Reality, Theory, God

[PeterJ]

PeterJ, you're not seriously suggesting that "Skeptics" mean ridiculing religion? Maybe you know a skeptic that does that, but not all do, that's absolutely far from being the default position of skeptics, and you are again strawmanning.

 

You're not being pedantic, you're being unfair, and you're strawmanning Phi's position -- and, it seems, skeptics in general.

 

I consider myself a skeptic too. And yet, I am far from hating or ridiculing religion(s). My local "Skeptics in the Pub" group has a few people who are, in fact, non atheists, and we have some that are full blown religious. Skepticism does not equal combative anti religionism.

 

I will answer the rest of your claims when I get back from work.

As I've said, I also consider myself a sceptical person and am also far from ridiculing religion,. This is what I am suggesting, that being a sceptic does not entail dismissing the knowledge claims of religion, it entails being sceptical of them.

 

I'm not sure I see how a genuinely sceptical person could be a theist. Wouldn't agnosticism be the only position consistent with a sceptical approach to religion?

 

We're going to have to ignore any and all references you make about Phi's state of mind. You have other points to relate to, this is circular, contributes NOTHING to the thread and will, at least on my part, be ignored.

 

Can you please answer the actual POINTS we made, or are just here to be all-out against Phi_for_All ?

Not being disengenious, but I really don't understand much of this one. Please make a point and I'll reply to it. I'm doing my best to keep up. Apparently you don't understand much of what I've said either. If Phi wants to end the disussion he's welome to any time. Until them I'l keep replying to him. The disussion is about religion, so I think it is fair enough to discuss it and the issues it raises for scepticism and knowledge. If Phi had not wanted to discuss his views then I doubt he would have posted them. To be honest, I'm not sure why people are getting hot under the collar.

[mooeypoo]

You're still not answering any points related to your arguments that are beyond the narrow scope of Skeptics, Phi for All and your own perception of it.

 

Are you going to start participating in this debate without nitpicking your own subject or not? It's getting ridiculous, PeterJ.

 

Moontanman and myself made points about religion and science. Answer those, please.

[PeterJ]

Oh, I see why I was accused of sidestepping the issues. I missed some posts in all the excitement.

 

I said earlier that religious practice often requires that we build our knowledge on firm foundations and in careful steps, testing our theories and conjectures empirically every step of the way. In reply I was asked "Can you, please, cite some examples of what you mean here? It might help with your answer to Moontanman's request ..."

 

Here goes. In what, for want of a better word, might be called 'esoteric' religion, which would include Chtistian, Muslim and Jewish mysticism, and also Buddhism, Toaism, advaita Hinduism, Theosophy et al, the whole idea is to gain knowledge. To this end scepticism is encouraged. A person who is happy to believe what they are told or have read in a book will get nowhere. Practioners are expected to form views based on empiricism, not on theories and hypotheses, and certainly not on a blind belief in the words of some prophet or other. Empiricism requires that any theories we may have must be tested from the ground up, with no leaps of faith or unduly favoured theories. If the theory is about gravity then physics, the study of the external world, would clearly be the way forward. If it is about the nature of mind or consciousness, or ethics, God, the afterlife and so forth, then self-exploration would also be required. The idea in each case would be to build out knowledge on a firm foundation and go very carefully, testing our ideas empirically. The literature is very clear about all this. (I am not preaching, just stating the information.

 

 

Moontanman, on 8 December 2011 - 06:22 PM, said: PeterJ I asked you a perfectly reasonable question yet you refuse to answer it preferring to dance in circles and say nothing and imply everything. How about answering my question........ which, to make it easy to find, is here:

 

I'd really like to know, No, I mean really like to know, what knowledge does any religion have that humans couldn't have without religion? Just exactly what are the knowledge claims of religion that are being dismissed here? Evidently to you it doesn't matter what religion we are discussing so I'll not specify that you identify a religion that has this knowledge, just tell me what that knowledge is....."

 

Me - I'm happy to oblige. Sorry I missed the question first time around.

 

I don't believe there is any knowledge that a human being cannot have without religion, and this would be a common view in religion. The Buddha likens his doctrine to a medicine. Once one is cured there would be no need for it. To a large extent it is simply a method. The Buddha was not a Buddhist. Mohammed was not a Muslim etc.. If one had to follow a religion in order to acquire the knowledge claimed by religion then nobody would ever have acquired it. However, to reinvent the wheel would be hard work and unlikely to succeed. It would be easier to follow a well-tried method, and this is what the religions that comprise the 'wisdom tradition' provide. We can reamin scpetical, but even a sceptical physicist would be mad to attempt to start from scratch.

 

As to knowledge claims - I'll only mention those I think make sense, that I believe really are knowledge claims, and not interpretations of books, guesswork etc.

