Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 1467823 times)

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5526
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29175 on: June 14, 2018, 04:22:25 PM »
Perhaps bluehillside, when you eventually decide to stop conflating evidence with proof, you may at last, finally, endlich, enfin, begin to understand religious belief.
Why don't you come up with one objective fact about the God you believe in? If you did that, atheism would disappear overnight.

I do recommend a bit of reading about science and the universe , particularly evolutionary biology.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30169
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29176 on: June 14, 2018, 04:26:50 PM »
Bzzzzzzzz Deviation.
Nope, it's a question that SotS was asked on this thread many times. No deviation from thread. -1 point

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6932
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29177 on: June 14, 2018, 04:45:54 PM »
Gabriella,

Either it was an attempted analogy or it was irrelevant. Telling us that evangelists and economists (or whatever) rely on language, metaphor etc alike means it was the former.
Nope not irrelevant and not an analogy. Taking a liberal position to ideas - whether it is views about tap dancing or cultural beliefs - is no different to Rhiannon's earlier point about ideas being part of us and open to challenge and being accepted or not by different people.

Quote
So? Cultural messages are well and good, but we were talking about those who make claims of objective fact and rely on “faith” to justify those claims. And that’s a very different thing.
Yes and we're talking about how they are unable to validate their claims of fact, and how it seems problematic to you that some of them enjoy privileges that are denied to some other people who hold different faith claims/ cultural beliefs.

Quote
No it isn’t, but you’re shifting ground though. The national strategy guy isn’t in that arena. If though someone wanted to make a claim of objective fact about anything at all on the same basis as the evangelist – if, faith – then yes, he’d be in the same boat. That’s the point.
The claim that post-empire success in Britain was not dependent on joining the EU (due to beliefs that British people are intelligent and resourceful former owners of a large empire and "British/ English exceptionalism" is enough to succeed) is a claim of fact. "Success" can be defined in lots of different subjective ways based on personal experiences. Some people clearly view maintaining cultural continuity and limiting foreign influences as one of the more important measures of success.

My point was that without agreed upon definitions of "success" it is possible to take a liberal position that ideas that gain traction are not particularly problematic as it is part of the normal process of human societies to examine and accept or discard ideas, and privilege some above others for a time.

Quote
No, I mean that they’ve thrown away the epistemic currency of reason and evidence. If someone says, “god is real, and here’s my logic and evidence to support the claim” that logic and evidence can be considered and accepted or rejected on its merits. If though he says instead, “god is real and I know that because that’s my faith” there’s nothing to consider. Anyone can have a faith belief about anything, so he thereby relegates himself to the “so what?” box alongside the dragonists and the leprechaunists.
Ok yes. Given it's a faith position it's likely they were seeking to persuade by relating subjective evidence or using rhetoric rather than rely on objective evidence and reason. Yes, Alan has no method of validating his claims about souls and God using reason and objective evidence as these claims can't be tested objectively.   

Quote
Well, no – and more impossible I’d have thought than not easy given the absence of any method at all to test the attendant claims of objective facts.
Not sure what you mean here. It seems possible to disseminate ideas and beliefs even if there is no way to test claims of objective facts. Ideas can gain traction even without a means to test claims.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 04:48:51 PM by Gabriella »
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13625
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29178 on: June 14, 2018, 04:48:22 PM »
Hard to see how science can demonstrate something which it has not yet defined.

You mean 'defined' to suit your preferences? How about you defining 'souls' then, since if you can't, and you can't since you've been asked before, then by your own argument 'souls' aren't 'demonstrated'. You must be running out of feet to shoot yourself in!
 
Quote
We have discovered much about how things work, but the mysteries of reality have become deeper than ever.

This sounds like a deepity to me: how do you know there are mysteries since, by definition, they'd be mysterious so you couldn't define them sufficiently so as to 'demonstrate' that there are indeed these mysteries you speak of - right?

Quote
I think about things much more than you give me credit for

No doubt, but quantity ain't the same as quality.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12637
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29179 on: June 14, 2018, 07:32:24 PM »
Gabriella,

Quote
Nope not irrelevant and not an analogy. Taking a liberal position to ideas - whether it is views about tap dancing or cultural beliefs - is no different to Rhiannon's earlier point about ideas being part of us and open to challenge and being accepted or not by different people.

