There is a Benefit planned for June 30th. If you would like information let me know. Shannon wanted to say “THANK YOU” to everyone who donated. As of today, The money has not been recieved in Shannons Fund account, but as soon as it is we will let you know how much was raised! Shannon started therapy on her throat & hopes to be swallowing by the 4th of July. Your charity will help her achieve that! Thank you again,
Twyla
tat2baby@msn.com

So in summary:
“I welcome any/all response(s) from you on all things I’ve written – this dialog is fun to me, after all! – but I do wonder why, now that my position is hopefully truly clear, that you’d consider yourself in disagreement to me.”
I’d say that’s a pretty arrogant claim, given that I have above clearly demonstrated a major logical flaw in *every single one* of your paragraphs! So yes, I’m afraid I stand quite unconvinced by this parade of illogic. And it doesn’t help much when you trot out obvious strawman arguments like:
“I state reasonable presumptions based on evidence. Just like I’d be willing to sing “the sun’ll come out… tomorrow!” It may not, but based on past experience and evidence and understanding of the cosmos, this seems a reasonable presumption.”
It may come as a surprise, but I actually have lived in this world, so I do know that making presumptions based on past experience is often helpful. Indeed I’ve never said otherwise. What I said is that this model of human cognition might not actually be the only way to go in all situations for all people. There might actually be perfectly rational uses of a human mind that don’t fit that description. As you claim to refute that, you certainly cannot simply provide an example of when past experience is a useful guide for future objective predictions. No, that would be quite a logical shortfall to think that’s a real argument– it’s just a strawman. Now, I’ll bet you’ve pointed out a few strawman arguments in your day– why do you think you’d now stood to one yourself? The crumbling problem again?

Still, there is hope, as you close with:
“To me, making an unreasonable presumption based on feelings, fears, wishes, “open-mindedness”, that goes against past experience and/or the current evidence at hand is dishonest. ”
The most important words in that sentence, and probably your entire post, are “to me”. Perhaps you finally do get it, after all.

Then:
“As always, indeed: there may be something(s) “supernatural” in existence, but there’s been no evidence to that point.”
To make sense, this remark must only be referring to *objective* evidence. This is of course merely a return to the same circular logic I’ve already exposed as such.

More later.

Then:
“But I challenge that what we have discovered already points to Rome: that the “whole greater than the sum of its parts”, “consciousness”, is an incredible, but not unknowable consequence of the objective stuff – tissues and chemicals – we’ve identified.”
A classic example of argument by assumption. You assume that because progress has been made, we are on the “road to Rome”. And if I increase my vertical leap, I’m “on the road” to jumping to the Moon? Same logic.

Then comes a personal favorite:
“Or are you simply “keeping your mind open”?
Philosophically possible. Rationally dishonest.”
To which I respond, at exactly what point did it become “dishonest” to “keep an open mind”? Perhaps you might wish to review the history of science.

More later.

Other examples, you mean perhaps?

Gotta go now.

“Perhaps you can cite sources that contradict this? ”
Interesting logical sleight of hand here. Note you are now adopting the position that when someone is challenged to “show they are right”, it is appropriate for them to respond “show I’m wrong”. Hmmm, fascinating– I thought your beliefs were supposed to rest on a solid foundation of evidence.

“I’ll gather a few references to post when I get back, but – as per usual – a cursory Google should offer plenty of support in my absence.”
That of course depends on what you are claiming to “support”. Remember, what we are talking about is that all that is subjective, including consciousness, arises entirely from what is objective. I can Google this, you think? I rather think you mean I can Google that the brain has something to do with consciousness, but I’m afraid that odd numbers have something to do with integers too– it does not logically follow that all that has to do with integers has to do with odd numbers.

“But what gives evidence that consciousness is subjective, rather than objective?”
Um, how about the subjective experience of being conscious? This is really too easy. Your turn: find a meaningful definition of consciousness that does not refer to this property, and is not simply “acts in all discernible ways like someone who has this property: me”.

“And based on every other field of scientific study – vast “experience” and “evidence” – so far we’ve not found any unexplainable, unimaginable, undiscoverable, unknowable things. Obviously “objects”.”
Oh my, there’s that core circularity again: we use objective study to find out about objective things, and this is going to be your argument that all that is subjective arises from the objective? I’m sorry, that’s poor logic.

“So far, so good. What reason, what logic, could one have to claim that “maybe just this once…!”?”
Um, maybe there are other kinds of situations than the narrow view you’ve taken here?

“Philosophically possible. Rationally dishonest.”
I just love how you claim ownership of all that is rational, despite the countless logical fallacies I keep pointing out in your arguments.

“It seems unreasonable to presume that “consciousness”, the controller of each of our intellects, is a supernatural force, devoid-of and separate-from objective reality. ”
More interesting logic. I said that the relationship between all that is subjective and all that is objective is unknown, yet you think I must claim that it is both “devoid” and “separate” of same. Not. Also, it is clearly unreasonable to “presume” *anything*, in the absence of more understanding/

More to come.

