|
|
I started this because I didn't want to take over another thread.
You have to understand that I consider myself a Christian, but some of the statements made about these two made me realize that it deserved it's own thread so maybe some of the misunderstandings could be straightened out. If you have a different view about this, please post. I've only started learning about this tonight, so I don't know that much about it yet, but I'm learning.
I found several sites that will explain the difference between the two, but I thought I would only use 2 for right now.
The first site is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism. It starts with this statement: | Quote: | | Historical and modern deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism. |
If you would like to read more, just follow the link above.
The next site I found was http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm, which goes more indepth than the other site. It has a great faq about the difference between the two.
Please post your comments on this subject. Also remember, I don't follow either one, so I'm not an expert on them.
One important thing to comment on the deism.com FAQ is that no, atheism doesn't "teach that there is no god". Atheísm doesn't "teach" anything.
Some atheists deny the existence of any god - and sometimes oppose the concept of religious belief altogether.
Some atheists acknowledge the existance of one or more gods - but deduce that god isn't someone to be followed, but rather opposed.
Some do neither, believing:
- it's unknown at the present time.
- it's unknowable.
- it's irrelevant.
- any combination of the above.
Some are sceptic towards organized religion, some aren't. Some are sceptic towards faith, some aren't. Some are directly opposed to religion of any kind, some aren't. Some know close to nothing about the various religions, some may know more about a certain religion than a fair percentage of the people practicing it.
I'm not quite sure I agree with deism.com's definition of deism itself either. The one thing deism and atheism have in common, which sets them apart from religions (or other religions, in the case of deism), is that neither needs to be taught. Unlike christians, buddhists, muslims, wiccans etc., an atheist or deist can be an atheist or deist without knowing it. Hence, I'm not sure you can really say that deism "teaches" anything either.
I myself is of the opinion that the existence or non-existence of a god is absolutely irrelevant (but not unknowable), I'm sceptic towards organized religion and some aspects of faith (as in, faith can be a very, very dangerous thing) but I'm not opposed to religion as such, as long as it doesn't enforce anything on me. And I like to discuss religion, if only to try to understand people who think differently.
| Kaneda wrote: | Some atheists deny the existence of any god - and sometimes oppose the concept of religious belief altogether.
Some atheists acknowledge the existance of one or more gods - but deduce that god isn't someone to be followed, but rather opposed.
Some do neither, believing:
- it's unknown at the present time.
- it's unknowable.
- it's irrelevant.
- any combination of the above.
Some are sceptic towards organized religion, some aren't. Some are sceptic towards faith, some aren't. Some are directly opposed to religion of any kind, some aren't. Some know close to nothing about the various religions, some may know more about a certain religion than a fair percentage of the people practicing it. |
I just wanted to highlight this little bit here, because there is a lot of misunderstanding about both atheism and deism that stems from the issue you brought up. And while you have obliquely answered the problem, I think it deserves a head on treatment.
Unlike religions - and I phrase it this way deliberately and with good reason, which I'll get to soon - atheism and deism were not "invented" by someone or something. Take Islam for example. If you believe that Muhammed was divinely inspired, then the beliefs and philosophies of Islam were invented by God (or Allah, same thing). If you believe he was not, then Islam was invented by Muhammed. Either way, someone or something drafted the concept of Islam, and it's been passed down ever since.
Atheism and deism are not religions. As Kaneda pointed out, neither one has to be taught. No one invented either. It's not like someone stood on a mountain one day and said, "People, I have a revelation for you, God doesn't exist!" and lo, the people learned and passed on his teaching. There is no spiritual leader of "Atheism" or "Deism". No holy writings. No teachings.
In fact, there is no such thing as "Atheism" or "Deism", only atheism and deism. They are not sects, cults, churches or religions. Both atheism and deism are categories, not specific items. Saying "I am an atheist" is equivalent to "I am a theist", not "I am a Christian". Or to put it another way, Catholicism is an example of Christianity, Christianity is an example of theism. Atheism is an example of nothing, it is a whole category unto itself. The same with deism. If someone says to you "I am an atheist", you don't really know anything about their beliefs, except the general category. You don't know whether they hate the idea of a god, think it is stupid, consider it illogical/unknowable or simply that they just don't give a rat's ass about the question at all.
Atheism and deism are categories of beliefs, not actual religions - just like theism is a category of beliefs, not an actual religion. You don't go to "Theist" churches, because theism is an abstract concept, not a concrete religion. Likewise, you don't "follow" atheism or deism, because they are abstract concepts representing a common factor between large groups of beliefs.
As Kaneda pointed out, there are many different types of atheist beliefs (just like there are many different types of theist beliefs). And not all atheists agree with each other. Not by a longshot. In fact, it is conceivable that two atheists could even fight about the differences between their beliefs - it is possible for their beliefs to be that wildly different, and in opposition to each other's beliefs, and yet they could still both be athiests (just like how it is possible for two different theists, a Muslim and a Christian for example, to fight about the differences between their beliefs, despite the fact that they are both theists).
There are also many different kinds of deist beliefs. Some believe that divine intervention does not and/or cannot happen, some believe it is a subtle pervasive force, others believe it can happen any time subject to the whims of the god. Some believe the god is outside the universe, others that the universe is just a part of the god, others believe the universe itself is god, and we are all parts of god.
Theism and atheism are conflicting categories:
- Theism is the belief in a superior being(s) that created and/or is the universe. (This belief in superior being(s), of course, has many forms.)
- Atheism belief a lack of belief in a superior being(s) that created and/or is the universe. (This lack of belief in superior being(s) has many forms.)
But deism does not conflict with either:
- Deism is belief in a being (not necessarily superior) that can be discovered and/or understood rationally, and that created and/or is the universe. (This belief has many forms.)
Because theism, atheism and deism come in so many different flavours, it is possible to overlap some forms of theism with some forms of deism. It is possible to overlap some forms of atheism with some forms of deism. Thus it can be tricky to pin someone's beliefs down under a single tag. The confusion is compounded by the fact that there are no well-defined "schools" of deism or atheism, though there are many well-defined theist beliefs (ie, religions).
Consider me, for example. I don't believe in any revealed god, and I don't believe that there is some omnipotent god out there poking his nose in my everyday business. I believe that if there is a god, he is not pulling the strings of the universe (I believe the term for this is a clockmaker god - god made the universe, then set it in motion, and he hasn't interfered since - just like a clockmaker who makes a clock then starts it, but doesn't interfere with its everyday operation). Thus, you could call me a weak atheist, because I do not believe in a god, but I do not rule out the possibility. You could also call me a deist (and on different days you could name different types of deism), because I do not believe that a god is controlling the universe or sending messages to us, but I consider the universe itself as being a kind of god. Possibly even created by us - the intelligent life within (ie, cosmotheism). Depends on my mood and how you interpret what I say and write, no answer is really right or wrong.
What am I really? *shrug* I'm a don't-care-ist. Call me what you want, I can't be bothered with labels, and I'm sure as hell not going to tailor my beliefs so that they fit snugly in some category or another (as is common practice with theistic beliefs - you can't be a Christian and not really believe Jesus' teachings - sure you can interpret them, but there are core precepts you have to accept to be called Christian).
That Wikipedia article is good, but that "Deism defined" site is just awful. It was clearly slapped together by someone without any great depth of thought put into it. Many of the responses are lacking in depth and detail. Some are trying to be clever at the expense of being correct (for example, that comment about how deists only give prayers of thanks and appreciation - untrue - some deists believe that if they ask god for something (and exactly how that asking is done can be widely variable - some say prayer, some day good deeds to earn karma points, etc.) it may or may not be granted).
Indi, while I hesitate to say this because you reject being labeled into any clean and neat category, I think that all of your various speculations fall under only one category – agnosticism, precisely because agnosticism is not a clean and neat category. Belief in a clockmaker God is a classic agnostic stance. You refer to it as weak atheism, but that is actually one of the definitions of agnosticism – doubt but not outright rejection.
As to atheism, while many little differences are possible, as a practical matter I have only encountered three basic categories. I’ll label them logical atheism, fundamentalist atheism and mystical atheism. In your debate with BruceTheDauber, you perfectly expressed logical atheism – God’s nonexistence can’t be proven, but persistent lack of evidence leads the logical atheist to a firm conclusion. Additional evidence could always change this, but a logical atheist has given up hope that such evidence will present itself.
While I’m sure that all fundamentalist atheists would vehemently reject this label, never the less their belief is basically a religious faith. It is an a priori conviction, not a product of logic. They are just as fanatical as any other form of fundamentalism, and just like other forms of fundamentalism, it is almost impossible to have a meaningful debate with them. BruceTheDauber is a good example of this. In his last post to you he said, “it is all a leap of faith.” While he didn’t think that he was referring to himself, it is in fact a projection of his own faith. Many theists have a logical processes and not just pure conviction, but his atheism is a product of pure conviction, so he assumes that all views of God are an inverted reflection of his own faith.
A mystical atheist is someone who strongly believes in spiritual phenomenon, utterly unlike the other two categories. Most Wiccans are mystical atheist, for example. While pantheists such as Wiccans could be referred to as theists in a sense, most living traditions that are pantheistic also embrace monotheism – all of their pantheistic gods are merely a subset of God. Hindus have Brahma, native Americans have the Great Spirit, and Druids had the All-Father. Of course not all mystical atheists are pantheistic, they may embrace any number of mystical non-materialist beliefs. Atheists who love to use Tarot cards or study astrology are also examples of mystical atheists.
| Indi wrote: | If you believe that Muhammed was divinely inspired, then the beliefs and philosophies of Islam were invented by God (or Allah, same thing). If you believe he was not, then Islam was invented by Muhammed.
|
Just as a note, Mohammed didn’t write the Quran. In New Age terms, it is channeled material. In Catholic terms, it is one big locution – the voice of an unseen presence. Supposed it was the voice of the Archangel Gabriel. Given the rabid nature of the Quran I doubt that it was an angel, although I accept at face value that it was an entity and not mental illness.
I would like to thank each of you for your response. While it won't change my mind, it was very enlightening. I enjoy reading about how you see it all. It was educational to say the least. I never really knew there were so many different ways of looking at atheism and deism. I guess that's why I started this. I always enjoy learning new things.
Again thank you for your time and responses.
| livilou wrote: | While it won't change my mind, it was very enlightening.
|
I certainly wouldn't want to convert you to a belief that I don't hold.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi, while I hesitate to say this because you reject being labeled into any clean and neat category, I think that all of your various speculations fall under only one category – agnosticism, precisely because agnosticism is not a clean and neat category. Belief in a clockmaker God is a classic agnostic stance. You refer to it as weak atheism, but that is actually one of the definitions of agnosticism – doubt but not outright rejection. |
Hm, I always thought that the clockmaker concept of God was a deist concept, not an agnostic one.
Anyway, heh, yeah, I suppose you're right though, I would qualify as agnostic. ^_^ For sure I believe that we do not have any real evidence for or against God. I don't necessarily rule out the possibility that such evidence may one day be found though, so I suppose I'd fall into the category of soft agnosticism.
Or maybe you could just call it apathy. ^_^'
The reason I don't often bring agnosticism up is because it is kind of a tack-on to other beliefs. I mean, you can be both agnostic and theist, agnostic and deist or agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism - to me - implies that you do not claim certainty in knowing that God exists, and you can do that while believing in God or not believing in God. It's basically tacking the phrase "... but it is impossible to know this to be true" onto anything you beleive (and not just God-concepts). An agnostic theist says "I believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true". An agnostic atheist says "I do not believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true". So calling yourself agnostic without further qualification is inconclusive. That's why I normally don't bother.
Maybe agnostic atheist is the best category for me? I mean, my theories of God as clockmaker and the universe itself bringing God into existence with it are really just that, theories. Although they make sense to me, and I could see myself believing such things, I don't really believe them. As a matter of honesty, I suppose I should admit that no, I don't really think there is a God - which would make me a logical atheist, by your definitions.
(Oh, by the way, I think you should word them differently. I think I get where you're going with the three categories, but even BruceTheDauber himself would argue that he came to his belief by logic and not a priori conviction - that is, logic led to the conviction (which may or may not be true). Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion), a fundamental atheist believes there is no God and may offer logic is evidence of this (the non-existence of God is a fact, and while logic agrees with this conclusion, the conclusion is not a product of logic, because the shortcomings of logic do not apply), and a mystical atheist believes there is no God but there is an illogical component of the universe (just one that's not a god)? If you word it that way, when someone says they know for a fact there is no God, and claim logic is proof of that belief, you can point out that logical deduction is proof of nothing, thus they are fundamental atheists.)
Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<)
| Indi wrote: | Hm, I always thought that the clockmaker concept of God was a deist concept, not an agnostic one.
|
You are probably right, until livilou started this thread I had no idea that deism and theism weren’t synonyms, which sucks because when you say, “I’m a theist” it sounds like you’re saying, “I’m atheists”!
| Indi wrote: | Anyway, heh, yeah, I suppose you're right though, I would qualify as agnostic. ^_^ For sure I believe that we do not have any real evidence for or against God.
|
Who is we?! I have proof! Unfortunately, mystical experiences cannot be shared in a manner that constitutes proof, unless you are extremely confident in someone. I also have objective evidence, but it is not like the absolute proof of personal experience.
| Indi wrote: | I don't necessarily rule out the possibility that such evidence may one day be found though, so I suppose I'd fall into the category of soft agnosticism.
|
Well now I recant. If the clockmaker God is a deist concept, then I’d say that you’re a deist. Wasn’t Voltaire a deist? I know that he disavowed atheism, to the surprise of some since his arguments sound atheistic. But as a practical matter, what is the distinction between deism and atheism?
| Indi wrote: | The reason I don't often bring agnosticism up is because it is kind of a tack-on to other beliefs. I mean, you can be both agnostic and theist, agnostic and deist or agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism - to me - implies that you do not claim certainty in knowing that God exists, and you can do that while believing in God or not believing in God. It's basically tacking the phrase "... but it is impossible to know this to be true" onto anything you beleive (and not just God-concepts). An agnostic theist says "I believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true". An agnostic atheist says "I do not believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true".
|
I object to your definition of agnostic atheism because this creates a definition of unqualified atheism which is exclusively illogical and irrational. This would make atheism equal to fundamentalist atheism and logical atheism would have to be labeled agnostic atheism. However, one can be an extremely convince logical atheist, 99.99% certain, which is contrary to the notion of agnosticism.
| Indi wrote: | Maybe agnostic atheist is the best category for me? I mean, my theories of God as clockmaker and the universe itself bringing God into existence with it are really just that, theories. Although they make sense to me, and I could see myself believing such things, I don't really believe them. As a matter of honesty, I suppose I should admit that no, I don't really think there is a God - which would make me a logical atheist, by your definitions.
|
Yes, your delineation of logical atheism was too precise, I suspected that this is what you are.
| Indi wrote: | (Oh, by the way, I think you should word them differently. I think I get where you're going with the three categories, but even BruceTheDauber himself would argue that he came to his belief by logic and not a priori conviction - that is, logic led to the conviction (which may or may not be true). Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion)
|
What do you mean by shortcomings of logic in this context? The only logic here is the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
| Indi wrote: | …a fundamental atheist believes there is no God and may offer logic as evidence of this (the non-existence of God is a fact, and while logic agrees with this conclusion, the conclusion is not a product of logic, because the shortcomings of logic do not apply)
|
I disagree, the fundamentalist atheists has an explicitly illogical thought process. S/he says that absence of evidence is proof of absence. Proof requires positive evidence; absence of evidence is negative evidence, not positive evidence, so it cannot be proof.
For example, Bruce compared theism to the possibility of finding a million dollar bill in his back pocket. (a) It is impossible to forget such a thing and (b) million dollar bills have never been printed. So there is overwhelming evidence that he isn’t going to find the bill. He is asserting that God is fundamentally and theoretically implausible. Proof of theoretical implausibility requires substantial positive evidence. Absence of evidence alone says nothing about theoretical plausibility.
| Indi wrote: | …and a mystical atheist believes there is no God but there is an illogical component of the universe (just one that's not a god)?
|
An illogical component of the universe? It sounds like you are saying that mystical phenomena are theoretical implausible. Now you are venturing into fundamentalist atheism.
| Indi wrote: | If you word it that way, when someone says they know for a fact there is no God, and claim logic is proof of that belief, you can point out that logical deduction is proof of nothing, thus they are fundamental atheists.)
|
I don’t understand, how is logical deduction proof of nothing? How else does one prove anything?
| Indi wrote: | | Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<) |
Far from being apathetic, it seems to me that you have given this more thought than 99.99% of the population. At this point, I would say that you are a logical atheist.
Now logical atheism can be further broken down into two categories. Ones that care and ones that don’t. Do you really not care, or does it depress you? When I was an atheist it was not the disbelief in God that bothered me, it was my disbelief in Heaven and immortality. I use to say that it left a God-shaped hole in my heart, but I suppose that it was really a Heaven-shaped hole. I would argue with anyone that I could, not in order to convert anyone, I felt that if people believed in God they were better of because I was miserable, but actually I was looking for someone to give me a halfway decent counter argument. It took 9 years. (12 to 21)
BTW, I really love your expressive faces! They are so much more expressive than the icons or the two letter sideways ones and they are very distinctly cute and girlish!
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Who is we?! I have proof! Unfortunately, mystical experiences cannot be shared in a manner that constitutes proof, unless you are extremely confident in someone. I also have objective evidence, but it is not like the absolute proof of personal experience. |
The point would be, you have nothing that could convince anyone else, for or against. If you did, this discussion wouldn't take place. Mystical experiences can not only not be shared, they can never constitute proof to anyone except the person who experiences them. And even he himself really shouldn't take it as proof for a particular religious, doctrinal belief. Or as William James said:
| William James wrote: | | As a matter of psychological fact, mystical states of a well-pronounced and emphatic sort are usually authoritative over those who have them. They have been 'there,' and know. It is vain for rationalism to grumble about this. [... but ...] The fact is that the mystical feeling of enlargement, union, and emancipation has no specific intellectual content whatever of its own. It is capable of forming matrimonial alliances with material furnished by the most diverse philosophies and theologies, provided only they can find a place in their framework for its peculiar emotional mood. |
A mystical experience is very very real to the person having it, it cannot be put into words (or even thoughts), but if you try, you'll mostly describe it in the way that meshes with the beliefs you already had - or at least a belief system you know.
And there's no objective truth to it - countless people have had this kind of experience (more than will admit it). Some find it to confirm Buddhism, some find it to confirm Islam, some find it to confirm Christianity, some find it to confirm the religion of native Americans, some find it to confirm wicca, some (myself included) find it to confirm an all-encompassing purpose and connectedness with every living thing and event throughout history, without any deity (or even spiritual concept) being involved.
Judging by the descriptions from mental patients, some have experienced the exact opposite of a "mystical experience" - a feeling of absolute disconnectedness, hopelessness, meaninglessness, horror, but still very very real. Is it truth? To them it is. Is it objective truth? Not by a longshot. It tells cascades of truth about yourself. About the rest of the world, not so much.
The really cynical people would say that the feeling of realness and truth you get from such an experience is no different from the feeling of actual recall you get when you have a deja vu. The mind is capable of giving you the feeling of memory without any memory being there. It's also capable of giving you the feeling of absolute truth without any truth being there.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Well now I recant. If the clockmaker God is a deist concept, then I’d say that you’re a deist. Wasn’t Voltaire a deist? I know that he disavowed atheism, to the surprise of some since his arguments sound atheistic. But as a practical matter, what is the distinction between deism and atheism? |
Strong atheism: The belief that no god exists.
Weak atheism: The absense of belief in any god.
Deism: The view that reason and knowledge should be the basis for belief in a god. It's rarely (if ever) used along with atheism, because deists do believe in a god. But their belief cannot be based on a revealed god or "faith". This is why a lot of deists (but not all) don't believe in a personal god or a god that still interferes with the world today.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | I object to your definition of agnostic atheism because this creates a definition of unqualified atheism which is exclusively illogical and irrational. |
That's the reason for the term agnostic atheism in the first place. A strong atheist who also positively asserts that there is no god is irrational, yes (but you won't get him to admit it), but he/she exists just as much as the theist who positively asserts that god exists. I'd think, for some people, it isn't enough to believe, they need to know in order to justify their beliefs. And they will then create an approximation of objective truth in their mind. Which is why to a lot of religious people, any other religion - and atheism - is necessarily wrong. And to a lot of atheists, any religion is necessarily wrong. Agnosticism and atheism... They're both vague terms, even slightly more vague than theism. Live with it 
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | However, one can be an extremely convince logical atheist, 99.99% certain, which is contrary to the notion of agnosticism. |
Not really. As long as you admit that you have no way to say "I know no god exists", you're an agnostic.
And your categories need to be revised. 
| Indi wrote: | | Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion) |
That would end up leaving the majority of atheists out of all three categories...
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | I disagree, the fundamentalist atheists has an explicitly illogical thought process. S/he says that absence of evidence is proof of absence. Proof requires positive evidence; absence of evidence is negative evidence, not positive evidence, so it cannot be proof. |
This goes to the heart of the philosophy of science. The "logical atheist" is on a mission doomed to fail. You really should not take the question of God's existence and turn it into a scientific theory or question. The common measure of evaluating the merit of a scientific theory today, taught to (I'd hope) any student in the first year at university, was formulated by Karl Popper. The more things a theory forbids, the better the theory. For a theory to be a good scientific theory, it's not important that you can prove it, it's important that you can prove it wrong. Almost any theory about the physical world can be proven right, if you add enough auxilliary theories.
The question of God's existence as a scientific theory cannot be proven wrong. There is nothing in that theory that allows you to say, "we'll just do this, and then we'll show those suckers there is no God". You can search the entire universe, find nothing, and all you'll get out of it is an auxilliary theory that "God does not exist in the universe".
Scientific discussion of that question is quite simply futile. Which is why I also object to the term "logical atheist". You can never be an atheist by way of logic. You can be an agnostic at most. Being an atheist is a choice, which may be guided by, but certainly not based on, absolute logic or absolute knowledge.
| Indi wrote: | | Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<) |
I see no reason to be depressed Your "lack" has nothing to do with "everything" or "yourself". It only has to do with a specific facet of your beliefs - you don't believe in God, you don't have knowledge of God, and you don't care about the answer to the question of God's existence. Hopefully, with that choice of belief, you find something else to be more important in your life.
Most of the time, I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist, myself.
Interesting thought. I know quite a few people who have a belief in God, and some who even believe in God and Jesus but do not find their place in an organized Church. While I personally wouldn't stray away from my Church, it's an interesting tid bit.
| Kaneda wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Who is we?! I have proof! Unfortunately, mystical experiences cannot be shared in a manner that constitutes proof, unless you are extremely confident in someone. I also have objective evidence, but it is not like the absolute proof of personal experience. |
The point would be, you have nothing that could convince anyone else, for or against.
|
How do you know, I haven't stated it.
| Kaneda wrote: | Mystical experiences can not only not be shared, they can never constitute proof to anyone except the person who experiences them.
|
You are repeating what I already said (in italics and bold).
As to your arguments for not trusting one's own experience, that is illogical, that is all that one can trust ultimately. What is more fundametal than emperical evidence? Nothing.
As to my evidence, it is based on a combination of enthropy, quantum physics, dynamical systems theory, mathemtatics and computer science theory.
(1) Maxfield proved 150 years ago that enthropy is the result of bit transfers at the atomic level.
(2) Quantum computers are based on using mechanisms already operating in the universe. The universe is already a quantum computer.
(3) Associative Memory Theory in mathematics has proven that all matrix operations form a "bidirection associative memory mechanism".
(4) In quantum physics the interaction between all particles in the universe forms a matrix operation via each of the four fundamental forces of the universe.
(5) Dynamical systems theory proves that chaotic systems self-organize.
At the atomic level the universe is a vast neural network. The assertion that this neural network could not have self-organized has no evidence to support it, whereas there is ample evidence to support the assertion that it must have self-organized.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | The reason I don't often bring agnosticism up is because it is kind of a tack-on to other beliefs. I mean, you can be both agnostic and theist, agnostic and deist or agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism - to me - implies that you do not claim certainty in knowing that God exists, and you can do that while believing in God or not believing in God. It's basically tacking the phrase "... but it is impossible to know this to be true" onto anything you beleive (and not just God-concepts). An agnostic theist says "I believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true". An agnostic atheist says "I do not believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true".
|
I object to your definition of agnostic atheism because this creates a definition of unqualified atheism which is exclusively illogical and irrational. This would make atheism equal to fundamentalist atheism and logical atheism would have to be labeled agnostic atheism. However, one can be an extremely convince logical atheist, 99.99% certain, which is contrary to the notion of agnosticism. |
That could only true if you define an atheist as one who says "I believe God does not exist" (call that dogmatic atheism). The truth is that there is a broad range of atheist beliefs, including "I don't believe God exists, but don't rule out the possibility" (call that weak atheism), "I don't care whether or not God exists" (call that apathetic atheism), and more. It is possible to have an unqualified belief that doesn't include God, and is not dogmatic (such as "I don't care", for example).
But the reality is even greyer than that. Agnosticism - to me at least - comes in one of two forms: "it is impossible to know whether or not God exists" (call it strict agnosticism) and "it is possible to know whether or not God exists, but I don't know myself, yet" (call it soft agnosticism).
So you can mix and match definitions to get a whole wash of categories:
1.) Dogmatic atheist/strict agnostic: "I believe God doesn't exist, although I don't think it's possible for anyone to know either way."
2.) Weak atheist/soft agnostic: "I don't personally believe in God, but I would be willing to consider evidence."
3.) Weak atheist/strict agnostic: "I don't personally believe in God, and I don't think it can be proven either way."
4.) Apathetic atheist/strict agnostic: "I don't know or care if God exists, and I don't think it's possible to know for sure."
And so on.
This is why I don't bother with categorization. Categories are nebulous and subjective, and ultimately of little use to anyone.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | (Oh, by the way, I think you should word them differently. I think I get where you're going with the three categories, but even BruceTheDauber himself would argue that he came to his belief by logic and not a priori conviction - that is, logic led to the conviction (which may or may not be true). Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion)
|
What do you mean by shortcomings of logic in this context? The only logic here is the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. |
It seems to be a common belief that logic can "prove" things. That is not the case. Logic can suggest, and it can be strong evidence, but it is hardly proof of anything outside of the theoretical headspace the logic is performed in. You can't prove something exists or does not exist by logic, but you can certainly offer the logical deduction or induction as a strong case for or against. In the end, logic is only as valid as the knowledge and intelligence of the person applying the logic. So unless you are infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely wise (or clever), your logic will always be suspect.
So a "logical atheist" would say something like, "Logic suggests there is no God, but I cannot know if my knowledge is complete or my logical process perfect, so the possibility exists that there may still be a God. I, however, choose to accept the logical conclusion for now."
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | …a fundamental atheist believes there is no God and may offer logic as evidence of this (the non-existence of God is a fact, and while logic agrees with this conclusion, the conclusion is not a product of logic, because the shortcomings of logic do not apply)
|
I disagree, the fundamentalist atheists has an explicitly illogical thought process. S/he says that absence of evidence is proof of absence. Proof requires positive evidence; absence of evidence is negative evidence, not positive evidence, so it cannot be proof. |
The whole process isn't necessarily illogical, and it isn't necessarily based on absence of evidence. They could show - logically - that God is an illogical concept somehow, and thus they don't believe. Bruce's million dollar bill is a perfect example of this. It is not based on absence of evidence, it is based on absence of possibility.
But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is, and thus all other evidence of God is nonsense.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | …and a mystical atheist believes there is no God but there is an illogical component of the universe (just one that's not a god)?
|
An illogical component of the universe? It sounds like you are saying that mystical phenomena are theoretical implausible. Now you are venturing into fundamentalist atheism. |
Mysticism is illogical by definition. If it were logical, it would not be mystical, it would be science. And I am nowhere near any dogmatic claims when I point that out. I am not claiming anything mystical is impossible or even implausible. Just illogical. Just because something is illogical, that doesn mean it doesn't exist. There are a lot of illogical things I deal with all the time. Women, for example.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<) |
Far from being apathetic, it seems to me that you have given this more thought than 99.99% of the population. At this point, I would say that you are a logical atheist.
Now logical atheism can be further broken down into two categories. Ones that care and ones that don’t. Do you really not care, or does it depress you? |
No, I don't really care, and it really doesn't depress me. ^_^ I'm perfectly happy with being "lacking everything guy". Leaves a lot of room for improvement, doesn't it? ^_-
But if not caring is a subset of logical atheism, that covers people that believe that God has not been proven and/or that God is illogical but that don't really care, but what about people who don't believe there is any evidence either way and don't care - that is, people for whom the idea is completely irrelevant?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | BTW, I really love your expressive faces! They are so much more expressive than the icons or the two letter sideways ones and they are very distinctly cute and girlish! |
Girlish?!?! T_T
| Kaneda wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Well now I recant. If the clockmaker God is a deist concept, then I’d say that you’re a deist. Wasn’t Voltaire a deist? I know that he disavowed atheism, to the surprise of some since his arguments sound atheistic. But as a practical matter, what is the distinction between deism and atheism? |
Strong atheism: The belief that no god exists.
Weak atheism: The absense of belief in any god.
Deism: The view that reason and knowledge should be the basis for belief in a god. It's rarely (if ever) used along with atheism, because deists do believe in a god. But their belief cannot be based on a revealed god or "faith". This is why a lot of deists (but not all) don't believe in a personal god or a god that still interferes with the world today. |
Hey, that wasn't me. ^_^
| Kaneda wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion) |
That would end up leaving the majority of atheists out of all three categories... |
I suppose... bah, this is why I don't categorize. >_< The only people who benefit from categorization are census takers anyway.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<) |
I see no reason to be depressed Your "lack" has nothing to do with "everything" or "yourself". It only has to do with a specific facet of your beliefs - you don't believe in God, you don't have knowledge of God, and you don't care about the answer to the question of God's existence. Hopefully, with that choice of belief, you find something else to be more important in your life.
Most of the time, I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist, myself. |
Heh, thank you. ^_^
| Kaneda wrote: | Not really. As long as you admit that you have no way to say "I know no god exists", you're an agnostic.
|
This unavoidably implies that all expressions of atheism ar fundamentally illogical, which I think is a bad definition. When I didn't believe in God I did not call myself an agnostic. Agnosticism is wishy washy.
| Indi wrote: | But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...
|
Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | …and a mystical atheist believes there is no God but there is an illogical component of the universe (just one that's not a god)?
|
An illogical component of the universe? It sounds like you are saying that mystical phenomena are theoretical implausible. Now you are venturing into fundamentalist atheism. |
Mysticism is illogical by definition. If it were logical, it would not be mystical, it would be science. And I am nowhere near any dogmatic claims when I point that out. I am not claiming anything mystical is impossible or even implausible. Just illogical. Just because something is illogical, that doesn mean it doesn't exist. There are a lot of illogical things I deal with all the time. Women, for example.
|
The fact that someone is illogical hardly makes the assertion that they exist and illogical assertion.
Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science.
I just hit a brick wall because I was up till dawn in a contentious debate with a Theravadan Buddhist on the Buddhist thread over whether or not the Buddha was an atheist, which he wasn’t. I’ll have to reply to the rest of your post after I get some more sleep. Talk too you soon!
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | BTW, I really love your expressive faces! They are so much more expressive than the icons or the two letter sideways ones and they are very distinctly cute and girlish! |
Girlish?!?! T_T
|
Oops! The thin neck of your avatar gave me the impression of a female. I shall immediately go to the doctor in order to have my foot surgically removed from my mouth!
| Kaneda wrote: | I see no reason to be depressed Your "lack" has nothing to do with "everything" or "yourself". It only has to do with a specific facet of your beliefs - you don't believe in God, you don't have knowledge of God, and you don't care about the answer to the question of God's existence. Hopefully, with that choice of belief, you find something else to be more important in your life.
|
It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Kaneda wrote: | The point would be, you have nothing that could convince anyone else, for or against.
|
How do you know, I haven't stated it. |
The "anyone" was obviously a typo (or rather, a wrong translation of a non-English thought). You couldn't convince everyone else, or even a large majority, because if you could, this discussion wouldn't be taking place
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | You are repeating what I already said (in italics and bold). |
Yes, in order to make the modification, that even if you could share your mystical experience, it would have no more objective truth value than now.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | As to your arguments for not trusting one's own experience, that is illogical, that is all that one can trust ultimately. What is more fundametal than emperical evidence? Nothing. |
Of course you can trust your own experience. But there's a difference between trusting that experience, and taking it as proof of something entirely else.
Example... You travel to the city of Prague for the first time in your life, you exit a metro, walk out into the light, and see the Old Town square for the first time. You take it all in, the people, the clock tower, the century-old buildings. Then you remember, you've been there before. Not only that, but everything sounds, smells, looks and feels the same. You have the same taste in your mouth, heck, you just had the exact same thought about the girl walking by as you did last time you were there. Except you're still absolutely certain you could never have been there, ever. In short, deja vu.
Now, there's absolutely no doubt that you remember being there before. That's a fact. But that still doesn't mean you actually were there before. Now, what's illogical? Thinking that somehow you were in Prague before, the same time of day, the same girl walking by, making you think the same thing - and someone somehow erased those memories until you, by chance, experienced that exact thing again? Or thinking your mind just gave you the feeling of remembering, without you actually remembering anything?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | As to my evidence, it is based on a combination of enthropy, quantum physics, dynamical systems theory, mathemtatics and computer science theory. |
Late at night, and I see jumps in logic (from universe as quantum computer -> universe as neural network, for example), so either I'm missing something, or this evidence needs to be expanded on. For now, I'll pass. Maybe in another thread? Because it sounds interesting, although it also seems to (for me) underline the feeling that the answer is irrelevant.
| Indi wrote: | | Hey, that wasn't me. ^_^ |
Fixed. Sorry, gets harder to keep things tidy, when quoting several people in one post
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | This unavoidably implies that all expressions of atheism ar fundamentally illogical, which I think is a bad definition. When I didn't believe in God I did not call myself an agnostic. Agnosticism is wishy washy. |
Don't see what you mean. Nowhere does it imply that all atheists are illogical. The only "illogical" atheists (to use your word) are the ones who aren't agnostic atheists. Where does this insisting on not wanting certain people to be "illogical" come from?  If you're agnostic, you don't claim knowledge on the existence of god for one of several reasons. If you're not agnostic, you do claim knowledge. Both apply whether you're theist or atheist. It's as simple as that. "A-gnostic" = "without knowledge".
| Kaneda wrote: | Some do neither, believing:
- it's unknown at the present time.
- it's unknowable.
- it's irrelevant.
- any combination of the above. |
That's what constitutes an agnostic atheist, whether you like the definition or not
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness. |
That's a matter of debate. No, actually it's not Opinion, rather. Or viewpoint. I'm not depressed about it (that ended a loooong time ago, when I was around 15-16). I don't see Indi being so either. And Indi was the one I was replying to.
| Kaneda wrote: | Of course you can trust your own experience. But there's a difference between trusting that experience, and taking it as proof of something entirely else.
[..deja vu are invalid argument..]
|
You are assuming, among other things, that reincarnation is invalid. I have partial recall of some of my previous incarnations, so it is not possible for me to find this argument convincing. But then, all of my déjà vu experiences have been with regards to individual recognition and not place recognition.
However, I do remember seeing a network documentary about a large group of people who spontaneously remembered having been slaves together in the previous century (ironically they were all white people). Together they were able to piece together an incredibly detailed description of a tiny rural southern town on the other side of the country. Not only were researchers able to verify the historical account in tremendous detail, but an excavation in a completely unmarked location which they were able to specify by triangulated distances from land markers, proved to contain exactly what they claimed. An extremely well hidden, long berried hideout on the Underground Railroad. It was exactly as they had described, painted entirely green on the inside.
| Kaneda wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | As to my evidence, it is based on a combination of entropy, quantum physics, dynamical systems theory, mathematics and computer science theory. |
Late at night, and I see jumps in logic (from universe as quantum computer -> universe as neural network, for example), so either I'm missing something, or this evidence needs to be expanded on. For now, I'll pass. Maybe in another thread? Because it sounds interesting, although it also seems to (for me) underline the feeling that the answer is irrelevant.
|
Having a degree in mathematics I wrongly assumed that anyone would know that a Bidirectional Associative Memory mechanism is a neural network. Particle interactions are explicitly matrix operations which are explicitly BAMs which are explicitly neural networks.
| Kaneda wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | This unavoidably implies that all expressions of atheism ar fundamentally illogical…
|
Don't see what you mean.
|
It’s all just labels anyway, it doesn’t really matter.
| Kaneda wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness. |
That's a matter of debate. No, actually it's not Opinion, rather. Or viewpoint. I'm not depressed about it (that ended a loooong time ago, when I was around 15-16). I don't see Indi being so either. And Indi was the one I was replying to.
|
Well, you were replying to his reply to me. My depression was not a matter of opinion, I was deeply depressed when I was an atheist from the ages of 12 to 21.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | You are assuming, among other things, that reincarnation is invalid. |
Nope, you're assuming that I am. Most feelings of deja vu, including the one I describe, have nothing to do with reincarnation whatsoever. Being in a place in a previous life would not give the feeling of the exact same situation - including every sense stimuli, the people walking by, your thoughts etc. If you lived in or visited Prague 30 years ago, that place looked entirely different. If reincarnation has anything to do with this kind of phenomenon, it's deja visité (which you describe in the case of the Millboro study) - knowing particular features of a place without having been there before - not the same as deja vu.
Noone here is assuming anything about the validity of reincarnation (I find it more likely than god's existence). But if you feel the need to place the kind of deja vu that 70% of the world's population has experienced at some point, as a result of reincarnation, then you'll need to add several auxilliary theories and assumptions, in order to void the "exact same situation" part of it - and that way, as mentioned before, any theory can be proven.
| Quote: | | Well, you were replying to his reply to me. My depression was not a matter of opinion, I was deeply depressed when I was an atheist from the ages of 12 to 21. |
Which shows that different people need different things in their life. Never said your depression was a matter of opinion, but you seemed to be indicating that it's a rule to be depressed about death as termination (which an atheist doesn't even have to believe in). But I think a logical athest, to go back to your terms, if his logic spreads to all aspects of his existence, is likely to get severely depressed, yes.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...
|
Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical. |
Perhaps, but expecting perfect reasoning from an imperfect mind is also illogical. In order for logic to be guaranteed to work, all information relevant to the logical problem must be known (and how can you be sure you got all of them?), all premises must be correct (usually not difficult, yet probably the most common cause of flawed logic), and the structure of the argument must be sound (normally the easiest thing to do). Some flawed logical arguments can go for centuries without being spotted and called out. To assert with certainty that any given logical argument is definitely correct is to claim omniscience. Therefore, you can never be sure your logic isn't flawed.
*shrug* Thus goes the real world, where there is no black or white, just shades of grey.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Just because something is illogical, that doesn mean it doesn't exist. There are a lot of illogical things I deal with all the time. Women, for example.
|
The fact that someone is illogical hardly makes the assertion that they exist and illogical assertion. |
Er... yeah. That was a joke? >_<
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science. |
Not arbitrary in the least - science has very clear requirements for what falls under its umbrella. One such requirement is that there must be a general concensus for any observations made (called intersubjectivity or something of the sort). Unless there is observer-independent agreement regarding observations of your mystical experiences, they are not science. Another such requirement, for theories this time instead of observations, is that they must be falsifiable. Unless it is possible to produce negative results by testing your mystical beliefs or interpretations, they are not science.
Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion. There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Oops! The thin neck of your avatar gave me the impression of a female. I shall immediately go to the doctor in order to have my foot surgically removed from my mouth! |
Heh ^_^ I have no idea who or what that avatar is. It might be a girl. ^_^ I just love the expression, and it's animated and still fits within the size limits.
If anyone can offer me any info on who or what that is, I'd be happy to know. ^_^
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness. |
*shrug* Eh, you could look at it that way, or you could look at it this way, courtesy of the Judaistic religions:
You are a prisoner right now. When you die, you will go to Heaven, a place of endless joy and happiness (assuming you're doing what you're supposed to be doing to please God), but for now, you're stuck here. Suffering. Putting up with all the day to day shit you have to put up with. Just sitting around waiting for the day you die so the good times can begin. You can't kill yourself to get there quicker! Because that's a sin (unless you die a martyr, of course). You have to sit, and wait, and put up with the suffering, the misery, the ignorance, the crap, etc. etc. Just waiting until you die. Every day is another long slog of restraining yourself and behaving within the requirements set out - struggling not to sin or let your worse nature take over. Day after day. After day. Until finally you die - not when you want to, when God decides you have suffered enough - and there is release.
Personally, I think that's pretty damned depressing. ^_^
But it all comes down to perspective. I don't imagine Jews, Christians and Muslims sit around all day thinking like that. And I certainly don't sit around all day thinking, "Wow, when I die, there's nothing! O_O It's all meaningless and empty!"
I mean, hell, if there really is nothing at all - a complete cessation of consciousness - it won't really matter to me then, will it? I certainly won't be dwelling on it while I'm completely non-existent. And if there is something else after death? Bring it on. May it suck a little less than this emanation. ^_^
I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release. Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway. Dwelling on tomorrow is illogical anyway, so why would a logical atheist let tomorrow depress them severely, whatever tomorrow may contain, be it good times, hard times or oblivion?
| Kaneda wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | You are assuming, among other things, that reincarnation is invalid. |
Nope, you're assuming that I am. Most feelings of deja vu, including the one I describe, have nothing to do with reincarnation whatsoever. Being in a place in a previous life would not give the feeling of the exact same situation - including every sense stimuli, the people walking by, your thoughts etc. If you lived in or visited Prague 30 years ago, that place looked entirely different. If reincarnation has anything to do with this kind of phenomenon, it's deja visité (which you describe in the case of the Millboro study) - knowing particular features of a place without having been there before - not the same as deja vu.
Noone here is assuming anything about the validity of reincarnation (I find it more likely than god's existence). But if you feel the need to place the kind of deja vu that 70% of the world's population has experienced at some point, as a result of reincarnation, then you'll need to add several auxilliary theories and assumptions, in order to void the "exact same situation" part of it - and that way, as mentioned before, any theory can be proven.
|
70%?! The reason that I had such a hard time grappling with this is because I've never considered it before, which wouldn't be the case if I had encountered it with any frequency. I’ve encountered something like it, but this isn’t deja vu:
When I was a child there was a friend of the family’s who was visiting. He was diddling on the piano, playing odd sequences of chords that sounded like the foreboding music of a horror movie and I said that it sounded creepy. He abruptly stopped and said with a quizzical look on his face, “You know, I had a dream that was just exactly like this.” So I replied, “Where I was setting over here working on this puzzle?” His eyes popped out wide as silver dollars and he pointed at me saying, “And that’s exactly what you said next in the dream!!!” It freaked him out so much that it seemed to take a few minutes for him to recover.
I have this kind of experience quite commonly, dreaming about events that come to pass on a regular basis. But I wouldn’t really call that déjà vu. For example, a week before 9/11 I had a dream about seeing one of the Twin Towers laying on it’s side. Not being from NY, I didn’t recognize the criss-crossed lines of the superstructure that superimpose the grid of the windows. Also, it seemed to be made of B&W TV screens, all the surfaces were radiant, but not in color. I was being dragged up and down the length of the structure repeatedly, and there was a certain cut-off point, above that cut-off point I was in agony, terrified and sickened with a sense of mass death, every further inch seemingly like an extra mile between life and certain death. As I was being dragged down the structure and I would pass the cut-off point I would suddenly feel a tremendous sense of relief, panting and out of breath as if I had just barely survived.
I woke up six times, soaked in sweat and aching with exhaustion. I would shake my head and think, what is this stupid dream, what could this long squat building with such an odd roof (I didn’t know it was sideways) have to do with mass death? After feeling like the mood was shaken I would immediately fall back asleep (usually it takes me a long time to fall asleep), and go RIGHT back into the same dream. That has never happened to me before where I woke up from a dream and then fell asleep right back into the same dream, much less six times in a row.
A month prior I had a dream about sitting in a demolished car with Conan O’Brian in which he was so despondent and depressed that he was almost catatonic. I was vigorously trying to cheer him up, I had gone through a spell of whatching him every night in the month or two before, and so I was telling him about my favorite gags and bits of his. Each time I would think of a new bit I would slap him on the shoulder vigorously in an extremely animated fashion that would have been obnoxious in most contexts, but it was like I was slapping life into him. At the end of the dream he finally moved, slowly lifting his head. He still looked obliterated, but the fact that he was moving seemed like a tremendous improvement.
When he first came on the air after 9/11, he gave a 20 minute speech about how he just didn’t think this was going to work, it was too early. His voice was drained and emotionless, he didn’t sound like he was going to make it at all. I was aching for him, as I’m sure were most of his viewers. But when the first guest finally came on it was a woman that I really like from “This American Life” on NPR. She was able to tell her own story in a manner that was both very tasteful and yet hilarious, about her overwhelming helplessness as a comedian living in NY, who could do absolutely nothing to help, comedians were a useless commodity in the first few days. It spoke extremely precisely to Conan’s own dilemma in a manner that made him laugh at himself and in no time flat his voice had inflection again, he had suddenly snapped out of it. By the middle of the week he was doing his comedy routines with a manic intensity. If not for his first guest I could easily have seen him having an emotional breakdown and going off the air.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | Well, you were replying to his reply to me. My depression was not a matter of opinion, I was deeply depressed when I was an atheist from the ages of 12 to 21. |
Which shows that different people need different things in their life. Never said your depression was a matter of opinion, but you seemed to be indicating that it's a rule to be depressed about death as termination (which an atheist doesn't even have to believe in).
|
No, I said that there were two kinds of logical atheists, ones that care and ones that don't. Atheists who d0n't believe life terminates would be a mystical atheists in my terms, not a logical atheist.
| Kaneda wrote: | | But I think a logical athest, to go back to your terms, if his logic spreads to all aspects of his existence, is likely to get severely depressed, yes. |
Actually, I've never encountered a logical atheist that wasn't depressed about it, but I didn't want to state that as a universal certainty or requirement.
| Indi wrote: | | I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release. Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway. Dwelling on tomorrow is illogical anyway, so why would a logical atheist let tomorrow depress them severely, whatever tomorrow may contain, be it good times, hard times or oblivion? |
Disagree? Then I worded something wrong. But no matter. You wrote what I wanted to write, if I could write
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...
|
Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical. |
Perhaps, but expecting perfect reasoning from an imperfect mind is also illogical.
|
Logic exists independent of any mind. A train of logic is either accurate or flawed, regardless of the mind that is constructing or evaluating that train of logic.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science. |
Not arbitrary in the least - science has very clear requirements for what falls under its umbrella.
|
All of which can be applied to mysticism. The scientific method in it’s most fundamental form is nothing more than a BS detector. If what you are saying is true then it is impossible to discern truth from falsehood in this category of experience. That is just a cover for the a priori assumption that a category of experience is automatically invalid, which is in fact the very antithesis of the scientific method. A priori assumptions are a classic violation of the scientific method.
| Indi wrote: | One such requirement is that there must be a general concensus for any observations made (called intersubjectivity or something of the sort). Unless there is observer-independent agreement regarding observations of your mystical experiences, they are not science.
|
It is called replication – experiments have to be reproducible. Replication in mysticism is the reason that there are broad categories of unanimously agreed upon facts between disparate mystical traditions that have had no historical contact. Spiritual attainment is like having a multi-million dollar lab. What you are assuming is like assuming that because none of your friends have a multi-million dollar lab that no observations made in a multi-million dollar lab are replicatible. This is hubris, not science.
While having replication is great, there are broad categories of science for which it is an inapplicable criterion at certain stages in the field’s development such as early naturalism, or throughout the entirety of it’s development such as astrophysics. You are misapplying various aspects of the scientific method, acting as though they were a universal when they are not even universal in many standard scientific endeavors.
| Indi wrote: | Another such requirement, for theories this time instead of observations, is that they must be falsifiable. Unless it is possible to produce negative results by testing your mystical beliefs or interpretations, they are not science.
|
Your assumption that theoretical interpretations of mystical experiences are not theories that make predictions which are testable is a false assumption. You could just as easily apply this same kind of false reasoning to every day experience and say that the scientific method can’t be applied to every day experiences, which is of course utterly false.
The single most readily testable predictive mystical theory is astrology. There are a number of such experiments which have been conducted and produced statistically significant correlations which have been replicated. The problem is that most scientific studies of astrology have been flawed in the extreme. See my last post in the “Astrology vs. Christianity?” thread for a more in depth analysis of how a proper scientific test of astrological predictions should be conducted and a comparison of the testing criteria of studies that did and did not find statistical correlations.
| Indi wrote: | Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.
|
This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science. The reality is that time and time again a new scientific discovery required the death of an entire generation of scientists before it was embraced. For example, geologists unanimously agree that the Sphinx must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Yet Egyptologists unanimously reject this in favor of a 5,000 year old date, based on utterly flawed and vacuous reasoning that is just dogma.
| Indi wrote: | There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)
|
One of these is skepticism that is nothing more than automatic rejection of the unfamiliar. These kinds of skeptics like to think that their a priori assumptions are scientific, when of course all a priori assumptions are the very antithesis of science.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness. |
*shrug* Eh, you could look at it that way, or you could look at it this way, courtesy of the Judaistic religions:
|
Which is precisely why I’m not a Christian. Even when I was 12 and I was weighing the two prospects in my mind, no Judeo-Christian perspective was in the vying for the theistic argument. You don’t seem to be familiar with any of the much more mature non-Judeo-Christian takes on the purpose and meaning too life.
| Indi wrote: | But it all comes down to perspective. I don't imagine Jews, Christians and Muslims sit around all day thinking like that. And I certainly don't sit around all day thinking, "Wow, when I die, there's nothing! O_O It's all meaningless and empty!"
|
That is because they aren’t atheists. I don’t get your point here. That is exclusively an atheist’s dilemma.
| Indi wrote: | I mean, hell, if there really is nothing at all - a complete cessation of consciousness - it won't really matter to me then, will it? I certainly won't be dwelling on it while I'm completely non-existent. And if there is something else after death? Bring it on. May it suck a little less than this emanation. ^_^
|
You sound very fatalistic, which is another manifestation of what Kaneda and I are talking about.
| Indi wrote: | I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release.
|
You really have to have given it no thought at all to feel this way.
| Indi wrote: | Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway.
|
Exactly.
| Indi wrote: | | Dwelling on tomorrow is illogical anyway, so why would a logical atheist let tomorrow depress them severely, whatever tomorrow may contain, be it good times, hard times or oblivion? |
Even the most uneducated street people and thugs have a saying about this – “Smile now, cry later.” There are some very good reasons for thinking about tomorrow, but they are too obvious to be worth discussing.
There are some very serious comprehension problems going on here. I don't think you're comprehending half of what I'm writing, because you're answering questions that aren't there, disputing things that weren't said and making strangely random statements that have no real relationship to what I said - especially towards the end.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...
|
Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical. |
Perhaps, but expecting perfect reasoning from an imperfect mind is also illogical.
|
Logic exists independent of any mind. A train of logic is either accurate or flawed, regardless of the mind that is constructing or evaluating that train of logic. |
We're going in circles here. -_- The next thing I will say would be "how do you know that any train of logic is flawed or not, unless you have perfect knowledge? Your mind is limited, so you cannot be sure that your logic - or any logic - is perfect. Therefore, you can never be sure that a logical conclusion is correct."
But let's try to break the circle by gettings some clear positions out there. I say that assuming that any conclusion based on a logical thought process is guaranteed to be true is a mistake, because you can never be sure that your logic is not flawed.
So, why don't you answer these questions to solidify your position:
- Does a logical argument depend on all relevant premises to be considered and correct?
- If a premise is wrong, is the logic flawed?
- If a premise is missing, is the logic flawed?
- Is it possible to be sure that you are not missing any premises, or that the premises are all correct?
- Is it possible to be sure that your logic is not flawed?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science. |
Not arbitrary in the least - science has very clear requirements for what falls under its umbrella.
|
All of which can be applied to mysticism. The scientific method in it’s most fundamental form is nothing more than a BS detector. If what you are saying is true then it is impossible to discern truth from falsehood in this category of experience. That is just a cover for the a priori assumption that a category of experience is automatically invalid, which is in fact the very antithesis of the scientific method. A priori assumptions are a classic violation of the scientific method. |
I have no idea what half of what you just wrote is supposed to mean. What do you think I was saying that implies it is impossible to discern truth from falsehood? All I said was that science has clear requirements for what can be called science and/or scientific. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. What does that have to do with truth and/or the possibility of detecting it? What are you answering or debating anyway?
Anyway, you've made that claim before that you're not supposed to have a priori assumptions when running an experiment. So now I say prove it. Design an experiment to measure, say, the volume of an irregular lump of rock accurately. Without using any a priori assumptions. I say it's not possible, so here's your chance to prove me wrong.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | One such requirement is that there must be a general concensus for any observations made (called intersubjectivity or something of the sort). Unless there is observer-independent agreement regarding observations of your mystical experiences, they are not science.
|
It is called replication – experiments have to be reproducible. Replication in mysticism is the reason that there are broad categories of unanimously agreed upon facts between disparate mystical traditions that have had no historical contact. Spiritual attainment is like having a multi-million dollar lab. What you are assuming is like assuming that because none of your friends have a multi-million dollar lab that no observations made in a multi-million dollar lab are replicatible. This is hubris, not science.
While having replication is great, there are broad categories of science for which it is an inapplicable criterion at certain stages in the field’s development such as early naturalism, or throughout the entirety of it’s development such as astrophysics. You are misapplying various aspects of the scientific method, acting as though they were a universal when they are not even universal in many standard scientific endeavors. |
Er... what?
First, no, what I was talking about is not called "replication", it's called intersubjectivity, or observer-independence if you prefer. Repeatability is something else entirely.
Second, no, repeatability is not really a fundamental requirement of science.
Third, I have no idea what you think I was assuming, or what any of what you said means. None of it makes any sense in the context I was talking about, so you're going to have to explain whatever context you were working in for me to get it.
Fourth, as I said, repeatability is not a fundamental requirement of science, so your whole second paragraph there means nothing.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Another such requirement, for theories this time instead of observations, is that they must be falsifiable. Unless it is possible to produce negative results by testing your mystical beliefs or interpretations, they are not science.
|
Your assumption that theoretical interpretations of mystical experiences are not theories that make predictions which are testable is a false assumption. You could just as easily apply this same kind of false reasoning to every day experience and say that the scientific method can’t be applied to every day experiences, which is of course utterly false. |
I didn't say that they didn't make testable predictions. I said the theory must be falsifiable. There is a big difference.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.
|
This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science. The reality is that time and time again a new scientific discovery required the death of an entire generation of scientists before it was embraced. For example, geologists unanimously agree that the Sphinx must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Yet Egyptologists unanimously reject this in favor of a 5,000 year old date, based on utterly flawed and vacuous reasoning that is just dogma. |
I have no idea how you made that leap, or what relevance anything you said after has. Science is clearly defined therefore it's a religion? That's nonsense. So, since the requirements to be a lifeguard are clear and rigid, and there's very little wiggle room in meeting the standards, lifeguarding is a religion?
How on earth does the rigidity with which science defines what is and what is not science and/or scientific make it a religion?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)
|
One of these is skepticism that is nothing more than automatic rejection of the unfamiliar. These kinds of skeptics like to think that their a priori assumptions are scientific, when of course all a priori assumptions are the very antithesis of science. |
*blink* Who called skepticism science? Where the hell did that come from anyway? What does it have to do with anything?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness. |
*shrug* Eh, you could look at it that way, or you could look at it this way, courtesy of the Judaistic religions:
|
Which is precisely why I’m not a Christian. Even when I was 12 and I was weighing the two prospects in my mind, no Judeo-Christian perspective was in the vying for the theistic argument. You don’t seem to be familiar with any of the much more mature non-Judeo-Christian takes on the purpose and meaning too life. |
You didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say I looked at it that way, or that that was the only way to look at it from a Judaistic point of view.
More to the point, I would have thought it should be pretty clear that I was being sarcastic. You don't understand humour, do you?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | But it all comes down to perspective. I don't imagine Jews, Christians and Muslims sit around all day thinking like that. And I certainly don't sit around all day thinking, "Wow, when I die, there's nothing! O_O It's all meaningless and empty!"
|
That is because they aren’t atheists. I don’t get your point here. That is exclusively an atheist’s dilemma. |
That's because who aren't atheists? You lost me again. Who or what are you talking about?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | I mean, hell, if there really is nothing at all - a complete cessation of consciousness - it won't really matter to me then, will it? I certainly won't be dwelling on it while I'm completely non-existent. And if there is something else after death? Bring it on. May it suck a little less than this emanation. ^_^
|
You sound very fatalistic, which is another manifestation of what Kaneda and I are talking about. |
You really don't understand humour, do you? There's a smilie face in there and all. What do I have to do, put <joke></joke> delimiters around every silly statement I make? (Note: the previous two sentences are sarcastic. They are not meant to be taken seriously.)
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release.
|
You really have to have given it no thought at all to feel this way. |
Feel what way? Are you saying that the only way anyone can possibly feel about no life after death is to be depressed?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway.
|
Exactly. |
Wha???
First you tell me I'm fatalistic for joking about exactly that - not worrying about it. Then you tell me I haven't given any thought because I don't think it's depressing. Then you turn around and say I have it exactly right when I say they can just not worry about it?
You're not making any coherent sense.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Dwelling on tomorrow is illogical anyway, so why would a logical atheist let tomorrow depress them severely, whatever tomorrow may contain, be it good times, hard times or oblivion? |
Even the most uneducated street people and thugs have a saying about this – “Smile now, cry later.” There are some very good reasons for thinking about tomorrow, but they are too obvious to be worth discussing. |
I didn't say thinking about tomorrow is illogical. I said dwelling on it is.
| Indi wrote: | There are some very serious comprehension problems going on here.
|
And a bit of hypocrisy! But then, in my opinion very few scientists have any real understanding of the philosophy of science in a more general context outside of their own narrow field, which is why interdisciplinary studies so often end up with the kind of crash and burn crossing of wires that is taking place here.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...
|
Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical. |
Perhaps, but expecting perfect reasoning from an imperfect mind is also illogical.
|
Logic exists independent of any mind. A train of logic is either accurate or flawed, regardless of the mind that is constructing or evaluating that train of logic. |
We're going in circles here. -_- The next thing I will say would be "how do you know that any train of logic is flawed or not, unless you have perfect knowledge? Your mind is limited, so you cannot be sure that your logic - or any logic - is perfect. Therefore, you can never be sure that a logical conclusion is correct."
|
You have changed the context in two ways, the original context is about the logical process, not the conclusion, and the original assertion is about proving that a chain of logic is flawed, not proving that it is accurate. In the proper context your assertion here would be that it is impossible to prove that any train of logic is flawed.
My assertion is that the fundamentalist atheist’s chain of logic is always flawed. Clearly I said nothing about their conclusion, since logical atheists come to the same conclusion in a logical manner.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science. |
Not arbitrary in the least - science has very clear requirements for what falls under its umbrella.
|
All of which can be applied to mysticism. The scientific method in it’s most fundamental form is nothing more than a BS detector. If what you are saying is true then it is impossible to discern truth from falsehood in this category of experience. That is just a cover for the a priori assumption that a category of experience is automatically invalid, which is in fact the very antithesis of the scientific method. A priori assumptions are a classic violation of the scientific method. |
I have no idea what half of what you just wrote is supposed to mean. What do you think I was saying that implies it is impossible to discern truth from falsehood?
|
No, you stated that mystical conclusions are always illogical, i.e. false.
| Indi wrote: | All I said was that science has clear requirements for what can be called science and/or scientific. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
No, you asserted that coming to any positive conclusion about mystical experiences and mystical phenomenon is automatically flawed logic that is inherently unscientific.
| Indi wrote: | What does that have to do with truth and/or the possibility of detecting it? What are you answering or debating anyway?
|
Well, you are correct in that I incorrectly applied your reasoning in this one regard. Your statements do not imply that it is impossible to know if mystical experiences are true/false, your statements unavoidably implies that any conclusions that accept the validity of mystical experiences are automatically false.
| Indi wrote: | Anyway, you've made that claim before that you're not supposed to have a priori assumptions when running an experiment. So now I say prove it. Design an experiment to measure, say, the volume of an irregular lump of rock accurately. Without using any a priori assumptions. I say it's not possible, so here's your chance to prove me wrong.
|
You have twisted this tenant of the scientific method out of context (and it is a tenant of the scientific method, not simply my own statement). Why do you suppose that science places such an emphasis on double blind tests? Because a priori assumptions are a killer, they notoriously taint research results.
Your next error is applying an exclusively double blind definition of a priori assumptions, when in fact there are a range of tolerances for their exclusion, the double blind criterion being the most extreme and absolute. Obviously double blind tests can’t be applied to every situation in scientific testing.
Since the word a priori has short circuited your brain, I shift to another term – bias. When scientists are heavily biased it taints their research results. When scientists conduct an experiment in which they are absolutely convinced of what the results will be, their research results are seldom objective and free from errors in methodology. This is a very well known fact in science.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | One such requirement is that there must be a general concensus for any observations made (called intersubjectivity or something of the sort). Unless there is observer-independent agreement regarding observations of your mystical experiences, they are not science.
|
It is called replication – experiments have to be reproducible. Replication in mysticism is the reason that there are broad categories of unanimously agreed upon facts between disparate mystical traditions that have had no historical contact. Spiritual attainment is like having a multi-million dollar lab. What you are assuming is like assuming that because none of your friends have a multi-million dollar lab that no observations made in a multi-million dollar lab are replicatible. This is hubris, not science.