 

Lao tsu speaks of a phenomenon prior to space and time. He tells us that this is the ground of our consciousness and our world, and says that he knows this because he can look inside himself and see. Neither mind or matter would be fundamental. Dualism of any kind would be false. The Upanishads state that phenomena are void, that we will never find an 'essence' or substance at the heart of them. This is claimed as knowledge. Buddhism, Kabbalism etc say that God does not exist, or at best is an emergent concept, and other than the blind belief of some worshippers explain the persistence of a belief in him on misinterpreted meditative experience. The Sufis say that 'Al-Lah' is not a god and claim this is knowledge. The gnostic Jesus states that sin, as such, does not exist. He does not say this is a theory. All the prophets say they know the secret of life and death. One testable (in logic) philosophical claim is that all positive metaphysical positions are false. The universe would be a unity. The subject-object dichotomy would be a delusion. Time and space would conceptual imputations. Nothing would really exist.

 

The list is endless. But the central claim is not in the details, it is simply the claim that certain knowledge of such things is possible. Mainstream monotheism does not make this claim for its members, but it does make it for its prophets. Esoteric religion makes it for all human beings. It is this claim that I was defending from (what I thought was) extreme scepticism. If we dismiss this claim then the whole of religion can be dismissed, since it must all be guesswork. The best it could be could be then would be 'justified true belief', and this would be no more 'true knowledge' than a scientific theory.

Edited December 8, 2011 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

Oh, I see why I was accused of sidestepping the issues. I missed some posts in all the excitement.

 

I said earlier that religious practice often requires that we build our knowledge on firm foundations and in careful steps, testing our theories and conjectures empirically every step of the way. In reply I was asked "Can you, please, cite some examples of what you mean here? It might help with your answer to Moontanman's request ..."

 

Here goes. In what, for want of a better word, might be called 'esoteric' religion, which would include Chtistian, Muslim and Jewish mysticism, and also Buddhism, Toaism, advaita Hinduism, Theosophy et al, the whole idea is to gain knowledge. To this end scepticism is encouraged. A person who is happy to believe what they are told or have read in a book will get nowhere. Practioners are expected to form views based on empiricism, not on theories and hypotheses, and certainly not on a blind belief in the words of some prophet or other. Empiricism requires that any theories we may have must be tested from the ground up, with no leaps of faith or unduly favoured theories. If the theory is about gravity then physics, the study of the external world, would clearly be the way forward. If it is about the nature of mind or consciousness, or ethics, God, the afterlife and so forth, then self-exploration would also be required. The idea in each case would be to build out knowledge on a firm foundation and go very carefully, testing our ideas empirically. The literature is very clear about all this. (I am not preaching, just stating the information.

 

 

Moontanman, on 8 December 2011 - 06:22 PM, said: PeterJ I asked you a perfectly reasonable question yet you refuse to answer it preferring to dance in circles and say nothing and imply everything. How about answering my question........ which, to make it easy to find, is here:

 

I'd really like to know, No, I mean really like to know, what knowledge does any religion have that humans couldn't have without religion? Just exactly what are the knowledge claims of religion that are being dismissed here? Evidently to you it doesn't matter what religion we are discussing so I'll not specify that you identify a religion that has this knowledge, just tell me what that knowledge is....."

 

Me - I'm happy to oblige. Sorry I missed the question first time around.

 

I don't believe there is any knowledge that a human being cannot have without religion, and this would be a common view in religion. The Buddha likens his doctrine to a medicine. Once one is cured there would be no need for it. To a large extent it is simply a method. The Buddha was not a Buddhist. Mohammed was not a Muslim etc.. If one had to follow a religion in order to acquire the knowledge claimed by religion then nobody would ever have acquired it. However, to reinvent the wheel would be hard work and unlikely to succeed. It would be easier to follow a well-tried method, and this is what the religions that comprise the 'wisdom tradition' provide. We can reamin scpetical, but even a sceptical physicist would be mad to attempt to start from scratch.

 

As to knowledge claims - I'll only mention those I think make sense, that I believe really are knowledge claims, and not interpretations of books, guesswork etc.

 

Lao tsu speaks of a phenomenon prior to space and time. He tells us that this is the ground of our consciousness and our world, and says that he knows this because he can look inside himself and see. Neither mind or matter would be fundamental. Dualism of any kind would be false. The Upanishads state that phenomena are void, that we will never find an 'essence' or substance at the heart of them. This is claimed as knowledge. Buddhism, Kabbalism etc say that God does not exist, or at best is an emergent concept, and other than the blind belief of some worshippers explain the persistence of a belief in him on misinterpreted meditative experience. The Sufis say that 'Al-Lah' is not a god and claim this is knowledge. The gnostic Jesus states that sin, as such, does not exist. He does not say this is a theory. All the prophets say they know the secret of life and death. One testable (in logic) philosophical claim is that all positive metaphysical positions are false. The universe would be a unity. The subject-object dichotomy would be a delusion. Time and space would conceptual imputations. Nothing would really exist.