Oh stop it now. The conversation was about using faith to justify of claims of fact, you responded by comparing religious evangelism with economic forecasting, I explained the qualitative difference between them, and then you retrenched to it being about the dissemination of ideas. Well, if that's what you want to say it was about then fine but it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion you were replying to.     

Quote
Yes and we're talking about how they are unable to validate their claims of fact, and how it seems problematic to you that some of them enjoy privileges that are denied to some other people who hold different faith claims/ cultural beliefs.

Or no faith claims at all. Yes, the privileging of faith claims over guessing seems to me to be both unjustifiable and potentially dangerous.   

Quote
The claim that post-empire success in Britain was not dependent on joining the EU (due to beliefs that British people are intelligent and resourceful former owners of a large empire and "British/ English exceptionalism" is enough to succeed) is a claim of fact. "Success" can be defined in lots of different subjective ways based on personal experiences. Some people clearly view maintaining cultural continuity and limiting foreign influences as one of the more important measures of success.

My point was that without agreed upon definitions of "success" it is possible to take a liberal position that ideas that gain traction are not particularly problematic as it is part of the normal process of human societies to examine and accept or discard ideas, and privilege some above others for a time.

You’ve missed it still. The category difference wasn’t between how you’d investigate the different claims at all. Rather it was about some claims (ie, faith claims of fact) that are not investigation apt even conceptually, and other claims of fact that are investigation apt conceptually albeit that there may be all sorts of practical difficulties involved in how you’d go about it. It’s a “what v how” binary dichotomy.

Quote
Ok yes. Given it's a faith position it's likely they were seeking to persuade by relating subjective evidence or using rhetoric rather than rely on objective evidence and reason. Yes, Alan has no method of validating his claims about souls and God using reason and objective evidence as these claims can't be tested objectively.

Good. Then we agree on that. Now all we have to do is to persuade Alan…   

Quote
Not sure what you mean here. It seems possible to disseminate ideas and beliefs even if there is no way to test claims of objective facts. Ideas can gain traction even without a means to test claims.

Of course they can, but “ideas” and “attendant claims of objective facts” about the world are not the same thing. That’s the point.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 07:35:09 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12637
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29180 on: June 14, 2018, 07:39:37 PM »
NS,

Quote
Nope, it's a question that SotS was asked on this thread many times. No deviation from thread. -1 point

I'm not normally a gambling man, but I'll happily wager a crisp Lady Godiva on Swordy never feeling the need to explain what he means by "properties of truth".

Any takers?
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

The poster formerly known as....

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23660
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29181 on: June 14, 2018, 08:41:11 PM »
NS,

I'm not normally a gambling man, but I'll happily wager a crisp Lady Godiva on Swordy never feeling the need to explain what he means by "properties of truth".

Any takers?
Bzzzzzzzzz Deviation
Springtime for Rees Mogg and bastardy
Tinned spam for me and for you...….

With apologies to M. Brooks.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30169
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29182 on: June 14, 2018, 08:47:50 PM »
Bzzzzzzzzz Deviation
As already pointed out it isn't. SotS has talked of it on this thread. Repeated incorrect interuption - minus 2 points. 

The poster formerly known as....

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23660
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29183 on: June 14, 2018, 09:04:47 PM »
As already pointed out it isn't. SotS has talked of it on this thread. Repeated incorrect interuption - minus 2 points.
BzzzzzzzzDeviation. People are now resorting to this whataboutery or whatever because of the weakness of whatever their argument was before they resorted to it.

Same with bringing up exploding nipples.......complete distraction.

Springtime for Rees Mogg and bastardy
Tinned spam for me and for you...….

With apologies to M. Brooks.

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13625
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29184 on: June 14, 2018, 09:10:39 PM »
BzzzzzzzzDeviation. People are now resorting to this whataboutery or whatever because of the weakness of whatever their argument was before they resorted to it.

Same with bringing up exploding nipples.......complete distraction.

Nope - I've asked SotS that precise question several times since he mentioned these 'properties of truth': my posts are there if you can be bothered to find them.

