In the previous post an interesting exchange took place between theist and atheist. While I'm not exactly sure how much common ground was achieved, if any, a question was raised(directed at me, the atheist). And while I felt it was a loaded question, and I said as much, I do think that I may have an idea where this question was going.
I'm still waiting on the clarification, so the discussion could very well continue, but in the meantime I'm going to roll forward and dedicate a separate post to this question in an attempt to address it and lay it to rest, and I'm doing so under the pretense that my hunch is correct about what the question is ultimately implying.
So, the theist guest with whom I was exchanging ideas, a guy who blogs as "Deus Aderit", asked me the following...
What is outside evolution to an atheist?
To try to add a little context, this was immediately followed by him also remarking , "Saying love is an instinct is like saying violin music is cat gut scrapped over horse hair."
Okay, so the impression I'm getting here is that Deus somehow thinks that since atheists don't believe in God, then atheists must substitute something else for "God". And by the looks of things, what we substitute for "God" is evolution.
This is incorrect on a few different levels. For starters, this mindset makes the assumption that all human beings must derive purpose in life from an original source, in a Christian's case, it would be an ultimate source. For example, it's a safe bet that many (most? all?) Christians will claim their origins are rooted in "God" and possibly even cite the Genesis narrative of "creation".
In other words, Christians get their purpose in life from God, and/or, Jesus, and/or, the Holy Spirit.
If Christians want to believe or claim that, that's fine and all, but what they don't get to do is assume that since atheists came about by evolution, then... oh, atheists must get their purpose from evolution and everything that atheists experience in life must be explained by the process of evolution.
This is as ridiculous as it is wrong. For one thing, evolution does not attempt to say or explain anything about origins. That topic is abiogenesis, not evolution. The latter is simply an explanation of the diversity of life we see on earth.
Secondly, why does there have to be an explanation for everything? Thirdly, how does "God did it!" explain anything? Until any of us learn how a God or gods did something, theists are simply putting a question mark over another question mark. They are no more knowledgeable about the mechanics of origins than anyone else.
I, as an atheist, am content with saying, "I don't know for certain". *From what I can tell, theists are not at all content with it, hence, "God".
*Note, I do not want to over-generalize here. I'm inferring that theists are not comfortable with not knowing things, in this case, the answers to life's greatest questions.
Moving on to love, music, and art, etc., maybe someone can explain why I, as an atheist, have to know where love or music originates in order to enjoy it? Where is it written that I must know why or how love exists for me to be able to love or be loved? Best as I can tell, it's not written anywhere and "love" is an instinct that ensures our survival. If the human species wasn't capable of love, they'd be flippin' extinct. And for that matter, so would any other species of animal that isn't capable of love. A female cat gives birth to a litter of kittens. She instinctively loves her young, because if she didn't, they surely get eaten or suffer in some other way. There are, of course, lower, non-sentient creatures that might not feel "love", but these creatures have still evolved by the process of natural selection to propagate the species. Surviving is job one.
To be able to love benefits a species. Love is a life-affirming emotion. From a naturalistic standpoint, "love" originates in our brains. But the supernaturalist will no doubt say that our brains are, oh, just a bunch chemical reactions, or something of the sort. For those who take such a position, I'd tell them that this is the fallacy of composition. This is where someone (erroneously) infers that just because something is true of the parts of something, it is therefore true of the whole. For example, the chemical formula for water is H2O. What would you say to the person who told you that since water is just some chemicals, then water couldn't possibly be wet? 'Sounds a little off, doesn't it? What about a stringed instrument? Say, a violin? Sure, at a fundamental level we can say it's cat gut and horse hair. But put together, it can produce some beautiful tones, can't it?
These are crude analogies, but they work. Just because "love" is the result of some chemical reactions in our brains, that doesn't mean that love is nothing more than just some chemicals and that it cannot be something beautiful to experience.
"We are most often inspired and motivated by fallacy rather than logic" ~ M.F. Moonzajer
42 comments:
Your introductions of me make me sound sort of cool and sinister.
Hey, you sure don't need to understand where music comes from to enjoy it, but you do to explain it. And I think of all the things you said what interested me the most is your point about theists not being comfortable with not knowing, and I think that is the truth. Come to think of it I have never been comfortable not knowing the "why" behind anything. How does light travel with no substance? Its a real puzzle. Wish I knew.
"Okay, so the impression I'm getting here is that Deus somehow thinks that since atheists don't believe in God, then atheists must substitute something else for "God". And by the looks of things, what we substitute for "God" is evolution."
The only motivation for this was legitimate surprise. For yes I am used to having evolution "nature", whatever the hell that it, used as the alternative to God by my non believing friends. Evolution and leftist politics, like cookies and milk. But maybe my friends are not as typical as I thought, they are a very nature oriented groups, biologists and so on. The fact of hearing someone say "I can't explain" is surprisingly refreshing in its honesty.
I have always see that people believe in something. Political leaders, science, themselves, always seem to wind up on the throne as a poor substitute for the divine. I pity the people who believe so strongly in any political movement or person, what a shaky foundation. Myself? Please, I can barely keep the fish in my tank alive. Human reason? It built the gas chambers. Have I left anything out?
The hunger to know things is I believe a positive thing and I wouldn't try to apologize for it. Until my dying day I will be trying to understand as much as I can. A life without explanation seems (to me) like a boat with a bunch a holes. Yes there is an explanation for everything. Every effect has a cause. We might not see or grasp it, but it is always there.
Love is some chemicals (that is the result) but it is so much more than that, at least to me. And in fact I find the love argument significant. I can't prove my fiance loves me (how could you prove such a thing), but I have evidence that she does. And believing it makes my life better and richer. It makes it easier to love, if I believe I am. Useful. Conversely if I managed to convince myself that people didn't love me. I would sour and it would damage my relationships. "prove you love me!" (and most of have dated that person I think). No, I think believing things you can't prove has value.
Your introductions of me make me sound sort of cool and sinister.
You may very well be cool, but I'm afraid that sinister is reserved for Satan and his minions[/facetious](insert devil emoticon)
Hey, you sure don't need to understand where music comes from to enjoy it, but you do to explain it
That's fine. But until you can explain to me exactly how God created "music" or "musical talent", you haven't really explained anything.
Imagine if you lost the keys to your car and a friend or family member exclaimed, "Oooo! I know what happened to your keys! Gremlins took 'em!"
Can we agree that you aren't necessarily any closer to having an explanation for your key's disappearance, much less their whereabouts? Well, in my view, "God did it!" explains nothing at all just like "Gremlins took 'em!" explains nothing at all. Sure, the former might temporarily satisfy one's curiosity by filling one hole in knowledge with another. But neither actually explains anything.
I have always see that people believe in something. Political leaders, science, themselves, always seem to wind up on the throne as a poor substitute for the divine.
Yes, unfortunately I am accustomed to this mindset, the one that conflates believing in something with worshiping something. Truth be known, I believe in a lot of things---too much to list. But the list of things I worship or put on a throne? That list is actually quite small. In fact, that list would be a piece of blank paper.
