Nothing but religion needs this level of sophistry to create anything resembling coherence. How many Angels can ******** on the head of a pin? All else is just jerking off. Religious people write paragraph after paragraph to attempt to get beyond the simple fact that their worldview is based on magic. Show me a magician and Ill show you an illusionist.
Well, if you want to take the analogy to the extreme, then the keyboard represents the senses, the circuitry represents the nervous system, the display represents consciousness and the finger is the external stimulation getting the whole thing going. But you do know that our experiences shape our dreams, don't you? For instance, when you wear colored glasses that make everything look pink, eventually your dreams will look pink as well. Or the person who is blind will also dream in darkness. So if this "alternate reality" is merely mirroring the real world, then it very much appears to be a function of the brain. If it was not, it would have independent features that are the same for every dreamer. Then it doesn't exist, simple as that. I know where you want to go with this, that there might be non-physical senses. But that's an oxymoron. If something can be sensed it is physical by definition. It means that there is a stimulation on the one hand and a physical effect on the other. That is exactly the realm in which science excels. But now you're arguing starting from the end result. Now you're saying that if you do it right, you get the result that validates a certain interpretation. Now you're judging the experience which is supposed to validate your results by looking if it produces the correct result. But that is circular reasoning. But that's how science works and very successfully so. When you end up with a picture of Mickey Mouse, it's extremely unlikely that it's actually supposed to be a picture of the New York skyline, even if one or two pieces are put in the wrong place. Why would it be impossible? There's nothing inherently impossible about it other than one's prudery. But then I'm sure there are enough people who don't have a problem with it. And neither should there be an inherent problem with performing psychic stuff under controlled conditions, there isn't even the problem of shyness as with the sex example. If there were psychic phenomena, we should be able to demonstrate them, but so far, nobody has, every singly claim that has been investigated turned out to be false. "Respect" is a little vague though. I can respect stuff that is blatantly false. The difference is in the consequence, not the principle. That might be a pragmatic and useful way of approaching your daily life, but it's not a valid way to reason, especially when trying to figure out the fundamental nature of reality. I think this is again a semantic argument, one that crops up often in these types of discussions but that aren't very helpful. If you define "knowledge" as absolute knowledge, then you're correct. But that's not a very useful definition and not one you'd use anywhere else. If that was your definition, the you wouldn't know anything, which is fine, but it renders the term "knowledge" useless, as it doesn't exist by definition. You use that definition in order to justify giving people the benefit of the doubt, despite all the evidence to the contrary. But if knowledge is defined as absolute, then you'd have to apply that same argument to absolutely everything. So in order to be consistent, you'd have to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, no matter how crazy their ideas. However, knowledge is commonly defined as justified true belief. Now philosophers debate about that definition as some reject it, some even negate it, I think it was Karl Popper who said that knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief. Be that as it may, it's hardly ever understood as absolute and that's also how we approach daily life. You KNOW that people can't fly and die when jumping off a bridge. Do you know that it's absolutely true? Of course not, but you do know it to a high enough degree of certainty. When we say "I don't know if this is true" it usually means that there is a considerable amount of doubt. When I say: "I don't know if Diana tried to call me," then everybody understands that it could be either way, basically a 50/50 chance as it implies a lack of information that precludes me from drawing any conclusions. But that only works because knowledge is not defined as absolute. If it was, that sentence wouldn't tell you anything. I could be on the phone with Diana right now and I would still have to say that I don't know whether or not she called. That definition would render the sentence meaningless. Now in your assessment that you don't know whether or not spiritual experiences point to anything commonly defined as supernatural, you're aiming for the same ambiguity as in my example with the phone call, that the lack of information precludes you from drawing any conclusions. However, you're not using the common definition of knowledge, but you define it as absolute knowledge, and that doesn't work, because that definition leads to a sentence without any content, without any meaning. We do KNOW that these spiritual experiences are natural phenomena, a result of your brain chemistry with the same degree of certainty that we do KNOW that humans can't fly on their own.