He has ignored the question even though he has been posting since - so Bzzzzz Evasion on his part.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12637
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29185 on: June 14, 2018, 09:22:09 PM »
Quote
Bzzzzzzzzz Deviation

Wrong again Mendacity Mike - when someone introduces a term into the discussion with no known meaning it's on topic to ask him what he means by it. The fact that Swordy always vanishes when the question is asked is a different matter.
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12637
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29186 on: June 14, 2018, 09:26:10 PM »
Vladdo,

Quote
BzzzzzzzzDeviation. People are now resorting to this whataboutery or whatever...

Wrong again - that's not what whataboutery entails.

Quote
...because of the weakness of whatever their argument was before they resorted to it.

Wrong again. Just asking someone what he means by a term he introduces says nothing about the strength of the arguments that undo him.

Quote
Same with bringing up exploding nipples.......complete distraction.

As the king of the compete distraction that's more than ironic from you of all people, but asking someone what they mean by a term they use isn't a distraction at all. It's just asking for an explanation is all.
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30169
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29187 on: June 14, 2018, 09:35:25 PM »
BzzzzzzzzDeviation. People are now resorting to this whataboutery or whatever because of the weakness of whatever their argument was before they resorted to it.

Same with bringing up exploding nipples.......complete distraction.
No, they want SotS to answer a question that he has been asked frequently on this thread. That isn't whataboutery.

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29188 on: June 14, 2018, 10:43:08 PM »
AB,
 

Simple false logic. You betray here your fundamental ignorance of emergence – it’s not just lots of bits working together, it’s completely new phenomena that arise spontaneously from that co-operation but that are not present in any of the constituent parts. It’s pretty much everywhere you look in nature - flocks of birds, water and consciousness are all examples of it. 

Suggest you try Steven Johnson’s “Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software” to get you started. If nothing else it might help you to make less of a fool of yourself here in future.
In all the examples given of emergent properties, the apparent property is just an externally perceived pattern or recognisable function made up from simple elements interacting together.  There is nothing which brings this pattern or functionality into a single entity of any description - the elements all remain as separate interacting entities in their own right.  The same is true for any man made object or machine.  Just separate entities interacting or connecting, but not forming a single entity except in the conscious perception of an outside observer.

Similarly I see my physical body as a group of separate material elements interacting together, but with no perceivable means of forming a single entity.  Yet I exist as a single entity of conscious perception with the facility for consciously driven interaction.  The "me" can't be produced by collective activity of separate interacting elements, but by the single God given entity of my human soul.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 11:05:12 PM by Alan Burns »
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12637
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29189 on: June 14, 2018, 10:53:00 PM »
AB,

Quote
Hard to see how science can demonstrate something which it has not yet defined.

I have no idea what you mean by “defined” here (and nor I suspect have you) but using its common meaning of course it’s “defined”. It may not be completely defined or fully defined but it’s defined to a significant degree. The same is true of gravity by the way – yet for some reason you don’t invoke magic to explain away the definitional gaps for that

Quote
We have discovered much about how things work, but the mysteries of reality have become deeper than ever.

True or not, your incredulity about what the answers to those “mysteries” might be is still epistemically worthless. All you’re doing here is banking on your understanding of the superficial model of reality you experience, and then applying a very bad argument to the gaps that understanding leaves open. 

Quote
I think about things much more than you give me credit for

Then you need to think a bit harder – starting with what current reason and evidence actually tell us. You also need a quick primer on logic, and specifically on what logical fallacies entail.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 11:13:15 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6932
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29190 on: June 14, 2018, 11:56:59 PM »
Gabriella,

Oh stop it now. The conversation was about using faith to justify of claims of fact, you responded by comparing religious evangelism with economic forecasting, I explained the qualitative difference between them, and then you retrenched to it being about the dissemination of ideas. Well, if that's what you want to say it was about then fine but it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion you were replying to.
Nope - you're still wrong and it is not irrelevant. We were discussing using faith to justify claims of fact and we were also discussing subjective experiences that lead to belief. See #29119 where I said it was fine for the evangelist  because "The whole point is to try to persuade others that your particular non-religious belief or religious interpretation has a message that resonates on an ethical/ transcendental level.