 

The list is endless. But the central claim is not in the details, it is simply the claim that certain knowledge of such things is possible. Mainstream monotheism does not make this claim for its members, but it does make it for its prophets. Esoteric religion makes it for all human beings. It is this claim that I was defending from (what I thought was) extreme scepticism. If we dismiss this claim then the whole of religion can be dismissed, since it must all be guesswork. The best it could be could be then would be 'justified true belief', and this would be no more 'true knowledge' than a scientific theory.

 

 

So i ask a simple question and you give me four paragraphs of word salad that asserts what is inside your head but not verifiable in anyway is knowledge. I'm going to tell you a story, it was originally told by AronRa so i apologize if I get the details wrong but it goes a little like this.

 

you are in your yard late at night and you see a sauropod dinosaur walking down the street, you rush out to see it up close, you can touch it, smell it, hear it breath, if you wanted you could climb up on it's back and ride it. Suddenly you realize you have to document this so you run back into your house to get your camera but when you get back the sauropod is gone, no trace of it, no tracks, no excrement, nothing just a still clear night with no sauropod. But you know it's real, you saw it, and smelled it, touched it.

 

You tell everyone about it, but as the days go by there are no tracks, no piles of excrement, no destruction of property as would be expected if a giant sauropod dinosaur was on the loose. You finally find one guy who saw a dinosaur too but due to his description it was obviously not sauropod and most likely was a theropod and no evidence of it is found either.

 

Do you continue to believe your experience is the truth? or do you admit that while it was real to you in every way it might have not been real?

 

Things that go on inside someones head and no place else and cannot be experienced by anyone else are not knowledge, they are at best thoughts and and at worst hallucinations but they do not qualify as knowledge so what some guy says he knows about before the universe is not knowledge unless he can show evidence of it's existence....

 

BTW I have never encountered a religion that encourages skepticism, I think your examples are not only false but religion has nothing to do with seeking knowledge and all about telling others you have knowledge, usually absolute knowledge but you have to believe it on faith... religion takes place in your mind, any conversations you have with the supernatural are conversations with your self and reveal nothing you don't already know or have imagined. I no longer call my self an atheist due to the inference that it's a belief, I am a rationalist, if you have evidence, show me, if not don't bother....

Edited December 9, 2011 by Moontanman

[tar]

General comment here.

 

I tend to agree more with Phi for All, than with PeterJ on some grounds, and more with PeterJ than Phi for All on others. Where I would disagree with anybody is when they would tell ME I have NO grounds, to believe what I believe.

 

To which I would say...well I absolutely do. Without ground there is no place to anchor, and I prefer to be anchored, or at least HAVE an anchor to raise or drop as I require. And some ground to which the anchor will hold, should I require it to hold fast.

 

To the question of what I believe, what you believe and what they believe.

I think it may have something to do with shared "grounds" when we use the term we. And the "they" is used when the "we" grounds are challenged or denied.

 

And the "I" grounds are the "real" "true" grounds...of course.

 

Just a thought.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. And ground is ground even if it is made of mostly tiny bits of stuff spaced way apart, and located on a planet reeling through space. Its still ground to stand on. Or if you are floating, ground to anchor into. Or if you are flying, ground upon which to land.

 

There is no place like home.

[mooeypoo]

P.S. And ground is ground even if it is made of mostly tiny bits of stuff spaced way apart, and located on a planet reeling through space. Its still ground to stand on. Or if you are floating, ground to anchor into. Or if you are flying, ground upon which to land.

Or crash.

[PeterJ]

So i ask a simple question and you give me four paragraphs of word salad that asserts what is inside your head but not verifiable in anyway is knowledge. I'm going to tell you a story, it was originally told by AronRa so i apologize if I get the details wrong but it goes a little like this.[/quote

 

you are in your yard late at night and you see a sauropod dinosaur walking down the street, you rush out to see it up close, you can touch it, smell it, hear it breath, if you wanted you could climb up on it's back and ride it. Suddenly you realize you have to document this so you run back into your house to get your camera but when you get back the sauropod is gone, no trace of it, no tracks, no excrement, nothing just a still clear night with no sauropod. But you know it's real, you saw it, and smelled it, touched it.

 

You tell everyone about it, but as the days go by there are no tracks, no piles of excrement, no destruction of property as would be expected if a giant sauropod dinosaur was on the loose. You finally find one guy who saw a dinosaur too but due to his description it was obviously not sauropod and most likely was a theropod and no evidence of it is found either.

