Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
On3Truly

Atheism and faith

6,799 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danydandan
3 hours ago, danydandan said:

I will need to look at the link later.

I recommend anything by John Gribbon, if you like history and science his book A History of Science is amazing.

I think I would have to dispute this article to a degree (pun intended). Absolute zero of an atom is when it stops moving, or jiggling like it states in the article. However they haven't achieved this, it's actually impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

The researcher even states the following "Yet the gas is not colder than zero kelvin, but hotter. It is even hotter than at any positive temperature — the temperature scale simply does not end at infinity, but jumps to negative values instead." Its an issue with our temperature scale and understanding of it. I think the article over sensationalises the actual scientific research being done. It suggests that we are missing something in the temperature scales we use to describe temperature.

I have been trying to search for the actual paper but can't find it. I'll try harder once I'm at home.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
12 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Absolute zero of an atom is when it stops moving, or jiggling like it states in the article. However they haven't achieved this, it's actually impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

I did not know this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I know where your coming from, and it's the people calling experiences answers that create these situations. I don't call into the 'Spirituality Religion and Beliefs' section, unless invited to do so, or the 'Sightings and Experiences' section of this forum. I understand some just wish to discuss their personal views, so I leave those sections be and don't challenge whatever people wish to imagine or interpret an experience. There is live and let live, and then you get posters with a chip in thier shoulder about 'materialism' and how they need to defend the world from the evil of reality. 

Ahhhh, I had figured. And I also thought, it's those who try to preach their experiences to be expected to be forced believe by others. Yeah, I feel I saw that too. And, I feel the same way. 

Well, believe it or not, I have been one of those posters in those varying parts of the board, until I realize I shouldn't be forcing what I found to be evidence for me, wouldn't really be for others. In fact, I'm kind of still kicking myself in the head for my arrogance on that one. :(  :blush:  

In the end, I think each section of believers and none believers, have the ones that either just want to go down their path of who they are and what their point of view is, and be content with it, and also have the ones who don't seem to be content that there are others who don't and feel they shouldn't.  I do feel, I think we all can be content in our beliefs, ideals, and point of views, not having a lack of self-confidence that others hold a different view. 

Quote

But in Eben's case, its not that he doesn't have better answers. I've posted a few time where he discusses his version of the experience he sold books about with Sean Carroll and Steve Novella. I just don't believe his intentions are honest seeing how he denies what he knows is real world data that we'll explains his Swiss cheese story. Considering his education and background, I just can't see his claims as honest. 

I think anyone who is publishing and going on a tour and such, to talk about their beliefs or lack of them, and showing their experiences or research, should realize what exactly is their subject and where exactly it's placed in the scheme of things. There will be opposing sides, and that yes, the opposing side may have a good case against them. I can read a book, or see someone lecturing about something, but no matter what, I still take it in, with not a total understanding of it might not be true. (I like to weigh in other sources and experiences too, and even then that doesn't complete my conclusion in the end.) 

The way I see, if it's placed out there, there is room to be picked apart. 

(This reminds me of a time when I worked for one company's bookstore years ago in another state, where a particular local author who came in to see about his paranormal book, and had a discussion with me and another bookseller. He exclaimed how he researched and added varying sources, links to other books, links, and shows, to show his readers how they can check out and see how he has included varying experiences and research from others. I think, in the end, I got from him, that it's still a 'take it how you read it' type of situation for his book, and that's it is up to the reader what conclusion in the end. I think it's also about the enjoyment in reading the book. 

And in reading the book, I have found some varying chapters that I myself, can dig. And other chapters, that I couldn't see being true and I wondered at the sources to them, that was included in the book. I feel, it's not all definite and there are still mysteries that can go both ways in seeing them. ) 

Quote

Sort of how I hold people like Tom Cruise in contempt, he is obviously an intelligent person, I don't believe for one second that he swallows that Xenu garbage as even slightly plausible. I feel people like that are lying to my face for their own ahenfa and I just find that offensive and distasteful. 

