Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Kids

[Razsan]

 

Nice. Facepalm.

 

 

Why a facepalm??? I was trying to add some levity...LOL!!

[JamesPeters]

Thank you for acknowledging that, Chris, and I accept your apology.

 

I don't want to infer intent from your mistake, however it might demonstrate the point I was making about your missing my meaning.

[draelyc]

So, I'm trying desperately to make corrections, y'all ~ in a feeble attempt to make amends...

 

EDIT: This post originally contained quotes that I wrongly attributed to James Peters. I am editing the post to correct those errors, and I again apologize to James for having misrepresented him so badly. I'm sorry, James.

 

I'll mark text to be deleted in red.

 

Okay, James ~ I've had a chance to look back over your last few posts a few times now, and here's what's jumping out at me:

 

(I'm going to pull out specific quotes, but please understand that it is not my intention to take a quote out of context, but rather to use these quotes as examples of your overall themes as they come across from your posts ~ so if you can show me how I am mis-reading your themes and/or intentions, I *welcome* the correction, okay?

 

Obviously, the following "overall impression" is way off base, given that it was erroneously founded on things James never said.

 

So first, here's my overall impression, before moving on to specifics. You say you're not a materialist (in the sense that a materialist would be someone who only accepts as "real" those things which are tangible). Cool. You go on to say that you need evidence that a given thing exists in order to accept that that thing exists. Fair enough. I think where the disconnect comes in is that, from your posts, it appears that the only kind of evidence you're willing to consider as acceptable is empirical (i.e., tangible) evidence ~ which is fine, but then how do you maintain that you are not a materialist, since *that* is the defining aspect of the materialist worldview?

 

Because that is the impression that comes across (to me) very clearly in your posts, perhaps you can understand why I have a hard time just "taking it on faith" that when you refer to "irrational views," you're not referring to *my* non-materialist views as well?

 

Here is the passage in which the word "irrational" made its first appearance, as best I can tell:

 

I'm merely holding to the standard of truth that our entire world can agree upon. If you expect me to "have faith" for something not demonstrable, that's where I draw the line because I see too many problems inherent in it. That's all.

 

... that is what you're doing. You are PRESUMING that the entire world MUST see reality the same way you do, and that simply is not the case, sir.

 

For one, just to repeat yet again, I have never expected you or anyone else to have faith in something non-demonstrable. Why do you think I pointed out repeatedly that subjective, first-hand experience is "non-transferrable" as "evidence"? Precisely because I cannot "transfer" my experience into your consciousness in order for my experience to convince *you* to believe. That is flatly impossible, as I've stated, over and over again.

 

For another, you're mistaken when you call empiricism a "standard of truth"; it is not, my friend. It is a standard of *fact* ~ and that hain't the same thing. There's a reason we have two different words, with two different spellings, in English for "fact" & "truth."

 

(corrections continued in next post)

[draelyc]

CORRECTIONS, CONT'D:

 

 

Now, if I take out the quotes that I wrongly presented as being from James, there's really no basis at all for the aggresive tone that pervades my whole reply here, so in my view even the following comments, though technically they were in response to one of James' quotes, should be deleted, because in this corrected context, they're just too hostile.

 

Again, I am truly sorry for these mistakes, James.

 

So, James, what is so annoying, to the point of offense, in your recent posts, is that you seem completely unable to see your own bias here, at all ~ and then you get mad at me when I call you out for being biased.

 

I have gone to great pains NOT to impose my worldview on anyone else but me. I've put great care not only into what I've been saying, but also into the words and phrases I've chosen for expressing those points, in order to make it clear that A) I do NOT expect everyone to see things the same way I do, and that B) I'm acutely aware that I may turn out to be wrong.

 

You don't seem to be doing either of those things ~ again, just going by what's shown up in these recent posts.

 

 

Even if I have grossly misread your words & ideas, though, I do hope that now you have a better sense of *why* that might've happened, y'know? Take a look at what you've said and how you've said it, and try to imagine being on the receiving end, being someone with a different worldview and having such things said to/at/about you. Might surprise yourself, yeah?

 

This paragraph, however, should remain:

 

BUT ... as I said at the beginning of this post, if you can show me how I've been misreading and misunderstanding you, I will gladly and gratefully welcome the correction and apologize publicly for having been so egregiously in error. I mean that very sincerely, man.

 

 

You did it, man. You showed me exactly where I was misreading, misquoted, and misrepresenting you. And when I looked back, you were absolutely correct ~ I did all those things.

 

Man, I am *so* sorry. I got so caught up in my wrong perception of what was going on in the conversation that I utterly failed to pay attention, much less to offer the proper respect. I was just way, way out of line on this ...

 

So I hope everyone who's been following this thread goes back and reads these corrections, because I feel just horrible, y'all.

 

Thanks,

 

Chris

[draelyc]

Thank you for acknowledging that, Chris, and I accept your apology. I don't want to infer intent from your mistake, however it might demonstrate the point I was making about your missing my meaning.

 

I think it absolutely demonstrates that point, much to my chagrin!

 

And thank you for being so gracious. I don't deserve it, atm.

[MatchFive]

Ohh, it's this thread again..

[Mike LX-R]

Ohh, it's this thread again..