Now, that’s all very nice in terms of a personal belief for you that science will eventually solve conciousness, but unfortunately it was supposed to support your contention that not only is it clear that the subjective experience of consciousness must arise entirely from the objectively measurable function of the brain, but furthermore, anyone who thinks otherwise is to be ridiculed– as there is simply no other possibility. That is precisely the way you framed you position– and I’m afraid if you think the quote above logically supports that position, you are sadly mistaken about how logic works. Instead, it is support for the position that science *might* someday solve consciousness, or that all that is subjective *might* arise from the objective. Can you deny it, is your logic that weak?

And if that logic wasn’t off target enough, you continue with:
“If all roads appear to be leading to Rome, there’s high probability that’s indeed the case.”
Um, exactly what type of logic is that? First of all, your position has never been that the subjective stems from the objective “to high probability”, as that would certainly allow any rational person to think otherwise– just betting on the underdog. But even that is not logically supported– it is merely your claim that “all roads lead to Rome” here– again your idea of a logical argument is simply assuming what it is you claim to be showing. Show that all roads lead to Rome in this case, and you might have something. Oh, and don’t forget to collect that Nobel prize on the way.

Even with “consciousness”, it’s a cunning argument to say we haven’t “solved that problem”, and/or “we don’t know everything about it”, but one could say the same thing about gravity, light, and every other well-understood (and taken as “fact”) phenomenon.

Philosophically true. Rationally dishonest.

If all roads appear to be leading to Rome, there’s high probability that’s indeed the case.

While we don’t have the knowledge or understanding to produce an artificial (and therefore reproducible) “consciousness”, all research to date that’s examined the brain/brain function shows it’s indeed the organ of reason.

Perhaps you can cite sources that contradict this? (I’ll gather a few references to post when I get back, but – as per usual – a cursory Google should offer plenty of support in my absence.)

But what gives evidence that consciousness is subjective, rather than objective?

And based on every other field of scientific study – vast “experience” and “evidence” – so far we’ve not found any unexplainable, unimaginable, undiscoverable, unknowable things. Obviously “objects”.

So far, so good. What reason, what logic, could one have to claim that “maybe just this once…!”?

Philosophically possible. Rationally dishonest.

It seems unreasonable to presume that “consciousness”, the controller of each of our intellects, is a supernatural force, devoid-of and separate-from objective reality. When various parts of a brain are used for reason, why would it be reasonable to presume that reason itself could/would not be a product of the same grey matter?

Philosophically possible. Rationally dishonest.

Various brain injuries show that, indeed, physical parts of the brain are responsible for not just functions of consciousness, but aspects of it as well – temperament, for example.

Without vastly more powerful simulation devices – computers of some sort, probably – we have an ethical barrier to much more in-depth study of the *human* brain; research on other simians has its own downsides, and lack of feedback – detailed communication between subject and observer.

But I challenge that what we have discovered already points to Rome: that the “whole greater than the sum of its parts”, “consciousness”, is an incredible, but not unknowable consequence of the objective stuff – tissues and chemicals – we’ve identified.

Perhaps you could cite reference(s) that contradict my assertion of high probability?

Or are you simply “keeping your mind open”?

Philosophically possible. Rationally dishonest.

But the subject at hand is faith.

And my assertion is that faith, as practiced/believed by most, is founded on (at least perceived) objectivity. Thus open to science. And when science contradicts those foundations, what’s left is crumbling. To keep it is then dishonest.

As always, indeed: there may be something(s) “supernatural” in existence, but there’s been no evidence to that point. The world’s religions are based on objectivity, and are regularly shown to be false. So THEY don’t have the answer(s).

That an individual wishes to take (as most do) “some” of a religion and relegate the rest to the dustbin is well within their rights. But it’s rather dishonest.

But obviously “science” can’t *disprove* the parts they still believe in.

I welcome any/all response(s) from you on all things I’ve written – this dialog is fun to me, after all! – but I do wonder why, now that my position is hopefully truly clear, that you’d consider yourself in disagreement to me.

Put more succinctly: do you hold that it’s *not* dishonest for one to hold a faith, based on a body of work, when one picks-and-chooses what to believe in?

I feel that’s truly the only point to this whole discussion. (Though, again, I enjoy the rest, too.)

Also, I’d not be so harsh on me as to say I state “beliefs-claiming-to-be-facts”; more, I state reasonable presumptions based on evidence. Just like I’d be willing to sing “the sun’ll come out… tomorrow!” It may not, but based on past experience and evidence and understanding of the cosmos, this seems a reasonable presumption.

To me, making an unreasonable presumption based on feelings, fears, wishes, “open-mindedness”, that goes against past experience and/or the current evidence at hand is dishonest. Sure, there’s “always the possibility”, but the odds are slim-to-none (at best).

Ta…!

Let’s just start there, and see where it leads.

But Newton’s laws still work today; they only “break” at very small, or very large distances.

If you want to back the train up to the philosophy that “science doesn’t really know ‘why’ things fall toward the center of the earth”, okay, you got us!

But that doesn’t change the fact that things don’t fall up.

The model is merely a way of (relatively) accurately describing reality. For the benefit of predicting.

It has nothing to do with “believing in gravity”. That’s simple matter-of-fact.

