Now I don’t believe in ESP. What is going on here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

i was born in iceland.

that’s it, prolly more of a journey for the religious then for the majority of us here.

@97 noen: Apologies, I know it’s been a few days and you probably won’t see this, but I just got back to it.
Question: If scientists shouldn’t comment on matters of philosophy, what gives philosophers license to make sweeping judgements of science?

especialy considering that Jesus would have been a Jew and wanted his followers to practice Judaism, never asking them start a new religion and naming it after him

I took a history of religion course in college. One of the first things the professor told us was that if we had any religious views at all, they *would* be offended as he was going for a historical view of religion and not a religious one. When we got to Jesus, my professor taught that Jesus actually was teaching a super-strict version of Judaism.

Let’s say you were Jewish and walking down the street. You pass a McDonald’s a smell a bacon double cheeseburger. The smell makes you think about eating one but it’s not Kosher so you avoid it. According to pretty much any Rabbi you ask, you did nothing wrong. Jesus, according to my professor, would have said that thoughts were just as sinful as actions and thus by merely thinking about eating that bacon double cheeseburger, you violated the Kosher laws same as if you actually ate it.

Other rabbis of the time (thankfully) rejected this and he was on the fringe of Judaism. There were a lot of rabbis on the fringes, most of their teachings (and their names) died with them. Somehow, though, Jesus’ teachings survived and mutated through the centuries into Christianity.

The irony, of course, is that (if my professor is correct) the people who “follow Jesus’ teachings” aren’t following anything close to the super-strict version of Judaism that Jesus was a proponent of.

P.S Beyond the memories of my college course, I have no evidence that these were the real teachings of Jesus. I present it more as an anecdote than evidence. Still, given that we know that Christianity morphed through the centuries to absorb various pagan tribes, it isn’t entirely unlikely that Jesus’ real teachings differed from what the present-day Church says he taught.

P.P.S. If anyone else has heard this Jesus Super-Strict Judaism historical theory and/or knows of any evidence to back it up or disprove it (not religious sources, of course… “The Bible says…” isn’t a valid source), I’d definitely be interested in hearing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Classic Python.

“I simply argue that there are other authorities than yours. ”

But I was not claiming any authority other than reason. If theism is the assertion of the proposition that god exists then it clearly follows that atheism, “a” means not, must be the negation of that proposition, that god does not exist. How could it be anything else? You are right that language changes and does not have a fixed meaning but things do have to “hang together” more or less. Humpty Dumpty was wrong, words can’t just mean whatever you like. They have to make sense. So if a bunch of people believe that X, let’s call them X-ists, what would we call those who reject that claim? Let’s call them a-X-ists. I don’t see any appeal to authority in that.

“Being a part of philosophy does not make an epistemology an entire philosophy unto itself. ”

Well no, it isn’t strictly speaking even philosophy, it’s a category, an entry in the library card catalogue. I think the word you were looking for is empiricism. What you were really doing was trying to make the bogus claim that science is somehow above philosophy, as if that were even possible. Which is nonsense. That is my principle objection to the New Atheism. It’s really just another metaphysical ideology attempting to claim dominance over all knowledge.

We have a word for people who think they and they alone have the one truth, it’s called Fundamentalism.

“My point in mentioning Hume is not that I necessarily agree with him, but that from his point of view even active disbelief is necessarily agnostic”

Shorter: “My point in mentioning Hume, not that I agree with him, is that I agree with him.” Which is it?

“Do you believe in ghosts, fairies, or unicorns?”

No, I don’t. Am I being inconsistent? No I’m not. Is it possible to know that unicorns do not exist? Yes it is. Is it possible to know if god exists? I have no idea. I know what the words ghosts, fairies, or unicorns refer to. They refer to real things that that could exist in some possible world. I don’t know what god refers to, I don’t know what the word means or whether or not it could or could not exist. Therefore I simply can’t say anything about it.

“I doubt that most of your “Village Atheists” think that science can answer every and any question.”

In my experience they do believe just that.

“if you think that’s bad you should have a go at “postmodernism”. ”

Postmodernism is dead but what seems to be common among some circles is a kind of “perspectivism”. That is, that reality is such that there are multiple perspectives, world views if you like, but no one single world view which holds a privileged position above all the rest and from which all other perspectives can be judged.

“Stephen Hawking referring to Karl Popper as a positivist and claiming positivism to be fundamental to modern science”

Yeah, Hawking is not a philosopher so he should shut up about stuff he hasn’t a clue about. Frankly he’s kind of gone off his nut lately. As far as I’m concerned string theory is nothing more than theology.

*headdesk*

But isn’t agnosticism similarly antithetical to skepticism? I may be wrong, but I thought that the gist of agnosticism was “We don’t know, and there are some things we can’t know.”
Whereas science would assume that it’s more or less possible to eventually find out anything, uncertainty principle and event horizons notwithstanding.

