Friendly Atheist

[...] The Top 5 Televangelists By Randy According to some atheist. This entry is filed under Humor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. Leave a Reply [...]

Nice work Hemant

But you are too generous with Osteen

Osteen defintely gets the Mr Toastmaster award for best and (certainly least offensive) speaker but he is robotic to say the least and most of what you hear from him comes direct from Tony Robbins.

I mostly just feel sorry for him- He is the front man for a huge operation- he looks like a lost kid.

Those are all the rsame reasons he is so popular as well

Hi Hemant,

Have you ever watched any of these televangelists, and if so, what’s your opinion?

Robert Schuller
Joyce Meyer
TD Jakes

[...] It’s Joel and Victoria Osteen!  AHH! [...]

[...] So I was watching one of my favorite televangelist podcasts last night: Jack Van Impe Presents. (You can watch it, too. The audio can be downloaded here and video can be downloaded here.) [...]

[...] A Plasma TV. To watch Joel Osteen. [...]

Aside from the fact that you have your facts about evolution twisted, your “openminded” approach is fundamentally incorrect. You will never be convinced that there is a God because you have already made the decision to not believe. You have decided to put your faith into a theory that upon close inspection, does not withstand scrutiny.
Until you withhold your conclusion, you will continue to fall into the same trap that so many other non-believers fall into. Your science is based on the process of result first, and works its way backwards, instead of letting the natural progression of ideas take place from the beginning. Whenever the latest evolution idea is refuted, as it always is, Darwinists scramble to come up with another explanation. Your faith in this theory is unshakable. This is not how true science operates.

When you insist on money to drag you into an environment that requires an authentic desire to participate, you destroy the prospect of real discovery. It is the sole purpose of free will to choose to follow God. The decision to follow God is critical. Nobody can force you to believe. But you put your faith in a science that doesn’t exist “yet”…The creation “dilemma” will “eventually” be solved in the “future”. How convenient for the atheist.

Nobody owes you an explanation, not for $10 or any any other amount. If you would trade your condescending, cynical approach for an honest one, with sincere intentions, you would discover the power of God.

I hope you choose to direct your faith more wisely…

what do u think of this? i found it on joel osteens website
WE BELIEVE…the entire Bible is inspired by God, without error and the authority on which we base our faith, conduct and doctrine.

WE BELIEVE…in one God who exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to this earth as Savior of the world.

WE BELIEVE…Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our sins. We believe that salvation is found by placing our faith in what Jesus did for us on the cross. We believe Jesus rose from the dead and is coming again.

WE BELIEVE…water baptism is a symbol of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and a testimony to our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

WE BELIEVE…in the regular taking of Communion as an act of remembering what the Lord Jesus did for us on the cross.

WE BELIEVE…every believer should be in a growing relationship with Jesus by obeying God’s Word, yielding to the Holy Spirit and by being conformed to the image of Christ.

WE BELIEVE…as children of God, we are overcomers and more than conquerors and God intends for each of us to experience the abundant life He has in store for us.

la la la la la….. uh oh….
Atheist ppl… eww
:p just kidding.
im glad you are ‘Friendly’ and to be friendly one must have friends.
but not too glad you are all Atheist. I wonder why the rejection?
well anyway you are going to face Him. And it does take more faith to be an Atheist than to be a Christian. You just ignore the facts! how lovely!
“well its not scientifically proven”
That saying is funny lol. Dont get me wrong Atheist are great!(except denying the Creator) especially when i see one get saved! now that is AWESOME!

Just a quick note from a friendly believer. Forgive me for not spending a whole lot of time on your website because this is just a quick observation. I notice that even though you and a lot of your readers are non-believers, why then do you spend so much of your time fixated on somehting that you don’t believe in.

That’s one of the problems I’ve always had with “Drive-By Conversion” attempts; the perpetrators always seem to think that their arguments are completely new, that nobody has ever heard them before and that nobody in the world can possibly refute them. Well, it’s really quite simple: the idea of defending a theory is not new, and it’s not illogical, either. When someone “attacks” a theory–evolution, for example–it is natural to want to examine the theory from different angles to make sure there is no way for it to hold up. If we just abandoned a theory every time someone attacked it, we wouldn’t have a lot of the technology we do today–for it’s this very reasoning process that allows us to make such progress.

And sadly, the “attacks” being made on concepts such as evolution are anything but scientific; for example, when it was said in one of the comments here that “evolution works backward from a conclusion,” I beg to differ; there is no doctrine in history that tells us evolution happened. It is a theory invented by Charles Darwin based on scientific observations he made in his life. The Bible is a book that was supposedly written with divine inspiration, and it lays everything out and attempts to explain everything–starting with a conclusion, and leaving us humans to sort out the facts.

I would challange you to be honest, you have rejected God because of the emotional baggage not because your smarter than those whom believe.

Well, for one, I’d be a liar if I said that; I never “rejected God” because I’ve never “experienced God.” I hear about him every day, but all of the “irrefutable evidence” everyone seems to have always turns out to be based on interpretation (see: Kirk Cameron). One who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t always do so because of “rejection;” There are as many reasons for not believing in God as there are for believing in Him.

All hostile remarks aside, though, I’m not really interested in “proving religion wrong.” I can’t speak for everyone, but I am personally interetsed in doing whatever I feel is right. I watch religious TV because I am honestly interested in hearing the “other side’s” perspective; I am willing to hear people out on matters of faith and God, because if Christianity is provably “right” or “true,” then I want to know. But I haven’t seen anything to even suggest that. I am severely disappointed when someone takes a legitimate attempt at conversation, wads it up, and throws it away, all in the interest of spouting a tired argument (as the drive-by attempt here tried to do).

I am fairly new to the atheist community, so I haven’t actually read any of the popular “atheist leaders” books (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens), though I have plans to, simply because I want to know what everyone is talking about. When I say something, it’s usually because I thought of it myself, and if it isn’t, then I heard it from someone else, thought about it, and decided I agreed with it because it was an accurate representation of my thoughts. Which really serves my point—if I think of or hear an idea that happens to already be popular opinion, but then try to act like it’s some magical quote that will make religious people “see the light,” people will be irritated with me. Drive-by conversion attempts are just like that. If that user had approached this conversation in a more intelligent manner, I might have humored him/her instead of going on the offensive. But he/she gave me no reason to humor him/her, as he/she did not say anything that lead me to believe he/she was interested in a two-sided conversation.

On a closing note, conversation and interaction is not always about saying something that nobody has ever said before; sometimes it is about collecting ideas and sorting through them in the interest of serving a common cause. In Hemant’s case, the blog is an attempt to start conversations between religious people and atheists and to help them to better understand each other. So naturally, you’re going to see a lot of familiar ideas here.

And if you see a familiar argument, by all means, feel free to address it. Just don’t make the same mistake Mr. Driveby made; as long as you’re relatively sociable, I don’t think most people will mind.

Mike,
I agree with you that the basic arguments on theist and atheist blogs are often repetitive, and for the most part those which are an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God is futile, given the caveat that believers include in their definition of God that he is outside normal existence, not subject to any effects of time and space, and not subject to cause and effect. That is why most mature atheists dont’ waste their time with such discussions.

I take exception to your proposition that these arguments come from authors such as Dawkins, Harris, etc. on one side and C.S. Lewis, Pascal etc. on the other. These arguments boil down to a single, simple exchange that is older than history: “Believe what I say,” vs. “Show me first.” This has gone on since the Stone Age.

When you said,

As one of your bloggers pointed out most of you have had painful experiences with the church and the rejection is emotional. Christians however have had a different expirence and their attachment is equally emotional.

I think you were referring to my comment not far above. That was just one part of a response to the question about why atheists spend time discussing religion at all. For you to take that and spin it to imply that atheists have made an “emotional” decision, implying that it was not a rational, well-considered decision is not correct or fair. As others here have suggested, please ask us about ourselves, don’t tell us about ourselves.

Mike,
When you say,

I think this simplifies a complicated situation. I don’t think it quiet boils down to: Those of you who are willing to believe with no proof, and those of us who demand evidence and use our brains.

First let’s clear up the tone. I never said nor implied that believers don’t use their brains. That kind of insult has no place here. If you have encountered people who do that, I’m sorry to hear that, but I can’t help that. Please don’t characterize me along with them.

I agree with you that evidence requires interpretation. Such interpretation has to have as much credibility as the evidence itself. It should follow a logical sequence that anyone can understand. If I say that a horse footprint in the Sierra Nevada is evidence that a small town dogcatcher in Iowa is a pedophile, you’re going to immediately demand my step-by-step explanation before you accept that as evidence.

To me, saying that your desire to think of love as something beyond a psycho-chemical reaction is evidence that an invisible, inaudible and intangible supreme being exists and is watching over us is as big a leap over logical sequence as the one I just described. To me, it is evidence about you; evidence of the complexity of your character. It suggests that you have a sensitivity toward human feelings, that you value love as a virtue and that you would not want to see it’s importance diminished or dismissed as a strictly mundane phenomenon. I wouldn’t either, it should be revered. But if you ask me to share your leap over logical sequence in interpretation as a “leap of faith,” I couldn’t accept your leap toward the conclusion of god’s existence any more than you could accept mine that the dogcatcher is a pedophile.

Every day you make important decisions: when to cross a busy street, whether a defendant is guilty or innocent, should you buy or sell stock. You wisely demand materialistic evidence and straight-forward interpretation for such things every day, but not for the existence of god. Our only difference is that I don’t relax my standards for any topic. To be clear, I’m not implying superiority, just difference.

Your example of your loving your kids presents a good example of my viewpoint. I think there is very clear external existence to love. There’s an old saying that kids spell love t-i-m-e, meaning the time you actually spend being physically with them and interacting with them is their best evidence that you love them; all the things you do for them, especially with them. If you were not around for your kids, if you remained invisible, inaudible and intangible, if their mother could only reassure them that you love them, wherever the heck you are, but you gave them no clear, physical, straight forward, unambiguous, undeniable presence in their lives, needing no “interpretation” at all, they would not be very well nourished by such abstract, vacuous love.

Mike, like you I am suspicious of any world view that is too perfect, too pat, too sewn-up. It smacks of deceit. And so I can understand your problem with certain presentations of materialism. I keep my mind open for evidence for all sorts of ideas, but I think my standards for evidence and it’s interpretation are not unreasonable. My problem with supernatural interpretations of the world around us is that it also can be far too convenient to just stick God into all the cracks and gaps in an argument, like spackle covering the serious flaws in a crumbling wall.

For me, the evidence for something as important as God’s existence should not be “difficult to interpret,” especially for a god who supposedly really wants us to believe in him. It should be easy, obvious, straight forward, unambiguous, and simple. It should not require people to bend logic into an absurd pretzel and try to interpret the absence of evidence as if that is evidence, and that the difficulty in interpreting the evidence is in itself also evidence. That is silliness turned upon itself. I’m open to it when and if I’m presented with good evidence and a good interpretation.

(Groan) Oh crap, I’m in a conversation with a philosophy major. Mike, do you mean Ludwig WITTGENSTEIN? Of Tractatus, On Certainty, and all that? It took me several minutes of Googling the three ways you spelled it, “Wiggetestine, Wiggettestene” and on the other thread, “Wiggettenstein” before I realized you probably mean Wittgenstein. I read some articles about him several months ago when I tangled with another philosophy major. My overall impression was that he built elaborate, intricate arguments to say that basically it’s just about hopeless for anyone to understand anyone else. Well, gee whiz, he provided good examples even as he wrote them, so if the reader couldn’t actually grasp his meaning, he got a demonstration instead.

Whatever.

I have a tough time not resenting being told to “do my homework” on an assignment by you. I think that if someone can’t explain an idea in simple terms, then he just doesn’t understand it very well himself. Resorting to jargon, esoteric and dense philosophical works, and (misspelled) philosopher name-dropping is what “derails” a conversation for me, rather than someone not being familiar with some arcane philosophy.

Parts of your last comment have begun to resemble word salad. You talk about “evidence that’s hard to interpret,” but you don’t clearly say evidence for what. You’re babbling about how being direct is really being indirect, and how being indirect is really being direct. If you’re trying to demonstrate “fuzzy” communication, you’re doing a good job. You said, “The more direct one speaks about God the less clear God becomes.” Well duh. There’s a simple and obvious explanation for that. Please don’t give me the “all logic is relative to it’s cultural context” routine. Please try hard to be straight forward and not play word games and mind games. If you want a PhD level repartee on epistemology then I’m not up to it. Not qualified and not interested. As I have often said to other people in these kinds of conversations, I’m not interested in truth, I’m interested in honesty. Honesty is about you and me not playing games, not pretending we’re smart, just stating our views in frank, simple terms.

I will reprint the paragraph containing my essential opinion from my earlier comment, since you ignored it completely. If you have any coherent, honest response to offer about it, great. If you’re gonna hand me things like the “how can we know what we know and how can we know if we’re knowing that right there” nonsense, or quote any dead guys, then let’s forget it. Here’s what I said earlier:

For me, the evidence for something as important as God’s existence should not be “difficult to interpret,” especially for a god who supposedly really wants us to believe in him. It should be easy, obvious, straight forward, unambiguous, and simple. It should not require people to bend logic into an absurd pretzel and try to interpret the absence of evidence as if that is evidence, and that the difficulty in interpreting the evidence is in itself also evidence. That is silliness turned upon itself. I’m open to it when and if I’m presented with good evidence and a good interpretation.

