ?
So where do you get the idea that there is such a being, that can know everything, in the first place ?

And he managed it without once quoting the Bhagavad Gita !
Actually it was a discussion point arising from one line from the Gita
:D

And the observation was that dogs (and ants) are in fact capable of investigating humans, and learning something about them.
what have ants learned about humans?


Now are you contending that such investigations are accomplished by other than "empirical methods" - graduate applications, of a kind, maybe?
sure

what have ants learned about humans?

Probably that they are evil motherfuckers.

Exactly the same can be said for humans investigating ants. We we'll probably never know everything about them, we certainly do not now.
we can know enough about them to be manipulate them on an individual basis


We don't even know all there is to know about ourselves..
Are ants greater than us ?
So where do you get the idea that there is such a being, that can know everything, in the first place ?
If a person told you that you were being manipulated by an ant living under your house, what would you think?

Probably that they are evil motherfuckers.
thats probably something you have learnt

we can know enough about them to be manipulate them on an individual basis


If a person told you that you were being manipulated by an ant living under your house, what would you think?

How would you manipulate an ant ?

thats probably something you have learnt
I don't believe in evil. So what have you learned ?

Besides, God has to manipulate us all at once.
There is a "war" going on between humans and fire ants for years now, the fire ants are winning.

I don't believe in evil. So what have you learned ?
that you are either talking nonsense or have acquired the ability to determine social opinion in ant communities.
I will give you a chance to respond before I make up my mind.
:p

that you are either talking nonsense or have acquired the ability to determine social opinion in ant communities.
I will give you a chance to respond before I make up my mind.
:p
I don't believe I have ever made an assertion about ant opinion. Kindly point out where.. ?

I don't believe I have ever made an assertion about ant opinion. Kindly point out where.. ?


ok there is a third option
you have Alzheimer's
:rolleyes:

ok there is a third option
you have Alzheimer's
:rolleyes:

There's forth: you have poor reading abilities.

What I said was: "Probably that they are evil motherfuckers."
How is that a statement about ant opinion ?

Probably means:
- In all likelyhood, or
- Presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition.

That doesn't sound as though I have determined social opinion in ant communities, does it ?

And lastly, I hope you are just being facetious in pursuing this. Because I was obviously not being serious :rolleyes:

lightgigantic,

You seem to be missing the point. Your argument, that we cannot measure something we cannot control or experience directly, is demonstrably incorrect.

But even if we accept this argument you're left with an epistemological problem you have yet to resolve; how knowledge may be obtained of something we cannot measure. You merely give us the bald assertion that spirituality provides us with an alternate method of obtaining knowledge. I don't know of any argument or evidence that supports this assertion therefore you will need to provide it.

~Raithere

Knowledge of what? What knowledge can I establish using the standard empirical approach? Does the standard empirical approach help me to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life? So far it has failed completely. The things that are the most important to me, traditional Western science barely addresses.That's because you're looking in the wrong place. Instead look to philosophy which addresses these issues very deeply, far more deftly, and more earnestly than most religions. For one, it's not encumbered with authoritative assertions and political accretion. Of course, one must loosen one's hold on the presumption of knowledge.

~Raithere

There's forth: you have poor reading abilities.

What I said was: "Probably that they are evil motherfuckers."
How is that a statement about ant opinion ?

Probably means:
- In all likelyhood, or
- Presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition.

That doesn't sound as though I have determined social opinion in ant communities, does it ?

And lastly, I hope you are just being facetious in pursuing this. Because I was obviously not being serious :rolleyes:

LG doesn't recognize humour because ther are no jokes in the Bhahavad Gita.

That's because you're looking in the wrong place. Instead look to philosophy which addresses these issues very deeply, far more deftly, and more earnestly than most religions.

I have, and have been deeply disappointed.

It is because Western Philosophy has disappointed me so deeply (and continues to do so) that I started looking elsewhere.

[QUOTE=greenberg;1936021]Knowledge of what? What knowledge can I establish using the standard empirical approach? Does the standard empirical approach help me to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life? So far it has failed completely.
The things that are the most important to me, traditional Western science barely addresses.

Then go elsewhere till you find what suits you.

To my mind, the pursuit of knowledge is for its own sake. One cannot lay down conditions in advance.



It depends on what knowledge it is that one seeks.


You are not talking about knowledge in the sense that a philosopher would use that word; you are seeking an information comfort blanket of the kind available in self-help books, mysticism and so on.

If one seeks knowledge about how to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life, for example, then some religious practices are more successful than anything else, as one can attest by witnessing advanced practitioners.

The success or otherwise depends on the disposition of the practitioner; hence the fact that there are so many varieties of religion. So why not simply find something with which you feel comfortable ?

Knowledge of what? What knowledge can I establish using the standard empirical approach? Does the standard empirical approach help me to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life? So far it has failed completely.
The things that are the most important to me, traditional Western science barely addresses.

Then go elsewhere till you find what suits you.

To my mind, the pursuit of knowledge is for its own sake. One cannot lay down conditions in advance.



It depends on what knowledge it is that one seeks.


You are not talking about knowledge in the sense that a philosopher would use that word; you are seeking an information comfort blanket of the kind available in self-help books, mysticism and so on.

If one seeks knowledge about how to find true happiness or a worthy meaning of life, for example, then some religious practices are more successful than anything else, as one can attest by witnessing advanced practitioners.

The success or otherwise depends on the disposition of the practitioner; hence the fact that there are so many varieties of religion. So why not simply find something with which you feel comfortable ?



Myles,

Are you trying to argue with me?

[QUOTE=Myles;1936555]


Myles,

Are you trying to argue with me?

What gave you that idea, How about an exchange of views ?

What gave you that idea, How about an exchange of views ?

An "exchange of views", Myles? When you continually send me away from this forum, telling me to "find my own way" and such?

:bugeye:

An "exchange of views", Myles? When you continually send me away from this forum, telling me to "find my own way" and such?

:bugeye:

I am exchangibg my view with your previously expressed view, he, he

There is no basis for duscussion unless one can agree on some common ground. So here goes:

When I talk of knowledge I am referring to the search for some understanding of the universe in which we find ourselves and what it means to be part of it. This boils dfown to following the question where it leads as opposed to setting a goal and then seeking knowledge which will enable us to arrive there. This approach inevitably involves ignoring or rationalising that which does not fit in with our programme.

I have found no purpose in life other than that which I choose to give it. My life has value because I am part of a loving family, enjoy music, literature and so on. I am comfortable with this.

There is not the slighest shred of what I would regard as evidence to support the notion of a deity. That is why I am an atheist.

I do not deny the role of religion in helping some people get through life but I regard believers as deluded. The only evidence they can adduce is based on personal experience and hearsay, i.e., what they have been told. In my experience, theists take their beliefs for granted. Thinking is not part of their make-up.

I should clarify this by saying that I do not regard Bible scholarship and suchlike as anything more that elucidating what people are predisposed to believe in the first instance.

In general, I view religion as an escape from reality. It represents a submission to superstitious beliefs which cannot be supported by empirical evidence. I have no quarrel withy the religious who quietly get on with their lives. I do have a quarrel with proseltyzers who would have me accept their beliefs which, in the final analysis, they cannot support in a manner which I regard as satisfactory.

I have set out my core beliefs which I have arrived at, not by wishful thinking ,but by observation and reason. Am I wrong ? Probably ,in some respects. as it is human to err. But I make no claims to profound insights of the kind one finds in religious literature.

I have no urge to convert others to my way of thinking but, if a discussion arises, I will defend my beliefs.

That's it !

I have, and have been deeply disappointed.

It is because Western Philosophy has disappointed me so deeply (and continues to do so) that I started looking elsewhere.That seems quite strange to me since Philosophy incorporates views from all religions. Nor does it prescribe anything specifically, one is free to operate freely within the full spectrum of views. Why the disappointment?

~Raithere

Raithere


lightgigantic,

You seem to be missing the point. Your argument, that we cannot measure something we cannot control or experience directly, is demonstrably incorrect.
how?
The only things you indicate that we can control are objects that are physically and/or cognitively inferior to us


But even if we accept this argument you're left with an epistemological problem you have yet to resolve; how knowledge may be obtained of something we cannot measure.
by cognitive reciprocation ... thats what the whole issue of the graduate application was about



You merely give us the bald assertion that spirituality provides us with an alternate method of obtaining knowledge. I don't know of any argument or evidence that supports this assertion therefore you will need to provide it.


well suppose you have a tiny tumor in your intestine (ie something that is beyond your cognitive and physical powers to investigate ... assuming you are not a doctor).
How do you propose to investigate it without cognitive reciprocation?
If you want to see a doctor and tell him he is speaking BS every step of the way, not only will your bill be very expensive (if he charges by the hour) but he also might just simply tell you to go on your merry way .....

That's because you're looking in the wrong place. Instead look to philosophy which addresses these issues very deeply, far more deftly, and more earnestly than most religions. For one, it's not encumbered with authoritative assertions and political accretion. Of course, one must loosen one's hold on the presumption of knowledge.

That seems quite strange to me since Philosophy incorporates views from all religions. Nor does it prescribe anything specifically, one is free to operate freely within the full spectrum of views. Why the disappointment?


aka "moral relativism"
practical for legal issues I guess ...
:o

lightgigantic: Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been a little busy.


unless you studied something that you already knew, the simple act of placing your backside on a certain seat in a certain building or opening a book and sticking your nose in it certainly wasn't what made you get straight A's

It was a behavior that started from kindergarten and continued through till now. That's where the foundation was laid, and that eventually led to the more complex topics learned in higher education. I can't think of anything that I'm missing. The only external consideration that comes to mind is the quality of the professor, but even then if the Prof. was bad I always had the book to rely on.


well thats a bibliography but what about the content?
I mean I'm sure you could mention a few issues of comprehension from your lecture hall days

I'm not sure how to answer the question to be honest. I'm still in my lecture hall days and applying your question to my current classes such as Music Theory or Psychology, I'm still left clueless. Would you mind rephrasing or elaborating? (I suppose this would qualify as an issue of comprehension? :p)


so how does praying "work"?

Er, I'm not too sure on how to answer this further without just pointing you right back to my last post. It's a form of worship to Allah, and the duah at the end is where you ask for forgiveness and blessings. Whether or not the duah comes true or not depends on your character as a Muslim, and Allah's whim. Perhaps one of the Muslims on these boards can clarify?


1. Mental preparation that enables succesful learning
2. Adapting facts to one's abilities
3. Studying the material
4. Memorizing key facts
5. Showing that one knows
6. Assessing how one has learned

I'm sorry, but this list seems like an exercise in redundancy. I mentioned reading, which I thought automatically includes 1, 3 and 4. 5 and 6 are shown through tests, papers and grades as a result of the reading and placing my backside in class. I'm not sure what you mean by 2.