The hunger to know things is I believe a positive thing and I wouldn't try to apologize for it.
I don't think anyone should apologize for having a thirst for knowledge. But I think we should remember that knowledge and belief are not necessarily mutually inclusive. I'm of the opinion that if justified belief falls into a set of knowledge, then that belief should be demonstrable.
Yes there is an explanation for everything. Every effect has a cause. We might not see or grasp it, but it is always there.
Okay, then what caused God? What's the explanation for God? If he/she/it doesn't need an explanation; if he/she/it doesn't have a cause, then you invalidate your own rule, or at best, you are special pleading.
Love is some chemicals (that is the result) but it is so much more than that, at least to me.
I was thinking that the result of chemicals is the feeling. But that's just me. In any case, I was nearly certain that I already explained that, I, too, believe that "love" is more than just chemicals. In fact, this whole post is dedicated to that very thing.
The following Einstein (I am not quoting Einstein as an example of either pro or anti religion, he is very hard to define and in fact I think sometimes was deliberately confusing) quote seems to me to explain the logical reason for God as first. God wrote the books in the library described. Something caused the big bang, that created what we think of as the universe (or a universe).
"I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations".
'Seems like we might be nearing at least one of the usual stalemates that is so common when these sorts of discussions take place between theist and atheist, believer and nonbeliever. It's cool that we can exchange ideas without personal attacks, I'll say that much. But I'd like to think that we are really hearing each other, opposed to talking past each other.
So, again, Einstein is essentially citing the first cause argument, or Cosmological argument. While said argument assumes that everything, every-thing, in the universe must have a cause, God is conveniently exempt from this rule. If nothing can exist without a cause; and if God is something, as opposed to nothing, then God, too, must have a cause. If one is going to special plead and assume God always existed, then it's just as reasonable(if not more reasonable) to assume that the universe has always existed in some form or another.
Btw, science already tells us that something can come from nothing(see Zero point energy and vacuum fluctuations). Furthermore, if the first cause argument is hinged on complexity..e.g...the universe to far too complex to exist on its own, then once more, the premise caves in on itself because surely the creator must be more complex than the creation.
"We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly."
They didn't have the Hubble telescope back in Einstein's day. We can now observe entire galaxies colliding into one another, and we know that most of the universe is dark energy, dark matter, and black holes. It may still be marvelous, but I think it's wish-thinking to believe that all that space was created for one species of animal on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy among billions of other galaxies.
I don't believe that space was created for one species of animal (if that's what we are) and don't forget planes of existence. I can't think of anything in my faith that would say that is a deal breaker that there could be aliens. In the sense I believe that there are, given the vastness of the universe it is highly improbable that there are none. Have we ever encountered them? That I am skeptic on. It is possible that the light barrier will keep species completely separated. And its also possible that life might be very rare, given the extraordinary conditions that allow life on earth, but unique? Very very unlikey. Besides I am not a believer in the 60s horseshit that all more advanced races would be peaceful. I mean when a farm was built in Africa did the British care if they cleared the monkeys off first? More likely we would be converted into protein tablets. So I glad they have not found us.
But I have to say given the complexity of everything I don't see a rational explanation that this wasn't designed either. Belief in something not proven, but highly highly improbable. I doubt hubble would have changed Einsteins opinion though. We now even know more what we don't know.
In a way the idea that God is what was first. The fuse that lite the big bang. Is compelling. The first reason. The ultimate cause.
And I reiterate: We are seemingly at one of the inevitable stalemates that results when believers and nonbelievers try to find common ground, in this case, on the topic of the existence of the universe and its contents.
While it's fine and all that you don't discount the existence of aliens; and while such things are not a deal-breaker for your "faith" should they actually exist, there has yet to be any irrefutable, objective confirmation for such things. At best, we have inference and the personal anecdotes of some UFologists. Moreover, the Genesis creation narrative makes no mention of beings having been created anywhere else in the universe at the time we are to believe everything else was "created", ex nihilo, in a 6 day workweek. Then again, this is the same narrative that got the position of the earth in relation to the sun, wrong.
What I'm saying is, I have no desire to go down the "what if" rabbit hole with you (or anyone else) when it comes to "aliens." The only reason I brought up the Hubble is because of Einstein's description of the universe, saying it's "marvelously arranged". Saying the universe is "arranged" is begging the question, because it implies an arranger. Also, if it's "arranged" for anything at all, it's for black holes, not homo sapiens.
I want to agree, or I want to agree to disagree, on the topic of a "first cause", or the Cosmological argument. If you are going to opine that, "Every effect has a cause", then either "God", too, has a cause, or your rule becomes invalid.
But there's even worse problems than this that lie ahead, because even if we overlook the special pleading fallacy and the argument from personal incredulity and we allow for sake of discussion that the first cause is a self-existing, supernatural entity, you've still got all your work cut out for you because you are arguing for a specific "God" here, not a deistic, generic one. Dots are not connected, IMO.
The idea of aliens is compelling (well in itself as well I must admit, as I am not adverse to discussing things off topic) not because of the aliens, but because the link between belief and probability. I am no authority on alien stuff but agree none of it is proof. Can some of it be true? For sure. I don't know. Aliens seem really shy if they are around. However, my direct question to you is, do you believe in the existence of intelligent life on other planets? If so, why, with out proof do you? If not why not?
Sometimes it seems like atheists are a bit like beliefophobs (fear of belief which I just made up). Hope/courage/belief are linked often. "I hope she likes me, I believe she does (I don't know but I believe my evidence, I ask her out (courage), she says yes." I have known a person who didn't belief in something that could not be proved, and acted accordingly. In fact, living a life based on the idea that there is no God (which is not provable) is a perfect example of that.
The creation just for us argument doesn't seem very deep to me. Its like a parent saying "this is your new house" its also the house for your siblings (and if you have eight siblings its still your house) and the parent, a dog, two cats, a gerbil. Its your house, but for them too (and some spiders and mice). So the universe is for us and for black holes. It does not make the statement not true.
You are correct I do believe God is outside the basic rule that every cause has effect. If the universe didn't exist and then did, something was there to cause it. So I agree I was in error. However, unless you can show me evidence that you know how the universe began and God wasn't the cause I am not sure where that takes us.
Aliens seem really shy if they are around
True, and I'd say the same of God if he/she/it is around. You cite your personal experience as evidence, so to me it begs the question of why this God wouldn't give everyone an equally convincing personal experience.
my direct question to you is, do you believe in the existence of intelligent life on other planets? If so, why, with out proof do you?
My direct answer is, I believe in the possibility. And while I don't claim to know one way or the other, the implication isn't all that important to me because they'd just be part of the natural universe.
So, to illustrate how I regard the idea of other intelligent life in the universe, one could say I'm an apathetic, agnostic atheist.
Sometimes it seems like atheists are a bit like beliefophobs (fear of belief which I just made up)
Atheists lack a belief in Gods. They may or may not lack a belief in other things.