And the e comes before the i in atheist.

monkeymind, I like him better already. Thanks.

LOL Eliza, that’s good. I never thought of that. How athy are we anyway?

Mike, Sorry about my tone in my last comment. I get annoyed when I think someone is talking in circles and obfuscating. If you don’t think you were, then skip it, my apologies.

The flaw in your logic is this: evidence is that which I can see touch or test. If what ever is presented to me is not presented in this manner (empirically verifiable) than it is by definition not evidence. That would be true IF we lived in a materialistic universe. To my knowledge no one has proven that we live in a purely materialistic universe. Therefore the method of testing is, by design, only able to test that which is physical in nature.

Well if the universe is more than materialistic, the only parts where anything has been proven are the material parts. Whatever the alleged non material parts may be, they are only described by people who claim to have some special vision, some special insight that others lack. If I don’t see something beyond the material, then I’m either blind or it’s not actually there. If you see something beyond the material, you either have a sense that others lack or you’re imagining it from wishful thinking. People who claim to see what others cannot see have a long, ugly history of fraud. Some may sincerely believe what they claim, but that doesn’t mean they’re actually right, and there have been far too many mystical hucksters for me to not look askance at them all.

The flaw in your logic is to imply that because “no one has proven that we live in a purely materialistic universe” then therefore the non-materialistic must exist. Nuh-uh. Isn’t that one of those fallacious arguments that are so old they have latin names? Sorry, your reassurances, no matter how eloquent are not and never will be enough. They can be just the words of another guy with something to sell. The more intricate, complex and multi-level your explanations for why you don’t have any empirical evidence, the less convincing you are.

It once again boils down to the very first thing I said that you responded to. I said that it’s a timeless exchange between “Believe what I say,” vs. “Show me first.” Now between you and I it has become, “Consider believing what I say,” (followed by long, complicated musings on what is reality, what is truth, what is knowledge, what is love and what is God) vs. “Show me first.” All that talk weighs nothing. It’s vibrating air. It appears to me to be just stuff to fill up the time during the long, long embarrassing absence of God.

You keep bringing up love as if it’s some kind of talisman, something that will cause me to flinch at the possibility of it being denigrated into only materialistic terms. Hey, I’m a sentimental, romantic guy. I cry at movies, sigh at novels about love, loyalty, sacrifice and heroism. I’ve been Cupid’s fool over my wife for the last 37 years. Love may someday indeed be explainable in only chemical/pycho-sexual terms but don’t worry, that won’t really reduce human beings’ fondness of it or our fascination with it, or our daydreaming that somehow it’s more. I do not see any less beauty in love and life by seeing things as devoid of supernatural aspects. I can accept that DNA can come up with some pretty wonderful things. I don’t need to think that it’s added to us from the outside by a non-material deity; it doesn’t spoil the mood. Scientists can have their mystical and romantic streaks. That’s okay with me. It makes them healthier people. They’re usually careful not to mix up sentiment with science.

But what if empiricism CAN’T tell us everything. What if it’s limited? What if we are more than chemicals that bounce into each other… Is it possible Richard? Is it possible that science might have limitations?

Of course science and empiricism have their limitations. They’re tediously slow and haven’t told us everything. But I don’t think that what they haven’t told us should be filled in by prophets and preachers with nothing to back up their claims but more claims about the claims. What we don’t know should remain not known until when and if we do know.

All sorts of questions as yet unanswered by science are not very good “evidence” for supernaturalism. They’re just unanswered questions. It’s not a good strategy to bolster an argument for the non-material by using as yet unanswered questions as if the gaps in our knowledge is evidence. That is a constantly shrinking set. Yeah, yeah we don’t know how DNA got started yet, but we know a lot of things that we formerly didn’t. When somebody eventually makes a self-replicating complex molecule in the lab from basic early Earth chemicals, that will be one less hiding place for God.

I have enjoyed our exchange, but I think that we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not want to take away a single belief or notion of yours, or sway you to see things as I do. My sole purpose is to make myself and my views understood. I need to concentrate on my real world needs and responsibilities and get some time away from this infernal machine.

Keep loving, regardless of it’s nature.

I hate to intrude on such an interesting discussion, but allow me to give my simple (but effective, I think) mindset with regards to why I don’t believe in the supernatural:

(1) Take away the Bible. Take away the Quran. Take away all of the Holy Books. What do we have to show that God exists, then? What do we have to even suggest it? We have vague notions of a creator, but not as a single scientific theory that stands out—rather, the idea of a creator in this context is simply another theory that may or may not have any bearing. There are ways to suggest that it might be true, and ways to suggest it might not. Not enough evidence to even consider it (or throw it out), so it really has no place in my rationale (though I admit I’m open to the possibility, if someone shows me evidence that is not subject to interpretation). The fact that someone wrote a book while claiming divine inspiration is not enough to inspire me to change my entire belief system.

(2)

Science has done some pretty amazing things but it hasn’t done all that it’s promised. It can help us get to London faster (via Jet) but can it help us manage our time better? Science can describe the creation of a baby. But can it tell us how to be good fathers. Science does a wonderful job of making machines like this one I’m typing on but does it show me how to communicate with others better?

This is where the vagueness comes in; science is about precision, about being exact. As long as you give a set of describable factors with distinct natures (as opposed to a vague generalization that encompasses a large number of possible precise factors), it is possible to scientifically explore a situation. To use your analogy about managing time—the reason it is flawed is because “managing time” is a general concept. It encompasses many smaller factors, such as, “What would you consider a good use of time?” These are things that are subject to interpretation and differ from person to person, therefore their definitions will not be universal or exact. Your analogy is, I imagine, similar to trying to prove scientifically who the world’s greatest musician is/was; it’s simply not a scientific matter in and of itself (though it is comprised thereof).

It’s the same with “being a good father,” although there is one major difference—there are proven, objective child-rearing tactics that are shown to have positive impact throughout the child-rearing process….but again, the exact degree of those processes is subject to interpretation; you should love your child, but how much love should you show? Would constantly showering your child with praise, regardless of the actions of the child, make him/her feel like he/she could get away with doing anything to anybody? Would this detriment the child in the future?

All of which is why I disagree with your idea that science is itself a world view. Simply put, science is not a “biased worldview” but a process by which one determines set factors, a process that actually requires a pre-set worldview by which to calculate those factors—one cannot scientifically test a particular factor or set thereof without a pre-existing definition of those factors, determined by the discretion/worldview of the scientist conducting the experiment; if one were to test an object’s efficiency, then first “efficiency” must be defined as a solid term—it is necessary to destroy vagueness and narrow all the factors down to an exact definition.

That’s about it for now….I eagerly await your reply, if any I quite enjoy this discussion already!

Tim D and Miko, thanks for taking up the response to Mike B. He’s a nice enough guy and for the most part the interaction moves along. I’m exhausted and discouraged by foolishly tangling elsewhere with a narcissistic, passive-aggressive person and I really need to take a break from this futility.

Mike B, out of politeness I should at least give some kind of response and then I have to stop. Please continue with the others.

I am not the only one who has to “defend” You are proposing a universe that is devoid of God, That’s fine but for me to accept that position YOU need evidence that I would accept, and your position need to be scutinized as much or more than the “theistic” position.

First of all I don’t have to defend my stance of not believing. I just sit around minding my own business and other people come to me and propose all sorts of things they want me to believe in. Believe in God. Come to their church. Bring money. Believe in Sasquatch. Come to their club meetings. Bring money. When I politely ask them for proof or even evidence of their claims a few of them try to put the burden of proving their claims false onto me, like you just tried to do. That’s ridiculous. There are an infinite number of possible dumbass claims. Why should it be up to me to disprove them all? The claim maker has to do the proving. I never say that I believe there is no god. I say that I don’t believe there is a god. That’s an enormous and very important difference. I don’t do the mental activity called believing, a persistent assumption of the truth of something in the absence of acceptable evidence.

Science has done some pretty amazing things but it hasn’t done all that it’s promised.

I don’t know who promised what, but it wasn’t me, and I never bought it. Maybe Walt Disney in “Our Friend the Atom” said some utopian-sounding things, but that was just propaganda.

You accuse me of taking “gaps” in my knowledge and “applying” it to God.

I don’t accuse you of anything. There’s no crime or tort here. My impression is that that’s the way you think, and I just don’t think that way. You and I just have a different set of criteria for believing. You are willing to assume the truth of something in the absence of contradictory evidence. I am not willing to assume the truth of anything in the absence of supporting evidence.

I have no problem believing that there may be a mechanism that God used to “create” DNA However, your faith in science is as blind as my faith in God. Where is your evidence that science ever will discover the mechanism?

I’m not some starry-eyed science devotee who thinks the way you try to characterize me. There is a difference between having confidence and having faith. I have confidence in a way of thinking that has been demonstrably successful in solving problems and follows a simple, understandable method. I don’t have faith in a way of thinking that has not solved any problems better than leaving things to chance and has a method that remains unexplainable, and gives power to an elite class of people who claim to posess mysterious special senses and insight.

As for the abiotic DNA thing, I’m not 100% sure that will ever be done. I read something recently that sounded like interesting research, but who knows? Probably eventually, maybe not in our lifetimes. If it ever is done it will have to be reproducible and explainable before I accept it. Will it cause people of faith to lose their faith? Of course not. They just won’t use that “gap” in their arguments. They’ll go on to the next unexplained thing. No matter how much we learn there will always be an inexaustible supply of unexplained things. If you want to call that “mystery” okay, fine. I just call them unexplained things.

You retry that same “you really have faith, nyah nyah nyah” taunting ploy in your last paragraph, adding the remark about those who use their brains and those who don’t. I asked you once before not to characterize me as someone who suggests that you don’t use your brains, but there is that chip on your shoulder again. I know you use your brains. I know you’re smart. I don’t hold you in disdain. I don’t characterize believers as stupid. Please get over whoever it was who insulted you in that way, and don’t attribute that to me.

Mike, please enjoy conversing with Tim D and Miko. They are decent people and I don’t think they will stoop to insulting you. I wish you all the love your heart can hold. Now I’ve really gotta get outa here.

,

oops, removed double post

Im not going to argue what you did or didn’t write. I simply copied and pasted so… go back and re read your post….

As to science not being an ideology… Look at “form a hypothesis.”; hypothesis’ are based upon ideas what what one thinks may happen. Obvisouly you haven’t read Thomas Kuhn’s work (let me post this here… he’s not a christian… it’s not a christian appologetical work it’s philosophy) According to kuhn science is possibl only if someone provides a model with which to work ie paradigm. It is interesting that you think science is “rather, a means by which to reach a commonly observable conclusion;”

Ok than why do scientist themselves differ over how the “evidence” in interpreted?

If evidence speaks for it’s self and doesn’t require interpretation than why do some people see thing differently. What I am objecting to here is the implication behind your statement. If science is based upon “common sense” conclusions that are “open for anyone to find” than why here why now? How come only our “cultural west” has been able to produce this so well?

Lets take a short example: Newton physics and Einstein physics. This by the way is Kuhn’s argument, these two types of physics are not building one on top of the other einstein totally revolutionlized he field. He rearranged the way the information was preceived. His point was that science “needs a paradigm” with in which to function and work. Other wise you have random information that makes no sense….

Lets take evolution: Life changes… what about that observation makes it “common sense” to imply: “Since life changes there must be some order or law that guides this process”

It does not follow that there has to be an order or logic to the change. The theory of evolution works (as a model for the creation of life) ONLY if it is combined with a philosophical materialism that believes #1 the “laws of nature” are constant and #2 that we are able apprehend them correctly #3 there is nothing out side of these law’s that can influence the material universe. These assumption must be in place PRIOR to any discussion concering “science”

So, don’t tell me “Creationist portray science as some kind of doctrine” it is… The only way it will work is if it has such structure.

According to kuhn science is possibl only if someone provides a model with which to work ie paradigm. It is interesting that you think science is “rather, a means by which to reach a commonly observable conclusion;”

Not in so many words, this is exactly what I was saying; science is not a model itself but a process through which you run a model through.. I think we’re agreeing here.

Ok than why do scientist themselves differ over how the “evidence” in interpreted?

Because different people have different interpretations for the same evidence. There are some things that are objectively true, which we have come to know through science—for example, the fact that a child is created in the womb by a process involving the union of the sperm and egg and the formation of a zygote cell. This is not debatable; it is a fact. On the other hand, there are things which are still up for debate (i.e. the existence of God). In the case of God, I am not saying that there is “objective proof that God does not exist;” rather, I am saying that there is no objective proof either way. Because of this, I see no reason to dedicate myself to belief in a God which has just as much of a probability of existence as any other “supreme being” ever discussed in any religious work in history. There is no more evidence to support the objective existence of the Christian (or Muslim, or any other religion) God over the existence of any other God or supreme being, or any lack thereof. Given that there is evidence that suggests (not proves, mind you) God does not exist (to me, lack of evidence to prove a theory is evidence which suggests that the theory is invalid, or at least less valid than a more provable theory). To me, I don’t “not believe in God” simply because I can’t see him; I don’t believe in him because every single example I have ever heard to “prove” his existence is based on interpretation. Evidence (that I’ve seen) that even begins to suggest the existence of God is not so much based on proving that he is real so much as it is based on the idea that he isn’t “not real.” And to me, inability to disprove a theory does not automatically require that I believe it.