The only things you indicate that we can control are objects that are physically and/or cognitively inferior to usThis is your judgment and assertion, not mine.


by cognitive reciprocationCognitive reciprocation? That's an odd term. But I'd be happy to sit down with God and have a conversation with him if you can arrange one.


well suppose you have a tiny tumor in your intestine (ie something that is beyond your cognitive and physical powers to investigate ... assuming you are not a doctor). How do you propose to investigate it without cognitive reciprocation? Typically I would ask to see the test results, radiographs, ultrasound... whatever it is that lead the Dr. to come to the conclusion that I have a tumor. If they fail to produce any such evidence, I would indeed tell them they are full of shit.

~Raithere

I'm sorry, but this list seems like an exercise in redundancy. I mentioned reading, which I thought automatically includes 1, 3 and 4.

No, it does not ... But -



5 and 6 are shown through tests, papers and grades as a result of the reading and placing my backside in class. I'm not sure what you mean by 2.

I would suggest you read at the sites I've linked to. Apparently you are not aware of what it actually takes to be a good student. Many students are not, both those with good grades and those with bad grades.
And since you study psychology, ask your teacher to discuss with you or suggest to you some reading on learning styles, student productivity and related topics.
You will see that there is a lot more to succeeding at school than just going to lectures and reading.
Similarly, there is a lot more than just "going with your intuition and imitating others" to succeeding in spiritual practice, or in any kind of work or practice, for that matter.

That seems quite strange to me since Philosophy incorporates views from all religions. Nor does it prescribe anything specifically, one is free to operate freely within the full spectrum of views. Why the disappointment?

Why the disappointment?
Primarily the moral and general cognitive relativism espoused by Western Philosophy as a whole. I will not accept such relativism and its consequences, I hold it is immoral, decadent.
Secondly, Western Philosphy promises very little - it doesn't promise Enlightenment, it doesn't promise Liberation from suffering. Any worldview, philosophy, doctrine, teaching that promises less than Enlightenment or Liberation from suffering is not good enough for me.
Thirdly, Western Philosophy directly or indirectly operates on the premise that this one lifetime of about 70 years is all there is to human life. Western Philosophy requires unquestionable faith in death. I've lost that faith long ago.

“ Phlogistician


Even science uses allegory when presenting issues with persons who can’t/won’t accept concise statements eg “the earth is like an orange and the moon is like a ping pong ball and when it orbits the earth it ….. blah blah blah”

That's analogy, not allegory.




Unless you have been busy deleting your 4000+ posts on sci, your claims on the subject are quite apparent

Find a post to back up your claim if there are so many to choose from.



…. and lo and behold, part of that enlightening gesture involves clearly explaining how god does not exist
:rolleyes:

Quit stuffing that straw man.


…. people who have never considered the existance of god are atheists”

Yet you spend your time on a religious forum to make this point clear?
seriously?
Give me a break ....
:rolleyes:

You don't seem to understand the terms of the debate, and prefer to argue loaded terms. I'm just trying to keep you honest.

“ Phlogistician



Even science uses allegory when presenting issues with persons who can’t/won’t accept concise statements eg “the earth is like an orange and the moon is like a ping pong ball and when it orbits the earth it ….. blah blah blah”
”
That's analogy, not allegory.
its a visible symbol representing an abstract idea



“
Unless you have been busy deleting your 4000+ posts on sci, your claims on the subject are quite apparent
”
Find a post to back up your claim if there are so many to choose from.
you've already provided enough on this thread



“
…. and lo and behold, part of that enlightening gesture involves clearly explaining how god does not exist

”
Quit stuffing that straw man.

“
…. people who have never considered the existance of god are atheists”

Yet you spend your time on a religious forum to make this point clear?
seriously?
Give me a break ....

”
You don't seem to understand the terms of the debate, and prefer to argue loaded terms. I'm just trying to keep you honest.
and you're trying to tell me that you have never considered the existence of god on a religious forum?
:rolleyes:

Raithere


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The only things you indicate that we can control are objects that are physically and/or cognitively inferior to us
”
This is your judgment and assertion, not mine.
if you can assert how cognitively inferior things are just as knowledgeable about the affairs of cognitively superior things (like say,ants knowing just as much about human affairs as humans), I would agree


“
by cognitive reciprocation
”
Cognitive reciprocation? That's an odd term. But I'd be happy to sit down with God and have a conversation with him if you can arrange one.
yes, but on your terms, no doubt


“
well suppose you have a tiny tumor in your intestine (ie something that is beyond your cognitive and physical powers to investigate ... assuming you are not a doctor). How do you propose to investigate it without cognitive reciprocation?
”
Typically I would ask to see the test results, radiographs, ultrasound... whatever it is that lead the Dr. to come to the conclusion that I have a tumor.

If they fail to produce any such evidence, I would indeed tell them they are full of shit.

you couldn't distinguish a printing error from a tumor

[QUOTE=greenberg;1937439]Why the disappointment?
Primarily the moral and general cognitive relativism espoused by Western Philosophy as a whole. I will not accept such relativism and its consequences, I hold it is immoral, decadent.
Secondly, Western Philosphy promises very little - it doesn't promise Enlightenment, it doesn't promise Liberation from suffering. Any worldview, philosophy, doctrine, teaching that promises less than Enlightenment or Liberation from suffering is not good enough for me.
Thirdly, Western Philosophy directly or indirectly operates on the premise that this one lifetime of about 70 years is all there is to human life. Western Philosophy requires unquestionable faith in death. I've lost that faith long ago.[/QUOTE


You are seeking Enlighenment and a release from suffering which, as you say. cannot be found in Western philosophy. Why did you expect to find it there ? Your approach to knowledge is based on " if I don't like the conclusion , I will reject the premises ".

This suggests that your view of philosophy is that it shoud tell you what you wish to hear. Well, it doesn't work like that. As I said in an earlier post, you are seeking a comfort blanket rather than knowledge.

We have had the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason which denies superstition and "common sense" in favour of reason. This rules out all the religious nonsense with which mankind has been, and continues to burdened.

I know this is not what you mean by enlightenment . You seem to believe that knowledge can be gained other than by reason. I don't believe it can.

I am not convinced by Eastern philosophy/religion which promises what it cannot deliver. In particular, I find the Buddhist definition of suffering totally unacceptable. Suffering is equated with being alive, and certain practices promise release from rebirth at some stage.

I regard all this as nonsense because there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

You are right, therefore, when you say that Western philosophy rejects the notion of rebirtrh. Tell us what evidence you have to show that is a wrong view.

You seem to believe that knowledge can be gained other than by reason. I don't believe it can.
Define "knowledge".
You can have knowledge of something without understanding it with your intellectual faculties.
There isn't a problem with trying to frame something that can't be framed, or with using empty or other kinds of vessels to convey meaning. But meaning is for our minds, our minds don't do more than contemplate meaning, including the meaning of their own meaningfulness, whatever that is.

What does an elephant see in a Picasso, or hear in a Bizet or Bach?

Define "knowledge".
You can have knowledge of something without understanding it with your intellectual faculties.
There isn't a problem with trying to frame something that can't be framed, or with using empty or other kinds of vessels to convey meaning. But meaning is for our minds, our minds don't do more than contemplate meaning, including the meaning of their own meaningfulness, whatever that is.

What does an elephant see in a Picasso, or hear in a Bizet or Bach?

Knowledge: Something most people appear to lack.

You are seeking Enlighenment and a release from suffering which, as you say. cannot be found in Western philosophy. Why did you expect to find it there ?

Did I indicate I expected to find it there?
You are working with a double bind question there. :rolleyes:



Your approach to knowledge is based on " if I don't like the conclusion , I will reject the premises ".

This suggests that your view of philosophy is that it shoud tell you what you wish to hear. Well, it doesn't work like that. As I said in an earlier post, you are seeking a comfort blanket rather than knowledge.

Riiight. Says someone who says also:


I know this is not what you mean by enlightenment . You seem to believe that knowledge can be gained other than by reason. I don't believe it can.

I am not convinced by Eastern philosophy/religion which promises what it cannot deliver. In particular, I find the Buddhist definition of suffering totally unacceptable. Suffering is equated with being alive, and certain practices promise release from rebirth at some stage.

I regard all this as nonsense because there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

To what you say above, one could say, "This suggests that your view of philosophy is that it shoud tell you what you wish to hear. Well, it doesn't work like that. As I said in an earlier post, you are seeking a comfort blanket rather than knowledge."
Your demand for "evidence" and that it be provided by external sources, by other people is a comfort blanket. It is so convenient to place the burden of proof on others, isn't it? While your molars rot, as some would say.

The problem with atheism – No rational connection between the methodology and object

Regarding only the title and not the OP, there is another problem with atheism that can be summed up as "No rational connection between the methodology and object". Namely, typically, scientific atheism teaches us to investigate everything but ourselves. Millions are spent on space exploration, nuclear physics, studying animals and plants, studying the human body, behavior and diseases. But in all this, the "who we really are" is taken for granted, not further explored.
Even though that study is usually done with some relation to "us" (how "we" are endangered by pollution, how "we" can benefit from growing a specific kind of plant etc.), it is not clear who or what this "us" actually is. With lacking clarity in these matter, that study is irrational, having no clear connection between the methodology and the object.

Did I indicate I expected to find it there?
You are working with a double bind question there. :rolleyes:




Riiight. Says someone who says also:



To what you say above, one could say, "This suggests that your view of philosophy is that it shoud tell you what you wish to hear. Well, it doesn't work like that. As I said in an earlier post, you are seeking a comfort blanket rather than knowledge."
Your demand for "evidence" and that it be provided by external sources, by other people is a comfort blanket. It is so convenient to place the burden of proof on others, isn't it? While your molars rot, as some would say.

Talking to you has become futile.

You admit to rejecting Western philosophy because it does not meet your requirements. How is one to interpret such a statement ?

You implicitly state as an aim that you are seeking a philosophical system that will support your personal happiness and not be based on the premise that we have only one life. Go East young man !

You can introspect and meditate as long as you wish but you will discover nothing that will help you in your quest. At best you may achioeve some form of tranquility and insight into your behaviour. You will not find answers to the big questions.

In this context don't forget that people who are high on drugs report similar experience to many of those reported by religious seekers after truth.

You are wrong to assume that I look elsewhere for answers. I did that in my youth but have long since concluded that religion and beliefs of a religious nature are not based on reason. So for most of my life I have stood on my own feed and lived an my reason dictates. I am not prepared to abandon reason.

I enjoy life but have no fear of dying. At the risk of sounding cocky. can I say that I am quite content with things as I see them and feel no need to go looking for answers elsewhere.

I will leave you with a quotation fron Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam. I do so from memory.


" For oftentimes when young did I frequent

Doctor and Saint and heard great argument

About this and about that, but anon

Came out by the same door as in I went"

aka "moral relativism"Hardly. Philosophy treats all different moral positions. Personally, I tend towards humanism and pragmatism. Of course, I retain Ferris Beuller's codicil "Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism he should believe in himself."