FppL6MG.gif

That's an interesting gif story there. ;)  (Yeah, I can never fully understand Scientology.) And where Tom Cruise's belief stands in this, I disagree and think he actually does/did believe it. And I remember clearly the controversy and the couch jumping with such :o  that has me wondering of his sanity. I personally feel, he got a little waylaid after his separation and divorce from Nicole Kidman and getting someone (who seems to me to be very naive and vulnerable) that he thinks it's has to be his belief system. (Remember, this is what I think happened, from my perspective.) I feel, certain situations also fueled his 'excitement'. I don't see doing this anymore, and I link that up to how his life turned out since then, (and that his two last wives ended up reverting to their own religion they were raised in.) I think he believed it, but emotionally jumped the gun. 

Though, it makes me wonder in the strength of the religion, or it's hold, I guess. (Again, from my observations and perspective) considering I have been hearing and seeing actress leah Remini speaking out  how it can have a hold on you. So, sometimes, there might be an unconscious aspect of it. 

So, with this in mind, I think it's good that the difference can be seen between those who are content within their own  path, and love to talk about it to like minded others, and with those who seem to not be happy with their path and have to make others feel like they do. Which makes me wonder how confident of their path it is. 

That's why I feel I like to defend believers and Atheists a like. The one's who are so strong in their path and not hurting others, but are being hurt by those, that I think it's wrong. 

I think I can agree with you, calling out the behavior and ideals that actually cross the line of other's that maybe it's something one really shouldn't be doing. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
15 hours ago, Illyrius said:
15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Its not a complete mystery, there are very good models competing to provide the best fit to data.

Even if it was, how would that support religious claims? 

Lets start with a simple question, to clarify is it a complete mystery or not.

Can something come out of nothing?

You know, I get very :unsure: in seeing this phrase or term being used, and it makes me wonder if it can be seen that one shouldn't jump to quickly in how they label something. What could be considered nothing, is probably something, just there's not word or understanding of it. Like I'm thinking that it could be considered, we're breathing something, but we're viewing nothing. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
16 hours ago, XenoFish said:

They never get my name right.

:lol:  

Quote

To sorta be on topic. I'm sure atheist hold faith in different things, except god. They might hold faith in the reliability of a co-worker or family member. They may even hope in the recovery of a very sick relative.

I can't remember if it was in this thread or not, but I feel that language can be very tricky and used in ways that could be a bit...... reaching. Seeing how some are showing that Atheists have 'faith' in something, when I think, it's not necessarily being used in the way that they mean. I just see how the word 'faith' can mean two different things, and that is what I'm seeing here. (Or, so I think I'm seeing. ;) ) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Might I ask your opinion on this article please? 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html

:)

I haven't read either of those, but will have to look out for them. I quite like Sean Carroll and Brian Greene, I find pretty much everything they offer interesting. 

I can associate with that sentiment. I think I read A Brief History of Time 3 times before it really started to sink in. It's why I like the books, I work in the electrical field, the layman approach appeals to me although I'm still rather envious of your job. :)

I read the paper this is based off of it's incredible that I haven't seen this before it's amazing. I will definitely do more research on this as it might have implications on the work I'm doing now.

I found a more informed article relating to this from the Max Plank Institute.

https://www.mpg.de/research/negative-absolute-temperature

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@psyche101

Quote

I'm more referring to the public displays such as a fairly well known debate called 'Death is not final' where he pairs up with Raymond Moody to debate Sean Carroll and Steve Novella to claim his experience is real evidence of the afterlife. I honestly feel that's taking the next step from personal into an influential position that undermines science and as such fair game to any criticism.

There are a few thoughts there. First, if there was a debate, then didn't everybody have their say? If participating in fair debate "undermines" something, then I'd wonder what foundation was there in the first place. It couldn't undermine science, because its foundation is proven to be robust against non-threats like people speaking their minds.

Of course you can criticize the guy. On a point arising, though: evidence is any observation which somebody estimates to be more likely to be seen under one uncertain hypothesis than under some incompatible hypothesis. His experience is private evidence (and so intrinsically weaker for others than public evidence, which is typical of natural science), but it's still evidence. I believe there are more plausible explanations of that evidence than what he favors, but not that he has no evidence.