 

Oh... valuable comments again

[sinnerx96]

I just want to make clear here that I understand you never intended to try and change my mind. But we are exchanging ideas here, and explaining our reasoning for our beliefs or lack of beliefs. I want to know what you believe and why. If you know something that is more likely to be true, I want to know about it. I'm not trying to change your mind either. But I am going to be taking a close look at your claims and even measure them up, so to speak. You're making some claims here, and I want to address them. Don't think I just want to shoot them all down, as that's not the case even though it may come off to you as such. I only seek truth and what is more likely to be true, and I see no other way to analyze your claims than to hold them to a high standard by further questioning, asking for more clarification, or falsifying them on logical or even philosophical grounds. So, let's get started.

 

Okay, here's my philosophical framework, boiled down to a single sentence: we and everything in existence are all ideas in the mind of God. That's my starting point. From that starting point, it follows that what we perceive to be "objective" reality is really nothing of the kind, that *all* experience is inescapably subjective in nature, etc., etc. Now, once again, let me be very clear that what I'm describing is a postulate, not a theorem, to borrow from geometry. In other words, it is an initial, foundational principle, and thus it is not capable of or subject to being proven or disproven. It can only be accepted or rejected ~ but neither choice (to accept or to reject) is more "rational" than the other... That's enough for a starting place, I think.

 

It certainly is enough for now.

 

Ok. Your philosophical framework is a postulate. But I'm having trouble understanding why it's just as reasonable(or rational) to accept it as it is to reject it? You're going to have to help me out with this one. You haven't demonstrated (physically or otherwise) that it is the case that this postulate, foundational principle, assertion, or presupposition is logically sound, or even needed at all. I don't have any presuppositions like this in my world view. There's no need for presuppositions of this nature. Why is it just as reasonable to have unneeded presuppositions than it is to not?

If any presupposition is just as reasonable as any other,...well I'm sure you can see the problem we run into here.

 

Keep in mind that I do understand that you've mentioned a few times that you didn't intend on changing anyone's mind and that personal experience is what caused you to believe, but there are claims that you've made numerous times in this thread and have asserted them to be true numerous times. You've also gone as far to call others close minded when they didn't accept your notion of the non-material and intangible realm that your evidence for god resides(for example). So, I find it perfectly reasonable for you to be called on this and asked for justification. If you do resort to saying that you can't justify it to anyone else sans personal experience, then what is the point of asserting the other claims?

 

Thanks for answering my questions, Chris. I appreciate you taking the time, and I hope that you do understand my intent with this. I just want to understand. It's not an attempt at "winning" an argument. Truth be told, your beliefs are practically unrecognizable as religion to practically anyone else I've ever run across. So this is very interesting to me, and I look forward to discussing this further. It's kind of a breath of fresh air compared to the theists I usually talk to.

[JamesPeters]

Chris,

 

Rather than reply to your post which is currently in three colors and contains multiple quotes , I'll just quickly address the two things that seem unresolved (that's all I really notice anyway).

 

-The word "irrational" and the context in which I used it:

 

If I'm honest with myself, I might sometimes consider your strongly believing something without evidence to be irrational on some level; however you already explained your beliefs and how you're open to change in them. (You went into a separate post about that to me, actually, after I explained my beliefs to you.) Being open to changing your beliefs is something I personally consider very important; whereas I don't expect to change your beliefs, I would hope you are willing to change your beliefs when/if they're demonstrated to be wrong. (I also told you I can identify with some of your beliefs, even if I didn't believe them myself.)

 

In my second use of the word "irrational", I went so far as to say most organized religions expect people to believe irrational things. I'm currently reading the New Testament and lemme tell ya, there are all kinds of things I consider irrational in there (including some in the "better parts" "containing the good examples" that moderate Christians want to claim as "the heart of Christianity"). I'm thankful most Christians I've known or met are not really believers in those things, but instead choose an approach of ignoring the bad bits while continuing to be "Christians" of some sort. That doesn't mean the religion in general wants people to ignore those bits, but those people thankfully do anyway. It's when those irrational things are believed in--strongly at that--where we have problems. That is exactly what I was getting at, and that's the context in which I said it. This is a firm belief of mine based on lots of evidence, both in how some fundamentalists act (I shouldn't have to name any; the examples are notorious) and from what I'm currently reading which sheds light on some of their actions.

 

-As for this:

 

Me sed: I'm merely holding to the standard of truth that our entire world can agree upon. If you expect me to "have faith" for something not demonstrable, that's where I draw the line because I see too many problems inherent in it. That's all.

 

Of course not everyone believes everything on one standard of truth. The word truth may not have been the best, but it was a reactionary post (to you) and I wasn't considering some of the philosophical meanings of the word. If you don't mind, let's substitute the word "truth" in the statement I made there, for "belief".

 

I was referring to the standard of belief we all use every day for almost everything in our lives, and we do agree upon whether we realize it or not. We base almost all our decisions, all our actions, on beliefs based on evidence and reason. Even when we "have faith" in someone or something, it's usually trust (based on what we know about the person or thing), the word "faith" being used more loosely. It's only in matters of "god" where faith becomes the key difference in my beliefs; I apply the same standard of belief in those matters. Faith is probably never going to happen for me (again).

 

I don't presume that everyone agrees we should forgo faith; of course some people don't. So I know not everyone has the same standard of belief for "god" as I do. They however have it for everything else in their lives. You don't use faith to determine what clothing to wear outside if you know the temperature frequently drops 20 degrees at that time of year; you check the evidence. (I'll save you further examples because I could be here all day and I think neither of us wants that.) If we were to believe strongly in something without evidence or reason--for any other thing in our lives--it would cause problems. I can easily apply this same standard to my belief or lack thereof in "god", for the same reason.