As always, god may throw that big gravity switch off tomorrow. But I suppose science would simply come up with a new model. But that still wouldn’t prove/disprove a god did/didn’t throw said switch. (Or there was/wasn’t a switch.)

But I don’t wish to get distracted into a different debate. You’ll note I don’t argue against these points. See my prior posts for what I -do- argue…

-

“By 1900, it was widely thought that all of physics, and by extension all understanding of fundamental reality, was pretty much completed, the rest was detail. Surprise– the folly in taking science and making it a philosophy was exposed in the next century as essentially all of physics was replaced, piece by piece, by exquisitely more profound theories.”

Nee, the prior, well-tested models, theories, and equations still stand. But they’ve been augmented, enhanced, enlarged, and had finer details added. Sure, some have been made superfluous, but they still *work*.

The same can’t be said for Greek mythology.

Quantum mechanics doesn’t negate Newtonian physics. While QM was expanded to cover NP, it was started to model/explain sub-atomic levels. Newton’s laws still work, are still taught, and are still used. Moon shot, Mars rovers, even the paths of artillery.

“[A]ll of physics” wasn’t *replaced*, it was augmented. Yeah, given more “detail”. Funny, that.

And the “model” of either a Newtonian or Einsteinian universe is (generally) only important in certain specialized circumstances, otherwise either is effective.

Still, neither is “how things really are”, as, again, we may never know.

But the models we get from science merely explain. They don’t make reality the way it is, nor make it happen. One either accepts that reality is knowable and rational, or one doesn’t. But, given one’s prior experience, and the collective experience of history (unless you find the believability of yesterday or last year dubious) why start doubting now, or be selective in your acceptance?

Science is *still* a philosophy: it can only be used if one assumes the universe exists and it’s discoverable.

-

“Newton’s approach is now seen primarily as a projection of limited information, not a philosophy of reality.”

ALL past science is limited in scope by available information.

Newton took the limited available knowledge and made a model, sure. But his new knowledge vis this new model was profound: motion and things falling isn’t magic. It’s predictable. It’s rational. (Thank you Galileo, and others, too!)

And that *is* a philosophy of reality. And it, and others, keep reinforcing: the universe is rational and knowable.

-

“The continuing error is to think that anything in physics is any different [in that it constantly changes], or that physics itself is about understanding the absolute truth, rather than what it is– making useful models, and judged by the context.”

Doesn’t the first part of your statement force an assumption that one can’t honestly make: that there will NEVER be a time when we can know/have an accurate model for, everything?

Which definition of “absolute truth” are you dealing with here…?

Taking a leap that your talking about fact/objective reality: again, don’t you assume this *can’t* be known, so therefore we won’t ever know it?

What science do you use to back up either of these claims?

But your argument belies another red herring: the models aren’t (necessarily) meant to show the “absolute truth”, but the rationality and predictability of the universe.

And make conclusions based on that.

“Faith”, all of which (not including a few modern reinterpretations) were invented thousands of years before modern science, was built in a time when a made-up story could suffice to offer explanation of how, and of why. One by one the explanations given have fallen to scientific knowledge. All that’s left is the “untestable” parts.

But then, other than delusions and wishful thinking, why keep one faith over another? Again, there are rationalized (even if irrational) reason(s) people hold their faith.

A part of my argument.

To simply state that science doesn’t know everything is rhetorical. To imply that therefore religion may be right, as if it exists in a vacuum, is dishonest. Or delusional.

Plus, don’t be fooled into equating “science doesn’t completely understand the universe” with “science can never completely understand the universe”. As one so keen to point out the fallacy of absolutes, I’d hate for you to get sucked in by that one…

Okay, really, now I may not post for quite a while yet. Cheers…!

Sure “good science” never says anything about “conclusions”…?

Sure “good science” never bases higher-level concepts on those “conclusions”…?

Indeed, *honesty* requires a lack of absolutes; honest science/scientists only work in probabilities. But ask a good statistician about “only probabilities” when the odds against approach zero.

-

“But you do not say that, you say ‘this is the truth because my tiny experience in the world coupled with what I can extrapolate from the science I know tells me it’s true, and anyone who thinks differently is simply deluding themselves because they prefer to’. Am I wrong, is this not the core of every single post you have entered above?”

EVERYONE can only speak from the trappings of the prison of our own minds; our experiences and the knowledge we gain from the shared experiences of others.

Is that your argument: that since none of us is omniscient, none of us can ever truly know?

Again, philosophically, sure, we’re not sure we even exist. But I’ve moved on from that. I think you have, too. So why keep going back to that?

I assert most people don’t deny objective reality, don’t accept faith arbitrarily or abstractly, but rather concretely as I’ve said before: basically due to what they’ve reasoned – based on objective (perceived) facts. Do they use this as the foundation for the rest? Sure, but the creation myth in Genesis, for example, isn’t why people believe it; I say it’s because of the logic that “we’re here” and it had to start some how. The more knowledgeable/sophisticated a person is, the more facts they’ll need to back up Genesis, but nearly everyone needs more than simply that to chose to follow faiths based upon it.

And it’s not about people thinking differently than I. It’s about them choosing not to think at all. To the effect of: “Well, that doesn’t fit with my faith, so I’ll keep my faith. I reject your reality and substitute my own…!”