I also wonder (and this is touchy to bring up in a debate, but it is an unusual debate) whether brain damage contributed not only to the memory, but also to the interpretation of it. I don't mean that in the sense of generally impaired cognitive capacity after the illness, but something about his specific inference that this memory was real. Maybe that interpretation was somehow bound to the memory, and he wouldn't have had one without the other. Just speculation on my part, but even the ancients sometimes wondered how we know we're awake when we are, and probably noticed that sometimes we think we are when we aren't. Severe illness couldn't possibly help make that determination any easier.

Quote

I don't think that's a fair evaluation. 'Exclusively' wouldn't be my evaluation. I'm not sure I've heard atheists make that distinction.

Without the "exclusively," I'd say we'd potentially be close to some rough-and-ready agreement. Regardless, I don't see the origin claim as an atheist thing so much as an antitheist position.

That also pretty much answers @Liquid Gardens , except perhaps

Quote

when a lot of these religious/supernatural ideas originated the believers didn't have that many known natural explanations for natural phenomena either.

That's the nub of the argument: one side proposes that people who have no use for explanations (yet) would want them anyway, enough to sacrifice resources (and possibly family members) to get them, and not complain when what they got was a restatement of "Beats me" (to wit, Godidit).

The other side observes that people at all times seek what they need, which is prediction and control. If understanding is a practical means to those ends (as it is now), then and only then does understanding become something you'd kill a goat for.

Quote

I'm not sure of the relevance of the distinction between natural phenomena and interpreted supernatural phenomena, at least from their perspective.

I'm not sure of the relevance of their unobserved and unknowable perspective. We are trying to characterize their thoughts in our language. Regarding their earliest thoughts that we would call supernatural, was their what we we would call purpose in expressing those thoughts what we would call explanations for what we would call natural phenomena? Some people would complain that I gave away the store by not hanging a what we would call before the word "thoughts."

That they may not have been able to make a distinction lends no support to their having done something for a purpose which would have required them to make the distinction in order for that to have been their purpose.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

On a point arising, though: evidence is any observation which somebody estimates to be more likely to be seen under one uncertain hypothesis than under some incompatible hypothesis. His experience is private evidence (and so intrinsically weaker for others than public evidence, which is typical of natural science), but it's still evidence. I believe there are more plausible explanations of that evidence than what he favors, but not that he has no evidence.

That's fine if you prefer to use the word that way but to me at least there's an important distinction in that there is good evidence and there is bad evidence.  If someone's 'evidence' is a logical fallacy, "I believe in God because Descartes did", and that's it, I think that's fairly abbreviated as 'they have no evidence'.

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

That's the nub of the argument: one side proposes that people who have no use for explanations (yet) would want them anyway, enough to sacrifice resources (and possibly family members) to get them, and not complain when what they got was a restatement of "Beats me" (to wit, Godidit).

The other side observes that people at all times seek what they need, which is prediction and control. If understanding is a practical means to those ends (as it is now), then and only then does understanding become something you'd kill a goat for.

As far as the first sentence, who is saying the 'who have no use for explanations (yet)' part, you or the anti-theists?  I'm not sure that antitheists agree with that clause, I think they also observe that people seek prediction and control and that they realize that understanding can provide those ends, including ancient people.  Sure the ancients had less understanding about many things, but I think they understood the general value of 'understanding is a practical means to those ends'.  To add some specificity to your quote, people need only believe that their understanding is a practical means to those ends in order to start offering up goats; I don't see that as an other side in relation to the anti-theists, I think they say this also. 

If the ancients were trying and failing to grow crops in their basements, it doesn't immediately matter whether they resolve that issue through an understanding of photosynthesis, or whether they 'understand' that God wants to be able to see the crops from heaven or else they won't grow.  They've obtained an understanding that solves the immediate issue and also understand the necessity for sunlight even if they aren't fully informed as to the 'why'.  Thus they recognize they have use for explanations.  They probably also notice that planting crops outside, although it is a big improvement on the basement alternative, does not guarantee healthy crop growth.  Thus just because the monthly goat sacrifice to Thor didn't prevent their hut from burning down from a lightning strike in April, it doesn't seem that would necessarily make it impractical to keep sacrificing goats, after all it kept it from burning down all those other months.