Full of win!

“In this section you appeal to two fallacies, the argument from popularity and the argument from authority.” – Argument from authority – you started it on this topic. I simply argue that there are other authorities than yours. As to argument from popularity, I’m not suggesting that one side is more popular than the other, only that there are two sides with equal weight. And since we’re talking about language, language changes based on how it is commonly used. Words do not have absolute and unchanging meanings, no matter what dictionary they are written in.

“Well you can want epistemology to not be a part of philosophy all you like but you’re simply flat out wrong.” Way to quote mine and misrepresent me. Sorry, that doesn’t work when my comment is right there for everyone to read. Being a part of philosophy does not make an epistemology an entire philosophy unto itself. Sorry.

“It is my considered experience that by far most online atheists are what one would call Village Atheists. ” I don’t even know how this is supposed to answer the quote you’ve put it in response to. You said that secularists/positivists/science were motivated somehow by fear and lack of imagination, with no justification. I said that organized religion more accurately reflects those terms and justified my statement, which you then called a strawman. I reiterate, it was strawman when you said it.

“Hume was wrong” – Argument from nothing. My point in mentioning Hume is not that I necessarily agree with him, but that from his point of view even active disbelief is necessarily agnostic, because we can’t truly know anything for certain. In this view you can certainly be both atheist and agnostic. I reiterate, the two are in no way mutually exclusive, they treat different subjects, and none of what you’ve said has proved otherwise.

Do you believe in ghosts, fairies, or unicorns? All things that cannot be absolutely proven false by science, but for which there is simply no evidence. Are you agnostic about them as well, or is god a special case?

I think that science gives us true facts about the world but I’m just not willing to go all Totalitarian with it. Science can answer some questions, it cannot answer others. True believers of any stripe believe that their particular belief system can answer every and any question. I doubt that.

Once again you’ve proven my point nicely. I doubt that most of your “Village Atheists” think that science can answer every and any question.

“People say they are agnostic because they fear the social ramifications”

Strawman. See above.

“If all the people who don’t really believe in god had the courage to stand up”

But atheists are the true believers. They truly believe in the absolute rightness of their beliefs.

“Yet somehow it was not a strawman when you applied the same statement to some conflation of scientists, positivists, and secularists? “

It is my considered experience that by far most online atheists are what one would call Village Atheists. They are true believers in the cult of the New Atheism. There is indeed another atheism. That of the philosophical kind which I have cited but you and indeed the leaders of the New Atheists reject that view of atheism. It is the former rather than the later to which I refer.

“As I understand it from my History and Philosophy of Science class, positivism states that (and I’m making this necessarily brief and simplified) the scientific method is the best way of knowing about the world around us. “

No, that’s not what positivism says. Positivism says that scientific truth is the only kind of truth there is. That scientific statements can be verified as true and that any other statements are meaningless. Positivism asserted that the only true statements are those which can be verified but it could not verify its own principle of verification and was therefore inconsistent and incoherent.

Positivism is(was) a philosophical ideology more like a religion than anything. It is the official dogma of the Village “New” Atheist and they defend it as violently as any true believer ever has.

“I make the point that it is an epistemology and not a philosophy for the same reason that I argue science is not a belief system (or your new term, world view)”

Well you can want epistemology to not be a part of philosophy all you like but you’re simply flat out wrong.

“Science is a method”

Which makes certain assumptions and has a particular view of the world. What shall we call that? Oh! Let’s call it a “world view”. One cannot not have a world view because if we exist at all in this world then we must have a relation to that world. We have a stance or a we place ourselves in a particular relationship with the world. It is not possible to be in this world and not be somewhere. Defenders of scientism always try to adopt this kind of “null position”. They want to place themselves above the world and yet be in it. This cannot be done.

” An epistemology, as you know, is a branch of philosophy but not a philosophy.”

This is what happens when village atheists try to think.

“I really like how you switch from calling science a belief system to calling it a world view”

I think that science gives us true facts about the world but I’m just not willing to go all Totalitarian with it. Science can answer some questions, it cannot answer others. True believers of any stripe believe that their particular belief system can answer every and any question. I doubt that.

Thank you for your calm reply. This subject interests me so I bring it up when I can and the typical atheist reaction is one of intolerance and bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with them. You seem to be an exception to that rule.