When it comes to God/gods, though, I don't know of any atheist who doesn't believe because they're afraid to believe. In fact, for any former Christians turned atheist, I'd contend that they were likely more fearful as believers than as non-believers. The fear of hell as a punishment can be very powerful. But of course, no one is more afraid of hell than those who actually believe in it
Its like a parent saying "this is your new house" its also the house for your siblings (and if you have eight siblings its still your house) and the parent, a dog, two cats, a gerbil. Its your house, but for them too (and some spiders and mice). So the universe is for us and for black holes. It does not make the statement not true.
I don't feel it's a good analogy, and here's why: Whether a house is designed for a big family or a small family, houses are generally designed with the number of occupants in mind...e.g...3 bedroom/2.5 bath, 2 bedroom/2 bath, etc. For your "this is your new house" analogy to be truly analogous with the so-called "design" of the universe, it would be like an architect designing a 70,000 bedroom house, but filling 69,999 of the rooms with a deadly gas. That is a more fitting analogy, IMO.
You are correct I do believe God is outside the basic rule that every cause has effect
In which case, you invalidate your own rule. This is called special pleading.
If the universe didn't exist and then did, something was there to cause it.
This is a false dichotomy. A steady-state universe is an option and cannot be ruled out in any absolute sense. And you said "something" was there, which doesn't necessarily mean a someone.
unless you can show me evidence that you know how the universe began and God wasn't the cause I am not sure where that takes us.
I confess it's a little disappointing that I need to keep pointing this out, but the default answer to my being unable to show Deus Aderit that I know for certain how the universe began is not "God did it!". No one was there "In the Beginning". That much is beyond argument. Thus, the only honest answer to the question of how the universe began(assuming it had beginning), is "I don't know".
I would agree based on this discussion that I (or nobody else) "knows" who was there at the beginning of the universe. I have "beliefs" which are not the same. So you don't need to be disappointed. I will be more careful with "know" and "believe."
"I don't feel it's a good analogy, and here's why: Whether a house is designed for a big family or a small family, houses are generally designed with the number of occupants in mind...e.g...3 bedroom/2.5 bath, 2 bedroom/2 bath, etc. For your "this is your new house" analogy to be truly analogous with the so-called "design" of the universe, it would be like an architect designing a 70,000 bedroom house, but filling 69,999 of the rooms with a deadly gas. That is a more fitting analogy, IMO".
I thought it was a brilliant analogy, in fact I basked for a minute in my own cleverness. Assuming God is God it works perfectly. You are caught with the idea that God made creation "just for us", as opposed to "for us". If not, looking at the Universe as a house he made it big enough for all. We build a house (and don't the process is a nightmare) assuming how many people are going to be there. And yes OK the house analogy is a bit stretched but I believe still works. It might be a deadly gas to us, but who knows what purpose it serves? For one thing the more I learn about how unlikely the conditions are for life on my planet the more I feel my room in the house is pretty special indeed.
I would agree based on this discussion that I (or nobody else) "knows" who was there at the beginning of the universe
::sigh::
Notice that I DID NOT SAY that no one "knows who was there at the beginning of the universe"(emphasis added). I said, "no body was there", meaning, no human being was there "In the Beginning", including the redactors of the Bible or *any* holy writs.
Now, I am perfectly aware that you have a belief that "In the Beginning" a "who" was there, namely, the Christian god of the Bible, and that this God contemplated and designed a universe, creating it ex nihilo. That, alone has its share of problems. But regardless, you've not substantiated your belief in any objective way, whatsoever, so I'm not going to dive into the problems with the whole "creation" concept and open up more rabbit holes. Good grief, there's too many loose ends as it is.
Assuming God is God it works perfectly
Assuming God is God? WTH does that even mean? For starters, you are assuming there is a God, which has enough problems, let alone assuming this God is going to be itself, however that is.
It might be a deadly gas to us, but who knows what purpose it serves?
The point was lost on you. If an architect designed a home that was mostly comprised of living space that was, not just unusable, but actually lethal to any potential buyers, that architect would be out on his or her ass looking for another firm.
In the end, you have an argument from personal incredulity, which is a type of non-sequitur. You cannot imagine a how X could be true, therefore, X is false. Again, patience is wearing thin.
I read through this and was surprised to see your sort of crusty response. I thought my idea was fairly simple. The universe was not designed solely for us. I don't know why you are sort of hung up on that. Even our world was not designed solely for us. The deep sea trench hot air vents are lethal for us, but they are great places for tube worms. Likewise, earth is our home, not black holes, but its not only home for us.
A house is designed for a sole purpose, (sort of) by a specific designer. I don't for a second think even the earth is. Its home to birds, fish, everything else too. The universe? I can't even begin to comprehend the purpose it all serves. I would be an ant describing mount Rushmore. I don't even understand the purpose everything serves on my own planet. Yes I believe God created it all. Do I have any proof? Nope. Alternatively there is nothing to prove God did not.
Do I have any proof? Nope. Alternatively there is nothing to prove God did not.
There is also nothing to prove that Muhammad did not sit in a cave in the Middle East and take down the Will & Testament of the Almighty Allah and then fly off into the clouds on a winged pony.
So, once more, you are demonstrating to me in spades that you still don't understand "negative proof" and where the burden of proof actually lies.
First principle: existence exists. I don't have to prove that a Supernatural entity is not responsible for existence. You are the one who has the burden of proving that a Supernatural entity is responsible for existence. You haven't scratched the surface in doing so.
So, now what?
I understand the concept of negative proof. I taught Ethics for five years and I know the concepts and definitions you like to use. I have less affinity for them for two reasons. Take the example of "Moral Equivalence", the definition is based on BS. Its used, sort of like a high card in poker, to sort of stop the debate by playing the card. Your incorrect because our arguments are not "morally equivalent." I don't agree on the crappy definition. It can have value in shortening some of the work of defining things, or deciding on common beliefs It is also a lazy way to present ideas without the heavy lifting of actual discussion. Its like playing magic cards (I have never played the game) or Pokemon (that either) instead of actual discussion. Or definition throwing can also be like playing board games with that kid down the block who always changed the rules so they couldn't lose. So, neither one of us "has" to prove anything. Its not more necessary for you to prove there isn't a God, than it is for me to prove there is. Pascal's wager (a definition) would say your stakes are higher than mine, but that is all. Nor do I agree with your assessment. I mean, why should the burden of proof be more on me than you? Says who? I will say this, its harder to prove a negative. Just like in math there is one right answer, but some answers are closer to right than others. That is how I view other religions. You would however say all religions are equally wrong?
So where does that leave us. I think for this particular topic we are probably done because we are at an impasse. A few thoughts in conclusion. You are obviously intelligent, which makes discussing this stuff much better. You argued your position well. You made good points, and you didn't attack me personally. Thank you. We could go back and forth on this topic and go nowhere. I see the fabric of existence, the order of nature, the grand design, however to style it, as evidence as a creator God. In the same way coming across a car in a field shows that a mind both conceived it and made it. Not accidental. You do not see it that way. It doesn't make either of us dumb, fanatics, egotistical, or anything else. One of is wrong, and one right, and time will tell. But I think it ends this post. The other post, I think there is still some wheat in the chaff.