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Some people would complain that I gave away the store by not hanging a what we would call before the word "thoughts."

Sorry, that's not what I was getting at, I'm not asking you to qualify everything, I'm trying to untangle, "The common antitheist fantasy (faith, indeed) that religion, supernatural ideas, gods etc. originated exclusively from abortive efforts to explain natural phenomena, despite the absence of any known supernatural explanation of a natural phenomenon, apart from Godidit (which is a fact claim anyway, not an explanation). This is in contrast to voluminous evidence of supernatural explanations of (what are interpreted as) supernatural phenomena at all times and places from which we have records.".  As I said I didn't understand the contrast you are making, so I noticed that in the first sentence you refer to supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and in the second you refer to supernatural explanations of what is interpreted to be supernatural phenomena, so I made an assumption that this difference has something to do with the contrast that I don't see.  It's also difficult for me to parse given the above 'evidence' explanation; there is no 'absence of known supernatural explanations of natural phenomena' if we are anywhere near the (non-)boundaries of that which 'someone estimates to be more likely'.

I think this part, actually maybe a lot of this post, is no longer relevant since we've reached some agreement on the overall situation if we remove 'exclusively' from the equation, I think I see your contrast above if we assume the exclusiveness.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Liquid Gardens

Quote

 

That's fine if you prefer to use the word that way but to me at least there's an important distinction in that there is good evidence and there is bad evidence.  If someone's 'evidence' is a logical fallacy, "I believe in God because Descartes did", and that's it, I think that's fairly abbreviated as 'they have no evidence'.

Well, it's not like I'm the one who invented that use of the word.

In your example, I'm assuming you're not referring to Descartes' ontological argument, but rather the simple fact of his being a theist. What Laplace would ask (in language that is used by his successors two centuries later), does the plausibility of Descartes being a theist differ depending on the assumption that God does exist compared with assuming that God doesn't exist?

Personally, but not necessarily your hypothetical person, I'd say both plausibilities are the same under either assumption, so my belief with or without that piece of evidence would be the same ( = regardless of what I believe about God, Descartes' opinion would not be the reason for it). Somebody else might see it differently. For most people, I estimate that it would be weak evidence (you did choose it to be that), but not "no evidence."

Especially not in our recent conversation where maybe I'd be interested in why somebody believes something, whether or not I'd believe it myself on that same evidence.

Quote

As far as the first sentence, who is saying the 'who have no use for explanations (yet)' part, you or the anti-theists?

Me. It's rebuttal of a fact claim. I just need to point it out as an element of the argument where the claimant has assumed something without proof.

Quote

To add some specificity to your quote, people need only believe that their understanding is a practical means to those ends in order to start offering up goats;

Yeah, and that's where the second part kicks in: what they would get for their goat is Godidit. That's not an explanation, that's "Beats me" with a religious blessing.

Quote

If the ancients were trying and failing to grow crops in their basements, it doesn't immediately matter whether they resolve that issue through an understanding of photosynthesis, or whether they 'understand' that God wants to be able to see the crops from heaven or else they won't grow.

What culture, in your view, first attempted to grow "crops" (= domesticated varieties of plants that grew wild somewhere) in their basement and then later moved the plantings out into open fields to improve yield? (Yes, LG, level of technical development is material to our disagreement. We agree that today, in our culture, there is a big pay-off to better explanations. It's way, way back that we're thunmbwrestling about.)

Also, sacralizing a cultural practice (like planting in fields rather than basements, and mentioning God and the practice in the same sentence) is not an explanation of a natural phenomenon. It is barely an "explanation" of the cultural practice, but the claim being discussed is explaining natural phenomena, so I won't pursue cultural reinforcement here.

Quote

Thus they recognize they have use for explanations.

In your example, they recognize they have use for mnemonics. A mnemonic is not an explanation.