~Raithere

if you can assert how cognitively inferior things are just as knowledgeable about the affairs of cognitively superior things (like say,ants knowing just as much about human affairs as humans)As I've already demonstrated, one does not require complete knowledge or have to be "just as knowledgeable". Partial knowledge is sufficient. People knew of the existence of the Sun, Moon, and Stars long before they had any understanding at all that they were anything more than lights in the sky.


yes, but on your terms, no doubtNo, I'm a flexible guy. I'd be happy to meet on God's terms.


you couldn't distinguish a printing error from a tumorActually I can. I have had quite a bit of exposure to medical diagnostics. It's not that difficult really. Anyone of average intelligence can grasp the concepts and understand the indicators. Especially if one compares a normal result to an abnormal one.

~Raithere

LG can you make a list of things you completely understand ?

Primarily the moral and general cognitive relativism espoused by Western Philosophy as a whole. I will not accept such relativism and its consequences, I hold it is immoral, decadent.That Philosophy is open and honest enough to acknowledge and discuss different ethical positions does not mean that it espouses moral relativism. In fact, moral relativism is a rather narrow view espoused by relatively few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_basic_philosophy_topics


Secondly, Western Philosphy promises very little - it doesn't promise Enlightenment, it doesn't promise Liberation from suffering. Any worldview, philosophy, doctrine, teaching that promises less than Enlightenment or Liberation from suffering is not good enough for me. You prefer instead religion which has promised these things for thousands of years and has yet to deliver on a single promise? Sounds like denial to me. Of course, I understand your need to cling to authoritarianism. Particularly one that promises to save you. It's a natural human trait.


Thirdly, Western Philosophy directly or indirectly operates on the premise that this one lifetime of about 70 years is all there is to human life. Western Philosophy requires unquestionable faith in death. I've lost that faith long ago.You're simply wrong here. There are many philosophical doctrines that presume a spiritual level of existence.

~Raithere

No, I'm a flexible guy. I'd be happy to meet on God's terms.


excellent
gimme your firstborn then go smite someone :)

excellent
gimme your firstborn then go smite someone :)I said I'm flexible. Not retarded and immoral. ;)

~Raithere

“ Phlogistician


its a visible symbol representing an abstract idea

That's a demonstration. You were using Allegory.



you've already provided enough on this thread

Meaning you cannot find one instance to substantiate your claims. YOu have been dishonest, yet again, making false claims, and now, like every dishonest debater, you want to move on, and forget your lies.



and you're trying to tell me that you have never considered the existence of god on a religious forum?
:rolleyes:

It's not what I have considered that is important, it's what you claim I have said. Now, substantiate you claims or admit you were lying.

So for most of my life I have stood on my own feed and lived an my reason dictates.

Gold, or silver top.

Jan.

Gold, or silver top.

Jan.

Nothing but the best. What else ?

“ Raithere


Secondly, Western Philosphy promises very little - it doesn't promise Enlightenment, it doesn't promise Liberation from suffering. Any worldview, philosophy, doctrine, teaching that promises less than Enlightenment or Liberation from suffering is not good enough for me. ”
You prefer instead religion which has promised these things for thousands of years and has yet to deliver on a single promise?
on what grounds do you make that assumption?
By applying an irrational methodology?


Sounds like denial to me. Of course, I understand your need to cling to authoritarianism.
You doubt that you also cling to some sort of authoritarianism?


Particularly one that promises to save you. It's a natural human trait.
actually if you examine society in general the natural human trait seems to be go out and wreck yourself.
People can’t even apply themselves to such elementary notions of self benefit such as not smoking cigarettes … what to speak of wider issues of environmental concern
:shrug:

Emnos


LG can you make a list of things you completely understand ?
I can make quite an extensive list of things I understand more completely than an ant.

“ Phlogistician



its a visible symbol representing an abstract idea ”
That's a demonstration. You were using Allegory.
take the issue up with your local etymologist. It’s a definition from the dictionary
:shrug:

“
you've already provided enough on this thread ”
Meaning you cannot find one instance to substantiate your claims. YOu have been dishonest, yet again, making false claims, and now, like every dishonest debater, you want to move on, and forget your lies.
I can only assume that if you think it’s a difficult task to find you mention either directly or indirectly that there is no proof/evidence behind the claim of god, that you are working with some screwy definition of atheism … I mean particularly if you want to work with the notion that an atheist is someone who has not considered the existence of god (seriously, how do you form a value statement, like “you guys are nuts/deluded/speaking an untruth/following something that has no basis in reality/etc”, without considering their point of view … )

“
and you're trying to tell me that you have never considered the existence of god on a religious forum?
”
It's not what I have considered that is important, it's what you claim I have said. Now, substantiate you claims or admit you were lying.
you just claimed that an atheist is someone who has not considered the existence of god.
If you have to come to a religious forum to peddle that definition, I think your purpose is defeated at the onset ….

Greenberg



Regarding only the title and not the OP, there is another problem with atheism that can be summed up as "No rational connection between the methodology and object". Namely, typically, scientific atheism teaches us to investigate everything but ourselves. Millions are spent on space exploration, nuclear physics, studying animals and plants, studying the human body, behavior and diseases. But in all this, the "who we really are" is taken for granted, not further explored.
part of the reason for this is that the sphere of physics greatly revolutionized all the spheres of science (like biology for example). This influenced how theories were formed. For instance the synthesis of urea gave many great hopes that life could also be synthesized (and the hope is still fervent today) – so suddenly everyone starts cramming life into reductionist paradigms. Another classical example is where the decision was made to view the treatment of mental illness as some sort of chemical issue.


Even though that study is usually done with some relation to "us" (how "we" are endangered by pollution, how "we" can benefit from growing a specific kind of plant etc.), it is not clear who or what this "us" actually is. With lacking clarity in these matter, that study is irrational, having no clear connection between the methodology and the object.
hence the Vedas open up with the suggestion, the first quality of a learned person is that they know who they are ... or at the very least, they can control their senses and not get waylaid by lust, wrath, etc

Emnos


I can make quite an extensive list of things I understand more completely than an ant.

"more completely" ? That is nonsense lol

I said a list of things you understand completely.

Raithere



Originally Posted by lightgigantic
aka "moral relativism" ”
Hardly. Philosophy treats all different moral positions. Personally, I tend towards humanism and pragmatism. Of course, I retain Ferris Beuller's codicil "Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism he should believe in himself."

Regardless of where your personal philosophical views stand, in your previous post you just offered a glorification of moral relativism in the guise of philosophy in general.


“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you can assert how cognitively inferior things are just as knowledgeable about the affairs of cognitively superior things (like say,ants knowing just as much about human affairs as humans) ”
As I've already demonstrated, one does not require complete knowledge or have to be "just as knowledgeable".
so an ant is just as completely knowledgeable about humans as a human?



No, I'm a flexible guy. I'd be happy to meet on God's terms.
BG 11.53 The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.
BG 11.54 My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.
… Probably not as flexible as you think …
“

you couldn't distinguish a printing error from a tumor ”
Actually I can. I have had quite a bit of exposure to medical diagnostics. It's not that difficult really. Anyone of average intelligence can grasp the concepts and understand the indicators. Especially if one compares a normal result to an abnormal one.

a little bit of adherence to normative descriptions goes a long way, eh?
;)

so an ant is just as completely knowledgeable about humans as a human?

Should I add "humans" to the list ?
Expect a few questions though..

Should I add "humans" to the list ?
Expect a few questions though..
expect even more if you invite an ant to enlighten us about human culture and society
:D

expect even more if you invite an ant to enlighten us about human culture and society
:D

Ants aren't making the claims you have made.

Provide a list please.

Ants aren't making the claims you have made.

Provide a list please.
if ants aren't making the claim there is no need to provide a list

“ Phlogistician



take the issue up with your local etymologist. It’s a definition from the dictionary
:shrug:

It's not about what is written in the dictionary, but the fact that you were using allegory.



I can only assume that if you think it’s a difficult task to find you mention either directly or indirectly that there is no proof/evidence behind the claim of god, that you are working with some screwy definition of atheism … I mean particularly if you want to work with the notion that an atheist is someone who has not considered the existence of god (seriously, how do you form a value statement, like “you guys are nuts/deluded/speaking an untruth/following something that has no basis in reality/etc”, without considering their point of view … )

Find it, link it. Stop hiding behind more prose. Facts only, please.



you just claimed that an atheist is someone who has not considered the existence of god.
If you have to come to a religious forum to peddle that definition, I think your purpose is defeated at the onset ….

That's one of the routes to atheism. I didn't say it was the only one. I mentioned it because you implied atheism was an active viewpoint, I pointed out that far from it, people who have never considered god are still atheists.

Seems you don't grasp this, and are getting a bit desperate.

Primarily the moral and general cognitive relativism espoused by Western Philosophy as a whole. I will not accept such relativism and its consequences, I hold it is immoral, decadent.

That Philosophy is open and honest enough to acknowledge and discuss different ethical positions does not mean that it espouses moral relativism. In fact, moral relativism is a rather narrow view espoused by relatively few.

Note I spoke of "Western Philosophy as a whole". Western Philosophy is not uniform; the individual philosophies it is comprised of are sometimes even mutually exclusive with each other, but all in all, there are many different philosophies within the phenomenon of "Western Philosophy". Taken as a whole, Western Philosophy is relativistic: Namely, it is implied that none of the philosophies it is comprised of is authoritative or superior to others. If none is superior, anything goes, hence moral relativism.



You prefer instead religion which has promised these things for thousands of years and has yet to deliver on a single promise?

To use an analogy: When I set out to cook a dish, I look at a recipe and the photo of the dish. Now, in advance, I can not know or test, whether doing as the recipe says will indeed lead to the delicious-looking dish. But at least the promise of a delicious-looking dish is there. Without that promise, I would never even set out to try out the recipe, I wouldn't even read it.
Over time, as I try out many recipes and strive to improve my cooking abilities, I can tell a bit just from reading the ingredients or the instruction what the dish will be like. But still, I cannot know in advance, so I must be careful, humble and patient to do my best and follow the recipe, and also consider my so far gained cooking expertise - there may be things that the recipe doesn't mention but that someone who knows how to cook, does know.

So, yes, it is important to have a promise, to aim high, to be ambitious. Without that, one cannot hope to achieve much.

And as for various religions not delivering on their promises - I differ there with you. Perhaps you just haven't been so fortunate so far to meet the people and have the experiences that I have.
I know from personal experience and practice that several of the instructions I have learned from "Eastern philosophy" and acted on bore results as they promised.




Thirdly, Western Philosophy directly or indirectly operates on the premise that this one lifetime of about 70 years is all there is to human life. Western Philosophy requires unquestionable faith in death. I've lost that faith long ago.

