Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[ruach1]

Huntster - You need to learn to read with care, you putz.

Neither Belz nor I have a god, nor feel any need for one.

Neither of us (if I may be so bold, Belz), believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.

I love the consequences of not being religious. Life is good again.

Huntster - When you die, you will rot in the ground, and the stuff that you makes you up will eventually be put to better use. Your mind, such as it is, will cease to exist at or before the moment of your death. Neither your non-existent soul nor your real but misused consciousness (sorry, Ian) will persist.

So say I, a scientist-man.

Now that's being direct--telling it like it is (or so he thinks it is)
I like it. NO sarcasm intended.

 

[ruach1]

Well, I was just trying to get across what I made of DrK's post, but of course I probably said it much worse than drk would have anyway...

That aside, I do agree with what I made of drk's post, so, I should try to make myself clear, anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a claim made proir to the empirical method". What I was refering to is claims that at the time hadn't been tested, nor were known to be testable. Claims which had no evidence for or against them. When someone makes claims like that, and most are later shown to be false, the rest that we don't yet know still may or may not be true, but it's silly to suggest that the fact that the original person made those claims can be evidence for them.

It's not evidence against them exactly, however. It just makes me realise that they can be put in with all other claims that have no evidence for them.


Here's the problem for me. I can agree that God could exist, until you start telling me something about God.
Theists usually do more than claim that God exists - they claim to know the attributes of God. This could be as simple as saying god created the universe, can effect it now, and loves us. I wonder, how do they know this? There are so many possible gods that when someone offers me a specific one, I'm pretty sure it's not real. Much the same way that if someone were to hand me a lottery ticket, I would assume that it wasn't a winner. There still might be a winner somewhere, but anyone who pretends to know the numbers had better give me a good reason to beleive them.

If there is a God that created the universe, then all we know about it is what we see of the universe. We end up with einstein's god, just another word for the laws of physics. Assuming anything more than that is going beyond the evidence.

Of course there could be physics we don't know about yet - hell, there probably is - and some of it could be God. But to say anything about that - that it's intelligent, that it cares about us, that it doesn't like pork - well, that's no different than saying you know the name of the doctor who will write my death certificate. You might have made an accurate guess, but I feel safe in saying that you didn't.

They "know" this because of how they view the Bible. They believe it to be inerrant and neither see nor have anything to do with the seeming contradictory nature of the representations of God. This is their knowledge; this is their truth. And though this knowledge and this truth does not and cannot stand up to scientific analysis, scientific analysis, in this regard and in their worldview, does not mean as much as it does to you.

However, I believe there is more to this God thing than what we don't like about "His" followers, the inconsistencies in the Bible, and the lack of corroborative, unquestionable evidence. I believe there is something around the Christ that is more than what can be explained or explained away. I don't know exactly what or who "it" is, but the closer I get to this Christ, the closer I get to something or Someone I believe makes me and this world a better place. Be it natural, supernatural, supranatural, cosmic, or whatever, there is something about the Christ that is more than this world, and the lack of mathematical, scientific, unquestionable evidence for this claim doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[Roboramma]

ruach, I think I can accept that some people might believe something without evidence. Part of the point I was trying to make, though, is that when in the past claims have been made without any evidence to support them, and later we've been able to test those claims, they've turned out to be false.
So while we can't assume that these untested claims are false, we have good reason to believe that the only sure way to know something is by looking at evidence.

You're free to reject that, of course. It is possible that people can just know things, without any prior basis of that knowledge. (The bible isn't a basis of knowledge, because the question just goes back one step further - how do you know that bible is true? At some point along the way we get to the answer: "It feels true.")
That's fine. I'm just saying that we have no reason to believe that "It feels true." means it's likely to be true. On the other hand, we have reasons to believe that things that aren't true would feel true. And we have evidence from the past, and the present, that things that felt true to people then turned out not to be.

On the other hand, there are some things that are defined by how we feel toward them - something is beautiful if it feels beautiful, something is awesome if it inspires awe.

There are also some things, like morality, that I think are a mix of logic and emotion, but these end up being very complicated. Basically something along the lines of "something is wrong because of how it effects the way the parties involved feel." Though that's a horrible oversimplification of what I mean, and probably beyond the scope of the conversation anyway...

Anyway, I'm just saying that we might be able to reduce a flower down to it's constituent atoms, but that doesn't make it any less beautiful. Sometimes, it's understanding how something truly came to be, and how it interacts with the world around it, that lets us see it's true beauty. Well, that's my perspective anyway.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Have you considered the possibility that there are other things which differentiate this board from Christian boards?

No doubt there are, however, that is the only difference of consequence. I find it incredibly improbable that you wish to be nasty to people here rather than there because the JREF board uses different software, for instance.

 

[Belz...]