Quote

Thus just because the monthly goat sacrifice to Thor didn't prevent their hut from burning down from a lightning strike in April, it doesn't seem that would necessarily make it impractical to keep sacrificing goats, after all it kept it from burning down all those other months.

That is a cost-benefit estimate (not a very good one, but that's what it is), which is an element of prediction and control. I've already said folks will pay for that sort of thing. It would help if the priest of Thor framed some social outcast for arson to cover that April glitch. (The fire had already started; Thor in his mercy directed our attention to the problem, we sinners failed to extinguish the flames. Speaking of flames, let's do that arsonist social outcast, Who's got the marshmallows?)

Contrast: I'll take the partial agreement :) .

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Well, it's not like I'm the one who invented that use of the word.

In your example, I'm assuming you're not referring to Descartes' ontological argument, but rather the simple fact of his being a theist. What Laplace would ask (in language that is used by his successors two centuries later), does the plausibility of Descartes being a theist differ depending on the assumption that God does exist compared with assuming that God doesn't exist?

Personally, but not necessarily your hypothetical person, I'd say both plausibilities are the same under either assumption, so my belief with or without that piece of evidence would be the same ( = regardless of what I believe about God, Descartes' opinion would not be the reason for it). Somebody else might see it differently. For most people, I estimate that it would be weak evidence (you did choose it to be that), but not "no evidence."

I understand there's nothing invalid about your use of 'evidence', it's that it's so wide open that I can't think of what something that is not evidence would look like, nor can I think of any instance where someone has no evidence for their claims. That's not necessarily a problem, just not how I use and interpret the word usually.  

I was referring to the simple fact of Descartes being a theist.  I know I pester you about this general subject with some regularity, partly in a vain attempt to get something more definite concerning something that is inherently not, but I don't think this is 'weak' evidence, I think its non-evidence.  I think appealing to Descartes is an established logical fallacy, thus this is not an observation that makes something more likely than not, no matter what the somebody believes.  (If you can refute this specific example, then use one that is clearly illogical).

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Me. It's rebuttal of a fact claim. I just need to point it out as an element of the argument where the claimant has assumed something without proof.

What specific fact claim is that rebutting?  I don't think antitheists agree with you that they have no use of explanations and don't want them, I thought that was part of their justification for why some people would have had motivations to understand nature, even if they arrived at an incorrect conclusion.

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Yeah, and that's where the second part kicks in: what they would get for their goat is Godidit. That's not an explanation, that's "Beats me" with a religious blessing.

That would be to you and I, not necessarily to them. (I understand that I usually complain about using 'to them' but I think we both agree that is relevant in this case as we are discussing the mindsets of god originators).  If they got 20 years of no lightning strikes, and especially if some of their neighbors were not so lucky, then that's what they think they got for their goat.  Not merely 'Godidit', but 'Thor will sometimes provide you protection if among other things you sacrifice goats in his honor.  Why?  Thor really likes goats, as we know from the myth blahblah....'.

I think you realize though I'm not quite as restrictive about the word 'explanation' as you are.  For how much of a non-explanation it supposedly is, it's amazing how many Christians today will invoke a 'miracle' or God saving people who survive horrible accidents or natural disasters; to some of them it's the only explanation to, 'how did you even survive that?'.  At a more macro level, I'm not sure why we're simultaneously emphasizing what people believe is evidence no matter its validity, it just needs to make 'sense' to them, and then on the other hand saying 'that's not an explanation' like your and my (and reason's, and objective reality's) perspective all of a sudden matters.  How do you know it's not an explanation to them, isn't that all needs to be satisfied?

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

What culture, in your view, first attempted to grow "crops" (= domesticated varieties of plants that grew wild somewhere) in their basement and then later moved the plantings out into open fields to improve yield? (Yes, LG, level of technical development is material to our disagreement. We agree that today, in our culture, there is a big pay-off to better explanations. It's way, way back that we're thunmbwrestling about.)

No cultures practiced basement farming as far as I know, it's a hypothetical example, I did start the sentence with 'if'.  I don't know why you are pointing out that this isn't real; ha, dude, I just recently used in examples and posted pictures of monsters from the Godzilla-verse and you didn't likewise mention, 'err, LG, King Ghidorah isn't real...'. 