You're simply wrong here. There are many philosophical doctrines that presume a spiritual level of existence.

"Presuming a spiritual level of existence" is not good enough for me.
And as far as I know, within Western Philosophy, there is no conception that would be equaivalent to those of karma and rebirth.

Talking to you has become futile.

You admit to rejecting Western philosophy because it does not meet your requirements. How is one to interpret such a statement ?

You implicitly state as an aim that you are seeking a philosophical system that will support your personal happiness and not be based on the premise that we have only one life.

This is your implication - that I am "seeking a philosophical system that will support my personal happiness and not be based on the premise that we have only one life".
What makes you think I am still seeking such a system? And where have I stated that I am still seeking such a system?



Go East young man !

:rolleyes:



You can introspect and meditate as long as you wish but you will discover nothing that will help you in your quest. At best you may achioeve some form of tranquility and insight into your behaviour. You will not find answers to the big questions.

I think some tranquility and insight into my behavior is a mighty good start to begin to be able to answer the big questions.



At the risk of sounding cocky. can I say that I am quite content with things as I see them and feel no need to go looking for answers elsewhere.

Whenever you demand evidence from others, you are looking for answers elsewhere.

if ants aren't making the claim there is no need to provide a list

Yea, keep dodging :rolleyes:

Or maybe you didn't understand. You are saying that things that are inferior to us are completely knowable. I'm asking you to make a list of the things your have complete knowledge about.

Regardless of where your personal philosophical views stand, in your previous post you just offered a glorification of moral relativism in the guise of philosophy in general.Hardly. Unless your philosophy is so insecure that exposure to other doctrines undermines your own.


so an ant is just as completely knowledgeable about humans as a human?I'm not going to belabor the point. I've already made this very clear. You're either not getting it or ignoring it deliberately.


Probably not as flexible as you thinkBeen there, done that.


a little bit of adherence to normative descriptions goes a long way, eh?You keep bandying about terms as if you've stated something significant. I don't adhere to normative descriptions, they merely facilitate communication.

~Raithere

Namely, it is implied that none of the philosophies it is comprised of is authoritative or superior to others. If none is superior, anything goes, hence moral relativism. Yes, I already stated that it was your need to cling to authoritarianism that drove your opinion. The problem with this is that all religions claim to be authoritative which brings you back to ground zero.


To use an analogy: When I set out to cook a dish, I look at a recipe and the photo of the dish. Now, in advance, I can not know or test, whether doing as the recipe says will indeed lead to the delicious-looking dish. But at least the promise of a delicious-looking dish is there. Without that promise, I would never even set out to try out the recipe, I wouldn't even read it.Seems an awfully naive approach. And I don't really believe it. If I promise you a pudding made of oysters, chocolate, cayenne pepper, and grape juice is delicious are you going to try it?


So, yes, it is important to have a promise, to aim high, to be ambitious. Without that, one cannot hope to achieve much.Funny that. I've always been most successful when I've followed my own ambitions and goals. Following someone else's doesn't work so well in my experience. But whatever works for you.


And as for various religions not delivering on their promises - I differ there with you. Perhaps you just haven't been so fortunate so far to meet the people and have the experiences that I have.
I know from personal experience and practice that several of the instructions I have learned from "Eastern philosophy" and acted on bore results as they promised. I think Eastern Philosophy has a lot to offer. I've incorporated much of it. As for religion delivering on its promises, I don't see it. I would agree, however, that Buddhism and particularly Taoism are almost purely philosophical in nature and have managed to avoid many of the political accretions that hinder other religions. One can get to a similar place within the Abrahamic religions as well, there's just a lot more to dig through.


And as far as I know, within Western Philosophy, there is no conception that would be equaivalent to those of karma and rebirth.And you give these concepts credence for what reason?

~Raithere

“ Emnos


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if ants aren't making the claim there is no need to provide a list ”
Yea, keep dodging

Or maybe you didn't understand. You are saying that things that are inferior to us are completely knowable. I'm asking you to make a list of the things your have complete knowledge about.
No
You’ve got it the wrong way around
Things that are superior to us are completely unknowable (at least by empirical standards)

raithere
“
so an ant is just as completely knowledgeable about humans as a human? ”
I'm not going to belabor the point. I've already made this very clear. You're either not getting it or ignoring it deliberately.
or you are being seriously obtuse – I mean even straight and simple empiricism runs into a few pitfalls if it is incomplete of a few essentials ....
“
Probably not as flexible as you think ”
Been there, done that.
great
then perhaps you won’t mind if we test your experience, yes?
“
a little bit of adherence to normative descriptions goes a long way, eh? ”
You keep bandying about terms as if you've stated something significant. I don't adhere to normative descriptions, they merely facilitate communication.
If you didn’t adhere to normative descriptions you wouldn’t be able to distinguish a printing error from a tumour ... unless you want to argue that the ability to make that judgment is an innate propensity in all human beings. For some reason however you feel that there is no issue of normative descriptions in theistic comprehension – this is kind of like saying it doesn’t matter which way you hold the hard copy of a scan since you wouldn’t want to appear rigidly authoritarian or dogmatic.

“ Emnos


No
You’ve got it the wrong way around
Things that are superior to us are completely unknowable (at least by empirical standards)

Unknowable in what sense ?
And what is "superior". Make a list of superior things.

I know a number of London hotels which offer superior accomodation. Possibly they can answer your question.

At 1,000.00 Euros a night they are unknowable. Does that help ?

I know a number of London hotels which offer superior accomodation. Possibly they can answer your question.

At 1,000.00 Euros a night they are unknowable. Does that help ?

lol
Superior is always in relation to something else.
Of course he means God.. I wonder how he can know about God if God is by his own definition unknowable.

lol
Superior is always in relation to something else.
Of course he means God.. I wonder how he can know about God if God is by his own definition unknowable.

Don't you know your latin. Of course he means god; superior means above and that is where god is.

Have you never heard anyone showing surprise by saying: " Heavens above " ?

Yes, I already stated that it was your need to cling to authoritarianism that drove your opinion.

What exactly is wrong with "clinging to authoritarianism"?

We always cling to one authority or other. We would go mad if we wouldn't - because it is impossible to act, make decisions, live from day to day without believing that one version/interpretation of/doctrine about reality is the superior one, the authoritative one. Whether we consider ourselves to be the authority, or some other person, or scripture, or a scientific theory does not change the fact that we do "cling to authoritarianism".



The problem with this is that all religions claim to be authoritative which brings you back to ground zero.

Not me, but you perhaps. You seem to think that I (or other people who do) accept certain religious doctrines on account that those doctrines themselves state that they are superior. But this is not the reason I accept them. I accept those doctrines through support of my personal experience and through agreement of pondering views.



If I promise you a pudding made of oysters, chocolate, cayenne pepper, and grape juice is delicious are you going to try it?

Given the ingredients, it does not promise something that might be delicious to me. I do have some cooking experience by now.

And similarly in some religious traditions, I have not encountered a mixture of "ingredients" that would make me doubt the "edibility" of the result. Although this has occured in regard to some traditions/philosophies/wordlviews.



I've always been most successful when I've followed my own ambitions and goals.

Then you perhaps have more specific ambitions and goals than I do.
My main goal is to be truly happy, a happiness that is beyond aging, illness and death. The only question is how to get there.



Following someone else's doesn't work so well in my experience.

I do not see being religious as a matter of "following someone else's ambitions and goals".
It's my own ambition, my own goals. A religious practice only offers a possible way to make proper use of those ambitions and to achieve those goals.




And as far as I know, within Western Philosophy, there is no conception that would be equaivalent to those of karma and rebirth.

And you give these concepts credence for what reason?

Because it is only with concepts like karma and rebirth -and some important others- that life makes sense to me, and is worth living.

Now are you contending that such investigations are accomplished by other than "empirical methods" - graduate applications, of a kind, maybe?
”
sure Whatever "non-empirical" methods dogs use to learn about humans, science can use to learn about whatever is claimed to be greater than humans - agreed ?

[QUOTE=greenberg;1940260]What exactly is wrong with "clinging to authoritarianism"?

We always cling to one authority or other. We would go mad if we wouldn't - because it is impossible to act, make decisions, live from day to day without believing that one version/interpretation of/doctrine about reality is the superior one, the authoritative one. Whether we consider ourselves to be the authority, or some other person, or scripture, or a scientific theory does not change the fact that we do "cling to authoritarianism".


You are wrong. Many of us believe that knwledge is provisional. We give the best explanation we can at any point in time, knowing that the future will almost certainly prove us wrong. We have learned to live with uncertaint, and get on with life. We do not cling.



Not me, but you perhaps. You seem to think that I (or other people who do) accept certain religious doctrines on account that those doctrines themselves state that they are superior. But this is not the reason I accept them. I accept those doctrines through support of my personal experience and through agreement of pondering views.

I have yet to come across a religious doctrine which makres sense to me. I find the word doctrin e.( teaching ) uncomfortable. If you , however, find one doctrineor another satisfying, then adopt it, live according to its tenets and don't waste time on a science forum.

Given the ingredients, it does not promise something that might be delicious to me. I do have some cooking experience by now.[/COLOR

You are saying in different words whta you have said a number of times elsewhere. You want some form of guarantee of a succesfuk outcome before committing yourself. In other words, you want to arrive at a destination wihout making the journey,

]
And similarly in some religious traditions, I have not encountered a mixture of "ingredients" that would make me doubt the "edibility" of the result. Although this has occured in regard to some traditions/philosophies/wordlviews.


Then , again, why not get on with it. You are free to choose what to believe and how to lead your life. What are you waiting for ?


Then you perhaps have more specific ambitions and goals than I do.My main goal is to be truly happy, a happiness that is beyond aging, illness and death. The only question is how to get there.

You are wasting your time on this one. You are asking for the impossible. See if you can learn contentment, happiness is a vague concept, and let tomorrow take care of itself.



[COLOR="blue"]I do not see being religious as a matter of "following someone else's ambitions and goals".It's my own ambition, my own goals. A religious practice only offers a possible way to make proper use of those ambitions and to achieve those goals.

Yet again, who is holding you back ? If you truly believe something, what others think is irrelevant.


Because it is only with concepts like karma and rebirth -and some important others- that life makes sense to me, and is worth livig




As you are still living, I assume you have accepted the dooctrine of karma and rebirth. So get on with a life which is informed by these beliefs and cease to seek assurance from members of this forum

Stop thinking so much and starty living !

Unknowable in what sense ?
meaning that they are not known


And what is "superior". Make a list of superior things.
for instance an ants negation of the topography of your arm is not anywhere near complete knowledge of yourself (assuming that you hold there are more essential aspects of your self than the topography of your arm)

meaning that they are not known
So is God unknowable ?


for instance an ants negation of the topography of your arm is not anywhere near complete knowledge of yourself (assuming that you hold there are more essential aspects of your self than the topography of your arm)
Humans are only superior in some ways to ants.
In other ways ants are superior to us.

