Religion,superstition and spirituality

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

No, that's not what they feel. Euphoria, contentment, well bring and connection are what I feel when I am sitting in my garden with a glass of wine enjoying nature, or when I go to the pub with a few friends to watch a game and my team wins. Your church example would be similar. It is a perfectly normal state of consciousness, influenced by brain chemicals as you say. This is nothing like mystical or altered states of consciousness, think about lucid dreaming for an example of a basic altered state of consciousness.

I know what lucid dreaming is (and can also explain it), but you will have to detail what "altered state of consciousness" is.

Also on what basis are you saying what they experience isn't what someone experiences when they have a profound moment in a church? This seems to be as useful as arguing that the blue you see is different to the blue I see.

nagirrac wrote: »

Most models of consciousness have three main levels, the subconscious, normal waking, and transpersonal consciousnes. There are many proposed models with many subsets of each of the three levels, but transpersonal relates to altered states of consciousness.

Well firstly no it doesn't, that isn't what trans-personal psychology is. In fact in recent years there has been a major house cleaning exercise in the area of trans-personal psychology to push back against the romanticism of the field, as many with supernatural ideas but little to zero support for them have latched onto the sub-field of psychology mistakenly believing that it gave support for paranormal notions about mind and body.

As Harris Friedman put it

Romanticism is becoming increasing prevalent in transpersonal psychology, subverting efforts to develop scientific approaches in this subfield of psychology.
...
In view of romanticism's problems in fostering such cultural errors and embracing supernatural explanations when more ordinary ones suffice, the importance of transpersonal psychology's resisting the challenge of romanticism is advocated and suggestions for the further development of this subfield as a science are provided.

Btw "romanticism" is a very good term to describe your particular flights of fancy nagirrac.

Secondly trans-personal psychology is a sub-field of psychology, and a small one at that. Stating the "most" models of consciousness integrate trans-personal psychology is completely wrong.

nagirrac wrote: »

As to where consciousness emerges from, there is no firm evidence on what consciousness is, let alone where it arises from or what has it and what does not. There is tentative evidence that it arises from the brain (fMRI and other techniques), and tentative evidence that the mental state and the physical state are separate (NDEs, OOBs, etc).

The evidence for Near Death Experiences etc is poor at best, more often than not relying on the subjects personal assessment of where a memory came from. When objectively tested the data is not replicated (ie putting symbols on the top of shelves in operating rooms that are impossible to see from the ground)

nagirrac wrote: »

The evidence from altered states suggests that every living entity has some level of consciousness.

What in the what now?

Firstly can you actually define "altered states" (my brain moves through a number of different states simply putting on my pants), and secondly explain how a single bacteria in my gut has "some level of consciousness".

nagirrac wrote: »

The problem with the mind-brain theory is are these causal effects or correlation effects. You also have to distinguish between the easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem. The easy problem is brain chemistry (feelings and emotions), the hard problem is our sense of self and the various levels that consciousness can achieve.

The "hard problem" of consciousness is a descriptive problem (going back to say how do I know my blue is also your blue), it is not an issue for the idea that the brain produces consciousness.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is difficult to have this discussion with you because you are coming at the question of spirituality from a 100% rational scientific approach.

See quote about the problem of allowing romanticism into serious inquiry.

nagirrac wrote: »

Apologies for linking you to the God Helmet. An earlier poster a few pages back referenced Michael Persinger's apparatus for applying EM radiation to the brain, and suggested you were the source of the information.

No problem.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

I know what lucid dreaming is (and can also explain it), but you will have to detail what "altered state of consciousness" is.
As Harris Friedman put it

Romanticism is becoming increasing prevalent in transpersonal psychology, subverting efforts to develop scientific approaches in this subfield of psychology.
Btw "romanticism" is a very good term to describe your particular flights of fancy nagirrac.

It is quite dishonest to selectively quote a researcher pointing out the caution he highlights in one area where it suits your argument, while leaving out what he also cautions against that goes against your argument. From the same article by Harris Friedmann, where he cautions regarding scientism..

"This is characterized by an attitude that outwardly appears similar to science, but is actually dominated by a rigid and closed- minded view. It should be noted that scientism is not a legitimate aspect of the scientific approach per se, since openness is a core scientific value that is complementary to skepticism, but instead is a perversion of science that has been corrupted into a parochial ideology. Science should, on the other hand, never be an ideology but instead is an approach to knowledge that that is grounded in respect for experience. It is unfortunate that some adherenets to scientism have dismissed the whole field of transpersonal psychology as irrational.."