[frankthomson]

You're like the guy at a dance club who leans up against the wall the entire night, nodding his head as if he could dance better than anyone there if he really wanted to, occasionally snickering behind the backs of other dancers, with mouth drool. You can dance if you want to.

 

i already won the dance contest, baby.

 

...no, i really did. I've won quite a few dance contests. I was FrankieDisco back in the day.

 

but you guys here are over-analyzing analyzations:facepalm:....it's pretty funny actually.

 

like....ooooooh, you guys are soooooooo deep.

 

its OCCAM'S RAZOR =====> God.

 

but, you guys are stroking each others peeners, so....

 

carrry on

[sinnerx96]

but, you guys are stroking each others peeners, so....

 

We would just become altar boys for that.

[draelyc]

James & Tony ~ y'all have both just raised some good points & asked some excellent questions. However, given the craptacular way I self-pwnt yesterday, I think perhaps I should take the weekend off from this particular conversation. Y'know, reset, recharge, reread & come back to it fresh next week. I'm not bailing ~ as long as y'all are half-way interested in conversing, I'm in ... I just want to make sure I can bring my full faculties to the table so as (hopefully) to avoid any more forehead-slapping embarrassment, dig?

 

Peace, fellas.

 

C

[JamesPeters]

James & Tony ~ y'all have both just raised some good points & asked some excellent questions. However, given the craptacular way I self-pwnt yesterday, I think perhaps I should take the weekend off from this particular conversation. Y'know, reset, recharge, reread & come back to it fresh next week. I'm not bailing ~ as long as y'all are half-way interested in conversing, I'm in ... I just want to make sure I can bring my full faculties to the table so as (hopefully) to avoid any more forehead-slapping embarrassment, dig? Peace, fellas. C

 

Hi Chris,

 

As for my part of the conversation, I'm not looking to argue (anymore?) I only wanted to clarify what seemed unresolved between you and me, which I hope I've done.

 

Talk to you later...have a good weekend!

[JamesPeters]

Oh and...I'ma just leave this here...

 

w3eTsNEgmL8

 

:D

[Dr Wanker]

While it's way out of my understanding to think our universe just keeps restarting itself and time is may be never ending, or maybe it actually had a specific start at one time;

 

- It's even harder to get my head around a perfect God just popped out of nothing, the first time, and only once at that, and He created the universe because He was so vain he need people to worship him because angels just weren't good enough.

And He then cursed mankind forever, to feel heat, cold, death, pain of child birth, hunger and had to work the fields or starve etc, because his first and only two beings he created, total innocents who didn't know right from wrong, did something wrong, that they didn't even understand was wrong.

So we murdered His only Son (it wasn't a sacifice, we the people who put him to death, we didn't know, so we weren't giving up something, it was just plain murder), and he forgave us for that, well that and The Original Sin too, (or so we're told by just some guys) who make a libing off us, even though we still feel heat, cold, death, pain of child birth, hunger and have to work the fields etc, and so we're just taking some guys word about that, sounds like a total fail to me, and it'll help us get to Heaven, if we live in fear of following His rules to the letter.

 

I'd think if there's a God, he'd be happier I was a good person because it's what I think is the right thing to do, rather then because I lived in fear of being tortured for ever after, and probably not following the rules to the letter (like wearing a shirt made of more then one material etc).

[nixhex113]

Bill Nye came to my college last night. He's very inspirational, especially because I'm a science nerd myself.

[sinnerx96]

 

James & Tony ~ y'all have both just raised some good points & asked some excellent questions. However, given the craptacular way I self-pwnt yesterday, I think perhaps I should take the weekend off from this particular conversation. Y'know, reset, recharge, reread & come back to it fresh next week. I'm not bailing ~ as long as y'all are half-way interested in conversing, I'm in ... I just want to make sure I can bring my full faculties to the table so as (hopefully) to avoid any more forehead-slapping embarrassment, dig? Peace, fellas. C

 

 

I'm definitely interested. I always welcome discussion in these topics. Not only because I find them very interesting, but because I also find them to be important. And I'm always looking forward to having my consciousness (or awareness) raised. Looking forward to your response to my last post to you. Talk to you later, Chris.

[draelyc]

I just want to make clear here that I understand you never intended to try and change my mind. But we are exchanging ideas here, and explaining our reasoning for our beliefs or lack of beliefs. I want to know what you believe and why. If you know something that is more likely to be true, I want to know about it. I'm not trying to change your mind either. But I am going to be taking a close look at your claims and even measure them up, so to speak. You're making some claims here, and I want to address them. Don't think I just want to shoot them all down, as that's not the case even though it may come off to you as such. I only seek truth and what is more likely to be true, and I see no other way to analyze your claims than to hold them to a high standard by further questioning, asking for more clarification, or falsifying them on logical or even philosophical grounds. So, let's get started.

 

Quite fair enough.

 

It certainly is enough for now. Ok. Your philosophical framework is a postulate. But I'm having trouble understanding why it's just as reasonable(or rational) to accept it as it is to reject it? You're going to have to help me out with this one. You haven't demonstrated (physically or otherwise) that it is the case that this postulate, foundational principle, assertion, or presupposition is logically sound, or even needed at all. I don't have any presuppositions like this in my world view. There's no need for presuppositions of this nature. Why is it just as reasonable to have unneeded presuppositions than it is to not? If any presupposition is just as reasonable as any other,...well I'm sure you can see the problem we run into here.

 

There is a point of ... puzzlement, for want of a better term ... embedded in your paragraph, here, one that I've encountered more than once in converstations like this one: the idea that a principle or assertion ought to be "needed" or "necessary." To be completely honest, I've never been quite certain what to do with such a mindset...