You replied that "The big price is that they have no method to validate their claims.".
In #28130 I agreed that they have no method to validate their faith but that this was not an issue for evangelists because "They rely on subjective experience - it's a numbers game - someone in their audience may try a particular interpretation of faith, someone may find something of personal value in it"

You then tried to claim this approach does not work for claims of fact about the world. My response #29136 was that "Competing claims of belief aren't necessarily problematic, and people not sharing your beliefs or claims of fact goes with the territory of beliefs that can't be objectively validated as true."

You seemed to be trying to distinguish religious claims of fact from other claims of fact by asserting that religious claims involve certainty. Presumably you are aware that non-religious claims of fact based on what people believe to be true involves certainty? 

And your point about being able to investigate non-religious claims of fact is also incorrect. As much as a person can claim you have a soul they can also claim you have success - according to their definition of "soul" and their definition of "success".

My point was that it is not necessarily problematic that people make claims of fact based on subjective evidence.

Quote
Or no faith claims at all. Yes, the privileging of faith claims over guessing seems to me to be both unjustifiable and potentially dangerous.
Whereas I disagree with that generalisation - I don't have a problem with some claims being privileged - it depends on what the claim is about and what the privilege is and whether the claim is deemed by a majority of people to cause demonstrable harm from which people need protection.   

Quote
You’ve missed it still. The category difference wasn’t between how you’d investigate the different claims at all. Rather it was about some claims (ie, faith claims of fact) that are not investigation apt even conceptually, and other claims of fact that are investigation apt conceptually albeit that there may be all sorts of practical difficulties involved in how you’d go about it. It’s a “what v how” binary dichotomy.
How is a person who claims as a fact that they have success "investigation apt" when it can be based on nothing more than their perspective, which that person has defined as "success" while someone else would define as "failure" ?

Quote
Good. Then we agree on that. Now all we have to do is to persuade Alan…
I wasn't aware that Alan had claimed objective evidence for his claims of fact about God and souls. He had offered subjective evidence - his experiences - and his reasoning was based on his subjective evidence.   

Quote
Of course they can, but “ideas” and “attendant claims of objective facts” about the world are not the same thing. That’s the point.
I disagree - an idea of a God can be an objective claim of fact.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5526
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29191 on: June 15, 2018, 06:30:12 AM »
I disagree - an idea of a God can be an objective claim of fact.
That makes no sense; ;how can a claim be objective in itself? Please explain.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7841
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29192 on: June 15, 2018, 08:03:16 AM »
Words fail me, Blue.

So the "I" in me is just a practically useful construction.   ???

But the "I" is all I know.
The "I" is my existence.
The "I" is my world.
The "I" is my universe.

Yes but it's not fundamental.  The "I" is a pocket of subjectivity; we are all pockets of complexity and subjectivity.  We know it is not fundamental because it is derivative; the sense of being a 'me' is an ongoing process, which derives from other things, from memories, habits, preferences and these things are subject to constant change and as a result the "I" is also a constantly changing thing.  There is nothing fixed and unchanging about "me"; subtract all the desires and memories and prejudices that characterise "me" then what will be left ?  There will be nothing left to be a "me".  The "me" is not a thing, it is an ongoing process and feature of mind .

ekim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3444
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29193 on: June 15, 2018, 09:31:38 AM »
Yes but it's not fundamental.  The "I" is a pocket of subjectivity; we are all pockets of complexity and subjectivity.  We know it is not fundamental because it is derivative; the sense of being a 'me' is an ongoing process, which derives from other things, from memories, habits, preferences and these things are subject to constant change and as a result the "I" is also a constantly changing thing.  There is nothing fixed and unchanging about "me"; subtract all the desires and memories and prejudices that characterise "me" then what will be left ?  There will be nothing left to be a "me".  The "me" is not a thing, it is an ongoing process and feature of mind .
However, from the mystic's point of view the 'I' is fundamental,  the subject rather than subjectivity, simple rather than complex.  The description of what you term as 'me', they would term as the 'self' and it is the 'self' which they say needs to be transcended by certain 'religious' practices in order to realise 'I'.  It is the self centred mind which thinks of itself in terms of desires, memories, prejudices etc., which are as you say transient.  The mystic would say that the path to such realisation is through inner stillness.  The alternative produces what you see in this topic, years of argument.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7841
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29194 on: June 15, 2018, 10:18:53 AM »
In all the examples given of emergent properties, the apparent property is just an externally perceived pattern or recognisable function made up from simple elements interacting together.  There is nothing which brings this pattern or functionality into a single entity of any description - the elements all remain as separate interacting entities in their own right.  The same is true for any man made object or machine.  Just separate entities interacting or connecting, but not forming a single entity except in the conscious perception of an outside observer.