I wanted to hop in here. Benztown sort of got at this, but . . . you can "what if" anything. HerthaBerwyn is correct that this is sophistry--the reason is because you can say what you're saying about absolutely anything, such as Russell's teapot. Plus, you choose an extremely odd example--a blind man investigating color. Thanks to science, blind men can investigate color--as well as light that we cannot see with our physical senses!--and as a result, we now have a very good idea of what color is. Consider these graphs. Your thinking regarding alleged non-material phenomena seems to be in accordance with the top graph, while in the above quote you also say that if you had to put money on religious people's being wrong, you probably would, which would put you in the lower right quadrant of the second graph on that issue. So when it comes to belief in a supernatural being and belief in "magic," as benztown put it, you seem to be using different criteria for judgment, and that's not appropriate. You're treating those alleged phenomena as if they belong on the first scale, with claims that we've become too materialistic and "what ifs." What you about "absolutely" not knowing if religious people are wrong, is effectively the same as saying you "absolutely" do not know if there are non-material phenomena, worlds, etc. And that's true for benztown or me or anybody else. But you have given no evidence that anything you discussed in your posts either actually exists (e.g. ESP) or occurs outside the brain chemistry (e.g. lucid dreams); you have appealed to feelings and an apparent desire that it be the case that these magical things are real. Accordingly, in order to remain intellectually honest, you should also be in the lower right quadrant of the second graph with regards to metaphysical phenomena, rather than conflating "not knowing for certain" with "possibility." So why aren't you?
And you would be mistaken. Occam's razor is simply a tool -a stipulation might perhaps be a better word- that is useful in science. It is useful not necessarily because the simplest hypothesis is the most likely one to be correct (a statement that of course should not be accepted a priori by a scientist), but rather because the simplest hypothesis is the easiest to disprove, and therefore it makes all the sense in the world for a scientist utilizing scientific method to begin by analyzing the simplest hypothesis/explanation in order to determine if it can be disproven, before moving on to a more complex one. If the simplest hypothesis cannot be disproven, then it is logical for the scientist to accept it as an explanation -at least until such a time when it is disproven- rather than to move on to a more complex explanation. That is how science works. However, when it comes to atheists using Occam's razor in an attempt to shift the burden of proof about God's existence to people of faith, its use as a tool or stipulation becomes irrelevant. You simply can't use Occam's razor to try to disprove metaphysics, because it does not make sense to use scientific method when speculating about metaphysics. You do not start by trying to disprove the simplest theory when talking metaphysics, let alone when arguing about faith. At this point, we are discussing issues that are well beyond the realm of what science can or cannot prove. To try to use Occam's razor to help us argue a point about metaphysics is sort of like trying to use a ladder to get to the moon. Absolutely useless.
Is that a rhetorical question? I know that you know that the very definition of faith renders such a question meaningless.
For atheism the words more commonly used are "strong" and "weak." But for example, I feel quite confident in my knowledge that the Abrahamic god does not exist, just as I'm confident that Zeus, Thor, Aphrodite, Cthulhu, etc. do not exist. Therefore in regards to these gods, I am essentially a gnostic (or strong) atheist. However, when it comes to some cosmic first cause or other deistic sort of idea of god--though I certainly lack belief and lean toward thinking better of it--I still am not comfortable making a definitive statement of nonexistence about such a hypothetical entity. So as far as that sort of being goes, I am an agnostic (or weak) atheist.
Where have I used Occam's razor to try and prove or disprove anything? The razor merely describes the process that the logical and rational mind uses to filter and order an infinite number of ideas covering a given situation. All else being equal, assume the simplest explanation until you have a reason to think otherwise. Do not add complicating factors without justification. I don't know why I'm even bothering to argue this with you. Pretty much every credible theologian since Kierkegaard has happily acknowledged that religious belief is utterly opposed to reason. They don't attempt to rationalise their leap of faith, and rightly so. It's seemingly only the lay religious who get offended when you point out that their beliefs are completely irrational.
That would be somebody who is very sure that no supernational being that could be called a god exists. (as opposed to an agnostic atheist, who says he does not believe such a being exists, but is not totally convinced that his disbelieve is the final answer.)
I am not religious and I happen to think that it's idiotic to call a religious person irrational, just because they are religious.
