lg, Take a biology class sometime and look at the cells from different forms of life, even plant life. Their structures and the way they operate are essentially identical. In the same way that bricks can build a palace or a slum. Given the immense size of the universe, life on this planet is but an insignficant pin point, and man is but one more species variation. The arrogance of the theist come from their perception that such a vast universe was created by a god who holds man as a pinacle of his achievement.
lg, But lg, you said - But then didn't show what else there is. You still haven't shown how something could be shown to exist outside of empirical evidence, and your convoluted attempts at explanations cannot be shown as any different to self induced brain washing.
trying to write something off as science when its not known how, when, where or what was involved isn't an embarrassment?
a person ignorant of physics could also describe many things as "magic" too - but certainly the notion of abiogenesis or that consciousness must be materially reducible involves quite a few magical components, even to the persons advocating such imaginations and its just a coincidence that you don't find any great scientists championing for the cause of elephants or amoebas like they do for their own species? explaining how you can see what you are seeing with isn't convoluted?
Lg,, Hence the existence of religions. Abiogenesis is an arena of hypotheses and investigation about how life began. It is not a set of baseless assertions of certainty that typify religions. The hypothesis that consciousness is a result of brain activity is derived from observations of the correlations of consciousness and brain function. It is not an assertion of fact and is an acceptance that we do not know how this would occur or whether it is true. Contrast this with the theist perspective – if it can’t be explained by science then a god must be the cause. This is the age old basis of religion – the classic logical fallacy of asserting certainty from ignorance I don’t see how your statement relates to the issue of the religious placing mankind on a pedestal such that a creator of the universe would see him as something special out of proportion to the enormous size of the universe. That is a significant difference between man being considered relatively more advanced via intelligence than other forms of life. However, in terms of resilience and survivability the dinosaurs existed for a far greater time than man’s entire existence. In that sense dinosaurs were more special as a lifeform than man. You mean like your statement? I’m guessing here as to what you might mean. You presented concepts but were not able to show if such concepts correlated with a resultant real manifestation.
Cris “ according to scientific belief, certainly and its just a coincidence that the popular hypothesis is that life evolved from matter? correction its an interpretation of brain activity you seem to be stating with certainty that the claim of theism is ignorance what do you base this on? certainly nothing empircal Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would have thought it would be quite clear you state that science does not hold humankind as anything unique, yet you find that the goals of science are the pursuit of values beneficial to humans (at least quite substantially more than that of elephants or amoebas) BTW - real religious principles teach that all life is sacred and equally valuable in the eye's of god - the only special thing about the human form of life is that it is an opportunity to be more easily conscious of this fact actually it was a reiteration of a physicist - max born I think? :shrug: back to the ol slamming transcendental claims into empirical holes again, eh?
Lg, Nonsense, there is no such thing as scientific belief. Even a fact in science is considered only provisional consent. And again no since there are numerous historical cases where ignorance of how the universe operates has led to religions and religious actions, e.g. sun worship is one of the simplest examples. Or the execution of scientists by the religious when it was proposed the world was not flat. Which is entirely justifiable because no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else. That as well. It is entirely empirical. Ignorance = lack of knowledge. Religions assert certainty with a lack of knowledge. I.e. religion is based on ignorance. No I have not said anything like that. Humankind may well be unique but there is no reason to consider it special when compared to the vastness of the universe. And so how does that address the observation that some religions consider mankind disproportionally special? Where in the scientific method is this stated? If so then it is a pity you tried to use it out of context. Either gods and/or souls are real or they are not. You only described concepts of how you thought they could be real but could not bridge the gap to show they were real, through any method.