Similarly I see my physical body as a group of separate material elements interacting together, but with no perceivable means of forming a single entity.  Yet I exist as a single entity of conscious perception with the facility for consciously driven interaction.  The "me" can't be produced by collective activity of separate interacting elements, but by the single God given entity of my human soul.

There are lots of 'single entities', they are ubiquitous and occur naturally. When single celled organisms joined to form multicullar organisms they were forming a single unit at a higher level of biological complexity and integration.  Higher and more complex organisms still developed yet more sophisticated nervous systems to integrate their diverse bodily functions into a singular biological system.  Brains are that outgrowth of a nervous system that integrate all parts of an animal into a whole conjoined system.  We don't need god magic to explain these things, they are a consequence of natural law.

wigginhall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17165
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29195 on: June 15, 2018, 10:19:32 AM »
In all the examples given of emergent properties, the apparent property is just an externally perceived pattern or recognisable function made up from simple elements interacting together.  There is nothing which brings this pattern or functionality into a single entity of any description - the elements all remain as separate interacting entities in their own right.  The same is true for any man made object or machine.  Just separate entities interacting or connecting, but not forming a single entity except in the conscious perception of an outside observer.

Similarly I see my physical body as a group of separate material elements interacting together, but with no perceivable means of forming a single entity.  Yet I exist as a single entity of conscious perception with the facility for consciously driven interaction.  The "me" can't be produced by collective activity of separate interacting elements, but by the single God given entity of my human soul.

Well, nature is full of compounds, such as common salt, where elements do not exist independently.   Try putting sodium and chlorine on your fish and chips!  Of course, compounds proliferate in nature, although I vaguely remember that there are different types.   I suppose this is different from emergence, as in a flock of birds, but you can see how in nature, the principle of non-isolation is widespread.
They were the footprints of a gigantic hound!

wigginhall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17165
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29196 on: June 15, 2018, 10:33:02 AM »
As torridon argued, why on earth would nervous systems develop if not to integrate complex organisms?
They were the footprints of a gigantic hound!

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12637
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29197 on: June 15, 2018, 10:40:58 AM »
Gabriella,

Quote
Nope - you're still wrong and it is not irrelevant. We were discussing using faith to justify claims of fact and we were also discussing subjective experiences that lead to belief. See #29119 where I said it was fine for the evangelist  because "The whole point is to try to persuade others that your particular non-religious belief or religious interpretation has a message that resonates on an ethical/ transcendental level.

You replied that "The big price is that they have no method to validate their claims.".
In #28130 I agreed that they have no method to validate their faith but that this was not an issue for evangelists because "They rely on subjective experience - it's a numbers game - someone in their audience may try a particular interpretation of faith, someone may find something of personal value in it"

You then tried to claim this approach does not work for claims of fact about the world. My response #29136 was that "Competing claims of belief aren't necessarily problematic, and people not sharing your beliefs or claims of fact goes with the territory of beliefs that can't be objectively validated as true."

You seemed to be trying to distinguish religious claims of fact from other claims of fact by asserting that religious claims involve certainty. Presumably you are aware that non-religious claims of fact based on what people believe to be true involves certainty? 

And your point about being able to investigate non-religious claims of fact is also incorrect. As much as a person can claim you have a soul they can also claim you have success - according to their definition of "soul" and their definition of "success".

My point was that it is not necessarily problematic that people make claims of fact based on subjective evidence.

Very sneaky. In Reply 29133 I said:

"Which is fine when people say, "I find believing X to be true is useful" and it doesn't matter much what "X" happens to be - your god, another god, whatever - it's basically a game of celestial yoga. The minute though such people overreach into objective claims of fact about the world - there really was a resurrection, there really was a "prophet", there really is a "soul" etc - then it all collapses in a heap of competing (and often mutually incompatible) claims and assertions."

That is I expressly opposed subjective claims of ideas and beliefs that people find personally useful with objective claims of fact about the world.