If evidence speaks for it’s self and doesn’t require interpretation than why do some people see thing differently.

I’ve already explained one instance in which evidence is objective; if God’s existence is as objectively true as our explanation for the birthing process, then it should be provable as such. If God’s existence is provable, then it should be confirmable from multiple angles, not just a philosophical or metaphorical one.

My point being that,the things you have offered here as “evidence” in defense of God’s existence are not so much evidence to suggest the existence of a God as they are questions about our existence that are currently unanswered. All you have succeeded in proving to me is that science has not solved all of the mysteries of our universe (something I already know to be true). After proving that there are unsolved mysteries in our universe, you must then provide the next link in the chain, the deduction which leads from “unsolved mystery” to “God did it.”

Lets take evolution: Life changes… what about that observation makes it “common sense” to imply: “Since life changes there must be some order or law that guides this process”

If it happens consistently enough, it’s logical to assume (or at the very least, hypothesize) that there might be a pattern. Scientific observation has suggested very strongly that such a pattern exists in the development of species on earth across long periods of time.

It does not follow that there has to be an order or logic to the change. The theory of evolution works (as a model for the creation of life) ONLY if it is combined with a philosophical materialism that believes #1 the “laws of nature” are constant and #2 that we are able apprehend them correctly #3 there is nothing out side of these law’s that can influence the material universe. These assumption must be in place PRIOR to any discussion concering “science”

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life (or the creation of life). Evolution itself is involved with change. The part about the origin of life is only implied at the very least, and is often simply assumed on the part of Creationists. There are whole separate chock-fulls of theories to explain the origin of life on earth, not all of which are supported by evolution (or have anything to do with it).

So, don’t tell me “Creationist portray science as some kind of doctrine” it is… The only way it will work is if it has such structure.

It’s not a doctrine. It’s a reasoning process. It requires a predetermined definition of the factors involved; such definitions arise from whatever belief system the user already holds. If what you say is true (that science is not effective in proving objective facts), then explain to me another possible reasoning system that one could use (aside from the one I listed in my last post) that would allow one to reach the conclusion that eating is the solution for hunger. What method can you use to reach that conclusion, without making any observations or making any decisions based on those observations? We have words for people who can reach conclusions without making observations; irrational is one of them.

I think I see what you’re going at, though; most people assume that science aims to “disprove” the existence of God because God cannot be physically observed or tested. However, science concerns itself not with disproof, but with proof; if a theory can be tested, then it is tested, and a coclusion is reached. Since there is no way to test or observe God, scientific observation would lead one to believe that there is no observable evidence either for or against God; as such, there is no real scientific answer to the question of “is God real?” Because it is an attempt to reach a conclusion without first making a scientific observation—which, according to the scientific method, is impossible, or “irrational.”

Tim, (insert blushing and bashful expression) I have unexcusably confused your post with Miko’s my appology.

Oh, no worries. I’ve done that before on other boards

The problem with science tim is not the process… I’m actually not against the process. Problems arrise when things are added to the process. Examine Richard Dawkins argument concering the death penalty here :

I think that there’s a great difference between a person who is mentally ill (and whose brain is therefore “not functioning”) and a person who has used his or her (perfectly functional) free will to make a stupid or terrible decision. On this Richard Dawkins and I disagree; there is the question of whether the car is broken or not, and there is the question of where a person chooses to go with a car that is working properly. I hope you don’t base your entire views against science solely on one faulty example offered by Richard Dawkins.

That’s like saying: Take way the evidence and what do you have left? Kind of silly.

Not exactly, no. The Bible (in my eyes) is not evidence at all, but rather a claim, a statement. Evidence is required to support it before it becomes factual. The Bible is equivalent to a person saying, “I saw God.” I then say to that person, “you are free to believe that, but if you want me to believe it, then you must prove it to me.”

Well actually you have millions and millions of people who from time long ago have felt a compulsion to worship. Now that worship has taken on many different forms and many different faces but the impulse is there as much as the impulse to create life. Just because you have a few men and women who don’t have children or desire it; it doesn’t mean that the impulse to create life isn’t there. Like wise just because you or some friends like you dont’ have the “impulse” to worship it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

On the contrary; you assume that it is the “majority” that shares a compulsion to worship. Ultimately it’s irrelevant, but it’s not possible to tell whether the majority believes in God or not, because it’s not possible to test every single person throughout history on what they truly believe(d) (as opposed to what they profess to believe, perhaps for fear of their own life or the lives of their families).

Again, though, this is not evidence which suggests the existence of a higher power any more than the other arguments you have offered. Rather, it suggests a desire to believe in a higher power. However, no matter how strong a desire, it does not warrant objective truth in and of itself; no matter how much a child wishes his/her favorite superhero was real, that will not cause the superhero to become real.

Secondly you’ve used the word “Scientific theory” so only if something comes to you in a “scientific theory” will you accept it? Seems kind of closed minded to me.

I use the word “scientific theory” to describe the argument Creationists use when trying to convert atheists into believing in God. But for reasons I have already explained, God cannot be scientifically tested or observed, so the idea of God as a scientific theory is somewhat puzzling and, on the surface at least, rather silly. As such, I have no scientific view on God. Which means that I do not “believe in him.” However, I also do not actively disbelieve in him. As a result, I find it silly to base our decisions as a society that relies on logic and reason on something which cannot be observed or tested scientifically. This is why I oppose the integration of church and state.

You seem to think I’m here to convert you. How very flattering, You don’t believe in God… Your a big boy you’ll live with the consequences. God’s been around long before you or I and he’ll be around long after.

First off, I’d appreciate if you canned the attitude. I said that to make it clear that I don’t have a scientific opinion of God. He could exist, but I see no reason to believe he does at this point. Don’t assume I’m saying anything to appease you in any way—I’m not here to make you happy or get on your good side.

I’m not here to “convert” so lets get that “out of the way” Now you have side stepped, ignored and talked around my questions. I would like to discuss your position.

Okay, now you’ve lost me altogether…..what question do you accuse me of dodging?

In other words science can only test to proove not to disprove. So what your saying that while science can not provde you with a positive or negative answer you’re willing to take the lack of “empirical” evidence as evidence regardless of what empiricism can or cannot do? To say it another way. You freely admit that empiricism cannot answer the question but yet you “leap” to the conclusion that because there is no evidence, of which you say empiricism CANNOT provide, therefore you conclude it must not be real. Is that logical? Isn’t it more logical to say: On the issue of God I must admit that science cannot provde a sufficient answer and therefore I will be agnostic?

I think you misunderstand; I don’t assume that God doesn’t exist because of lack of evidence. I simply don’t believe he does (nor do I believe he doesn’t; I simply don’t know and feel no need to worry about it); I need not concern myself with theories that cannot be proven, so until someone offers me proof that shows God’s existence, I will not assume that he exists.

What I meant with regards to lack of evidence simply means that I will not presume the existence of something for which there is no proof to suggest its existence.

Now if different people have different interpretation for the same evidence isn’t it possible that you could have two very different interpretations both using the same “evidence” but interpreting it differently. The implication here is that the “rational” people come to one conclusion while non rational people come to another. Who’s being rational? By the way this is the “real” problem with science. It’s the question of meaning. Now I am very interested in what you are calling “objectively true.”

Perhaps my comment would have been clearer if I had began it by saying, “However, there are some things which are objectively true.” I am saying that yes, there are some things which cannot be objectively proven. However, I am also saying that science does not concern itself with things that cannot be proven or disproven; rather, science takes what we can know and seeks to draw conclusions from that which can be observed and tested. God is a hypothesis that was created thousands of years ago, without the use of scientific observation. Since it is a hypothesis without a scientific base, it cannot be tested by scientific method.

Does that mean you believe this process, that requires interpretation through flawed human beings has led us into the light of truth? Let me ask you some questions about this “objective truth.” How do you know that science has found the objective truth as opposed to finding a way of describing “reality” so we “see” it better? An example: There used to be 9 planets in our solar system. We now have 8. Did Pluto get blown up…? Did it move? Did we loose it under the carpet? No, all that changed was our definitions of what constitute a “plant”. Now Pluto is still there nothing has changed but our defintions, in other words objective truth has now changed BECAUSE we have changed our definition. If you want to argue with me on this: If I had questioned the number of planets in our solar system five years ago you would have called me insane or stubbornly obtuse. Now suddenly I’m not. Why? The decisions that “science” makes are capricious. Arbitrary. 8 planets instead of 9 why? Because we’ve changed the definitions.

(1) Yes, I believe that science has led us closer to the truth. For example, we would not be having this conversation right now if science had not led us to the knowledge that allowed us to create complicated devices called “word processors” which are aspects of the computers we are now using. If any of the observations made on the way to learning how to make a computer had been false or flawed, then the computer would not have been invented.

(2) Your comparison of this analogy to Pluto’s reclassification is flawed, as well. We did not change anything about Pluto physically, nor did something we discovered cause us to realize that we had seen something wrong with its physical structure. We simply changed the meaning of the term “planet” to include a more specific definition; we narrowed it down. Which is what science is about.

See, what I take issue with about God is not the idea of “trusting in things which cannot be or proven” (though I disagree with that, too, in a sense) so much as it is the idea that we are supposed to “go against” what we can see and observe as fact. Creationists who attack science say that we are to ignore the things we can see and instead hold a belief in things which cannot even be proven to exist (i.e. God). Do you mean to say that you can look at the computer before which you now sit and say, with any degree of honesty or faith, that you believe it isn’t there? If you can’t say that, why not? What makes you believe the desk is there, if not science, a series of observations and conclusions?

Now lets play with that a little bit more. What if we changed our definition of what is “real” or “objective”? Could such a shift alter our perception of reality?

That would remain to be seen; however, I don’t see any reason why we would change that definition, since it is already so clearly defined as something which can be scientifically tested, recorded, or observed.

Also, you seem impatient with regards to science; science says that we observe everything we can by every means we can, and draw conclusions thusly. If a change occurs in the way we are able to view things, and we can see something from a new angle, then we change our definitions as well. Science’s claim is that the conclusions reached through the use of science are assumed to be true as long as there is nothing which can be observed that serves as a counterexample. If you want me to believe that something is true, all you need to do is show me something to prove it. If you demand that someone believe something without first seeing evidence to confirm it, you are asking that person to deny what he/she knows to be true and assume that the new information is somehow “more correct” than that which science shows to be true.

So again, I say that science is not a belief system, but rather a method of exploration which allows us to reach conclusions about things based on what we can see. And yes, there is a set “correct way” to interpret evidence based on what we see. It is the things we cannot see that later come into the equation and threaten our original conclusion; this is not a problem, for science will acknowledge the new observation, test it, and determine if it is true. If it is true, then it will hold up under scientific scrutiny. The reason this works is because, simply put, we have no way of knowing if we have all the pieces to the puzzle until the puzzle is complete; as such, we have two decisions: Wait until we have proof that the puzzle is complete, or try to figure out what shape the puzzle makes as we collect the pieces; as new pieces come into the picture and contradict our old theories, we revise our theories to reflect the larger majority of the puzzle–we are “doing the best we can with what we have.” This is science.

If you think this only applies to planets your sadly mistaken. The law of gravity. Where does it exist? It is nowhere.

The law of gravity doesn’t actually describe a physical thing; it describes the idea that objects maintain a gravitational pull, the strength of which is directly proportionate to the quantity/density of matter present. If there is a flaw in this somewhere, then you should be able to show me an example where gravity does not apply in context.

Also, we don’t have to know exactly what causes gravity to know that it exists. We see it, we document it, we test it, and it holds up; therefore, it is. What is your explanation for why we don’t simply float off into space?

Meaning that you trust the symbol of “science says” over the symbol of “the bible says”?

Simply, yes. Science shows me things that cannot be denied. The Bible tells me (not shows me) things that I can ask questions about, questions to which I cannot receive satisfactory answers.

You failed to grasp what dawkins is saying. Because of DNA, the mechanistic universe there is no free will. A person who commits a crime is broken like a person with diabetes, he/she can not help themselves. (this isn’t me it’s dawkins remember) The idea of free will is an old fashion notion. According to Dawkins we are programed from birth by our DNA to be what we are. Free will is an illusion. I would like to know how YOU have come to the conclusion that free will is possible given that there is DNA behind nearly everything?

You are asking me to offer a professional opinion on a matter in which I have no schooling; I am not a DNA scholar. I disagree with the idea that a person is not responsible for his/her actions, regardless of whether DNA is responsible for one’s actions. That reasoning could be applied farther down the chain, as well; if a person is not responsible for his/her actions because of DNA, then society could be said to be “not responsible” for its actions in punishing that person to prevent his/her “uncontrollable actions” from harming the rest of society.

This statement displays an amazing lack of information on your part. The Bible is a collection of ancient document 66 differnet books written by over 30 different authors over the course of 1500 years. It is a collection of ancient documents… like a library. The only direct quote, I can think of right now, where someone said “I saw God” is in Isaiah chapter 6. You may be able to find a few more but off the top of my head that’ll all I got. Each book is evidence just like the illiad, Heroditus, Thucidities, Plato, the list could go on and on. It is a evidence that someone wrote something. (at the very least) No you don’t have to believe it but to not call it evidence is an amazingly, historically ignorant statement to make. It is evidence.