Anyway, yes of course the level of tech development is material but let me try and set an end to the spectrum: is it your position that the ancients did not yet realize the benefit to explanations/understanding as far as providing control over aspects of their lives?  I'm not sure what tech level we would be referring to, but it seems like they had some rudimentary technology (husbandry, hunting), a word I don't even know if it makes sense to use in non-science-fiction settings without tying it to explanations/understanding.

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

In your example, they recognize they have use for mnemonics. A mnemonic is not an explanation.

What needs to be added to, 'plants require sunlight to grow', to become an explanation?  Because that explains(normal English usage)  why growing plants in your basement doesn't work well.  That looks like at least 'understanding' to me, even if it doesn't yet merit 'explanation', and I don't consider understandings to be mere mnemonics.

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Contrast: I'll take the partial agreement :) .

Yes, count it, we've succeeded! :tu:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@Liquid Gardens

Quote

it's that it's so wide open that I can't think of what something that is not evidence would look like,

Any observation is a candidate to become evidence (including Sherlock's dog who didn't bark). How could it be otherwise?

When we have an uncertain question, we may not know whether the problem can be solved using some existing experience, or whether instead we just aren't clever enough to see how existing experience can be used to solve the problem. That alone guarantees that what is evidence for one person (Archimedes weighing the crown immersed in water) may not be evidence for another person (why is that guy runiing around naked and dripping wet?).

Quote

nor can I think of any instance where someone has no evidence for their claims.

At least conceptually, I can reach a (usually tentative) conclusion about some specific question based solely on my general impression of "how the world works." The Hill alien abduction case, for instance. No, I don't think that really happened, but also no, I cannot point to anything peculiar to this case to back that up. I just don't think that the category of  such events ever happens.

Quote

I think appealing to Descartes is an established logical fallacy, ...

Which rules out its use in demonstrative proof. It doesn't disaqualify his testimony as evidence. The hitch is what his testimony is about - how the hell would he know whether there's a god or not? On other subejcts (the perils of academic life during a period of civil and religious conflict), Descartes' testimony could be very persuasive. Not proof, but evidence, and probably strong evidence.

Quote

What specific fact claim is that rebutting?

That the motive for the behavior attributed to people (adopting non-explanations about aspects of real experience) was a demand for real explanations that could not be met at the time (before there were ideas about supernatural agents or other causal factors).

Quote

I don't think antitheists agree with you that they have no use of explanations and don't want them, I thought that was part of their justification for why some people would have had motivations to understand nature, even if they arrived at an incorrect conclusion.

All forms of the argument I've read rest on a claim that people wanted explanations. Proponents differ on why the want. Some believe there is some innate drive for explanation, in which case those proponents might be indifferent to whether there was any practical use or not. Other proponents realize that  an "innate drive" opens the question of why, if the drive could be satisfied with one non-explanation, was it not satisfied with the cheapest non-explanations (if you're making things up anyway, which is what supposedly happened)?

Quote

That would be to you and I, not necessarily to them.

No, Godidit is a fact claim, not an explanation. That has nothing to do with "to whom." (See the end of this post for a pertinent definition and an example.)

Quote

If they got 20 years of no lightning strikes, and especially if some of their neighbors were not so lucky, then that's what they think they got for their goat.

That's control. Where's the explanation of lightning strikes? "Thor likes goats" + "Thor sends lightning when he's hungry" explains the cultural practice of goat sacrifice, not the phenomenon of lightning.

Quote

 to some of them it's the only explanation

No, it's the acceptance that there will be no explanation (not in this life). "Stuff happens" is true, but it's the antithesis of explanation. "Stuff happens and God does stuff" offers no advance over "Stuff happens."

Quote

I did start the sentence with 'if'.

Which invites your reader to ask you for an example. If the behavior in the hypothesis is inscrutable, then this reduces the hypothesis' power to help explain other behavior. Sometimes an example will clear that up. Hey, I tried.