While having replication is great, there are broad categories of science for which it is an inapplicable criterion at certain stages in the field’s development such as early naturalism, or throughout the entirety of it’s development such as astrophysics. You are misapplying various aspects of the scientific method, acting as though they were a universal when they are not even universal in many standard scientific endeavors. |
Er... what?
First, no, what I was talking about is not called "replication", it's called intersubjectivity, or observer-independence if you prefer. Repeatability is something else entirely.
Second, no, repeatability is not really a fundamental requirement of science.
Third, I have no idea what you think I was assuming, or what any of what you said means. None of it makes any sense in the context I was talking about, so you're going to have to explain whatever context you were working in for me to get it.
Fourth, as I said, repeatability is not a fundamental requirement of science, so your whole second paragraph there means nothing.
|
Well, intersubjectivity is not a word in the English language, and to be science it needs to be objective, not subjective. But using your term as you have defined, as a practical matter what other form of intersubjectivity is there in science other than replication?
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Another such requirement, for theories this time instead of observations, is that they must be falsifiable. Unless it is possible to produce negative results by testing your mystical beliefs or interpretations, they are not science.
|
Your assumption that theoretical interpretations of mystical experiences are not theories that make predictions which are testable is a false assumption. You could just as easily apply this same kind of false reasoning to every day experience and say that the scientific method can’t be applied to every day experiences, which is of course utterly false. |
I didn't say that they didn't make testable predictions. I said the theory must be falsifiable. There is a big difference.
|
No, there is no difference what-so-ever. If a theory makes testable predictions then it is falsifiable. The only way for a theory to be unfalsifiable is if it does not make testable predictions.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.
|
This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science. The reality is that time and time again a new scientific discovery required the death of an entire generation of scientists before it was embraced. For example, geologists unanimously agree that the Sphinx must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Yet Egyptologists unanimously reject this in favor of a 5,000 year old date, based on utterly flawed and vacuous reasoning that is just dogma. |
I have no idea how you made that leap, or what relevance anything you said after has.
|
Do I have to hold your hand through this simple train of logic? Good grief. Egyptologists are priests of their own religious dogma posing as scientists.
| Indi wrote: | Science is clearly defined therefore it's a religion? That's nonsense.
|
And not even remotely what I said.
| Indi wrote: | So, since the requirements to be a lifeguard are clear and rigid, and there's very little wiggle room in meeting the standards, lifeguarding is a religion?
|
Science is not nearly as rigid as you contend, or at least, not in the manner that you pose. You misunderstand the general philosophy of the scientific method, applying it as it is applied to a narrow field of science, a practice which is notoriously inflexible and inadaptable to other scientific fields.
| Indi wrote: | How on earth does the rigidity with which science defines what is and what is not science and/or scientific make it a religion?
|
Science is not a religion, you have turned it into one by applying flawed and rigid criteria that are anathema to science. Technicians of narrow fields can get away with this because they are held in a playpen where they can’t fall out and hurt themselves. True scientists do not apply such inadaptable and flawed expression of the scientific method, and so they are capable of drawing valid interdisciplinary conclusions.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)
|
One of these is skepticism that is nothing more than automatic rejection of the unfamiliar. These kinds of skeptics like to think that their a priori assumptions are scientific, when of course all a priori assumptions are the very antithesis of science. |
*blink* Who called skepticism science? Where the hell did that come from anyway? What does it have to do with anything?
|
You called your skepticism scientific by asserting that science asserts knee-jerk rejection of mystical phenomena. This is not science, it is a form of religious faith.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release.
|
You really have to have given it no thought at all to feel this way. |
Feel what way? Are you saying that the only way anyone can possibly feel about no life after death is to be depressed?
|
No, I’m saying that one is either depressed about annihilation, or they haven’t given it much thought.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway.
|
Exactly. |
Wha???
|
I was asserting that this one statement is autobiographical.
| Indi wrote: | First you tell me I'm fatalistic for joking about exactly that - not worrying about it.
|
I apologize for not getting your dry British sense of humor.
| Indi wrote: | Then you turn around and say I have it exactly right when I say they can just not worry about it?
|
There is nothing right or wrong about it, it is just you.
| Indi wrote: | You're not making any coherent sense.
|
You are easily confused. You haven’t given any of these issues much thought.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | And a bit of hypocrisy! But then, in my opinion very few scientists have any real understanding of the philosophy of science in a more general context outside of their own narrow field |
Clearly they don't, since there are more wrong statements about science than actual discussion here...
| Quote: | | My assertion is that the fundamentalist atheist’s chain of logic is always flawed. Clearly I said nothing about their conclusion, since logical atheists come to the same conclusion in a logical manner. |
Showing the exact problem with logic (I'm no longer sure if that's what you want to say or not). A conclusion is never logical in itself, only the process to get there is. Which is why a scientist may reach the same conclusion as a mystic, and why that doesn't make the mystic's process to get there logical - or science.
| Quote: | | No, you stated that mystical conclusions are always illogical, i.e. false. |
illogical does not = false (see above). If Peter says his refrigerator told him in a dream that Mary has 15 coins in her pocket, and Mary actually does, Peter's prediction is true. Doesn't make it logical. If Peter says he saw Mary put 15 coins into her empty pocket 2 minutes ago, so now she has 15 coins in her pocket, and Mary then shows him she only has 10, Peter's prediction is false. Doesn't make it illogical. He just failed to take into account that she just spent 5 coins without him seeing it.
| Quote: | | You have twisted this tenant of the scientific method out of context (and it is a tenant of the scientific method, not simply my own statement). Why do you suppose that science places such an emphasis on double blind tests? Because a priori assumptions are a killer, they notoriously taint research results. |
A priori "assumptions" have nothing to do with double blind tests. A priori means based on reason alone, without experience. It's the term used for knowledge like "2 + 2 = 4" which you've reached through reason alone. Empiricists tend to say that outside maths, there's no non-trivial a priori knowledge. Rationalists say there is.
Bertrand Russell said that "a priori" = "relations between the universals" - if you ignore Descartes' cogito (which maintains that "I am" is the only a priori knowledge whatsoever, and it's all you'll ever have) it's the abstract ideas that are used to describe our world, and which are rarely questioned, because in the every day world, they're the foundation of reality. They're the "in" in the sentence "I'm in the living room". John Locke would maintain that even this "trivial knowledge" is experienced or taught - that reason is also experience.
Anyway, what you describe (and thankfully shift to) isn't "a priori assumptions". It's "bias".
| Quote: | | Well, intersubjectivity is not a word in the English language, and to be science it needs to be objective, not subjective. |
You need a new dictionary. Intersubjectivity is a word in the English language. It refers to that which is not, strictly speaking, objective. Intersubjective knowledge is hermeneutic knowledge, i.e. interpretative knowledge, and its validity in science has been discussed for a loooong time in relation to whether humanities are "science" (as in, a field of study that can reach truth, not as in, "part of natural sciences"). Most people would agree that at the very least science has to be based on intersubjective (if not objective) knowledge, and supply intersubjective (if not objective) truth.
| Quote: | | No, there is no difference what-so-ever. If a theory makes testable predictions then it is falsifiable. The only way for a theory to be unfalsifiable is if it does not make testable predictions. |
Sorry to agree with Indi (well, not really, but still...), but you're not quite right there The principle of falsifiability has been a cornerstone in science for close to a century, but the reason it hasn't been a cornerstone longer, is that it's not the same as testable. When I mentioned it, noone here disagreed, so I assumed it was basic knowledge for anyone bothering to discuss science.
Anyway, there is a difference "what-so-ever". A big one. Testable predictions tell nothing about a theory's value as science. To be a valid scientific theory, there has to be things that the theory forbids - and the more there are, the better science. Here we're talking science pertaining to nature and the universe, not science as in math or comparative literature - although the latter has actually incorporated this view for decades.
There are several (limitless) theories which are easy to test and verify, but include no way to test and falsify - known to traditional scientists as pseudo scientific theories. One is "God exists", another is "the position of the stars at our birth determines our personality and life". Popper would include Freudian psychoanalysis (and, interestingly, most psychology professors would tell you the same, these days).
Such theories make a lot of claims, which can be shown to be true, but provide no exact way to be proven wrong. You can't scientifically prove God doesn't exist, because the theory is so arbitrary that any proof that he does exist can be incorporated into the theory that he doesn't. You can't scientifically prove that God does exist, because the theory is so arbitrary that any proof against it can be incorporated into it. If we could, searching the entire universe for God and not finding him, wouldn't prove he doesn't exist. He could be outside the universe, in another dimension, totally invisible to physics.
To take your own counterproof as example, any stubborn "God-doesn't-exist-scientist" would simply say, "the universe may be intelligent, but it's not God". There is not even a definition of God in the theory "God doesn't exist".
The theory "all swans are white" includes the definition of swan, and it implicitly supplies the prohibition that makes it a scientifically valid theory. Find a black swan (as we did), and it's proven wrong. That's natural science.
Science isn't an ideal. I see no real reason to validate mysticism by stuffing it under the label "science". I'm not necessarily saying that all mysticism is "unscientific", just that it doesn't need to apply for that label at all costs.
| Quote: | | No, I’m saying that one is either depressed about annihilation, or they haven’t given it much thought. |
I fail to see how you reach such a universal conclusion, except based on your own specific case. I have met plenty of atheists believing the end of life to be annihilation - myself included (I go back and forth, but never decide to assume anything). None of them are depressed. Most of them have thought their views through extensively in the course of 10 to 50 years - myself included. Just because a person doesn't reach the same conclusion as you, doesn't mean he hasn't given it thought. If I should assert my viewpoint as universal truth in the same way, then I'd say he's probably given it, at the very least as much thought. Neither of us "knows".
Personally, I've given it thought for around 18 years now, since I was about 10, and I have felt no need to turn to a religious faith in order to not be depressed. Actually, since the moment I stopped thinking from the point of view of a religious faith (around 15), I've persistently evolved into a more harmonious, optimistic and "happy" person - not just according to myself, but according to the people who've known me since then.
The root of it would be the one major existential crisis which seems to happen in everyone's life, and to different people at different times. I've seen my father have it at 55, my mother when she was in her 40's. I've helped friends deal with it who were 40 and 22 respectively. I'd say you had it from the age of 12. I had it from I was probably 13 to 17. This has nothing to do with puberty - two independent psychologists (and everything from teachers to friends) maintained that my reaction to this wasn't "typical teenager", but rather "typical response to existential crisis". It generally seems to happen to people earlier in life these days than 50 years ago - maybe because more input for your thoughts = more output.
What it comes down to is the point in your life where you do start to really think about the end of your life, and you reach the conclusion that you need to find a (for the people who thought this through late in life) new purpose or meaning to your life. If you're Sartre, you never find it. If you're Søren Kierkegaard, you find it in religion. Some find it in having children, because they feel they've thereby left a trace of themselves in the world after they die ("You can be me when I'm gone"). Others decide to try to improve (or destroy ) the world, in order to thereby leave a trace. Some decide that, yes, they have this time given, no more, and no matter what will happen after they die (if anything), they need to explore. No solution is better than others, but no other solution than your own is any good.
To go into the nonsensical and ineffable nature of mystical experiences again, I've had two in my life (to allow for objective dispute, they were both drug induced) - very close to each other, when I was 18. One was briefly described in an earlier post.
The other was the feeling that could be described as a close approximation of annihilation - my mind - and my body awareness with it - being slowly reduced to a single point, then complete loss of sensual input (at which point I "knew" I was dying), loss of time awareness, total numbness, then nothing. No self awareness, no thoughts, for I don't know how long, in subjective time (obviously, I don't know, since there was no "me" to measure it). From the point of view of others, about 10-15 minutes.
Approximation, because there must have been a "me" to even experience it. Close approximation, because it is my belief that it went as close to the concept of annihilation as my mind could ever let me. The point of all this: As I said, I "knew" I was dying, and at 18, I was very happy with my life. Yet I didn't feel scared, sad or lonely. The exact opposite.
As I said earlier, there's no - even subjective - truth to such an experience. There's only belief. I can feel certain that that's how it feels to be "annihilated" - or getting close to it. From the other experience (or both), I can think that I have some idea of what a Buddhist means by Nirvana. But I can't know. It lies so far from empirical, objective evidence, and so far from something that can even be rationally thought about - much less explained - that I have to trust my mind completely to see it as truth. And from experiences somewhat like these, but more grounded in the objective world, I know that the mind can't really be trusted Our sense of reality, time, truth, memory, the things around us, are decided by our minds. The mind of the person next to you may be, and probably is, entirely different - as in, you'd think you were insane if you saw the world through his eyes.
Which is also why I don't rule out anyone else's belief. Doesn't mean I can't disagree on the value (to life) or "logic" of it. Your 9/11 dreams, for example. They may be actual predictions, they may be crazy coincidences or they may be explained by one theory on dreams: where dreams don't actually have any narrative or feeling of perception - visions, sounds etc. - until the moment they are remembered - i.e., the brain makes sense of the random brain impulses of dreams, only when it needs to.
If you wrote down the dreams before they happened in real life, and your mind didn't add additional details to back up the prediction when it happened, that's when I have to scrap that theory - and I've talked to people who claim this to happen a lot to them. I've never actually seen their dream journals, though. But again, I can't rule it out. And don't feel the need to.
Back to annihilation. In many ways, annihilation to me is the one thing that gives purpose to this life. You can't have life without death - not in the sense of "everything must have its opposite", but in the sense that, to me, without the notion of death, there'd be no (or much less) point in doing anything in my life. No deadline, nothing gets done With this deadline set (and unknown), I'm certain to spend every day of my life doing every possible thing I can think of. Talk to every person I can, explore everything I can, learn as much as I can. For what purpose? For the trip, not the destination. I see no reason to be depressed about that, or the end of it.
To sum up... Please don't judge other people's amount of thought on an issue on whether they agree with you You both have too many insights to ruin the discussion by doing that.
[EDIT: A few clarifications]
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | My assertion is that the fundamentalist atheist’s chain of logic is always flawed. Clearly I said nothing about their conclusion, since logical atheists come to the same conclusion in a logical manner. |
Showing the exact problem with logic (I'm no longer sure if that's what you want to say or not). A conclusion is never logical in itself, only the process to get there is. Which is why a scientist may reach the same conclusion as a mystic, and why that doesn't make the mystic's process to get there logical - or science.
|
This is equivalent to my assertion that fundamentalist atheists and logical atheists reach the same conclusion via illogical and logical means, respectively. So your point does not contradict my thesis.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | No, you stated that mystical conclusions are always illogical, i.e. false. |
illogical does not = false (see above).
|
In general you are correct, but I was referring to Indi’s point of view, which is clearly the belief that any nonreductionist interpretation of mystical phenomena is all false.
| Kaneda wrote: | A priori "assumptions" have nothing to do with double blind tests. A priori means based on reason alone, without experience. It's the term used for knowledge like "2 + 2 = 4" which you've reached through reason alone. Empiricists tend to say that outside maths, there's no non-trivial a priori knowledge. Rationalists say there is.
Bertrand Russell said that "a priori" = "relations between the universals" - if you ignore Descartes' cogito (which maintains that "I am" is the only a priori knowledge whatsoever, and it's all you'll ever have) it's the abstract ideas that are used to describe our world, and which are rarely questioned, because in the every day world, they're the foundation of reality. They're the "in" in the sentence "I'm in the living room". John Locke would maintain that even this "trivial knowledge" is experienced or taught - that reason is also experience.
Anyway, what you describe (and thankfully shift to) isn't "a priori assumptions". It's "bias".
|
Well, while a priori means more than I realized that it means, and so is an ambiguous term here, it also means: Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
That is the 3rd definition on dictionary.com, which you go on to prove is not a very complete reference.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | Well, intersubjectivity is not a word in the English language, and to be science it needs to be objective, not subjective. |
You need a new dictionary. Intersubjectivity is a word in the English language. It refers to that which is not, strictly speaking, objective. Intersubjective knowledge is hermeneutic knowledge, i.e. interpretative knowledge, and its validity in science has been discussed for a loooong time in relation to whether humanities are "science" (as in, a field of study that can reach truth, not as in, "part of natural sciences"). Most people would agree that at the very least science has to be based on intersubjective (if not objective) knowledge, and supply intersubjective (if not objective) truth.
|
I stand corrected.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | No, there is no difference what-so-ever. If a theory makes testable predictions then it is falsifiable. The only way for a theory to be unfalsifiable is if it does not make testable predictions. |
Sorry to agree with Indi (well, not really, but still...), but you're not quite right there The principle of falsifiability has been a cornerstone in science for close to a century, but the reason it hasn't been a cornerstone longer, is that it's not the same as testable. When I mentioned it, noone here disagreed, so I assumed it was basic knowledge for anyone bothering to discuss science.
Anyway, there is a difference "what-so-ever". A big one. Testable predictions tell nothing about a theory's value as science. To be a valid scientific theory, there has to be things that the theory forbids - and the more there are, the better science. Here we're talking science pertaining to nature and the universe, not science as in math or comparative literature - although the latter has actually incorporated this view for decades.
There are several (limitless) theories which are easy to test and verify, but include no way to test and falsify - known to traditional scientists as pseudo scientific theories. One is "God exists", another is "the position of the stars at our birth determines our personality and life". Popper would include Freudian psychoanalysis (and, interestingly, most psychology professors would tell you the same, these days).
|
See my last post on “Christianity vs. Astrology”, your’re lumping astrology in here is a biased a priori take on it. It most definitely does make predictions that are falsifiable. There are replicated studies which show statistical correlations, unfortunately they are all in French, save for Carl Jung’s work showing a statistical correlation between sextile solar aspects and friendship.
| Kaneda wrote: | Such theories make a lot of claims, which can be shown to be true, but provide no exact way to be proven wrong. You can't scientifically prove God doesn't exist, because the theory is so arbitrary that any proof that he does exist can be incorporated into the theory that he doesn't.
|
How are any of these tests? The fact that Freudian psychology makes assertions which sound good when not critically analyzed doesn’t make these statements tests. How are asserts about God tests of God’s existence? They are nothing more than assertions. The definition of a test is that you can fail it, just like in school.
| Kaneda wrote: | Science isn't an ideal. I see no real reason to validate mysticism by stuffing it under the label "science". I'm not necessarily saying that all mysticism is "unscientific", just that it doesn't need to apply for that label at all costs.
|
I hardly suggested that any point of view should automatically be labeled scientific. Quite to the contrary, I was arguing that scientists do not necessarily practice science; the same with mystics.
Islam, for example, is based on a totally uncritical acceptance of everything said by the entity that approached Mohammed, these words are better known as the Quran. Let me give a counter example:
Joan of Arc was tried by a Burgundian pro-British ecclesiastical court which, for political reasons, hard to convict her of witchcraft. Never the less, after intense cross examination of the words spoken to her by the being that only she could hear, the strongest case they could make was that she wore men’s clothing. It was so lame that even many prominent British were entirely unconvinced. Catholics have what I would argue is a scientific means of determining the disposition of an entity.
By contrast, if the entity that approached Mohammed had been tested in such a manner, it would have failed miserably. This is a fairly simple matter to demonstrate. As a result, extremely open-minded Catholic priests such as Father Thomas Merton (sadly a small minority) who dedicated his life to studying other religions intensively and demonstrating the broad parallels, ignored Islam completely.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | No, I’m saying that one is either depressed about annihilation, or they haven’t given it much thought. |
I fail to see how you reach such a universal conclusion, except based on your own specific case. I have met plenty of atheists believing the end of life to be annihilation - myself included (I go back and forth, but never decide to assume anything). None of them are depressed. Most of them have thought their views through extensively in the course of 10 to 50 years - myself included. Just because a person doesn't reach the same conclusion as you, doesn't mean he hasn't given it thought. If I should assert my viewpoint as universal truth in the same way, then I'd say he's probably given it, at the very least as much thought. Neither of us "knows".
|
Fear of death is universal, all organisms are programmed to fear death. Only suffering and pain nullify this fear. Even speechless babies fear death.
| Kaneda wrote: | Personally, I've given it thought for around 18 years now, since I was about 10, and I have felt no need to turn to a religious faith in order to not be depressed.
|
I have no religion or faith, so that is hardly the axe I’m trying to grind.
| Kaneda wrote: | Actually, since the moment I stopped thinking from the point of view of a religious faith (around 15), I've persistently evolved into a more harmonious, optimistic and "happy" person - not just according to myself, but according to the people who've known me since then.
|
When I was 17 a friend who had been witness to my many theistic debates said that I was the happiest atheist that he knew. Just because it is depressing doesn’t mean that one can’t cope and find a way to go on without dwelling on it. I suppose that I have to agree with Indi in this regard, I wasn’t thinking his statement through, if you think life is futile then the best means of coping is not to dwell on it too much.
| Kaneda wrote: | The root of it would be the one major existential crisis which seems to happen in everyone's life, and to different people at different times. I've seen my father have it at 55, my mother when she was in her 40's. I've helped friends deal with it who were 40 and 22 respectively. I'd say you had it from the age of 12. I had it from I was probably 13 to 17. This has nothing to do with puberty - two independent psychologists (and everything from teachers to friends) maintained that my reaction to this wasn't "typical teenager", but rather "typical response to existential crisis". It generally seems to happen to people earlier in life these days than 50 years ago - maybe because more input for your thoughts = more output.
|
Even in the context of social chaos resulting in earlier existential crises, 13 is extremely young. The second youngest existential crisis I’ve ever come across was Napoleon at 15. I think that there is something more going on here, just as there was in my case, and arguably in the case of Napoleon.
| Kaneda wrote: | What it comes down to is the point in your life where you do start to really think about the end of your life, and you reach the conclusion that you need to find a (for the people who thought this through late in life) new purpose or meaning to your life. If you're Sartre, you never find it. If you're Søren Kierkegaard, you find it in religion. Some find it in having children, because they feel they've thereby left a trace of themselves in the world after they die ("You can be me when I'm gone"). Others decide to try to improve (or destroy ) the world, in order to thereby leave a trace. Some decide that, yes, they have this time given, no more, and no matter what will happen after they die (if anything), they need to explore. No solution is better than others, but no other solution than your own is any good.
To go into the nonsensical and ineffable nature of mystical experiences again, I've had two in my life (to allow for objective dispute, they were both drug induced) - very close to each other, when I was 18. One was briefly described in an earlier post.
|
I don’t agree that they are nonsensical and ineffable, at least not in general, but being drug induced certainly complicates the matter.
| Kaneda wrote: | The other was the feeling that could be described as a close approximation of annihilation - my mind - and my body awareness with it - being slowly reduced to a single point, then complete loss of sensual input (at which point I "knew" I was dying), loss of time awareness, total numbness, then nothing. No self awareness, no thoughts, for I don't know how long, in subjective time (obviously, I don't know, since there was no "me" to measure it). From the point of view of others, about 10-15 minutes.
Approximation, because there must have been a "me" to even experience it. Close approximation, because it is my belief that it went as close to the concept of annihilation as my mind could ever let me. The point of all this: As I said, I "knew" I was dying, and at 18, I was very happy with my life. Yet I didn't feel scared, sad or lonely. The exact opposite.
|
I would argue that you weren’t as happy as you wanted to believe, but that is another matter.
Well, I’ve passed out before. I don’t know if that counts, but my take on it was the opposite, even though the experience sounds quite similar. What stuck me was that even though I was unconscious and unaware of the passage of time, there was still never the less a part of me that was consciously aware. In other words, I was amazed by the fact that it was an approximation, as you put it, of annihilation, rather than a full blown temporary annihilation. This was contrary to what I thought should have been the case as an atheist.
| Kaneda wrote: | As I said earlier, there's no - even subjective - truth to such an experience. There's only belief.
|
I think there is, as I put forward above.
| Kaneda wrote: | I can feel certain that that's how it feels to be "annihilated" - or getting close to it. From the other experience (or both), I can think that I have some idea of what a Buddhist means by Nirvana. But I can't know.
|
I must have missed this, I though that you were referring to the déjà vu experience? What experience are you referring to here?
| Kaneda wrote: | It lies so far from empirical, objective evidence, and so far from something that can even be thought of - much less explained - that I have to trust my mind completely to see it as truth.
|
How is it not empirical? As to objectivity, evidence is neither objective nor subjective, it is only ones interpretation that is objective or subjective. How can it not be thought of? That sounds a bit extreme to me. Explanations are a trickier matter, but I’ll bet that in terms of super-string and membrane theory that it would work out as a purely geometric explanation. Mystical phenomena are based heavily on perception of the multidimensional nature of the universe.
| Kaneda wrote: | And from experiences somewhat like these, but more grounded in the objective world, I know that the mind can't really be trusted
|
Then what can? This seems to me to be a form of self-hate.
| Kaneda wrote: | Our sense of reality, time, truth, memory, the things around us, are decided by our minds. The mind of the person next to you may be, and probably is, entirely different - as in, you'd think you were insane if you saw the world through his eyes.
|
Well, I think that most human beings are extremely lame brained, but that doesn’t mean that logic is not objective.
| Kaneda wrote: | Which is also why I don't rule out anyone else's belief. Doesn't mean I can't disagree on the value (to life) or "logic" of it. Your 9/11 dreams, for example. They may be actual predictions, they may be crazy coincidences or they may be explained by one theory on dreams: where dreams don't actually have any narrative or feeling of perception - visions, sounds etc. - until the moment they are remembered - i.e., the brain makes sense of the random brain impulses of dreams, only when it needs to.
|
What? That sounds extraordinarily far fetched.
| Kaneda wrote: | If you wrote down the dreams before they happened in real life, and your mind didn't add additional details to back up the prediction when it happened, that's when I have to scrap that theory - and I've talked to people who claim this to happen a lot to them. I've never actually seen their dream journals, though. But again, I can't rule it out. And don't feel the need to.
|
That is an extremely labored argument. Religious faith in reductionism will always find another excuse to discount the only obvious interpretation. The problem here is that it takes time to evaluate someone’s commitment to objectivity and intellectual honesty. I don’t expect you to have any confidence in mine without considerable testing and observation, but if you are saying that it is in general impossible to have confidence in anyone’s objectivity and intellectual honesty, even your closest friend, I would call that interpersonal dysfunctionality, rather than a point of view that follows from objectivity and logic.
| Kaneda wrote: | Back to annihilation. In many ways, annihilation to me is the one thing that gives purpose to this life. You can't have life without death - not in the sense of "everything must have its opposite", but in the sense that, to me, without the notion of death, there'd be no (or much less) point in doing anything in my life. No deadline, nothing gets done With this deadline set (and unknown), I'm certain to spend every day of my life doing every possible thing I can think of. Talk to every person I can, explore everything I can, learn as much as I can. For what purpose? For the trip, not the destination. I see no reason to be depressed about that, or the end of it.
|
I never said that it is impossible to find ways to cope, I certainly did. But even after having found good coping mechanism at 13 and 14, if forced to deeply dwell on the futility of life, I can hardly say that it made me happy. It is only in contrast after having my atheism shattered, that I could say just how horrible the whole experience was. From within the experience it was just the same old experience that I saw each day, day in and day out. It was not something that I could meaningful contrast to childhood ignorance.
| Kaneda wrote: | To sum up... Please don't judge other people's amount of thought on an issue on whether they agree with you You both have too many insights to ruin the discussion by doing that.
|
Ok, I will suffice it to say that Indi is a logical atheist who doesn’t care. But that wasn’t really the bone of contention that was getting heated, it was the snippy comments about ignorance of science, which I responded to tit-for-tat.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Kaneda wrote: | Showing the exact problem with logic (I'm no longer sure if that's what you want to say or not). A conclusion is never logical in itself, only the process to get there is. Which is why a scientist may reach the same conclusion as a mystic, and why that doesn't make the mystic's process to get there logical - or science.
|
This is equivalent to my assertion that fundamentalist atheists and logical atheists reach the same conclusion via illogical and logical means, respectively. So your point does not contradict my thesis. |
That is why I said "I'm no longer sure" if that's what you want to say or not"
| Quote: | | That is the 3rd definition on dictionary.com, which you go on to prove is not a very complete reference. |
At least it has:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=intersubjective
| Quote: | | See my last post on “Christianity vs. Astrology”, your’re lumping astrology in here is a biased a priori take on it. It most definitely does make predictions that are falsifiable. There are replicated studies which show statistical correlations, unfortunately they are all in French, save for Carl Jung’s work showing a statistical correlation between sextile solar aspects and friendship. |
Once again, that's looking for evidence that supports the theory. It still doesn't show the theory making any specific prediction that can be verified as not true.
| Quote: | | Kaneda wrote: | | Such theories make a lot of claims, which can be shown to be true, but provide no exact way to be proven wrong. You can't scientifically prove God doesn't exist, because the theory is so arbitrary that any proof that he does exist can be incorporated into the theory that he doesn't. |
How are any of these tests? The fact that Freudian psychology makes assertions which sound good when not critically analyzed doesn’t make these statements tests. How are asserts about God tests of God’s existence? They are nothing more than assertions. The definition of a test is that you can fail it, just like in school. |
And that's the point. There's no way to make God fail the test of existing. I can't see where you get the "doesn't make these statements tests" from. I have never said anything about any statement that would be a test. The point is, if there's no statement in a theory that can be proven wrong (and that most often means, the theory includes some clause that says "this can never happen"), then it's not a scientific theory. I'll let wikipedia do the rest of the talking, because I'm tired, and it's better English than I can manage:
| Quote: | Another way to distinguish science from pseudoscience (e.g. astronomy from astrology), first formally discussed by Karl Popper in 1919-20 and reformulated by him in the 1960s, is falsifiability. This principle states that in order to be useful (or even scientific at all), a scientific statement ('fact', theory, 'law', principle, etc) must be falsifiable, i.e. able to be tested and proven wrong.
Popper described falsifiability using the following observations, paraphrased from a 1963 essay on "Conjectures and Refutations":
1. It is easy to confirm or verify nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations are significant only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is, if, unenlightened by the theory, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. "Good" scientific theories include prohibitions which forbid certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify or refute it. Theories that take greater "risks" are more testable, more exposed to refutation.
6. Confirming or corroborating evidence is only significant when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; "genuine" in this case means that it comes out of a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their advocates — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.