 

Do you continue to believe your experience is the truth? or do you admit that while it was real to you in every way it might have not been real?

 

Things that go on inside someones head and no place else and cannot be experienced by anyone else are not knowledge, they are at best thoughts and and at worst hallucinations but they do not qualify as knowledge so what some guy says he knows about before the universe is not knowledge unless he can show evidence of it's existence....

 

BTW I have never encountered a religion that encourages skepticism, I think your examples are not only false but religion has nothing to do with seeking knowledge and all about telling others you have knowledge, usually absolute knowledge but you have to believe it on faith... religion takes place in your mind, any conversations you have with the supernatural are conversations with your self and reveal nothing you don't already know or have imagined. I no longer call my self an atheist due to the inference that it's a belief, I am a rationalist, if you have evidence, show me, if not don't bother....

Interesting but not relevant to the debate. I have no intention of trying to explain religion here. You asked me for some knowledge claims and I gave them to you. You can do what you like with them. I note that you are not a sceptic and make no attempt to study these claims before forming your view. You think relgion is nonsense. That's fine. No need to investigate something that doesn't interest you. It takes a great deal of disinterest to miss the fact that many religions encourage scepeticism. Anyway, my complaint against Phi is that he was accidently dismissing religion by adopting such an extreme scepticism. I have no problem if you want to dismiss it upfront and on purpose and by making fun of me in the process.

 

I would just point out that science has never falsified one of these claims, and that some can and have be proved in metaphysics, and that most were endorsed by Heraliclitus, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Schroedinger and many other well known thinkers, so don't imagine your view is well considered.

Edited December 9, 2011 by PeterJ

[Phi for All]

Interesting but not relevant to the debate. I have no intention of trying to explain religion here. You asked me for some knowledge claims and I gave them to you. You can do what you like with them.

Your original claim stated that this knowledge you had from religion was empirically derived, that much of religion uses the same methodology as science:

 

You do not even acknowledge that much of religion requires the same methodology as science.

Religious practice often requires that we build our knowledge on firm foundations and in careful steps, testing our theories and conjectures empirically every step of the way.

But when asked for some of this empirically derived knowledge, all you quote is philosophy and doctrine. You gave us nothing that was based on actual observational evidence that would pass any kind of scientific peer review.

 

I would just point out that science has never falsified one of these claims, and that some can and have be proved in metaphysics, and that most were endorsed by Heraliclitus, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Schroedinger and many other well known thinkers, so don't imagine your view is well considered.

These claims aren't falsifiable, which is different from being falsified. They aren't capable of being falsified because there is no way to test them to verify if they're false or not. Falsifiability is one of the first tests of any hypothesis, so your "empirically derived" evidence fails right out of the gate.

 

Anyway, my complaint against Phi is that he was accidently dismissing religion by adopting such an extreme scepticism.

I am at a loss to understand how you find my skepticism to be so extreme. I've tried to explain it to you, and others have even remarked on where you have overstepped the bounds of logic and reason in your attempt to force my stance into something you can more easily complain about. Your arguments are weak and unfounded with regard to the way I view matters of faith and belief.

 

I fully realize how much easier your stance is to defend if you can define me as ridiculing your beliefs, calling them nonsense and dismissing them, but my preference for scientific explanations for natural phenomena does NOT automatically dismiss everything about all religions. I have learned much from a lifetime of study and exposure to many different faiths and practices, and I don't discount any of it. I have my beliefs, and they remain mine, and I also have my preference for scientific explanations for the rest of it. Please try to reply to my actual words, and not some wild interpretation of them that has no basis in reality.

[PeterJ]

Okay Phi - I give up. Let's put it down to experience. You seem to be willfully misinterpreting everything I say except for the bits you don't read. No doubt you feel the same about me. I asked a simple question that would have allowed us to clarify both our positions and move on, and a one word answer would have done. But you don't answer, so I have nowhere to go but to repeat myself. No point in that. You are not a sceptic in my opinion, but I can only go on what's been said so far.

 

I'll just add that at no time was I talking about my beliefs. I was suggesting that your scepticism is not self-consistent and has unfortunate consequences for religion. What I believe has nothing to do with anything. Nor did I claim any knowledge except for a knowledge of what religion claims.

 

It is all very odd. I'm now being told that the claim that all positive metaphysical positions are false is untestable. Weird. Anyway, I'll start a thread someday soon to canvas a wider opinion on this one, and will leave it for now.

 

Sorry to have caused such trouble. I made a mild and (I thought) helpful objection to a philosophical position and suddenly I'm a religious nutcase. Ergh.

 

 

 

 

[Dekan]

Arguing about Religion makes people hate each other.

 

No-one can prove who's right, and who's wrong. So the argument degenerates into personal abuse.