Ice aura

Whatever "non-empirical" methods dogs use to learn about humans, science can use to learn about whatever is claimed to be greater than humans - agreed ?
depends on how greater they are.
For instance the gap of empirical investigation between an ant and a human will never enable an ant to even begin to investigate human affairs (like say recognizing that this arm belongs to a homo sapiens sapiens).

depends on how greater they are.
For instance the gap of empirical investigation between an ant and a human will never enable an ant to even begin to investigate human affairs (like say recognizing that this arm belongs to a human sapien sapien).

As a side note, it's Homo sapiens sapiens.
;)

Emnos


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
meaning that they are not known
”
So is God unknowable ?
empirically, yes

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
for instance an ants negation of the topography of your arm is not anywhere near complete knowledge of yourself (assuming that you hold there are more essential aspects of your self than the topography of your arm)
”
Humans are only superior in some ways to ants.
In other ways ants are superior to us.
sure
every living entity is superior in some unique way
in terms of addressing cognitive issues however, humans are superior

As a side note, it's Homo sapiens sapiens.
;)
lol
sorry
my bad

empirically, yes

So how come you know about God ?

And I am still not clear on what you mean by "superior".
Is the moon superior to us ? Or this galaxy ?
What if we meet an alien race, who will be superior ?

So how come you know about God ?
well take the example of the successful graduate applicant

They got the position by applying what they understood the persons in charge required of them.

If they displayed a "cognitive attitude" (a strange word, I know, but one that might work just to keep the analogy in tact) of arrogance, disinterest, etc to the assessing body, they wouldn't have got the position.

well take the example of the successful graduate applicant

They got the position by applying what they understood the persons in charge required of them.

If they displayed a "cognitive attitude" (a strange word, I know, but one that might work just to keep the analogy in tact) of arrogance, disinterest, etc to the assessing body, they wouldn't have got the position.

I don't get the point your are trying to make, unless it's "better safe than sorry".

Emnos


And I am still not clear on what you mean by "superior".
Is the moon superior to us ? Or this galaxy ?
physically yes
cognitively (working with the assumption that there is no consciousness driving such phenomena .... which is the standard empirical view, so I guess we will ride with it for the sake of discussion) no

Thats why I mentioned in the OP (about the sun) about how somethings we may not be able to control yet, but because they are not conscious they can be controlled in principle (like perhaps one day we will get the technology etc etc).
This is distinct from the two examples of things that cannot be controlled in principle.



What if we meet an alien race, who will be superior ?
depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them

Emnos

physically yes
cognitively (working with the assumption that there is no consciousness driving such phenomena .... which is the standard empirical view, so I guess we will ride with it for the sake of discussion) no

Thats why I mentioned in the OP (about the sun) about how somethings we may not be able to control yet, but because they are not conscious they can be controlled in principle (like perhaps one day we will get the technology etc etc).
This is distinct from the two examples of things that cannot be controlled in principle.
How is being cognitive superior to not being cognitive ? And don't don't give a subjective answer.


depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them
That is an extreme, what if we appear to be more or less the same ? Wouldn't it be strange to want to establish superiority ?
Edit: Hmm I went a bit off course here.
Some people are cognitively better equipped than others, are they superior ?

I don't get the point your are trying to make, unless it's "better safe than sorry".
by hearing/reading the graduate learnt something about his assessors (even though hearing/seeing is an empirical sense, it is not strict empiricism since it wasn't simply an issue of sound waves/visual forms that grants knowledge in this case)

By applying what he had heard, he came to appeal to the assessors sense of value and liking.

Having gained their approval, he was granted a status (by the assessors, since they are in a superior position) that he did not have before (in other words it wasn't sufficient for him to upgrade his status by working with his empirical skills of investigation).

So basically, if he went outside what his assessors deemed as acceptable, he wouldn't have got the position.

You could say that he successfully applied the normative descriptions for a successful graduate applicant.

Does this make sense?

by hearing/reading the graduate learnt something about his assessors (even though hearing/seeing is an empirical sense, it is not strict empiricism since it wasn't simply an issue of sound waves/visual forms that grants knowledge in this case)

By applying what he had heard, he came to appeal to the assessors sense of value and liking.

Having gained their approval, he was granted a status (by the assessors, since they are in a superior position) that he did not have before (in other words it wasn't sufficient for him to upgrade his status by working with his empirical skills of investigation).

So basically, if he went outside what his assessors deemed as acceptable, he wouldn't have got the position.

You could say that he successfully applied the normative descriptions for a successful graduate applicant.

Does this make sense?

This is kind off vague to me.
He assessed the situation on the spot, besides everyone knows to behave in a certain way when you are applying for a job.
I don't find this a convincing example.

Also, your premises are wrong. The assessors are completely real and the graduate knows this.
You cannot know whether or not God is even real.
So the analogy is flawed.

Emnos


physically yes
cognitively (working with the assumption that there is no consciousness driving such phenomena .... which is the standard empirical view, so I guess we will ride with it for the sake of discussion) no

Thats why I mentioned in the OP (about the sun) about how somethings we may not be able to control yet, but because they are not conscious they can be controlled in principle (like perhaps one day we will get the technology etc etc).
This is distinct from the two examples of things that cannot be controlled in principle.
”
How is being cognitive superior to not being cognitive ? And don't don't give a subjective answer.
cognitive things have the ability to manipulate non-cognitive things- basically control = superior.
For instance I can pick up a ball and I can also pick up a dog.
When I pick up the dog I might be a bit thoughtful whether the dog wants me to pick it up or not, but this issue would never arise for picking up a ball.
Similarly if one was to argue that they could pick up the sun (if only we had the technology) how do you think the doer would go about it?
Like picking up a dog (ie picking up something with cognitive abilities)
Or like picking up a ball (ie something without such abilities)
?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them
”
That is an extreme, what if we appear to be more or less the same ? Wouldn't it be strange to want to establish superiority ?
Edit: Hmm I went a bit off course here.
Some people are cognitively better equipped than others, are they superior ?

Emnos


cognitive things have the ability to manipulate non-cognitive things- basically control = superior.
For instance I can pick up a ball and I can also pick up a dog.
When I pick up the dog I might be a bit thoughtful whether the dog wants me to pick it up or not, but this issue would never arise for picking up a ball.
Similarly if one was to argue that they could pick up the sun (if only we had the technology) how do you think the doer would go about it?
Like picking up a dog (ie picking up something with cognitive abilities)
Or like picking up a ball (ie something without such abilities)
?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them
”
That is an extreme, what if we appear to be more or less the same ? Wouldn't it be strange to want to establish superiority ?
Edit: Hmm I went a bit off course here.
Some people are cognitively better
equipped than others, are they superior ?
Of course it's superior from your point of view..
I said not subjective though.
How is it objectively superior to be able to control other stuff ?
Also, from you example I gather that large predators are superior to us.

sorry missed the last bit


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
depends on cognitive ability- I mean if we are like ants and the aliens are like humans, we probably wouldn't even know if we ran into them
”
That is an extreme, what if we appear to be more or less the same ? Wouldn't it be strange to want to establish superiority ?
the superiority is not something cultural (which has driven much of the diversity issues in human society) but cognitive and physical.
For instance an elephant is physically superior - and you recognize it by getting the hell out of the way
Similarly 3 year child is cognitively inferior, so you don't let them pull the television apart to repair it.
If something is superior in a cognitive or physical sense it is self apparent ... and of course much of the (cultural) discourse in human society over who is "superior" has been involved in making gratuitous attempts to mislead (like determining who is more intelligent by weighing how much lead one can cram into the cranial cavity of a skull for example)



Edit: Hmm I went a bit off course here.
Some people are cognitively better equipped than others, are they superior ?
cognitively, yes

Of course it's superior from your point of view..
I said not subjective though.
How is it objectively superior to be able to control other stuff ?
Also, from you example I gather that large predators are superior to us.

I'm not sure how you would objectively remove consciousness from the picture, since even the appraisal of how objective a particular issue is requires conscious input.

I mean how would you answer this question in an objective manner "Do you think it matters to the tennis ball whether you put it in your pocket or on the shelf?"

as for predators, sure
even a dog has a superior sense of smell or even a lemon tree has a superior ability to produce citric acid

sorry missed the last bit

the superiority is not something cultural (which has driven much of the diversity issues in human society) but cognitive and physical.
For instance an elephant is physically superior - and you recognize it by getting the hell out of the way
Similarly 3 year child is cognitively inferior, so you don't let them pull the television apart to repair it.
If something is superior in a cognitive or physical sense it is self apparent ... and of course much of the (cultural) discourse in human society over who is "superior" has been involved in making gratuitous attempts to mislead (like determining who is more intelligent by weighing how much lead one can cram into the cranial cavity of a skull for example)
cognitively, yes
Ok, I can agree with this. Although I don't particularly like your choice of words.

How do you know God is cognitively superior to us ?
You can't even tell whether this dude is cognitively superior to you or not.
http://cwisdb.kuleuven.be/persdb/fotos/97/14679.jpg

I'm not sure how you would objectively remove consciousness from the picture, since even the appraisal of how objective a particular issue is requires conscious input.

I mean how would you answer this question in an objective manner "Do you think it matters to the tennis ball whether you put it in your pocket or on the shelf?"

as for predators, sure
even a dog has a superior sense of smell or even a lemon tree has a superior ability to produce citric acid
Ok.

We have obviously different views here. I take it you believe in the soul and whatnot, non-corporal things.
There is no way we are going to agree about objective reality.

Ok, I can agree with this. Although I don't particularly like your choice of words.

How do you know God is cognitively superior to us ?
not sure what you are asking
I mean all issues of knowledge are determined by application ... I think I have belabored that point enough already on sci

If you are asking what is the general run down of god's superiority, here's a concise reference on where the similarities and differences arise

Katha Up 2.2.13
The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

IOW god is independent. We are not (either in our liberated or conditioned phases of existence)





You can't even tell whether this dude is cognitively superior to you or not.
http://cwisdb.kuleuven.be/persdb/fotos/97/14679.jpg
well no, I can't
you would require some sort of indication of both his and my qualities/capacities etc to make a comparison

Ok.

We have obviously different views here. I take it you believe in the soul and whatnot, non-corporal things.
There is no way we are going to agree about objective reality.
thats true but I don't see how that issue arises with the tennis ball question

Then I don't understand why you believe in it.

thats true but I don't see how that issue arises with the tennis ball question

:D

Because the human body is made up of dead matter. We are dead matter just like the tennis ball. Only the organization is different.

Then I don't understand why you believe in it.

its an issue of application

theory -> application -> realization

But anyway, this seems a bit off topic and I am sure we have been this way before

:D

Because the human body is made up of dead matter. We are dead matter just like the tennis ball. Only the organization is different.
so how does that help you answer the question about the tennis ball objectively?

so how does that help you answer the question about the tennis ball objectively?