Watch this:

“God doesn’t exist.”

There are libraries out there with hundreds of books that make this claim (or a similar one). The fact that a large number of people said it does not make it true, and does not serve as evidence in any way. People have free will and can say whatever they please, regardless of whether it reflects factual reality. As such, the Bible offers no physical evidence to prove that God exists (as you have failed to do).

And you missed my point; the actual phrase “I saw God’ is not the highlight of my point. The highlight is that there is no fundamental difference between “I saw God” and a thousand compendiums of claims that people saw, heard, learned about, or otherwise encountered some form of God; they are both unsubstantiated claims.

First: Who said anything about basing anything on anything. Please talk with me not “creationists”

And I’d ask you to do the same to me; Richard Dawkins and I do not agree on everything simply because we are both atheists.

Secondly: Who said we base our decisions as a society on logic and reason? I’ll tell you what.. when it comes to my children I don’t always base my decisions upon “logic or reason” As a matter of fact I rather doubt you make ALL your decisions based upon logic and reason…

I have written articles about this subject before….no, I don’t believe humans are 100% rational beings. We are sometimes affected by emotional responses to situations. However, it is our job to learn how best to react to these emotions so that we can handle them in a socially acceptable manner. For example, if you are angry at a spouse, you should find a way to vent your anger that is productive (or at the very least, not counterproductive), as opposed to, say, bashing his or her windshield with a baseball bat–the latter will ensure that you are punished by the legal system.

I won’t even open pandoria box by asking you “who’s reason? Who’s logic?”

I believe you mean “Pandora’s Box.” In any case, logic and reason belong to no man. Logic and reason are the processes of using observable facts to make a decision. This does not vary from person to person; what does vary is the way a person interprets the information; some people choose to see certain proofs as evidence of something that the proofs do not suggest, for example, and others may simply misunderstand the evidence (i.e. misapply the correct logic). Another example—a common creationist argument is that childbirth proves that God exists; I disagree with that, because there is no factor of the childbirth process which points to a logical conclusion that God exists.

P.S. are you going to start a new post so we can continue this?

I had planned to, yes.

I realized later that I didn’t aswer this question:

“Do you mean to say that you can look at the computer before which you now sit and say, with any degree of honesty or faith, that you believe it isn’t there? If you can’t say that, why not? What makes you believe the desk is there, if not science, a series of observations and conclusions?”

Actually if you listen to Plato you could question the reality of the desk, computer and chair. The question would have to be asked what do you mean by “reality?”

Plato would say that we certainly act like the desk, chair, and computer are there but that is because our physical bodies interact with them. But because we interact with them does that make them “real” in the highest possible meaning? While our physical senses tells us about the world around us does that make them more real? The point is that even our physical senses are processed by our mind prior to anything else. Just because you believe Aristotle (which is the position you are espousing) it doesn’t mean that Plato is “wrong”. You just believe what you have always been told… that we don’t questions our senses we trust them, because they will tell us accurately about reality. But what if the physical world is just the lowest form of reality (and don’t think I’m making a case for God here)? How would we know if this were the case?

” so I simply don’t bother with it from a scientific standpoint.”

That seems to be your rallying cry. I have to go but I find that interesting. I’ve made two huge posts now and neither one has “made it” to the computer. so I have to sign off for tonight. Tomorrow I may address this issue.

…..so, is that it?

I forgot to mention this: “If we get to the stage of distrusting our senses for that purpose, we are entering the realm of paranoia;”

If we get to the point that we don’t question what people tell us is “true” we turn into silly parrot squak boxes. I don’t think that Plato was “paranoid” His question is concerning highest reality. What is a higher truth? That people scratch themselves OR that people make choices?

One certainly is physical(people do scratch) one is an idea (people making choices) Which one is more a higher or more important reality? This is Plato’s point: that this world is a passing and shadowy reality that is ultimatly unimportant; however the world of ideas is actaully a higher level of reality.

It isn’t that people don’t scratch themselves it’s the meaning of it. It’s that same way with “science”; so what, two cells merge to make a embryo. What does it mean to Parent a child? That question cannot be definitively answered by “science”.All science can say is: lots of people parent their children in lots of different ways.

How do you know your truely being rational, verse buying what your college professors put on a tray for you to believe?

tim.
Your a bright person, but your in way, way over your head here. First off

“I don’t believe there is no God. I also don’t believe there is a God.” thats not what you said earlier:

“To me, I don’t “not believe in God” simply because I can’t see him; I don’t believe in him because every single example I have ever heard to “prove” his existence is based on interpretation.”

Tim this is where you’re getting frustrating. You keep trying to place yourself in somekind of “neutral” position like “look at me I’m not being biased, I require proof before I buy into something.” But yet your words are decidedly biased. You have chosen to “disreguard” God even though you have no evidence either way whether he exists. You’re on an athiest site defending the athiest position yet you have repeatedly said “I’m not taking a position… yet you are.”
You completely ignored my point about every person having a bias. Do you understand Immanual Kant’s point concerning the power of perspective in Critique of Pure Reason? Do you understand what Thomas Kuhn meant when he said that science requires a paradigm to even function?

“We seem to be in agreement that science is a filter through which one passes one’s own worldview.” No- you’ve missed my point. The empirical process itself is a biased processed. How do you make a hypothesis? You have to have an opinion-a world view to even make an hypothesis.

Why do we not float off the planet? You have to assume there is a coherent process that we can understand to even come up with the hypothesis of “gravity” You have to assume that the world functions according to laws that are “logical” and not capricious. You have totally missed my point; that these are ALL Assumptions. You assume there is a coherent process that is “logical” that we can understand. And that’s even before we can come up with a hypothesis.

“As for the definition of “fact;” I define “fact” as something that I can show to you whose existence cannot be empirically debated.”

and yet you said earlier that we could “technically question solid physical objects.” You ignored my point concerning “free will” There is Nothing you point to that is “free will” it is a concept, an idea.

“Would you prefer that I start referring to everything I feel to be true as “objective fact?” I don’t feel the need to present my beliefs as objective fact, even if I believe they are”

Here you have the exact point I have been trying so hard to point out and yet you don’t get it. Of course you WOULD feel it’s “objective Fact” someone else would consider something else to be an “objective fact”. This is the delima I have been trying to point out and yet you keep beating the drum that science will lead us toward the “truth” yet you won’t acknoweldge that you have turned your “feelings” or “hunches” into “objective fact”. You keep presenting your “feelings” as being “objective” and non biased and yet here you are defending “science”. Why can’t you just admit it… Every human being has a perspective they drag into the “scientific” process with them… this perspective makes it nearly impossible to get to the “objective truth”

Do you know why you can’t? You can’t because to admit that science isn’t as “objective” as people pass it off as it is, would be to place it within the the material world not as “above” it. This is your only hope to find “objective truth” if there is some process above mere human opinion.

“Simple; I’m not in college yet. I have no college professor.”

that explains much. You’re a smart person but your too smart for your own good. You think that your being “unbiased” but you’re not above me, your not above the rest of the world. I’m sorry to say buddy but your stuck here with the rest of us; stuck in the world filled with assumptions, belief, faith, and foggy disbelief.

Imagine someone owes you a hundred dollars and you ask him for it. He assures you that he has it and he pulls out of his wallet a one hundred dollar bill and hands it to you. You see its unique details, feel its money texture, smell its money odor, and test it with a counterfeit detecting marker. You know you have been paid.

BUT

Imagine instead that he assures you he has the one hundred dollars but instead of taking it out and handing it to you he starts talking about the nature and history of money, the state of the economy, the difference between money and wealth, the philosophical, sociological and political concepts of ownership, and goes on with tediously intricate, long-winded and esoteric soliloquies about reality, knowledge and truth.

Long before he’s finished you realize that he aint got your one hundred dollars. He’s got nothin’ but the air in his mouth and that’s all he’s gonna give you.

“To me, I don’t “not believe in God” simply because I can’t see him; I don’t believe in him because every single example I have ever heard to “prove” his existence is based on interpretation.”

“I don’t believe in him” simply means that I don’t believe he exists. I don’t have to believe he doesn’t exist to not believe he does exist; I’m simply open to interpretation in either direction. There’s nothing fallacious about that—though if you believe there is, feel free to explain it to me.

You have chosen to “disreguard” God even though you have no evidence either way whether he exists. You’re on an athiest site defending the athiest position yet you have repeatedly said “I’m not taking a position… yet you are.”

I don’t “disregard” him completely. I think I said it best when I used the example of “ideological purgatory.” That’s where God is, to me–ideological purgatory, a place where he will stay until his existence is proved or disproved for certain.

You completely ignored my point about every person having a bias. Do you understand Immanual Kant’s point concerning the power of perspective in Critique of Pure Reason? Do you understand what Thomas Kuhn meant when he said that science requires a paradigm to even function?

You say that science requires a paradigm to function; simply saying it is not proof that it is true. It’s an interesting idea, but it’s simply not the case—science does not require a bias to operate. Science is the process of filtering out biases, at least it is in the way that I understand it.

No- you’ve missed my point. The empirical process itself is a biased processed. How do you make a hypothesis? You have to have an opinion-a world view to even make an hypothesis.

You have to have an understanding of the facts being presented, yes. But things that we consider actual “facts” are things which cannot be debated; I’m not speaking about things like whether or not God exists, I’m speaking of things that are objectively true—such as the existence of the computer before which you now sit—which will not change at all to correspond with your (or my) opinions of whether or not its existence is challenged. It is there, and the facts show that it is there. If one chooses to refuse the facts, then so be it, but the desk and the computer are still there—they can still be detected and interacted with.

Why do we not float off the planet? You have to assume there is a coherent process that we can understand to even come up with the hypothesis of “gravity” You have to assume that the world functions according to laws that are “logical” and not capricious. You have totally missed my point; that these are ALL Assumptions. You assume there is a coherent process that is “logical” that we can understand. And that’s even before we can come up with a hypothesis.

The laws of the universe are not random, that much we know. We may not understand all of them, but there is a pattern, plain and simple—may I suggest the periodic table of elements? That would seem to be either a grand coincidence, or the finest example of the formula of nature that I’ve ever witnessed.

and yet you said earlier that we could “technically question solid physical objects.” You ignored my point concerning “free will” There is Nothing you point to that is “free will” it is a concept, an idea.

(1) Yes, we could question them—that is a fine representation of free will, the ability to debate things that can be seen and proved.

(2) With all due respect, I’m not trying to prove that free will is a physical thing. I don’t entirely understand what you’re getting at here.

Here you have the exact point I have been trying so hard to point out and yet you don’t get it. Of course you WOULD feel it’s “objective Fact” someone else would consider something else to be an “objective fact”. This is the delima I have been trying to point out and yet you keep beating the drum that science will lead us toward the “truth” yet you won’t acknoweldge that you have turned your “feelings” or “hunches” into “objective fact”. You keep presenting your “feelings” as being “objective” and non biased and yet here you are defending “science”. Why can’t you just admit it… Every human being has a perspective they drag into the “scientific” process with them… this perspective makes it nearly impossible to get to the “objective truth”

I don’t understand why you seem so angry here; I already have admitted that people can take biases into the scientific process. The point I was attempting to make was that proper scientific analysis does not ultimately allow for a bias; if a bias is present, the information will be inaccurate. This is what I meant when I referred to “science enacted properly”—science performed without some kind of evidential bias. Just because a person performs an experiment and claims it’s science does not automatically mean it is science.

Do you know why you can’t? You can’t because to admit that science isn’t as “objective” as people pass it off as it is, would be to place it within the the material world not as “above” it. This is your only hope to find “objective truth” if there is some process above mere human opinion.

That is the beauty of scientific examination, and of logic and reason; logic exists outside of the human persona. It is up to humans to identify and execute it. In that sense it is very much outside of human opinion, although human opinion can easily corrupt it.

that explains much. You’re a smart person but your too smart for your own good. You think that your being “unbiased” but you’re not above me, your not above the rest of the world. I’m sorry to say buddy but your stuck here with the rest of us; stuck in the world filled with assumptions, belief, faith, and foggy disbelief.

Wow; might I ask where this hostility comes from? I’m not asking you to change what you believe, and I’m not talking down to you (well, at least I’m trying not to—if I am, I sincerely apologize, as that was not my intent). I was simply explaining my viewpoint; yes, I believe science is objective. However, there is a criteria that could easily diprove science in my eyes, were it possible—and that would be the presentation of a single documented case in history in which scientific reasoning has proven something “true” that non-scientific reasoning (i.e. an absence of logic) has proven to be untrue. But the reason this is impossible is because, to prove that, one would require the use of empiricism, scientific rationale. Without science, there is no reason, and there is no logic. Therefore, all logical deductions become impossible, as does proving anything using evidence.

“Well, just wait. Science doesn’t have an answer for that yet; but someday, way down the road I see light at the end of the tunnel. Science will give it to us “someday”.”

Well, for me it’s more like, “science may give me the answer, but in the meantime I’ll put God on hold, since I don’t know if all of this praying is doing any good just yet.”

He hasn’t spoken intelligently upon Kant, Kuhn, Foucault, Derrida now he’s intelligent enough to keep him mouth shut on things he doesn’t know but that only show’s he doesn’t know them yet. He’s very smart and he will probably understand them one day. Than perhaps he’ll come back to this post and whip my butt. However, saying he’s in over his head isn’t just an arrogant statement I’m simply pointing out that he doens’t understand YET (one day he will) what I’m talking about. Thus it makes this conversation difficult. I have to go. I’m sorry once again for sounding arrogant.