So where does that leave us
I'm not sure where it leaves "us". But here's where it leaves you:
I'm asking you nicely one last time to cease and desist (both here and on the other thread) from regurgitating the same fallacious arguments. First, I don't like censoring. To me, it should be a last resort. But do you know what else I dislike just as much if not more? I don't like putting a bunch of time into explaining what my actual position is just to have someone gloss over it, and instead, project what they think my position should be. This would be you.
Even more insulting when what's being regurgitated is theist talking points, sadly, many of which actually rely on a caricatured or deliberate misunderstanding of what atheism actually is.
For a just a quick example, twice now you've remarked about how you think I should be an agnostic instead of an atheist. I corrected you the first time, but instead of doing what you said you were here for, that is, instead of trying to understand me, you made a quip about it again.
I'll explain it to you once:
Atheism deals with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge.
IOW, I can be agnostic towards the existence of God or gods - that is, I can readily confess that a God or god's existence or nonexistence cannot be known with absolute certainty - while yet, I can simultaneously NOT believe there IS a God or gods. There is NO conflict here, so I admonish you to understand this concept and let it sink in, which really shouldn't be any big deal since it is based on actual word meanings, after all.
Let's remember, I've not only considered your view point, I use to live it. I changed my mind, which brings me back to the part where early on you said that you wanted to understand atheists. I'm sorry, but my BS meter is pegged. Since your arrival you seem much, much more interested in second-guessing my experiences and projecting my position than you do trying to "understand" me. And ironically, all the while you want me to accept your subjective personal experiences as convincing evidence for a "God"? Uh, no.
Something else I find unpalatable is your dogmatic, flat-out refusal to acknowledge what the burden of proof is and where it lies. After explaining the burden of proof to you several times, you still come back and say...
"I mean, why should the burden of proof be more on me than you? Says who? I will say this, its harder to prove a negative."
And I reiterate: It should be more on you because you are making a claim in the positive. And note, I'm not making a counter-claim in the positive..e.g.."God doesn't exist!". I'm saying, your claim that God DOES exist is unproven, so I don't believe it, and I'll continue to not believe it until my believing it is justified.
Non-belief is default. Says who, you ask? Says science, its scientists, and their methods. That's who. Otherwise, a scientist's quest for knowledge would consist of him or her spending most of his or her time running around trying to disprove every outrageous claim that comes along. That would be a monumental waste of time. Scientists don't do this, and there's a reason why they don't do this.
If we can't agree on where the burden of proof lies..i.e..belief until disproven, or disbelief until proven, this, too, is grounds for bringing this conversation to a close.
Hmmm. I can point out sir that I on several occasions I have pointed out that you made a significant point or when I have agreed with you. You have not returned this courtesy. I have not blown by your points. However, you have mine.
Saying scientists say something is like saying "my pastor said" (all scientists? Every scientist?) and science does speak, it has no voice, personality, belief. Scientists have diverse views like everyone else. I am not a scientist, nor am intending to become one.
If I say the burden of proof is one me, fine, ok. So, what does that change? To who? Us? You? We are not in a trial. I am not a scientist. I am a historian, ethics professor and attorney.
You may have pointed out that I made a significant point a time or two, but unless adjustments were made on your end and the followup comments revealed that adjustments were made, such points of agreement are of zero practical value to this discussion, as far as I'm concerned. And you seemingly agree with this when you remarked that we could go back and forth and "go nowhere." Remember?
Now, who the hell wants to put a lot of time into trying to understand one another and go nowhere? Not me. It's nice that we're exchanging ideas and not resorting to a bunch of back'n forth ad hominens, but if it ultimately starts wasting my time, I'll have to respectfully pass.
See, here's the deal: When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, I'll actually change my mind if I'm presented with justified reasons to do so. I'm skeptical that you'd do the same.
So, for another quick example, you opine that morality cannot be subjective and must therefore be objective. You further opine that "God" is the objective moral-giver, and when asked about Divine Command Theory, you went on record to say that you were a proponent of this theory.
Well, like it or not, there are some glaring implications for taking this position, a few of which I already pointed out and you either ignored them or swept them under the rug. I say this because you've since come back and argued the very same "moral objectivist" position again. And this is what I'm talking about; repeating and defending errors.
So, I reiterate: There is no objective morality to be found in the "Body of Christ" or any other religion. I contend that this can be demonstrated with your help.
If, for sake of discussion, God P was the objective moral-giver, that would mean that one of two things must be true: Either, 1) said objective moral-giver commands certain things because certain things are "good", or 2) anything and everything said objective moral-giver commands is "good" by mere virtue of him/her/it being the objective moral-giver, aka, "God".
You opine "2", which, again, is the very definition/description of DCT.
So, arguing for the Christian worldview, there's either going to be consistency on your part, or there's going to be inconsistency. The good news is that can know which one if you'd be willing to address the following hypothetical scenario:
If you, Deus, the moral objectivist, had another personal experience with the Divine in which you firmly believed that God was speaking to you, and during this experience God commanded you to kill any and all atheists that you encountered, would you obey this command? "Yes" or "no"?
Note, I'm not trying to avoid stimulating discussion or put you in on trial, or any of that sort of rigmarole. I'm trying to present a justified reason for you to change your mind about a belief you have, to see if in fact you'll do so. If not? Yeah, we're wasting time.
"If you, Deus, the moral objectivist, had another personal experience with the Divine in which you firmly believed that God was speaking to you, and during this experience God commanded you to kill any and all atheists that you encountered, would you obey this command? "Yes" or "no"?"
I can answer that would in a very simple way. My answer would be "no" I would not kill all atheists, even under the circumstances you describe. And I would never kill anyone for what they believed.
I was tempted to add sometimes I would be ok with slapping some of em around a little, but honestly I don't think that either.
May I point out as well that to say I am a believer in Divine Command Theory, which I would say is true, is that there are many nuances within it. Its not as simple as saying "I am a Minnesota Vikings fan." Which I am. The history of attacks and defenses of Divine Command theory are complex. To say the least. I believe what you are showing is called the Euthyphro Dilemma, or something very like it. Which results in a series of moves and countermoves accordingly. Not unlike chess in a way.
My answer would be "no" I would not kill all atheists, even under the circumstances you describe. And I would never kill anyone for what they believed.
So let the record show that Deus Aderit would disobey the command of the very individual whom he cites as the Objective Standard and Absolute source for all morality.
IOW, you, Deus, only employ Divine Command Theory when it fits your subjective feelings on a matter of "right" Vs "wrong". Hence, why you would rightfully (and thankfully) reject such a despicable, inhumane command. But alas, this is nothing new, because this is what all Christian moral objectivists do; they filter everything through their own innate, personal sense of "right" and "wrong".
So allow me to reiterate---there's NO Absolute morality to be found in the "Body of Christ".
May I point out as well that to say I am a believer in Divine Command Theory, which I would say is true, is that there are many nuances within it.