 

I've encountered this mindset in several forms or incarnations, most commonly something like this: "If God isn't *needed* in order to explain X (whether X be evolution or the origin of the universe, or whatever), then why believe in God?"

 

I struggle with questions of that nature because that approach is pretty alien to my way of thinking. I didn't begin my exploration of religion/spirituality/philosophy/REALITY by noticing something that was unexplained (or "inexplicable") and then systematically eliminating every possible explanation until I was left only with "god" as my answer. And it seems like I would have to approach the subject that way in order to discuss why a belief in God is "needed" ... or to explain why the principle I mentioned above, that everything in existence is an "idea in the mind of God" is needed.

 

Maybe it's just the wording of the question. Perhaps if we turn it around and say, "Okay, then, Draelyc ~ how did you come to embrace such a notion?" ... maybe that's what you're really getting at, anyway?

 

I came to embrace the idea through a combination of personal experiences and comtemplative realizations, is the short answer. For me, the buggar in the whole equation is *consciousness*. It is by and through and within the medium of consciousness that each of us perceives, experiences, and interacts with the alleged stuff called "reality." Understanding that reality itself as CONSCIOUSNESS just makes more sense to me, both intuitively and in terms of interpreting things I've experienced.

 

Maybe that's the "needed" bit? That it makes more sense?

 

As for the either/or being equally rational ... Well, let's take the case of human emotion. There are phsyiological tell-tales associated with various emotions, right? Some folks would look at that fact and interpret it to mean that emotion is a product of biochemistry; we could just as easily (and just as properly) interpret the same fact to mean that emotion has a physiological affect on the physical body. Both are valid interpretations of the fact; neither denies the reality of the fact. I'm really just taking that to a cosmic scale.

 

Is consciousness the product of biochemical reactions? Or are biochemical reactions ultimately the product of a preexisting consciousness? Empirical science says definitively the former; but that's hardly telling, because empiricism is by definition restricted to studying that which is tangible ~ it *has* to begin with the biochemcial reactions, because it has no way to measure consciousness otherwise.

 

I'mma pause there and ask if any of that is making any sense before I go on ... Just asking if it makes sense ~ not if you find it convincing...

 

Keep in mind that I do understand that you've mentioned a few times that you didn't intend on changing anyone's mind and that personal experience is what caused you to believe, but there are claims that you've made numerous times in this thread and have asserted them to be true numerous times. You've also gone as far to call others close minded when they didn't accept your notion of the non-material and intangible realm that your evidence for god resides(for example). So, I find it perfectly reasonable for you to be called on this and asked for justification. If you do resort to saying that you can't justify it to anyone else sans personal experience, then what is the point of asserting the other claims?

 

Well, the short term and most practical point of doing so is to demonstrate to others who may have had personal experiences that have been dismissed as "unreal" by empiricists that they are not necessarily crazy.

 

On a slightly grander scale, the purpose is to remind folks that, for all our daily presumption that there is an "objective reality" out there upon which we may rely, it is still a presumption, and one that is fiendishly difficult (I'd say impossible) to prove. Thus, if we seek "truth," but we base our search on this presumption of objective reality, our search will eventually grind to a halt or lead us into error (I don't mean sin; I just mean an inaccurate understanding). So I guess a third point would be to keep the materialists and empiricists honest.

 

Thanks for answering my questions, Chris. I appreciate you taking the time, and I hope that you do understand my intent with this. I just want to understand. It's not an attempt at "winning" an argument. Truth be told, your beliefs are practically unrecognizable as religion to practically anyone else I've ever run across. So this is very interesting to me, and I look forward to discussing this further. It's kind of a breath of fresh air compared to the theists I usually talk to.

 

Thank *you* for bearing with me. I am, once more, sorry for losing perspective and letting emotion cloud my discourse last time around. Too many other things going on outside of the forum, and I really wasn't in a good place for thinking and communicating clearly.

 

Btw, I take the bolded sentence as a compliment, whether or not you meant it that way. And that's another reason I often feel compelled to offer my viewpoint in threads like this ~ to demonstrate that there may be a greater diversity out there amongst "theistic" worldviews than folks are aware of, and that it's possible to maintain a spiritual philosophy without having to sacrifice one's logic or understanding of science at the door...

 

In other words, I agree with you that this kind of exploration is important, and I'm always glad to find someone who's willing to engage.

[sinnerx96]

Btw, I take the bolded sentence as a compliment, whether or not you meant it that way. And that's another reason I often feel compelled to offer my viewpoint in threads like this ~ to demonstrate that there may be a greater diversity out there amongst "theistic" worldviews than folks are aware of, and that it's possible to maintain a spiritual philosophy without having to sacrifice one's logic or understanding of science at the door... In other words, I agree with you that this kind of exploration is important, and I'm always glad to find someone who's willing to engage.

 

Awesome. It was meant as a compliment. I meant what I said. Thanks, Chris. Looking forward to talking about this more.

[draelyc]

Well,...You made an assertion. If the assertion isn't necessary, then we're getting into a whole other subject. I thought we were going in a philosophical direction, and was thinking along the lines of necessity and sufficiency. But, this is not quite as important as the other things to get to, so we'll leave it there.

 

I understand where you're coming from, there, but remember that my purpose is not to proselytize, but merely to present *a* way of looking at the subject, a lens, as it were.