In your Reply to that post specifically 29136 you said:

"Not sure what you mean by "it all collapses". Competing claims of belief aren't necessarily problematic, and people not sharing your beliefs or claims of fact goes with the territory of beliefs that can't be objectively validated as true.

I can see it is an issue when people try to force their ideas through using violence or intimidation, but using language to seek to persuade others to support an idea through the use of rhetoric and metaphors and similes seems fairly standard behaviour, as we are seeing in the Brexit debate. Lots of competing claims of facts or predictions for the future.

I get that it appears particularly problematic for you that competing religious claims have a supernatural element, but I don't see it as any more problematic than competing claims about national strategic interests. Some people do strange and sometimes horrible things to promote their claims and ideas, but many don't."


I then explained your category error of comparing “religious claims” with “claims about national strategic interest” when the religious claims are claims of objective fact (“god”, “soul”, “prophet” etc) whereas the claims you used for analogy purposes do not entail claims of objective fact.

Since then you’ve twisted in the wind by trying to elide the two, but the qualitative difference between them is perfectly clear.

To be frank I don’t care much: either accept that the analogy failed because it was a category error, or that you weren’t attempting an analogy but that the “national strategic interest” stuff therefore had no relevance to the topic of claiming objective facts about the world.   

Quote
Whereas I disagree with that generalisation…

The “privileging of faith claims over guessing” bit? Why? Are you seriously suggesting that pretty much all “people of faith” don’t think that heir faith is a more reliable guide to truth than just guessing?

Seriously though?

Quote
- I don't have a problem with some claims being privileged - it depends on what the claim is about and what the privilege is and whether the claim is deemed by a majority of people to cause demonstrable harm from which people need protection.

That’s up to you, but you’re wrong not to have “a problem” about that I think. It’s a general principle - if in the public square you privilege one “but that’s my faith” over just guessing, on what basis could you then deny any other “but that’s my faith” over just guessing when the methodology (such as it is) is the same in each case – faith?     

Quote
How is a person who claims as a fact that they have success "investigation apt" when it can be based on nothing more than their perspective, which that person has defined as "success" while someone else would define as "failure" ?

Easily. There’s a fundamental qualitative difference in principle between “X is an objective fact about the world because my faith tells me it’s a fact” and “Y is a fact if various investigable metrics tell me so”. No matter how difficult those metrics may be to use in practice, the difference between the two positions is a profound one. It’s the difference if you like between “God is because that’s my faith” and “the Higgs-Boson looks likely, and here are the (very difficult) experiments you’d need to do to confirm or deny the proposition”.     

Quote
I wasn't aware that Alan had claimed objective evidence for his claims of fact about God and souls. He had offered subjective evidence - his experiences - and his reasoning was based on his subjective evidence.

He claims “souls” to be an objective fact about the world. He doesn’t bother with the evidence bit. That’s the point.   

Quote
I disagree - an idea of a God can be an objective claim of fact.

You misunderstand. You’ve tried to elide “ideas” in general (about strategic planning for example) with claims of objective fact (“gravity exists”, "God is” etc) about the world as if they’re epistemically equivalent. They’re not. There’s a fundamental difference between a claim of something objectively existing/not existing in the world and a subjective experience (“believing in god X makes me feel better about myself” etc).
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

The poster formerly known as....

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23660
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29198 on: June 15, 2018, 01:20:12 PM »
Gabriella,

Very sneaky. In Reply 29133 I said:

"Which is fine when people say, "I find believing X to be true is useful" and it doesn't matter much what "X" happens to be - your god, another god, whatever - it's basically a game of celestial yoga. The minute though such people overreach into objective claims of fact about the world - there really was a resurrection, there really was a "prophet", there really is a "soul" etc - then it all collapses in a heap of competing (and often mutually incompatible) claims and assertions."


And of course there are never competing and mutually incompatible objective claims in science.

....are there Hillside? ;D
Springtime for Rees Mogg and bastardy
Tinned spam for me and for you...….

With apologies to M. Brooks.

The poster formerly known as....

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23660
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #29199 on: June 15, 2018, 01:32:30 PM »
I sometimes when conversing with my wife about various things and that fool of a wife of mine 
Ippy. Do you think this is some kind of man cave?

Points.
Springtime for Rees Mogg and bastardy
Tinned spam for me and for you...….

With apologies to M. Brooks.