Whacking the computer with a bat is a pretty fast way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the physical state of the machine is a controlling factor in the behavior of the programs you’re running on it, though.
Please go back and reread my post, and you’ll see I said clearly, things that I have faith in may be wrong. But why I’m willing to have faith and act on it, I explained. As Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “The most slender knowledge that can be obtained of the higher things is worth more than the most certain knowledge of the lower things.” That is why I have faith in Jesus, though it may be misplaced. Necessarily all issues at the higher levels of existence cannot be verified with certainty. No one can be certain that murder is wrong, that freedom is good, that charity is a virtue, that jealousy is a vice, that certain punishments are just. We can only make judgments on those things based on what we feel to be right or appropriate or worthwhile.
Though some will say that we can make decisions about ethics and aesthetics and so forth based on what’s useful for society or produces stability or so forth, I disagree. Consider that two thousand years ago, the Romans had built an empire based on conquest, militarism, slavery, top-down control, and brutality. Then Jesus Christ showed up and preached a message of love, compassion, charity, peacefulness, and reaching out across barriers. Well, the Roman system certainly produced stability, and Jesus only got himself killed in a particularly bloody way, yet even so the early Christians had faith in Jesus and continued to believe that his message was true.
I’ve already outlined the parts of the teachings of Jesus that contradicted what was common in his day, but is widely accepted in our day. So what’s the explanation? Either the life of Jesus Christ was an entrance by God into human history, or else he was an average Jeshua who was wise enough to figure out what humanity needed to build a just and flourishing society and wise enough to devise a method for spreading that message yet simultaneously foolish enough to think that he was God. I find the earlier explanation more probable.
I said I was talking about the approach to problems which the scientific method characterizes (as opposed to faith in the religious method) not a direct application as would be done for an experiment. However, it is clear you don’t understand how science is really practiced.
Objective: No one expects that all researchers will get the same results. That there will be differences in procedures and errors is understood and accounted for. Part of peer review is examining the experimental procedure for deficiencies. It is not a requirement that scientists don’t have the desire for an experiment to come out right.
Replication: If an experiment is guaranteed to come out the same every time, there would be no need to do it again. Replication is a way of ensuring that the procedure is robust enough to be reproduced. For instance, Pons and Fleishman (sp?) screwed up no doubt because they were so excited about their supposed discovery. Because they gave enough information for others to repeat their experiment, the others found that their results could not be replicated. While they shot off their mouths way too early, they did do things right in being open about their procedures. No religious mystery for them.
Precise measurements? Often impossible. Any experiment dealing with populations, such as drug studies, is going to have to use statistical methods to find the signal in noisy data, and also to find the probability that the results are not due to chance. So you strike out.
We can never prove anything, only falsify things. My statement was a sketch of a hypothesis about love. Now, one can quantify number of nights she doesn’t come home, interval between sex, number of fights, whatever. And each person needs to define what love means to him and her. If you’re fine with her being true to you in her fashion, like in the Cole Porter song from Kiss Me Kate, fine. But this is a psychology experiment, not a physics experiment, and you can only approximate inner states from external cues. My specific example is the typical letter which goes “he says he loves me, but he has two girlfriends on the side. What to do?” Just like “God loves his people, but keeps on wiping them out with floods and earthquakes. What to do?” In either case, you can keep saying what a sinner you are, and how you’ll try better - or you can say, “frig it, I’m walking.”
So, you think that it isn’t the scientific method if the model isn’t perfect for ever? That classical Newtonian laws are examples because they got refined? The scientific method is about getting closer to the truth, not perfect theories. Science also includes lots of opinions and passions. While Greenspan might have been deluded in thinking Wall Street would never fall off a cliff, Fred Hoyle was just as deluded in supporting Steady State long after its shelf date. You also think there is unanimity where there is none. Krugman was warning about the collapse of the housing bubble well over a year before it burst.
Moving the goalposts. I never said that we have a perfect model of the brain. If the so-called higher centers are not connected to the physical brain, drugs should have no impact on them. Since they do, your claim is falsified. Now, isn’t science easy?
People have rewarding experiences based on a life of no faith also. Isaac Asimov. Carl Sagan. Me. Given that, we can dismiss faith (or lack of faith) as the cause of happiness, and look for other things, like doing what you like to do - which might well be participating in religion.
The 17th Century is calling - it wants its philosophical argument back.
That is not religion; it is half-baked, sophomoric, philosophical omphaloskepsis.
You may not think that this discussion is worth having, but enough other posters are interested in the topic that your interruptions–particularly given that your posts appear to be a form of trolling–are not welcome.
If you wish to participate in a serious manner, you may continue to post to this thread. Otherwise, you have now had your fun and you are through, here.
[ /Moderating ]
You’re trying to make Silverstreak Wonder’s head explode, aren’t you?
It seems odd to state that higher knowledge is valuable and then say that it is unavailable (and then swap in wishful thinking to stand in its place).