 

If this is what it all boils down to, and what you'd keep falling back to, then the problem I mentioned earlier in this thread arises again. Making assertions with nothing other than personal experience isn't sufficient. If you're implying that only those with similar personal experiences can fully understand and believe, then you've removed yourself from the conversation as I haven't had a personal experience of that nature. I want to know why I should believe it. I want to see your assertions backed up. This is important to me. If it's only down to personal experience, then we fall down that slippery slope of subjective realities where everyone's personal experiences are just as valid as the next.

 

Again, the question is "sufficient for what?" Sufficient to convince you to share my worldview, based upon my experience? Obviously, that would be preposterous, as you and I both have said already, several times. Sufficient for me, as someone who has had such experiences (and who has vetted them through critical analysis and further exploration)? Certainly.

 

Fair point you've got, when you say "I want to know why I should believe it." But as I've said before, you *shouldn't* believe it, until and unless you have such experiences for yourself.

 

But I disagree that such a stance "removes" me from the conversation. We don't have to believe the same things in order to converse about our respective beliefs. I also disagree about the "slippery slope," which is a logical fallacy. As I tell my students when I teach argumentation, the fact that there are many possible "correct" interpretations of a set of facts in no way means that "anything goes" or that every interpretation is automatically (or equally) correct. Gnome sane?

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, we cannot "just as properly" interpret it that way. It is contrary to all the evidence and research in biochemistry, neuroscience, neurology, and psychology to say that emotions are not products of our brains.

 

Let me stop you right there. Of course it is "contrary" to all the "evidence" from those fields, because all of those fields (even contemporary psychology) are all EMPIRICAL disciplines, which means that ~ by definition ~ the only kinds of evidence they are capable of examining are tangible, material, empirical kinds of evidence.

 

It is silly to be surprised that empirical disciplines have "found no evidence" of non-empirical things. That's like being surprised that your proctologist found no "evidence" of your political ideology when he put his fingers in your butt!

 

Tell me I misunderstood you here, because saying that it's a proper interpretation to say that our emotions affect our biochemistry instead of the other way around is going to require some justification. I can point you to numerous scientific papers and articles if you'd like, if you are are indeed saying this. Emotions, our memory, our minds, etc, are physical. They are products of the brain. This is no longer a mystery with all the advances in the related fields of science. Fascinating stuff, too.

 

It is fascinating, but it's all *presumption*. If you start with the presumption (based on a materialist philosophy/worldview) that there "must" be physical causes for such phenomena as emotions, etc., and then ~ based on that presumption ~ if you only examine the tangible, physical, material aspects of the phenomenon (since only those can be measured objectively), OF COURSE you are inevitably going to conclude that those phenomena are "physical."

 

Doesn't change the fact that you decided they had to be physical before you investigated them physically; doesn't change the fact that you "proved" your presumption by means of a fallacy ~ namely, the foregone conclusion.

 

From where I sit, the presupposition that such things are material, physical phenomena to begin with is what requires some justification ~ and citing evidence from fields that, by definition, must restrict their range of inquiry exclusively to the realm of the tangible, the material, will not suffice.

 

I hope that clarifies it a bit, and I likewise hope that I'm not misreading/misunderstanding you! Please correct me if I'm taking your comments the wrong way...

 

This is neither here nor there. It doesn't matter to what we're talking about if consciousness is physical or non-physical. Unless one wants to use that as an argument for the existence of god. But there's still quite the work cut out for that person. Some of the most prominent defenders of non-physical consciousness are atheists.

 

I'd like to hear more about that, actually. You know, I've always found it kind of funny that certain Buddhists, for instance, are put down by Christians for being "atheist," and put down by atheists for being "theist," all because their conception of divinity/deity/consciousness contrasted, or at least didn't fit, with either of those other groups.

 

So far. Unless I misunderstood you in any way. In which case, please let me know.

 

I think we're good on my end, but right back atcha ~ don't let me slip off track like I did before!

 

It's not really about being crazy. Personal experience is a whole other topic, really. Without getting into it too much just yet, I'll just say that there is a very good reason why personal experience is not considered good evidence of anything.

 

Again, I quibble with your phrasing, whilst mainly agreeing with the underlying point. Personal experience is NO GOOD AT ALL for convincing another party (who did not have the experience) to accept a particular thing as "real." However, one's personal experiences (as evaluated and interpreted based on reason & logic and weighed against one's other experiences and the experiences of other "trusted" folk) are really *all* one has to go on, when it comes to deciding what to believe for oneself. In this latter case, personal experience ~ as interpreted though the lens of reason, tradition/experience, and some sort of philosophical framework to make sense of it all ~ is perfectly good "evidence"

 

It just isn't *scientific* evidence. That's the difference.

 

(cont'd.)

[draelyc]

Continued:

Can you please expand on this presumption you're talking about? Are you implying that reality is subjective? If you reply to any of my responses here, please focus on this one as I think this one might turn out to be most important.

Ultimately, yes ~ all human experience of reality is utterly subjective. Even those things against which we might try to "verify" our subjective experiences are themselves every bit as subjective as the experiences we're trying to verify. I realize that sounds very Cartesian, but it's actually older.