Oh, yeah, and they *do* prefer to delude themselves.

-

“So that is the part you need to justify– using science.”

“Science” has nothing to do with me reasoning my posit. And I feel I’ve already offered much reason. Now it’s up to you to deny my reasonings…

-

“Don’t try too hard though– it is logically impossible for science to make claims about its own limits, because science is a choice, a way of thinking.”

In your writings you regularly write about the limits of science. How does one come to the conclusion, I wonder, that science has limits without using science itself, if even indirectly; in that, therefore, “science”, empirically, does indeed make claims about its own limits…?

Indeed, “science” can’t investigate the purely ethereal. But I never contest that. I contest continually: (most) persons of faith hold their faith based upon reason, based upon (believed) facts, which can be tested. Science can test those. Faith held onto in the face of counter evidence is dishonest. A delusion at best.

Also, irrationality “is a choice, a way of thinking”. One may have the right to be that way, but that doesn’t make that way right. Nor does it put teapots in orbit, or invisible elves in my garden…

-

“Good science knows that, right from the outset– you apparently do not.”

Socrates posited: The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

But I don’t think “science” can “know” anything; “knowledge” is a faculty of mental ability.

Of course, I’m nit picking the way you posed your statement, not the underlying statement itself. Sorry. I must have picked up that dishonest and annoying habit from someone… lemme think… who… who… who…?

Anyway, see my above statement that goes counter to your assertion…

-

“If I’m wrong in that conclusion, please show me where I have improperly summarized your assumptions”. (SEE ABOVE.)

–

“…where is your logic that allows your position to arise as a conclusion without plugging in at the outset?”

[1] Flip the statement around in the mirror: where’s yours?

[2] Perhaps my expansive posts above will clarify enough that you realize finally that I’m not arguing the possibility of a god, but arguing against the religions known to man at this point, and the intellectual dishonesty of those who follow them. It’s a logical progression: I’m exposed to faith, I rationalize it, therefore I believe. General society would never believe someone could genuinely believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster without some sort of severe mental disability.

What, other than the *perceived* rationality and “facts to back it up” could explain otherwise rational people accepting that “Jesus is Lord”?

Therefore within the purview of science, therefore science can determine it to be highly improbable (at best), therefore maintaining said faith is dishonest.

That is my argument. It’s not circular. It’s not illogical.

Or show me how it is…

-

“And when you respond to this, larzluv, please stay focused on the fact that none of this discussion is about what you believe and your right to believe it…”

I never knew I gave the impression that I was concerned about this. I certainly am not. Sorry if I’ve been confusing.

-

“…or even whether or not you can convince some others to think similarly (although I doubt any not inclined to think similarly would find themselves persuaded by simpling listing your opinions in lieu of logic)”

All debates are an attempt to (a) convince the other to accept your position, (b) be convinced by the other to accept his, or (c) realize you’re both partially right/wrong (translate to as non-absolute words as you need to) and consider changing one or both positions. Otherwise, isn’t it just a waste of time? (I’ve read my own writing before, and my fingers don’t need the exercise… now if only I could get a StairMaster hooked up as a keyboard… ) I’m not saying there must be a winner, but hopefully both parties come to the table open and honest and in the end walk away from it more enlightened.

I have stated many opinions of mine without explaining them, let alone justification. I did so not because I simply assumed them correct, but assumed their background could readily be ascertained or, since this is taking place *on* the Internet, a Google window could be opened for the curious/”I never realized that!” person. But I, obviously, never knew any of them to be “illogical”.

Do list some of my statements of opinion that were illogical, please. I’d love to learn…

-

“… What this has always been about is whether or not you can claim to speak in the name of science when you legislate proper and improper thinking.”

(See my above post regarding “legislating”…)

And I thought this has always been about whether Shannon’s survival and lack of more serious injury was in fact a “miracle”.

Perhaps this list of comments has gotten so long you’ve forgotten…?

Seriously, while I may have misrepresented my position, or stated it unclearly, let me rephrase:

(DISCLAIMER: All this is, of course, speaking about the vast majority of “persons of faith”, not literally EVERY SINGLE ONE…)

– People base faith upon reason

– People accept intangibles based on a house-of-cards, founded upon reason/(perceived) fact

– Reason which falls back upon objective reality

– Such claims can be scientifically judged

– When science relegates said claims to “highly improbable (at best)” it’s intellectually dishonest to continue to hold them

– Furthermore, people (also) take/keep faith due to what faith promises

– People use circular reasonings to delude themselves with self-fulfilling fulfillment

– Wishing a faith is The Way Things Are won’t make it so

… and I’m probably forgetting points, but I’m both tired, and feel I’m only re-re-re-repeating myself…

That “proper”/”improper” thinking I’m talking about is intellectual honesty. Not human rights. Not personal fulfillment. Just self-honesty.

Me:
OK, in my view this is the first thing I’ve seen from you that actually made an argument, not just listed opinions and assumptions posed as conclusions.
”

Technically, of course, you’re correct. But, addressing the meat of my statements, I don’t see how there’s any difference in this one you quoted and the other three… except I actually used the word “argue” in it… hmmm…

“assumptions posed as conclusions” – especially since you hold close to the notion that – philosophically, of course – we don’t really know if we exist… aren’t *all* conclusions “assumptions”…?