 

This abuse would, if not constrained by distance, eventually lead to armed Religious conflict, and violent death. As it still does today.

 

In this respect, Science is better than Religion, because scientists don't (these days) actually kill each other. Much though they might sometimes wish to.

[mooeypoo]

Arguing about Religion makes people hate each other.

 

No-one can prove who's right, and who's wrong. So the argument degenerates into personal abuse.

 

This abuse would, if not constrained by distance, eventually lead to armed Religious conflict, and violent death. As it still does today.

 

In this respect, Science is better than Religion, because scientists don't (these days) actually kill each other. Much though they might sometimes wish to.

 

But we're not "Arguing" about religion, we're debating about how much religion and science are compatible. That question is valid, and seeing as science is a methodology of dealing with empirical reality (mostly) it can be answered using the same conditions.

 

Science rejects emotions and subjectivity. We can argue about how good it does it (in another thread) but that's its main purpose, so essentially we're discussing using empirical methods to "judge" the claims of religion. As I pointed out in a previous post, people have a right to believe whatever they want - but the moment they claim a belief has evidence, it's up to them to supply this evidence and show that it is scientific.

 

If people don't want to risk "offending" their own subjective belief system, they shouldn't claim that the claims of that belief system are scientific - unless they are ready and willing to deal with peer review, criticism, demand for evidence, experimentation and, perhaps, the rejection of the claim in a scientific context.

 

~mooey

 

 

[PeterJ]

But we're not "Arguing" about religion, we're debating about how much religion and science are compatible. That question is valid, and seeing as science is a methodology of dealing with empirical reality (mostly) it can be answered using the same conditions.

 

Science rejects emotions and subjectivity. We can argue about how good it does it (in another thread) but that's its main purpose, so essentially we're discussing using empirical methods to "judge" the claims of religion. As I pointed out in a previous post, people have a right to believe whatever they want - but the moment they claim a belief has evidence, it's up to them to supply this evidence and show that it is scientific.

 

If people don't want to risk "offending" their own subjective belief system, they shouldn't claim that the claims of that belief system are scientific - unless they are ready and willing to deal with peer review, criticism, demand for evidence, experimentation and, perhaps, the rejection of the claim in a scientific context.

 

~mooey

 

I agree, except for the bit about science rejecting subjectivity. I would also agree with Dekan that sensible discussions about religion are almost impossible. It's as if the people on both sides are allergic to each other. If we hold the view there would is no need for any argument between science and religion, then we get it in the neck from both sides almost as soon as we start speaking. Most people fear any significant change to their worldview. Religious believers are, in my experience, no worse than natural scientists at challenging their belief-systems.

 

I found my disussion with Phi annoying because from my perspective it was mostly unnecesssary, being the result of a misunderstanding. But I can easily see why those who became annoyed with me did so, given what they thought I was saying and probably still do. But whatever the misunderstandings we did not start swearing at each other, kept it reasonably 'scientific', and some useful thoughts came out of it, and perhaps that is to our credit and made it more than waste of time.

 

The idea that science rejects subjectivity seems not quite right. It would mean that consciousness studies is not a science, which would upset a lot of people, and while I'm not sure that physics considers it part of its job to explain observer-effects, it cannot reject observers without rejecting observations. Physics cannot explain obsevers, but it must admit that there are such things.

Edited December 10, 2011 by PeterJ

[tar]

and Mooey, what would we be doing science for in the first place if it wasn't for us(humans). Sort of subjectively powered.

 

I think it is worth the discussion. If only to understand ourselves, individually, and to see what others may be "on our side" in various senses. But in a search for figurative associates, not a search for literal enemies.

 

Regards, TAR2

[mooeypoo]

and Mooey, what would we be doing science for in the first place if it wasn't for us(humans). Sort of subjectively powered.

 

I think it is worth the discussion. If only to understand ourselves, individually, and to see what others may be "on our side" in various senses. But in a search for figurative associates, not a search for literal enemies.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Humans are subjective and emotional. The point of the scientific method is to reduce subjectivity as much as possible. The hope is to eliminate, but that is a bit naive.

 

• Why do we have peer review? Because scrutiny helps in finding potential methodology errors, experimental biases, selection bias, etc.
• Why do we demand proper Hypotheses, Null Hypotheses, etc? Because this helps us structure the inquiry in a way that reduces selection bias and goes by evidence rather than by fitting evidence to the goal.
• Why do we have demand for experimental results to be repeated? Because that shows that it wasn't bias on the side of the initial research group, it helps show that there was no equipment damage or error, and to show that the result is consistent, unbiased, and empirical.

That goes for the rest of the scientific method. I'm not saying it's perfect -- it's far from it -- but the entire point of the method is to *reduce* the human tendency for biases.