It may help clarify my position to tell you that my views are very, very heavily influenced by Platonic and Neo-platonic philosophy, as filtered through the lenses of my personal experiences and my own religious framework (which is primarily Christian, of the Episcopalian flavor, but which also includes concepts and motifs from Hinduism, Buddhism, Theosophy, and various indidgenous & Neo-Pagan teachings). Thus, I'm a huge fan of the theology of St. Clement of Alexandria. Here's a summary of some of his writing on this particular point, stolen from the text of a four year Bible study I'm doing through the Episcopal Church (I'm in year 3, fwiw):

In the Exhortation [one of Clement's books], Clement, like Plato, saw faith as the first stage of the soul's pilgrimage [back to God ~ D]. He did not, however, regard it as untrustworthy, distorted, or to be abandoned. He interpreted 'faith' in two senses. On the one hand, faith is the decision one makes about one's basic view of reality; by it we select the axioms from which we proceed. The fundamental assumptions from which any line of reasoning begins cannot themselves be demonstrated; they are decided by an act of faith. Clement thus establishes faith as no less certain that other mental acts, even though its content cannot be demonstrated. He also establishes it as the basis of all other reasoning. Secondly, playing further with the notion of faith as 'decision,' Clement sees it as the act of turning away from one standpoint and turning toward another.

To put a fine point on it: you cannot demonstrate that an objective reality actually exists. Any "proofs" you might offer can only come into a person's awareness through the media of the physical senses, which are notoriously unreliable and therefore cannot be trusted. To put it in terms of neuroscience, you do not "see" with your eyes; sight only occurs when your brain "interprets" bio-electrical impulses from the optic nerve ... but how can you KNOW, for sure, that the image created in your brain actually matches what's "really" OUT THERE? You can't. Moreover, as long as you are restricted exclusively to your physical senses, you cannot even know WHETHER there is ANYTHING "out there."

So, yes, all human experience of reality is utterly subjective. This limitation cannot be transcended by looking outward with the senses; it can only be transcended by looking "inward" (so to speak) with the organ of consciousness ~ the mind.

Awesome. It was meant as a compliment. I meant what I said. Thanks, Chris. Looking forward to talking about this more.

Thanks, mang. Me too. I hope I've managed to clarify where I'm coming from a little bit better ~ sorry it's taking me longer to reply, but I'm trying to be more careful than I was before, y'know?

C

[sinnerx96]

Originally Posted by draelyc

I understand where you're coming from, there, but remember that my purpose is not to proselytize, but merely to present *a* way of looking at the subject, a lens, as it were.

I don't want to see reality through a lens. I want as clear a picture as possible.

Originally Posted by draelyc

But I disagree that such a stance "removes" me from the conversation. We don't have to believe the same things in order to converse about our respective beliefs.

Sure. We can talk about this any time, as I find this topic interesting. And I'm always willing to listen to why people hold the beliefs that they do. But the point of this discussion is that I want to know why you believe what you believe, and why I should believe it. You haven't just been saying things like, "Well maybe you're right, or maybe I'm right". You've made some bold claims. I'm asking for justification, reasoning, rationalization, etc. In that case, you ARE removing yourself from the conversation by telling me that I "shouldn't believe it" because I haven't had a similar personal experience.

Originally Posted by draelyc

I also disagree about the "slippery slope," which is a logical fallacy. As I tell my students when I teach argumentation, the fact that there are many possible "correct" interpretations of a set of facts in no way means that "anything goes" or that every interpretation is automatically (or equally) correct. Gnome sane?

I wasn't using the slippery slope fallacy. It IS a logical fallacy to misuse anecdotal evidence, though.
Read what I wrote again. I shouldn't have used "slippery slope", as that obfuscated the issue. I'll try rephrasing. If you are in fact saying that everyone's personal experience is just as valid as the next, then how is personal experience a good argument or evidence of anything when we know that there are as many differing personal experiences as there are people who have them(many exclusive)? If you agree that it is not, then it is meaningless to keep bringing it up. Keep in mind, I'm not just interested in sharing why we believe what we do. We can do that any other time. Really. You are making claims and have the burden of proof, and I am asking for good reasons to believe them. Personal experience has no place here. It sounds like you agree with me on that, so we should also agree that it shouldn't be brought up again.

Originally Posted by draelyc

Let me stop you right there. Of course it is "contrary" to all the "evidence" from those fields, because all of those fields (even contemporary psychology) are all EMPIRICAL disciplines, which means that ~ by definition ~ the only kinds of evidence they are capable of examining are tangible, material, empirical kinds of evidence.

It is silly to be surprised that empirical disciplines have "found no evidence" of non-empirical things. That's like being surprised that your proctologist found no "evidence" of your political ideology when he put his fingers in your butt!

Not exactly. We know that political ideologies exist and where they come from.
You're going to have to demonstrate these intangible, non material things you keep referring to before we can even address them, let alone allow them to be your argument against empiricism. What are you talking about when you say intangible and non material things?

Originally Posted by draelyc

It is fascinating, but it's all *presumption*. If you start with the presumption (based on a materialist philosophy/worldview) that there "must" be physical causes for such phenomena as emotions, etc., and then ~ based on that presumption ~ if you only examine the tangible, physical, material aspects of the phenomenon (since only those can be measured objectively), OF COURSE you are inevitably going to conclude that those phenomena are "physical."

Doesn't change the fact that you decided they had to be physical before you investigated them physically; doesn't change the fact that you "proved" your presumption by means of a fallacy ~ namely, the foregone conclusion.

Chris, what are you talking about?
What fallacy? When we poke "this" part of the brain, "this" happens. When "this" part of the brain is injured, "this" happens. Etc. I'm sure you can appreciate that it gets much more complex than that. We can change people's personalities, affect their emotions and senses, etc, by manipulating parts of the brain. Isn't that a much more useful way of going about neurology, psychology, and neuroscience than sitting around wondering how we can affect the brain in a non material and intangible way? What would you suggest?