For the record, I am 19 and currently saving money for college. However, I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that my points are invalid because I can’t answer your questions about those philosophers, no matter how much they may bear on the subject at hand—my beliefs don’t come from a textbook, they come from the world as I have seen and explored it. Again with all due respect, I find it somewhat evasive of you to use that as a basis for discounting my ideas, as they actually have very little to do with ancient philosophy; and unless one such philosopher shows me an idea (and proves it, as opposed to simply suggesting it as an interesting idea but nothing more) that contradicts anything I’ve said here as fact, I have a feeling that I’d be reading them, then coming back here and saying the same things.

Long story short—I don’t believe what I do because I read it in a book somewhere. I believe what I do because, in my experience, it has been a flawless, tried-and-true method of finding out factual things, and avoiding attempts at manipulation by people who require a suspicious amount of trust with regard to certain matters.

(for the record Kant, Kuhn Derridea and Foucault are not ancient philosophers)

I just assumed they were from the Plato era, since you were quoting him earlier….my mistake 0_0

Where does logic, reason and scientific examination exist outside of the human persona? What physical object in the physical world can you point to that IS those things?

It’s not a physical thing. There is not an object called “logic.” It is a concept that has an objective definition. If it is performed correctly, it produces results that reflect physical reality. If not, it produces results that are skewed, or that represent a biased version of reality that serves a particular cause (this is what I call “evidential bias”). I think you have misinterpreted that, in order to exist outside of the mind, something must be “physical.”

Yes, in that the word “logic” describes a concept, it is an invention of man. However, concepts—while intangible—are not the inventions of man. They are things that exist, but take no form, and are very real; they affect everything. It is impossible to function rationally without the use of scientific examination to some degree, for science is defined by rationality. The names we give to those concepts are invented by man, but to confuse the words we give to these things with the things themselves is, in my opinion, a grave mistake.

Take emotion, for example. An emotion is not a physical thing that one can touch, and yet there is a scientific explantion to describe what it is, how it works, and where it comes from. This displays my point quite well—that assigning a definition to a concept does not necessarily require that said concept take a physical form.

As such, logic and reason are not physical objects, no. They describe a series of processes the brain (or any system, such as a computer) undergoes in order to reach a conclusion. It is not required that the system in question be “alive,” per se; simply that it function based on a set of factors (”laws,” in the case of nonliving matter) that have been pre-determined—which describes the scientific process well. A complex machine may use logic—take the game “Mouse Trap,” which you may remember from years ago, as an example. The game consists of players constructing a trap that will lead an object to a predetermined goal. The object in question uses logic to determine which direction it will travel; since the laws of physics prevent it from passing through other physical matter, it will only travel where there is no physical resistance, and only if it is set into motion by some force of propulsion. If the object reaches a point where it is both hindered by physical matter and unpropelled, it will stop. The objective, then, is to arrange the other matter in such a way as to cause the original object’s natural logic to lead it towards the goal, since one cannot actually move the object short of picking it up and setting it on the goal (which defeats the purpose of the game—and in real life, similar techniques may be applied to objects that are too large to simply pick up and move). The same basic concept applies to all physical matter.

In that respect, the entire universe—both living and nonliving—uses some form of the scientific process in order to function. The driving difference between living and nonliving things is that some living things have “free will” and can choose to defy the logic that occurs to them naturally (though not the physical laws that bind them, being constrained to physical bodies as they are). Sometimes this can be benificial (humans, for example, can defy short-term logic or “instinct” in favor of long-term logic, a classic example being self-preservation that involves extreme physical harm, such as “cutting off the finger to save the hand,” though it’s still a form of logic, so logic is not really being defied at all, just applied differently), and sometimes it can be disastrous.

As if that would proove your point. But try using that same “logic” with a dog. It wont’ work. Pick up a dog and throw it off the top of the building and it will fall.

My point is already proven, in that one cannot “prove” anything without the use of scientific process. Without using logical thought, factors cannot be used to deduce other factors, because there is no reason to explain why Factor A implies Factor B. To assign a definition—which is necessary to even classify the factors in the first place—requires a justification for that definition, which is a scientific concept. One cannot simply call anything a “bird” under scientific process, because the logic of the word “bird” insists that the object must be alive and bear the traits of a bird. However, without logic, the word “bird” has no meaning, because there is no “reason” to explain why the word “bird” means what it does, much less why anything should be classified as such.

To put it in the form of a question. Without using complicated “concepts” or “ideas” can you demonstrate logic? (with extremely minimal concepts you can communicate the idea of “dog”: point and say “dog”) The more communication is required the higher the concept.

If I understand you correctly, then yes:

The word “God.” It is defined as an entity that is omnipotent/omniscient. How do we decide who or what is God? Take a dog, for example. How do we know that a dog is not God? Because a dog is not omniscient; a dog is not capable of being in more than one place simultaneously. Since it does not fit the definition, it is not God.

Or, if that seems too complex, we can simplify it: Dog. How do we know what is a Dog? First, we define dog; for the sake of this example, we’ll keep the definition simple: we’ll use “a canine organism with four legs and fur.” We then take the nearest visible object—a glass, sitting on my desk—and we examine that (A) it is not alive or an organism *and therefore cannot be a canine), (B) it is not furry, and (C) it does not have four legs. Therefore, it is not a dog.

(Wow….this is completely unintentional, but I just realized that I used “Dog” and “God” which are the same word transposed!) .

Apparently this site wont’ let you copy and paste. So once again I’ll have to retype what I wrote. Tim:

“That is the beauty of scientific examination, and of logic and reason; logic exists outside of the human persona.”

“As such, logic and reason are not physical objects, no. They describe a series of processes the brain.” (ie inside the human persona)

“It’s not a physical thing. There is not an object called “logic.” It is a concept that has an objective definition.” (ie outside the human persona)

“Yes, in that the word “logic” describes a concept, it is an invention of man.” (ie inside the human persona)

Tim I don’t mean to be rude but this is incoherent. Logic exists outside the human persona but yet is a concept that is an invention of man. At the same time logic is process of the human brain but it is also a objective CONCEPT. How can an idea have an objective definition? Example? How do we know a dog is a dog? There is nothing objective in the definition of dog? We [as english speaking people] come together and agree to call that furry little thing a dog. We can CALL it an objective definition but that’s kind of ethnocentric. In ENGLISH it’s called a dog. So, when solid objects have subjective definitions how can an idea (which has no solid physical presence) have an objective definition?)

This post in particular bothered me because it demonstrates a complete lack of logical thinking:

“How do we know what is a Dog? First, we define dog; for the sake of this example, we’ll keep the definition simple: we’ll use “a canine organism with four legs and fur.”

You begin the discussion of what is a dog with defining a dog? That’s a tautology. It’s circular reasoning. A dog is “a canine organism with four legs and fur.” How do we know that? Because we have defined it. Well we havn’t logically proven anything all we’ve proven is that we can give an arbirtrary “definition” to the animal dog it logically hasn’t proven anything.

“We then take the nearest visible object—a glass, sitting on my desk—and we examine that (A) it is not alive or an organism *and therefore cannot be a canine), (B) it is not furry, and (C) it does not have four legs. Therefore, it is not a dog.”

You think you have proven something? You haven’t proven what you set out to prove namely: What is a dog?

In logic you do have to define your terms but you do NOT begin the argument by defining what you are trying to determine. What is a dog? You do NOT define dog in order to determine what it is. You COULD begin by defining: furry, organism, living, four and legs and then try and demonstrate how a dog fits into these definitions.

Secondly, even according to your own proofs all you have determined is that given the definition of “dog” and the definition of “glass” a glass is NOT a dog. You have NOT logically demonstrated what a dog IS; all you have demonstrated is what the arbitrary definition of “dog” is not.

Tim this is what has frustrated me the entire time. I’m really not trying to be rude. I mean honestly I’m not. But this entire time you have been trying to tell me how “logical”, “rational” and “scientific” you are but anytime I point out a flaw in your logic (ie whether no “empirical” proof of God’s existance is influencial or not ) you turn the fault back to me. I misunderstood you. I am not comprehending YOU. It’s my fault that I don’t understand you.

I’m sorry if this comes across as rude I really am not trying to be. However, I’m sure your going to point out once again how I have misunderstood you in this dog illustration; or how I have failed to understand YOU in your discussion of whether logic is internal or external, whether it’s subjective or objective. This is why this discussion is not progressing (this and how the site won’t allow me to copy and paste) You commit to a postion, I question you about it and you turn my question into how I’ve misunderstood you. I then try to get you to commit to another position and all that does is provide you the oppertunity to flip around again.

Now this is not bad, if you believe in holding paradoxal positions than perhaps I AM misunderstanding you. However, logically either the lack of empirical proof of God’s existance is influencial or not. Logically, logic is either an external object (hence the term OBJECTIVE) or a subjective internal concept. Logically they can not both be true.

Now your only 19, you havn’t had college logic or rhetoric yet. Our public school system does not teach good reasoning nor logic. However, unless I point out this flaw, this conversation will never develop into a reasonable nor rational conversation. It will likely degenerate into a he said / she said shouting match. I am not interested in that; I honestly am interested in a reasonable conversation with an athiest.

ok tim I can’t tell you what you don’t know. You won’t listen…. When you get to school and you begin to study what ever field you get into you will realize taht every field; every field, including science, has what’s called models. These models take the information and they create systems. Every field has interpretations of the “Truth” when you have that moment, when you realize that the “objective” is actually quite subjective I hope you will remember this conversation. The reason I have “jumped” from question to question is an attempt by myself to help you see what I’m talking about. But you are not attempting to see what I am saying you only want to see what You are saying… I understand your position do you understand what I am questioning?

Tim, I am trying to keep this conversation on track. I’m not trying to attack you personally. I don’t want you to accept my position. I am questioning how “rational” and logical” your own position is.

I know you believe you have “thought” it out. I for my part believe you. However, there are some very smart people who have thought of your position before you. If you think you’re truely the first person who “trusts” science your highly mistaken.

First off, your use of terms is extremely sloppy. What is “science”? Science is a field that relies heavily upon empiricism. The empirical method and science are not the same. They are different. What you are calling “science” is actually what is classically known as the “rationalist” position. It is a combination of philosophical materialism, empirical inquiry and western logic.

Now this position was held in the 17-18th centuries having it’s height under Descartes, Locke, Hume ect. In a manner very similar to your own they believed that the human mind was properly apprehending the so called “laws” of the universe. They believed, very similarly to yourself, that logic is “real” in the sense that it was outside and external to anything inside of us. In other words they believed that what was “reasonable” and “logical” was inherently obvious in the world around us. Secondly they believed that if one “properly” applied the rules of “reason” and “logic” the truth was not only discoverable but it was knowable. This is considered to be the classic “rationalist” position.

Philosophically this position was challenged by Immanual Kant in the 18th century. His work the Critique of Pure Reason, a philosophical and “reasonable” work, demolished the logical presumption that the human mind was capable of understanding the “objective Truth”(and here is the key) without a philosophical metaphysical position.

Now if you would like to disagree with Immanual Kant, you of course may disagree. However, don’t expect me to buy into your “science tells me everything I need to know” without questioning it. My work here has NOT, mind you NOT been religous in nature. My questions are not “christian” questions. These are questions and points developed in the last three hundred years concerning the ability of “reason” to answer our fundamental questions.
I know you think your “defeating” me but actually what your doing is attacking the philosophical developments of the last 250-300 years.

Now, if you disagree, I would encourage you to pick up some philosophy learn some logic and jump into the discussion. (not with me because I’m not that smart, but with some really smart people) because if you know how to “prove” beyond a shadow of doubt that the human mind is capable of obtaining the “uninterpreted” Truth you could make a killing as great speaker on the lecture circuit. I know Richard Dawkins would love to have such proof. In his last book he all but ignored any kind of philosophical development in his work.

Now, of course, I have “appealed to authority” here. Yes it’s true. I have. However, what I am doing is appealing to the ideal and concepts as put forth by those I have cited: Kant, Kuhn, Nietzche, ect. To lay all their work out would be to be redundant. Others have done a much better job before me and this post would get even MORE boring than it already is.

So to finish up. Unless you can demonstrate to me why Kant was wrong concerning the ability of the human mind to apprehend the “objective” external world I will easily say: “You’re the one not being very “rational”.”
However, I think the reality is you just don’t know about his work… That’s fine my only job then is to point out what you don’t know. Unless someone does that for you, you’re never going to be able to grow as a person.

P.S. If you don’t agree with my interpretation of Kant ask some of your smarter athiest friends about their take on his work.

“My original position was that science is not about proving the objective truth to a certainty.”

“There are some things that are objectively true, which we have come to know through science”

You can’t logically have it both ways. Either science is about “proving” objective truth or it’s not…. This is yet again another example as to how you change your position. I cannot count the number of times you have said that “science” has shown you things that you cannot deny. If science isn’t about “proving the objective truth with certainity” than what is it about?

As to Kant: The reason I keep pounding him is because you keep denying his essential point of Critique of pure reason. Since you don’t believe I know what I’m talking about: the essential point of Kant is that external objects have an essence in themselves, and they have an essence as we preceive them. Kant’s position is that it requires a metaphysical position (unproven belief in the essence of ultimate reality) to “bridge the gap” between the external world and the world of the mind (where perception is turned into “objective fact”).