Cris well there's no empirical evidence for your claims (and as an empiricist, it doesn't leave you with too many more options) so it must be a belief to say that some people are getting wrong therefore everyone is getting it wrong is not a coherent argument. well to begin with, the hypothesis is not shown its just a concept the problem now is that you are assigning an authority that has its home in empiricism to a branch of knowledge, rationalism. IOW you are doing exactly what Popper indicates as "bad science" are you finished justifying your belief in a theory or do you want to continue? if you disagree that it is not merely an interpretation of brain activity, but an ascertained observation, you would have to establish how such a claim can be falsified (even though there is no such suggestion from contemporary experts in neurology, please don't be shy - I want to be able to say to the world that I heard it first on sciforums) this does not make sense Ignorance = lack of knowledge is an epistemological principle, not an empirical one you said words to the effect that there is no foundation behind the theists claim of god I asked you on what basis you state this certainty IOW the only way you can save yourself from critical reflexivity (shooting yourself in the foot) is to explain what body of knowledge you draw on when making the certain claim that theists are wrong. then I can't understand the exact difference between what you are holding as being unique as compared to being special. maybe you could clarify yourself by explaining at what point something is deemed "proportionally special" and at what point it becomes "disproportionate" I don't understand your question Do you want an explanation on the methodology of theistic claims or are you trying to say something about empiricism whatever - needless to say, just because you have an interest in science and a complete disinterest in issues related to consciousness, doesn't mean that all persons involved in science share your beliefs and either empiricism is capable of explaining all phenomena or it is not practice comes after theory, and not when one is still at the stage of doubt It doesn't matter whether we are talking about electrons or god
Lg, Why is the definition of science a belief? Huh? You still don’t comprehend the basics of the scientific method do you? Huh? It’s just science again. Do you not understand the difference between working with a definition of something because it results in a practical outcome as opposed to belief in its certainty? A key perspective in science is – it is essential to dogmatically stick to the assumption that whatever you think you know could actually be wrong. In that sense, the only correct way to search for truth is to know that everything is a theory, and nothing is absolute fact. A bit more about the scientific method http://www.humantruth.info/science.html Not sure where you are going with this. It is an obvious area of scientific study to determine how the brain can result in consciousness, since there are no other human organs that could come close and nothing else to suggest that consciousness can arise by other means. Isn’t that your problem since you are the one that continues to insist I am an empiricist and I have made no such claim about myself? But science is all about the discovery of knowledge – that is its purpose. Where have I said to you that theists are wrong? I’ve said they cannot prove their claims. I’ve said we cannot tell whether their assertions are any different from delusion, I’ve said their claims are fantasies. You merely have to show proof for your claims, or demonstrate you are not deluded, or show that your fantasy is an actuality. Try a dictionary. You are being obstinate here I believe. No, I misread your statement. Ignore this. I don’t care. As I said before I’m open to a demonstration that something can be shown as truth outside of empiricism. It is only you that keeps insisting that I have to use empiricism. No it is not the same. Electrons are a scientific theory that results in demonstrable and practical outcomes that the layman can observe and appreciate. I don’t need to be certain whether the scientific theory is correct or not or that there are real particles that we call electrons. But I do know that repeated application of that theory results in many real world applications. Nothing similar can be said about gods. I do not believe you can point to anything and say that it is the result of the application of a god hypothesis that could not have an alternative and more believable and credible natural explanation.
Cris I think you misunderstand - empiricism does not function outside of empirical claims - so to claim that it does (for instance to claim that religions are magical/delusional etc) is simply to claim an ideological stance of belief if you think this is a claim validated by empiricism And again no since there are numerous historical cases where ignorance of how the universe operates has led to religions and religious actions once again you have lost sight of where empiricism finishes and your personal beliefs take over lol - no its philosophy - and bad philosophy at that since you have just switched epistemologies sure do you? then its not clear why you blowing your bugle of the truth, the light and the way when you makes statements like Which is entirely justifiable because no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else. either you are possessed of a dogmatic belief system or you have not seriously investigated alternative theoretical claims Karl Pribram can offer a few suggestions - so can a few other neurologists - one reason why there is no dearth of theoretical suggestions is because your claim cannot be falsified (its the nature of claims that can not be falsified that they are an open house of theoretical evolution of thesis and antithesis) OK lets clear this up right here then Do you hold that anything that is knowable can be revealed by the examination of matter? If you answer yes, you are an empiricist if you study philosophy however, you find a variety of stances on validity of epistemologies however and theists say that they can prove their claims (prove to persons who apply the normative descriptions in scripture) so where are you? and what is the difference between saying a claim is fantastic and a claim is wrong? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! given your favoured epistemology (empiricism) its not possible “ special - Unique or specific to a person or thing or category unique - Highly unusual or rare but not the single instance :shrug: then why do you demand that all claims of evidence meet empirical standards? how exactly do you propose that demonstration (if you refuse to take up the practice)? (or are you just saying "I am open to an empirical demonstration that something can be shown as truth outside of empiricism - which is a meaningless statement) as indicated above, its all your insistence only if are in the position of no doubting the theory of it (aka faith) or in a higher rung of having applied the theory and come to the point of direct perception if you want to take a positive stance with electrons, you most certainly do aka - faith claims of god can be broken up into two categories - claims of faith and claims of direct perception alternatively, if I am not in the position of direct perception of electrons (ie totally ignorant of the theory of it) you cannot point to anything and say that it is the application of an electron hypothesis since when we discuss issues of believability and credibility they boil down to the said person's value system (for instance I can say that when you turn on a desk lamp anything from that is "sun magic" to a pre-electron model of electrical understanding - and your notions of invisible particles are simply your unbelievable and noncredible interpretations of a condensation streak )
Lg, I’m pretty sure I don’t understand your point. My issue is that I don’t have a reasoned method to see that what you claim is any different to delusion which is a more credible explanation than that of anything supernatural. Pretty much my only tool I use is logical reasoning. And I’m pretty sure that I am not making any claims without support. I think you somehow imply that this is a good thing. The conclusion one would see is that you feel ignorance is a good thing since it spawns religious ideas. What historical cases were you considering here? Pretty sure that I don’t hold any personal beliefs that are not based on reason. As for your vendetta on empiricism; I’m not aware I really pay empiricism any conscious attention. This is science, one can investigate what can be detected or observed, or can be logically deduced. I don’t know what you mean here. As far as I know everything that is known has been the result of natural phenomenon. I have no way to know whether anything in the future will continue to be only discovered in that way. I also do not know whether anything that exists now could be made known by anything other than natural phenomena, and I am also not aware of any such process that would allow that. In science fiction warp-drive technology is a popular concept. This is a fantasy. However, perhaps sometime in the future science may well develop such technology. But until then it is a fantasy. If someone makes the claim that one day it will exist I cannot justifiably state that they are wrong, I simply cannot see the future to prove them right or wrong. In the same way those who claim gods/souls exist and where they cannot show these things are real, lie in the same category as fantasy. But perhaps such things do or might one day exist, I simply have no means to show they are right or wrong. I guess I need to be convinced by an example where an alternative method can show a truth. No, the term faith is conviction of truth without evidence and doesn’t apply to science. In science the dominant paradigm is inductive reasoning, degrees of evidence with certainty withheld. No I do not but I can adopt the normal inductive position that all of us use in our everyday lives. Certainty is not a necessity for making decisions. No again, see inductive reasoning above. Where faith is a conviction of truth without evidence or proof. The claim of direct perception is simply another version faith since delusion is a more credible explanation and the only reason one chooses non-delusion is entirely on faith and/or personal desire. No that is not correct. Believability and credibility are based again on inductive reasoning and precedence and not personal perspectives. We can objectively quantify the number of instances that material phenomena have resulted in practical outcomes. This leads to significant believability and credibility when claims are based on such criteria. We have no such criteria or precedent for showing that non-natural phenomena are believable or credible. But neither you nor I would be justified in reaching any conclusions about the observation if we did not have the appropriate precedence of evidence and investigation. Your claims of direct perception of spiritual phenomena do not match any criteria that I can verify but your claims do match significant believable and credible criteria of delusion. I cannot conclude that you are wrong or right but the inductive evidence is strongly against you and heavily in favor of delusion.