Originally Posted by draelyc

From where I sit, the presupposition that such things are material, physical phenomena to begin with is what requires some justification ~ and citing evidence from fields that, by definition, must restrict their range of inquiry exclusively to the realm of the tangible, the material, will not suffice.

There is no presupposition of that kind. We do what works, using reason, and evidence(of whatever kind). Are you really demanding justification from neurologists that brain functions are physical?
Again, you need to reasonably demonstrate (physically or otherwise) what you are talking about with these non material and intangible things that you're referring to before you can use them as your argument that they are responsible for emotions. This is kind of important. You seem to be confusing metaphysics in a philosophical sense, with some other form of metaphysics that has alternative explanations for physical things.

Originally Posted by draelyc

I'd like to hear more about that, actually. You know, I've always found it kind of funny that certain Buddhists, for instance, are put down by Christians for being "atheist," and put down by atheists for being "theist," all because their conception of divinity/deity/consciousness contrasted, or at least didn't fit, with either of those other groups.

I don't see how that's the case with Atheists. There are Buddhists of varying kinds. If the Buddhist believes in a personal god, he is a theist. If he does not, then he is not a theist (in other words, an atheist). It doesn't need to be complicated.

Originally Posted by draelyc

Again, I quibble with your phrasing, whilst mainly agreeing with the underlying point. Personal experience is NO GOOD AT ALL for convincing another party (who did not have the experience) to accept a particular thing as "real."

I addressed this above. Then it has no place here, as I am asking you to show me why your world view is correct am how I am wrong.

Originally Posted by draelyc

However, one's personal experiences (as evaluated and interpreted based on reason & logic and weighed against one's other experiences and the experiences of other "trusted" folk) are really *all* one has to go on, when it comes to deciding what to believe for oneself.

Please clarify. Because you can't possibly be saying what it sounds like you're saying. Unless you are equating a "religious personal experience" with "personal experience" in a general sense? Like,...Johnny's personal experience being abducted by aliens is just as valid as a research scientist's personal experience in reviewing lab results? Because I find much fault in that line of reasoning if so. Verifiability is very important. That scientist can have those results verified many times over by other scientists. Johhny cannot.

Originally Posted by draelyc

In this latter case, personal experience ~ as interpreted though the lens of reason, tradition/experience, and some sort of philosophical framework to make sense of it all ~ is perfectly good "evidence"
It just isn't *scientific* evidence. That's the difference.

I'm not following you here. Personal experience can be used to demonstrate a point, but it is no evidence for anything. It doesn't matter how much reason, tradition/experience you evaluated it with. It was only YOU evaluating it. No one else can verify it. We only have your description of your experience. Not the experience itself. It can't be verified, falsified, duplicated, replicated, etc.

[sinnerx96]

Originally Posted by draelyc

Continued:



Ultimately, yes ~ all human experience of reality is utterly subjective. Even those things against which we might try to "verify" our subjective experiences are themselves every bit as subjective as the experiences we're trying to verify. I realize that sounds very Cartesian, but it's actually older.

It may help clarify my position to tell you that my views are very, very heavily influenced by Platonic and Neo-platonic philosophy, as filtered through the lenses of my personal experiences and my own religious framework (which is primarily Christian, of the Episcopalian flavor, but which also includes concepts and motifs from Hinduism, Buddhism, Theosophy, and various indidgenous & Neo-Pagan teachings). Thus, I'm a huge fan of the theology of St. Clement of Alexandria. Here's a summary of some of his writing on this particular point, stolen from the text of a four year Bible study I'm doing through the Episcopal Church (I'm in year 3, fwiw):



To put a fine point on it: you cannot demonstrate that an objective reality actually exists. Any "proofs" you might offer can only come into a person's awareness through the media of the physical senses, which are notoriously unreliable and therefore cannot be trusted. To put it in terms of neuroscience, you do not "see" with your eyes; sight only occurs when your brain "interprets" bio-electrical impulses from the optic nerve ... but how can you KNOW, for sure, that the image created in your brain actually matches what's "really" OUT THERE? You can't. Moreover, as long as you are restricted exclusively to your physical senses, you cannot even know WHETHER there is ANYTHING "out there."

So, yes, all human experience of reality is utterly subjective. This limitation cannot be transcended by looking outward with the senses; it can only be transcended by looking "inward" (so to speak) with the organ of consciousness ~ the mind.

I'm trying to make sense of this. Are you talking about global skepticism? Are you a solipsist, Chris?

There are no "proofs" that reality exists. The problem of global skepticism applies to everyone. We could all be brains in a vat like in "The Matrix" and we would never know about it. But that doesn't matter. It's not important. We all have to make basal assumptions to get by in our lives. We make the basal assumption that reality exists. Are these the assumptions and foundational principals you were talking about? I wish you would've said so earlier.
Even if you somehow figured out that you are in a matrix, how would that change anything? We still exist in it and are playing by its rules. We still have to deal with it. Then that matrix could be in yet another matrix, etc, etc.
It just doesn't matter. It's reality to us.

The problem I'm seeing here is that you seem to be equating the necessary assumption that reality exists with any other assumption (or foundational principal). It is necessary that we make the basal assumption that reality exists. There's no reason to make more unneeded ones that are not justified. It is not just as reasonable to make an assumption like, "We are all ideas in the mind of god" as it is to make the assumption that reality exists. I'm sure you can understand why. If not, please expand on your reasoning.