Sure, you are free to point out that there is nuance within ethics, morality, and apparently within Divine Command Theory. But then I will just take the initiative to point out that subtle distinctions and variations(aka, nuance) within ethics and morality flies in the face of the notion that ethics and morals are objectively given and Absolute..i.e..true in all possible times, places, and situations. Something's got to give.
IOW, you've got a contradiction on your hands.
Its not as simple as saying "I am a Minnesota Vikings fan."
Ethics and morality aren't that simple, that's for sure. But if one subscribes to the belief that what is "moral" depends on whether the moral-giver, aka, "God", commands it, then that's pretty cut'n dried: Whatever the moral-giver commands, is moral. Seems pretty simple to me, and I'm failing to see any fudge room in the definition, despite your desire for it to be there.
Anything else before I wrap this show up?
Ah yes, let the record speak. As I say the arguments within the Divine Command theory are complex, and have been going on for hundreds of years. Anscombe,Donagan,Kant and many others have explored this in detail. Much, much more detail than you apparently have patience to go through. There are books written on the subject. Lets just say in my personal world if God commanded me to do such a thing, he would not be God. I will cross that bridge when I come to it. I do think we are done here. However, if you think you somehow delivered a silver bullet, alas, the werewolf still lives.
Lets just say in my personal world [SNIP]
Yes, correct, in your personal world. Because let's face it, that's what the whole kit and caboodle is really about, here. Again, nothing at all "objective", much less "Absolute".
if God commanded me to do such a thing, he would not be God.
Right, because again, in Deus Aderit's "personal world", apparently even "God" abides by a standard that would prevent him/her/it from commanding such things.
Case in point, Divine Command Theory is a crock'. If there is no standard of "being morally right" apart from God's commands, then God could literally command us to do anything and it would be right for us to do it by definition. The only other option is that God abides by moral standard apart from God. No need for bullets when reason is on your side.
So these highly respected philosophers who believed and defended Dive Command Theory? Some of them among the most respected in modern history believed a "crock". That is a very interesting perspective.
So these highly respected philosophers who believed and defended Dive Command Theory?
Argument from authority, aka, appeal to authority. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority."
Yes like scientists say. But I guess we have a different standard for what is considered a crock.
If I am not welcome to post comments on your blog. Please say so, I will respectfully fade away.
Yes like scientists say. But I guess we have a different standard for what is considered a crock
Except that scientists have things like the scientific method and peer review. Scientists don't have the luxury of just spouting off some deepities about their personal experiences in life and slapping the word "Truth" on it. Moreover, scientists actually make their findings available to other scientists for something called "peer review", which is for the express purpose of weeding out mistakes and minimizing bias.
IOW, a goal of the scientific method is to actually correct error, not sit there and defend it. All in all, your comparison amounts to false equivalence. Now, is science perfect? No, of course it's not. Science is provisional for a reason, because scientists realize that they aren't infallible. After all, they aren't the ones claiming to be supervised by any all-knowing beings.
I must confessed I am somewhat disappointed in your blog.
And this is supposed to be... what? A shock to me? Would it be a better blog if I agreed with you more? Attacked your character less, maybe? Color me skeptical.
As I said though, I think the other post we are communicating on still has some potential
Potential for what? Finding more common ground? Naturally, I've had a look at your latest on the other post, and frankly, I see the same sorts of logical errors I see here.
If I am not welcome on your blog, I will not stay.[comment since deleted by guest]
As I said early on, I don't mind a different POV here. Diversity makes the world go 'round. But if I'm going to have to repeat myself, for instance, if I have to constantly keep addressing the same uncorrected arguments, I may bring a thread to a close. Typing replies takes time, and, well, I'm not obligated to keep going if I feel I'm wasting my time.
And BTW, I don't mind agreeing to disagree, either. But again, if someone is going to disagree, it needs to be with my actual position, not a mistaken or caricatured position someone got off the Christian forums or at church.
I am going to make some challenging statements to you. As tone is not apparent in a type written statement I want to make a couple of things clear. I am not "angry", "pissed" "irritated" or so on. I don't think you are a numbskull blah blah because you view things differently. I am little concerned about having some of my cherished beliefs which are both time tested and battle hardened declared a "crock".
You are doing a very common thing which is taking principals common to science and trying to suggest they be applied to everything else. Ethics, science, history, politics all are part of discussion of religion, or at least I think so. The idea for example that there are proofs in ethics at all is very controversial, much or what we have is opinion, backed up by experience, backed up by some data. I am not a scientist. Perhaps you are, I have no idea. But when you try to answer everything with either requiring scientific proof, or given some definition like false equivalence you will inevitably limit the discussion to people who think like you.
continued. And, frankly, I see some signs of that reviewing your past conversations on your blog. If you want to have a blog that is a support group for people who have gone through what you have, who agree with you, that's fine. If you have a cancer support blog why have people who don't have cancer on it? That makes sense if that is truly your goal. However, if you are actually interested in discussion you need to approach it differently. And if you bring in your personal testimony while rejecting the idea that personal testimony is valid, that you fire of definitions like a textbook and consider them somehow superior reason to what you view as mistaken or caricatured positions you will indeed start to look like that kid down the block who always made sure the game was rigged so they always win. And I have an example. "Potential for what? Finding more common ground? Naturally, I've had a look at your latest on the other post, and frankly, I see the same sorts of logical errors I see here".
My point that you have formed your personal ethical beliefs based on your cultural beliefs based on the way Judeo-Christian beliefs have shaped that culture is not "illogical". You are a product of your culture. Any serious book on western history will describe how those beliefs changed almost everything about how the western world thinks. I recommend "The Gift of the Jews" which explains how Jewish ideas about human standing before God changed the way western culture viewed the value of individual, and it still is. The way the Roman world viewed ethics changed dramatically after Christianity. In fact Spengler believed it destroyed the Roman Empire. What you see as you creating ethics by yourself is actually enormously important making you. This is not science. Its mostly history. Is it a valid part of the discussion we were having? Absolutely. Can you disagree with it? Of course you can. Is it illogical? Is it not worth considering? By no means. Can it be dismissed with a couple of definitions? I don't see it. Is it scientific? No.
Additionally I did quote an article saying not all documented prayer benefits are placebo related. There are many more such articles. As far as I can tell it went through something like the scientific process and the results are rather interesting. Could you attack the process or the conclusion of course. You could disagree with it. You could be a medical expert for all I know. Is it illogical? How could you possible make that claim? Or is non scientific or not logical just something Boomslang doesn't like or agree with?
First things, first, my blog has a brief mission statement/purpose disclaimer in my "about" section. I don't know if you read it, or not(it doesn't appear so, but I could be wrong), but if you didn't read it, you should do so now.
Also, if, after dozens of posts, you are just now taking the time to read the past conversations here, this is not my fault. Bottom line, I can't be and won't be responsible if a guest feels incensed or the need to avenge what he or she perceives as an offense again his or her religious beliefs, however cherished. Hopefully we're good on this part.
Secondly, I treat visitors by what they have to say, not by whether or not they've gone through what I have. So, no, it doesn't matter if guests are Christians, Ex-Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, other atheists, or whatever. It's content.