These observations are part of Popper's case for defending the idea that what makes a theory scientific is its falsifiability, or refutability. |
While I can't claim this hasn't been criticised, I have yet to meet an actual scientist who doesn't agree with Popper's view.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Fear of death is universal, all organisms are programmed to fear death. Only suffering and pain nullify this fear. Even speechless babies fear death. |
Fear does not equal depression. And fear is not an absolute.
| Kaneda wrote: | | When I was 17 a friend who had been witness to my many theistic debates said that I was the happiest atheist that he knew. Just because it is depressing doesn’t mean that one can’t cope and find a way to go on without dwelling on it. I suppose that I have to agree with Indi in this regard, I wasn’t thinking his statement through, if you think life is futile then the best means of coping is not to dwell on it too much. |
I've never been compared to another atheist - probably because I live in a society where 35-80% (depending on the survey) are atheists (but probably 90% of those may simply not believe because they never gave their belief any thought).
| Kaneda wrote: | | Even in the context of social chaos resulting in earlier existential crises, 13 is extremely young. The second youngest existential crisis I’ve ever come across was Napoleon at 15. I think that there is something more going on here, just as there was in my case, and arguably in the case of Napoleon. |
Not really much more going on. That said, it's not like I recognized it as a crisis at 13. Just that when I reached 17, my personality had changed so much that I was sent to a therapist due to going from overly shy, introverted, super-considerate child to rebellious rude punk. And the reason he didn't - after half a year of sessions - write it off as "adolescence" or "schizophrenia" () was... a lot of things. Including: I didn't have a trace of confusion about myself or my place in the world; I was extremely open and forthcoming about my feelings, fears, doubts, experiences, without turning them into aggression; I consciously chose not to rebel against my parents (whose reason for therapy was their worry about the things I did outside our home); I felt adults - my parents, teachers etc. - did listen to and understand me (except about my not needing therapy ); I had a high self confidence, without being overly arrogant; etc. I was sent to another therapist, same result.
It started out as me feeling victimized due to my shyness and incapacity to stand up to anyone. Turned into the notion that this was all due to me not doing what I wanted to do, in fear of either being humiliated or showing a "dark side" of myself which wouldn't make me "appreciated" - i.e., I felt a deep need to live up to everyone else's expectations. Then it turned into depression of feeling trapped with this "duty", wasting my life trying to please everyone - and I couldn't see a way out of it. That's where the notion of the pointlessness of life entered.
At some point at 15, when I started in "high school", something snapped, and I felt the strength to consciously try to go the opposite way. Succeeded to the point where I couldn't recognize myself (and that, of course, turned into an - albeit milder - crisis). And then a kind of epiphany of realizing that this wasn't a "new, fake personality", but really was another part of myself, just as true as the shy, bookwormish kid.
And only then, when I'd finally come to grips with myself, they send me to a therapist
| Kaneda wrote: | | I don’t agree that they are nonsensical and ineffable, at least not in general, but being drug induced certainly complicates the matter. |
What I mean is, the memory of such an experience is different from the memory of how coffee tastes or how a forest looks during a thunderstorm. I can think of these, describe them to myself, and put them into words that very clearly describe the perception of them. I can recall drug-induced experiences just as easily and very clearly, but many aspects of them, I can't easily put into words that precisely describe them. To a certain extent, I can't really describe them in my mind either. Lacking a frame of reference is what makes them ineffable. The cliché, which in many ways is true, is that love is just as ineffable. Nonsensical, only to a person who hasn't tried something similar. More later.
| Quote: | | I would argue that you weren’t as happy as you wanted to believe, but that is another matter. |
Not really, it's once again you insisting on judging other people's feelings about something on your own terms. I can only say, you don't know how happy I was, and theorizing on it won't change the fact. Applying unhappiness or "lack of meaning in life" (this goes out to all the Christians in our audience) to people whose choices you don't agree with is a nice, comfortable way to justify your own choices.
| Quote: | | Well, I’ve passed out before. I don’t know if that counts, but my take on it was the opposite, even though the experience sounds quite similar. |
It may count. Again, can't ever judge what goes on in another person's mind. However, I've been knocked out a few times - both before and after the "annihilation". Very different sensation. In the "annihilation" experience, time was different in that a hundred years could have passed - not so much being unaware of the passage of time, as time not existing at all. Self was different towards the end in that there was no "me", just "being". We're entering that "Ineffable Zone" More on that later.
| Quote: | | Kaneda wrote: | I can feel certain that that's how it feels to be "annihilated" - or getting close to it. From the other experience (or both), I can think that I have some idea of what a Buddhist means by Nirvana. But I can't know.
|
I must have missed this, I though that you were referring to the déjà vu experience? What experience are you referring to here? |
I said:
| Kaneda wrote: | | I've had two in my life (to allow for objective dispute, they were both drug induced) - very close to each other, when I was 18. One was briefly described in an earlier post. |
| Kaneda wrote: | | some (myself included) find it to confirm an all-encompassing purpose and connectedness with every living thing and event throughout history, without any deity (or even spiritual concept) being involved. |
That one. Deja vu isn't "mystical", and has happened to me dozens of times - sometimes just a thought while, say, showering, where the exact situation is remembered - and even when I think "deja vu!" I remember thinking that before too - other times while having dinner with friends. Or being in Prague. As I said, most studies and surveys seem to indicate around 70% of the population has had at least one deja vu in their life. Most have more. Just a funny trick the brain seems to like to play sometimes The point of the "deja vu" discussion in the first place was to show how just because you feel you remember something doesn't mean you do. Leading on to, just because your mind lets you feel absolute certainty about a mystical experience doesn't mean it's truth applying to everyone.
| Kaneda wrote: | | How can it not be thought of? That sounds a bit extreme to me. Explanations are a trickier matter, but I’ll bet that in terms of super-string and membrane theory that it would work out as a purely geometric explanation. Mystical phenomena are based heavily on perception of the multidimensional nature of the universe. |
As I mentioned above. Describing such an experience, even in your mind, to yourself, is a tricky matter. You'll be forced to describe it in metaphors, approximations, symbols... It involves patterns of perception, reason, consciousness and emotion that lie outside every day reality's frame of reference. Sure, you can think of it (that was bad wording), but if you don't know how hard it is to put a mystical experience into words, it's more than likely because you never tried to do that, or you didn't have an actual mystical experience.
Let's take William James again. To my knowledge, he was the first to put forth (in a scientific forum), after studying hundreds of cases of religious mystical experiences, that such experiences are "ineffable". Such an experience:
| Quote: | | defies expression, [...] no adequate report of its content can be given in words [...] it follows that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. |
This, as mentioned, is not exclusive to mystical experiences (see "love", or for something simpler, try to describe the colour green to a person who's been blind his entire life).
| Quote: | | Kaneda wrote: | And from experiences somewhat like these, but more grounded in the objective world, I know that the mind can't really be trusted
|
Then what can? This seems to me to be a form of self-hate. |
You really have a way of taking simple statements to their logical extreme and adding opinions that were never stated, don't you?
The winking smiley was meant to signify "doesn't mean I don't trust it". The point is, to take it to the very lowest plane, if you clearly see something right in front of you, call three friends, point right at it, and they say "there's nothing there", is your mind still telling the truth? No. The mind does an interpretation of reality, not an accurate representation. Anyone who's ever had a hallucination (or a drug-induced vision), or any neuro-scientist, will tell you that.
Any police investigator will tell you the same. You can have 20 different witnesses to the same crime, and a lot of them will give wildly varied accounts of how the criminal looked. From black hair to blonde hair, from 160cm tall to 200cm tall. If the mind didn't catch details when things happened, it'll happily make up, in order to satisfy the need for recollection.
Walk down a street, looking for a specific person you're supposed to meet, and you'll probably see three or four people who - for a very short moment - look exactly like him/her.
I said, "the mind cannot be trusted". I did not say "I don't trust my mind". This is very closely related to the "think annihilism => depression". The difference between us seems to be, that I can take something I know "for certain" or something I believe to be true, and ignore it because it has absolutely no relevance to my life. In 99.999999999% of cases, there's absolutely no point in doubting what your mind tells you. The case of mystical experiences, drug sessions, psychosis, deja vu etc. are not 99.99999999% of cases, however.
The people who experience these things know they're not like the ordinary workings of their mind (except in some cases of psychosis). I've been through this point three times now, this being the last. Deja vu, insanity, drug experiences, these are all examples of a person perceiving things that are not truth, even to himself (even most insane people have moments where they realize how strange their perception of the world is). I see no reason to ignore the possibility that "mystical experiences" fall under that category too - especially since descriptions from several drug users cannot be distinguished from the experience of people having a non-prepared religious experience. To a neuro-scientist, they can all be described as chemical imbalances in the brain - imbalances which also happen spontaneously in some people.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Well, I think that most human beings are extremely lame brained, but that doesn’t mean that logic is not objective. |
I never said it wasn't.
| Quote: | | Kaneda wrote: | | until the moment they are remembered - i.e., the brain makes sense of the random brain impulses of dreams, only when it needs to. |
What? That sounds extraordinarily far fetched. |
It is, however, one scientific theory on how dreams work. I listed it as a possibility, not a fact.
| Quote: | | That is an extremely labored argument. Religious faith in reductionism will always find another excuse to discount the only obvious interpretation. |
Did I discount it? No. I offered alternatives, which, again, don't need to be accepted as Grand Truth. Whether clairvoyance is an "obvious" interpretation is a matter of opinion. It's also obvious that swans are always white, if you've never seen a black one.
This goes both ways. Some people blindly accept anything science says, other people blindly accept any alternative interpretation of the world, if it's "simpler". It's simpler to think the earth is really flat, no matter what science says, since otherwise people with their heads upside down would fall off. Who needs to add theories of gravity, centrifugal force etc., when it's much simpler to explain by saying "flat"? Who needs a solar system to explain eclipses, when it's simpler to explain by saying "dragon devours sun and later spits it out"?
| Quote: | | but if you are saying that it is in general impossible to have confidence in anyone’s objectivity and intellectual honesty, even your closest friend, I would call that interpersonal dysfunctionality, rather than a point of view that follows from objectivity and logic. |
And there you go again. Did I ever say that? No. Why do you feel the need to add opinions and emotions that people don't have? Why must this turn into a debate about people's supposed dysfunctions, lack of logic, delutions about their own emotional well-being etc. etc.? If I was a Freudian psychoanalyst, I'd have the answer to that right at hand Alas, I'm not, and I don't believe in most of Freud's ideas.
If there is no God, then when we die, there is oblivion.
If there is a God, and you believe in something, you have a 1 in N (N=number of religions) chances of getting into paradise/nirvana or whatever....
If you are atheist your choices are only oblivion or hell.. thats not good man!
got to believe in something.. Flying Spaghetti Monster!!
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | in my opinion very few scientists have any real understanding of the philosophy of science in a more general context outside of their own narrow field |
If you really are a scientist, then you yourself are evidence that your opinion is true.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | You have changed the context in two ways, the original context is about the logical process, not the conclusion, and the original assertion is about proving that a chain of logic is flawed, not proving that it is accurate. In the proper context your assertion here would be that it is impossible to prove that any train of logic is flawed.
My assertion is that the fundamentalist atheist’s chain of logic is always flawed. Clearly I said nothing about their conclusion, since logical atheists come to the same conclusion in a logical manner. |
Ah ha! I knew once we got some clarity in the discussion it would start making sense. The original context - which was my own quote, so I think I know the context it was meant in, thank you - was the conclusion of the logical process, and how that conclusion should be interpreted. It is you that has confused the context.
I said, and I meant, that conclusions reached by logical processes are not guaranteed to be correct. That statement has nothing to do with atheist logic, fundamental or otherwise, in particular. It is a general statement.
I applied it to suggest a means of differentiating between a dogmatic atheist and an open-minded one. I said that an open-minded atheist has used logic to reach their conclusion, but accepts that the logic may not equal the truth, because you can never be sure that your logic is perfect.
I never said that it is impossible to prove that any train of logic is flawed - in fact, I said the opposite, that it is impossible to prove that any train of logic is correct. You were arguing with a context that you misunderstood, to a statement I did not make. I did say something about the conclusions reached, and that they both (dogmatic and logical atheist) reached the same conclusion by the same logical process. What I then said was that what separated them was that the dogmatic atheist does not admit that the logical process may be flawed, while the logical atheist does - or in other words, of the two atheists, both using the same logic to reach the same conclusion, one claims that conclusion is true while the other says it is merely logical (which does not equal true).
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | No, you stated that mystical conclusions are always illogical, i.e. false. |
I stated that mystical conclusions are illogical. You said false. Illogical does not equal false.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Well, you are correct in that I incorrectly applied your reasoning in this one regard. Your statements do not imply that it is impossible to know if mystical experiences are true/false, your statements unavoidably implies that any conclusions that accept the validity of mystical experiences are automatically false. |
Uh... no? My statements unavoidably imply that anything involving mysticism is illogical. Not automatically false. You're creating arguments with yourself that I certainly didn't put there.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | You have twisted this tenant of the scientific method out of context (and it is a tenant of the scientific method, not simply my own statement). Why do you suppose that science places such an emphasis on double blind tests? Because a priori assumptions are a killer, they notoriously taint research results. |
Double blind experiments don't do anything about assumptions. They try to remove the possibility of knowledge of the experiment by the experimenter or subjects from consciously or unconsciously affecting the results. Assumptions don't have any part in that equation. The person who designed the experiment is still using their assumptions to design it. The experimenters and the subjects probably don't have any assumptions about what's being tested, and they're the ones the double blind is intended to prevent from altering the results.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Your next error is applying an exclusively double blind definition of a priori assumptions, when in fact there are a range of tolerances for their exclusion, the double blind criterion being the most extreme and absolute. Obviously double blind tests can’t be applied to every situation in scientific testing. |
I have no idea what you're talking about. What does any of that have to do with having assumptions before experimenting? Unless... you're confusing assumptions with bias?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Since the word a priori has short circuited your brain, |
Excuse me?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | I shift to another term – bias. When scientists are heavily biased it taints their research results. When scientists conduct an experiment in which they are absolutely convinced of what the results will be, their research results are seldom objective and free from errors in methodology. This is a very well known fact in science. |
You shift to the term bias??? But that's a completely different beast! It has nothing at all to do with a priori assumptions - it's a priori bias, something else entirely.
You're not really confusing the terms "assumptions" and "biases" and calling my brain short-circuited, are you?
Having assumptions before-hand about what will happen in an experiment is part of the experimenting process. You know that if you drop a rock and a feather at the same time the rock hits the ground first, but you have a theory that predicts they should hit at the same time. So you assume that air friction is slowing down the feather, and that if you dropped them in a vacuum they would land at the same time. Then you run the experiment and record your results. If you were right, your theory has more support. If you were wrong, you need to revise your theory or try to think of what else might have influenced the descent time.
I don't know where you get the idea that an assumption equals "absolute conviction". What, are you absolutely convinced that everything you assume is true, all the time? That's absurd.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Well, intersubjectivity is not a word in the English language, and to be science it needs to be objective, not subjective. But using your term as you have defined, as a practical matter what other form of intersubjectivity is there in science other than replication? |
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=intersubjective
Intersubjectivity has nothing to do with repeatability.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | I didn't say that they didn't make testable predictions. I said the theory must be falsifiable. There is a big difference.
|
No, there is no difference what-so-ever. If a theory makes testable predictions then it is falsifiable. The only way for a theory to be unfalsifiable is if it does not make testable predictions. |
Wrong.
Suppose I have a theory that the Earth is flat, and if you sail off the side, fairies will catch you, spirit you immediately to the other side and clear your memory. This theory makes testable predictions. If the theory is true, then there should be a point where if you have two ships sailing a distance apart, the ship behind should see the ship in front disappear (when it falls off) then shortly after reappear (when the second ship falls off and is transported over), and the first ship should see the second ship do the same.
So you run the test. You sail all around the world and you never see one or the other ship disappear. The test has failed, which should disprove the theory... or does it? Because I can now note that the fairies could also be creating images on each side of the flat world of what is going on at the other side. The theory is unchanged, with only a corollary added to it, even though the prediction did not hold under testing.
So you consider another testable prediction - that if you fly up high enough you should see the shape of the flat world, and where the edges are. And you run that test, sending a satellite up to take pictures. Of course the pictures show a round Earth, so the prediction was proven wrong again. But I can note that the fairies might be tampering with the satellite images to keep their secret. Thus two predictions have been made, both disproven, and the theory still stands.
The theory makes loads of testable predictions, but I can keep on making up excuses for the ways in which the fairies distort our memories and sensor data to fool us every time I get conflicting evidence. The theory makes predictions, the predictions are testable, but the theory is not falsifiable.
Another example of a non-falsifiable theory is any theory that includes a god. Since, by most definitions, a god can alter reality any way it wants, any theory that involves a god can never be disproven, because even when testable predictions come out false, you can argue the god is manipulating the results.
A classic real-world example is Freud's theory of psychodynamics. Freudian analysis can be done post-hoc to produce any conclusion you want. You can make predictions about that person's behaviour in any given situation, given their psychological profile, but when those predictions come out wrong, you can claim that it doesn't mean the theory is wrong, just the profile.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.
|
This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science. The reality is that time and time again a new scientific discovery required the death of an entire generation of scientists before it was embraced. For example, geologists unanimously agree that the Sphinx must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Yet Egyptologists unanimously reject this in favor of a 5,000 year old date, based on utterly flawed and vacuous reasoning that is just dogma. |
I have no idea how you made that leap, or what relevance anything you said after has.
|
Do I have to hold your hand through this simple train of logic? Good grief. Egyptologists are priests of their own religious dogma posing as scientists. |
What in the hell are you talking about? O.O Why whould I care about Egyptologists and what they think? What do you think you're proving with that example? Science still has clear and rigid boundaries for what is called scientific and what is not, regardless of what any Egyptologist says. What is your point?
I am not and never was talking about people "embracing" theories. I said that science is rigid about what is and is not scientific. Not what is accepted by the scientific community, just what is scientific. Something can be scientific and not generally accepted, or it can be not scientific and widely accepted. Acceptance is therefore completely irrelevant to the discussion of what is and what is not science.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Science is clearly defined therefore it's a religion? That's nonsense.
|
And not even remotely what I said. |
Oh?
Me: Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.
You: This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science.
Looks to me like it's exactly what you said.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Science is not nearly as rigid as you contend, or at least, not in the manner that you pose. You misunderstand the general philosophy of the scientific method, applying it as it is applied to a narrow field of science, a practice which is notoriously inflexible and inadaptable to other scientific fields. |
So now you're lecturing me about the philosophy of science - saying that I misunderstand it - when you have never even heard of the word "intersubjectivity", hm? Alright, what fields do you think I am "applying" what ever you think I am applying something to, and what do you think I am applying?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Science is not a religion, you have turned it into one by applying flawed and rigid criteria that are anathema to science. Technicians of narrow fields can get away with this because they are held in a playpen where they can’t fall out and hurt themselves. True scientists do not apply such inadaptable and flawed expression of the scientific method, and so they are capable of drawing valid interdisciplinary conclusions. |
I am not "applying criteria" to anything. I am quoting the philosophy of science. "True scientists" use this philosophy every day, albeit usually implicitly. Science requires intersubjectivity, falsifiability, parsimony and empiricism (among other things). If your pet field/theory/whatever doesn't have all of these things, it ain't science. No ifs ands or buts. Doesn't matter whether it's specific or interdisciplinary.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)
|
One of these is skepticism that is nothing more than automatic rejection of the unfamiliar. These kinds of skeptics like to think that their a priori assumptions are scientific, when of course all a priori assumptions are the very antithesis of science. |
*blink* Who called skepticism science? Where the hell did that come from anyway? What does it have to do with anything?
|
You called your skepticism scientific by asserting that science asserts knee-jerk rejection of mystical phenomena. This is not science, it is a form of religious faith. |
What the hell are you talking about now? What skepticism? When am I calling anything I believe scientific?
Science does not allow for mystic phenomena. I don't need any faith or religion to know that, except the holy gospels of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. They wrote the book(s) on what science is (literally), and as far as I know, there is no real dispute about their positions on the subject. They practically give a checklist to determine what is science and what is not, and I just compare mysticism to the checklist and see that it comes up short. Thus it's not science. There is no faith, and no religion involved. There's not even much in the way of opinion involved.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | No, I’m saying that one is either depressed about annihilation, or they haven’t given it much thought. |
Ah, so your conclusion is the only, inevitably correct one. I see.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway.
|
Exactly. |
Wha???
|
I was asserting that this one statement is autobiographical. |
You would be incorrect.
| NemoySpruce wrote: | If there is no God, then when we die, there is oblivion.
If there is a God, and you believe in something, you have a 1 in N (N=number of religions) chances of getting into paradise/nirvana or whatever....
If you are atheist your choices are only oblivion or hell.. thats not good man!
got to believe in something.. Flying Spaghetti Monster!! |
You should check out Pascal's wager.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | See my last post on “Christianity vs. Astrology”, your’re lumping astrology in here is a biased a priori take on it. It most definitely does make predictions that are falsifiable. There are replicated studies which show statistical correlations, unfortunately they are all in French, save for Carl Jung’s work showing a statistical correlation between sextile solar aspects and friendship. |
Once again, that's looking for evidence that supports the theory. It still doesn't show the theory making any specific prediction that can be verified as not true.
|
Both the replicated studies and the methodology that I set up were looking for statistical correlations. It is impossible to set up a study based on statistical correlations that is not falsifiable. If it is then you’ll have to give me an example to convince me that it is possible because I can’t see how.
| Quote: | | Kaneda wrote: | | Such theories make a lot of claims, which can be shown to be true, but provide no exact way to be proven wrong. You can't scientifically prove God doesn't exist, because the theory is so arbitrary that any proof that he does exist can be incorporated into the theory that he doesn't. |
How are any of these tests? The fact that Freudian psychology makes assertions which sound good when not critically analyzed doesn’t make these statements tests. How are asserts about God tests of God’s existence? They are nothing more than assertions. The definition of a test is that you can fail it, just like in school. |
| Kaneda wrote: | And that's the point. There's no way to make God fail the test of existing. I can't see where you get the "doesn't make these statements tests" from. I have never said anything about any statement that would be a test.
|
That is precisely the point, the examples you put forward have no falsifiable test.
You asserted that I was wrong in equating a theory which makes testable predictions with a falsifiable theory. Testable predictions are falsifiable. There is no distinction. Freudian psychology does neither of these.
| Kaneda wrote: | The point is, if there's no statement in a theory that can be proven wrong…
|
Which would not be the case if the theory made testable predictions that could be falsified.
Let me give you an example from astrology. A co-worker at my first job who was angry and childish gave me his birth data to do his chart. The chart I got was nothing like him, no immaturity at all, and only some anger, not overwhelming rage. I was dumb-struck. In my mind I said to myself, ‘all it takes is one counter-example, one failure to be damning evidence that astrology is false.’ I was ready to chuck the whole theory. But then it turned out that the idiot had given me the wrong year. I redid the chart and sure enough, the chart was full of anger and immaturity.
I am not contradicting any facet of Popper in the slightest. I have no idea where you are seeing a distinction.
| Kaneda wrote: | I've never been compared to another atheist - probably because I live in a society where 35-80% (depending on the survey) are atheists (but probably 90% of those may simply not believe because they never gave their belief any thought).
|
Good grief, I had no idea. That sounds even worse than having 25% fundamentalist Christians like we have here, especially since most of them aren’t in the coastal cities where I would have to deal with them. I can’t stand dorky ivory tower arrogance.
| Kaneda wrote: | Not really much more going on. That said, it's not like I recognized it as a crisis at 13.
|
Oh. That is different. I was having a full scale Voltaire-like metaphysical crisis at 12, far worse than any mid-life crisis.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | I would argue that you weren’t as happy as you wanted to believe, but that is another matter. |
Not really, it's once again you insisting on judging other people's feelings about something on your own terms.
|
Well, I misunderstood what you were saying happened to you at 13. I would not have made such a statement if I had known it was not an emotional crisis for you at 13.
| Kaneda wrote: | I said:
| Kaneda wrote: | | I've had two in my life (to allow for objective dispute, they were both drug induced) - very close to each other, when I was 18. One was briefly described in an earlier post. |
|
Yes, I know, and I was asking what the earlier posted one was. I seem to have missed it.
| Kaneda wrote: | | some (myself included) find it to confirm an all-encompassing purpose and connectedness with every living thing and event throughout history, without any deity (or even spiritual concept) being involved. |
| Kaneda wrote: | The point of the "deja vu" discussion in the first place was to show how just because you feel you remember something doesn't mean you do.
|
And I provided some really extreme examples that in a lesser form would be called déjà vu, where there was clearly something more going on. (The friend of the family’s déjà vu dream, and my 9/11 dream).
| Kaneda wrote: | Leading on to, just because your mind lets you feel absolute certainty about a mystical experience doesn't mean it's truth applying to everyone.
|
No, it lead on to the possibility at least that very many déjà vu experiences involve something more. Déjà vu is such a broad and vague category that saying that 70% experience it has little meaning. It could be a slight triviality or it could be something that left the person dumb-founded, there is no way to tell from one statistic.
| Kaneda wrote: | Let's take William James again. To my knowledge, he was the first to put forth (in a scientific forum), after studying hundreds of cases of religious mystical experiences, that such experiences are "ineffable". Such an experience:
| Quote: | | defies expression, [...] no adequate report of its content can be given in words [...] it follows that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. |
This, as mentioned, is not exclusive to mystical experiences (see "love", or for something simpler, try to describe the colour green to a person who's been blind his entire life).
|
This does not mean that blind people aren’t intimately familiar with the color spectrum and the various shades of green. Seeing is believing of course, but that doesn’t make it indescribable. Eastern mysticism says the same thing about mystical experiences, but people who have had mystical experiences can converse in perfect detail about such matters.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | Kaneda wrote: | And from experiences somewhat like these, but more grounded in the objective world, I know that the mind can't really be trusted
|
Then what can? This seems to me to be a form of self-hate. |
You really have a way of taking simple statements to their logical extreme and adding opinions that were never stated, don't you?
|
I think that you are doing the same by discounting all personal observations and trusting exclusively in a societal consensus. I think that is far more risky than trusting personal experience, since most people are extremely lame brained.
| Kaneda wrote: | The winking smiley was meant to signify "doesn't mean I don't trust it". The point is, to take it to the very lowest plane, if you clearly see something right in front of you, call three friends, point right at it, and they say "there's nothing there", is your mind still telling the truth? No.
|
I’d get new friends!
| Kaneda wrote: | The mind does an interpretation of reality, not an accurate representation. Anyone who's ever had a hallucination (or a drug-induced vision), or any neuro-scientist, will tell you that.
|
Actually, if I hadn’t done LSD in college it is possible that I might still be an atheist. When I saw hallucinations it was extremely easy to determine the neural mechanism behind them, it was not something that I could have ever confused with physical objects.
| Kaneda wrote: | Any police investigator will tell you the same. You can have 20 different witnesses to the same crime, and a lot of them will give wildly varied accounts of how the criminal looked.
|
This is something utterly and completely different. The problem with police reports is that criminals and accidents do not operate in slow motion. There is an enormous profusion of details to choose from for the mind to retain in these circumstances and nothing can be isolated, observed with care or brought back and reexamined.
| Kaneda wrote: | Walk down a street, looking for a specific person you're supposed to meet, and you'll probably see three or four people who - for a very short moment - look exactly like him/her.
|
Sound like there is a smaller gene pool where you live. This is a bad analogy to make to an American where the gene pool is enormous. The only thing I can compare this too is when I visited Salt Lake City, where the gene pool is extremely small due to early polygamy.
| Kaneda wrote: | I said, "the mind cannot be trusted". I did not say "I don't trust my mind". This is very closely related to the "think annihilism => depression". The difference between us seems to be, that I can take something I know "for certain" or something I believe to be true, and ignore it because it has absolutely no relevance to my life. In 99.999999999% of cases, there's absolutely no point in doubting what your mind tells you. The case of mystical experiences, drug sessions, psychosis, deja vu etc. are not 99.99999999% of cases, however.
|
I make no such distinction with my drug experiences, déjà vu experiences, and with one exception, my mystical experiences. Actually, I’ve had a psychotic like episode, most mystical paths involve such a phase. It was much more intense than any drug experience, like waves of different realities passing over me and it went on for a month, and then kicked in again a few months later for another month. I just watched it and tested the assumptions when possible, never taking it seriously unless something persisted. It was quite traumatic and harrowing actually because it was hard to keep to myself. People knew that I was self-absorbed, but had no clue as too the overwhelming extent of the experience. I just operated normally until the event was over, not putting any stock into these “realities” beyond what was necessary to test them. When all was said and done I can’t even say that more than one precept of my view of reality was changed, and even that is really only a novelty.
However, it seems like my relationship to the universe has changed, almost as though things had previously been stacked against me. Not unlike the Matrix’s take on comparative religion and philosophy as trying to escape the Matrix, but once having escaped, reality is not so different. It is instead the character’s ability to act in an unimpeded manner that is changed. I suddenly went from penniless poverty to having a modest savings and living in comfort, and the source of my intense illness suddenly presented itself, with the means for me to pay for it to be fixed. Instead of any perception of mine being changed, reality itself seemed to change.
| Kaneda wrote: | The people who experience these things know they're not like the ordinary workings of their mind (except in some cases of psychosis). I've been through this point three times now, this being the last. Deja vu, insanity, drug experiences, these are all examples of a person perceiving things that are not truth, even to himself (even most insane people have moments where they realize how strange their perception of the world is). I see no reason to ignore the possibility that "mystical experiences" fall under that category too - especially since descriptions from several drug users cannot be distinguished from the experience of people having a non-prepared religious experience.
|
Having experienced both, I find it extremely difficult to confuse the two. I grant you that mystical experiences can most definitely lead to unreal experiences, but that is a given in the mystical paradigm. There are agents/demons/evil spirits, the universe is conscious and part of that consciousness is terrified of you escaping the prison that it have set up for you. That does not make the prison the reality. “It is a prison that you can not see, hear, taste or feel.”
| Kaneda wrote: | To a neuro-scientist, they can all be described as chemical imbalances in the brain - imbalances which also happen spontaneously in some people.
|
My father use to work with street people, at least half of which are insane he said, most with affective disorders (which is the subject at hand) rather than emotional disorders. From numerous experiences he is convinced that schizophrenia is an opening of the psychic doorways where the door is broken and can’t be closed. Here is an example:
One fellow really struck my father as quite perceptive because he would always call my father “Swan” for no reason. My father was in fact a swami, which he never discussed at work or on the street with the homeless, and yet this person seemed to have subtly picked up on it. One day a business man was walking down the street looking completely dejected and the schizophrenic homeless man said, “That man just lost his balls…” And then, turning to my father and staring intently he said, “And so has REAGAN!” My father hated Reagan, and as the week unfolded the Iran/Contra scandal broke out.
So rather than impugning mystical experience by comparing it to mental illness, I think that you should look at it the other way around. Part of the universe is extremely hostile and schizophrenics are victims of that hostility. Their perceptions can be extraordinarily accurate, but they are dimensionally dislocated so that it is extremely difficult for them to function effectively in this world.