Not, because it is loaded. "To matter" doesn't apply objectively.

Ashura


lightgigantic: Sorry for the delay in my response, I've been a little busy.
no problem

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
unless you studied something that you already knew, the simple act of placing your backside on a certain seat in a certain building or opening a book and sticking your nose in it certainly wasn't what made you get straight A's ”
It was a behavior that started from kindergarten and continued through till now. That's where the foundation was laid, and that eventually led to the more complex topics learned in higher education. I can't think of anything that I'm missing. The only external consideration that comes to mind is the quality of the professor, but even then if the Prof. was bad I always had the book to rely on.
even if you rely on a book, that still doesn’t explain issues of comprehension – I mean I assume that everyone else in the classroom also had a book and also stuck their nose in it too
“

well thats a bibliography but what about the content?
I mean I'm sure you could mention a few issues of comprehension from your lecture hall days ”
I'm not sure how to answer the question to be honest. I'm still in my lecture hall days and applying your question to my current classes such as Music Theory or Psychology, I'm still left clueless. Would you mind rephrasing or elaborating? (I suppose this would qualify as an issue of comprehension? )
well when you get tested at the end of semester, what sort of questions do they ask?
Is it all simply bibliography (or cram to memory and vomit to paper)?
“

so how does praying "work"? ”
Er, I'm not too sure on how to answer this further without just pointing you right back to my last post. It's a form of worship to Allah, and the duah at the end is where you ask for forgiveness and blessings. Whether or not the duah comes true or not depends on your character as a Muslim, and Allah's whim. Perhaps one of the Muslims on these boards can clarify?
do you see any connection between the two or do you think they are isolated phenomena?
IOW do you think that Allah’s “whim” (a bad choice of word in my opinion, but for the sake of convenience we will ride with it for the time being) can change proportion according to the character of the performer? Do you think there are any limitations (for instance if the character is good enough there is effectively nothing that Allah can refuse by his whim)?
In short, how do you know whether you are praying properly or not … or what is a reasonable result to expect from prayer. (I mean suppose one is praying for forgiveness and then goes out and performs the same sort of stuff all over again, do you think they are warranted to be forgiven?)

“
Emnos


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
by hearing/reading the graduate learnt something about his assessors (even though hearing/seeing is an empirical sense, it is not strict empiricism since it wasn't simply an issue of sound waves/visual forms that grants knowledge in this case)

By applying what he had heard, he came to appeal to the assessors sense of value and liking.

Having gained their approval, he was granted a status (by the assessors, since they are in a superior position) that he did not have before (in other words it wasn't sufficient for him to upgrade his status by working with his empirical skills of investigation).

So basically, if he went outside what his assessors deemed as acceptable, he wouldn't have got the position.

You could say that he successfully applied the normative descriptions for a successful graduate applicant.

Does this make sense?

This is kind off vague to me.
He assessed the situation on the spot, besides everyone knows to behave in a certain way when you are applying for a job.
I don't find this a convincing example.
if everyone knew, there wouldn’t be a need to supply course syllabuses and course descriptions to the general public ... and nor would there be a need for the plethora of “successful graduate applicant” literature one can subscribe to


Also, your premises are wrong. The assessors are completely real and the graduate knows this.
You cannot know whether or not God is even real.
So the analogy is flawed.
well I thought that was the point in question .. “How to establish that god is real”
I mean part of the prerequisites for using an analogy is that the components be commonly understood as real, otherwise its meaningless.
I mean if you weren’t convinced that graduate applicants are real, applicant assessors are real and the process of becoming a successful applicant is real, the analogy would be just as bewildering as the suggestion that the process of understanding god is real

Not, because it is loaded. "To matter" doesn't apply objectively.
then why do issues of whether a statement is objective or not matter to you?

:p

:D

Because the human body is made up of dead matter. We are dead matter just like the tennis ball. Only the organization is different.
Not my body. The whole damn thing is alive and pulsing with life. Just like the forest.

or you are being seriously obtuse – I mean even straight and simple empiricism runs into a few pitfalls if it is incomplete of a few essentials .... Okay, I'll make the point again. Complete knowledge is not necessary. In fact, complete knowledge seems to be an actual impossibility. I never said "an ant could know just as much about human affairs", an ant does not need to know anything about human affairs to understand that humans exist and have an effect upon its world.

Actually, I find your statements quite strange, are you actually asserting that we can ever know everything about God using any method? That's quite a boast.


then perhaps you won’t mind if we test your experience, yes? Sure.


For some reason however you feel that there is no issue of normative descriptions in theistic comprehensionQuite the contrary actually. Of course, there is the problem that definition limits the subject. So the more we define god, the smaller he gets. But the problem, from my perspective anyway, is that theists can't seem to agree upon anything. Each group claims the other is wrong, even within groups there is significant dissent.

~Raithere

What exactly is wrong with "clinging to authoritarianism"? Authority does not necessitate truth. It's the easy way out, to let someone do your thinking for you.


You seem to think that I (or other people who do) accept certain religious doctrines on account that those doctrines themselves state that they are superior. But this is not the reason I accept them. I accept those doctrines through support of my personal experience and through agreement of pondering views.

Given the ingredients, it does not promise something that might be delicious to me. I do have some cooking experience by now.So then promises don't mean anything, it's results you're looking for. The next question is; how you do go about evaluating the results of any particular philosophy?


Then you perhaps have more specific ambitions and goals than I do. My main goal is to be truly happy, a happiness that is beyond aging, illness and death. The only question is how to get there. Happiness is not a goal to reach, it is a way of traveling. When you discover this, you find these things far less troublesome. It is a sad fact that religion often focuses people so completely upon an afterlife that they forget to live, which I find incredibly tragic.


Because it is only with concepts like karma and rebirth -and some important others- that life makes sense to me, and is worth living. Then, by all means, follow the path that you enjoy. Just don't expect me to agree with your evaluations, I make my own.

~Raithere

not sure what you are asking
I mean all issues of knowledge are determined by application... I think I have belabored that point enough already on sci

If you are asking what is the general run down of god's superiority, here's a concise reference on where the similarities and differences arise

Katha Up 2.2.13
The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

IOW god is independent. We are not (either in our liberated or conditioned phases of existence)

well no, I can't you would require some sort of indication of both his and my qualities/capacities etc to make a comparison
*************
M*W: You can't judge a book by it's cover. This guy looks pleasant enough, but I would give a rat's ass that he's been on steroids.

:D

Because the human body is made up of dead matter. We are dead matter just like the tennis ball. Only the organization is different.
*************
M*W: Trust me, baby, there are some of us who are largely "dead matter." Thankfully, "dead matter" doesn't necessarily mean stupidity.

:D

Because the human body is made up of dead matter. We are dead matter just like the tennis ball. Only the organization is different.

I cannot understand the point of statements like that. Obviously you cannot take a single element and view it as the whole but...a tennis ball? Come on....

I am sorry but that is like saying a 5ghz 64bit pc is just a grain of sand.

depends on how greater they are.
For instance the gap of empirical investigation between an ant and a human will never enable an ant to even begin to investigate human affairs (like say recognizing that this arm belongs to a homo sapiens sapiens). So? I am satisfied that we agree that an ant can investigate and learn something about a human, and its methods are available to science.

And we are agreed that whatever methods a dog uses to investigate humans are available to science to investigate entities "greater" than a scientist.

So the statement "an entity greater than a scientist cannot therefore be investigated by science" is false.

So even if the claim that believers can produce, by imagining its existence, an entity greater than their own imaginations, so the common observation that what is being investigated is human concepts rather than extrahuman entities is finessed, we still have at least the theoretical possibility of investigating it, and learning something about it. Such as soemthing of the constraints on its existence, if any.

Iceaura


Originally Posted by LG
depends on how greater they are.
For instance the gap of empirical investigation between an ant and a human will never enable an ant to even begin to investigate human affairs (like say recognizing that this arm belongs to a homo sapiens sapiens).
”
So? I am satisfied that we agree that an ant can investigate and learn something about a human, and its methods are available to science.
you really think an ant is understanding some hairs and freckles as a human?


And we are agreed that whatever methods a dog uses to investigate humans are available to science to investigate entities "greater" than a scientist.
we agree on that?
depends on how great the difference is.


So the statement "an entity greater than a scientist cannot therefore be investigated by science" is false.
not so


So even if the claim that believers can produce, by imagining its existence, an entity greater than their own imaginations, so the common observation that what is being investigated is human concepts rather than extrahuman entities is finessed, we still have at least the theoretical possibility of investigating it, and learning something about it. Such as soemthing of the constraints on its existence, if any.
once again it depends on how big the gap is.
If we are like ants and if another entity is like a human, we wouldn't know it even if we ran into them.

you really think an ant is understanding some hairs and freckles as a human? No, I think it is learning something about a human by investigating hair and freckles.

If we are like ants and if another entity is like a human, we wouldn't know it even if we ran into them. Ants are aware of the event of running into a human. They are then capable of learning something about that human.

Their methods are available to science.

Raithere


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
or you are being seriously obtuse – I mean even straight and simple empiricism runs into a few pitfalls if it is incomplete of a few essentials ....
”
Okay, I'll make the point again. Complete knowledge is not necessary. In fact, complete knowledge seems to be an actual impossibility. I never said "an ant could know just as much about human affairs", an ant does not need to know anything about human affairs to understand that humans exist and have an effect upon its world.

Actually, I find your statements quite strange, are you actually asserting that we can ever know everything about God using any method? That's quite a boast.
to get back to the OP, claiming that there is no proof for god because there is no empirical evidence for it is absurd. My point about knowledge is that it crosses a certain threshold and it becomes distinct (like for instance knowing that something is a human is quite a step up from knowing the sum parts of a human) - and I use the example of an ant trying to surmise that a forearm belongs to a human to suggest the impossibility of that ever being bridged within the limited horizons of empiricism



“
then perhaps you won’t mind if we test your experience, yes?
”
Sure.
what is the first step in becoming devotional to god?


“
For some reason however you feel that there is no issue of normative descriptions in theistic comprehension
”
Quite the contrary actually. Of course, there is the problem that definition limits the subject. So the more we define god, the smaller he gets.
actually its the opposite - the more rigidly one insists on impersonal definitions of god, the less capable such definitions are able to house issues of omni-benevolence etc


But the problem, from my perspective anyway, is that theists can't seem to agree upon anything. Each group claims the other is wrong, even within groups there is significant dissent.
I agree with you in one sense - and I think that is due to a lot of misinformation being bandied about - kind of like what you could imagine discourses in medicine were like before medical practice became subject to competency based assessment
(but as a side point, not even competency based assessment makes for seamless discussion - there are still issues of contention, so it would be foolish to expect unanimously voiced discourse on all subjects on all levels)

iceaura


Originally Posted by LG
you really think an ant is understanding some hairs and freckles as a human?
”
No, I think it is learning something about a human by investigating hair and freckles.
so if it doesn't recognize that the freckles belong to a human (or arguably anything more than the topography of a freckle) what is it that they are actually learning about humans?
“

Originally Posted by LG
If we are like ants and if another entity is like a human, we wouldn't know it even if we ran into them.
”
Ants are aware of the event of running into a human. They are then capable of learning something about that human.
so if an ant runs into a human, what do you suppose makes the event distinct (for the ant) from running into an elephant .. .or even running into the dismembered limb of a human?