Getting right into it, you say....I am little concerned about having some of my cherished beliefs which are both time tested and battle hardened declared a "crock"
If you are that hung up on my choice of words for my assessment of DCT, I will happily retract the offending word and substitute a synonym that hopefully makes you happier but still gets my sentiments on the matter across.
Deus, I think DCT(Divine Command Theory) is nonsense.
And just so we're clear, I mean that which does not make sense. That's about as much as I'm willing to water it down, and anyway, I get the distinct impression that you have greater concerns here than my use of an unpalatable word. Again, this is just intuition, and I realize intuition can be wrong. Hopefully you do, too.
Also, as I've already pointed out once, how we conduct ourselves in these discussions is ultimately immaterial to what is actually true. IOW, atheists bloggers (or in general) could be some of the most vile, foul-mouthed, inconsiderate people you've ever encountered, and this wouldn't make theism true(nor atheism false).
Closely related, despite your not liking my assessment of a particular belief you hold, I actually took the time to include detailed reasons for why I regard it the way that I do. So, this is not a case of someone just writing-off an idea with a wave of a hand and running away without providing any justification.
You are doing a very common thing which is taking principals common to science and trying to suggest they be applied to everything else
No. I. am. not. I may be guilty of talking at length about how not all claims are the same, and how the ones on the more extraordinary end of the spectrum require more extraordinary evidence; and further, *I may talk about how the scientific method is the best, most reliable way to determine what is actually true about the world we all live in, but I'm not saying science can be applied to "everything else" or that it can explain everything, and frankly, this is the sort "stuff" that I find the most irritating: If someone disagrees with my position, fine. But when they attempt to rattle that position off in a counter-argument, it needs to be my actual position, NOT a strawman.
when you try to answer everything with either requiring scientific proof, or given some definition like false equivalence you will inevitably limit the discussion to people who think like you.
"Answer everything"? See here*, above. And if I limit the discussion to people who understand that word meanings actually matter, I'm fine with that. For example, if my interlocutor is arguing for a specific theory, tenet, principle, idea, etc., and that theory, tenet, principle, idea can be encapsulated in a statement in an attempt to give it a precise meaning, then my interlocutor shouldn't become miffed when I actually present that exact meaning in a discussion. Besides, if my interlocutor is actually being consistent in his or her arguments, then it shouldn't be a problem.
continued...
If you have a cancer support blog why have people who don't have cancer on it?
You do know, don't you, that there is such a thing as preventative medicine? Yes, it's true---certain measures can be taken to lesson the risk of getting cancer. So, perhaps your cancer analogy wasn't the best choice, because even people without cancer can benefit from visiting a cancer support blog. In any case, my mission statement doesn't necessarily include being a "support group".
if you bring in your personal testimony while rejecting the idea that personal testimony is valid[EDIT]
Here's the stark difference: **Nowhere in my personal testimony will anyone find where I say "God is disproven".
Now, is my non-experience with invisible, conscious beings proof that such beings don't exist? Of course it isn't! On the other hand, if one's personal testimony is that they had an experience with such beings and they want to me to believe it, they'll need evidence, because, no, personal testimony isn't evidence, much less "proof".
**Using biblical definitions, I have authored posts that detail how and why the deity of the bible is an impossible concept, in every bit of the sense that "married bachelors" is an impossible concept.
you fire of definitions like a textbook and consider them somehow superior reason to what you view as mistaken or caricatured positions you will indeed start to look like that kid down the block who always made sure the game was rigged so they always win
Nothing is "rigged", and no definition is superior to another. I'd say that if anything is rigged, it is when definitions must be "fudged" when they conflict with beliefs. E.g., when creationists proclaim that everything that exists must have a cause, and then immediately proceed to break that "rule", when, in the next breath, they say that God doesn't need a cause. This is mental gymnastics at it's finest.
Additionally I did quote an article saying not all documented prayer benefits are placebo related. There are many more such articles.
Yes, more "articles". Sh*t-tons. But here's the rub: Even if we allow the articles that support your claim that prayer results are something more than just placebo effect, there are other problems. For instance, why do patients who receive prayer still die? Clearly not all physical ailments carry the same gravity..i.e..some ailments clear up on their own, others do not. Are there articles that account for this? Are there articles that prove that other factors besides prayer can't be playing a role in these so-called success stories?
And finally, if answered prayer is something otherworldly or "Divine", why won't prayer heal amputees? Even salamanders can regrow missing limbs, and without the help of the supernatural.
Or is non scientific or not logical just something Boomslang doesn't like or agree with?
I'm not sure I'm understanding the question. I readily confess that I'm partial to that which aligns with logic, and by extension, I don't like that which is "not logical." Further, I believe science is currently the best, most reliable method for ascertaining truth. I don't apologize for of any of this, either.
"The Red Queen shook her head, "You may call it nonsense if you like," she said, "but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
"First things, first, my blog has a brief mission statement/purpose disclaimer in my "about" section. I don't know if you read it, or not (it doesn't appear so, but I could be wrong), but if you didn't read it, you should do so now". Yes, I did read it. And I looked at some of your past posts. Its not that I didn't have open eyes in regards to what you stated I believe that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. And I found very few examples where you were actually discussing anything with a person who seemed to disagree with you, so I had few examples of your style so to speak.
"Also, as I've already pointed out once, how we conduct ourselves in these discussions is ultimately immaterial to what is actually true. IOW, atheists bloggers (or in general) could be some of the most vile, foul-mouthed, inconsiderate people you've ever encountered, and this wouldn't make theism true(nor atheism false)". I disagree. Behavior is incredibly important. First of all the claim I can be an atheist and a good ethical person falls down if that person is a total A Hole to people who don't agree with them (or in general). That works both ways of course. I am not saying you have been by the way. Lets just say I was concerned in the direction you were heading. Additionally the world does not need more examples of people who can't discuss differences without remaining civil. To the contrary we need examples of people who do. In fact that is one of the reasons I am contributing to your blog.
"Yes, more "articles". Sh*t-tons. But here's the rub: Even if we allow the articles that support your claim that prayer results are something more than just placebo effect, there are other problems. For instance, why do patients who receive prayer still die? Clearly not all physical ailments carry the same gravity..i.e..some ailments clear up on their own, others do not. Are there articles that account for this? Are there articles that prove that other factors besides prayer can't be playing a role in these so-called success stories?
And finally, if answered prayer is something otherworldly or "Divine", why won't prayer heal amputees? Even salamanders can regrow missing limbs, and without the help of the supernatural".
Patients who receive medical care die as well. Does that mean it doesn't work? You seem to be saying if it doesn't work all the time it doesn't work at all. Lets use logic. If medical care works sometimes I can't say it doesn't work. I can't say if it works sometimes, but not other times, it doesn't work correct? Agree? If prayer works sometimes I can't say it doesn't work correct? And if it works sometimes but not others I can't say it never works, correct? In other words if prayer works once prayer can work? All the evidence I have seen suggests it works a lot more than once. The question of why it works is interesting indeed. Can it be "non religious" of course. A witch doctor curses someone and they die (very well documented) was it suggestion and ultimate placebo effect? Possible. Poison? Possible. Actual dark supernatural? I would say possible. All three in different circumstances? Yes.