Now, I admit that I am not now wearing my spectacles, and my eyes are getting old, and my reading skills may not be on par with yours, but please point out where I wrote "those who don't share my beliefs".

For the record, I consider those who don't like me, and/or who wish me ill as my enemies.

You said you were among enemies, here. I assumed that, since this is a skeptics forum, you considered us enemies by default. Perhaps next time you'd care to be more specific, then.

 

[Belz...]

There are those who believe the natural state of humans is to be at conflict with one another--its just natural, and if you don't realize this soon then you're bound to be "defeated" by those who do see it this way and are aggressive enough and willing to make sure they're point of view triumphs over all else.

Then there are those who think the natural state of humans is to be at peace because the greatest outcome for all comes when we work together and cooperate--there's even evolutionary theory to back this up.

I don't know where I'm going with this; its just the first thing that came to these fingertips typing this stuff out-------a little tired and weary today...

So I see. I think conflict IS natural. I don't see how this would be a reason to continue doing it, though.

 

[Tricky]

(With the referent questions in blue)
How can a paradigm that seeks truth include a provision that the truth need not be verified?
It can't

Then I would say that religion cannot be called a paradigm that seeks truth.

Where does that leave us in our search for truth? It leaves us in a place such that we should adopt critical thinking to the best of our ability.

Agreed.

How do you sort between wise and foolish claims?
Using the wisdom we see best to fit the situation.

LOL. That's a bit vague. What if your wisdom includes, "Well, it sounds good to me"? I posit that it is evidence that we should use to do the sorting.

Do you even agree that there are such things as foolish claims?
I agree that there are foolish religious claims (dispensationalism: anti-christ, monsters, exclusive raptures, etc.) I deal with them often.

How do you deal with them? Do you try to identify them as "foolish" to the one who believes them, or do you just shrug and accept that people will believe any darn fool thing?

Tricky's response has a lot to do with the original post. I made the petri-dish illustration (seems like weeks ago...). I said that reducing the natural world into what can fit neatly into an 'evidence only' reality and disregarding all else is probably unhealthy. "Unprovable" things like art, philosophy, religion, romance and that general "side" of our human nature may suffer, and, as a whole, we (whoever we are) may suffer as well.

Of course art the other "unprovables" have their place. Poetry is my favorite, and I might cite Archibald MacLeish, "A poem should not mean, but be."
But the instant that any of these unprovables start to state with certainty how things work, then they should be instantly relegated to the realms of art, not truth, because they have no way of proving truth. Truth is not an opinion.

How then do we discriminate or evaluate that which is true and worthwhile? I would offer a more holistic response: evaluate with the right side of your brain and try the left as well. But demanding evidence for everything, IMO, seems, well a little too sterile.

If I may dissect a bit, let me say that "true" and "worthwhile" are totally different questions. If you find something worthwhile, then it is worthwhile. Truth, is just the opposite. It doesn't matter how worthwhile you find religion or art, if it isn't verifiable, it isn't true. Even one of my heroes, John Keats was wrong about this.

This doesn't imply that there is not a lot to be said for beauty!

 

[ruach1]

Tricky

Then I would say that religion cannot be called a paradigm that seeks truth.

John 18:38a. No one can answer this fully; one can only opine.

LOL.

Not so smart when you see it.

That's a bit vague. What if your wisdom includes, "Well, it sounds good to me"? I posit that it is evidence that we should use to do the sorting

Well it was a vague question, now wasn't it? And certainly evidence should be considered for many truth claims, but there is more to truth than seeing the evidence.

How do you deal with them? Do you try to identify them as "foolish" to the one who believes them, or do you just shrug and accept that people will believe any darn fool thing?

What do I do? I pick my battles and don't worry about having to win over or defeat everyone with a differing opinion than mine. Its just not in my nature. I also don't waste my time on close-minded ninnies or those whom I know do not "know" the subject at hand but just want to win the conversation to get that oh so sweet ego-inflation of a verbal battle won.

Of course art the other "unprovables" have their place. Poetry is my favorite, and I might cite Archibald MacLeish, "A poem should not mean, but be."
But the instant that any of these unprovables start to state with certainty how things work, then they should be instantly relegated to the realms of art, not truth, because they have no way of proving truth. Truth is not an opinion.

Now is that your opinion or is it the truth?
Round and round and round... whee!

If I may dissect a bit, let me say that "true" and "worthwhile" are totally different questions. If you find something worthwhile, then it is worthwhile. Truth, is just the opposite. It doesn't matter how worthwhile you find religion or art, if it isn't verifiable, it isn't true. Even one of my heroes, John Keats was wrong about this.

You and I would have made terrible college roomates. Truth is the opposite of being worthwhile? If art isn't verifiable? What the
h3ll is that supposed to mean?

This doesn't imply that there is not a lot to be said for beauty!

Agreed, and thanks for the poems.