Here is another example from a friend of mine who is similarly dimensionally dislocated, but sufficiently intelligent and grounded not to have any kind of clinically detectable mental illness. Never the less his mind would wonder like crazy and he had no focus, so he was unable to hold a job, are at least, did not have sufficient motivation because he was still a teenager living at home.
My friend could tell you EXACTLY when someone was going to arrive. Not far enough in advance to be of any real usefulness, but minutes before there was any possible means of knowing that someone was coming.
Oh, that reminds me, it has been proven in double blind studies that dogs can do this with their masters, but with much greater accuracy. An observer is left with the dog, and another observer goes out with the master. The master does not know the time of return, only the observer with the master knows, and that person does not tell the master until the exact moment when they are to begin journeying home. Within 5 to 10 minutes of this event the dogs will go to the door and wait for their master to return.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | Kaneda wrote: | | until the moment they are remembered - i.e., the brain makes sense of the random brain impulses of dreams, only when it needs to. |
What? That sounds extraordinarily far fetched. |
It is, however, one scientific theory on how dreams work. I listed it as a possibility, not a fact.
|
We are back to the conundrum of what is science and what is pure supposition. What predictions does this make? How can those prediction be tested? This is not a scientific theory. It is an untestable hypothesis that can never be substantiated with evidence in order to become a theory.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | That is an extremely labored argument. Religious faith in reductionism will always find another excuse to discount the only obvious interpretation. |
Did I discount it? No. I offered alternatives, which, again, don't need to be accepted as Grand Truth. Whether clairvoyance is an "obvious" interpretation is a matter of opinion.
|
Yes, you do discount it. You don’t even question the scientific validity of the doubts. You accept them uncritically as “scientific” even though they violate Popper’s criteria and are in fact pseudo-science. When one gives such exaggerated weight to pseudo-science, there is obviously a bias involved, like an a priori discounting of the obvious straight forward explanation.
| Kaneda wrote: | This goes both ways. Some people blindly accept anything science says, other people blindly accept any alternative interpretation of the world, if it's "simpler". It's simpler to think the earth is really flat, no matter what science says, since otherwise people with their heads upside down would fall off. Who needs to add theories of gravity, centrifugal force etc., when it's much simpler to explain by saying "flat"? Who needs a solar system to explain eclipses, when it's simpler to explain by saying "dragon devours sun and later spits it out"?
|
Most ivory tower reductionist explanations are this far fetched when the false assumptions are removed and the ignored data is placed back into the picture. That is why ivory tower intellectuals get on my nerves so much, they can’t function socially and yet they can be so conceited about miss-applying science to support blind faith in materialism, dismissing all non-clinical data as being perceptual self-deception. If they could function socially most of them wouldn’t be so quick to be dismissive of common empirical experiences of the majority of the population. But it sounds like you come from a society where this is the majority instead. I always thought that fundamentalist Christians and America as a whole sucked, but maybe its not so bad here.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Quote: | | but if you are saying that it is in general impossible to have confidence in anyone’s objectivity and intellectual honesty, even your closest friend, I would call that interpersonal dysfunctionality, rather than a point of view that follows from objectivity and logic. |
And there you go again. Did I ever say that? No. Why do you feel the need to add opinions and emotions that people don't have?
|
I was not asserting that this is true, I was posing two options, essentially asking which is you. I should have posed explicitly as a question rather than a statement with two options.
| Kaneda wrote: | Why must this turn into a debate about people's supposed dysfunctions, lack of logic, delutions about their own emotional well-being etc. etc.?
|
Because ivory tower intellectuals are dysfunctional people, geeks, dorks, etc… Their contemptuous dismissiveness is entirely a function of that dysfunctionality. It is a hostile emotional reaction to their own insecurities. They have negative encounters with the general population, but cannot take responsibility for their own actions, and so find a means of turning the blame on the general population and it’s supposed irrationality.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | in my opinion very few scientists have any real understanding of the philosophy of science in a more general context outside of their own narrow field |
If you really are a scientist, then you yourself are evidence that your opinion is true.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | You have changed the context in two ways, the original context is about the logical process, not the conclusion, and the original assertion is about proving that a chain of logic is flawed, not proving that it is accurate. In the proper context your assertion here would be that it is impossible to prove that any train of logic is flawed.
My assertion is that the fundamentalist atheist’s chain of logic is always flawed. Clearly I said nothing about their conclusion, since logical atheists come to the same conclusion in a logical manner. |
Ah ha! I knew once we got some clarity in the discussion it would start making sense. The original context - which was my own quote, so I think I know the context it was meant in, thank you - was the conclusion of the logical process, and how that conclusion should be interpreted. It is you that has confused the context.
I said, and I meant, that conclusions reached by logical processes are not guaranteed to be correct. That statement has nothing to do with atheist logic, fundamental or otherwise, in particular. It is a general statement.
I applied it to suggest a means of differentiating between a dogmatic atheist and an open-minded one. I said that an open-minded atheist has used logic to reach their conclusion, but accepts that the logic may not equal the truth, because you can never be sure that your logic is perfect.
I never said that it is impossible to prove that any train of logic is flawed - in fact, I said the opposite, that it is impossible to prove that any train of logic is correct. You were arguing with a context that you misunderstood, to a statement I did not make. I did say something about the conclusions reached, and that they both (dogmatic and logical atheist) reached the same conclusion by the same logical process. What I then said was that what separated them was that the dogmatic atheist does not admit that the logical process may be flawed, while the logical atheist does - or in other words, of the two atheists, both using the same logic to reach the same conclusion, one claims that conclusion is true while the other says it is merely logical (which does not equal true).
|
They both say it is true, but I’m not interested in hunting down the growing recursive convolutions in your misapplied analogies, since the following is in fact the original context, to which none of your analogies accurately apply.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | No, you stated that mystical conclusions are always illogical, i.e. false. |
I stated that mystical conclusions are illogical. You said false. Illogical does not equal false.
|
If this is false then you would admit two categories of mystics just as you admit two categories of atheists. But you do not, so you are not being intellectually honest about the true nature of your assertion.
Later in your post you finally get honest and assert what you have here denied having asserted. You state that Kuhn and Popper somehow automatically agree with your assumption that mystical phenomena do not exist. This proves that the half of your argument that isn't confusion and ignorance is in fact intellectual dishonesty.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Well, you are correct in that I incorrectly applied your reasoning in this one regard. Your statements do not imply that it is impossible to know if mystical experiences are true/false, your statements unavoidably implies that any conclusions that accept the validity of mystical experiences are automatically false. |
Uh... no? My statements unavoidably imply that anything involving mysticism is illogical. Not automatically false. You're creating arguments with yourself that I certainly didn't put there.
|
Then describe an exclusively illogical process, with no logical counterpart, that produces accurate results? There is no such thing. Thus my statement of the obvious, that you are discounting the conclusion a priori.
Everything after this is just convoluted machinations, taking my statements out of their obvious context and creating some distorted self-righteous strawman argument. With each pass your arguments get more convoluted and self-referential, providing your own context to my terms and then arguing against these altered concepts of your own creation. As a result, you are having an argument with yourself, not with me. You wouldn't even admit the fundamental basis of the dispute until the end of yourt last post. You are not debating with me, you are simply arguing at me, ignoring most of my actual statements in favor of your own substitute arguement to rile against.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | You have twisted this tenant of the scientific method out of context (and it is a tenant of the scientific method, not simply my own statement). Why do you suppose that science places such an emphasis on double blind tests? Because a priori assumptions are a killer, they notoriously taint research results. |
Double blind experiments don't do anything about assumptions.
|
They exclude them. What other point is there to a double blind methodology?
| Indi wrote: | They try to remove the possibility of knowledge of the experiment by the experimenter or subjects from consciously or unconsciously affecting the results.
|
For what purpose? So that their assumptions don’t bias the experiment.
| Indi wrote: | Assumptions don't have any part in that equation. The person who designed the experiment is still using their assumptions to design it.
|
That is the whole point, the experiments that I referred to with regards to astrology were flawed and biased IN THE DESIGN. But this conversation is so convoluted that I’m sure that you have totally forgotten the original context; which was certain experiments on astrology with severely flawed methodologies, of which you know nothing. Despite this, you defend them reflexively because you assume all mystical phenomena is false and illogical to accept.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Your next error is applying an exclusively double blind definition of a priori assumptions, when in fact there are a range of tolerances for their exclusion, the double blind criterion being the most extreme and absolute. Obviously double blind tests can’t be applied to every situation in scientific testing. |
I have no idea what you're talking about. What does any of that have to do with having assumptions before experimenting? Unless... you're confusing assumptions with bias?
|
I’m making a distinction between the unavoidable assumptions of human beings required to make a hypothesis and the assumptions held as convictions that obliterate science.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Since the word a priori has short circuited your brain, |
Excuse me?
|
Recursive convoluted misunderstandings of the context such that the original assertion gets hopelessly lost, results in even the simplest concepts getting short circuited.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | I shift to another term – bias. When scientists are heavily biased it taints their research results. When scientists conduct an experiment in which they are absolutely convinced of what the results will be, their research results are seldom objective and free from errors in methodology. This is a very well known fact in science. |
You shift to the term bias??? But that's a completely different beast! It has nothing at all to do with a priori assumptions - it's a priori bias, something else entirely.
|
Do you have any hair left on your head after splitting each stand? I shifted the term because it was impossible for you to avoid distorting the context, so I had to use a less ambiguous term.
| Indi wrote: | You're not really confusing the terms "assumptions" and "biases" and calling my brain short-circuited, are you?
|
No, I’m calling you a lame brained geek with communication issues.
| Indi wrote: | Having assumptions before-hand about what will happen in an experiment is part of the experimenting process.
|
Not when they are held as absolute a priori convictions.
| Indi wrote: | You know that if you drop a rock and a feather at the same time the rock hits the ground first, but you have a theory that predicts they should hit at the same time. So you assume that air friction is slowing down the feather, and that if you dropped them in a vacuum they would land at the same time. Then you run the experiment and record your results. If you were right, your theory has more support. If you were wrong, you need to revise your theory or try to think of what else might have influenced the descent time.
|
Which of course has nothing to do with how a biased assumption taints experimental results.
| Indi wrote: | I don't know where you get the idea that an assumption equals "absolute conviction". What, are you absolutely convinced that everything you assume is true, all the time? That's absurd.
|
That is absurd. Why is the English language such a mystery to you? The term has some ambiguity, for which I simply could not get you to focus on the meaning appropriate to the context. So I used another term that is synonymous with relevant definition of the first term, and you get nuts insisting that I have somehow changed the subject.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Well, intersubjectivity is not a word in the English language, and to be science it needs to be objective, not subjective. But using your term as you have defined, as a practical matter what other form of intersubjectivity is there in science other than replication? |
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=intersubjective
Intersubjectivity has nothing to do with repeatability.
|
Replication is the formalized means of ‘sharing’ an observation in a manner that constitutes corroboration in science. To the context at hand, it has exactly the same application, only my term is more relevant to the conduct of science than yours is. Yours is a philosophical term and not explicitly a means by which one can verify a scientific theory.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | I didn't say that they didn't make testable predictions. I said the theory must be falsifiable. There is a big difference.
|
No, there is no difference what-so-ever. If a theory makes testable predictions then it is falsifiable. The only way for a theory to be unfalsifiable is if it does not make testable predictions. |
Wrong.
|
The following is not a testable prediction that is unfalsifiable.
| Indi wrote: | Suppose I have a theory that the Earth is flat, and if you sail off the side, fairies will catch you, spirit you immediately to the other side and clear your memory. This theory makes testable predictions. If the theory is true, then there should be a point where if you have two ships sailing a distance apart, the ship behind should see the ship in front disappear (when it falls off) then shortly after reappear (when the second ship falls off and is transported over), and the first ship should see the second ship do the same.
So you run the test. You sail all around the world and you never see one or the other ship disappear. The test has failed, which should disprove the theory... or does it? Because I can now note that the fairies could also be creating images on each side of the flat world of what is going on at the other side. The theory is unchanged, with only a corollary added to it, even though the prediction did not hold under testing.
|
So once again, how do you test the added corollary? Adding an untestable hypothesis to a failed prediction does not make testable predictions unfalsifiable. It is neither testable nor falsifiable.
| Indi wrote: | So you consider another testable prediction - that if you fly up high enough you should see the shape of the flat world, and where the edges are. And you run that test, sending a satellite up to take pictures. Of course the pictures show a round Earth, so the prediction was proven wrong again. But I can note that the fairies might be tampering with the satellite images to keep their secret. Thus two predictions have been made, both disproven, and the theory still stands.
|
Once again, you have created an untestable addition. Only testable propositions are falsifiable. The two terms are completely synonymous. There is no distinction between testability and falsifiability.
| Indi wrote: | The theory makes loads of testable predictions, but I can keep on making up excuses for the ways in which the fairies distort our memories and sensor data to fool us every time I get conflicting evidence. The theory makes predictions, the predictions are testable, but the theory is not falsifiable.
|
You have not provided a single testable addition to the original propositions. If they were testable, they would be falsifiable.
| Indi wrote: | Another example of a non-falsifiable theory is any theory that includes a god. Since, by most definitions, a god can alter reality any way it wants, any theory that involves a god can never be disproven, because even when testable predictions come out false, you can argue the god is manipulating the results.
|
That is not logic. Logic works precisely the other way around, if the universe appears to be manipulated in an inexplicable way then you might have something.
| Indi wrote: | A classic real-world example is Freud's theory of psychodynamics. Freudian analysis can be done post-hoc to produce any conclusion you want. You can make predictions about that person's behaviour in any given situation, given their psychological profile, but when those predictions come out wrong, you can claim that it doesn't mean the theory is wrong, just the profile.
|
Freudian psychology does not make testable predictions, the ‘predictions’ are so vague and all inclusive that they are not predictions at all. One essential element of predictions is specificity. Something that is so vague that it is easily reinterpreted to suit any situation is not a prediction.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.
|
This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science. The reality is that time and time again a new scientific discovery required the death of an entire generation of scientists before it was embraced. For example, geologists unanimously agree that the Sphinx must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Yet Egyptologists unanimously reject this in favor of a 5,000 year old date, based on utterly flawed and vacuous reasoning that is just dogma. |
I have no idea how you made that leap, or what relevance anything you said after has.
|
Do I have to hold your hand through this simple train of logic? Good grief. Egyptologists are priests of their own religious dogma posing as scientists. |
What in the hell are you talking about? O.O Why whould I care about Egyptologists and what they think? What do you think you're proving with that example? Science still has clear and rigid boundaries for what is called scientific and what is not, regardless of what any Egyptologist says. What is your point?
|
They are scientists publishing in scientific journals, using much the same reasoning as you are using, coming up with utterly flawed results.
| Indi wrote: | I am not and never was talking about people "embracing" theories. I said that science is rigid about what is and is not scientific. Not what is accepted by the scientific community, just what is scientific. Something can be scientific and not generally accepted, or it can be not scientific and widely accepted. Acceptance is therefore completely irrelevant to the discussion of what is and what is not science.
|
The point is methodology, your methodology in excluding the validity of all mystical experiences is not meaningfully different than the methodology of Egyptologists.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Science is clearly defined therefore it's a religion? That's nonsense.
|
And not even remotely what I said. |
Oh?
Me: Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.
You: This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science.
Looks to me like it's exactly what you said.
|
I’m talking about science being distorted into an unscientific dogmatic religion, I’m not saying science is a religion. (Hand thrown up in the air in exasperation…) Not only do you not understand the philosophy of science, you can’t even engage in meaningful conversation on the topic without hopelessly distorting the context of statements made about it.
I stated this last time around, and yet you are still asserting that I equate proper science with religious dogma. You are just intellectually dishonest when dealing with issues that you have an emotional irrational reaction to.
The context is the manner in which you are using this to exclude mystical experiences. While logic is obvious rigid and can not admit illogic, and the scientific method is rigid in not allowing bias assumptions and methodologies, that is not how you are applying this in order to exclude mystical phenomena. You are applying rigidity in the form of entirely unscientific, bias, a priori, rigid assumption that are simply religious dogma, not science.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Science is not nearly as rigid as you contend, or at least, not in the manner that you pose. You misunderstand the general philosophy of the scientific method, applying it as it is applied to a narrow field of science, a practice which is notoriously inflexible and inadaptable to other scientific fields. |
So now you're lecturing me about the philosophy of science - saying that I misunderstand it - when you have never even heard of the word "intersubjectivity", hm? Alright, what fields do you think I am "applying" what ever you think I am applying something to, and what do you think I am applying?
|
You are using philosophical terms to try to describe the practice of hard science, which you are obviously not very familiar with.
| Indi wrote: | I am not "applying criteria" to anything. I am quoting the philosophy of science. "True scientists" use this philosophy every day, albeit usually implicitly. Science requires intersubjectivity, falsifiability, parsimony and empiricism (among other things). If your pet field/theory/whatever doesn't have all of these things, it ain't science. No ifs ands or buts. Doesn't matter whether it's specific or interdisciplinary.
|
You are applying your flawed criteria of science to the subject of mystical phenomena.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)
|
One of these is skepticism that is nothing more than automatic rejection of the unfamiliar. These kinds of skeptics like to think that their a priori assumptions are scientific, when of course all a priori assumptions are the very antithesis of science. |
*blink* Who called skepticism science? Where the hell did that come from anyway? What does it have to do with anything?
|
You called your skepticism scientific by asserting that science asserts knee-jerk rejection of mystical phenomena. This is not science, it is a form of religious faith. |
What the hell are you talking about now? What skepticism? When am I calling anything I believe scientific?
|
You assert that your biased knee-jerk rejection of all mystical phenomena is somehow scientific. It is not, it is just a faith-based biased conviction without scientific support.
| Indi wrote: | Science does not allow for mystic phenomena. I don't need any faith or religion to know that, except the holy gospels of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.
|
Kuhn and Popper give you no support.
| Indi wrote: | They wrote the book(s) on what science is (literally)
|
For which you have not the slightest understanding.
| Indi wrote: | ..and as far as I know, there is no real dispute about their positions on the subject.
|
Not among false ‘scientists’ who are in fact geeks with no understanding of science and nothing more than technicians who could not function outside of their narrow field of science where the rules have been made clear for their small minds.
| Indi wrote: | They practically give a checklist to determine what is science and what is not, and I just compare mysticism to the checklist and see that it comes up short.
|
You checked some twisted assertions and somehow concluded that they were TESTABLE.
| Indi wrote: | Thus it's not science. There is no faith, and no religion involved. There's not even much in the way of opinion involved.
|
You have expressed nothing but opinion, supported by utterly flawed descriptions of how proper scientific methodologies are constructed.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | No, I’m saying that one is either depressed about annihilation, or they haven’t given it much thought. |
Ah, so your conclusion is the only, inevitably correct one. I see.
|
You have obviously not given much thought to a lot of topics, or you have give exclusively circular thought to such topics.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway.
|
Exactly. |
Wha???
|
I was asserting that this one statement is autobiographical. |
You would be incorrect. |
Whatever. When I see evidence of deep thought on the subject I’ll speak up. It hasn’t happened yet. I totally disagree with Kaneda, but his statements on the subject are not utterly superficial.
You know, I thought that you were a thoughtful person. It is extremely disappointing to get this kind of run around, half of which is the result of ignorance, but the other half appears to be the product of intentional angry manipulation and distortion of my statements.
Wow, this is where this discussion ends for me. I don't know where the anger comes from, but "obviously" it can't be a "hostile emotional reaction to your own insecurities". Since that's not you, right? I strongly suggest you come to terms with your beliefs, and get used to having opposition so you don't have to resort to name calling to try and dismiss your failure of making a genuine civilized conversation. I assumed you did that at 21 or earlier...
Every single accusation you've made in the past couple of posts does apply to one person in this discussion... taking statements out of context, making "a priori" assumptions, having an argument with yourself, contradicting yourself, and then getting nuts for no apparent reason. And I can't possibly bring myself to believe that isn't obvious even to yourself. In any event, it makes this debate go absolutely nowhere. Which is sad, because it was going somewhere only a page earlier, and Livilou started a thread which could have spawned some interesting thoughts.
I dunno... Maybe this is some strange gigantic version of a split in thought processes between Europeans and Americans (even though I don't know if Indi is European). Maybe it's just another example of twisting not only science, but a simple discussion, in order to make it conform to your own beliefs. Maybe there's just some temporary crisis going on, which requires a vent of outbursts like these. I don't know.
What I do know is that this is not one of those cases where I decide not to take my mind's interpretation as absolute truth. This is not worth wasting my time on.
| Kaneda wrote: | Wow, this is where this discussion ends for me. I don't know where the anger comes from, but "obviously" it can't be a "hostile emotional reaction to your own insecurities". Since that's not you, right? I strongly suggest you come to terms with your beliefs, and get used to having opposition so you don't have to resort to name calling to try and dismiss your failure of making a genuine civilized conversation. I assumed you did that at 21 or earlier...
|
I have no problem with opposition, I won't get upset at someone for having an opposing opinion even if they are calling me names (witness my interaction with nam_siddharth on the Buddhist thread) but twisting my terms into things I didn't say without ever backing up to making a correction, stacking one misinterpretation on top of another, and repeatedly shifting from definition 1 to definition 3, when I repeatedly specified definition 1 is quite another matter.
| Kaneda wrote: | Every single accusation you've made in the past couple of posts does apply to one person in this discussion... taking statements out of context, making "a priori" assumptions
|
I don't get upset at biased assumptions either, one can believe as one wishes, it is twisting what someone else believes and creating straw man arguments that is a form of violence. Just because there are no overt insults doesn't make such an argument free of violence, quite to the contrary, it becomes its own form of ad homenim far more frustrating than any insult. Insult me all you want, as long as you are making your best effort to honestly represent my argument, then I have absolutely no problem with the insults.
| Kaneda wrote: | having an argument with yourself, contradicting yourself
|
Now you are being unfair, you would make a statement that had some room for ambiguity, and I would take a stab at a response. When you would say that I got it wrong, I would respect that, and take you at your word, responding to the new less ambiguous expression.
If not, please tell me where I failed in this regard and repeatedly took you out of context in the same manner, willfully ignoring your own representation of your own argument? Show me an example where I did something to you like Indi did here, repeatedly asserting that I equated proper science with religious dogma, for example?
| Kaneda wrote: | and then getting nuts for no apparent reason.
|
When did I ever do that with you? You don't seem to mind having someone else's argument twisted, as long as it isn't happening to you. Have you had to deal with that elsewhere and passively took it like a door mat? If so, then I'll have to admit I'm wrong, but I'll bet that you would not be hunky dory with it either if it happened to you.
| Kaneda wrote: | And I can't possibly bring myself to believe that isn't obvious even to yourself.
|
I think that you are applying a double standard of pacificism that you yourself couldn't live up to. I could be wrong, I have to say that because you have repeatedly misinterpreted my statements to you in this regard, but I know that it is not willful. I make a stab at an interpretation of your statements, and you assume that my statement is an utterly emphatic self-assured conviction. Even though I have repeatedly modified my statements with regards to trying to understand your personal experience and point of view, you keep assuming that each statement I make is utterly emphatic, even when I provide two options, which should rule out such an interpretation. I haven't gotten upset about it though, because they are YOUR statements, and I misinterpreted them to start with, so you have some right in getting upset at me, and I give you that right. You do not do not afford me the same respect, unfortunately.
| Kaneda wrote: | In any event, it makes this debate go absolutely nowhere. Which is sad, because it was going somewhere only a page earlier, and Liviou started a thread which could have spawned some interesting thoughts.
|
I think that it is a shame that you are allowing Indi to sabotage the debate, it was indeed going somewhere, between you and me at least. It was never going anywhere with Indi, and I just wanted to end that useless tangent.
| Kaneda wrote: | I dunno... Maybe this is some strange gigantic version of a split in thought processes between Europeans and Americans (even though I don't know if Indi is European). Maybe it's just another example of twisting not only science, but a simple discussion, in order to make it conform to your own beliefs. Maybe there's just some temporary crisis going on, which requires a vent of outbursts like these. I don't know.
|
I'd be surprised if Indi was European, this kind of contemptuous twisting of an opponents argument is a largely American academic intellectual proclivity, at least in my experience. Venting is another matter, American in general do tend to get things off their chest instead of letting it build up inside like a pressure cooker. After the steam is blown off there is much less resentment left behind, I think that you will find. If you just hold it in and take it, eventually it becomes an internal crisis and someone is going to get a dose of much more serious violence, probably not even the people originally responsible.
| Kaneda wrote: | What I do know is that this is not one of those cases where I decide not to take my mind's interpretation as absolute truth.
|
You have repeatedly twisted my statements in this regard, but as I said, I allow you that misinterpretation because it was with regards to your own statements and experiences. I thought that simply by my repeated refinements or wholesale revisions of my interpretations of your statements that you would come to see that nothing I think is as such. But it would appear that you are seeing what you want to see because you want to believe negative things about someone who disagrees with you.
| Kaneda wrote: | | This is not worth wasting my time on. |
I thought that you said this was extremely productive before just a few posts prior.
| Kaneda wrote: | | Wow, this is where this discussion ends for me. |
I can't blame you. This guy is just getting ridiculous, and abusive to boot. He obviously doesn't need any input from you or I anyway, since he's making up his own arguments that really have nothing to do with anything I said.
For the record, for anyone who is following this who cares, I never once stated or implied that mystic beliefs are false, because I don't know or care either way (which would seem to rule out that I have a "biased knee-jerk reaction" to me, but whatever).
I never once stated or implied that there weren't two categories of mystic, analagous to the two categories of atheist, because there are, of course (why wouldn't there be?).
I never once stated or implied that my beliefs are "scientific" (because they aren't really relevant to the discussion, and I never stated what my beliefs are - they were assumed).
I never once stated or implied that any given field was or was not "scientific", except for mysticism, which I rule out because it does not have intersubjectivity - an essential component of a scientific field.
I never once stated or implied that logical and true are synonyms, or that illogical and false are synonyms, because they are not.
I never once stated or implied that mystical phenomena do not exist - or that Kuhn and/or Popper would agree with that assertion.
I never once stated or implied that mike1reynolds "equates science with religious dogma". I don't even know what context such an accusation would be valid in. It makes no sense to me.
Anyway, Kaneda, take care. As to the rest, I'll reply later.
| Indi wrote: | Science does not allow for mystic phenomena. I don't need any faith or religion to know that, except the holy gospels of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.
|
People, please calm down a bit and don't start to flame. 
Well, I'm certainly glad that at least someone doesn't think that it is exclusively and entirely my fault. (Especially a moderator!) And I hope that Kaneda will be willing to continue to me half way, as you have all along.
For the sake of civility, I will simply not respond to arguments which do not respect my own by honestly trying to portray them in their intended context. That is just an argument, not a rational debate, and it only serves to create an ugly scene.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Science does not allow for mystic phenomena. I don't need any faith or religion to know that, except the holy gospels of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.
|
|
What do you think this proves? It is exactly what I have been stating all along. Mysticism cannot be science, because it does not have intersubjectivity.. That does not make it false. That does not mean that mystic phenomena do not exist, or that Kuhn and/or Popper think that they don't.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Science does not allow for mystic phenomena. I don't need any faith or religion to know that, except the holy gospels of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.
|
|
What do you think this proves? It is exactly what I have been stating all along. Mysticism cannot be science, because it does not have intersubjectivity.. That does not make it false. That does not mean that mystic phenomena do not exist, or that Kuhn and/or Popper think that they don't. |
Spiritual experiences can and are shared experiences. This is the reason that there are so many striking parallels between disparate spiritual traditions across the world. Take Father Thomas Merton for example, who dedicated his life to writing dozens of books about the many parallels between Eastern religions and Christianity. Another example is Joseph Campbell; the screen play for Star Wars was the result of Lucas reading Campbell’s book, “The Hero With a Thousand Faces”. This book (along with all his other books) asserts that most of the world’s spiritual paths are describing one and the same phenomenon. And the most recent example is the Matrix, which is explicitly a work of comparative religion and philosophy.
I went to see the Matrix with a Hindu friend, and after leaving I pointed out to him all of the parallels that it expressed to Hindu spiritual understanding. When I finished explaining he was somewhat surprised and said, “That is amazing, I didn’t catch on to all of those facets of the movie, but when you put it like that it is quite explicit.” There most definitely is intersubjectivity to spiritual experiences. In many of the Hindu languages the term for religious practices translates literally as, “the spiritual sciences”. At the same time Christian’s embrace the Matrix as a very insightful description of their take on reality as well. There is a anime series called Animatrix, which is a Christian extrapolation of the Matrix paradigm. If the true nature of spiritual phenomena were widely understood, it wouldn’t be called mysticism, or mystical, because it is largely based an poorly understood (by science) aspects of EM phenomena and super-string/membrane theory’s understanding of the multidimensional nature of physics.
As to the statement that science automatically and reflexively rejects all spiritual phenomena, this is simply an expression of your own opinion and asserting that science shares this conclusion. Einstein certainly wouldn’t agree with this, he asserted that scientific understanding and spiritual understanding are two sides of the same coin. There is no disagreement, assertions of disagreement are the product of misinterpreting one of the two sides. Joseph Campbell would certainly not agree either.
I'm not the most typical person people go to to ask about religion, but I do have a bit to say about the topic. I considered myself a deist for a while, not really knowing what it was. I was a strong agnostic, but not totally atheist. I guess my point is that there's a fine line between logos and pathos. Sometimes they even blend into each other.
If you think about it, some logic explains emotion. I.e. Strong emotions can lead to a complete devotion to a religion. I know some hardcore Christians and Jews who are totally opposed to each other, but share the same logical thinking process: "There is a God and His law is Supreme".
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Spiritual experiences can and are shared experiences. |
I never said they weren't. I just said they weren't intersubjective. There is a huge difference.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | As to the statement that science automatically and reflexively rejects all spiritual phenomena, this is simply an expression of your own opinion and asserting that science shares this conclusion. |
You are being coy. I never said that science rejects any phenomena, spiritual or otherwise. If the phenomenon is intersubjective and can be observed and measured, then it can be used as scientific evidence, whether the phenomenon is spiritual, mystic or otherwise.
I said that theories that include mystic or spiritual beliefs are not scientific and/or that mystical or spirtual theories are not scientific. I did not say that such theories are not true, or that you are deluded to believe them. Those are your arguments, not mine.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Einstein certainly wouldn’t agree with this, he asserted that scientific understanding and spiritual understanding are two sides of the same coin. |
Two sides of the same coin? Maybe. But not the same side. Thus, different.
If the conclusion is true and the process for seeking that conclusion is not flawed, then it should be possible to arrive at that conclusion eventually by using that process. If these conditions are true for any number of processes, then each of those processes should eventually lead to that same conclusion, although not necessarily by the same path.