“I really missed where you made that leap– are you really going to claim that there is no such thing as a subjective reason that is not based in something objective?” Well, I’m just glad you’ve caught up with me! And, yes, I really am.

“Note that there’s nothing wrong with you holding these opinions, the question is, can you label them as conclusions from science.” As “science” is a method of disprovance, disprove me. Or are you merely assuming, imposing your assumptive view-of-reality upon reality…?

“I think you are assuming a lot more than is known about the functioning of the human mind, but if you have actual evidence for that claim, please collect your Nobel prize.” [1] In order to believe my point false, aren’t you assuming at least as much? [2] If only merely having that evidence were enough for the ‘bel… there’d be thousands of neuroscientists – finding just such evidences regularly – who could use that item on their resumes.

There’s copious amounts of evidence of how our brains process information on a physical/chemical level – regarding subjectivity – pointing to my position. Scientists from various fields have conducted research, surveys, etc., and turned up just my position. I didn’t arrive at my position in a vacuum. And I don’t take it upon faith.

And as you deny it, cite your sources of studies/findings that run counter to my claim. (It’ll take me a while when I can get back to this but I’ll try to do the same for you; you could help me out and find some for me… but then, of course, that would be counter productive for your position. Sorry, rather rude of me to suggest. )

“And your claim that ‘the more we look’ this is established is an obviously illogical point– the more we look using science, the more we see that science can see. That is all that can be said. Right?”

And here’s your coup-da-gracey: you’re contending that science shows us nothing other than science exists? We can draw no conclusions, find no facts, understand no principals… we can merely “see that science can see”?

Going back to the philosophy of “do we really exist”, are we? None of us can honestly argue that point.

But if we accept this reality is real, and we move on, then I counter that, no, rather: the more we look using science, the more we understand how things work.

I challenge to say otherwise must rely on finding a dubiousness in “science”, stemming from dubiousness of “objective reality”, in which case you have no argument, as you don’t even exist. (So why keep trying…?)

—

That’s all I can muster for now, sorry. Actually, it’s *more* time than I should have taken, but felt it only polite to try this much… until later (but I hope to read replies in the mean time, if nothing else! )… -Larz

Ken G:
Once again the above is not an argument, it is a list of assumptions and generalizations about other people and how they think. And you call that a scientific position? In fact, every one of the above statements not only has no evidence to support it, it is obviously false, because it is framed as a sweeping truth for all people all the time. And you think scientific reason works that way?
”

Is this the Jeopardy Complaint? I didn’t state my answer in the form of a question? Risking an ad hominem here, but do you feel that’s an honest way to debate? But, as we’re starting anew:

I assert that the vast majority of “persons of faith” receive said faith from others who came before, they do not come to independent, internalized realizations about their faith – let alone invent an entirely new one – on their own.

Few persons have made original statements of a faith; most who have done so have been generally derided and ignored; a few have had their statements of faith outlive themselves and become a reasonably well-followed religion.

Therefore, generally speaking about the vast majority of persons of faith, they receive their tenants from others.

I further assert that acceptance of a faith is not a subjective act, but an objective one; humans who, possessing what could generally be accepted as “sound mind”, don’t just believe “anything”, they have reason(s), based on physical reality, if one follows the logic used to arrive at said acceptance through to the source thoughts/ideas used as a basis for that faith.

Therefore, generally speaking about the vast majority of persons of faith, all parts of faith are objectively rationalized – at least eventually, whether directly or indirectly or by proxy, and therefore “science” may be used to ascertain if the logic used to arrive at a point of faith, and even the point itself, was probably honest and actual or highly improbable.

There’s a better fleshed-out set of more complete statements. I assumed the fluff and pomp weren’t necessary to move the conversation forward. I apologize that I assumed too much.

With regards: “In fact, every one of the above statements not only has no evidence to support it, it is obviously false, because it is framed as a sweeping truth for all people all the time.” While I’ve seen, after moving back to the Mid West, more than I’d hope would, I like to still believe that most people, especially and including myself, know that “all absolutes are (probably, in all likelihood) false”. My debate style ignores hyperbole and argues the basic premise presented by my opponent; I find this to be both an honest way, as well as a conducive-to-progress method… I may be wrong…

evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment; Something indicative; an outward sign

Both in dictionaries and colloquially, “evidence” is used with regard to objective things, facts.

I accept you philosophically believe there’s more to reality than objectivity. (Or at least you argue that point.) But “evidence” as I, and generally most people, use it is all about objectivity.

So, yeah, I do “identify ‘evidence’ with what can be scientifically shown”, but not unconsciously, rather conscientiously.

“Do you then find it at all meaningful to claim that science is the only path to truth?”

Again, “truth == fact” or “truth == personal value/meaning”? Either way, please see above.

“This is pure 100% assumption on your part, and is central to all your ridicule-mistaken-for-argument.”

[1] That it is *not* is 100% pure assumption on your part. So we have a tie.