 

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.^[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.^[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."^[3]

Source: http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

 

 

It's not just about finding results, it's about finding empirical unbiased results. Isn't that the entire point of having the Scientific Method? Isn't that why it's a *method* ?

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

The idea that science rejects subjectivity seems not quite right. It would mean that consciousness studies is not a science, which would upset a lot of people, and while I'm not sure that physics considers it part of its job to explain observer-effects, it cannot reject observers without rejecting observations. Physics cannot explain obsevers, but it must admit that there are such things.

There's a difference between examining a subjective experience and rejecting subjectivity in the methodology of that examination. We can study the consciousness of individuals while removing subjective bias on the part of those who are doing the study. As mooeypoo points out, it's not always perfect, but that's what peer review helps with, allowing others to examine the work done with a critical eye towards adherence to proper procedure.

 

And this is where I think religion and science diverge the most. Religion tends to hold their Truths sacred, discounting anyone who would criticize them, claiming no one may contest the conclusions they have drawn, where science allows for the possibility that their conclusions may be false, and encourages any and all to test those conclusions for weakness or flaws.

 

Again, I have no problem with belief or faith as long as it's a personal thing. When someone tries to contend that someone else is wrong because they don't believe in the same way, or that the unfalsifiable is fact, that's where religion comes into conflict with science.

[PeterJ]

Your original claim stated that this knowledge you had from religion was empirically derived, that much of religion uses the same methodology as science:

Yep. That's my claim.

 

But when asked for some of this empirically derived knowledge, all you quote is philosophy and doctrine. You gave us nothing that was based on actual observational evidence that would pass any kind of scientific peer review.

Like I say, I'm not arguing here for religion. I listed the claims I did because it is claimed that they are all empirically derived. Some may also be derived from metaphysical logic.

 

These claims aren't falsifiable, which is different from being falsified. They aren't capable of being falsified because there is no way to test them to verify if they're false or not. Falsifiability is one of the first tests of any hypothesis, so your "empirically derived" evidence fails right out of the gate.

You use a restricted definition of 'empirical'. Is pain empirically verifiable? Not according to your definition. According to mine it is. Hence the disagreement.

 

I am at a loss to understand how you find my skepticism to be so extreme. I've tried to explain it to you, and others have even remarked on where you have overstepped the bounds of logic and reason in your attempt to force my stance into something you can more easily complain about. Your arguments are weak and unfounded with regard to the way I view matters of faith and belief.

I stick by my guns. If you would answer that one simple question we'd know where we are. Until then I see no reason to change my asessment. Otherwise I'd reather leave it.

 

I fully realize how much easier your stance is to defend if you can define me as ridiculing your beliefs, calling them nonsense and dismissing them.......

I said you think it is nonsense, not that you ridicule it or call it nonsese. I;m sure you're too polite.

 

.......but my preference for scientific explanations for natural phenomena does NOT automatically dismiss everything about all religions.

I never supposed it did. But it would makes their claims guesswork.

 

I have learned much from a lifetime of study and exposure to many different faiths and practices, and I don't discount any of it. I have my beliefs, and they remain mine, and I also have my preference for scientific explanations for the rest of it. Please try to reply to my actual words, and not some wild interpretation of them that has no basis in reality.

I'm trying very hard. You could be more helpful. I keep asking questions in order to clarify things but I don't get any answers. Which religion do you find plausible? Do you believe certain knowledge of the nature of the universe is possible (as opposed to theories)? Would your scepticism say that nobody can know the truth about the world? If I know your answers that'll help clear up any misunderstandings. Otherwise I'd rather agree to differ.

Edited December 11, 2011 by PeterJ

[mooeypoo]

Yep. That's my claim.

And it's what you need to provide evidence for. You seem to claim that we are the ones who need to prove you wrong -- that's not the way science works, PeterJ.

You're making a claim here, and you need to substantiate it.

 

So let's start over. You claim that "knowledge you had from religion was empirically derived, that much of religion uses the same methodology as science" -- what religious knowledge was empirically derived?

 

Note that the post you made explaining your view was about personal experience and interpretation. That's not empirical derivation, and therefore does not support your claim.

 

 

 

That said, I find it somewhat offensive you seem to skip most posts and answer Phi's only. Beyond the fact this is very annoying to the other people who spend time posting here, it also makes it very difficult to get over the feeling that you're EXTREMELY biased against a particular person that posts on the thread.

 

Can you answer claims rather than people?

[Phi for All]

Which religion do you find plausible?

All religions make claims that are both plausible and implausible. I find none of them to be entirely either way.

 

Do you believe certain knowledge of the nature of the universe is possible (as opposed to theories)?