And I happen to think banana milkshake is superior to chocolate milkshake but that's not the point. An otherwise rational person can hold irrational beliefs. I'd imagine there's not a person alive that hasn't had some kind of irrational belief or opinion at some point. The person can be, in the main, rational, and their belief(s) can be irrational. Religious belief is irrational. It simply doesn't come about by rational thought or analysis (or at least not good rational thought or analysis). The fact that some people have become adequate at applying pseudo-rational arguments, after the fact, is neither here nor there.
Occam's razor isn't just useful in science. Everyone uses it, all the time, every day. I'd agree with what you say about how it's applied in science but the same could be applied in every investigatory line or work. Police work, medicine,law, whatever. Nobody should use Occam's razor to prove or disprove anything. Metaphysics is an area where proof and disproof just don't even work like they do in most other fields. Nothing 'proves' anything in metaphysical terms but Occam's razor should still apply in the same way to metaphysics as to science.
Perhaps the distinction is artificial if we don't have free will over our actions and thoughts. http://news.yahoo.com/free-illusion-scientists-philosophers-forced-differ-210401902.html
Like a lot of discussions here, this will really boil down to the meanings we place on words. I would imagine the scientists in that article think about the concept of free will differently to the way the philosophers do. It also comes down to the way people define what is and isn't can and can't be rational.
Don't mind me. Just posting so that I can see the last page of this thread......as it seems it's the only way at the moment. Sort it out
Too busy w/grad school & family stuff. I'll be not praying for a good turnout. That was my reaction as well.
Me either, or that they were apparently the house band for Atheism. Then again, I only listen to honkey-tonk/classic country, Christian Gangsta Rap & Pow-Wow music
There was a story about this on NPR this morning -- first I'd heard of it. I found the constant references to the need for people to "come out of the closet as atheists" a bit odd to say the least. Sure, I agree that it would be tough for someone who was openly atheistic to be elected to higher office. But I don't think atheists face anything even remotely resembling the persecution that the LGBT community has faced which forces people to hide who they are. Of course this leads right into the "don't equate LGBT rights with the racial justice/civil rights movement" conversation that refuses to shut up..... SIGH. Living on the Left is (Sandra)Fluking Exhausting.
I think that is part of the problem. People here seem to want to define rational as "my suppositions are rational but somebody else's suppositions are not if they are different than mine." I find it perfectly rational for individuals to accept certain starting suppositions as premises from which to rationally build a belief system. Of course, we all make some suppositions, starting from the idea that what has happened in the past will be repeated in the future, or the idea that what we feel with our senses is in fact real. It is impossible to think scientifically, in fact it is impossible to even think at all, without some suppositions. For example, I find my father to be a rational thinker not because of the premises he's chosen to accept, but rather because once I know and understand the premises and suppositions he's chosen to accept, I find that he thinks and behaves logically in accordance with them. So, even though I may not share all of his premises and suppositions, I know what I can logically and rationally expect from him. I can say I learned from my father -a deeply religious person- to think rationally. I also try to think rationally based on the principles that I've accepted for myself, and my hope is that those who know me and depend on me in some way (for friendship, relationship, business etc) can find me dependable, in the sense that if they get to know me and my principles they will know what they can rationally expect from me. My experience in life is that I've found some religious people who think rationally and some non religious people who think rationally, and conversely I've found some religious people who think irrationally and some non religious people -including atheists- who think irrationally. And I've found different degrees of rationality. But, one thing I found as I traveled the world and met many people with diverse suppositions about life is that for the most part their rationality doesn't seem to be particularly related to what their starting suppositions are.
Aren't atheists regularly the most distrusted group in America according to polls? That really depends on where you live I guess. Where I live, religion (or the lack thereof) is an absolute non-factor. So there's absolutely no need to come out to anyone, because nobody cares either way. It's your private business and that's the end of it. But then you hear stories from the Bible belt (but also in all kinds of places, think about the entire Muslim world for example where this may be a matter of life and death), where people lose their families, their jobs, their entire social life, because they don't believe as the others do. So for them this consciousness raising of people coming out as atheists might be very helpful, as it demonstrates their peers that atheists can be good guys and are not necessarily Satanists or anything of that sort. And I don't even consider myself as living on the Left
Yes. Between that and politicians and the religious right constantly trying to run our lives (and the lives of the religious but sensible), I think it's a very worthwhile thing to have an "Out" campaign.