[2] I’ve made plenty of arguments in my life that include ridicule; please show where I’ve simply made a statement of ridicule without either being bumpered by my argument, or contained within it…

As an aside: you’ve repeatedly labeled me one who ridicules.

ridicule: words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing

Perhaps I’m not as sensitive as some? But while I might say much in jest, even poke fun at, I’ve certainly never advocated ostracization, incited violence, nor suggested prejudice. Saying taking as fact something written in an ancient book with little or no evidence (I’m thinking of an event or other such fact) is ridiculous doesn’t seem to me to be “ridicule”. Perhaps I’m more sensitive and find “ridicule” a harsher word than some…?

“Identifying ‘why’ people believe something is … irrelevant to identifying whether or not [their belief] is ‘true’.” How so? It goes to my argument that people (also) tend to have faith based on their imposition upon the universe, versus vice versa. My point being: if they didn’t have these needs/wants, would they still accept/hold their faith? Or, contrarily, if their faith didn’t offer what the needed, would they still hold it? (I submit, “No.”)

Unless by “true” you’re going back to personal benefit/value. In which case it has no relevance to the question of their faith being factual, but rather fulfilling. This is a point of philosophy and human rights. Never in question. And irrelevant to this entire discussion. (At least to my argument.)

Why do you consider – believe? know?? – identifying “why” people believe in something is “overgenrallized”? While this may be – please illuminate.

I, for one, for example, would categorize “I think poppies are so incredible that a god must have created them!” as generally “Obviousness of Design”. I would find that acceptable. And you?

Your perfectly valid point that determining one’s reason for faith is difficult doesn’t invalidate the reasons most commonly given. Among these are:

– Universe is Unexplainable
—— The universe is so perfect/complex, it must have been designed by God.
—— Lack of explanation of something == God did it.

– Things *I* Can’t Explain
—— Unusual experience and/or apparent miracle.

– Parental/Authority Aspects
—— It’s comforting to believe that someone is taking care of me.
—— Fear that without religion, there’d be chaos, no morality, etc..
—— Desire for justice in the universe.
—— Deference to Authority: my parents, leader, book(s) tell me so.
—— Being told what to do and what to think comforts me/is easier.
—— Belief/part-of “something greater than myself” gives me purpose/meaning.
—— Like to belong/sense of community.

– Self-Centered Goals/Fears (blends with Parental/Authority)
—— Experienced the presence/”touch” of God.
—— Having a bad life, looking forward to the afterlife…
—— Don’t want to cease to exist.
—— Finite life in this world is meaningless unless there’s a hereafter.
—— Experiencing bad times and desperate for a miracle.
—— Notice death’s approaching; age.

– Following a Good Example
—— The example of other believer(s) inspire you; they’ve been there for you when you needed it.

If you dispute any, or feel any (major ones; ones not includable in those already above) are missing, please let me know.

Why does it matter? Because it shows that faiths are held for reasons, objective logic, rationalizations. That very nature removes subjectivity and makes faith objective, therefore open to science, therefore able to be factually “highly unlikely” or “highly likely”. The “highly” part being relative, but typically closely approaching 100%. (Indeed, there may be that teapot in orbit, but it’s practically 100% impossible. [Your Mileage May Vary])

“The very first thing you need to understand is that there is no such thing as ‘truth’ independently from a method for establishing truth. So you cannot speak of truth, you can only speak of truth according to your method.”

Are you meaning “truth == fact” or “truth == personal value/meaning”? Just to be safe, I’ll address both.

As for verifying factuality… Science may be used to ascertain the likelihood of a thing. When that likelihood passes a certain threshold, the matter is considered laid to rest. Unless new, better, contradictory, or otherwise, evidence is obtained. Then it’s revisited. At any point in time, the likelihood is a particular accepted probability – through open peer review and debate by anyone who wishes, including laypersons. Some have a lower threshold – I still hope to see the teapot in orbit. Some have a higher one – barring some unforeseen galactic (or supernatural) event, I’m rather sure the sun will “rise” tomorrow.

Establishing value/meaning… As one who contends that such things are purely subjective, wouldn’t you say there is no way to establish such…? (I hold that it’s based on objectivity, and if one knows enough about the person – experiences, biochemistry, genetics – this could even be repeatably knowable with a high degree of accuracy. [I’m not suggesting we’re there yet for more trivial things, but even anecdotally: ever known the “perfect gift” to get someone? How did you know such an abstract, subjective thing…?)

In the end I say, while your statement is factually correct, it belies a red herring: it implies that some things are unknowable, and/or, specifically about faith, that some things which may prove “untrue” via one method prove “true” to another. Objectively – and I posit all things boil down to objectivity – this has not proven the case so far, and I don’t expect this to change. Not from “faith” but from historical experience.

I write and speak with flourish. Poetically. Hyperbolically. Jovially. I have a technical mind, but prefer to interact with other human beings in a more colorful way. This can be off-putting, but also opens me up to critique. Since the point to me is the heart of the matter, I’ll try to keep the embellishments to a minimum. As I’ve stated before, essentially: please don’t argue the tools of the messenger, but rather the message he relays.

Science can only be used on objective reality. I’ve never questioned, nor denied this. If my statements before have led to this conclusion, then ignore them, and let’s start anew..

What is “real”? You submit that there are objective and subjective components, and together they both make up “reality”.