P.S. are we starting a new post or what?

You can’t logically have it both ways. Either science is about “proving” objective truth or it’s not…. This is yet again another example as to how you change your position. I cannot count the number of times you have said that “science” has shown you things that you cannot deny. If science isn’t about “proving the objective truth with certainity” than what is it about?

Alright, I see what you’re saying….it would seem that I have grievously misappropriated the word “objective;” excuse me for that if you will. When I said “objective” in this instance, I actually didn’t mean that it was true “beyond the shadow of a doubt,” which is how it read. I should have said that it was true “to the best of our ability to affirm its truth;” that would be a more accurate depiction of my view.

Apologies for the inconvenience; pardon my cheap excuse, but I’ve been working a lot these last few weeks, and I’m quite exhausted. It’s difficult to uphold this level of conversation to this duration on three hours of sleep 0_0

Back to the point, though….when I said that science show me things that I cannot deny, it was a harsh way of saying that it is able to answer questions and solve problems that no other thought method can. When I listen to preachers talk about belief in God, for example, I say that I will believe when I see. They respond with “you must believe in order to see.” To me, that is not an adequate respnse, because it opens for the possibility that God is not real, and that he is simply interpretive. We are talking about an entire belief system, here. The magnitude of the change such a dedication requires is too great for me to deliver without an exceptional degree of explanation.

So yes, one could argue that there are potential flaws in such a method as science. However, such “flaws” as you have mentioned are difficult–if even possible at all–to prove. They are based on factors for which there is no effective method of observation. See “Space Robot Theory.” This is not necessarily a criticism–for the possibility that something could be true is reason alone not to completely disqualify it–but if something works as effectively as science does, it seems silly to argue that we should debunk all that it does based on what amounts to a worry. I, in turn, argue that it is the best method by which to accurately observe reality based on what we currently know, and that it should be upheld until another ideology is proven to have reflected reality as effectively as science.

And on that note, how would you respond to the argument that reason and logic are the natural (”default”) recourses of the human brain? And do you disagree with science alone, or are you criticizing logic and reason as well? I think I know the second answer, but I’d like to hear you say it to be sure.

As to Kant: The reason I keep pounding him is because you keep denying his essential point of Critique of pure reason. Since you don’t believe I know what I’m talking about: the essential point of Kant is that external objects have an essence in themselves, and they have an essence as we preceive them. Kant’s position is that it requires a metaphysical position (unproven belief in the essence of ultimate reality) to “bridge the gap” between the external world and the world of the mind (where perception is turned into “objective fact”).

We think alike; I find worlds of perception to be a very interesting subject All in all, your point here is very well made; however, it does not “debunk” science in my mind as the most efficient thought process, given what we have today.

In other words science leads us towards the “truth” the truth that we all should see and know that’s how I interpret “-conclusions are commonly observable by any number of people”. I understand these statements to mean that you believe “science” has lead us and will lead us towards the “truth”. I’m not the one making all these claims about “science”. You are.

We would be in agreement–would we not?–that there are things in the world that can be observed in the same way and with the same results by multiple individuals (or all individuals in some cases).This is what I mean when I say “the truth as we understand it.” For if the “real, objective” truth ascends beyond our ability to commonly observe, then as I have explained before, it is ultimately irrelevant anyway and cannot affect us (if it could, its effect could be observed).

I am simply questioning that assumption. I thought that’s what “reasonable” people do? Question assumptions.I don’t have to provide an alternative that works, I just have to question.

I understand–whole-heartedly–the desire to question common acceptances. However, I am not trying to defend the “perfection” of science (though I don’t necessarily admit that it is “flawed” in the sense that the “believe to see” mentality is, for obvious reasons). I believe it is the best way to look at the universe; its core essence is about doing the best with what we have, and I fully support that. The reason I asked for an alternative is because alternate viewpoints (the most popular of which currently includes religion) go so far in some cases as to ignore information that we have in favor of a desired belief. I strongly disagree with this mindset. I don’t believe that it is a naturally hostile mindset, as it is usually derived from one or more of many emotional (and less rational) aspects of human thought; insofar as one is able to control the emotion behind this belief, it can be tolerated. But when that control is threatened, and the belief system is used to harm others in any way, is when I consider it unacceptable.

With respect to that: I find criticism of logic itself very difficult to explore rationally, because it literally requires the use of logic to criticize logic. Because the only alternative to logic (in all its forms) is chaos.

And on that note, I leave you with a question: Do you believe that a tree makes a sound if it falls in the woods, but there is nobody there to hear it? If so, why?

Sure, because sound is one of the effects of a falling tree.

What has made you believe this? Have you ever actually seen a tree fall when there was nobody around, and heard the sound it makes?

this view is generally considered pragmatism. “doing what is effective.” If I have heard you correctly essentially you believe “science” because it works. I would question that. does it work in all areas of life or does it only work in a few select areas.

Well, it’s apparent to me that science is very effective in all areas of life. I also say this of logic and reason. I still uphold my challenge to you to present a single instance in which logic or reason has shown something to be false when illogic or lack of reason has shown it to be so; such a case would be all one needs to prove that logic and reason are ineffective in any area of life.

The key to a complete philosophical system is that it answers all the questions. Unless a system answers all or at least a large majority of the important questions it is not a complete system and shouldn’t make a claim to “universal” truth.

This is where we differ; you seem to be arguing that in order for science to be considered effective, it must have all of the answers to the unvierse’s most troubling questions. I disagree; if science could explain all of the universe’s questions, then scientists could stop working—science would be “over.” Science is not a process of providing one with all of the answers up front, it’s a process that involves searching for answers. This is why I do not support religious dogmas; they involve claims of knowledge about things they simply can’t know about (or can’t prove or reproduce).

the pastors answer of believing is seeing is actully quite insightful. Kant’s point is that to “see” one has to have a paradigm into which to put the information.

I think it’s honest, but I don’t think it’s very insightful; it is alarming to me that more and more people are able to (a) admit that their core beliefs are based on interpretation, and (b) turn around and criticize other belief systems for their alleged “imperfections,” when they have nothing more in the way of support (logically speaking) for their own ideology than the party facing criticism (I am speaking mostly of evangelistic Christians here, if it isn’t already obvious—the pastor I quoted was from an evangelistic program on TBN). They can admit that they don’t know (or can’t prove) if they are objectively right, but they still hold that against people who don’t believe the same way they do—they see nothing wrong with perpetuating a mentality of superiority in spite of a complete lack of logical support.

to use your own example: You stated that life was like a puzzle. well lets take it to another level. Let’s say it’s a puzzle without a picture on the front and with no edges and each piece can connect in 100 different ways. Putting that puzzle together would be nearly impossible. What a philosophy does is paint a picture with the puzzle pieces it provides the picture that allows you to put the information into a coherent mental image.

This is a sort of assumption on which science is based—that the puzzle has a “correct” solution, and that we don’t know what that is. Except it’s not really an “assumption;” we know that there are set factors that dictate the laws of our universe, mainly because we can test them and they have remained constant. Since there is no reason to believe they “change” or “shift,” it is a logical assumption that the “puzzle” has a correct solution that ultimately dictates the course of the universe.

Simply put, “reality” can be interpreted by an individual and fit into his or her perceptions, but it cannot be changed by that perception. Scientists use this in their search for what they refer to as “objective” truth, which is to say that something is not considered “proven” scientifically unless it can be reproduced—some of the reasoning behind this being that if only one person saw it the first time it happened, it could be that the person who saw it simply misinterpreted what he/she was seeing. Or, if the conditions cannot be reproduced, then he or she could be mistaken as to what actually caused it.

Waht deos tihs setnecene maen to ohtres?

To be fair, that doesn’t have as much to do with my “paradigm” as it does with my understanding of English. Unless you consider a language a “paradigm.” There is no debate over the definition of “understanding of the English language”—you either understand it to some degree or you don’t.

This is what i mean when I say we have a perspective that affects us with out us even realizing it. Even our language plays a role that we don’t expect.

This would seem to be one of the basic problems with your criticism of logic—you don’t seem to realize that you are using logic to reach the conclusion that there is something wrong with logic. Which would support my point that logic seems to be the natural recourse of the human brain.

My final position on logic being that it is flawless if executed properly—it reaches a decision based on the factors introduced, and it does so with 100% efficiency. Whether or not this is close to “actual truth” is irrelevant, as it is pretty much “perfect” in the sense that it draws an accurate conclusion based on known factors. If there are unknown factors, this is not a sign of a flaw in logic itself, but rather with the conditions of the experiment.

For example, a situation in which one sees someone else shoot a third person in the head. The witness of the shooting will be lead to believe that the shooter has shot a person in the head. But what if it is later revealed that the “victim” was a hologram, constructed to identically resemble an existing person? Is the witness’ logic “flawed?” No, because he/she did not know that the “victim” was a hologram. If he/she had known that, his/her logic would not have allowed him/her to believe that a real person had been shot in the head. This example perfectly illustrates what I mean when I say that science can revise itself in light of new or contradictory information.

Tim: “Well, it’s apparent to me that science is very effective in all areas of life.”

All *physical* areas of life, yes. Philosophical questions that are based on illogical premises (such as the existence of any particular religious deity, though the idea of a “creator” is still generally accepted as a scientific proposition) are not included. In other words, areas of life in which things can be physically tested (and no, this doesn’t include matters of opinion, such as what is “good” or “bad,” or who is “better” at something than someone else; those things have no objective definition—something that is genuinely good to you may be genuinely bad to me—and so no determining factor can be isolated to define them one way or the other. But this is not based on perception so much as it is basic reasoning; “good” or “bad” comes from desire. What do you want? Naturally, something that corroborates what you want is “good,” and something that runs counter to what you want is “Bad.” Something that has no effect at all with respect to getting you what you want is neither. But good and bad are mere inventions of man, not objective concepts, so no, they cannot be scientifically tested, nor do they need to be.).

*side note* (I can’t help but notice that almost all of your challenges included separating “good” from “bad” in some way. Is this implicative of a moral concern?)

It’s like I said; if you take a set of logical factors and put them together, it is possible (though not always obvious or easy) to isolate one or more possible correct logical deductions. And by “correct” I mean something that accurately reflects the factors.

I can imagine that you or someone else may ask me, “Who’s definition of correct are you using?” I’d like to tackle that right now; the answer is nature (unless of course you consider nature as having a “paradigm”). If our deductions are correct, then the natural world from which the original factors are born will corroborate them. For example, if we were to deduce that a certain series of logical sequences would result in a functioning computer, but our interpretation of those sequences were inaccurate, then the circumstances would not result in a functioning computer. They would result in something else—probably an object very similar to a computer, but not functioning. Or perhaps something else entirely. It is only when our interpretations are “correct” or “objective” that we are able to control the objective world around us. And by “objective world,” I mean that which is free from the influence of our interpretation, that which does not change to conform to our beliefs (such as physical matter).

What you seem to be saying here, in denying this, is that we “got lucky” about 1 million times in the process of getting a computer to work—that our deductions don’t accurately reflect reality for certain, in spite of the fact that nature corroborrates them, and so we can’t have figured out the objective truth of how a computer works. And yet, not a single aspect of the computer’s functionality is “up for interpretation;” there are manuals which exist that explain how to build one from the ground up. It is all known, tested, and proven. If you believe it is not, then you are burdened with explaining why the computer works as it does in spite of this.

Do I need to go on? Scientifically “objectively”, unless you wish to be ethnocentric and state that “our morality” is superior to all other people’s and all other places in all other times, your stuck saying: “Well people believe in morality but what is actually moral or immoral well that depends upon the society.” …Well good answer… what happened to a universal truth that would tell us all things for all time for all people? Science can’t tell us can it?

Here, you make the same mistake that people have been making for centuries; if one seeks to learn the truth about the world around him/her as best as is possible (whether it is “truly objective” or not, which, if we entertain all possibilities, no matter how wild or illogical—as you argue we should—we can never technically know), one cannot rely on general philosophies; one must break things down into observable chunks, and draw conclusions from there, taking into account things that vary from person to person (for example, “good” and “bad;” what is good to you may change over time, but for one instance, let us assume that “eating cake” is “good” to you. Is it not objectively true that, during that time, you regard eating cake as good? Is that not an objective observation? Can that not be factored into deciding what is “good” for you, from society’s standpoint?).

This BEGAN with Immanual KANT in the 18th century. Kant destroyed absolutely demolished the idea that “objective truth” could be determined. Why because the “determiner” is INSIDE the system. The falicy of the Enlightenment was that man, through reason, could get outside of the world and examine it “objectively” Kant displaced that notion by placing man BACK into the “system” he was trying hard to discover.

How did he “absolutely demolish” the idea? Is there maybe a specific instance you can point me to in which this occured? Perhaps a specific sentence, paragraph, page, or book? Is it not your perception that he “demolished” this idea? Whose definition of “demolished” are you using? What is so special about Kant that he is not hindered by human perception? How are we to know that what he said is even relevant?

Imagine an ant stuck in the “ant farm” the ant claims to know what’s OUT SIDE the ant farm but, and here is the key, THE ANT HAS NEVER LEFT THE FARM. The ant is not an “objective” observer, the ant is PART of the system. In that sense it is nearly impossible for the Ant to determine anything in an “objective” sense.