Science is one such process. It has a method that is rigidly defined and must be precisely and properly applied in order for the scientific process to not be flawed. But it is widely believed that the process is not flawed, and with enough time, will arrive at the truth. Of course, there is always lots of debate in this field, but concensus is that science should work.
Whatever process you use to achieve spiritual understanding is another process. I don't know how that process works, and frankly I don't care. But if the process is not flawed, it will eventually lead to the same truth as science, albeit, most likely from a different path.
So, assuming that science and whatever you use for spiritual and/or mystic revelation are both processes to seek the truth that are not flawed, they will both arrive at the same conclusion eventually. But the processes must be respected, or they won't work. Science has rules, and ignoring those rules ruins the process. Science may eventually explain mystic phenomena, but it will do so on its own terms, by its own methods.
Thus scientific understanding is one path to the truth, and spiritual understanding is another. They are not the same, but if they are not both flawed, they will eventually get to the same place.
So how would you apply this same reasoning to fields of science which defy these excessively limited criteria for how science can be can be applied, such as the social sciences, or the early work of naturalistic explorers? In the social sciences precise replication is impossible, there are too many independent variables that can’t be rigidly fixed. Some tolerance must be allowed for the impossibility of precisely reproducing human experience. The work of early naturalistic explorers could not be immediately confirmed due to the great expense and length of time required to travel to remote locations. And yet the work of these scientists was, and is considered to be works of science.
I dont see what the hell the argument is all about. Science, Religion and Mysticism are 3 different things. They smell alike and taste similar because they are all attempts to gain truth. They are all flawed and imperfect and can be used by really smart people for economic, political and other worldly gains.
how are they different? maybe like this...
"last night I spoke to God...."
Science: oh really? did you get his number? can we call him again?
Religion: Praise be! what did he say?
Mysticism: Are you sure? what did he look like? he coulda been duh dehbil!!
I really dont have apoint but thanks for reading this far....
| ddukki wrote: | I'm not the most typical person people go to to ask about religion, but I do have a bit to say about the topic. I considered myself a deist for a while, not really knowing what it was. I was a strong agnostic, but not totally atheist. I guess my point is that there's a fine line between logos and pathos. Sometimes they even blend into each other.
If you think about it, some logic explains emotion. I.e. Strong emotions can lead to a complete devotion to a religion. I know some hardcore Christians and Jews who are totally opposed to each other, but share the same logical thinking process: "There is a God and His law is Supreme".
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I thought I'd give it a shot. |
Thank you for trying to bring the topic back on track. I noticed and appreciate it.
| livilou wrote: | | Thank you for trying to bring the topic back on track. |
Far from being off topic, this has been atheism vs. deism in action!
Kuhn’s work does not support your assertion either. Real advances in science seldom follow the rigid, orderly, methodical process that you describe:
Kuhn argued that science proceeds through periods of normality where scientists working in a given field solving puzzles within a conceptual paradigm. In these periods, a prevailing theoretical conception is shared along with an associated set of methodological practices. While anomalies are placed aside for study, they may eventually, according to Kuhn, provoke a crisis between competing camps if a likable solution is not provided. The competing camps argue past each other, and a revolution occurs when the younger people holding the new view dominate the field and the older, more conservative members of a scientific community die off. A "paradigm shift," is said to have transpired. Kuhn supported the idea that theories are not falsified but replaced, with lucid historical examples. Obviously, highlighting the conservatism of actual science in the face of anomalies sent philosophies in the style of Popper into retreat.
When a field splits into competing camps over a disagreement, Kuhn asserted that the theories are methodologically incommensurable; the transition between the old paradigm and the new paradigm is not resolved by rational methods. Moreover, Kuhn in places advances semantic incommensurabiltity between theories -- partisans of theories are literally talking past each other.
http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-5004.html
==========================================================
What you describe, Indi, is exclusively the process of 'normal' science. 'Revolutionary' science completely defies the limitations that you imply, although you haven’t really gotten into the basis behind your assumptions. For example, in constructing Relativity, Einstein simply sat in the park and conducted ‘thought experiments’. According to your assumptions this would not be a scientific process. It is certainly not the normal scientific process, which is why not one in a thousand scientists can really tell you precisely how his thought experiments were conducted. Relativity is based on a four dimensional extrapolation of Euclidean geometry with the addition of an 11th axiom for a mass reference hyper-plane. All of the results of Relativity were derived through pure geometry, the Lorenz equations were entirely an afterthought.
The development of Quantum Physics was so disruptive to the ordinary practice of science that 6 months before the discovery, Heisenberg wrote that he was in a state of total despair and that it seemed as though nothing were right in the universe.
The problem here is that in order to see how the process of normal science can be just as readily applied to spiritual and mystical phenomena as any other mystery, you would have to go through a massive paradigm shift away from a purely materialistic view of the world. Science is after all the methodical study of the universe’s mysteries. There is absolutely no reason scientifically that it cannot be applied to any observable mystery. Whether that mystery is observed individually or as a group is not an issue that can ever exclude the application of scientific methods.
| Indi wrote: | | NemoySpruce wrote: | If there is no God, then when we die, there is oblivion.
If there is a God, and you believe in something, you have a 1 in N (N=number of religions) chances of getting into paradise/nirvana or whatever....
If you are atheist your choices are only oblivion or hell.. thats not good man!
got to believe in something.. Flying Spaghetti Monster!! |
You should check out Pascal's wager. |
i checked it out. It made my head spin.... basically, pascals wager is flawed and over simplified, because it doesnt take into account other religions and other possibities such as, what if God needs more than belief, what if he wants only saints to get into heaven, then you still screwed... All things being equal, i would still choose to beleive in something, rather than nothing. its like when you watch kermit the frog talking, do you imagine the hand inside moving the puppet? no, you sit back relax and enjoy the show. It makes things more interesting. and if we all end up as nothing, well, at least you enjoyed the show... im sure if God is real, you get extra points for trying to find out who he is... even if he turns out to be a large plate of spaghetti...
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | So how would you apply this same reasoning to fields of science which defy these excessively limited criteria for how science can be can be applied, such as the social sciences, or the early work of naturalistic explorers? |
Who cares? They're hardly relevant here.
Just because you use the scientific method, that doesn't make your field science. Unless the field satisfies the requirements for being science, it's not science.
If _______ (insert field here) meets the requirements of being a scientific field, then the field is science. If it doesn't, it's not. It's that simple. If it's not science, that doesn't necessarily preclude you from using the scientific method. But the field still won't be science.
Are social sciences (or anything else you choose to mention) sciences? *shrug* Not my concern. Not on topic here. If you care, apply the requirements and decide for yourself.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | What you describe, Indi, is exclusively the process of 'normal' science. 'Revolutionary' science completely defies the limitations that you imply |
No.
I was not describing a process. I was describing the criteria for determining what is and what is not science. I wasn't describing the scientific method, normal or otherwise.
However you come up with a new theory, be it by iteration and refinement (the "normal" process), or by a leap in imagination (the "revolutionary" process), that theory still has to meet the requirements I described. Doesn't matter where the theory came from or what field it is in. In order to be a scientific theory, it must satisfy the criteria I describe.
So no, Kuhn does not contradict my assertions. You have simply misinterpreted them again.
| NemoySpruce wrote: | | basically, pascals wager is flawed and over simplified, because it doesnt take into account other religions and other possibities such as, what if God needs more than belief, what if he wants only saints to get into heaven, then you still screwed... |
Flawed and oversimplified, hm? ^_^
Well, the reason it doesn't take more than one religion into account is because most religions are mutually exclusive. You can only believe in one at a time. It does no good at selecting which religion to follow, but it certainly suggests that you should pick one, if you buy it.
As for the rest, the wager includes all of that. The basic idea is that for any religion, you have a choice of whether to subscribe to that religion or not - not necessarily just believe, but actually follow the religion, so if the religion requires you to do something more than believe, the wager includes that.
Take Christianity for example. The wager is designed to determine whether or not you should just blow the whole thing off, or go the whole nine yards, including getting baptised and so on and so forth.
According to the wager, you should pick a religion and follow it religiously. Of course, if you don't buy the logic of the wager, then you can do what you like.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | As to the statement that science automatically and reflexively rejects all spiritual phenomena, this is simply an expression of your own opinion and asserting that science shares this conclusion. |
You are being coy. I never said that science rejects any phenomena, spiritual or otherwise.
|
Logic and the scientific method are the only BS detectors there are. If something was pursued in an unscientific and illogical manner then it is inherently flawed. The spiritual realm is fraught with pitfalls and deceptions, without a BS detector nothing can be known or substantiated about the topic. No objective analysis would be possible without a logically applied solid methodology.
| Indi wrote: | If the conclusion is true and the process for seeking that conclusion is not flawed, then it should be possible to arrive at that conclusion eventually by using that process. If these conditions are true for any number of processes, then each of those processes should eventually lead to that same conclusion, although not necessarily by the same path.
|
Then describe another BS detector that you consider to be accurate? Without an accurate BS detector, even from a personal point of view, no conclusion can be relied upon.
| Indi wrote: | I said that theories that include mystic or spiritual beliefs are not scientific and/or that mystical or spirtual theories are not scientific. I did not say that such theories are not true, or that you are deluded to believe them.
|
That is an axiomatic and religious definition, not a description of a flawed methodology. Only a flawed methodology can make a conclusion unscientific and illogical.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Einstein certainly wouldn’t agree with this, he asserted that scientific understanding and spiritual understanding are two sides of the same coin. |
Two sides of the same coin? Maybe. But not the same side. Thus, different.
|
That is an arbitrary distinction that you imposed axiomatically and reflexively without meaningful justification.
| Indi wrote: | Are social sciences (or anything else you choose to mention) sciences? *shrug* Not my concern. Not on topic here.
|
That is because it defies your arbitrary criteria and yet the consensus in science is that these are fields of science that are logical.
| Indi wrote: | | If you care, apply the requirements and decide for yourself. |
I already did, it fails your criteria.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | I was not describing a process. I was describing the criteria for determining what is and what is not science. I wasn't describing the scientific method, normal or otherwise.
|
And that is the crux of the problem. Only a flawed mathodology can make something unscientific and illogical. By eschewing any reference to the scientific method you have avoided the only relevant support that you can make for you assertion.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Spiritual experiences can and are shared experiences. |
I never said they weren't. I just said they weren't intersubjective. There is a huge difference.
|
| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=intersubjective wrote: |
Definition: existing or occurring between conscious minds
Example: Something is intersubjective if people are capable of sharing it or holding it in common.
Definition: understandable, accessible, and relating to two or more subjects; objective
|
Not being familiar with the term, how does your definition differ from this one? Or alternatively, how do apply the above definition so that it supports your statement above? Based on this definition I do not see any difference, much less a huge one.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Logic and the scientific method are the only BS detectors there are. If something was pursued in an unscientific and illogical manner then it is inherently flawed. The spiritual realm is fraught with pitfalls and deceptions, without a BS detector nothing can be known or substantiated about the topic. No objective analysis would be possible without a logically applied solid methodology. |
And as I have said, you're free to apply the scientific method to fields that are not science.
Every field defines the boundaries and the nature of its interest, as well as what is and what is not relevant and/or valid within the context of the field. Just because the boundaries that a field defines exclude it from the definition of a science, that doesn't mean you can't use the scientific method within it. To use your words, you can still do an objective analysis using the scientific methodology, but that won't necessarily make it science.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Then describe another BS detector that you consider to be accurate? Without an accurate BS detector, even from a personal point of view, no conclusion can be relied upon. |
Accurate? Your own intuition is usually very accurate, illogical leaps and all.
Perfect? Even the scientific method is not perfect.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | I said that theories that include mystic or spiritual beliefs are not scientific and/or that mystical or spirtual theories are not scientific. I did not say that such theories are not true, or that you are deluded to believe them.
|
That is an axiomatic and religious definition, not a description of a flawed methodology. Only a flawed methodology can make a conclusion unscientific and illogical. |
I don't understand what you're saying. I wasn't trying to describe a flawed methodology. The methodology used to analyze mystic theories may be perfect. But that doesn't make it science.
To claim science is perfect - and only science can be perfect - that to me sounds more dogmatic and religious than what I'm saying.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Einstein certainly wouldn’t agree with this, he asserted that scientific understanding and spiritual understanding are two sides of the same coin. |
Two sides of the same coin? Maybe. But not the same side. Thus, different.
|
That is an arbitrary distinction that you imposed axiomatically and reflexively without meaningful justification. |
And it was applied to Einstein's arbitrary opinion and his reflexive analogy, given without meaningful justification and quoted by you as if it were an axiom. What's your point?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Are social sciences (or anything else you choose to mention) sciences? *shrug* Not my concern. Not on topic here.
|
That is because it defies your arbitrary criteria and yet the consensus in science is that these are fields of science that are logical. |
No, it's because the topic here is Deism vs. Atheism. Thus that is not on topic here.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | If you care, apply the requirements and decide for yourself. |
I already did, it fails your criteria. |
*shrug* If a field doesn't fit the criteria for science, then it isn't science. It may still use the scientific method, of course.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | I was not describing a process. I was describing the criteria for determining what is and what is not science. I wasn't describing the scientific method, normal or otherwise.
|
And that is the crux of the problem. Only a flawed mathodology can make something unscientific and illogical. By eschewing any reference to the scientific method you have avoided the only relevant support that you can make for you assertion. |
Something is unscientific if it does not satisfy the criteria for being science. It's not just a matter of method, although that figures in it, of course.
To be a science it has to fit the definition of a science. What support am I "eschewing"? What support do I need? What crux and what problem is there here?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Spiritual experiences can and are shared experiences. |
I never said they weren't. I just said they weren't intersubjective. There is a huge difference.
|
| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=intersubjective wrote: |
Definition: existing or occurring between conscious minds
Example: Something is intersubjective if people are capable of sharing it or holding it in common.
Definition: understandable, accessible, and relating to two or more subjects; objective
|
Not being familiar with the term, how does your definition differ from this one? Or alternatively, how do apply the above definition so that it supports your statement above? Based on this definition I do not see any difference, much less a huge one. |
I agree that that definition is a little vague, but that's understandable because it's a difficult concept to pin down. Because the range of spiritual experiences is so broad, and because there is probably not a concensus on what is and what is not a valid spiritual experience, I can't really give you a concrete example using spiritualism or mysticsm. So I'm going to try to be general, which makes being brief difficult. So brace yourself, this will be long.
Imagine two people at a concert, listening to the score. Both are so moved by the music that they start crying. Clearly the emotional experience brought on by the music was a shared experience.
But was it intersubjective? Not necessarily, because a third person may have heard the same score and gotten sick to his stomach. A fourth might have been rolling in the aisle, laughing. A fifth might have been bored to tears, and a sixth might not have been moved at all. Thus any emotional reaction to the music, while shared, would not be intersubjective.
For an example of a more concrete and objective experience, consider two cases of a thousand people in a room, each watching the same movie. In the first case, each is watching exactly the same movie on their own personal screen. In the second case, they are all watching the movie on a big screen.
In the first case, they are all having an identical experience at the same time. Thus they are all sharing the experience of watching the movie. In the second case, they are all having an identical experience at the same time. Thus they are also sharing the experience. But in the second case, they are all subjectively experiencing the same single phenomena, not similar or even identical phenomena simultaneously. Thus the second experience is intersubjective, while the first is not.
Here's how the two examples apply to spiritual experiences in general.
In the first example, I showed how it is possible for several different people to experience the same sensory input and share a subjective interpretation of that input, yet not have an intersubjective experience because that interpretation wasn't by and large a universal one. If a thousand people had the same experience of being moved by the holy spirit in a sermon, that experience would be shared, but not intersubjective, because the experience may not be universally accepted by people in general, or the experience may differ from person to person.
In the second example, the experience was universal and objective. They all experienced the same phenomena - the movie - in the same way. Only, it wasn't really the same phenomena, it was many different yet identical phenomena. If a mystical experience is not subjective - if every person that experiences X has the same interpretation of that experience (for example, if everyone who has a near death experience has the same experience) - it may still not be intersubjective if each person, although they have identical experiences, isn't having the same experience. If you and only you experiences some mystical phenomena at a time, and no one else can observe the same phenomena as you while you experience it (although they may experience a similar or identical phenomena at another time), then it is not an intersubjective experience.
(Note that there is a caveat in the above example. If everyone who has a near death experience has the same experience, that doesn't make the experience intersubjective. However, the phenomenon can still be studied, because although the experience itself is not intersubjective, the claims are. Everyone has the same experience when listening to or reading someone's claims about what happened during an NDE. Thus we can study the claims. We can tabulate similarities between the claims, cross-reference the differences between different genders/ages/social standing/etc. and do many different kinds of research on the topic. However, we cannot study the nature of an NDE itself. We cannot speculate on whether there really is a light at the end of the tunnel and/or whether or not that light is heaven.)
So, the criteria for intersubjectivity can be summarized as follows:
1.) The experience and interpretation must be the same for everyone that observes the same phenomenon. Merely sharing "an experience" resulting from a phenomenon does not make the experience of that phenomenon intersubjective.
2.) The same phenomenon must the the cause of all experiences and interpretations of that phenomenon. Sharing the same experiences for identical phenomenon is not enough to make an experience intersubjective.
Thus it is possible to share experiences in many different ways that are not intersubjective.
Note that it is possible for experiences that are not shared to be intersubjective. No one but me is seeing what I'm looking at now, but I know from experience that if anyone else were here they would be. Seeing physical things is an intersubjective experience, even if you are not actually sharing the experience. This is a universal human experience. Thus it isn't required for a scientist to have an audience while performing an experiment.
So, to summarize: shared experiences are not necessarily intersubjective. Intersubjective experiences are not necessarily shared. The two concepts are very loosely related, but in actuality, completely different.
You are making an underlying assumption here about art vs. science, assuming that because something is an art (like Kuhn’s ‘revolutionary’ science) that it is illogical. Yet the culinary arts could not be said to be illogical. And the distinction blurs in the context of Oriental medicine, which makes no distinction between food and medicine. The medicinal properties of all foods are delineated. Oriental medicine has 80% and 90% success rates for whole categories of chronic diseases that western medicine can only watch the disease run its course. That is why some insurance plans and even free clinics for the poor offer acupuncture now.
Art and science is a yin/yang thing where you can never have one completely without the other. Nothing is ever 100% art or science. It is a spectrum, a range between two abstract infinite extremes neither of which can ever be reached in practical terms. So at what point in the range does logic cease to apply?
===================================================
I don’t understand your point about intersubjectivity and the distinction between the big screen and little ones. As a practical matter how does this alter the outcome? If everyone wrote a plot outline how would you tell the outlines from the different groups apart? A meaningful lack of intersubjectivity should have a discernable impact on some outcome.
I’m short for time, I’ll examine your post in more detail later. I think we are starting to get at some of the hidden assumptions behind the conservative reflexive denial of certain topics that is so common in western science, which has had such a notoriously deleterious effect on science periodically throughout its history, as delineated by Kuhn.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Are social sciences (or anything else you choose to mention) sciences? *shrug* Not my concern. Not on topic here.
|
That is because it defies your arbitrary criteria and yet the consensus in science is that these are fields of science that are logical. |
No, it's because the topic here is Deism vs. Atheism. Thus that is not on topic here.
|
The hidden assumptions that underlay atheism are very much on topic. You don’t want to answer the question because the only possible answer would blow your whole point.
Emotions are a logical system because it is operated by a computer, the limbic system. While the rules are complex in men and even more complex in women, and sometimes override the cortex leading to irrationality, it is still a computer that operates by a limited set of logical rules just like any other computer.
Women have more than twice the volume of active limbic system and it is largely a different part of the limbic system that is activated. Men either in jest or in anger refer to how illogical women are. This is because having a greater volume of limbic system means having more instincts and emotions which can override dispassionate thinking by the cortex, few of which are the instincts and emotions that men have to grapple with. They aren’t inherently illogical, they are just operating under a different logical system, albeit one that has more pitfalls.
The point being that your criteria for what is logical asserts that emotions are inherently illogical, when that is not possible. While it is hard to get at the rules of its logical system, that is no evidence that it lacks logical rules. The limbic system is very small, it is just a little loop in the core of the brain. There are necessarily a limited number of rules that govern it’s behavior. Though the rules are elusive, they are not numerous.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Are social sciences (or anything else you choose to mention) sciences? *shrug* Not my concern. Not on topic here.
|
That is because it defies your arbitrary criteria and yet the consensus in science is that these are fields of science that are logical. |
No, it's because the topic here is Deism vs. Atheism. Thus that is not on topic here.
|
The hidden assumptions that underlay atheism are very much on topic. You don’t want to answer the question because the only possible answer would blow your whole point. |
How does whether or not social sciences (or any field, for that matter) are actually sciences have anything to do with the topic? Atheism certainly isn't a science, so I don't see what your point is. Hell, nothing to do with God is science. So I still don't see how any of this could be on topic.
Perhaps you should try and make your point more clearly, and stop accusing me of being evasive. I can't answer a point I don't understand, and your vagueness is obscuring any point you might think you are making.
Asserting that belief in mystical phenomena is illogical is precisely equivalent to the reasoning of fundamentalist atheists. Both are based on making the same flawed assumption. The center-piece of my argument against this is my point about the social sciences.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Asserting that belief in mystical phenomena is illogical is precisely equivalent to the reasoning of fundamentalist atheists. |
Only if you've redefined the term "fundamentalist atheist" since it was last discussed.
Perhaps he is asuming that atheism is a religion.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Asserting that belief in mystical phenomena is illogical is precisely equivalent to the reasoning of fundamentalist atheists. |
Only if you've redefined the term "fundamentalist atheist" since it was last discussed. |
Adding a synonym is not a redefinition. My definition of amystical is simply a refinement of the term atheism. Amysticism is a subset of atheism that excludes mystical atheists. The argument against mysticism is fundamentally the same as the argument against theism, save that mysticism is more accessible and so amysticism requires a harder stance. It is easier to get at the higher contrast in logic of a harder stance than it is to get at the more subtle contrasts in a softer argument. So amysticism IS a form of atheism by definition and it shares all of the essential attributes of fundamentalist atheism, so the two terms are practically identical in every respect. As applied to these arguments, there is no relevant difference what-so-ever.
This debate has gotten right to the heart of the underlying assumptions of atheism. As Morpheus says of the Matrix, “You are trapped in a prison that you can not see, hear, touch, taste or smell.” The flawed underlying assumption is making you cross eyed it is so right in front of your face, and yet you deny any association with it when you see it falling apart.
So how is this any different from any other facet of the argument, all of which you have no trouble addressing? But when it comes to the issue that would demolish your argument you suddenly dig in your heals and insist that it is totally off topic a half dozen times in a row. This isn't much more than a temper tantrum because you can't stand to loose. You aren't arguing to get at what is true, you are arguing only to win. This is a defining attribute of fundamentalist atheism, reflexive denial that has the quality of a conservative religious faith which is ultimately defended with emotionalism and not rationality.
A second attribute which your antimystical point of view shares with the antitheistic point of view (as opposed to simply atheistic) of fundamentalist atheism is a complete lack of concern for the philosophical implications. Both the amystic and atheistic point of view assert that life is meaningless and futile, but when not reflexively assumed one contemplates the implications of futility with an unavoidable impact on one’s emotional state. But in antimysticism/antitheism denial is reflexively assumed and so this emotional process is avoided, you have to first take seriously the notion of life having meaning in order to be emotionally rocked by an absence of meaning and purpose implicit in the atheistic and amystical points of view.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Asserting that belief in mystical phenomena is illogical is precisely equivalent to the reasoning of fundamentalist atheists. |
Only if you've redefined the term "fundamentalist atheist" since it was last discussed. |
Adding a synonym is not a redefinition. My definition of amystical is simply a refinement of the term atheism. Amysticism is a subset of atheism that excludes mystical atheists. The argument against mysticism is fundamentally the same as the argument against theism, save that mysticism is more accessible and so amysticism requires a harder stance. It is easier to get at the higher contrast in logic of a harder stance than it is to get at the more subtle contrasts in a softer argument. So amysticism IS a form of atheism by definition and it shares all of the essential attributes of fundamentalist atheism, so the two terms are practically identical in every respect. As applied to these arguments, there is no relevant difference what-so-ever.
This debate has gotten right to the heart of the underlying assumptions of atheism. As Morpheus says of the Matrix, “You are trapped in a prison that you can not see, hear, touch, taste or smell.” The flawed underlying assumption is making you cross eyed it is so right in front of your face, and yet you deny any association with it when you see it falling apart. |
Theism is theism and mysticism is mysticism. One is not a "subset" of the other and they are most certainly not synonymous. Theism is a belief in "God", whatever the nature of that god may be, and specifically belief in a god that is not evidenced by nature itself - a god that must be revealed by visions and/or prophets. Mysticism is a belief in a reality or realities that is/are not perceivable objectively (or intersubjectively for that matter) but may be subjectively perceived.
Since theism and mysticism are two entirely different concepts, atheism and amysticism are two entirely different stances. They are not related. It is easily possible to believe in mysticism but no god (mystical atheist), or to believe in god but not mysticism (amystical theist).
If you believe that atheism and amysticism are synonymous or that one is a subset of the other, and are basing your argument on that, your entire argument is based on a flawed premise.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | So how is this any different from any other facet of the argument, all of which you have no trouble addressing? But when it comes to the issue that would demolish your argument you suddenly dig in your heals and insist that it is totally off topic a half dozen times in a row. This isn't much more than a temper tantrum because you can't stand to loose. You aren't arguing to get at what is true, you are arguing only to win. This is a defining attribute of fundamentalist atheism, reflexive denial that has the quality of a conservative religious faith which is ultimately defended with emotionalism and not rationality. |
Since mysticism has nothing to do with theism, atheism or deism, I don't find my position in calling it off topic to be a "temper tantrum".
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | A second attribute which your antimystical point of view shares with the antitheistic point of view (as opposed to simply atheistic) of fundamentalist atheism is a complete lack of concern for the philosophical implications. Both the amystic and atheistic point of view assert that life is meaningless and futile, but when not reflexively assumed one contemplates the implications of futility with an unavoidable impact on one’s emotional state. But in antimysticism/antitheism denial is reflexively assumed and so this emotional process is avoided, you have to first take seriously the notion of life having meaning in order to be emotionally rocked by an absence of meaning and purpose implicit in the atheistic and amystical points of view. |
So do you claim that atheism demonstrates a complete lack of concern for the philosophical implications? You have introduced yet another term, without any real justification - antitheism. (Forget about mysticism - it has no relevance here.) If antitheism means hostility to theism, then it is not a synomyn for atheism. Atheism is simply not being theist, with no implied connotation of being hostile to the idea. Yet you switch back and forth between the terms in the preceeding paragraph, leading me to wonder if you think they are interchangeable.
Am I correct in interpreting your argument to be that an atheist must necessarily conclude that life is meaningless and purposeless? And that any atheist that does not share that conclusion has simply not given it enough thought?
| Indi wrote: | Theism is theism and mysticism is mysticism. One is not a "subset" of the other and they are most certainly not synonymous.
|
Theism is a subset of mysticism, is it not? You are asserting that belief in God is not a mystical belief?
| Indi wrote: | So do you claim that atheism demonstrates a complete lack of concern for the philosophical implications?
|
Hardly, since they are the only ones likely to contemplate the philosophical implications of atheism!!
| Indi wrote: | You have introduced yet another term, without any real justification - antitheism. (Forget about mysticism - it has no relevance here.) If antitheism means hostility to theism, then it is not a synomyn for atheism.
|
I’m using antitheism as an alternate term for fundamentalist atheism, which is obviously intended to mean something distinct from atheism in general.
| Indi wrote: | Atheism is simply not being theist, with no implied connotation of being hostile to the idea.
|
Which is why I had the terms logical atheist vs. fundamental atheist. And I wouldn’t call it hostility, I would call it axiomatic denial.
| Indi wrote: | Yet you switch back and forth between the terms in the preceeding paragraph, leading me to wonder if you think they are interchangeable.
|
No, if you think they are interchangeable then you could not have apprehended the intent of statement accurately.
| Indi wrote: | Am I correct in interpreting your argument to be that an atheist must necessarily conclude that life is meaningless and purposeless? And that any atheist that does not share that conclusion has simply not given it enough thought?
|
Camus wrote that the most important question in life is whether or not to commit suicide. IMO, Existentialism is the most deeply thought out argument on the subject of atheism. However, I do allow for considerable variance, those who once had meaning and loose it focus much more on it than those who were raised without ever being taught anything about the spiritual sciences. Never the less, I think the degree of contemplation or lack there of is a measure of how axiomatically the disbelief is held, albeit with some independent variables.
OK, if you have failed to see how theism is a subset of mysticism then all of your other arguments follow from this error in an otherwise entirely logical manner. Never the less, you were willing to debate a subject that you considered off topic until it got too the coup de grace. But it is actually very much on topic.
I'm making an argument about the nature of axiomatic denial. It applies to denial of all mystical phenomena in the same manner that it applies to some stances on atheism, but not all.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Theism is a subset of mysticism, is it not? You are asserting that belief in God is not a mystical belief? |
No. Yes.
Some theistic philosphies include mysticism, some don't. Mysticism is belief in a layer of existence that can only be experienced subjectively. Believing God exists does not imply that he/she/it can be experienced subjectively - or at all. It may be the only way to know God is by the teachings of his prophets. Believing God exists does not necessarily imply a different layer of reality. God may exist completely outside of our reality, and observe/manipulate it from there.
Mysticism and theism are two entirely different concepts.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | I’m using antitheism as an alternate term for fundamentalist atheism, which is obviously intended to mean something distinct from atheism in general. |
But "fundamental" atheism and antitheism are two different things. "Fundamental" atheism - as was defined right here - is a belief that God does not exist, without any consideration of alternative possibilities. Antitheism - given that "anti-" means "opposition to" - is opposition to theism. "Fundamental" atheism, as we defined it here, does not imply opposition to theism, merely dogmatic assertion as fact of a belief that God does not exist. A "fundamental" atheist may not even care about theism. They may be entirely convinced that it is a fact that God does not exist, and are simply not interested in contrary beliefs or those that have them. Lack of interest is not necessarily hostility.