But then, I can also (without citing god) demonstrate with certainty that murder is wrong, freedom is good, charity (generousity) is a virtue, jealousy is a vice, and that certain punishments are just (for some reasonably supportable definitions of wrong, good, virtue, vice, and just, and for specific defintions of the word “freedom”) -so maybe I’m just completely misunderstanding you.
That seems like a pretty poor standard to base disagreement on - nobody is claiming that societies based on conquest, militarism, slavery, top-down control, and brutality are unsustainable. One just argues that there are demonstrable net benefits for individuals and/or society if the ‘niceness’ happens - and even then things are a great deal different if the people in the society aren’t conditioned to expect niceness and empathy.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for a member of the nonmilitaristic underclass to devise a statement that favors the nonmilitaristic underclass. And he didn’t devise a method of spreading his message to the world - that was Paul.
As I agree with items one through five, or close enough any way, I’ll start here. The most famous example would be simply on the origin of the universe. Christians have always believed that the universe had a moment of beginning. This may seem somewhat self-evident, yet in the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century plenty of scientific materialists had a strong belief that the universe was of infinite age. Nowadays the Big Bang Theory is accepted almost universally among astronomers and physicists, so the notion that the universe had a beginning point has won out. More significantly, Saint Augustine famously inferred from theological grounds that time must be a property of this universe, and that before the origin of the universe there was no time, and that it was possible for things to exist outside of time. This idea was often scoffed at over the centuries, yet we know now that the flow of time is tied together with the nature of space, thanks to Einstein, and theories about the existence of stuff outside our space-time continuum abound. (Though they can’t be tested.)
This is the more important part of the argument. Many people like to emphasize the disagreement among Christians about doctrine. I am much more impressed by the agreements among Christians about doctrine, especially given the vast numbers of Christians and the vast times and places involved. We read the same scriptures, say the same creeds, perform the same rituals today as well over a thousand years ago. True, there are some fringe groups calling themselves Christians who don’t, but their smallness serves to emphasize the point. After all, even Bertrand Russell in that essay that all the atheists always link to begins with acknowledging that there is a recognizable doctrine of Orthodox Christianity. I see that doctrine as changing remarkably little, especially when compared to how quickly beliefs about nearly everything change in the modern world.
As for the argument that revelation must be unreliable because of the huge variety of religions, I again see it the other way. To me the small number of major religions tends to emphasize the religion does not just spring up, naturally, out of human nature or hyperactive pattern detection or agent detection or whatever. As to whether the other religions besides Christian had a genuine revelation, I’ve not studied all of them enough to have an opinion. It seems to me likely that some, such as Buddhism, may have originated with a genuine revelation from a spiritual being, and I’d see little reason why that would pose any challenge to Christian beliefs. Others, such as Islam, not so much, but Islam really originated as a stripped down and over-simplified version of Christianity, emphasizing the overpowering nature of God while mainly excluding all else.
However, that debate really strays aside from the main point that I made in my first post. The teachings of Jesus on issues such as equality of genders and nationalities, respect due to individuals, the virtues of charity, mercy, forgiveness, healing, and so forth and a great many more are now accepted. They are integral parts of the world as it exists now, and followers of all religions or no religion agree on them. Some of those teachings entered history due to Jesus, others were around before Him but He gave them a big boost and really helped them to catch on. So that is why I have chosen to put faith in Jesus. Or in your terms, the method of revelation that I believe in was the life of Jesus Christ, and I distinguish it from others by its success.
Best argument for atheism:
Cite?
Wait, what? Where is this, and how did it get completely overlooked by at least 1500 years of Christian history?
You’re right, I didn’t read it closely enough.
Life is too short to waste time inquiring after something for which there is no evidence.
The point is you can’t use potential afterlife rewards to do a cost/benefit analysis of belief, because the afterlife rewards could theoretically be anything.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you goyim did not invent the Creation story - we did. I trust you will be running to the nearest rabbi to convert since we did such a good job with it. But of course, we didn’t. The universe had a beginning, the universe didn’t have a beginning - toss a bloody coin. The creation story is right about this, but wrong about everything else. In any case, the proper response for any scientist pre-Hubble was “I think whatever, but I don’t kinow.” Some Greek and Roman philosophers believed in atoms also, but if you read them, it is for all the wrong reasons.
Many religions predate you - I trust you agree that they have a stronger case. And Christian sects split pretty much whenever there isn’t civil power to keep them together, which there was until the Reformation. (And the Orthodox Church split when the Eastern Empire became separated.) Plus, I don’t think you can call the Mormon Church small anymore. to give an example of a split less than 200 years ago.
Oh good grief. There will be a small number of major religions by definition, since there aren’t enough people in the world to have 20 religions with 1 billion adherents each. You may claim Christian sects are close to each other, but those who fought ten decades for the gods they made - and died - probably didn’t feel that close to their opponents. In Shakespeare’s time Catholics trying to spread the word found their heads up on pikes. We no longer let religions kill each other (if we can help it) but who knows what would happen if there would be a theocracy.