If we are playing the game of which "box" to put people in, then I would say most atheists, inlcuding yourself, are firmly in the scientism box. The God Helmet was actually a good example of this, where many atheists seized on the data released by Persinger and said "ha, proof that mysticism is mumbo jumbo, it can be recreated by applying an electric field to the head". Unfortunatey, 1) the experiences reported when examined carefully are not mystical, and 2) they have never been duplicated outside Persingers lab (compared to say Ganzfeld studies which have been duplicated in many labs worldwide). I am not clamining Persinger is a fraud but until his data is replicated elsewhere, one has to be highly skeptical. What's interesting in this example is that atheists could seize on one set of fringe data and use it to bolster their argument, while dismissing other fringe areas that actually have more solid data.

It is quite possible to be well balanced between scepticism and belief Zombrex. The acid test for me in terms of transpersonal psychology is does the claim have any genuine validity in terms of helping people. If there is no reproducible data that astrology, crystals, psychic readings, etc. actually help people then I discount these. However, if there is data that mindful mediatation, focussed thinking, taking psychedelics in a controlled setting, etc. have beneficial results then I do not discount these. I have seen the benefits myself, and seen the benefits in other people, so why would I discount it. Remember, it is anti science to discount something that is based on experience.

Finally on the subject of science, I am firmly in the camp that we should not restrict human endevour in terms of the pursuit of knowledge to what science can currently study. Meditation is a good example, where it has been known for thousands of years that advanced meditators enter "altered states" of consciousness. We are just beginning to understand this effect from a science standpoint from EEG studies. In our normal waking state we are predominatly in the beta state (13 - 38Hz), while lower frequency waves relate to sleep states. Gamma brain waves (38 - 100Hz)are a very recent area of study, and the preliminary data suggests these are associated with higher mental activity and consolidation of information (the binding problem in consciousness). Studies have shown that advanced Tibetan meditators produce much higher levels of gamma brain waves during meditation than is normal.

The point here is that meditation has been used for thousands of years to facilitate growth in human knowledge, there is no valid argument to be made that humans should have waited for science to "catch up" and explain what is going on.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

It is quite dishonest to selectively quote a researcher pointing out the caution he highlights in one area where it suits your argument, while leaving out what he also cautions against that goes against your argument.

Er, he isn't going against my argument. I'm not even sure I made an argument other than to not invoke romanticism in science, which is the same thing Friedmann does.

nagirrac wrote: »

"Science should, on the other hand, never be an ideology but instead is an approach to knowledge that that is grounded in respect for experience. It is unfortunate that some adherenets to scientism have dismissed the whole field of transpersonal psychology as irrational.."

Given that I haven't dismissed the whole field of trans-personal psychology as irrational I'm not sure why you are putting that to me.

All genuine scientists would reject a dogmatic adherence to "scientism"

But then of course your objections are nothing to do with scientism, they are an objection to scientific standards.

nagirrac wrote: »

If we are playing the game of which "box" to put people in, then I would say most atheists, inlcuding yourself, are firmly in the scientism box.

Then you don't understand what scientism is.

Scientism is not skepticism, it is not pointing out that researchers have made mistakes or drawn un-supported conclusions.

You mis-use the charge of scientism to attack those who are simply pointing out that your beliefs do not have foundation.

nagirrac wrote: »

Unfortunatey, 1) the experiences reported when examined carefully are not mystical, and 2) they have never been duplicated outside Persingers lab (compared to say Ganzfeld studies which have been duplicated in many labs worldwide).

You are correct to dismiss the God Helmet (after doing some research). But in typical fashion you only apply this skepticism to things that contradict your own dogmatic/romantic notions, you don't apply the same level of skepticism to research you want to be true.

For example the Ganzfeld studies have been duplicated but that is because the original experiments were deeply flawed, and many many researchers have pointed out the original problems, but psi researchers have not compensated for these so they continue to get "successful" results.

Also all the Ganzfeld experiments found was statistic anomolies, anomolies that cannot be replicated at the individual level. Or to put it another way if you test hundreds of people you might find odd statistics appear, but no matter how much you test an individual you cannot replicate the results.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not clamining Persinger is a fraud but until his data is replicated elsewhere, one has to be highly skeptical.

It is shame that you selectively apply your skepticism.

nagirrac wrote: »

What's interesting in this example is that atheists could seize on one set of fringe data and use it to bolster their argument, while dismissing other fringe areas that actually have more solid data.

And it is interesting that you do the same thing, while criticising others who do this. Can you really not see that you do the exact same thing?

nagirrac wrote: »

It is quite possible to be well balanced between scepticism and belief Zombrex.