Thus, you have redefined the term "fundamental atheist", as I suggested you had. Perhaps you should stop introducing new terms and synonyms into the discussion without first verifying that your new terms are valid. Before discussing atheism, we agreed on certain definitions for certain terms. If any of those definitions are unclear, then ask for clarification. Do not introduce new terms. You're only confusing things.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Atheism is simply not being theist, with no implied connotation of being hostile to the idea.
|
Which is why I had the terms logical atheist vs. fundamental atheist. And I wouldn’t call it hostility, I would call it axiomatic denial. |
"Fundamental" atheism would be axiomatic denial of God. Antitheism would be hostility to the idea of God. Your new term is a new concept, and irrelevant to the concept of atheism (and deism for that matter), which does not imply hostility.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Yet you switch back and forth between the terms in the preceeding paragraph, leading me to wonder if you think they are interchangeable.
|
No, if you think they are interchangeable then you could not have apprehended the intent of statement accurately. |
Ok, see, when debating someone, if you notice that the other person does not seem to be understanding your point or interpreting your statements properly, the correct - and polite - thing to do is to explain that there has been a miscommunication and attempt to make your point again more clearly. Simply saying "if that's what you think, you misunderstood" without any further clarification helps nothing. Not explaining yourself and additionally calling them stupid, evasive and/or intellectually dishonest - among other things - is not appropriate behaviour.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Am I correct in interpreting your argument to be that an atheist must necessarily conclude that life is meaningless and purposeless? And that any atheist that does not share that conclusion has simply not given it enough thought?
|
Camus wrote that the most important question in life is whether or not to commit suicide. IMO, Existentialism is the most deeply thought out argument on the subject of atheism. However, I do allow for considerable variance, those who once had meaning and loose it focus much more on it than those who were raised without ever being taught anything about the spiritual sciences. Never the less, I think the degree of contemplation or lack there of is a measure of how axiomatically the disbelief is held, albeit with some independent variables. |
That's a fair assessment - that the lack of consideration is proportional to the degree of dogmatism - but you didn't answer my question. You said: "Both the amystic and atheistic point of view assert that life is meaningless and futile, but when not reflexively assumed one contemplates the implications of futility with an unavoidable impact on one’s emotional state." In other words: "If you take the time to think about atheism, you will inevitably realize that it asserts that life is meaningless and futile, and it will upset you." Is that not a correct way to paraphrase what you said?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | OK, if you have failed to see how theism is a subset of mysticism then all of your other arguments follow from this error in an otherwise entirely logical manner. Never the less, you were willing to debate a subject that you considered off topic until it got too the coup de grace. But it is actually very much on topic.
I'm making an argument about the nature of axiomatic denial. It applies to denial of all mystical phenomena in the same manner that it applies to some stances on atheism, but not all. |
I continued to debate it because I assumed there was a point. When we got to your so-called "coup de grace", I finally realized that the point you thought you were making has no relevance, and thus was not worth the effort of continuing.
What is your point? What does axiomatic denial have to do with anything? Are you trying to argue that dogmatic atheistic beliefs are illogical? We covered that when the idea was first introduced. Are you trying to argue that all atheistic beliefs are axiomatic denial? What is your point? I still don't see it or the relevance of mysticism.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Theism is a subset of mysticism, is it not? You are asserting that belief in God is not a mystical belief? |
No. Yes.
Some theistic philosphies include mysticism, some don't. Mysticism is belief in a layer of existence that can only be experienced subjectively. Believing God exists does not imply that he/she/it can be experienced subjectively - or at all. It may be the only way to know God is by the teachings of his prophets. Believing God exists does not necessarily imply a different layer of reality. God may exist completely outside of our reality, and observe/manipulate it from there.
Mysticism and theism are two entirely different concepts.
|
You admitted a yes into your initial answer, so even by your contrived distinction the difference is not complete.
| Indi wrote: | God may exist completely outside of our reality, and observe/manipulate it from there.
|
God is a mystical being. If not, then how is he a tangible being? None of your examples provides for a non-mystical God. The notion is an oxymoron, if I’m not mistaken.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | I’m using antitheism as an alternate term for fundamentalist atheism, which is obviously intended to mean something distinct from atheism in general. |
But "fundamental" atheism and antitheism are two different things. "Fundamental" atheism - as was defined right here - is a belief that God does not exist, without any consideration of alternative possibilities.
|
Well, without consideration is not how I put it, or at least, it is not the full expression as I’ve used it repeatedly. They axiomatically reject the notion. That is how I’ve been using it.
| Indi wrote: | Antitheism - given that "anti-" means "opposition to" - is opposition to theism.
|
If you axiomatically reject something, how likely are you to argue for it rather than in opposition to it?
| Indi wrote: | "Fundamental" atheism, as we defined it here, does not imply opposition to theism, merely dogmatic assertion as fact of a belief that God does not exist.
|
That is automatically an argument opposed to theism.
| Indi wrote: | A "fundamental" atheist may not even care about theism.
|
No, they are quite convinced that it is false. Someone who didn’t care would have no opinion about whether it was true or false.
| Indi wrote: | They may be entirely convinced that it is a fact that God does not exist, and are simply not interested in contrary beliefs or those that have them. Lack of interest is not necessarily hostility.
|
As I said, axiomatic assumptions are not hostility either. I have never used the word hostile except to reject it. You tacked it on. They may or may not be hostile, that is irrelevant.
| Indi wrote: | Thus, you have redefined the term "fundamental atheist", as I suggested you had. Perhaps you should stop introducing new terms and synonyms into the discussion without first verifying that your new terms are valid. Before discussing atheism, we agreed on certain definitions for certain terms. If any of those definitions are unclear, then ask for clarification. Do not introduce new terms. You're only confusing things.
|
It is a simple matter, it is not that confusing. I apologize, I will stick with initial cumbersome terms in the future and not try to find more terse terms. Is that better?
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Atheism is simply not being theist, with no implied connotation of being hostile to the idea.
|
Which is why I had the terms logical atheist vs. fundamental atheist. And I wouldn’t call it hostility, I would call it axiomatic denial. |
"Fundamental" atheism would be axiomatic denial of God. Antitheism would be hostility to the idea of God. Your new term is a new concept, and irrelevant to the concept of atheism (and deism for that matter), which does not imply hostility.
|
I agree it is irrelevant, so why do you keep trying to reintroduce this irrelevant issue when I have stated in previous posts that it has nothing to do with my intended definition? I used antitheism and fundamentalist atheism synonymously, hostility was never a relevant concept to any of my arguments.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Yet you switch back and forth between the terms in the preceeding paragraph, leading me to wonder if you think they are interchangeable.
|
No, if you think they are interchangeable then you could not have apprehended the intent of statement accurately. |
Ok, see, when debating someone, if you notice that the other person does not seem to be understanding your point or interpreting your statements properly, the correct - and polite - thing to do is to explain that there has been a miscommunication and attempt to make your point again more clearly. Simply saying "if that's what you think, you misunderstood" without any further clarification helps nothing. Not explaining yourself and additionally calling them stupid, evasive and/or intellectually dishonest - among other things - is not appropriate behaviour.
|
You want me to quote myself from the previous message?
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Am I correct in interpreting your argument to be that an atheist must necessarily conclude that life is meaningless and purposeless? And that any atheist that does not share that conclusion has simply not given it enough thought?
|
Camus wrote that the most important question in life is whether or not to commit suicide. IMO, Existentialism is the most deeply thought out argument on the subject of atheism. However, I do allow for considerable variance, those who once had meaning and loose it focus much more on it than those who were raised without ever being taught anything about the spiritual sciences. Never the less, I think the degree of contemplation or lack there of is a measure of how axiomatically the disbelief is held, albeit with some independent variables. |
That's a fair assessment - that the lack of consideration is proportional to the degree of dogmatism - but you didn't answer my question. You said: "Both the amystic and atheistic point of view assert that life is meaningless and futile, but when not reflexively assumed one contemplates the implications of futility with an unavoidable impact on one’s emotional state." In other words: "If you take the time to think about atheism, you will inevitably realize that it asserts that life is meaningless and futile, and it will upset you." Is that not a correct way to paraphrase what you said?
|
Yes, except that I acknowledge an independent variable. If you’re raised atheist it could be that it isn’t much of a blow.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | OK, if you have failed to see how theism is a subset of mysticism then all of your other arguments follow from this error in an otherwise entirely logical manner. Never the less, you were willing to debate a subject that you considered off topic until it got too the coup de grace. But it is actually very much on topic.
I'm making an argument about the nature of axiomatic denial. It applies to denial of all mystical phenomena in the same manner that it applies to some stances on atheism, but not all. |
I continued to debate it because I assumed there was a point. When we got to your so-called "coup de grace", I finally realized that the point you thought you were making has no relevance, and thus was not worth the effort of continuing.
What is your point? What does axiomatic denial have to do with anything? Are you trying to argue that dogmatic atheistic beliefs are illogical? We covered that when the idea was first introduced. Are you trying to argue that all atheistic beliefs are axiomatic denial? What is your point? I still don't see it or the relevance of mysticism.
|
The only way that you can assert no relevance is to act like you’ve created a definition of a non-mystical God. Any attempt at creating a non-mystical definition of God will end up being a contrived self-contradiction.
Not all axiomatic denials are dogmatic and invalid, it depends on the assumption. Axioms are critical things, the hinge-point of logic. The quality of an entire system of reasoning is profoundly dependent on the quality of its axioms. When something is introduced into a system, not as a supposition following from other axioms, but as an axiom itself, it had better be a fundamental and accurate assumption.
The point is to demonstrate the presence of a flawed axiom; an assertion that is either not fundamental or not accurate, disqualifying it for axiomatic status.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Theism is a subset of mysticism, is it not? You are asserting that belief in God is not a mystical belief? |
No. Yes.
Some theistic philosphies include mysticism, some don't. Mysticism is belief in a layer of existence that can only be experienced subjectively. Believing God exists does not imply that he/she/it can be experienced subjectively - or at all. It may be the only way to know God is by the teachings of his prophets. Believing God exists does not necessarily imply a different layer of reality. God may exist completely outside of our reality, and observe/manipulate it from there.
Mysticism and theism are two entirely different concepts.
|
You admitted a yes into your initial answer, so even by your contrived distinction the difference is not complete. |
? Initial answer?
By my "contrived" example, I showed that mysticism and theism are orthogonal concepts. Thus, entirely different. Completely so. Orthogonal. Unrelated.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | God may exist completely outside of our reality, and observe/manipulate it from there.
|
God is a mystical being. If not, then how is he a tangible being? None of your examples provides for a non-mystical God. The notion is an oxymoron, if I’m not mistaken. |
Ok, we're stumbling on communication issues again.
What is your definition of mysticism? Mine is the belief in a subjective layer of reality - belief in things that cannot be proven objectively, but can be subjectively experienced.
What is your definition of God? Do you believe that your definition is the only one? According to the varying definitions of theist gods that I have heard: God can be subjectively experienced in some, and not in others. Thus theism is not synonimous with mysticism, according to my definition of mysticism. Some forms of theism incorporate mysticism, others actively reject it. Some forms of mysticism involve theism, others actively reject it. Mysticism and theism are orthogonal concepts.
| Indi wrote: | Ok, see, when debating someone, if you notice that the other person does not seem to be understanding your point or interpreting your statements properly, the correct - and polite - thing to do is to explain that there has been a miscommunication and attempt to make your point again more clearly. Simply saying "if that's what you think, you misunderstood" without any further clarification helps nothing.
|
Well, this debate is already getting very convoluted. If I took each argument out four or five levels of recursion and showed how it applied to each level, these posts would be impossibly long and dramatically more convoluted. It wouldn’t make anything easier to follow, and it would just use up a huge amount of time, both to write and read.
We’ve got the argument as it applies to atheism, the argument as it applies to the assertion that belief in mysticism is illogical, then as it applies to some objection your pose to an individual assetion, and then there are objections to the supporting points that counter the objections, etc, etc…
You are getting lost in the recursive layers of your objections and loosing track as to which layer of the debate we are on, or so you say. I generally answer the objection at the layer it is presented at. If agreement can be reached then at that point I’ll pop it up a level and show how that applies to the next level of the debate. But if we can’t agree on the issue there is no point to doing that. If you can agree with some of the assertions than we can start climbing out of the levels of recursion in this argument.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Theism is a subset of mysticism, is it not? You are asserting that belief in God is not a mystical belief? |
No. Yes.
|
You admitted a yes into your initial answer, so even by your contrived distinction the difference is not complete. |
? Initial answer?
|
The yes and no part.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | God may exist completely outside of our reality, and observe/manipulate it from there.
|
God is a mystical being. If not, then how is he a tangible being? None of your examples provides for a non-mystical God. The notion is an oxymoron, if I’m not mistaken. |
Ok, we're stumbling on communication issues again.
What is your definition of mysticism? Mine is the belief in a subjective layer of reality - belief in things that cannot be proven objectively, but can be subjectively experienced.
|
Here is what the dictionary.com says which is fine with me:
1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
| Indi wrote: | What is your definition of God? Do you believe that your definition is the only one?
|
What is your definition of you? This business about definition is getting out of hand, the dictionary’s definition is perfectly OK with me. Do I think it is the only definition possible? Well, God isn’t an abstract concept with a definition, so obviously I would not think so. Never the less, any definition of God that is not mystic would necessarily be tangible, which is pretty much absurd on the face of it.
| Indi wrote: | According to the varying definitions of theist gods that I have heard: God can be subjectively experienced in some, and not in others. Thus theism is not synonimous with mysticism, according to my definition of mysticism.
|
The fact that lay people don’t experience him and priests do, if that is what you are referring to, hardly makes the priest’s activities non-mystical.
| Indi wrote: | Some forms of theism incorporate mysticism, others actively reject it.
|
Such as? Christianity rejects some and embraces others in a sometimes hypocritical fashion, that doesn’t make it antimystical. What was the battle between Moses and the Pharonic preists with staffs turning into snakes and eating each other, or between Elijah and the Canaanite priests where Elijah calls down fire from Heaven? Buddhism might be a trickier matter, but the Buddha claimed to know all the mysteries of the universe, which is inherently an assertion of mystical knowledge.
| Indi wrote: | | Some forms of mysticism involve theism, others actively reject it. Mysticism and theism are orthogonal concepts. |
Of course mysticism is not a subset of theism, that would totally contradict the notion that theism is a subset of mysticism. And stating that mysticism is not a subset of theism hardly contradicts the fact that theism is subset of mysticism.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | I’m using antitheism as an alternate term for fundamentalist atheism, which is obviously intended to mean something distinct from atheism in general. |
But "fundamental" atheism and antitheism are two different things. "Fundamental" atheism - as was defined right here - is a belief that God does not exist, without any consideration of alternative possibilities.
|
Well, without consideration is not how I put it, or at least, it is not the full expression as I’ve used it repeatedly. They axiomatically reject the notion. That is how I’ve been using it. |
Probably functionally the same thing, but still separate from antitheism.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Antitheism - given that "anti-" means "opposition to" - is opposition to theism.
|
If you axiomatically reject something, how likely are you to argue for it rather than in opposition to it? |
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you're against it. I assume you don't believe in unicorns. Do you think unicorns are a disgusting or horrible idea? Have you ever spoken out denouncing the existence of unicorns, and calling belief in them foolish? Probably not. You probably just don't care about people who believe in them.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | "Fundamental" atheism, as we defined it here, does not imply opposition to theism, merely dogmatic assertion as fact of a belief that God does not exist.
|
That is automatically an argument opposed to theism. |
No, it is automatically a belief opposed to theism. That does not imply an argument. Let me try to put it in a dialogue between a "fundamental" atheist (FA) and a theist (T).
FA: I do not believe in God.
T: You have no proof.
FA: I have all the proof I need. God does not exist.
T: I believe God exists.
FA: So?
T: So your belief contradicts mine.
FA: Fascinating.
T: So you are opposed to what I believe.
FA: No. I just don't share your belief.
T: But your belief contradicts mine.
FA: Yes.
T: So you're saying my belief is wrong.
FA: Yes.
T: So you are opposed to what I believe.
FA: I am not opposed to anything. I believe what I know to be true.
T: What about my belief?
FA: You can believe whatever you want.
T: Even though you think it's wrong?
FA: You think mine's wrong.
T: And I am opposed to that belief.
FA: Fascinating.
T: And you don't care that I oppose your belief?
FA: I really don't care about you or your belief. Both are irrelevant to me.
You see? Disbelief - even disagreement - is not the same as opposition.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | A "fundamental" atheist may not even care about theism.
|
No, they are quite convinced that it is false. Someone who didn’t care would have no opinion about whether it was true or false. |
Wrong. For example: Say I am very convinced that there are no fairies. I am absolutely, incontravertably convinced that fairies are impossible, and cannot exist. I refuse to even entertain a theory that includes fairies. I don't care about beliefs that include them, or people that hold those beliefs. If there are fairy-lovers in the world, they are irrelevant to me.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | As I said, axiomatic assumptions are not hostility either. I have never used the word hostile except to reject it. You tacked it on. They may or may not be hostile, that is irrelevant. |
You introduced the term antitheist.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Thus, you have redefined the term "fundamental atheist", as I suggested you had. Perhaps you should stop introducing new terms and synonyms into the discussion without first verifying that your new terms are valid. Before discussing atheism, we agreed on certain definitions for certain terms. If any of those definitions are unclear, then ask for clarification. Do not introduce new terms. You're only confusing things.
|
It is a simple matter, it is not that confusing. I apologize, I will stick with initial cumbersome terms in the future and not try to find more terse terms. Is that better? |
If you want terseness, use acronyms. If you don't want to use acronyms, just make sure your terser terms are not different terms.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | "Fundamental" atheism would be axiomatic denial of God. Antitheism would be hostility to the idea of God. Your new term is a new concept, and irrelevant to the concept of atheism (and deism for that matter), which does not imply hostility.
|
I agree it is irrelevant, so why do you keep trying to reintroduce this irrelevant issue when I have stated in previous posts that it has nothing to do with my intended definition? I used antitheism and fundamentalist atheism synonymously, hostility was never a relevant concept to any of my arguments. |
We can't converse if you're going to reinvent the English language. The term "antitheism" implies hostility, regardless of how you want it to be defined. You introduced the term. Thus you introduced the concept of hostility.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Ok, see, when debating someone, if you notice that the other person does not seem to be understanding your point or interpreting your statements properly, the correct - and polite - thing to do is to explain that there has been a miscommunication and attempt to make your point again more clearly. Simply saying "if that's what you think, you misunderstood" without any further clarification helps nothing. Not explaining yourself and additionally calling them stupid, evasive and/or intellectually dishonest - among other things - is not appropriate behaviour.
|
You want me to quote myself from the previous message? |
To quote myself from the paragraph above: "explain that there has been a miscommunication and attempt to make your point again more clearly". If simply repeating the unclear passage will somehow suddenly make it more clear, go for it. Since that is highly unlikely, a better bet would be to rewrite and reword the passage, rather than simply quoting it.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | That's a fair assessment - that the lack of consideration is proportional to the degree of dogmatism - but you didn't answer my question. You said: "Both the amystic and atheistic point of view assert that life is meaningless and futile, but when not reflexively assumed one contemplates the implications of futility with an unavoidable impact on one’s emotional state." In other words: "If you take the time to think about atheism, you will inevitably realize that it asserts that life is meaningless and futile, and it will upset you." Is that not a correct way to paraphrase what you said?
|
Yes, except that I acknowledge an independent variable. If you’re raised atheist it could be that it isn’t much of a blow. |
So, to paraphrase: "If you take the time to think about atheism, you will inevitably realize that it asserts that life is meaningless and futile, and it will upset you unless you are desensitized to the implications already." Is that correct?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | The only way that you can assert no relevance is to act like you’ve created a definition of a non-mystical God. Any attempt at creating a non-mystical definition of God will end up being a contrived self-contradiction. |
I have already answered that challenge in another post, and will again later in this post.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | Not all axiomatic denials are dogmatic and invalid, it depends on the assumption. Axioms are critical things, the hinge-point of logic. The quality of an entire system of reasoning is profoundly dependent on the quality of its axioms. When something is introduced into a system, not as a supposition following from other axioms, but as an axiom itself, it had better be a fundamental and accurate assumption.
The point is to demonstrate the presence of a flawed axiom; an assertion that is either not fundamental or not accurate, disqualifying it for axiomatic status. |
Alright, what "axiom" that has been presented is flawed?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Theism is a subset of mysticism, is it not? You are asserting that belief in God is not a mystical belief? |
No. Yes.
|
You admitted a yes into your initial answer, so even by your contrived distinction the difference is not complete. |
? Initial answer?
|
The yes and no part. |
? That was a yes to: "You are asserting that belief in God is not a mystical belief?" The no was to the first question. Theism is not a subset of mysticism.
Theism and mysticism are orthogonal concepts.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | Here is what the dictionary.com says which is fine with me:
1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience. |
(First, I'd like to note that my original statement that you objected to was something to the effect of "mysticism is illogical by definition", and that it seems you have carefully excised the definition of mysticism that supports that assertion, without comment.)
Ok, so if theism is a subset of mysticism, then all forms of theism must satisfy that definition.
1a.) What about theist beliefs that do not allow for immediate consciousness of God, like Judaism? Judaism states that God only communicates by prophets. The average person cannot be aware of the nature of God without interpretation by prophets. (Note that even to prophets he doesn't speak directly, with only one or two exceptions. Thus even prophets do not have an immediate knowledge of God, only a second-hand one, transmitted by agents of God.)
1b.) Not really relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the concept of mysticism, not the experience.
2.) Same argument about theist beliefs that do not include subjective experience of God using Judaism as in 1a. But also, what about theist beliefs that do not include non-perceivable realities? There are several of those, many falling under the wing of deism and/or pantheism. Cosmotheism for example. In cosmotheism, God is not transcendant, nor is he beyond perception and/or understanding, he is part of and even a product of this universe. You do not experience God subjectively, you experience him with every breath and heart beat. Once science advances enough we can even communicate directly with him. When it advances further, we become him.
You see? The range of theist beliefs may overlap mysticism in places, but is by no means a subset of it. Theism does not require mysticism and mysticism doesn't require theism. They are orthogonal concepts.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | What is your definition of God? Do you believe that your definition is the only one?
|
What is your definition of you? This business about definition is getting out of hand, the dictionary’s definition is perfectly OK with me. Do I think it is the only definition possible? Well, God isn’t an abstract concept with a definition, so obviously I would not think so. Never the less, any definition of God that is not mystic would necessarily be tangible, which is pretty much absurd on the face of it. |
I don't know what you think communication is, or what it involves, but by my understanding of it, sharing common definitions of terms is one of the most critical steps to sharing understanding - which is communication after all. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I want to understand what you're saying, but if you are really not interested in communicating, why are you here?
You are half right. A definition of a tangible god is indeed a version of theism that does not include mysticism. But why is this absurd? There are several forms of theism with tangible gods.
But a god does not need to be tangible to be non-mystical. Mysticism implies subjective experience and apprehension is possible. Gods that do not use subjective experience as a means of communication, and/or that cannot be or do not need to be understood subjectively would also be non-mystical.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | According to the varying definitions of theist gods that I have heard: God can be subjectively experienced in some, and not in others. Thus theism is not synonimous with mysticism, according to my definition of mysticism.
|
The fact that lay people don’t experience him and priests do, if that is what you are referring to, hardly makes the priest’s activities non-mystical. |
That was not what I was referring to. There are many more theist religions that the big ones. Many of them do not have priests. Some do not need priests because they believe that God can be observed and experienced directly, without an intermediary.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Some forms of theism incorporate mysticism, others actively reject it.
|
Such as? Christianity rejects some and embraces others in a sometimes hypocritical fashion, that doesn’t make it antimystical. What was the battle between Moses and the Pharonic preists with staffs turning into snakes and eating each other, or between Elijah and the Canaanite priests where Elijah calls down fire from Heaven? Buddhism might be a trickier matter, but the Buddha claimed to know all the mysteries of the universe, which is inherently an assertion of mystical knowledge. |
You have provided a definition of mysticism that you accept. It requires that God can be experienced and/or understood subjectively. That is not true in Judaism or Christianity. Both require interpretation of God by prophets, not by your own subjective experience. In fact, subjective interpretation is actively frowned upon.
According to the doctrine of both religions, the prophets did not receive subjective experience of God either. Rather, they were contacted - quite objectively, according to the doctrines - and told of God's nature and his will by God or his agents.
By the very definitions of Judaism and Christianity (fundamental versions of each of course - because interpretations vary widely), God cannot be interpreted or understood subjectively. Thus, they are not mystical religions - by the definition of mysticism that you accept. (Of course, many versions of Christianity in particular ignore the verses that say that God only reveals himself through his prophets, and thus, wade into mysticism.)
Parlour tricks - even real magic, if the stories are true - are not mystical in nature. Not according to the definition you agreed on. Mysticism is a subjective experience. Seeing a staff turned into a snake is quite non-subjective, I would say. Same for fire from the heavens.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Some forms of mysticism involve theism, others actively reject it. Mysticism and theism are orthogonal concepts. |
Of course mysticism is not a subset of theism, that would totally contradict the notion that theism is a subset of mysticism. And stating that mysticism is not a subset of theism hardly contradicts the fact that theism is subset of mysticism. |
I didn't say mysticism was a subset of theism. I said they were orthogonal concepts.
As to the arguments about antitheist, whatever… If you are going to redefine terms that I created to define my concepts then we aren’t going to get anywhere. Especially if you are going to redefine them in ways that are obviously irrelevant to the discussion. I might as well just drop it since there is another term that you accept my definition for. I suspected there would be a problem when I introduced a second term for the same concept, but I had no idea that you would go crazy with it like this. This has been a total waste of time and energy and I deeply regret having introduced a second term. I am not going to discuss an issue for which you redefine my terms, so this is the last time I’ll use the word antitheist.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | As to the arguments about antitheist, whatever… If you are going to redefine terms that I created to define my concepts then we aren’t going to get anywhere. Especially if you are going to redefine them in ways that are obviously irrelevant to the discussion. I might as well just drop it since there is another term that you accept my definition for. I suspected there would be a problem when I introduced a second term for the same concept, but I had no idea that you would go crazy with it like this. This has been a total waste of time and energy and I deeply regret having introduced a second term. I am not going to discuss an issue for which you redefine my terms, so this is the last time I’ll use the word antitheist. |
How gracious of you.
Might I also suggest that in future, if you are creating terms to define your concepts, you should verify that your definition is shared first?
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | A "fundamental" atheist may not even care about theism.
|
No, they are quite convinced that it is false. Someone who didn’t care would have no opinion about whether it was true or false. |
Wrong. For example: Say I am very convinced that there are no fairies. I am absolutely, incontravertably convinced that fairies are impossible, and cannot exist. I refuse to even entertain a theory that includes fairies. I don't care about beliefs that include them, or people that hold those beliefs. If there are fairy-lovers in the world, they are irrelevant to me.
|
Whether one cares or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is axiomatic.
Whatever, call it an axiomatic atheist, or whatever you would like. You clearly understand my intent and are trying redefine my concepts by objecting to my labels. Perhaps I will have to eschew all labels and only repeat lengthy phrases for otherwise easily labeled concepts.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Thus, you have redefined the term "fundamental atheist", as I suggested you had. Perhaps you should stop introducing new terms and synonyms into the discussion without first verifying that your new terms are valid. Before discussing atheism, we agreed on certain definitions for certain terms. If any of those definitions are unclear, then ask for clarification. Do not introduce new terms. You're only confusing things.
|
It is a simple matter, it is not that confusing. I apologize, I will stick with initial cumbersome terms in the future and not try to find more terse terms. Is that better? |
If you want terseness, use acronyms. If you don't want to use acronyms, just make sure your terser terms are not different terms.
|
They are only different after you redefine my terms.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | That's a fair assessment - that the lack of consideration is proportional to the degree of dogmatism - but you didn't answer my question. You said: "Both the amystic and atheistic point of view assert that life is meaningless and futile, but when not reflexively assumed one contemplates the implications of futility with an unavoidable impact on one’s emotional state." In other words: "If you take the time to think about atheism, you will inevitably realize that it asserts that life is meaningless and futile, and it will upset you." Is that not a correct way to paraphrase what you said?
|
Yes, except that I acknowledge an independent variable. If you’re raised atheist it could be that it isn’t much of a blow. |
So, to paraphrase: "If you take the time to think about atheism, you will inevitably realize that it asserts that life is meaningless and futile, and it will upset you unless you are desensitized to the implications already." Is that correct?
|
Sure, that sounds fine.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | Not all axiomatic denials are dogmatic and invalid, it depends on the assumption. Axioms are critical things, the hinge-point of logic. The quality of an entire system of reasoning is profoundly dependent on the quality of its axioms. When something is introduced into a system, not as a supposition following from other axioms, but as an axiom itself, it had better be a fundamental and accurate assumption.
The point is to demonstrate the presence of a flawed axiom; an assertion that is either not fundamental or not accurate, disqualifying it for axiomatic status. |
Alright, what "axiom" that has been presented is flawed?
|
That a particular topic is illogical, not by virtue of being invalid but because logic is inapplicable to the topic. If logic is not applicable then the conclusions are purely random, which unavoidably implies that they are inherently invalid. It is an assertion that effectively assumes its own conclusion. That is circular reasoning.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | Here is what the dictionary.com says which is fine with me:
1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience. |
(First, I'd like to note that my original statement that you objected to was something to the effect of "mysticism is illogical by definition", and that it seems you have carefully excised the definition of mysticism that supports that assertion, without comment.)
Ok, so if theism is a subset of mysticism, then all forms of theism must satisfy that definition.
1a.) What about theist beliefs that do not allow for immediate consciousness of God, like Judaism? Judaism states that God only communicates by prophets. The average person cannot be aware of the nature of God without interpretation by prophets. (Note that even to prophets he doesn't speak directly, with only one or two exceptions. Thus even prophets do not have an immediate knowledge of God, only a second-hand one, transmitted by agents of God.)
|
Good grief, Jews are some of the biggest mystics around. What about the Kabala? I’ve been to temple and talked to rabbis and congregations and I think that they would take issue with your assertion. They talk about feeling the presence of God, just like every other religion does. What is the ‘still small voice’? The Torah is full of mysticism.
| Indi wrote: | 1b.) Not really relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the concept of mysticism, not the experience.
|
As I implied, mysticism is broader, which is why theism is a subset.
| Indi wrote: | 2.) Same argument about theist beliefs that do not include subjective experience of God using Judaism as in 1a. But also, what about theist beliefs that do not include non-perceivable realities? There are several of those, many falling under the wing of deism and/or pantheism.
|
How is deism functionally different from agnosticism? Agnosticism is outside of theism/atheism. Yes, no and maybe are three different things. Pantheism is full of mysticism.
| Indi wrote: | Cosmotheism for example. In cosmotheism, God is not transcendant, nor is he beyond perception and/or understanding, he is part of and even a product of this universe. You do not experience God subjectively, you experience him with every breath and heart beat. Once science advances enough we can even communicate directly with him. When it advances further, we become him.
|
That is a lot closer to my point of view than anything you have expressed previously. Just because I can explain the phenomena using physics doesn’t make it not spiritual and not mystical. Would you argue that my point of view is not a mystical one?
| Indi wrote: | You see? The range of theist beliefs may overlap mysticism in places, but is by no means a subset of it. Theism does not require mysticism and mysticism doesn't require theism. They are orthogonal concepts.
|
I have yet to see a single context for God that is not mystical. All of your examples fall flat.
| Indi wrote: | You are half right. A definition of a tangible god is indeed a version of theism that does not include mysticism. But why is this absurd? There are several forms of theism with tangible gods.
|
Propitiating an idol is a mystical practice.
| Indi wrote: | Mysticism implies subjective experience and apprehension is possible. Gods that do not use subjective experience as a means of communication, and/or that cannot be or do not need to be understood subjectively would also be non-mystical.
|
Can you give a practical example? Your terms are so abstract as to defy concrete interpretation. You are just jumping on the term subjective and heaping it into phases willy-nilly.