“First, the exact definitions of “agnostic” and “atheist””

In this section you appeal to two fallacies, the argument from popularity and the argument from authority. That people call themselves green cheese does not make them green cheese and that those in authority solemnly nod their heads in agreement does not either. Also you are simply factually wrong. Instead of citing the Encyclopedia Britannic I might just as well have cited J.J.C. Smart’s entry on atheism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy where he has this to say:

“‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

That is what the word means, that is what it has always meant. Smart (and the Britannica article) then goes on to discuss how this understanding of atheism can be considered not an absolute claim but rather one that constitutes a justified belief. However he also concedes that the fine tuning argument or arguments from Bayesian probability are not irrational in themselves. But that still makes atheism a form of belief, albeit one that can be justified.

PZ Meyers and other village atheists strongly object to this view of atheism. That is because they and frankly most online atheists, are True Believers in the one truth outside of which no one can be saved…. that Science is their god and they it’s humble priests. Or in PZ’s case, its fiery Ezekiel eager to bring down the wrath of science upon the heads the heathen unbelievers.

“I think David Hume would disagree with you, as he regarded the absolute truth value of any claim as ultimately unknowable”

Hume was wrong.

“it is atheists who determine the meaning of atheism”

This is deeply ironic. No, actually, you don’t get to define words as you please and you don’t get to define yourselves just however you like. If you insist at least acknowledge how postmodern such a claim is. But you’re not postmodern are you? So I suspect that this is just self serving rationalization on your part. You want your view to be correct and you’re willing to engage in any kind of false rhetoric to defend it. You’ve abandoned intellectual integrity for hubris.

“atheism is most certainly not an absolute statement that there is not and cannot be any sort of god.”

Fortunately I never said it was. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. One that can be considered a justified belief that is intellectually defensible, but a belief nonetheless. Your problem is that you’ve only read a little of the early philosophers and that you think Hume, who was an idealist after all, was right to deny we have any access to knowledge. A rather odd position I might add.

““Do you believe in god?” This has a yes or no answer.”

It also has a third answer, namely, “I don’t know whether or not there exists such a thing as might be construed as a god . Therefore I remain uncommitted to the truth or falseness of the question.” Moreover, “belief” is problematic as I said. It has not always meant assent to the truth value of a proposition. In past it also meant allegiance or loyalty to a cause greater than oneself. Social movements have a vector. They are going somewhere. I do not like the direction in which atheism is going.

I do not want either the red or the blue pill. I want a third pill. And if I have to I’ll create it myself.

(cont)

It’s ok Gus, noen “has been refuted,” so you can just sidestep this whole issue. Case closed, no further arguments needed. Clearly the skeptical thing to do.

I believe in telepathy.
I don’t believe in telepathy, an unproven claim. <– "Skeptical"

I believe in God.
I don't believe in God, an unproven claim. <– "Not skeptical, arrogant, mind made up, assertion"

“Yeah, that is the typical atheist strawman view of religion.” Yet somehow it was not a strawman when you applied the same statement to some conflation of scientists, positivists, and secularists? I didn’t just apply the label, I provided a justification for why I felt it applied better to religion than to science/secularism/positivism (which I’m not attempting to extract from your conflation). I stand by that justification, especially since you simply called the statement a strawman and pretended the justification of it did not exist. Organized religions have official teachings and doctrines. They rely on an appeal to authority and hand down these teachings as unquestionable. Yes, some religions encourage more questioning and personal doubt than others, but all expect that in the end you accept their teachings. This is the opposite of imagination. Nearly all organized religions also promote a vision of an afterlife with an eternal reward or punishment as a goad toward proper behavior in this life. That’s using fear, plain and simple. Science, on the other hand, encourages and requires imagination. Most who fail or don’t bother to complete a PhD do so for a lack of imagination. Or maybe I’m just projecting my own situation, but I’m certain I’ve seen it in others. Identifying a good research question and developing a way to test it requires imagination, and lots of it. Fear too has little place in science. Darwin was afraid to publish the Origin, thankfully he did so anyway. That’s overcoming fear. So if it’s a strawman, it’s yours, I simply submit that it applies better to religion than to secularism.

I may, in fact, be ignorant about positivism, but I have learned nothing about it here. As I understand it from my History and Philosophy of Science class, positivism states that (and I’m making this necessarily brief and simplified) the scientific method is the best way of knowing about the world around us. You need not believe that, and on some higher plane of philosophy you may think it is self-refuting, but the reason there are so many people who believe that is that in the way we interact with the real world, it works.

I make the point that it is an epistemology and not a philosophy for the same reason that I argue science is not a belief system (or your new term, world view). Science is a method, and since we’ve irreparably conflated it with positivism, it is a way of knowing, an epistemology. An epistemology, as you know, is a branch of philosophy but not a philosophy. It is only one piece of a philosophy. One can hold any number of philosophies that contain the positivist epistemology.

And finally, I really like how you switch from calling science a belief system to calling it a world view, yet follow this with a paragraph that essentially proves my point, namely that it is not.

They weren’t just Masons, they were in contact with ETI!