Then why don't you?

nagirrac wrote: »

The acid test for me in terms of transpersonal psychology is does the claim have any genuine validity in terms of helping people. If there is no reproducible data that astrology, crystals, psychic readings, etc. actually help people then I discount these.

There is tons of evidence that these things help people, but this has been identified as the work of the placebo effect.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Then you don't understand what scientism is.

Scientism is not skepticism, it is not pointing out that researchers have made mistakes or drawn un-supported conclusions.

Most of your post is just ad hominum so I will only repond to this.

Scientism is the view that empirical science is the most authoritative worldview and valuable part of human learning, to the exclusion of other viewpoints (wiki).

I reject this view, not based on science being the most authoritative (it is) but the exclusion of experience based knowledge which is what has driven human knowledge since long before science or the scientific method was founded. Should we not examine anything that cannot currently be measured by scientific means? If we had followed that philosophy we would still be collecting nuts and berries.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

I reject this view, not based on science being the most authoritative (it is) but the exclusion of experience based knowledge which is what has driven human knowledge since long before science or the scientific method was founded. Should we not examine anything that cannot currently be measured by scientific means? If we had followed that philosophy we would still be collecting nuts and berries.

Could you distinguish between scientific knowledge (acquired by our senses, or things that act on behalf of our senses) and what you refer to as "experience based knowledge" which I must assume you believe is not acquired by our senses?

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Could you distinguish between scientific knowledge (acquired by our senses, or things that act on behalf of our senses) and what you refer to as "experience based knowledge" which I must assume you believe is not acquired by our senses?

The distinction between objective knowledge and subjective knowledge. Scientific knowledge, to me at least, is based on empirical evidence, something we can measure. This can go far beyond our senses, we cannot measure most of the electromagnetic spectum for example with our senses. We also have limitations on measurement, we have no current means to detect 96% of the matter and energy in our universe.

I would define experience based knowledge as memory and testimony. Thought is not regarded as a sense, or at least I have never heard anyone make a good argument that it is. A good example is Psychology, which for decades was not regarded as a science, as there was no clear empirical evidence involved. Today, Psychology is accepted as a science, largely due to the development of neuroscience.

Up to very recently, we have had no tools to measure thought empirically, and until we have more advanced tools this issue will remain. The topics of meditation and psychedelics I have been discussing with Zombrex are examples of this. We are making great strides in this area however with the development of more powerful EEG and other tools that can scan the brain in action. So far, they appear to be confirming what mystics have been saying for thousands of years, that altered states of consciousness are correlated with advanced learning and creativity. Zombrex does not agree, but I think this is one of those cases where we will just have to wait for more compelling data to settle the argument.

Knasher

nagirrac wrote: »

Scientism is the view that empirical science is the most authoritative worldview and valuable part of human learning, to the exclusion of other viewpoints (wiki).

I reject this view, not based on science being the most authoritative (it is) but the exclusion of experience based knowledge which is what has driven human knowledge since long before science or the scientific method was founded. Should we not examine anything that cannot currently be measured by scientific means? If we had followed that philosophy we would still be collecting nuts and berries.

The purpose of science is to lend rigor and credibility to the way we acquire knowledge. It is meant to constrain the conclusions that people can reach until they are properly supported by the evidence. "Knowledge" acquired outside of science barely rises above the level of anecdote. It is always possible that any conclusions reached this way are accurate, but when that happens it is due to blind luck, merely stumbling upon the truth than actually finding it.

Crucially however, any conclusions that cannot be investigated by scientific means, are by definition impossible to validate. Correct conclusions are impossible to differentiate in any way from incorrect ones. The only option is to doubt all of them, until a way is found for science to investigate them, or loosen your grip on reality.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

Basically they feel all sense of ego dissolve and feel all of nature, including themselves, is interconnected. That's the basics.

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves. . . Here's Tom with the weather." - Bill Hicks

nagirrac

Bill Hicks is such a loss, we needed him badly during the Bush years.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Scientism is the view that empirical science is the most authoritative worldview and valuable part of human learning, to the exclusion of other viewpoints (wiki).

I reject this view, not based on science being the most authoritative (it is) but the exclusion of experience based knowledge which is what has driven human knowledge since long before science or the scientific method was founded.

You are correct to reject scientism, but you are not correct to replace it with "experience based knowledge".

As I already discussed with you, pointing out a problem with one philosophy is not a license to embrace another without examination of the problems with the other philosophy.

This is similar to how Creationists will some time point out (valid) problems with the theory of evolution, but then use this to as some sort of justification for Creationism.