Their methods are available to science.
hence the limitation of "science"

Authority does not necessitate truth. It's the easy way out, to let someone do your thinking for you. Which to some degree we all do. No need to reinvent the wheel. Hopefully there are ways to evaluate how good those authorities are. Sometimes we are to some degree at their mercy - the garage mechanic, the doctor. We can get second opinions, but then we are letting authorities combat each other. With religious or spiritual or psychological authorities there are several methods of testing the authorities while at the same time following their suggestions. On ongoing evaluation and reevaluation process. The radical individual who does not use authorities is more than likely simply rehashing pop psychology and the worst parts of common sense.


So then promises don't mean anything, it's results you're looking for. The next question is; how you do go about evaluating the results of any particular philosophy? And how do you go about evaluating yours. How do you evaluate the following....


Happiness is not a goal to reach, it is a way of traveling. When you discover this, you find these things far less troublesome. It is a sad fact that religion often focuses people so completely upon an afterlife that they forget to live, which I find incredibly tragic. How do you know this is true? especially the part in bold? are you sure you did not arrive at this hypothesis via authority? It sounds like statements I have heard a number of authorities say.

I think there is a lot of hubris when it comes to our ability to attribute the sources of our thoughts and conclusions
and
why they seem right to us.

Raithere


Then you perhaps have more specific ambitions and goals than I do. My main goal is to be truly happy, a happiness that is beyond aging, illness and death. The only question is how to get there.
”
Happiness is not a goal to reach, it is a way of traveling. When you discover this, you find these things far less troublesome. It is a sad fact that religion often focuses people so completely upon an afterlife that they forget to live, which I find incredibly tragic.
aka moral relativism

so if an ant runs into a human, what do you suppose makes the event distinct (for the ant) from running into an elephant .. .or even running into the dismembered limb of a human? Dozens of possibilities: heat, motion, skin chemstry, etc.

Ants are famously capable of learning important details about dismembered body parts, including their availability as food for ants.

All irrelevant to the point, which is that an ant can learn something about a human.

Their methods are available to science.
”
hence the limitation of "science" How does the capability of availing itself of ant methods limit science ? The more methods the fewer limitations, I would say.

Dozens of possibilities: heat, motion, skin chemstry, etc.

Ants are famously capable of learning important details about dismembered body parts, including their availability as food for ants.

All irrelevant to the point, which is that an ant can learn something about a human. It takes a smart or intuitive ant to piece together these different sensations or phenomena and grasp that it is one, very large creature that is aware of that ant.

With science there is often the assumption that if we cannot measure it with our tools it does not exist. Or, equally strong, it is best to assume that any intuition or insight that connects these phenomena and recognize a whole is false.

Both the former and the latter hypostheses are not tested.

With science there is often the assumption that if we cannot measure it with our tools it does not exist. There are two cases here: circumstantial incapability and theoretical impossibility. Scientists only start talking about assumed non-existence in the second case - and even there, an advance in theory can reset all the assumptions. This has happened enough times to create an appropriate humility, at least pro forma and institutional, among at least some.


Or, equally strong, it is best to assume that any intuition or insight that connects these phenomena and recognize a whole is false. Again two cases: a recognized whole that can be comprehended or investigated in theory at least, and one that cannot be, even in theory.

In mathematics, for one clear example, an intuition that recognizes apparently disconnected phenomena as forming a whole is valued highly, a spur for great effort, and no one thinks it best to assume such an intuition false.

But the basic human condition is such that science has more trouble with assumed wholes and existences where they are not than failure to recognize them where they are. Getting rid of the assumptions of evil spirits and curses has often been the first step in learning about a disease, for example. Humans need little encouragement to see great patterns and wholes everywhere, and name them without having ascertained even their existence.

then why do issues of whether a statement is objective or not matter to you?

:p

Because I am a human.

The whole damn thing is alive and pulsing with life. Just like the forest.

Yes it is.

I cannot understand the point of statements like that. Obviously you cannot take a single element and view it as the whole but...a tennis ball? Come on....

I am sorry but that is like saying a 5ghz 64bit pc is just a grain of sand.

It is, just as dead as a grain of sand.

Iceaura


Originally Posted by LG
so if an ant runs into a human, what do you suppose makes the event distinct (for the ant) from running into an elephant .. .or even running into the dismembered limb of a human?
”
Dozens of possibilities: heat, motion, skin chemstry, etc.
human, elephant, chimpanzee, lizard, fish?


Ants are famously capable of learning important details about dismembered body parts, including their availability as food for ants.
pity their knowledge also cannot extend to recognizing species


All irrelevant to the point, which is that an ant can learn something about a human.
"human" wouldn't even appear in an ant dictionary - if they had one
“

Originally Posted by LG
Their methods are available to science.
”
hence the limitation of "science"
”
How does the capability of availing itself of ant methods limit science ? The more methods the fewer limitations, I would say.
no matter what you do with your limited senses they remain limited. This especially becomes apparent when dealing with the problem how a cognitively inferior being can become aware of the affairs and nature of cognitively superior beings

pity their knowledge also cannot extend to recognizing species
Please tell me you aren't serious..


"human" wouldn't even appear in an ant dictionary - if they had one
It's because humans are inferior to them.

Because I am a human.
if you can't convince yourself that you are just dead matter, the chances of you convincing others greatly diminishes

:)

if you can't convince yourself that you are just dead matter, the chances of you convincing others greatly diminishes

:)

:confused::bugeye:

Please tell me you aren't serious..
I found the whole topic of ants "knowing" about humans kind of absurd from the beginning - thats why I used it as an analogy




It's because humans are inferior to them.
please tell me you are not serious

I found the whole topic of ants "knowing" about humans kind of absurd from the beginning - thats why I used it as an analogy
Ants can perfectly identify other species. I'm not sure.. are you denying that or not ?


please tell me you are not serious
In certain ways humans are definitely inferior to ants. Are you denying that ?

Ants can perfectly identify other species. I'm not sure.. are you denying that or not ?
like they can distinguish between the forearm of a Mongoloid or a Caucasian?
hehe
I am saying that the scope of knowledge that an ant has for knowing a human is not actually"knowing a human" (per se) but rather knowing the topography of what ever part of a human they happen to be crawling over ... I mean most people would like to think they are something more than a few square cms of topography



In certain ways humans are definitely inferior to ants. Are you denying that ?
if you think that an aspect of that inferiority is cognitive ability, yes

like they can distinguish between the forearm of a Mongoloid or a Caucasian?
Racist..


if you think that an aspect of that inferiority is cognitive ability, yes
cog·ni·tion
–noun
1. the act or process of knowing; perception.
2. the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition

Ants can perceive things we cannot. Their chemical perception, for instance, far exceeds ours.

Also, I don't think you fully appreciate ants.

"Many animals can learn behaviours by imitation but ants may be the only group apart from mammals where interactive teaching has been observed. A knowledgeable forager of Temnothorax albipennis leads a naive nest-mate to newly discovered food by the excruciatingly slow process of tandem running. The follower obtains knowledge through its leading tutor. Both leader and follower are acutely sensitive to the progress of their partner with the leader slowing down when the follower lags, and speeding up when the follower gets too close.

Controlled experiments with colonies of Cerapachys biroi suggests that individuals may choose nest roles based on their previous experience. An entire generation of identical workers was divided into two groups whose outcome in food foraging was controlled. One group was continually rewarded with prey, while it was made certain that the other failed. As a result, members of the successful group intensified their foraging attempts while the unsuccessful group ventured out less and less. A month later, the successful foragers continued in their role while the others moved to specialise in brood care."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

Also, ants are the only non-mammal that has agriculture.. just like us. And they have been doing it for 50 million years.

like they can distinguish between the forearm of a Mongoloid or a Caucasian?
hehe
I am saying that the scope of knowledge that an ant has for knowing a human is not actually"knowing a human" (per se) but rather knowing the topography of what ever part of a human they happen to be crawling over ... I mean most people would like to think they are something more than a few square cms of topography

If you are saying that there are only ants and humans in the world.
Ants recognize a range of other animals and plants.. perhaps even more than you can.

Emnos


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
like they can distinguish between the forearm of a Mongoloid or a Caucasian?
”
Racist..
it appears that you can also distinguish too
:rolleyes:


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you think that an aspect of that inferiority is cognitive ability, yes
”
cog·ni·tion
–noun
1. the act or process of knowing; perception.
2. the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognition

Ants can perceive things we cannot. Their chemical perception, for instance, far exceeds ours.
do you think that they can perceive our cognition that they can perceive chemicals more sensitively than we can?


Also, I don't think you fully appreciate ants.

"Many animals can learn behaviours by imitation but ants may be the only group apart from mammals where interactive teaching has been observed. A knowledgeable forager of Temnothorax albipennis leads a naive nest-mate to newly discovered food by the excruciatingly slow process of tandem running. The follower obtains knowledge through its leading tutor. Both leader and follower are acutely sensitive to the progress of their partner with the leader slowing down when the follower lags, and speeding up when the follower gets too close.

Controlled experiments with colonies of Cerapachys biroi suggests that individuals may choose nest roles based on their previous experience. An entire generation of identical workers was divided into two groups whose outcome in food foraging was controlled. One group was continually rewarded with prey, while it was made certain that the other failed. As a result, members of the successful group intensified their foraging attempts while the unsuccessful group ventured out less and less. A month later, the successful foragers continued in their role while the others moved to specialise in brood care."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

Also, ants are the only non-mammal that has agriculture.. just like us. And they have been doing it for 50 million years.
as mentioned earlier, every species can do something unique
even a lemon tree can produce citric acid way better than we can

As you are still living, I assume you have accepted the dooctrine of karma and rebirth. So get on with a life which is informed by these beliefs and cease to seek assurance from members of this forum

So you think this is what I am doing "seeking assurance from members of this forum"?!?

:bugeye:

Odd that. If someone keeps a relatively low profile, displays a willingness to discuss, openly admits their fears and weaknesses, doesn't call people names, and doesn't come off as overly dogmatic - some people conclude this person must be insecure and "seeking assurance".

Or perhaps your projection of such intentions on me as you do above is some kind of reversed psychology ...