The inclination this allows for is that religion, faith, belief, being subjective, are all therefore possible, reasonable, and outside the purview of “science”.

While that may be true in a puristic sense, I challenge that:

– There is no example of “subjectiveness” that you (or anyone, I feel so confident to wager) can offer that cannot be leveled to literal objectivity. I challenge that your belief that there is such a thing as a “purely subjective” belief (to disqualify from scientific scrutiny it would, indeed, need to be “pure”) is subjective, and does not stand up against continuing study and understanding of both consciousness and human psychology. (I saw the irony of this previous statement, but chose to leave the wording alone; I thought it was funny.)

Though anecdotal evidence isn’t, I suggest an honest examination of the humans around us, let alone ourselves, easily proves this out. Feelings (and other subjectives) are merely the firings of synapses – physical, modelable, knowable objects – based on other synapses (“memories”/”experiences”), chemical signals/hormones, and the input of the senses, etc..

I know this thought seems base, but take me on my challenge: give me an example, and I’ll (attempt to) rationalize it to objectivity, to objective reality…

The days of the survival of this idea are as numbered as the Ptolemaic system.

– Persons of faith believe claims due to (among other reasons):

—— Wants, needs, and desires they hold and impose upon their faith, which their faith self-servingly grants them. (How else could it survive?)

—— Facts – perceived or otherwise – that allows for rationalization of the faith.

—— Lack of questioning on a believer’s part, whether deliberate or de facto.

These points on their own slide a belief from the realm of the subjective into the objective. Believers did this, not I. And once it’s done, science can examine it.

The question at hand is not whether a god(s) could exist, but whether the religions, faiths, and beliefs actually practiced today, by real people, are “true” as in self-honest. They present themselves as objective – though parts get dressed in subjectivness – and therefore scientifically dissectable.

It is immaterial that one “wants” or “needs” their faith. If it is a hollow shell, it is not wrong to say the emperor has no clothes. Of course, when that is made plain, the emperor is still free and welcome to dance around naked. (Just be honest about it.)

There is no debate from me that persons have a right to believe, nor that they take comfort, joy, satisfaction, solace, life-lessons, or a million-billion other things from their faith. But this is beside the point.

Their faith is tangible to them, even when they dress it up in intangibles. And therein lies science’s right – and ability – to examine.

To the consternation of believers everywhere, when this happens, science tends to offer judgement, and not in the favor of faith.

However…

“What this has always been about is whether or not you can claim to speak in the name of science when you legislate proper and improper thinking.”

legislate: to make or enact laws; to mandate, establish, or regulate by or as if by legislation.

As far as I’m aware, I, nor anybody else here was/is advocating making wrong thinking illegal.

Anywho, I hope to revisit this “sooner rather than later”. I do apologize!

larzluv:
– The primary basic reasons most of us *want* to believe in “something”: desire to not cease to exist, wish to see other/past loved ones, desire for basic justice in the universe (not everyone deserves heaven, but many *deserve* hell), it’s one’s heritage.

Me:
Identifying “why” people believe something is (a) difficult, (b) overgeneralized, but most of all (c) irrelevant to identifying whether or not it is “true”. The very first thing you need to understand is that there is no such thing as “truth” independently from a method for establishing truth. So you cannot speak of truth, you can only speak of truth according to your method. If you don’t recognize that, I just can’t help you to see it.

larzluv:
– That we don’t “believe” things in a vacuum; even though we take some things on “faith”, it’s because, to those who believe, there is (”enough”/”believable”) “evidence” to a certain point and/or to (”enough”) other points, that they follow whatever they chose to. But it is, in the end, based on “evidence”, just often not actual evidence (the claim[s] can be scientifically disproven). And there’s the rub.

Me: This is precisely the point I’ve been making– you unconsciously identify “evidence” with what can be scientifically shown. Do you then find it at all meaningful to claim that science is the only path to truth? This is pure 100% assumption on your part, and is central to all your ridicule-mistaken-for-argument.

larzluv:
– The other side of faith not being in a vacuum: persons of faith receive their tenants from others. It’s not a subjective act, but an objective one. People don’t just believe “anything”; they have reasons, based on physical reality. (Even though they conveniently may chose to ignore physics whenever necessary.) People don’t come to internalized realizations about their faith on their own, but are given them from those who came before.

Me:
Once again the above is not an argument, it is a list of assumptions and generalizations about other people and how they think. And you call that a scientific position? In fact, every one of the above statements not only has no evidence to support it, it is obviously false, because it is framed as a sweeping truth for all people all the time. And you think scientific reason works that way?

larzluv:
I just argue that there are *reasons* why we hold “truths”, and, if one digs below the surface, *objectivity* was used to arrive at “subjectivity”. The more we look, the more we find that “subjectivity” is a simple matter of objective reality: hormones, experience, genetics, etc.