There are large limits to what science can achieve, and there are people who ignore these problems and thus can be accused of scientism. That is not license though to replace science with methodologies that have far greater problems.

What ever your view point on science that says nothing to overcoming the problems with relying on testimony of personal experience.

Like I mentioned it is a great shame that you seem perfectly happy to apply your skepticism towards philosophies that are contrary to your beliefs, but not to areas that support them

Sarky

I think "Experience-based knowledge" in this case means "Something I accept because I prefer the sound of it".

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

I think "Experience-based knowledge" in this case means "Something I accept because I prefer the sound of it".

Epic fail, Sarky.

"Experience based knowledge" is something one believes because they have experienced it. The value of Experiental Learning is unquestioned today, it is by far the best method of learning, where the student is directly involved in the work and it is meaningful to them.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

I think "Experience-based knowledge" in this case means "Something I accept because I prefer the sound of it".

Which do you prefer Bucks Fizz or Iron Maiden lol

Sarky

This would be the same experience that tells us the sun goes around a flat earth, that it's the room spinning when you're drunk and not your brain being fried, and that there's a magic man in the sky looking out for you, yeah? Unquestioned indeed.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Like I mentioned it is a great shame that you seem perfectly happy to apply your skepticism towards philosophies that are contrary to your beliefs, but not to areas that support them

If we are being honest Zombrez we are all guilty of that, to a greater or lesser degree. Howeve, to the specifics of your argument.

Your claim is that I am skeptical about Persinger's work, assumedly because it does not agree with my beliefs, but I am not skeptical towards Dean Radin, because it agrees with my beliefs. This is nonsense of the highest order, as neither position has anything to do with my beliefs.

Persinger's work is qustionable in my opinion because a) the testimony does not back up the claim i.e. these are not mystical experiences; and b) the work has never been reproduced outside his lab. In fact there is a commercial "God Helmet" device endorsed by Persinger which apparently has generate a sum total of zero mystical experiences.

If I were interested in finding support for my beliefs, then I would fully endorse Persinger as he is one of the leading proponents of psi nowadays, based on parallel findings from the "God Helmet" work. However, I would not use him for support due to my skepticism of the "God Helmet" in general. This may be a little unfair on him as the data from his lab appears to suggest that applying EM fields to the brain enhances the psi effect. The results he has claimed are of the order of a 75% hit rate as opposed to 30 - 34% in most published Ganzfeld data.

When I look at the Radin data I see something entirely different. While it is absolutely true that criticism has been rightly levelled at some of the earlier Ganzfeld work, since 1983 all the work in this area is automated. Anyone who has actually looked at the data generated since 1983 agrees that the psi effect is real but not understood.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Epic fail, Sarky.

"Experience based knowledge" is something one believes because they have experienced it. The value of Experiental Learning is unquestioned today, it is by far the best method of learning, where the student is directly involved in the work and it is meaningful to them.

Ummm ... you are sort of technically correct, but based on your previous posts I would imagine what you mean isn't correct.

Experience based knowledge includes things like empirical knowledge. It is basically first hand knowledge. I know the double slit experiment produces this result because I actually ran the double slit experiment.

In philosophy this is contrasted against propositional knowledge, knowledge you can second hand by being told about it or reading about it. I know the double slit experiment produces this result because I read about it in Nature.

Just because something is experience based doesn't mean you do not apply standards of examination to it. It does not mean that one simply takes an initial claim of what they experienced as accurate (oh I saw a ghost!)

Because something is experience based says nothing about the quality of the claim used to explain that experience. We do not hold experience based knowledge in any particular high regard just because it is experience based.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Just because something is experience based doesn't mean you do not apply standards of examination to it. It does not mean that one simply takes an initial claim of what they experienced as accurate (oh I saw a ghost!)

Correct, experience based knowledge has to include reflective thought and active experimentation to bolster the experience. If someone sees a "ghost", they have to reflect on the experience and consider all other possibilities. Was I under the influence of hallunicogenics, was I just hallucinating as can normally occur, did I do anything experimentally to try and confirm it as a real observed thing, such as walk towards it or around it to check my perception, etc.

Your double slit example is an interesting one. Although literally anyone can run the basic experiment nowadays and get the same result, >200 years after it was first run we are still debating what it is telling us.

Geomy

If everything was turned around,could it be that the experience is controlling the reaction rather than the reaction controlling the experience...

Just say someone has a spiritual experience or sees a ghost etc

Could it be that this specter,ghost,God, angel, emotions, imagination to some is projecting something onto the observer.

Therefore causing the chemical reactions and various firing of the brain...