Perhaps I would need to be more in line with "the SciForums standard of discussion" in order not to be misunderstood here ... :eek:

If you are saying that there are only ants and humans in the world.
for the sake of making an analogy simple, yes


Ants recognize a range of other animals and plants.. perhaps even more than you can.
Most people would think the human form offers a better spread from the macro to the micro, at least in comparison to ants .... and I don't think its an issue of speciesism
:rolleyes:

it appears that you can also distinguish too
:rolleyes:
I just hope asserting that Mongolians and Caucasians are distinct species was a fuck up on your part, and not something you actually believe.


do you think that they can perceive our cognition that they can perceive chemicals more sensitively than we can?
Can you perceive my cognitions about you ?
I'm just curious, are you saying that we are superior to ants on all fronts ?


as mentioned earlier, every species can do something unique
even a lemon tree can produce citric acid way better than we can
Yet you are disagreeing with me about ant cognition being superior to ours on several fronts.

for the sake of making an analogy simple, yes


Most people would think the human form offers a better spread from the macro to the micro, at least in comparison to ants .... and I don't think its an issue of speciesism
:rolleyes:
Dude, you bluntly said ants cannot recognize other species.

Authority does not necessitate truth. It's the easy way out, to let someone do your thinking for you.

There are two issues at work here here:
One, standard definitions or normative descriptions. Dictionaries and reference works of all kinds, in short. Referring to a dictionary and other standard reference works is not "letting someone else do the thinking for you". It's an effort to keep communication meaningful. But if we do not refer to such works, communication becomes a game of Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean" - going that way, at some point, it becomes impossible to communicate successfully. Refering to authoritative reference works is an effort of avoiding the Humpty Dumpty situation.

Two, what you actually seem to fear when you fear authority in reference to spirituality, is spiritual bypass. Spiritual bypass can occur when a person hastily takes on various beliefs and practices, thinking that they will magically undo all their troubles and make them happy. Whereby such a person ignores their actual problems and neglects their everyday obligations. In spiritual bypass, it in effect happens that "others do one's thinking for one". Sooner or later, a person who is on such a bypass, will crash.

However, some religious traditions take precautions against this phenomenon of spiritual bypass. So for example the karmic traditions like Hinduism and especially Buddhism, instruct the person to engage with their life as it is, to deal with their own karma as it is. They emphasize graduality and they teach you to watch what is actually going on in your mind.

Whereas a tradition like "mainstream Christianity" and many popular New Age philosophies, I would say are in effect teaching spiritual bypass.



So then promises don't mean anything, it's results you're looking for. The next question is; how you do go about evaluating the results of any particular philosophy?

Generally: Take an instruction, act on it, see where it gets you.
Also, but this takes more reflection and experience: Take an instruction, reflect on whether acting on it would cause harm to oneself or others. If it appears it would, don't act on it. If it appears it would be a safe course of action to take, act on it.



Happiness is not a goal to reach, it is a way of traveling.

Oh? And I should just believe you this, take it on your authority? :rolleyes:



Just don't expect me to agree with your evaluations, I make my own.

Do you think I was expecting you to agree with me?

The radical individual who does not use authorities is more than likely simply rehashing pop psychology and the worst parts of common sense.

Heh. Unfortunately, what you say above is a frequent reality among humans. A world of Humpty Dumpties ...

Yea, do you guys start liking humanity already ?

There are two cases here: circumstantial incapability and theoretical impossibility. Scientists only start talking about assumed non-existence in the second case - and even there, an advance in theory can reset all the assumptions. This has happened enough times to create an appropriate humility, at least pro forma and institutional, among at least some. I have certainly encountered this humlity in some scientists. It is often those who are not scientists but are somewhat science literate and fans of science, so to speak, that are the worst offenders. Nevertheless I there is some tendency even in those working with science to make assumptions about what is likely and what is unlikely despite changes in the history of science that should have put these kinds of speculations to bed long ago.


But the basic human condition is such that science has more trouble with assumed wholes and existences where they are not than failure to recognize them where they are. Getting rid of the assumptions of evil spirits and curses has often been the first step in learning about a disease, for example. Humans need little encouragement to see great patterns and wholes everywhere, and name them without having ascertained even their existence. People can always find examples of why a certain human skill or attribute is bad by looking at negative examples. The problem is some people are bad at just about everything. And some people are not.

What I notice, for example in these forums, is that scientists and their fans often use intuition to state with varying degrees of certainty the liklihood of this or that phenomenon and what are poor lifestyle choices - for example by those who trust their intuitions either more than this group or in different areas. These seeing of wholes - or proclamations about what wholes are unlikely or impossible to exist - are based on intuition. There are also a myriad of ways that intuition forms the basis for their decision making processes, but these are downplayed or denied. The issue is not who avoids positing wholes and using intuition, but how much and in what areas. But this is denied also.

I also see a confusion, often, between having provided decent evidence that a certain model can be used to provide repeatable effects AND the metaphysics that goes along with this model being the only possible correct one. The is also the positing of wholes though it is rarely acknowledged as such.

You are wrong. Many of us believe that knwledge is provisional. We give the best explanation we can at any point in time, knowing that the future will almost certainly prove us wrong. We have learned to live with uncertaint, and get on with life. We do not cling.

and then


I have yet to come across a religious doctrine which makres sense to me. I find the word doctrin e.( teaching ) uncomfortable. If you , however, find one doctrineor another satisfying, then adopt it, live according to its tenets and don't waste time on a science forum.
Your sense that Greenberg is wasting time is provisional, I assume.


You are wasting your time on this one. You are asking for the impossible. See if you can learn contentment, happiness is a vague concept, and let tomorrow take care of itself. What I bolded is I assume a hypothesis. The rest of the quote has implicit hypotheses about how one should live life. I assume you either consider these mere hypotheses or at most provisional. Yes?


If you truly believe something, what others think is irrelevant. A provisional assertion, I assume again, given the first quote of yours in this post of mine. Also one with interesting potentially even metaphysical implications.


So get on with a life which is informed by these beliefs and cease to seek assurance from members of this forum. Stop thinking so much and starty living !
Another statement, seemingly of fact, with implications about psychology, the specific psychology (and what goes into the well-being) of the referred to person and implicit assumptions about how one goes about affecting change in others.

I assume all this is based on what you consider provisional knowledge, both the implicit and explicit assertions.

You should know that it does not come across as considered provisional.

Given that the provisional ideas you put forward here are about the very same realm that Greenberg seems interested in, are you not, also, wasting time, and further setting yourself up, by the way your provisional ideas are presented, to be an authority for Greenberg. If this latter is not one of your goals, it raises again the issue of your time being wasted. Two people: one exploring possibilities in collaboration with others in the broad realm of psychospiritual approachs; the other describing his own (it would seem it must be provisional) knowledge about what is the correct psychospiritual approach to life, albeit sometimes on a higher level of abstraction - eg. if you believe it just do it. 'It' in this case not the focus of inquiry.

So you think this is what I am doing "seeking assurance from members of this forum"?!?

:bugeye:

Odd that. If someone keeps a relatively low profile, displays a willingness to discuss, openly admits their fears and weaknesses, doesn't call people names, and doesn't come off as overly dogmatic - some people conclude this person must be insecure and "seeking assurance".

Or perhaps your projection of such intentions on me as you do above is some kind of reversed psychology ...

Perhaps I would need to be more in line with "the SciForums standard of discussion" in order not to be misunderstood here ... :eek:


In short, yes.

I am not a psychologist but I would classify you to some extent as an attention-seeker. I have not all that many of your posts but, from what I have read, the following comes across.

You pose a question and, having had a number of suggestions made, you thgen want to go deeper and depper, that is as you perceive it. Look at a lot of your posta and you will see that you are asking the same thing in different guises, time and again. That suggests a need for re-assurance and attention. For example, you ask a question such as " should one seek advive from others ". If you are told it is worth while to do so, you counter with somethoing along the lines of " how can I know the difference between good and bad advice ?" How can I be sure the person giving the advice is not promoting some agenda which might be harmful to my spiritual agenda ? " From this point the duscussion cn lead to people and their motivation. How does one understand one's own motives ? And so on ad infinitum.

I am not pouring scorn on you or the process of philosophical enquiry; it's more a question of your inability to act. You are in a catch 22 situation. You will not act without guarantees and you ask for guarantees which cannot be given.

Your idea of enquiry is at odds with what one normally understands by that word. You have saud words to the effect that if the notion of karma and rebirth is not true, then life is not worth living. Seventy years is nowhere long enough. So, I suggest your natural inclination is to gravitate towards the sorts of doctrines and beliefs which appear to offer what you want from life. The truth, insofar as we can know it, somehow takes a backseat.

Please believe, I am not trying to put you down. I can't provide many answers but I have lived long enough to realize that there are no certainties. If I ask someone's advice, I will eveluate it from the standpoint of whether it appears to be in my interest to accep or reject it. I do not concern myself with what motivates the other person may have.

I honestly believe that all one can do is to take one's courage in one's hands and act The alternative seems to be to put living on hold whilethe enquiry continues.

My sincere advice to you is to put all further metaphysical speculation aside for the present. Throw caution to the winds, whatever that might mean to you. and act. The outcome can be evaluated later, if you feel it is worth doing.

Try getting blind drunk, telling someone what you really think of them without fear or favour,or do something outrageous and to hell with the consequences. See what it feels like to be free. Do what you like but do something !

All the evidence I have suggests that we have one life; do not let it slip away while you are ruminating !

I have enough sense to know that everything I have said will wash over you head and that you will carry on as before.

I hope you can accept what I have said in the spirit in which it is intended.

Emnos


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
for the sake of making an analogy simple, yes


Most people would think the human form offers a better spread from the macro to the micro, at least in comparison to ants .... and I don't think its an issue of speciesism

”
Dude, you bluntly said ants cannot recognize other species.
and given that issue in discussion is cognition and how an ant is more clued into topic of topography than species, what do you suppose I was suggesting?



Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it appears that you can also distinguish too

”
I just hope asserting that Mongolians and Caucasians are distinct species was a fuck up on your part, and not something you actually believe.
ditto above

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
do you think that they can perceive our cognition that they can perceive chemicals more sensitively than we can?
”
Can you perceive my cognitions about you ?
sure - if I couldn't I might as well be talking to a brick wall ....


I'm just curious, are you saying that we are superior to ants on all fronts ?
on the cognitive front, yes


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
as mentioned earlier, every species can do something unique
even a lemon tree can produce citric acid way better than we can
”
Yet you are disagreeing with me about ant cognition being superior to ours on several fronts.
I mean cognition in terms of the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.
You seem to be talking about innate abilities (which is why I mentioned lemon trees) - so sure, every living entity has some scope for cognition, if it didn't it would just be a dull stone ... but the scope for cognition is thousands of times greater in human beings, unless you want to argue that there is some secret world of science and philosophy within ant society that deals with issues beyond mere animal propensities of eating, sleeping, mating and defense and further accommodates their innate abilities.

Thank you for your comment, Myles.