"Here's the stark difference: **Nowhere in my personal testimony will anyone find where I say "God is disproven". So are you saying the only personal testimony that is not allowed is that which refers to a belief in God? If I understand what you are saying it seems like you are saying exactly what I thought you were. My personal testimony is valid, but others is not. I would like to try that one in Court! Personal testimony is either valid for discussion, or not. Saying only mine is, well thats not just a stretch, its a Looooong one.
"I'm not sure I'm understanding the question. I readily confess that I'm partial to that which aligns with logic, and by extension, I don't like that which is "not logical." Further, I believe science is currently the best, most reliable method for ascertaining truth. I don't apologize for of any of this, either." No need to apologize. However, I will certainly challenge it when you don't apply your own standards.
Interlocutor confession. I had to look the word up. Had no idea what it meant.
So here is the rub sir. If logic rules your discussions you are bound by your own standards I say again, the idea that prayer works is not illogical as you define it. As you say there is evidence for and against, and a proper discussion regarding why or how. But I think I am looking for a specific answer. The proposition that "Prayer has benefits" is not illogical.
"The Red Queen shook her head, "You may call it nonsense if you like
I guess the question, then, is if the Red Queen's stance carries more weight than the Green Queen. Or wait, maybe we should be asking the King(?)
I disagree. Behavior is incredibly important. First of all the claim I can be an atheist and a good ethical person falls down if that person is a total A Hole to people who don't agree with them (or in general)
Finding an instance of an atheist being an asshole doesn't preclude them from being ethical as a whole, and the way our current leader's followers regard him in light of the way he acts towards people who don't agree with him is all the evidence anyone should need. The exception would be, if said followers admit said leader is unethical. I won't hold my breath.
Notwithstanding, when I argue that an atheist being an asshole doesn't disprove atheism, I mean it in the sense that it doesn't prove theism. IOW, atheists can be assholes and it still doesn't mean there's a God.
the world does not need more examples of people who can't discuss differences without remaining civil. To the contrary we need examples of people who do. In fact that is one of the reasons I am contributing to your blog.
As stated previously, I don't mind dissenting views. Where I start to mind, is, a) when it starts to look like I'm wasting my time..e.g.. due to having to repeat myself over and over, or b) when a guest starts attacking character instead of content.
Patients who receive medical care die as well. Does that mean it doesn't work?
To my knowledge, the medical profession doesn't claim to be able to work "miracles", and I mean this in the religious sense of the word. Doctors understand that their practices and methods have limitations, hence, the waivers and disclaimers before risky procedures.
And again, this raises the question of why modern medicine is even needed in conjunction with prayer, if prayer is proven to work as something more than just placebo effect. Christian Scientists say modern medicine is not needed.
IOW, they employ faith, just like their bible admonishes them to do.
The question of why it works is interesting indeed.
The problem is that you've not provided conclusive evidence where prayer was tested under scientific conditions and it was concluded that other factors could not have contributed to the "success". At least, you haven't provided it yet.
In your defense, though, you at least admit there can be other factors that could skew results when you say, "Can it be 'non religious' of course."
This is precisely why I raised the subject of amputees. Results can't be skewed.
A witch doctor curses someone and they die (very well documented) was it suggestion and ultimate placebo effect? Possible. Poison? Possible. Actual dark supernatural? I would say possible. All three in different circumstances? Yes
The problem is that you seemingly put equal credence into each possible explanation, but ignore the plausibility part(and BTW, we've been over this).
Benny Hinn's faith healings are also very well documented. He can lengthen someone's leg right there in front of our eyes! Now, is it possible that it's something otherworldy? Yes. Is it possible that it's fake and he's a POS charlatan who bilks people out of their money? Definitely. Are the two explanations equally plausible? I contend, "no".
continued...
My personal testimony is valid, but others is not. I would like to try that one in Court! Personal testimony is either valid for discussion, or not.
It appears my point was lost on you.
So are you saying the only personal testimony that is not allowed is that which refers to a belief in God?
"Allowed" implies permission is/was granted. Anyone has my permission to lay out their personal testimony here.
Now, whether said testimony constitutes conclusive evidence for what is being claimed in the affirmative is a different ball of wax. Surely you can wrap your head around this distinction, yes?
My testimony, in part, it that I've never had a personal experience with "God" or any other invisible beings. That's the extent of my claim, so I can't think of any reason under the sun why someone would reject that testimony(a la, I didn't see a ghost! I wasn't abducted by aliens, I didn't see a large-footed community ape in my backyard! I didn't see Nessy!, etc.etc), because I'm not claiming that invisible, conscious beings don't exist based on my testimony.
Conversely, if someone lays out their personal testimony here(which, BTW, you haven't done yet; you merely claim you had one and insist it was real), and further, they claim they had a personal experience with "God" or some other invisible being, then you are correct, I don't accept that as conclusive evidence that "God" or any other invisible beings exist.
So, while I allowed the testimony, I reject it has evidence of anything, with the exception of that they experienced something. See the difference, yet? Both testimonies should be "allowed", but I'm not saying my testimony is conclusive evidence of anything. I fail to see how this is contradictory or hypocritical in any way.
No need to apologize. However, I will certainly challenge it when you don't apply your own standards.
Feel free, I can never get too much practice. Also, if you are holding out or sitting on a method that is as reliable as science, or even better, more reliable, by all means, call me out whenever I cite science in support of something. Checks and balances.
As you say there is evidence for and against, and a proper discussion regarding why or how.
There's evidence for and against crop circles and chakras, too. Needless to say, some evidence is better than other evidence.
The proposition that "Prayer has benefits" is not illogical.
Agreed, as is the proposition that "Sugar pills have benefits" not illogical.
"It appears my point was lost on you. So are you saying the only personal testimony that is not allowed is that which refers to a belief in God? "Allowed" implies permission is/was granted. Anyone has my permission to lay out their personal testimony here. Now, whether said testimony constitutes conclusive evidence for what is being claimed in the affirmative is a different ball of wax. Surely you can wrap your head around this distinction, yes?"
Yes I do get what you are saying. No you don't get to "allow" testimony or not, although your statement about censoring seemed to me to be just that actually.
"There's evidence for and against crop circles and chakras, too. Needless to say, some evidence is better than other evidence".
I believe what you mean by this is scientific evidence is better evidence than other evidence? Or I think some evidence is better than other evidence. To say "this is evidence is better than that evidence is to state something as fact that is actually opinion." In which case I would point out there was evidence in the article that both showed bush babies benefiting from prayer and women who were prayed for at a distance? Did it apply scientific method? I would say yes it did.
Science is important. Its not an all inclusive method to look at the world though. I personally think ethics is more important. The problems the world faces are moral problems, the answers lie in ethics. Science is morally silent.