I'll get a rightly bombarded after this one but sure ill recover ok

Just like a person peeling a potato,or is the potato controlling the peeler...
Digging a hole here I know it...

Or like the red Indians saying the animal they hunted subconsciously offered itself up to the hunters....

I'll be back in a month slan :S

Hotblack Desiato

Sarky wrote: »

This would be the same experience that tells us the sun goes around a flat earth, that it's the room spinning when you're drunk and not your brain being fried, and that there's a magic man in the sky looking out for you, yeah? Unquestioned indeed.

Or that if you wake up with a throbbing head and sore bum it must have been an alien abduction...

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Correct, experience based knowledge has to include reflective thought and active experimentation to bolster the experience. If someone sees a "ghost", they have to reflect on the experience and consider all other possibilities. Was I under the influence of hallunicogenics, was I just hallucinating as can normally occur, did I do anything experimentally to try and confirm it as a real observed thing, such as walk towards it or around it to check my perception, etc.

While reflection is important, it by itself is not enough as often people are not aware of the external influences that are effecting them, such as tricks of the mind or sub conscious bias. This is why objective measurement is so important, as our ability to determine the accuracy of our mind using just our mind is deeply flawed.

nagirrac wrote: »

Your double slit example is an interesting one. Although literally anyone can run the basic experiment nowadays and get the same result, >200 years after it was first run we are still debating what it is telling us.

It tells us nothing more than what it tells us.

Zombrex

Geomy wrote: »

If everything was turned around,could it be that the experience is controlling the reaction rather than the reaction controlling the experience...

Just say someone has a spiritual experience or sees a ghost etc

Could it be that this specter,ghost,God, angel, emotions, imagination to some is projecting something onto the observer.

Therefore causing the chemical reactions and various firing of the brain...

We are back into anything-is-possible territory here.

Like all these pondering the question isn't could this be what is happening. The question is rather is this what is happening.

The could questions are largely irrelevant, as we could ponder an infinite number of things that could be happening and be no closer to knowing what is happening.

We also do not want to fall into the fallacy of thinking that any particular possible explanation has greater significance simply because it is the explanation we presented.

Brian Shanahan

Geomy wrote: »

Zombrex have you ever had a spiritual experience or something of an unexplainable nature happen to you,and not look for a rational explanation and see it as it is...

Why would Zombrex have something happen to him that he couldn't explain and not bother to try and figure out why or how it happened?

That is essentially what you are asking him here, whether he had something happen to him and he not bother to figure out the reasons behind the event.

Brian Shanahan

Magnetics wrote: »

To completely discount any sort of 'higher power' or universal 'knowledge' is just as ignorant and presumptuous as blindly religious people in my opinion.

How do you figure this, "my friend"*? We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 observed evidence for the existence of a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof, therefore until the situation changes the default logical position is to assume that there, like with the celestial tea-pot, is no such being.

It is not ignorance or blindness which persuades me that there is no god, it is the fact that I've looked at the available evidence (and other things, like figuring out which position is better for maintaining sanity) and come down on the side which that evidence most persuasively supports.

* There is something deeply offensive about that phrase, probably the fact that it is most often use by people who are not of a friendly demeanour, and mean to do the person they are speaking to harm. For example look at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and how those two glorious old hams William Shattner and Ricardo Montalban use it and variations (e.g. "old friend")when insulting each other the whole film.

Geomy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

How do you figure this, "my friend"*? We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 observed evidence for the existence of a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof, therefore until the situation changes the default logical position is to assume that there, like with the celestial tea-pot, is no such being.

You're on a roll tonight's Brian,are you at a fancy dress,let me see you decided to dress as a dice.

Roll on there now let's see what comes up next.

What about Q in The Next Generation

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 observed evidence for the existence of a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof..

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?

Pherekydes

nagirrac wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?

The lack of evidence for a higher power?

Hotblack Desiato

*facepalm*

nagirrac

Pherekydes wrote: »

The lack of evidence for a higher power?

Perhaps you should let Brian answer for himself as it sounds like you did not read his post. These are his exact words:

"We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 evidence for a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof"

In the context of Brian's claim above, you cannot claim that the "plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack of a higher power" is the lack of evidence for a higher power. That is not a rational argument.

In the first place there is plenty evidence for a higher power, should one choose to consider it. I am more interested though in the plenty of persuasive evidence that a higher power does not exist.

I truly hope we are not talking about scientific evidence, as in science there is no evidence either way.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

Perhaps you should let Brian answer for himself as it sounds like you did not read his post. These are his exact words:

"We live in a universe where there is exactly 0 evidence for a deity, and plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack thereof"

In the context of Brian's claim above, you cannot claim that the "plenty of persuasive evidence for the lack of a higher power" is the lack of evidence for a higher power. That is not a rational argument.