That gets me curious though - what’s the largest uniform religion, in the sense that you could pull in members from broadly diverse geographical areas and run them through a significant ritual that (language barriers aside) they’d all unhesitatingly recognize and participate in? Roman Catholic? Sunni Islam? Generic “Christianity” or “Islam” don’t qualify, and even RC and SI probably have their ongoing schisms.
So totally agreed ! And I would add that, as a linguist, to me the small number of major languages emphasizes that language does not just spring up naturally out of human nature either !
And yet again, ITR champion demonstrates the simple ability to stay constructively on topic, whilst legions fall into the trap of wasting their time refuting the nonsensical Pascal’s wager thrown up by someone whose posts are indicative of an inability to comprehend the word “comprehend”.
Thanks for pointing that out. One of the intentions of the restructure was to push disagreement further down the chain of reasoning, so that we weren’t disagreeing about starting assumptions.
This is the right sort of example, but it’s a bad example. A geocentric universe origin has as much relation to the big bang as a terrapine-carried earth has to steady-state theory. The point is that the “revelation” was only closer than the science from a very narrow point of view, and not one that allowed reliable tests or predictions.
Again, if Augustine had generated a workable model of space-time on theological grounds this would be impressive. The fact that his ideas produced one of the same results as general relativity isn’t fantastic. Newtonian physics produces many of the same results as general relativity.
I see room to improve my argument here. We need a test for how much disagreement is significant, and what “types” of disagreement matter.
Can we agree that beliefs about the actions taken by God which have an impact on the material plane are signficant? If so, it isn’t just fringe groups which have a wide range of beliefs on this. There are many people who share the same “doctrine” - which I note is typically a small set of historical belief statements - who have vastly different opinions on prayer, miracles, the problem of evil etc which are not covered by doctrine at all.
I think dismissing the significance of Islam here weakens your own argument. The underlying point though is that either single or multiple gods could generate apparently conflicting revelations. That is to say, that the multiplicity of revelations is only an argument against their reliability if they form some sort of overall picture or plan.
We are on shaky ground here for both of us I fear. I don’t want the clash of religions to be a central plank to my argument, because I don’t believe that “religious” wars wouldn’t occur even in the absence of religion. On the other hand, you’ve generated a proof obligation of your own to show that if there is a god or gods, they WANT different groups to believe different things.
Sorry, I have to dismiss this bit as off topic. The usefulness of the teachings of Jesus is not evidence for or against a god. As philosopher’s go, I’m a big fan of the Jesus school of thought, even if there wasn’t an individual who founded the school. I just think it’s a pity that the teachings were hijacked and diverted by a nutcase called “Paul” who had revelations that resulted in exactly the kind of rule-based, judgemental institution that the Jesus school railed against. There are many good humanists who are also Christians, but this is as often despite the religion as it is because of it.
The point I’m trying to make, and others in this thread as well, is that your definition of a “scientific approach” is not what most people would recognize as science at all. Let’s suppose that somebody on this board says that they prayed to Jesus for a miraculous healing and their request was granted. The objection will immediately be raised that the healing might have occurred naturally, and that the only way to determine whether prayer works is to conduct a study with many people suffering from a certain condition, split into two groups, one using prayer and one not. This response is given all the time on this board and elsewhere. In other words, the assertion is that a single person evaluating his or her own experiences cannot be scientific; it’s only scientific when you’re studying a group.
But then here you are saying that a single person making conclusions based on unique circumstances can be using a scientific approach. In other words, the exact approach that people usually blast for failing to be scientific, now is scientific. Dioptre said in the OP, “Faith can be contrasted with the scientific method, which is the process of using empirical observation to learn about things.” But your hugely expansive definition of the scientific method overlaps ways of knowing that most people would consider faith-based.
Let’s look at what The Hamster King gave as an example of scientific thinking earlier in the thread.
To me that shows why we can’t use the scientific method in our personal relations. Suppose I have a friend at work who’s usually polite and helpful. Then one day I notice that she’s being curt and rude, ignoring duties, etc… If I insist on judging the situation based only on observation and logical deduction, I would have to conclude that she’s somehow turned into a bad person. However, I also have another option: I can have faith in this person. And that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Her change in behavior may be resulting from something I don’t know about, such as an illness, a family crisis, or something else. It may be something that I never know about. Nobody can ever observe another person thoroughly enough to completely understand all of that person’s motivations, emotions, reasons, and thoughts. Hence, forming judgments about people solely by observation and logical deduction cannot truly be enough.
I never claimed that “the so-called higher centers are not connected to the physical brain”, and I’m not sure where you got the idea that I did.
That assertion is wrong, though. The reason for a control is to eliminate other possible mechanisms. A study could be done on an individual who prays to Jesus on randomly-selected days over a long period. If prayer-days are markedly different from non-prayer-days, and no other difference can be discerned, then prayer would warrant further study. Similarly, James Randi’s studies typically involved someone with a claimed psychic ability to demonstrate it repeatedly under conditions that ruled out common alternate explanations, like chicanery and random chance.
The reason not to trust a single occurrence is that anything could have happened.