If I am correct in assuming that the ant farm represents human perception, then this analogy is quite flawed. First, the ants are unaware that they are in a farm. As far as they are concerned, they might as well be in a mound somewhere in your front yard. Humans are quite aware that there is a thing called “perception,” of which they must beware in order to avoid the risk of muddying the waters of “common perception,” or what we normally perceive as “objective reality.” (Since there is no way to observe anything outside of common perception—or rather, since there is no visible need to do so—we define common perception as “objective reality.” If you wish to challenge this definition, then there is one thing you can do to convince me; using only the known factors, illustrate an instance in which it can be proved that “objective reality” is different from the “common perception” which we define as objective. Mind, of course, that I am not speaking of things that we currently debate, such as the existence of God—for these things are not objective claims in the first place—but of things that we “know” to be true, such as the fact that your and my computers exist, or the fact that we exist physically. Something very obvious, that anybody can look at and determine as physically true or real. If you can do this, then you will have proved (or at the very least, suggested) that there is a reason to worry about whether or not “real objective reality” is different from “common perception.”

I know I have beaten you senseless with Kant but your insistance that “through reason and logic we will determine the objective truth” is nothing more than a sunday school child closing his / her eyes and praying. It’s a faith statement. Nothing more nothing less.

You know, I did the ctrl+f test, and I never actually typed that sentence. Rather, what I am saying is that common perception and objective truth, while technically different things by definition, are equivalent to one another, much in the way that a=c if a=b and b=c (yes, a and c are different letters, but that alone does not exclude them from sharing the same value). Things that can be reproduced, proven, and shown, are true. It is up to the person who is challenging common perception to prove that it is flawed, and in this case, that is you.

so in other words humans must be aware that their perception will muddy their perception which we actually call objective reality. That’s like saying “Watching out! Your driving will affect your driving which is really what we call golfing.” Does that really make sense?

Not quite. Humans are aware that they have a perception; if you are correct in stating that a person cannot step outside of his/her perception, then the best we can do towards learning “objective truth” is to try and isolate what it is about that perception that separates it from “actual reality.” Once that is resolved, it is then possible to compare the two in such a way as to derive “real” or “objective” truth by using “perception” and filtering out the “muddying factors.”

All you did was place the adjective qualifier “common” in front of the noun perception.

“Individual perception” and “common perception” are two different things. “Individual perception” is thousands upon thousands of times more likely to be affected by things such as slants, illnesses, delusions, psychotic episodes, hallucinations, and the like than is “common perception,” simply due to the odds of ten thousand people suffering from the same mental illness or condition (or other sensory deceit). In the event of “mass hysteria,” one can isolate a specific “missing link” (or suspension of disbelief) in the empirical process being utilized by the “victims” of said hysteria—in a religious community, for example, this might come in the form of “one must believe in order to see”—that sets the perception apart from the truth.

This explains mathematically why humans rely on things that can be shared in the perceptions of others in order to “prove” things. That is why we don’t simply accept new scientific developments based on somebody’s word; in order for the scientific community to consider something objectively “proven,” it must first be introduced in such a way as to be visible to multiple, differing perspectives—it must “rule out all competition.”

And again, nature will corroborate that which is true. I bring you back to the computer example.

so “common perception” and “objective reality” are the same thing? Even though technically “common” doesn’t equal “objective” and our “perception” does not technically mean “reality” they are the same thing? Is that logical?

Basically, yes, but not in the way you describe. I don’t mean that something is true simply because a lot of people think it is; the results of an experiment reflect truth if they are reproducable, exactly defined, and can be shown to other people.

Given those constraints… I can’t do that. Because in your own mind your “common perception” is the same thing as “objective reality”. It doesn’t matter how much stuff I point to. In your own mind your “common perception” is “objective reality”. This is how the mind affect the interaction with “things”.

Alright, fair enough….let me simplify it a bit. If we can deduce things—such as the structure of, say, a light bulb—that are reproduceable to the point that they are used in common life….if we can produce things like this that work the exact same way every single time, without exception and without fail, what reason do we have to believe that the method is not “objectively proven?” What reason can you offer me to suggest that a proven method for effectively constructing a functioning light bulb is not objectively proven? What motivation do I have to believe you when you say that such a thing is not objectively true—that if you put X parts together in Y manner, you will reach result Z 100% of the time? Can you assemble a functioning light bulb based on a proven formula in such a way as to produce something other than a functioning light bulb? This is what I mean when I say they are the “same;” if they are different, it is in a way that is impossible to determine (you have demonstrated this with your stern refusal to offer even a single instance in which such a thing is possible).

So….maybe there is an objective reality outside of what we can see and perceive—both as individuals and as a social mass—and maybe that objective reality is completely opposite from that which we can perceive. However, the very purpose of studying the world around us is to learn how better to manipulate its resources (in whatever form they may come) for our benefit in one way or another. If there indeed exists a separate “objective” reality that is completely different than the “perceived” one in which we seem to exist, then it is completely incosequential; we cannot sense it, we cannot affect it, it cannot affect us. Therefore, it is useless to us, and furthermore, since we can never know its existence, it might as well not exist at all.

Think of it like this: I want to know what a dog IS not what it is not but what it is. I precieve a dog, I know that my perception will affect HOW I see the dog. So according to you I must “Isolate” in my own perception what is NOT dog and then I’ll KNOW what a Dog is? Don’t I first have to have an idea of what a dog is to know what it is NOT? So right out of the gate according to you I have to know what a dog is not first, before I know what a dog is? MMM. Sorry that’s not logical. You have presumed to know that which you are trying to discover.

It’s irrelevant; if you know what it is not, then the answer to what it “is” is simple: it “is” what it “isn’t not.” And vice-versa. It’s like putting a label on a box; we could choose to label a box based on what isn’t inside it, and it would still be accurate, though it’s simply easier to classify it based on what is inside (the alternative being to list every single physical thing in the universe that it isn’t). They are one and the same, so long as one is capable of logical deduction (all the things in the universe – the things that it isn’t = the thing that it is).

But this assumes that we know the difference between “perception” and objective reality.”

As you seem to be claiming that you can do (by saying that our perceptions are different from “objective reality”).

Ok, here you completely lost me. An Invidivuals perception is prone to “be affected” while common perception is not…?

An individual’s perception is less likely to be “affected” than that of a group, simply because the odds of something being “wrong” with it are exponentially decreased simply due to the mathematical odds of the exact same thing being wrong with all of the “individual perceptions” involved in the “common perception.” So yes, while it’s possible for the same thing to be wrong with many, many people’s perceptions of something, it is very unlikely. In some cases, the odds could be compared to those of winning the lottery ten, or twenty, or fifty times in a row.

To me this is what you are saying: Individuals are untrustworth they get ill and see things badly, but when they are with other people… well, boy oh boy do things get better! Suddenly what was “individual perception” becomes “common perception” and everybody believes the samething everybody knows the samething. And what’s even better is that mathmatically “knowing absolutely” become possible. Tim this is not logic, this is wish fulfillment.

I tried to explain why this is incorrect in my previous comment….if you had read this:

Basically, yes, but not in the way you describe. I don’t mean that something is true simply because a lot of people think it is; the results of an experiment reflect truth if they are reproducable, exactly defined, and can be shown to other people.

…you would recognize that.

So for something to be proven it must first be visible to multiple differing perspectives? so unless everybody agree’s it’s not true? That should be a fun ride trying to get everybody to agree on well… anything. I think what you mean is that “scientist who are trained in empirical usage and study” must all agree. Interesting you only limited it to the “scientific community”. so people who have studies the empirical methods, believe in them whole heartedly, are committed to “higher learning” through the “scientific process” they have to agree that what is proven is proven? MMM sounds interesting. so people who share the same committment and the same values they get to determine what is “universally true”. What about those poor souls who don’t share the same values? What if they are not comitted to empiricism as an answer to everything but consider it useful and helpful. Do we listen to them or do we shut them up as “uncritical thinkers”.

Well, honestly, if you want me to answer you with any degree of understanding, you’re going to have to let me make my own case, here, and not make it for me. Simply because you restrict that definition to include only scientists doesn’t mean I agree.

And no, again your description of my position is incorrect. I never argued that something is true simply because many people believe it. Rather, I argued that something is true if it is demonstrable in multiple perspectives. For example, the lightbulb—whether you believe the lightbulb will work or not does not affect whether it works or not. Its functionality is beyond your perception, therefore it is objective. You cannot “believe” the lightbulb out of existence or functionality.

No I can not because by definition I have assembled a functioning light bulb. Can you assemble a functioning car to produce something other than a functining car? No because you have “constrained my given” Given 3,7,9 can 2 plus 2 equal 4?

You say “constrained my given,” I say “objectively proven.” I have objectively proven that there is an effective way to produce a functioning lightbulb from other materials. If I were to remove this so-called “constraint of your given,” then any proven method of constructing a functioning lightbulb would still be just that—an objectively effective way of constructing a functional lightbulb. It cannot be changed, wished, or believed into anything different—simple as that. A more accurate analogy than yours would be, “if you have 2 and 2, can they add or multiply together in any way to produce a number other than 4? If not, then it is an objective fact that 2 + 2 or 2 x 2 is always equal to 4, and that this is not subject to interpretation.”

You stick a plant in the ground it will grow.

Exactly; this is objectively true, in the same vein that it is objectively true that, if I put X materials together in Y fashion, I can obtain product Z every single time, guaranteed. I don’t see how you can differentiate these two things.

And the argument is not that “man has made” anything; it is that if man puts X materials (which are previously available in nature and could have been created by God, for all it matters in this analogy)) together in Y fashion, product Z will be the result. It is not the origin of the materials that is at issue here; it is the process by which the materials are converted by man into a final product using a specified method.

I am not saying “a light bulb is true,” as you seem to think I am; that alone simply makes no sense. If that were the case, I might as well say, “the number 4 is true.” That is an incomplete statement. I am saying that “the process by which a light bulb is constructed is objectively effective, no matter who performs it or under what perception; as long as the method is followed exactly, it can produce the exact same results no matter who performs it.”

Secondly this doesn’t prove a light bulb is objectivly true. It’s an object that we CALL a light bulb. We do the same thing with everything else. This is a new and creative way for you to say: I can see it, I can touch it, it’s real.

Again, how can a light bulb be “true?” The light bulb itself is not at issue here; it is the process by which the lightbulb is constructed, and the fact that that process exists outside of human perception. It is, it works, and it cannot be debated.

And your insistence on dealing with the definition of the concept of the “light bulb,” instead of the actual lightbulb (which represents “Product Z” in my previous example) is measuring up to be quite frustrating….you can call it a lightbulb, or you can call it White Zinfandel, it’s still what it is. If you don’t understand then that is alright, I’ll try to explain it better, but please don’t attack me or my motives on that basis.

It’s a metaphysical position that you hold, things are the only things that are real. How does holding up a lightbulb prove that matter is the highest reality? It’s doesn’t; all it does is demonstrate that you believe that you are holding something that is “objectively true”.

Yet again, it is not the lightbulb itself which is “true.” If you recall in my last comment, I stated that, by your logic, there is no way for us to determine if what you define as “objective reality” even exists at all. And with respect to that—if there is no way for us to ever touch, feel, taste, hear, or smell actual reality, and what we sense is only inside our own perception (”Matrix Theory,” as I have dubbed it), then “objective reality” is meaningless, because we can never interact with it or affect it in any way (and nor can it affect us). Science studies the things that are capable of affecting other things; if something cannot affect something else in some way, then that something might as well not exist at all, for it serves no physical purpose.

This is why it is so important for you to provide an alternative to the methods of logic, reason and science; if you have no alternative method that is capable of pursuing these claims, then your criticism is worthless—you might as well criticize me for not being able to shoot laser beams from my pupils. Is there something I am doing wrong that prevents me from shooting eye laser beams? Or is it simply that mankind’s biology separates it from the capability of such a feat?

Without an A = (?) you have not said what “A” is all you have said is what it is not. Secondly. If your trying to PROVE what “A” is how do you know that it is NOT “B” if you don’t know what it is?

If you know enough about it to know everything it is not, then you know what it is—it “is” whatever is left over once you eliminate everything it is “not.” Need I quote Sherlock Holmes?

Secondly, you can’t just list three or four random things it isn’t. That’s not the same thing at all. In my example, I said that if you listed everything it isn’t, then it is what is left over. But even that was merely hypothetical.

However, if that is too complicated….once again….a “dog” is the name we give to (i.e. a word that somebody just made up to describe) a specific type of furry, four-legged creature. That is what a dog is. If you want to know why that person chose the word “dog,” then you’re out of luck. Not that it matters—why he/she chose the word he/she did is irrelevant, because it is not the word that matters but the concept.

We call the dog a “dog” because it is a way to “package” the image of a dog and “send” it to someone by saying. It’s more convenient than lugging a dog around and pointing to it whenever you would normally say “dog,” or describing this creature in detail every time it comes up in conversation. You keep asking me to “define a dog,” but I have already done so. But the mistake you make is that you’re trying to start with a word and assign it to a definition. That simply is not the case in real life—we start with a concept, and assign a word to it (which word is inconsequential, as long as its use is commonly adopted to the point that it becomes commonplace and easy to recognize, as “dog” has).