Brian may have over-egged the pudding but you can't ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of the existence of any deity.

In the first place there is plenty evidence for a higher power, should one choose to consider it.

Should one choose to disable one's critical faculties, you mean?

I am more interested though in the plenty of persuasive evidence that a higher power does not exist.

I truly hope we are not talking about scientific evidence, as in science there is no evidence either way.

Asking atheists to prove a negative is a fallacy.
Theists maintain there is a god, they have no evidence, call it faith, then ridicule science for being unable to prove a negative, but ignore the scientific evidence which directly contradicts the bible.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?

From "Thinking of Answers" by A.C Grayling, from the "proving a negative section".

For a simple case of proving a negative, by the way, consider how you prove the absence of pennies in a piggy-bank. You break it open and look inside: it is empty. On what grounds would you assert nevertheless that there might possibly still be pennies in there, only you cannot see or hear or feel or spend them?

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

From "Thinking of Answers" by A.C Grayling, from the "proving a negative section".

A.C. Grayling is closer to a 7 on Dawkin's atheist scale than Dawkins himself!

The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable. As Julian Baggini put it in the Observer it is like a bad marriage, where the couple "prefer the dysfunctionality of their relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond a divorce".

The only hope in my view to move forward, just like in a bad marriage, is to either divorce and stop niggling each other, or to accept that atheist humanism and religious humanism have far more in common than they disagree on. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of human evolution than arguing over whether Jesus literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

A.C. Grayling is closer to a 7 on Dawkin's atheist scale than Dawkins himself!

The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable. As Julian Baggini put it in the Observer it is like a bad marriage, where the couple "prefer the dysfunctionality of their relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond a divorce".

The only hope in my view to move forward, just like in a bad marriage, is to either divorce and stop niggling each other, or to accept that atheist humanism and religious humanism have far more in common than they disagree on. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of human evolution than arguing over whether Jesus literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

Oh if only certain theists would stop trying to force everyone to abide by their rules we could happily divorce.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

A.C. Grayling is closer to a 7 on Dawkin's atheist scale than Dawkins himself!

That doesn't address the content of my post. How does a theist/deist say "there are still pennies in the pigg-bank" when there is no evidence to support the claim? And why should others behave as if the theist actually did have the pennies?

The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable. As Julian Baggini put it in the Observer it is like a bad marriage, where the couple "prefer the dysfunctionality of their relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond a divorce".

The only hope in my view to move forward, just like in a bad marriage, is to either divorce and stop niggling each other, or to accept that atheist humanism and religious humanism have far more in common than they disagree on. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of human evolution than arguing over whether Jesus literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

I wouldn't personally consider Christianity to fall under humanism given that there's a deity at the top of totem. And atheism and religion will be banging heads for a while yet when you religious groups lobbying to curtail the rights of people not affiliated with their group, gay marriage being an example.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh if only certain theists would stop trying to force everyone to abide by their rules we could happily divorce.

All it takes is for elected officials to act like leaders rather than sheep

.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

Brian may have over-egged the pudding but you can't ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of the existence of any deity.

Brian didn't just over egg the pudding, he walked into quicksand and is still probably struggling to extract himself.

His claim was there is "plenty of plausible evidence for the lack of a deity", a nonsense claim. What he should have said, which I agree with btw, is there is no compelling empirical scientific evidence to prove a higher power exists. There is plenty of scientific evidence that suggests a deity to many people, such as a universe with a beginning, the natural laws of the universe, life emerging from inanimate matter, etc. These can be argued to death, but the existing evidence does not prove either side of the argument. The fact that many scientists argue for a deity based on existing scientific evidence defeats the "no evidence" argument. It is an open question.

If you want to seriously consider evidence for a higher power, then this is primarily based on subjective evidence, which atheists reject. This is in itself a fallacy, as other than the God question, atheists like everyone else accept subjective evidence in all other areas. The whole field of Psychology is based on subjective evidence, do atheists refuse to go to a therapist because of a lack of scientific evidence? One has to be careful in rejecting subjective evidence. The only statement in terms of any type of evidence of reality that you can declare with 100% certainty is that you personally exist, which is subjective evidence. Beyond that, evidence gets a little less certain in terms of what it tells us. What "you" and "out there" are becomes more mystifying the more you contemplate it seriously with an open mind.