Me:
OK, in my view this is the first thing I’ve seen from you that actually made an argument, not just listed opinions and assumptions posed as conclusions. Perhaps I just missed it, but here we have it, so let’s look at what you are saying here and see how well supported by science it is. Note that there’s nothing wrong with you holding these opinions, the question is, can you label them as conclusions from science. Let’s start with your association of “reasons” with “objectivity”. I really missed where you made that leap– are you really going to claim that there is no such thing as a subjective reason that is not based in something objective? I think you are assuming a lot more than is known about the functioning of the human mind, but if you have actual evidence for that claim, please collect your Nobel prize. And your claim that “the more we look” this is established is an obviously illogical point– the more we look using science, the more we see that science can see. That is all that can be said. Right?

Sheepishly slinking to the nearest dark corner…

Sorry, I missed your reply before Irishman’s…

“[I]n truth I have only read about half of larzluv’s incredibly long and repetitive posts”.

“[I] would tend to stop and respond to what I did read.”

“But one thing I’m quite clear on is that I’m sure larzluv hasn’t the least idea what I am saying, and I think I know his position quite well, it isn’t terribly subtle.”

Wryly: Hmmm…

—

“I just couldn’t get past the opinions framed as truths”.

Wryly Rhetorical: Aren’t all “truths” in the end “opinions”…?

—

“As for examples, I guess I missed the part where he asked for them in all the verbiage. If there are any examples he wants, I’d be happy to provide– if he can ask without burying the question in complaints.”

You could forget what I wrote and give examples for what you wrote.

—

“His entire position rests on the circular argument: [READ ARGUMENT IN POST ABOVE].”

I addressed, and tried to make myself, and my position, as clear as I can muster. You chose to not read why I wrote, yet you still feel justification in libeling me…? Anywho…

*I* am not alone. I contend that all who “believe” (in anything, even “existence”) do so based on “evidence” and “logic”; I challenge that there is no “subjectivity”, as you tend to use it.

Nobody has any “proof” of *anything*, philosophically speaking. I’ve stated as much.

But, for those of us who move past that point, we accept the game as-is, and “believe” in it. That others chose to – when convenient/desired – disregard “objective reality” to hold points of faith, when they base those points (directly or indirectly) on evidence, is dishonest. And an attempt at self-delusion.

But *I* didn’t make the rules that we all play by. (It’s not my fault.)

—

“Indeed, so fervent is he in this belief of his, that he actually ridicules, even in his last post, the idea that reality might have any aspects that are inherently subjective.”

I have clearly stated as such: *all* reality is “subjective”.

—

With regards skeptic/positivist: both your definitions, and your framing of your question, are crafted and rhetorical. You’ve loaded both sides. But…

Skeptic: the first part of your statement is all that’s necessary – “someone who requires evidence to form beliefs” – but then you interject philosophy. This isn’t “wrong”, but it does skew. “[A]ll evidence requires subjective examination” – really? Philosophically, absolutely. But, in the end, we’re back to the fundamental thought-debate: are we really here? From positing that that is *in question*, flows the “honest” view as stated: “subjective examination”. Of course all observations are “subjective”. But that doesn’t change certain things from being, truly, “objective”. With enough data points, it’s reasonable to assume (oy, that word!) that all reasonable, honest persons will “see” the “same thing” in an observation. Latitude only comes from lack of data points. Again, I’m not debating that observations are “subjective”, but, in my opinion, you use this as a dodge to insist that therefore all observations are then open to philosophical subjectivity. Technically correct, but dishonest. A skeptic may, indeed, acknowledge that we don’t “know” if we’re here, but then he moves on. One has to. There’s no other way to function. (Assuming we actually do “function”…) And, therefore, there -are- “absolute” truths, knowledge, and both can be arrived at “in an absolute way”. While it’s fun to ask, “just because *I* observe the moon is a sphere, does that make it so?”, but it’s interestingly rather self-centric: I observe, therefore it exists. As if it needed my help to exist.

Positivist: While the definition you stated is correct, it’s obviously loaded. (People tend to take more offense to being called “delusional” rather than “incorrect”, though, with the right context, they’re both equivalent.)

Your question: part of it is in my post to Irishman, above. But still… A circle is an ellipse, but not all ellipses are circles. By your definition, if I were “merely” a skeptic, I “couldn’t” therefore be a positivist. But the other way around works just fine: I see reality as objectively testable (“science”), -and- I require evidence to form beliefs (skepticism), understanding that “evidence” is obtained – technically – “subjectively”, but, while one may never “prove” or “disprove” reality, we chose to acknowledge and move on…

“[T]hey are not compatible philosophies”. Even by your definitions – which _strain_ – they’re not incompatible. You’ve added the burden of “philosophical honesty” to skepticism, yet denied that “the other side” acknowledges the same thing.

“Science cannot be used to determine if all that can be considered real has to be objective”. By “real”, I assume you equivocate “true”. “Truth” as in “purpose”, a “reason why”; this is philosophy. Indeed, personal, but not existing in a void (see my above post to Irishman for more from me on this). While it may seem (as Irishman pointed out) that I don’t “get” that “truth” is just as much a part of “reality” as tangibility, I do.

I just argue that there are *reasons* why we hold “truths”, and, if one digs below the surface, *objectivity* was used to arrive at “subjectivity”. The more we look, the more we find that “subjectivity” is a simple matter of objective reality: hormones, experience, genetics, etc.

I don’t hold that to be circular logic. But, yeah, it’s “objective”…