Cris If you examine the general tendency of your arguments however it's clear you don't reject theistic claims because of conceptual problems (aka rationalism, or, as you suggest, logical reasoning) - instead you tend to reject them because they bear no correlation to empirical standards of belief Actually it was you who posted this statement at post 30 It is referenced to indicate that this is is not an empirical claim Its simply a claim that reflects your beliefs about religion generally people who are not trained in philosophy (like your average scientist for example) take it for granted that they are coming from a neutral ideological stance ditto above do you realize you have just offered a concise analysis of the empirical ideology? either you don't understand what it means to be an empiricist (or alternatively, you are such a fully fledged empiricist that you cannot even discuss other philosophical standards - aka dogma) or you have not completed a satisfactory investigation before you made the claim "no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else" (since persons even vaguely familiar with philosophy could name about a dozen) so IOW, you are an an empiricist as far as you know - lol so IOW, a fantastic claim is wrong in the present once again, if you hold the words "real" and "empirical" as non-different, you have severe epistemological difficulties (particularly since empiricism has no ability to penetrate beyond the phenomenal) then you are misguided to use the word "fantasy" - all you can do is express your inability to either validate or invalidate a claim. By your standard of explanation a person unfamiliar with china could encounter a chinese person and say that their claims of china are fantasy a good beginning point is to examine how empiricism has no ultimate capability to present truths that are not relative (like the example of pointing to your nose and saying what it is) “ No it is not the same. Electrons are a scientific theory that results in demonstrable and practical outcomes that the layman can observe and appreciate. ” it does however apply to a layman who is not familiar with the theory nor the practice of science that is the practice - and practice comes after theory still you find that it is physicists (ie persons familiar with the theory of physics - and furthermore capable of taking that theory to the platform of practice) that take a positive stance in regards to electrons, and not even geologists, what to speak of carpenters (despite physicists, geologists and carpenters being possessed of everyday powers of induction) once again, geologists and carpenters do not accept electrons on inductive reasoning (unless they have a second portfolio of being qualified physicists) much like a carpenters claim that electrons exist basically what you have just said is "god does not exist and the evidence is that people who claim he does exist are deluded" If want to accept such a standard for a coherent argument, we can also accept "electrons do not exist and the evidence is that people who claim that they do are deluded" Making such an argument tends to suggest that the person making it is deluded Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and inductive reasoning is dependent on the information one has at one's resources to make reasonable decisions - for instance if a person is bereft of theory and practice, what will be reasonable for them will quite different from what is reasonable for a person who is well versed in theory and practice thus empiricism lands itself into strife (as popper suggests) when it makes claims that are not falsifiable (eg - radius of the milky way, nature of the universal creation, origins of life etc) that is precisely my point claims are dependent on theory (or precedence of evidence) and practice (or investigation) if I am not versed in the theory and practice of identifying electrons, your claim of electrons existing also matches a model of delusion too if you can't conclude whether i am right or wrong then all you can conclude is that you don't know - anything more than that simply reflects your belief or value system
Cris No you are not quite there yet. I have no urgency or great need to “believe” something, and I see absolutely no need to make a choice where support for either choice is lacking in any real significant manner. You selected the phrase “empirical standards of belief” as if it is a faith-like religious concept. Belief of any type, where belief means being convinced that something is true, either through some degree of evidence or just personal desire, is still not a necessity. One can quite meaningfully work with a world where one can be suspicious of everything but still work with things that show high degrees of inductive consistency. That makes me open to change and new ideas. Ideology? It is the essence of science. Hmm, I see those ideas as speculative rather than approaches that have actually revealed truths. Apparently not since that could imply a closed perspective. I have the suspicion that you have difficulty discussing issues with others unless you can label them. I’m not a scientist, neither am I a philosopher. I am a technologist and work with real world practical issues. No. One wouldn’t know; that is the point and why it is called fantasy rather than asserting it is wrong. Then don’t label me as an empiricist. No because then it comes down to a debate about precedent, believability, credibility, and probability. Fantasy expresses the perception of low values on all those scales. I don’t understand the example. No, it is a misuse of the term and or ignorance of what it means. This leads to a typical mistake by religionists by claiming their faith is no different to someone having faith in their doctor or wife. One is an irrational belief without support and the other is valid logical inductive reasoning. I don’t see them as separate but as part of an iterative cycle. Whatever point you had has become elusive. Why would a carpenter claim that electrons exist? Your point seems entirely obscure. No. Go back and read what I said. Delusion is simply the more credible explanation. It makes no assertions about whether gods exist or not or that people are deluded or not. You are prematurely trying to jump to a conclusion where there is insufficient support. I do not need to reach a conclusion but simply be aware of the contrasting probabilities. I think you have tied yourself in knots here because you didn’t study what I said properly. Huh? Or learnt from others who have demonstrated appropriate probabilities. Or if they are rational simply recognize they have inadequate information to make a choice. I’m not sure I care. From the perspective of inductive reasoning the quality and quantity of the data lead to high or low levels of credibility and believability. Well good and how do you use that to justify a claim that a god exists? No it doesn’t since we have significant inductive evidence to support electrons from significant practical applications. There is no equivalent for spiritual claims. No it doesn’t. I have significant levels of confidence in whether you are right or wrong based on inductive reasoning. That adds a significant qualification to “don’t know”, and makes a big difference to whether any of your claims should be pursued further.