Beyond that, I would argue that there are things that can be demonstrated to objectively exist. Two big ones, actually.

1.) A thinking entity exists (referred to as I).
Even thinking that I don't exist, implies my existence. Thinking requires existence.

2.) The laws of logic exist (sometimes referred to as Logical Absolutes).
They are self-refuting and self-attesting. You have to presuppose them in order to deny them. For example, take the following statement:

"The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are false."

In order for the statement to be true, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction must be true.

Thanks for taking the time, Chris. Let me know if there's anything I misunderstood or missed.

[draelyc]

Tony, before I even make an attempt to respond to particular points & specific questions, let me see if I'm understanding your overall objective clearly... When you say

... the point of this discussion is that I want to know why you believe what you believe, and why I should believe it.

... you're referring to the point of the entire, extended conversation we've been having? Am I reading that right?

*If* that's the case (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding), then before getting back into particular points & examples, let me throw out an over-arching comment, first: framing the discussion that way (if that's what you're doing) pretty much precludes your getting the kind of answer your asking for.

In other words, I think you're asking the "wrong" question. I put that in quotes because I don't mean "wrong" as in "bad," but "wrong" as in "not practical" or "not useful" -- "not applicable," even.

I have, in fact, already answered your question by saying "You shouldn't believe 'it' until and unless you have direct, personal experience that leads you to believe it."

You have claimed, I think, that such an answer removes *me* from the conversation, but I respectfully disagree. Now, such an answer may remove *you* from the conversation, depending on your reaction to the answer ~ but that's neither my intention nor my desire.

It's perfectly possible, for example, to respond to my answer by saying "So, what must I do to have such personal experiences as might lead me to believe what you believe?" Then, the conversation could continue (and it could become quite interesting, imo). But you are not, of course, obliged to take the conversation in that direction, or to keep it going at all, if you'd prefer to remove yourself.

In short, if you want to know why you should believe what I believe, the short answer is you shouldn't; the long answer is, you should believe what I believe when (and only when) your personal experience confirms in your consciousness the things I'm asserting.

Once again, my purpose is not to proselytize, so for you to say the point of the discussion is for me to explain why you should believe what I believe is to remove yourself from the discourse by default.

So as I said, before getting back into specific responses to particular points, let me get to you tell me if I'm understanding you correctly about goals and purposes, here, okay?

Thanks, mang!

Chris

[sinnerx96]

Originally Posted by draelyc

Tony, before I even make an attempt to respond to particular points & specific questions, let me see if I'm understanding your overall objective clearly... When you say ... you're referring to the point of the entire, extended conversation we've been having? Am I reading that right?

*If* that's the case (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding), then before getting back into particular points & examples, let me throw out an over-arching comment, first: framing the discussion that way (if that's what you're doing) pretty much precludes your getting the kind of answer your asking for.

In other words, I think you're asking the "wrong" question. I put that in quotes because I don't mean "wrong" as in "bad," but "wrong" as in "not practical" or "not useful" -- "not applicable," even.

I have, in fact, already answered your question by saying "You shouldn't believe 'it' until and unless you have direct, personal experience that leads you to believe it."

You have claimed, I think, that such an answer removes *me* from the conversation, but I respectfully disagree. Now, such an answer may remove *you* from the conversation, depending on your reaction to the answer ~ but that's neither my intention nor my desire.

It's perfectly possible, for example, to respond to my answer by saying "So, what must I do to have such personal experiences as might lead me to believe what you believe?" Then, the conversation could continue (and it could become quite interesting, imo). But you are not, of course, obliged to take the conversation in that direction, or to keep it going at all, if you'd prefer to remove yourself.

In short, if you want to know why you should believe what I believe, the short answer is you shouldn't; the long answer is, you should believe what I believe when (and only when) your personal experience confirms in your consciousness the things I'm asserting.

Once again, my purpose is not to proselytize, so for you to say the point of the discussion is for me to explain why you should believe what I believe is to remove yourself from the discourse by default.

So as I said, before getting back into specific responses to particular points, let me get to you tell me if I'm understanding you correctly about goals and purposes, here, okay?

Thanks, mang!

Chris

Fair enough. I'll clarify. I want as many beliefs that are true as possible, and as little beliefs that are false as possible. If someone believes or knows something that is true that I don't know about, I want to know about it. I want people to proselytize to me. I would certainly like to be proven wrong if I hold any belief that isn't true, as that is important to me.

I want to be clear that I understand (and am pretty sure) that you have not told anyone that they should believe as you do. So, please don't misunderstand. But you've made some bold claims and assertions in this thread. If it comes down to that I shouldn't believe it because I haven't had a personal experience, you are basically saying that you don't have any good reasons to believe other than personal experience. Or at least, whatever other reasons you have stem from the personal experiences as you've said. If that's the case, you don't get to "correct" people on religion or make such assertions based on those anecdotes.

I believe that those rights are reserved for evidence based in objective reality. And before you get into a platonistic view of how there's no attainable objective reality, I would argue that it doesn't matter. Just as I mentioned in the previous post. Our shared reality is objective. It doesn't matter if we are in a matrix, or in a cave staring at shadows. We share an objective reality, and have to deal with it.

In summary, you've made some claims and assertions that I am asking justification for before I begin to even address the arguments you're using them in. At least, from my perspective.

Please let me know if you need any more clarification, or if I've adequately answered your questions. Also, please respond to my previous posts.

Thanks, Chris!

P.S. As a side note, I certainly wouldn't mind hearing more about what I should do to have such personal experiences.