Alsolutely nothing is proven regarding our reality by science, as science by its definition has to be falsifiable. The subjective evidence from mystical traditions going back to the dawn of human civilization is actually quite consistent, the perennial philosophy which is described best in Aldous Huxley's book of the same name. If you are unwilling to consider subjective evidence for a higher power then it is best to stop asking questions on the subject as you find yourself going around in endless circles.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

That doesn't address the content of my post. How does a theist/deist say "there are still pennies in the pigg-bank" when there is no evidence to support the claim? And why should others behave as if the theist actually did have the pennies?

Its a very poor analogy. The correct analogy is Schroedinger's thought experiment, we have no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until we open the box. As "we" have no means of opening the piggy bank, we have no way of knowing whether there are pennies in the piggy bank or not. The primary thing we have in terms of evidence is from mystics and those that claim to have experienced spiritual enlightenment, and there we simply have to either consider their evidence or reject it.

Pherekydes

nagirrac wrote: »

Its a very poor analogy. The correct analogy is Schroedinger's thought experiment, we have no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until we open the box. As "we" have no means of opening the piggy bank, we have no way of knowing whether there are pennies in the piggy bank or not. The primary thing we have in terms of evidence is from mystics and those that claim to have experienced spiritual enlightenment, and there we simply have to either consider their evidence or reject it.

Jesus, what are you spouting about? You just break the fcuking thing open, like he said.

Schrödinger? I give up...

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

There is plenty of scientific evidence that suggests a deity to many people, such as a universe with a beginning, the natural laws of the universe, life emerging from inanimate matter, etc.

If people choose to interpret these as suggesting a deity that's up to them. Suggesting is not evidence. God of the gaps argument.

These can be argued to death, but the existing evidence does not prove either side of the argument. The fact that many scientists argue for a deity based on existing scientific evidence defeats the "no evidence" argument. It is an open question.

As I said in the Dawkins Day thread, scientists outside of their field are no more reliable nor less vulnerable to irrationality than the layman.

The whole field of Psychology is based on subjective evidence, do atheists refuse to go to a therapist because of a lack of scientific evidence?

It's a bloody good reason to regard the field with scepticism IMHO. What actions anyone should take in relation to their own health is of course up to them.

One has to be careful in rejecting subjective evidence. The only statement in terms of any type of evidence of reality that you can declare with 100% certainty is that you personally exist, which is subjective evidence. Beyond that, evidence gets a little less certain in terms of what it tells us. What "you" and "out there" are becomes more mystifying the more you contemplate it seriously with an open mind.

This is a rabbit hole which is ultimately pointless to go down.

From wikipedia article on scientific method :

There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.

Alsolutely nothing is proven regarding our reality by science, as science by its definition has to be falsifiable.

Falsifiable does not mean false. You are welcome to disprove the theories of gravity or evolution in your own time

The subjective evidence from mystical traditions going back to the dawn of human civilization is actually quite consistent, the perennial philosophy which is described best in Aldous Huxley's book of the same name. If you are unwilling to consider subjective evidence for a higher power then it is best to stop asking questions on the subject as you find yourself going around in endless circles.

Like Jesus on a slice of toast, the human brain is constantly looking for patterns and explanations even where they do not exist. Just because deistic explanations have been found throughout history does not make them correct.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

Its a very poor analogy. The correct analogy is Schroedinger's thought experiment, we have no way of knowing whether the cat is alive or dead until we open the box. As "we" have no means of opening the piggy bank, we have no way of knowing whether there are pennies in the piggy bank or not. The primary thing we have in terms of evidence is from mystics and those that claim to have experienced spiritual enlightenment, and there we simply have to either consider their evidence or reject it.

why? The quote is showing an example that highlights how it is illogical to claim something exists when there is no evidence to support it. Especially when it is then claimed that the "evidence" can't be tested/detected.

And we still come back to how the world has to try accommodate everyone. People invoking a higher power to justify discrimination for example. This then means the higher power has to be proven to exist otherwise it's entirely unreasonable to impose religious dogma on everyone. The other side of the coin is that you have to rely on something other than deities when deciding how society runs.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

If people choose to interpret these as suggesting a deity that's up to them. Suggesting is not evidence. God of the gaps argument. As I said in the Dawkins Day thread, scientists outside of their field are no more reliable nor less vulnerable to irrationality than the layman.

This is where things start to go around in circles. There are many scientists who look at the scientific evidence within their own field and consider it evidence for a deity. There's no point mentioning them as I will be accused of an argument from authority. For example a deist cosmologist can argue that God is eternal and is the first principle of the universe, an atheist cosmologist can argue that the quantum vacuum (a field, not nothing) is eternal and is the first principle of the universe. To ask a believer in a deity who created the deity makes no more sense than asking an atheist who created the quantum vacuum. If both are eternal the question becomes irrelevant.