Quote

is it your position that the ancients did not yet realize the benefit to explanations/understanding as far as providing control over aspects of their lives?

If the issue is an issue (see above for two varieties of the argument), then it is more about actual opportunity to use an explanation than about an abstract realization that (real) explanations might have uses. Today, some mathematicians might justify their research on some abstract-even-for-a-mathematician subject by "Someday this may have practical applications." OK, here's a goat, is it worth killing her over?

Quote

but it seems like they had some rudimentary technology (husbandry, hunting), a word I don't even know if it makes sense to use in non-science-fiction settings without tying it to explanations/understanding.

Yes. I think our hominid ancestors had those things (to tell you the whole truth, I think they had supernatural ideas, too - I don't think homo sapiens sapiens originated supernatural ideas, so there was no "purpose" in our "inventing" them, because we didn't, IMO). If so, then those hominids might also have had some explanations of natural things in terms of other natural things.

Quote

What needs to be added to, 'plants require sunlight to grow', to become an explanation?

Something else for it to be the explanation of. It explains the cultural practice of planting outdoors (maybe), the claim being examined concerns explanations of natural phenomena.

I'm not saying it's hard to find somethng in nature for it to be the explanation of, but an explanation (IMO) claims to relate at least three fact claims: what is to be explained, the opposite of what is to be explained, and some ground fact. (Since the first two are syntactically related, you need only specify one of them).

Example: Godidit is not an explanation, even if it is factually true, because it never distinguishes anything to be explained from its opposite (since capital G god can do anything that can be determined to have been done).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 4/30/2018 at 7:39 PM, psyche101 said:

There's no good reason to think that's what's happening though, are you sure you're not starting with a conclusion and looking for something to support that? 

The only conclusion I'm starting with is that there is no conclusion.  But I am accepting that there may be a real phenomenon that the reported experiences describe - and why not?  That is the proper way to view an unknown thing - IMO.  You may disagree about being that open minded - IDK. 

I accept the possiblity of things, and feel certain about the existence unknown things, for many reasons.  Not sure I want to get into debating that with you much....but what first opened my eyes to it was something I began to consider while studying probability theory.  For any event there are an infinite number of potential outcomes.  So yeah, I don't dismiss something because it's unlikely or not understood.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 5/3/2018 at 5:09 AM, eight bits said:

Example: Godidit is not an explanation, even if it is factually true, because it never distinguishes anything to be explained from its opposite (since capital G god can do anything that can be determined to have been done).

Very interesting.  It's interesting to consider that God has no opposite.....so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

But i guess one may consider the non-existence of God to be his opposite.  Kindof a mental twister there.....but if there is no God then it's kinda crazy that there could be anything, in my mind anyway.  FWIW.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 5/1/2018 at 1:04 PM, Emma_Acid said:

All humans are "extremely cognitively biased". Additionally, just because you don't agree with Dawkins, doesn't mean he's guilty of same issues psyche101 levels at Alexander.

First point....sure....totally agree.  Second point.....I don't really give a rip about Dawkins one way or the other, but my opinion of him doesn't have anything to do with my point.  

My point was that Psyche was criticizing a guy for writing a book about his experiences and opinions, and Dawkins did the same thing.  Psyche criticized the one guy as if he were money grubbing, but not the other.  Considering the controversial title of "God Delusion" and how much that type of controversy would translate into book sales, and dollars in the pocket......

It seemed a bit of a hypocritical thing to do......considering that the guy he didn't criticize supports the Atheist viewpoint.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 5/1/2018 at 6:03 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I'm just saying this, for me to assume this, but to read this I feel it wouldn't be the case all of the time. Subjectively. :w00t:  There are times, when I may have had some physical situations, and sometimes I could be thinking an experience is supporting my answers to certain things. I would think that, yes, and probably on many occasions. But sometimes, the memory, or we'll just talk about mine, might change it a bit through out the years. So, I then doubt an experience I had years ago. 

And using my 1989 car accident, I may have some form of memory, but because of the head injury I received, I'm not so sure of what I remember or not. My point is, that it's understandable to have a personal viewpoint, based on experience, a personal experience, but even then I don't think that can be trusted. 