Nature may have some conditions or laws that work in all areas of the universe. We can't know until we test such knowledge in all possible areas. When such testing becomes possible for us, such knowledge may be possible.

 

Would your scepticism say that nobody can know the truth about the world?

See the answer above. At our present level of knowledge and our capability to test it, I would say that nobody knows "the truth about the world" (which I read as Truth with a capital T). "Can" they know it? How would you be able to tell? I get the feeling you just want to paint my words into some kind of metaphysical, paradoxical corner rather than listen to what I'm saying to you.

 

But then, I wouldn't want to presume to know what you're thinking. I'm not you, after all.

[PeterJ]

And it's what you need to provide evidence for. You seem to claim that we are the ones who need to prove you wrong -- that's not the way science works, PeterJ.

You're making a claim here, and you need to substantiate it.

No, I'm not making any claims. I'm merely reporting what religion claims. I never stated that these claims were true. I said that being sceptical does not entail dismissing them as false.

 

So let's start over. You claim that "knowledge you had from religion was empirically derived, that much of religion uses the same methodology as science" -- what religious knowledge was empirically derived?

Oh no. Definitely not my claim. Most of the knowledge I have of religion comes out of books. What matters is that religion claims its knowledge is empirical. It make this claim to empiricism in countless books. I listed quite a few items from the list of claims a few posts back. Whether they're true is not something that can be decided on an internet forum. But look, I don't want argue about religion. My initial point was, firstly, that we cannot dismiss the knowledge claims of religion without reducing it to absurdity, and, secondly, that being a sceptical person does not entail dismissing such claims, it entails being sceptical of them. I don't think either point is controversial. My discussion with was principally about scepticism, and only by implication about religion.

Note that the post you made explaining your view was about personal experience and interpretation. That's not empirical derivation, and therefore does not support your claim.

It's not my claim. The sages, gurus and prophets, 'enlightened' Buddhists and Taoists, Islamic, Christian and Jewish mystics, the writers of the Upanishads. Plotinus, Schopenhauer and countless others claim direct experience, with no interpetation intervening. This is what Aristotle calls 'knowledge by identity', which he concludes is the only form of true knowledge that would be possible. These people claim to go entirely beyond personal experience. Of course we don't have to believe them. What they say often seems preposterous. But whether we should believe them or not is a different conversation. What matters here is that we do not simply dismiss these claims without grounds, for then we would have abandoned scepticism for a fixed view that is unverified and unfalsifiable, and the very opposite of sceptical. I'm sure everybody here would rather people did not start dismissing scientific theories just because they are sceptical of them.

 

That said, I find it somewhat offensive you seem to skip most posts and answer Phi's only. Beyond the fact this is very annoying to the other people who spend time posting here, it also makes it very difficult to get over the feeling that you're EXTREMELY biased against a particular person that posts on the thread.

Yes, I'm sorry. I'm doing my best. This is very time consuming. My objection was to something Phi said, so I made sure I replied to him.

 

Edited December 11, 2011 by PeterJ

[mooeypoo]

No, I'm not making any claims. I'm merely reporting what religion claims. I never claimed these claims were true. I said that being sceptical does not entail dimsissing them as false.

I am completely lost here, PeterJ.

 

Can you just write down what it is you're saying, without refering to Phi for All? You're so entrenched in pinning Phi against the wall, I don't think anyone understands what it is, exactly, that you're SAYING.

 

 

I've had enough of this lover's quarrel. It's really annoying, and now it seems like it's COMPLETELY going nowhere.

Let me know when you figured out what it is you're saying, and why we should spend time debating about it.

 

Also, Phi's married. Move on.

 

I'm out.

 

~mooey

[PeterJ]

All religions make claims that are both plausible and implausible. I find none of them to be entirely either way.

 

 

Nature may have some conditions or laws that work in all areas of the universe. We can't know until we test such knowledge in all possible areas. When such testing becomes possible for us, such knowledge may be possible.

 

 

See the answer above. At our present level of knowledge and our capability to test it, I would say that nobody knows "the truth about the world" (which I read as Truth with a capital T). "Can" they know it? How would you be able to tell? I get the feeling you just want to paint my words into some kind of metaphysical, paradoxical corner rather than listen to what I'm saying to you.

 

But then, I wouldn't want to presume to know what you're thinking. I'm not you, after all.

Okay. Thanks. Now I understand where we stand. It is not so much that I misunderstood you, for there is no religion that you find plausible. but that given your views my objection wouldn't have made any sense. If you want to go on exploring what I've been getting at, then I would want to start by examining the nature of knowledge. Maybe your pessimism as to what we can know is unnecessary.

 

I am completely lost here, PeterJ.

 

Can you just write down what it is you're saying, without refering to Phi for All? You're so entrenched in pinning Phi against the wall, I don't think anyone understands what it is, exactly, that you're SAYING.