"To my knowledge, the medical profession doesn't claim to be able to work "miracles", and I mean this in the religious sense of the word. Doctors understand that their practices and methods have limitations, hence, the waivers and disclaimers before risky procedures."
Doctors are individuals with very different beliefs. For example at my Church is a head of surgery who very much believes in the benefits of prayer. He is a friend of mine.
"And again, this raises the question of why modern medicine is even needed in conjunction with prayer, if prayer is proven to work as something more than just placebo effect. Christian Scientists say modern medicine is not needed".
You seem to again be saying if prayer works sometimes it should work every time. Assuming biblical Christianity there are no examples of prayer working that way, except by Jesus. Sometimes prayer works, sometimes not, depending on a complicated range of factors. In the same way you could say if medical science works, why is prayer needed? And by the way did you know the Supreme Court upheld the right of people to rely on faith to heal, partially based on the fact there was evidence it does? Conversely, you can go into a hospital for something minor and die of a Staph infection (which happens all the time).
"A witch doctor curses someone and they die (very well documented) was it suggestion and ultimate placebo effect? Possible. Poison? Possible. Actual dark supernatural? I would say possible. All three in different circumstances? Yes"
"The problem is that you seemingly put equal credence into each possible explanation, but ignore the plausibility part(and BTW, we've been over this)".
Yes. I don't see plausibility the same way you do. I judge it by different factors and criteria. As a lawyer personal testimony is enormously important. Some cases are tried on nothing but. As a professor of ethics I am used to discussing ideas with almost no proof in any, and certainly not by scientific principals. I am not even all that familiar with what are considered scientific principals. If something seems improbable I don't necessarily reject it because it seems, at first, far fetched. And here is an example, two people I know well saw ghosts. My mother and a girl I dated for two years. Both stories are as far as I can tell wildly improbable. Scientifically explained? Nope. Scientific evidence? Nope. However, I knew both of them well. My mother as far as I can tell never lied to me one time, nor did she lie to anyone else. In other words I had no reason not to believe her, and a lots of evidence to believe her. Same with the girl I dated. Did I believe both of them? Yes. Because they were both plausible, as people.
In the Divergent world you would clearly be an Erudite. I would not. I will say this, it will make discussion of certain topics difficult on this blog. Either tortured or extremely short. That does not include every topic though. In this way you could say this "Dues Aderit would agree there is not scientific proof for, or against, the existence of God."
No you don't get to "allow" testimony or not, although your statement about censoring seemed to me to be just that actually.
Good grief, this is starting to become slightly tedious, so maybe it's just as well if this becomes a parting of ways. Besides, you surely can't think you are telling much of anything I've not heard before. But I digress..
Okay, in my view, a "personal testimony" is a SPECIFIC aspect of a person's story or journey. For instance, if a theist is asked what specifically convinced them to be a theist (and keeps them convinced) and they cite personal experience, it's not a matter of me "allowing" it; he or she is free to post it(and I notice you still haven't), unless they violate other rules.
IOW, any person is free to post their personal testimony, so it's not a matter of me "allowing" the actual post. However, I am not obligated to accept said experience as conclusive evidence of anything. And before anyone goes there, true, no theist is obligated to accept my non-experience with invisible beings as evidence for "no invisible beings." The difference being, I, as an atheist, am not citing my experience as "disproof" for God.
Tying up some loose ends on this Memorial Day...
Doctors are individuals with very different beliefs. For example at my Church is a head of surgery who very much believes in the benefits of prayer. He is a friend of mine ~ D. Aderit
For the record, I do not (did not) deny that prayer can have "benefits", especially for those who know they're being prayed for. But alas, the claim that prayer *can be* beneficial, and the claim that prayer absolutely evokes something otherworldy, are two totally different claims that require two different types of evidence.
You seem to again be saying if prayer works sometimes it should work every time. ~ D. Aderit
Here's the rub: If prayer doesn't work every time, then we have to at least entertain the possibility that "successes" could be mere chance, depending on what sort of success rate percentage prayer actually yields in a scientific study.
For instance, if prayer only works 50% of the time(or less), then we're being reasonable to conclude that it could be mere chance whenever it appears to "work". This is precisely why scientists seek to know how prayer fares in a controlled study, as to be able to conclude that prayer works better than just chance. Otherwise, a study is pointless and we are being reasonable to be skeptical that prayer actually works.
Sometimes prayer works, sometimes not, depending on a complicated range of factors. ~ D. Aderit
Yes, curiously, just like a lucky rabbit's foot or a four leave clover works sometimes and not other times.
In the same way you could say if medical science works, why is prayer needed? ~ D. Aderit
"Prayer" is the very thing in question. Saying it's "needed" along side modern medicine in order for modern medicine to work is begging the question. Here's the thing, medical science has a proven track record, and no, it doesn't need to have a 100% success rate to be more effective at curing or managing disease than intercessory prayer.
To be fair, though, intercessory prayer doesn't need a 100% success rate to show that it works. Notwithstanding, the faithful do need to demonstrate that it works better than mere chance, and they need to demonstrate this by minimizing or eliminating other factors that could be contributing to the results. IOW, false positives need to be ruled out.
did you know the Supreme Court upheld the right of people to rely on faith to heal, partially based on the fact there was evidence it does? ~ D. Aderit
Then I'd say this ruling was counter-intuitive at best given that in 2018 parents can be, and are, charged with involuntary manslaughter for withholding medical treatment from their children(and IMO, rightfully so).
If something seems improbable I don't necessarily reject it because it seems, at first, far fetched. ~ D. Aderit
Same, but for me, depends on the claim. The more far fetched, the better and more credible the evidence needs to be. Regardless, I suspend belief until/unless such evidence is forthcoming; I do not accept the claim until it's disproven. This is (was) a vast difference between the way you and I approach epistemology.
My mother as far as I can tell never lied to me one time, nor did she lie to anyone else. ~ D. Aderit
Fair enough, however, you decided, a priori, that lying and telling the truth are the only possible options. You've not considered other possibilities..e.g..self-deception, for instance, the interpreting of natural events wrongly. To me, this is at the top of a list of what most likely happened, whereas, seeing the disembodied personalities of dead people is toward the bottom of that list.
In the Divergent world you would clearly be an Erudite. I would not. I will say this, it will make discussion of certain topics difficult on this blog. ~ D. Aderit
Yes, difficult, as evidenced throughout. No doubt.
I'm going to add, though, that while I would not want (did not want) to be seen as someone who's not tolerant of views that dissent from my own, I can however recognize when a stalemate is right around the corner, and should it arrive, I will always prefer to call it quits amicably, if possible.
IOW, sometimes I know this is just not possible, given how extremely passionate people are about their core beliefs. There really just isn't a nice way to tell people that they're wrong about their core beliefs, and let's face it, that's essentially what atheist and theist are telling each other when they discuss/debate. Still, I do my best to not harbor ill feelings and I understand that debate, even heated debate, can still be useful to onlookers.
To me, scrapping the idea of discussion or running the opposite direction at the first sign of conflict is barely better than not discussing things at all. And I don't recall when not discussing things has ever brought about change in this world.
Post a Comment