In my view the biggest mistake atheists make is claiming that science supports their view, because unless we can measure God by scientific means he cannot exist. As Ken Miller, who defended evolution against ID in the Dover trial wrote: "The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find him there, they conclude he does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, an explanation of why things are the way they are. He is the answer to existance, not part of existance itself".

It is a fallacy to say belief in a deity is irrational and even more so to state that those who lead spirituial lives are irrational. Irrational maybe to an atheist, but since when do atheists get to define what is rational? Believing scientific claims without proper consideration is irrational, but science itself is not irrational. There are clearly lots of people who believe in God for irrational reasons, but there are also lots of poeple who believe in God based on considered evidence and reasoning and these people are not irrational. To call them irrational is insulting and frankly as much an argument from ignorance as a fundamentalist denying evolution.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

And we still come back to how the world has to try accommodate everyone. People invoking a higher power to justify discrimination for example. This then means the higher power has to be proven to exist otherwise it's entirely unreasonable to impose religious dogma on everyone. The other side of the coin is that you have to rely on something other than deities when deciding how society runs.

Nobody should impose their religious dogma (or lack of belief for that matter) on another, on that we fully agree.

Brian Shanahan

Knasher wrote: »

The purpose of science is to lend rigor and credibility to the way we acquire knowledge. It is meant to constrain the conclusions that people can reach until they are properly supported by the evidence. "Knowledge" acquired outside of science barely rises above the level of anecdote. It is always possible that any conclusions reached this way are accurate, but when that happens it is due to blind luck, merely stumbling upon the truth than actually finding it.

Crucially however, any conclusions that cannot be investigated by scientific means, are by definition impossible to validate. Correct conclusions are impossible to differentiate in any way from incorrect ones. The only option is to doubt all of them, until a way is found for science to investigate them, or loosen your grip on reality.

Lads, I've had a few, so it took me about three gos to actually grasp the message in this (and about half an hour to correct all the horrific spelling and grammar). But this is probably the best single post I'll ever read here, so thanks Knasher for that.

@nagirrac, you've liked the post so you obviously know what the scientific method is about, and yet you still ignore it. That is why we are constantly giving out to you, because you simply should know a lot better.

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

@nagirrac, you've liked the post so you obviously know what the scientific method is about, and yet you still ignore it. That is why we are constantly giving out to you, because you simply should know a lot better.

Brian, the scientific method is based on assumptions. The primary assumptions are that "reality is objective and consistent, and that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately". Science can only be conducted within that framework, and anyone conducting science, myself included, must follow the scientific method.

That does not mean that the assumptions are correct, it means you have to accept them if you are to conduct science.

Sarky

All you have to do is show us something that proves reality is not objective and consistent, and you can happily claim whatever bollocks you like without being called on it.

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

All you have to do is show us something that proves reality is not objective and consistent, and you can happily claim whatever bollocks you like without being called on it.

Fortunately an Irishman much smarter than I did that already (in 1964)

http://www.weylmann.com/bell.pdf

Brian Shanahan

nagirrac wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the evidence to you for the absence of a higher power?

The fact that not a single thing we've discovered about the universe needs a higher power to happen, and when we use Ockham's Razor on the various theistic and non-theistic explanations, the theistic ones invariably fail the rule of "least causes".

Of course to apply Ockham's Razor we have to pretend that theistic causes are as probable as non-theistic ones.

That good enough for you?

Sarky

nagirrac wrote: »

Fortunately an Irishman much smarter than I did that already (in 1964)

http://www.weylmann.com/bell.pdf

"There's something missing from current models, therefore magic" is not a very compelling argument. I thought we'd been through this?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sarky wrote: »

"There's something missing from current models, therefore magic" is not a very compelling argument.

But, in fairness, that does bring the implication that objectivity and consistency have to be assumed, as they cannot be demonstrated.

Unfortunately, we do have to acknowledge this. If, erm, we want to be objective and consistent.

ShooterSF

nagirrac wrote: »

The God debate between atheists and theists is unwinnable.

The only way you can make that comment with certainty is if you assume that an interventionist god that reveals himself to people and may chose to do so in the future doesn't exist. So even you have wrote off the Christians' god :P :pac:

Sarky

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, in fairness, that does bring the implication that objectivity and consistency have to be assumed, as they cannot be demonstrated.

Unfortunately, we do have to acknowledge this. If, erm, we want to be objective and consistent.

Of course we do. It still doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with any old claptrap that appeals to you.