 

 

I've had enough of this lover's quarrel. It's really annoying, and now it seems like it's COMPLETELY going nowhere.

Let me know when you figured out what it is you're saying, and why we should spend time debating about it.

 

Also, Phi's married. Move on.

 

I'm out.

 

~mooey

Ah , if Phi is married that changes everything.

 

I don't know why you think I'm perscuting Phi. In philosophy the idea is to sort out who is right whenever there's a disagreement, and that's called progress. Perhaps it's different on science forums. I've have actually attempted to get out of the discussion twice. Shall I stop replying to him? Why not leave me to sort things out with Phi and worry about your own objections. I'm sure Phi is capable of looking after himself.

 

It would be easier if you reminded me what it is that I said to Phi that you didn't like. I thought we were having a reasonable if very confusing conversation. If I have bullied anyone I apologise. Phi has not yet suggested I have been bullying. I expect he assumes I'm just replying to his posts.

[mooeypoo]

I'm asking that you repost what your original and ultimate claim is, regardless of agreement or disagreement from Phi or anyone else.

Every time we ask you if A is what you claim, you either say no but don't tell us what your actual claim IS, or you say yes but then recant when someone counters it.

 

A clear statement from you about what it is exactly that you're claiming will be a great step towards actually having a discussion here.

 

Otherwise, there seems to be no reason to proceed.

[PeterJ]

There's a difference between examining a subjective experience and rejecting subjectivity in the methodology of that examination. We can study the consciousness of individuals while removing subjective bias on the part of those who are doing the study. As mooeypoo points out, it's not always perfect, but that's what peer review helps with, allowing others to examine the work done with a critical eye towards adherence to proper procedure.

This does not alter the fact that the consciousness of individuals is not a scientific phenomena, or not by the usual definition. There is no intersubjective means of verifying it.

 

And this is where I think religion and science diverge the most. Religion tends to hold their Truths sacred, discounting anyone who would criticize them, claiming no one may contest the conclusions they have drawn, where science allows for the possibility that their conclusions may be false, and encourages any and all to test those conclusions for weakness or flaws.

Oh for goodness sake. Why do always pick out the worst traits of European religion and condemn the whole enterprise? Dioing this makes it seem that you don't care enough to check the facts. Yes, what you say is correct in respect of some religious people. Quite mad some of them. But I do not find scientists much more open to having their cage rattled. Since the early 2oth century science seems to have adopted a seige mentality.

 

Again, I have no problem with belief or faith as long as it's a personal thing. When someone tries to contend that someone else is wrong because they don't believe in the same way, or that the unfalsifiable is fact, that's where religion comes into conflict with science.

Yes. I suggest we forget about our beliefs and deal with facts.

 

I'm asking that you repost what your original and ultimate claim is, regardless of agreement or disagreement from Phi or anyone else.

 

A clear statement from you about what it is exactly that you're claiming will be a great step towards actually having a discussion here.

 

Otherwise, there seems to be no reason to proceed.

Okay. Yet again. My claim is that being sceptical would not require that we dismiss the knowledge claims of religion.

Edited December 12, 2011 by PeterJ

[swansont]

No. I just see that you dismiss the knowledge claims of religion. You keep doing it, and saying you're not doing it doesn't make much sense when your posts are still there to read.

 

!

Moderator Note

I think one of the miscommunications here is that Phi has made an objection and the response has been, basically, "no, that's wrong" with no explanation of the details of why you think so. How about providing more substance in support of your position?

 

(BTW that's rhetorical. Do not respond to this modnote)

[PeterJ]

Okay - rhetorical, and unfair I'd say. But I'll explain again anyway.

 

It's so simple. My comment to Phi said that scepticism does not require that we dismiss the knowledge claims of other people, since we cannot know what they know and what they don't. If we think that scepticism requires that knowledge is impossible (there is no absolute truth etc. as Phi suggested) then we have dismissed religion before even examining it. Scepticism does not require that we do this. My impression was and is that PHi thinks otherwise, so there is a discussion to be had. It is a factual matter.

 

Why is this point just put to one side all the time? Does nobody want to address it? What do people think? Nobody has replied to my objection yet, either in support or otherwise. Every time I explain it it is ignored and we go back to challenging my beliefs about religion. They don't matter! They're not relevant and I haven't even stated them.

 

All the other stuff is just me responding to questions and objections. I have made no 'religious' claims, just stated what religion claims since I was asked. Forget religion if you like, the discussion was about scepticism as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to discuss religion but there's no point if we think that knowledge is impossible. Then all religion would have to be dogma and guesswork. Sometimes it is, sure, but we cannot generalize this to all religions. It would be sloppy and unrigorous.

Edited December 12, 2011 by PeterJ