I should have objected to the term subjective to begin with, because I obviously argue that it can be objective. But the distinction is irrelevant to mysticism. Some will say it is objective, some will say it can only be subjective because they assume it is false, but for the purposes at hand I don’t really care, arguing against it being subjective is irrelevant to the context at this level.
Saying that something that is otherwise obviously mysticism is also objective does not make it something else other than mysticism. That would make it objective mysticism, i.e. demonstrably true mysticism.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | According to the varying definitions of theist gods that I have heard: God can be subjectively experienced in some, and not in others. Thus theism is not synonimous with mysticism, according to my definition of mysticism.
|
The fact that lay people don’t experience him and priests do, if that is what you are referring to, hardly makes the priest’s activities non-mystical. |
That was not what I was referring to. There are many more theist religions that the big ones. Many of them do not have priests. Some do not need priests because they believe that God can be observed and experienced directly, without an intermediary.
|
If that is not a mystical process then what is it? The ‘experience of God’ is a mystical experience.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Some forms of theism incorporate mysticism, others actively reject it.
|
Such as? Christianity rejects some and embraces others in a sometimes hypocritical fashion, that doesn’t make it antimystical. What was the battle between Moses and the Pharonic preists with staffs turning into snakes and eating each other, or between Elijah and the Canaanite priests where Elijah calls down fire from Heaven? Buddhism might be a trickier matter, but the Buddha claimed to know all the mysteries of the universe, which is inherently an assertion of mystical knowledge. |
You have provided a definition of mysticism that you accept. It requires that God can be experienced and/or understood subjectively. That is not true in Judaism or Christianity. Both require interpretation of God by prophets, not by your own subjective experience. In fact, subjective interpretation is actively frowned upon.
|
You are just playing word games. How is a battle of magic between priests anything other than mysticism? The prophets were all mystics.
| Indi wrote: | According to the doctrine of both religions, the prophets did not receive subjective experience of God either. Rather, they were contacted - quite objectively, according to the doctrines - and told of God's nature and his will by God or his agents.
|
Since all religions say this then no religion is mystical by your contrived definition. Labeling it as ‘objective’ doesn’t make hearing God anything other than a mystical experience. Whether something is labeled subjective or objective, if it involves mystical phenomena then it is mystical.
| Indi wrote: | Seeing a staff turned into a snake is quite non-subjective, I would say. Same for fire from the heavens.
|
You just don’t care about honest debate. This is pointless. As I said, once I'm convinced you are knowingly playing games, then I'm just not going to play them with you. If you aren't going to be serious and sober then the debate is ended.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | Whether one cares or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is axiomatic.
Whatever, call it an axiomatic atheist, or whatever you would like. You clearly understand my intent and are trying redefine my concepts by objecting to my labels. Perhaps I will have to eschew all labels and only repeat lengthy phrases for otherwise easily labeled concepts. |
Until you are clear about what kind of atheist you are talking about, no I don't understand your intent at all. Atheism as a category covers a huge range of beliefs and justifications for those beliefs. You can't just say "atheist" and expect someone to know what kind of atheist you mean, just like you couldn't say "theist" and expect people to know you mean Hindu.
Do you mean an atheist that is hostile to theism? Do you mean an atheist that has formed their belief out of thin air, or one that has formulated it "logically" somehow? Do you mean an atheist that denies the possibility of a god, or just one that doesn't believe? Far from being clear, you have been jumping back and forth between all of these, and I frankly can't follow. I have no idea what kind of atheist you mean, and rather than just tell me when I ask, you insist that I really do know and am just trying to irritate you.
If you feel you have to ditch all labels to be clear, then do so. Because you certainly aren't being clear as it is.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | If you want terseness, use acronyms. If you don't want to use acronyms, just make sure your terser terms are not different terms.
|
They are only different after you redefine my terms. |
Then don't use them. Use terms we both understand.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | So, to paraphrase: "If you take the time to think about atheism, you will inevitably realize that it asserts that life is meaningless and futile, and it will upset you unless you are desensitized to the implications already." Is that correct?
|
Sure, that sounds fine. |
So the only valid conclusion that arises from not believing in a god is that life is meaningless and futile?
That doesn't strike you as a little narrow-minded? Any other conclusion about the meaning of life without a god is simply wrong, and whoever believes it has simply not given it enough thought? Isn't that just another way of saying: "The conclusion that I have reached (that without a god, life is meaningless) is the only valid one"? Or worse: "happy atheists haven't thought things through"?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Alright, what "axiom" that has been presented is flawed?
|
That a particular topic is illogical, not by virtue of being invalid but because logic is inapplicable to the topic. If logic is not applicable then the conclusions are purely random, which unavoidably implies that they are inherently invalid. It is an assertion that effectively assumes its own conclusion. That is circular reasoning. |
There are several problems with your thinking.
The first is that logical thought is not possible on an illogical topic. Nonsense. I will now make a completely random topic with no logical basis whatsoever and apply logic to it. "Every froog is grunk. Tergl is a froog. Thus Tergl is grunk." Meaningless, random, yet completely logical. It is very easy to have a field that is entirely internally consistent, yet has absolutely no basis in reality.
The second is that the absence of logical thought implies random thought. There could be very well defined patterns of thought within a field that are completely illogical. But because they are well-defined patterns, they are not random.
The third is that random thought - or any non-logical thought - is invalid. Invalid how? Logically invalid? Of course. But incorrect? Not necessarily.
And finally, your "circular" logic is not circular. In a logical argument, if (one of) the premise(s) is flawed the argument will not be logical. There is no circularity. If the premise upon which a field is based is not logical, then the field is not logical. If A then B. No circle.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | Here is what the dictionary.com says which is fine with me:
1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience. |
(First, I'd like to note that my original statement that you objected to was something to the effect of "mysticism is illogical by definition", and that it seems you have carefully excised the definition of mysticism that supports that assertion, without comment.)
Ok, so if theism is a subset of mysticism, then all forms of theism must satisfy that definition.
1a.) What about theist beliefs that do not allow for immediate consciousness of God, like Judaism? Judaism states that God only communicates by prophets. The average person cannot be aware of the nature of God without interpretation by prophets. (Note that even to prophets he doesn't speak directly, with only one or two exceptions. Thus even prophets do not have an immediate knowledge of God, only a second-hand one, transmitted by agents of God.)
|
Good grief, Jews are some of the biggest mystics around. What about the Kabala? I’ve been to temple and talked to rabbis and congregations and I think that they would take issue with your assertion. They talk about feeling the presence of God, just like every other religion does. What is the ‘still small voice’? The Torah is full of mysticism. |
Kabbalah is not part of the Tanakh, and it is not part of all forms of Judaism. I am not talking about the extraneous trappings on the religion anyway, I am talking about God - specifically God as definied by the body of writings that define God for Judaism, ie, the Tanakh. The rest of the religion can be mystical, or completely random and bizarre - that's all irrelevant to the nature of the God described, which is what we are concerned with here. The question is not whether Judaism contains mysticism or not, the question is whether the Jewish God is a mystical god.
You have agreed that the definition of mysticism above is the definition you accept. If that is true, then for a theist religion to be mystical, it must describe a god that is transcendant, and capable of being perceived and understood directly via subjective means. That is the definition above, which you have accepted.
By the Tanakh, God cannot be experienced subjectively, and most certainly not directly. He even talks to (most of) his prophets indirectly. Thus, by the definition of mysticism, the God of the Tanakh is not a mystical God.
You can't just apply the term "mystical" to anything fantastic. Sure there are plenty of fantastic claims in the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh, but are they mystical? I don't see it.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | 1b.) Not really relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the concept of mysticism, not the experience.
|
As I implied, mysticism is broader, which is why theism is a subset. |
Your statement makes no sense. That definition is not a broadening of the concept, it is a different concept. Theism is not an experience, so even if theism is a subset of mysticism, it cannot be a subset of the experience of mysticism. Thus that definition is irrelevant.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | 2.) Same argument about theist beliefs that do not include subjective experience of God using Judaism as in 1a. But also, what about theist beliefs that do not include non-perceivable realities? There are several of those, many falling under the wing of deism and/or pantheism.
|
How is deism functionally different from agnosticism? Agnosticism is outside of theism/atheism. Yes, no and maybe are three different things. Pantheism is full of mysticism. |
Deism says that God can be directly experienced and observed. Agnosticism says that God's existence either is not or cannot be known. Agnosticism is no more "maybe" than atheism is "no". Characterizing theism, atheism and agnosticism as "yes, no and maybe" is an enormous simplification, to the point of being largely incorrect.
Yes, many pantheistic beliefs are mystical, but not all. For theism to be a subset of mysticism, all theist beliefs must be mystical in nature. Just one non-mystical theist belief invalidates the relationship. And there are several.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Cosmotheism for example. In cosmotheism, God is not transcendant, nor is he beyond perception and/or understanding, he is part of and even a product of this universe. You do not experience God subjectively, you experience him with every breath and heart beat. Once science advances enough we can even communicate directly with him. When it advances further, we become him.
|
That is a lot closer to my point of view than anything you have expressed previously. Just because I can explain the phenomena using physics doesn’t make it not spiritual and not mystical. Would you argue that my point of view is not a mystical one? |
I couldn't argue anything about your view until you define it, but I hesitate to ask you to define it seeing as that hasn't proved productive so far. I don't even know what "phenomena" you want to explain or why. The nature of God is not a phenomenon, is it?
Anyway, you have the definition of mysticism, you can judge your own beliefs. Is the god you believe in transcendant, and can he be experienced directly by subjective means? If yes, then it is a mystical god. If no, then it is not.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | You are half right. A definition of a tangible god is indeed a version of theism that does not include mysticism. But why is this absurd? There are several forms of theism with tangible gods.
|
Propitiating an idol is a mystical practice. |
No, it's not. Not by the definition of mysticism you have given, at least.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Can you give a practical example? Your terms are so abstract as to defy concrete interpretation. You are just jumping on the term subjective and heaping it into phases willy-nilly. |
Subjectivity of the experience is required for the experience to be mystical. By definition. If you don't like it, tough. The English language will survive your scorn.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | I should have objected to the term subjective to begin with, because I obviously argue that it can be objective. But the distinction is irrelevant to mysticism. Some will say it is objective, some will say it can only be subjective because they assume it is false, but for the purposes at hand I don’t really care, arguing against it being subjective is irrelevant to the context at this level.
Saying that something that is otherwise obviously mysticism is also objective does not make it something else other than mysticism. That would make it objective mysticism, i.e. demonstrably true mysticism. |
If it is objective, it is not mystical. By definition.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | That was not what I was referring to. There are many more theist religions that the big ones. Many of them do not have priests. Some do not need priests because they believe that God can be observed and experienced directly, without an intermediary.
|
If that is not a mystical process then what is it? The ‘experience of God’ is a mystical experience. |
Only if the God is transcendent and the experience internal. There are theist beliefs that do not require either.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | You have provided a definition of mysticism that you accept. It requires that God can be experienced and/or understood subjectively. That is not true in Judaism or Christianity. Both require interpretation of God by prophets, not by your own subjective experience. In fact, subjective interpretation is actively frowned upon.
|
You are just playing word games. How is a battle of magic between priests anything other than mysticism? The prophets were all mystics. |
You can't just call everything fantastic "mystical". A mystical experience is a subjective experience of another layer of reality. Magical pissing contests do not fit that definition.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | According to the doctrine of both religions, the prophets did not receive subjective experience of God either. Rather, they were contacted - quite objectively, according to the doctrines - and told of God's nature and his will by God or his agents.
|
Since all religions say this then no religion is mystical by your contrived definition. Labeling it as ‘objective’ doesn’t make hearing God anything other than a mystical experience. Whether something is labeled subjective or objective, if it involves mystical phenomena then it is mystical. |
Not all religions say this by a long shot. Some theist beliefs do not require prophets because adeherents believe they experience God directly, via subjective communion. Those would be mystical gods. Others say that God should not be interpreted subjectively - like Judaism and Christianity. Those would be non-mystical gods.
If something involves mystical phenomena, then it is subjective. By definition.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Seeing a staff turned into a snake is quite non-subjective, I would say. Same for fire from the heavens.
|
You just don’t care about honest debate. This is pointless. As I said, once I'm convinced you are knowingly playing games, then I'm just not going to play them with you. If you aren't going to be serious and sober then the debate is ended. |
I am not playing games. The definition is clear. A mystical experience is a subjective experience of a transcendant reality. Parlour tricks are not mystical experiences, by any definition. If you can't accept that, you don't have a problem with me, you have a problem with the English language.
Since only one of the two relevant definitions of mysticism used the term subjective, subjectivity is not a requirement. You want to impose it as a requirement because it allows you to construct twisted arguments, like asserting that the Bible is not mystical. Find someone who wants to debate with manipulative twisted arguments like this. I certainly don’t.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Since only one of the two relevant definitions of mysticism used the term subjective, subjectivity is not a requirement. You want to impose it as a requirement because it allows you to construct twisted arguments, like asserting that the Bible is not mystical. |
I "want to impose it as a requirement" because it is an explicit requirement in one definition and an implicit one in the other. Just because the definition doesn't actually use the term doesn't mean it is not implied. You have to use comprehension.
Here are the definitions again:
| mike1reynolds wrote: | Here is what the dictionary.com says which is fine with me:
1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience. |
Subectivity is explicit in the second definition, but the first only says "immediate consciousness of the transcendent". By definition, you cannot objectively or intersubjectively experience the transcendent. That's just what transcendent means (look it up if you don't believe me). Therefore, any experience you have of it must be subjective. Thus, subjectivity is required by both definitions. Thus I require it for something to be mystical. I don't see it as unreasonable to require that something labelled as mystical actually fits the definition of the word.
I still don't understand why you even brought any of it up of course. I still don't see the relevance of mysticism to this topic. But if you want to introduce it, a common definition is required. I was using that definition that you provided right from the start, and you claimed you were fine with it - but now you're not? That is the dictionary definition of the word. If you don't like it, take it up with the dictionary. It's not my problem.
If someone else doesn't see the connection between mysticism and theism as being an utterly and completely obvious one, then I'll discuss the topic.
Don't hold your breath, this topic is already dead.
You claim not to see it because you are a dishonest and manipulative person who will argue any ridiculous point like the anal intellectual idiot that you are.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | If someone else doesn't see the connection between mysticism and theism as being an utterly and completely obvious one, then I'll discuss the topic. |
Mysticism and theism may or may not be connected... but what does that have to do with atheism and/or deism?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | Don't hold your breath, this topic is already dead.
You claim not to see it because you are a dishonest and manipulative person who will argue any ridiculous point like the anal intellectual idiot that you are. |
Very mature. ^_^
Who cares about any of this, you've successfully destroyed the debate with your manipulativeness.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Who cares about any of this, you've successfully destroyed the debate with your manipulativeness. |
Obviously I care or I wouldn't be asking. If I've destroyed the debate, how come I'm still here communicating in good faith and you're name calling and declaring the thing dead?
If you are going to argue that belief in God is not a mystical belief then you are either not debating in good faith, or you are too illogical to reason with. You will not find anyone else, not even atheists, who agree with this assertion.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | If you are going to argue that belief in God is not a mystical belief then you are either not debating in good faith, or you are too illogical to reason with. You will not find anyone else, not even atheists, who agree with this assertion. |
That is not what I said. What I said was whether or not belief in God is a mystical belief depends on the definition of God. Different religions/beliefs have different definitions of God, and not all of them are mystical in nature. Some gods are mystical. Some aren't. If God is defined as transcendant and experienced directly by subjective means, then it is a mystical god - by the dictionary definition of mystical. If not, it's not. It's as simple as that.
But I still don't see why you're even bringing any of that up. What does any of that have to do with deism or atheism?
Since God is a mystical being, disbelief in all mysticism is a superset of atheism. It is based on applying the reasoning more broadly. If this is done with circular reasoning then it is easier to demonstrate this when it is applied more broadly.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Since God is a mystical being, disbelief in all mysticism is a superset of atheism. It is based on applying the reasoning more broadly. If this is done with circular reasoning then it is easier to demonstrate this when it is applied more broadly. |
But that fails on two counts. First, it doesn't take into account that God is not always mystical. Second, it assumes that the only reason to reject the idea of God is because it is mystical - or to be more general illogical - and atheism is much broader than that.
Since God doesn't necessarily need to be mystical - depending on the definition of God - and atheism encompasses a huge range of beliefs that do not necessarily reject mysticism - it is possible to believe in mysticism but not God - then "amysticism" cannot be a superset of atheism. Some atheists will reject all mysticism, some won't.
Someone somewhere summarized theism, atheism and agnosticism as "yes, no and maybe" to the question of whether or not there is a god, but that's not correct. If theism is "yes", atheism is "anything that is not yes". That includes, "no", "maybe" and "don't care", amongst others. (Agnosticism is "don't know" or "can't know".) Atheism doesn't imply that the idea that God may exist is rejected - and even strong atheism doesn't imply that the idea that transcendent realities may be accessed is rejected.
| Indi wrote: | But that fails on two counts. First, it doesn't take into account that God is not always mystical.
|
Indi, loose the chick. A guy having a chick for an avatar is totally gay.
You are just too full of crap to debate with. You know this a load of crap (either that or you are just a total geek/dork), and I'm not going to be baited into playing your stupid puerile word game.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | But that fails on two counts. First, it doesn't take into account that God is not always mystical.
|
Indi, loose the chick. A guy having a chick for an avatar is totally gay. |
?
1.) How do you know I'm not gay?
2.) I'm not even sure that is a girl, and I don't really care either way. I just like the expression.
3.) If having a girl avatar impiles "gay"ness, why doesn't having an animal avatar - like, oh I don't know, let me pick a random example, a dragon - imply bestiality?
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | You are just too full of crap to debate with. You know this a load of crap (either that or you are just a total geek/dork), and I'm not going to be baited into playing your stupid puerile word game. |
So basically, because I don't understand and/or agree with your argument, I am:
- dishonest
- unintelligent
- a lame-brained geek with communication issues
- biased
- blinded by faith
- narrow-minded
- angry
- manipulative
- American ^_^
- uninterested in debate
- interested only in constructing twisted arguments
- an anal intellectual idiot
- illogical
- full of crap
- baiting you into playing puerile word games
- potentially a total geek/dork
- gay
Nice. ^_^
I find it amusing that I am the one drawing the conversation off-topic, when I wasn't the one who introduced the following topics into a conversation about atheism and deism:
- astrology
- egyptology
- mysticism
- bias in science
- whether or not social sciences are scientific
- naturalistic explorers
- the limbic system
- the Matrix
- my sexuality
Good score. ^_^ Pity the one about Napolean and Nazis was in the "Is Jesus Perfect?" thread, though.
My apologies if you are gay. I have nothing against gays, just against word games.
mysticism – A superset of theism.
astrology – A mystical phenomenon too which logical scientific methods can be applied.
Egyptology – Science missing using circular reasoning in the same manner as fundamentalist atheism.
bias in science – That is what fundamentalist atheism is.
whether or not social sciences are scientific – Defies your definition of what is logical and scientific.
naturalistic explorers – ditto
the limbic system – You would call emotions illogical, but it is a logical system.
the Matrix - Intersubjectivity
...... so.... faries arent real?? dammit! .... 
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | mysticism – A superset of theism. |
Refuted. Repeatedly.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | astrology – A mystical phenomenon too which logical scientific methods can be applied. |
If it can be directly studied, it is not mystical. See the definition of mysticism for why.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Egyptology – Science missing using circular reasoning in the same manner as fundamentalist atheism. |
Pointless. Fundamental atheism had already been defined and was not being challenged. On the contrary, someone might jump in to defend egyptology, claiming it's being slandered unjustly, which would create a whole tangent that does nothing for the original discussion. It was an analogy that served no purpose, brought nothing to the discussion, and may potentially have created a distraction had it not been ignored.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | bias in science – That is what fundamentalist atheism is. |
"Fundamentalist" atheism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with science or bias. "I believe there is no God because I think the whole idea is stupid" is a possible "fundamental" atheist position (one of many), and it certainly has nothing to do with science. "I believe there is no God because there is no objective evidence for him" doesn't necessarily involve bias, just a lack of acknowlegement that lack of evidence or contradictory logic is not final proof - which may come from bias, or it may come from ignorance, or it may simply be just from taking the default null assumption too literally.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | whether or not social sciences are scientific – Defies your definition of what is logical and scientific. |
1.) Logical and scientific are two entirely different things.
2.) "My" definition of what is scientific is irrelevant.
3.) When did I say the social sciences are or aren't logical?
4.) What is and is not scientific is clearly defined by an objective standard that has nothing to do with anyone's personal definition.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | naturalistic explorers – ditto |
Ditto.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | the limbic system – You would call emotions illogical, but it is a logical system. |
Why do you tell me what I would call logical and illogical? I took a minor in psychology and one of the courses I took was in motivation and emotion. I am well aware of how emotions work, and why - including the mechanisms involved, how they developed, and what purpose they serve - and I would not call them illogical, thank you.
Perhaps before you refute my opinion of something, you should check with me to make sure that that is actually my opinon. Misrepresenting my opinon is rude at best, and downright deceitful at worst, and it has happened far too many times for this to be an isolated incident that I can attribute to miscomprehension. To make this short and clear: stop telling me what I think and believe. If you want to argue with the opinions of some ghost in your head, go nuts, but don't pin my name on it.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | the Matrix - Intersubjectivity |
Which only came up because I entertained the previous off-topic tangents. In actuality, I don't see that intersubjectivity has anything to do with the topic.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | mysticism – A superset of theism. |
Refuted. Repeatedly.
|
Refuted with garbage. No one agrees with you that God is not a mystical being, not even atheists. You are so locked in circular reasoning on this topic that you are as brainwashed as any cult victim.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | mysticism – A superset of theism. |
Refuted. Repeatedly.
|
Refuted with garbage. No one agrees with you that God is not a mystical being, not even atheists. You are so locked in circular reasoning on this topic that you are as brainwashed as any cult victim. |
Add "brainwashed as a cult victim" to the list....
You are still misrepresenting my statements. I did not say God was not a mystical being, I said that not all definitions of God are mystical (or even beings for that matter). If there are non-mystical Gods, then theism cannot be a subset of mysticism. QED.
Only an atheist would even attempt to contrive a non-mystical definition of God. Anyone who believes in God acknowledges that He is a mystical being.
If you can't see this simple and obvious fact then you are brainwashed.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Only an atheist would even attempt to contrive a non-mystical definition of God. |
Or a Jainist, apparently.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Anyone who believes in God acknowledges that He is a mystical being. |
Or, to put it more succinctly: "Every theist shares my beliefs about God." Right?
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Only an atheist would even attempt to contrive a non-mystical definition of God. |
Or a Jainist, apparently.
|
I am very familiar with Jainist mystic rites.
| Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Anyone who believes in God acknowledges that He is a mystical being. |
Or, to put it more succinctly: "Every theist shares my beliefs about God." Right? |
No.
This has to do with disbelief, not belief. Since you don’t believe in God your conception of God is not mystical. But that is an atheistic conception of God, not a theistic conception of God. You can’t get outside of yourself in this. You are stuck in an infinite loop in your own mind and can’t see it from anyone else’s point of view. It is not me who is imposing my views on other theists, it is you. If you really believe that God exists then you are in awe of this mystery. The only way around this awe is disbelief.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Only an atheist would even attempt to contrive a non-mystical definition of God. |
Or a Jainist, apparently.
|
I am very familiar with Jainist mystic rites. |
Did you bother to read the link? It isn't about Jainism.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | mike1reynolds wrote: | | Anyone who believes in God acknowledges that He is a mystical being. |
Or, to put it more succinctly: "Every theist shares my beliefs about God." Right? |
No.
This has to do with disbelief, not belief. Since you don’t believe in God your conception of God is not mystical. But that is an atheistic conception of God, not a theistic conception of God. You can’t get outside of yourself in this. You are stuck in an infinite loop in your own mind and can’t see it from anyone else’s point of view. It is not me who is imposing my views on other theists, it is you. If you really believe that God exists then you are in awe of this mystery. The only way around this awe is disbelief. |
1.) If it is possible for my "beliefs" to be blinding me so... why is it not possible that your beliefs are blinding you? How do you know that this is not the case?
2.) I have no "conception of God", mystical or otherwise. This has nothing to do with my beliefs about God, so despite your claims, I don't feel any personal stake in any of this and am most certainly not blinded by my own non-existent conceptions.
3.) How can you have an "atheistic conception of God"? Atheism by definition states that you have no conception of God - either you just don't consider it at all, or you think it doesn't exist at all. Isn't any conception of God theist by definition?
4.) I don't have any conception of God to be "stuck" on. I'm atheist, remember? You do have a concept of God. So if it is possible for a person to get "stuck" by their definition of God... how is it possible that this can be my sin but not yours?
5.) You've just proved my point. I said that not all concepts of God are mystical, and you just admitted that there are possible non-mystical definitions. You call them "atheistic" concepts of God, but if they are concepts of God, then they are theist concepts by definition, whether or not you choose to admit it. You can't have an atheistic concept of God since atheism by definition has no God to conceptualize. If there are any possible non-mystical conceptions of God - however you choose to label them - then theism cannot be a subset of mysticism.
6.) How is it that I am incapable of seeing anyone else's point of view when I am the one who says that your point of view is one of many, and you are the one saying that your point of view is the only correct one?
7.) How am I "imposing my views" on theists? I am saying that some theists define God as mystical, some don't. How is this an imposition on anyone, except someone who is dogmatically stuck in their own thinking one way or the other and unwilling to consider alternatives? And if my position is a threat to such a person's beliefs, how am I at fault? Isn't it their opinion that is imposing on everyone else who doesn't agree?
8.) Mysticism has nothing to do with being in awe of mysteries. You can be in awe of mysterious things that have nothing to do with mysticism. Thus being in awe of the mystery of God does not make it mystical.
9.) There are many ways around awe that do not involve disbelief. Familiarity and understanding are just two of many. Calm and rational thought works, too, if you give it a try.
Even if the mystical oval only overlaps 99% of the theistic oval how do any of your points disprove the existence of a corollary relationship? Disbelief in mysticism is the same kind of disbelief as disbelief in God, just applied to a broader subject.
Your concept of God is that it is a collective fantasy. You must have some concept of God in order to have something to say on the subject. It is virtually impossible to have no concept of what God is unless severely mentally impared.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Even if the mystical oval only overlaps 99% of the theistic oval how do any of your points disprove the existence of a corollary relationship? |
Who said they were supposed to? I just said that theism as a whole is not a subset of mysticism. I never said that all theist beliefs weren't mystical, just some. And it only takes one to break the subset/superset relationship.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Disbelief in mysticism is the same kind of disbelief as disbelief in God, just applied to a broader subject. |
Sometimes. Not always. If that were always true then there would be no atheist mystics. But there are. Bhuddists, for example, generally deny the existence of a supreme "god" (what they call "gods" are a different concept altogether), but are most decidedly mystically minded.
There are many reasons to reject theism that cannot be applied to mysticism in general. For example, the concept of responsibility. If a god is really pulling all the strings, then what purpose do we have for existing outside of amusing/pleasing it? Anything that happens - including anything we do - is ultimately the responsibility of the god (because nothing can happen that a truly omnipotent and omniscient god does not want to happen), so there is no meaning in doing anything, except to please/amuse "God". But by rejecting the idea of a god, we become ultimately responsible for every action we take and every decision we make, and we are now free to create our own purpose to this life - for example, to live it well so the next generation has it better. (This is all just a really rough and brief cover of Nietzsche's peculiar brand of existentialism, paraphrased to make it relevant.) Such reasoning has no analogue in rejecting mysticism in general - it is quite specific to rejecting theism.
Likewise, there are many reasons for rejecting generic mysticism that cannot be applied to theism. For example, the concept of necessity. In this view, there is no need to believe in any random thing - and only things that must be believed should be believed. Most mystical phenomena and concepts do not need to be believed, so they should be rejected. But without the promise of life after death, and the reward of heaven and punishment of hell based on behaviour in life, anarchy and nihilism would reign, and life would be pointless. So God must exist for life to have meaning. This reasoning leads to rejecting mysticism in general, but subscribing to theism.
(Yes, I am aware that the two lines of reasoning contradict each other, but that was the point. One accepts theism and rejects mysticism, the other rejects theism without necessarily rejecting mysticism. Neither line of reasoning is my own actual opinion. They are just examples of lines of reasoning that cannot be applied to both mysticism and theism.)
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | Your concept of God is that it is a collective fantasy. |
No, it is not. I thought I told you to stop telling me what I believe.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | You must have some concept of God in order to have something to say on the subject. |
On the subject of atheism? So an atheist is automatically excluded from discussing atheism because they are atheist? Interesting.
Or do you mean on the subject of mysticism? So someone who is well versed in many mystical beliefs and phenomena and may or may not sincerely believe, yet rejects the idea of God, cannot speak on mysticism? Odd.
Or maybe you mean the subject(s) of the thread, which include atheism and deism, and since we've covered atheism, that leaves deism. Would that mean that only deists can speak on deism, or any theists?
Most likely you mean that you need to have a concept of God to talk about God, right? Bullshit. That's like saying you need to have cancer to talk about cancer. Kinda makes it difficult to do any meaningful research on the subject. The only thing you need to have cancer to talk about is what it's like to have cancer. You don't need to have cancer to talk about what cancer is, or different kinds of cancer. You don't need to have a God to talk about what a God is, or different kinds of gods - only to talk about what it's like to have your kind of God.
I don't need to have a concept of God, I just need to know of (at least) one. I know of hundreds of concepts of God, from many, many people I have met over my life, and many writings I have waded through.
| mike1reynolds wrote: | | It is virtually impossible to have no concept of what God is unless severely mentally impared. |
This is a recurring theme in your writings. "You must think in a manner that I approve of, or you...":
- ... haven't given it enough thought.
- ... are a geek.
- ... are severely mentally impaired.
- ... etc.
It seems that you believe that people who have a different way of thinking must be deficient in some way. Is that true?
Or to look at it another way, you seem to be pretty sure that your conclusions are correct and everyone else's contradictory opinions are wrong - ostensibly because of some failing on their part. Why exactly is it that not having a concept of God makes you severely mentally impaired? Or how does mental capability require having a concept of God?
|