Yes....I understand your point and criticism.  Yet, everything we experience is subjective because of our own nature.  Everything we experience is what we perceive.  As it pertains to material sciences and so forth.....yes....much of that subjective nature can be eliminated as we're generally describing things of a physical nature which allow themselves to be studied.  This is all true, but it doesn't change the nature of the thing we're discussing.  The phenomenon is either indicative of a real thing, or it isn't.  It's still an unknown.   

Quote

 

 I wonder though, ( I see where you coming from, I think. ) Does this also pertain to phantom pains in a missing limb? This happened to a family member whose leg was amputated. 

 

Right.  I think it's certainly a related type phenomenon.  It's more easy to dismiss this as not unusual though.....since people would consider the phantom pains a result of the brain itself.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Atheism is as much of a Reality as theism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

I guess it boils down to whether or not you want the world under Sharia law or World under freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On3Truly
On 02/05/2018 at 4:40 AM, Emma_Acid said:

Is all you guys do is sit there and make strawman arguments? Is that actually all you have?

Would you accept Christianity, if it were true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
59 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Would you accept Christianity, if it were true?

Would you abandon Christianity, if it were untrue ?

~

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On3Truly
43 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Would you abandon Christianity, if it were untrue ?

~

Yes and I'm always searching. I read plenty of books.

However, I've heard atheists say that they would not accept Christianity, even it was true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
23 hours ago, pallidin said:

I guess it boils down to whether or not you want the world under Sharia law or World under freedom.

Can you elaborate on this?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Yes and I'm always searching. I read plenty of books.

However, I've heard atheists say that they would not accept Christianity, even it was true.

Do you read books that deffers from your point of view?

One issue is which form of Christianity are you talking about. Like everything else on Earth, it's fragmented. The whole concept of religion in my opinion is flawed even if you do read the Bible, Jesus himself seems to be against it.

The bigger issue is people will always stick to what they believe regardless of compelling evidence against it. So there are always going to be people who will believe in religion even if somehow we disprove the existence of God and visa versa there will be people who will reject the idea of a God even if we somehow prove Gods existence. Most people dig their heels in when confronted with compelling reason, logic and evidence against what they believe to be true. Genius's aren't exempt from this either.

Look at the homeopathic market, acupuncture and Scientology for examples.

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
37 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

However, I've heard atheists say that they would not accept Christianity, even it was true.

Lol, I've heard atheists plural say many things about religions plural. I think we need to unpack your sentence a little.

First, which Christianity? The surviving and dominant form (the one with billions of adherents today, found on all inhabited continents - and there's probably a chapel somewhere in Antarctica)? OK, "accept" what about it that's true?

Christianity is a "total religion," it has a lot to say about every aspect of life. Christians themselves don't agree on everything. We have a current thread about abortion and infanticide nearby; Christians are on both sides of first trimester abortions, and I have my suspicions that frank infanticide in some form isn't outside the reach of Christian ethics (just be careful how you phrase it).

I know a lot of people (not just "atheists") who don't "accept" that it's morally permissible to crucify somebody (Jesus) for something the victim didn't do ("my sins"). Even if I lacked the nads to take that punishment myself, it doesn't mean that I'd "accept" nailing up an innocent fall guy. And by the way, if we're talking about truth, then let's start with the truth that I didn't nail the guy up, and now finally, after two thousand years, that God is gettng around to asking me, then I think it's a lousy plan.

So just because something is true doesn't mean anybody has to "accept" it. Many of us wonder about the character of Satan, who knows the truth, whatever it is, including (supposedly) that he cannot win, and yet he resists anyway. Why would that be?

Here's a worked example, with some adult langauge:

There is nothing in that character's speech which denies any "truth" of Christianity, but he does state an interpretation of that truth, an interpretation informed by a moral sensibility. So, yeah, he knows the capital T Truth, but doesn't accept it.

What's the problem with that?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
53 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Can you elaborate on this?

Radical Islam desires and efforts but one purpose... the entire World governed under Sharia law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.