Cris and as indicated previously, you admit that you believe that anything that is "real" can be determined by the investigation of matter - hence empirical belief and as mentioned previously, your bias is that you only work with inductive models that correlate to empiricism yes, empiricism is the essential ideology of what you choose to term "science" hence when push comes to shove you argue not as a rationalist (who is capable of dealing with concepts) but as an empiricist 9one who deals exclusively with what is dictated by the senses, or more specifically what is dictated by one's own senses or the senses of others that one holds as similarly authoritative) as indicated above, you certainly do have a closed perspective I am not contending your dealing with practical issues - i am contending that dealing with the issue of god is something you are not practically equipped with to approach but you are asserting that it doesn't exist at present, or that it is not known how it exists at present then you had better start offering some explanations of your ideology that are not empirical or alternatively it comes down to a debate about who is appropriately experienced particularly amongst persons ill equipped with experience - for instance electrons could also rate as fantasies amongst assemblies of high school drop outs if you carry on explaining what your nose is you will eventually arrive at the limit of your relative knowledge (empiricism is the working medium of the mesocosm and has no entrance into the microcosm or macrocosm - the obvious reason is because the senses are limited) its not clear how your statement addresses the issue that a person not familiar with the theory of a said science has no choice but to accept (or reject) the claims of science on faith. IOW you are yet to offer any coherent argument why there exists no knowledge base in religion (despite you not being familiar with the theory nor the practice of religion) aside from your convictions of faith practice and theory are quite closely related in the sense that practice has theory as a foundation powers of induction become dynamic when they are attributed to a theory base - this is what makes the essential differences between a physicist, geologist and carpenter (its not like some of them do not require induction). that is why persons outside of the theory base (and hence outside of the practice) of a said field have no other option but to accept (or reject) the claims on faith. hence your claim that there is no knowledge base in religion is simply an argument of faith according to your logic, there is no reason why a carpenter cannot claim an electron exists, since it is entirely a matter of induction why? you've just said that theistic claims are deluded Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! when you use words like "probabilities" it indicates an empirical foundation of sorts - what body of empirical work are you consulting to make the claim that "the probability of theistic claims being true are low enough to rate as delusional" aside from your personal belief on the subject? then you have just regressed the argument to a further level without answering the question (if those persons you are accepting as truthful are just as equally bereft of qualification as yourself, how does that make their claims any more valid?) still, it makes it more convenient to isolate your words as statements of belief - since now you are saying that you are simply accepting the words of others on good faith then I guess you had better offer a rational argument why that is the case instead of asserting statements that are fantastic. for instance suppose the statement "god exists" is accepted as a hypothetical macrocosmic claim when you say you recognize the inadequacies of the claim, how do you distinguish that from the inadequacies of empiricism (the inadequacy of a mesocosmic methodology to approach a macrocosmic one) “ and the point is that when you are calling on such bodies of reasoning and data to determine the nature of god you have nothing to work with (since the tons of data available to you are all 100% relative) - by default what authority does that leave you with (hint - faith) theory and practice - the same as any other claim the problem is that you assert that the theory and practice is delusional without offering a coherent argument why “ hence my point that inductive evidence (theory) and practical application (practice) and the absolute hopelessness of persons in approaching such claims without reference to such things thus by your model of inquiry, the highschool drop out can get away with electrons are the claims of the deluded why? if you are not familiar with the theory nor practice, and your favoured authority of knowledge has no scope to either validate or invalidate the claims you are simply airing your beliefs and once again, inductive reasoning doesn't help a carpenter perceive an electron - all he can see is a condensation streak (although it does help a person familiar with the theory of physics, ie a physicist) your significant levels or confidence is just another way of saying "I believe"
Lg, Given that you believe a god exists through some indefinable directly perceived mental process you believe is real, then what is your method of verification that this directly perceived entity is actually a god and not a personal aberration or delusion?