Which leads me to my next question….am I to understand that your argument is: “Things only exist because man has given them names?” Or perhaps, “Things to which man has not assigned names don’t exist?” Or “Things cannot exist without mankind to give them names?”

Because things do exist independently of their names; proving this is as easy as changing the name of something. If the United States officially decided that the English word for the creature we call “dog” would be officially changed to “fruggleshmuggle” tomorrow, would that change a dog into something else? Would the dog’s physical form or functionality change in any way?

But you have to realize that you have “assumed” something. AND you have to realize that you havn’t proven anything else about the nature of what “Reality” is; all you have proven is what it is NOT.

I don’t care to “prove” to you what “reality” is. If I could do that, this conversation would (obviously) be over by now. I am simply debating your claim that logic and reason are somehow flawed because they cannot refute baseless claims. Your claims about “reality” being subject to perception are baseless; there is no logical factor on which you base them except for the fact that they cannot be disproved. Logic and reason can refute or confirm any claim for which there is a base. If I were to simply say that I believe there is an invisible pink unicorn that lives behind the Lincoln Memorial, you couldn’t technically disprove me there. Does that mean we should entertain the possibility that there could be such a unicorn behind the Lincoln Memorial, simply because it’s not refutable? Should we behave as though this claim is true?

(Given that A is not B
AND B= C Therefore A does not =C,
But does A = F? [I don’t know A and I don’t know F?]
so I can not logically tell if A = F or not)

Alright. Let’s put this mathematically.

A = dog
B = specific variety of furry, four-legged creature (domestic)
C = Beagle

A = B
A = C
Therefore, B = C.

None of these are “given,” except for the fact that “dog” is the word we use to describe “specific variety of furry, four-legged creature (domestic).” If we remove “A” from the equation, that does not change the remaining qualities:

B = specific variety of furry, four-legged creature (domestic)
C = Beagle

B = C

What we refer to as a “Beagle” is still what it is, even if we were to call it, say, a toothbrush. It is still a more specific variety of a specific variety of furry, four-legged creature (domestic). This is true, and neither you nor anyone else can prove otherwise, because it is the way it is—simple as that. Things exist as things (a dog as what it is, even when stripped of all titles and nomenclature, is still what it is; its appearance and functionality will not change, no matter what you or I call it). Again, you make the mistake of confusing the words we assign to these things with the things themselves.

Secondly, I am not going to break Kant’s argument down all the way to remake his argument for him.

I don’t expect you to. However, in order for your argument to have any credibility in my eyes, you must provide more than a basic reiteration of “logic and reason are flawed because they cannot prove claims that were made without using logic and reason,” which is an obvious truth. You seem to think that there is a better way to make decisions than by logical deduction or scientific discussion, and yet you seem unable to specify exactly what that method is.

But asking me to break down an extremely complicated concept like Kant’s with a person who doesn’t understand basic logic is an impossible task and I won’t do it. So why am I here? You’re a bright person and I believe you have great potentional to be a good thinker.

If you simply can’t do it, then I understand—I don’t expect you to. However, I have already admitted to you that, no, logic and reason cannot rule out the baseless claim that logic and reason may not be able to reach the objective world if it is somehow different from what our senses force us to perceive. You seem to think I “don’t understand” what you are saying, when I have actually (in a sense) agreed with you.

And I don’t know why you’re here; needless for me to say, you’re free to leave at any time you please. Though, for future reference, you might want to know that your position ^here of, “You’re wrong, but I don’t want to tell you why, because you are intellectually inferior and I don’t have to,” isn’t very sturdy.

And on that note….I want to say that, if one really desires to know about the so-called “objective” world, and whether or not it varies from what we can physically sense, I say, more power to him/her—I don’t see anything wrong with attempting to go beyond what logic and reason can provide, so long as one doesn’t expect myself or others to follow in his/her footsteps. However, I simply don’t believe it’s possible, given the aforementioned “restrictions” bound to us by our senses. I challenge you—or anyone else here—to name a way that we can observe the “objective” world, assuming that it is as Matrix Theory assumes (vastly different from that which we see, hear, taste, touch and smell), given such restrictions. You’ll find rather quickly that it is impossible. So in that sense, if one is to define “objective reality” as unattainable in any case, then why even entertain its existence at all, for any reason but for entertainment? And better yet, why give credit to criticisms of a certain thought process for being unable to allow humans to do that which is by its nature impossible, anyway?

I don’t remember making a baseless claim. Isn’t that YOUR value of what is baseless? Just because you believe it’s baseless it does not follow that it is baseless.

I noticed this keeps coming up, and so I guess it’s about time we addressed it….everything that everybody has ever said in the entire universe is a product of that person’s perception. If we are going to use the argument that “this is so-and-so’s definition of this,” or “this is her definition of that,” then we might as well stop now, because we’re never going to get anywhere. I could easily challenge anything you portray as fact (such as Kant’s so-called Critique of Pure Reason) as being “just somebody’s perspective,” but I do not—I prefer to resort to (an attempt at) factual debate.

So yes, you can keep bringing this up….but it will not change that which already is. For example, you can say that the person who chose the word “dog” to describe the creature we know as a dog is just that person’s interpretation of what we know to be a “dog,” but the simple fact is this: a dog is what it is, whether we call it a toothbrush, a condom, a dog, or a buzzsaw, or who calls it that. We simply choose to call it a dog because dog is a three-letter word that is easy to say, and a dog is a common household pet. We like to have ways to portray physical things with words, to avoid the trouble of having to carry a dog around and show it to people whenever we need to describe one. So no, it’s not a “fact” that the creature we choose to call a “dog” is called a “dog.” However, it is a fact that the creature we choose to call a “dog” is what it is, regardless of what we call it. I am not arguing that the word “dog” objectively describes the creature we call a “dog,” I am arguing that the creature we refer to as “dog” has a constant shape and functionality that is not subject to interpretation. You have yet to address this, the core of my argument.

I didn’t make that statment. Yet you felt it was necessary to answer a question I didn’t ask or refute a statement I didn’t make.

By all means, feel free to enlighten me as to your real point. I’m listening with open ears.

So do you or do you not agree with the “baseless” claim that our perception affects what we call “objective reality”? Are you going to (in a sense) disagree or agree? This is another example of how you confuse me. Would you please stick with a position and fight it out.

Simply by having this argument, we are assuming that there is such a thing as “objective reality.” When this discussion first began, I classified “objective reality” as that which can be seen, felt, touched, tasted, or smelled by any person, regardless of his or her thought processes or beliefs. However, in order to address your argument, it became necessary that I temporarily shift the definition of “objective” to “that which exists outside of human perception” to coincide with yours, and since you insisted on classifying “that which exists outside of human perception” as something which can never be seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled because, you argued, these things by their nature are classified as “our perception,” it became necessary for me to temporarily reclassify “objective reality” to mean “a world that cannot be seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled by any living human being.”

So here is my position, short and sweet, for those of you who haven’t been paying attention:

(1) I am not debating whether or not “objective reality” exists. We are assuming that “objective reality” exists.

(2) I am not (unless otherwise stated) debating whether or not humans are capable of accessing “objective reality.” We are assuming that “objective reality” is beyond human perception, and therefore completely and 100% inaccessible to humans due to the fact that our only means of interaction with the world around us are our five senses, which (Mike Brown argues) are by their nature part of our perception, and therefore untrustworthy with regards to the study of “objective reality.”

(3) My position is that (while I personally classify “objective reality” as that which can be detected without contradiction between the five senses), if “objective reality” does indeed exist under such conditions that it can never be accessed by any human using any means available to us, then it is of no consequence; there is no means by which to observe its existence or any effect is has on us. For if it had an effect on us, that effect would be observable and subject to study, which would then point to conclusions that may suggest the existence of a world that defies what we know. However, given the known factors with regard to “objective reality” as the scientific community understands it (i.e. “that which can be detected without contradiction between the five senses is objectively real”), no such reality exists. Therefore, if an “objective reality” exists that is beyond our perception, then we will never be able to feel any effects from it, be inflenced by it or ifluence it in any way. Therefore, whether or not it exists at all is completely inconsequential to our existence and functionality as physical beings. As such, I feel that Mike Brown’s claim that logic and reason are flawed because they cannot detect this undetectable world to be flawed itself, for there simply is no way to detect such a world in any case. Now, if Mike Brown wishes to offer an alternative method by which such an “objective” world could be detected, then his claims would have weight; however, they are currently no different than they would be were he to criticize me for shooting laser beams from my retinas; no human can do such a thing, and therefore it is silly to criticize one person for not being able to do such a thing, just as it is silly to criticize one thought process for being unable to detect something which no thought process can detect in any case.

either you trust your sense with absolute unfailing loyality or you do not.

I do. I have yet to encounter a situation in which what my senses tell me has been proven to be wrong (without the use of facts that were later introduced). This is because I believe—and you have yet to prove otherwise—that, so long as there is a base for a claim (i.e. evidence to suggest it), then it is explorable through logic, reason and science. Otherwise, it is not. If something cannot be scientifically explored, it is because it has no detectable effect (which is classifiable from a scientific standpoint as having no effect), and is therefore inconsequential, as it can never bring harm nor benefit to us.

I already told you I am not going to remake Kant’s arguments for him. I asked if every person has a “perspective”you said both that individual percpetion is questionable and it is reliable.

It is safe to assume that, for the sake of this argument, I am agreeing with you here; it is possible that human perception is flawed with regards to the objective world, for reasons I have already explained. However, I also believe that if it is unable to detect “objective reality” to the extent you claim, then “objective reality” is inconsequential altogether (also for reasons I have explained).

I asked if you knew that “common perception” is comprised of collected individual perception. And you sarcasticaly responded with: “I said this earlier:

For the record, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was attempting to demonstrate that I had already explained that to you.

Then you asked me to make a lightbulb with out making a lightbulb. Which I said by definition can not be done. I COULD however take the materials from a lightbulb and make a tea pot or a door knob or any other kind of knick knack. People were making things long before science was there to “provide” it for them.

And how do you know how to make those items, is what I am asking? Because there is a scientific method that explains how to do that. How was this method discovered? Through a series of logical deductions and periods of scientific understanding that lead one person (Thomas Edison) to understand that, were he to assemble certain materials in a certain fashion, he would create a functioning lightbulb.

But you failed to answer my question earlier question. You do realize that “objectively true” is different than “objectively effective?”

I will “realize” that if you can prove to me that the method for making a lightbulb does not end with the same result every time. The words “true” and “effective” are inconsequential here; the operative word is “objective.” This is a method that exists outside of human perception, and can be shown to other people. It produces the same result every time—it is “objective.” That would seem to defy the idea that “objective reality” can never be reached by humans using only our five sense….however, again, if one were to assume that objective reality is beyond our reach for the reasons you have, then it could simply be that the process for creating a lightbulb is an illusion, and that we are really making something else when we construct a lightbulb, but for some reason or another, we perceive that it is a lightbulb anyway. In which case it is effective anyway, and the “truth” is inconsequential, because the device at least provides us with the illusion that it fulfills the purpose for which it is designed; and if we cannot truly know the difference, then it’s all the same, because we can work at night now, thanks to the lightbulb—whether or not it is actually lighting our surroundings. We can still see at night.

People have been building houses long before “science” told us how.

“Science” is not an entity, or a being, or a group of people. There was no objective point in history at which “science” was established. Science, logic and reason describe processes that are natural functions of the human brain. You might as well argue that “people were fighting over things long before disagreements came about.” Deductive reasoning is a product of logic; to say that one happened before the other makes no sense. Somebody had to deduce that putting those materials together in a certain way would benefit them by providing shelter in the form of a house.

Secondly isn’t effective a subjective word? For example, a candle sheads light in a room; a light bulb does the same thing. Which is more effective? Well it actually depend upon the situation. If we are in the jungle of Africa and all I have is a lightbulb the “effectiveness” of it is next to nil. What will a lightbulb do for an African. In this way “effective” is actualy not an “objective” term but a subjective definition. We find “science” to be very helpful. That does not mean that in other “situations” it might not be so helpful.

“Effective” in your context is subjective, yes. However, when the goal is previously defined (i.e. we are “in a certain situation”), then it is objective what is effective. For example, it is an “objective fact” that, were your goal to light up the room as brightly as possible, a 40-watt bulb would be more effective than a 20-watt bulb. This cannot be debated.

Lastly you keep puting the onus back on me to prove something. It is you who stated that science tells you everything you need to know about the world. I am simply questioning your belief, If you want to question my beliefs come to a site I visit and pound them with questions. I am interested in hearing how “rational thinkers like yourself” deal with philosophical question.

Well, you are challenging my beliefs. Where your goal is solely inquisitive, I try to answer to the best of my ability. But when you ridicule me for certain aspects with which you disagree, that is a personal attack, indicative that you feel I should believe differently than I do. In that instance, it is you who is burdened with “proving” to me why I should believe differently. For if it is objectively true that I am wrong, then there will be a way to show it to me….unless we use your definition of “objective,” in which case it is impossible for you to know in the first place if I am objectively wrong for thinking that way, in which case this entire argument is pointless.

“(if I try to post it all together, it is flagged as “spam”). If anybody knows the cause of this, please let me know~”

I know what you’re talking about… I have totally lost like 6 posts with that stupid copy and paste.

By the way Tim that was a very coherent and good post. I thought you made your points very clearly. However, I do have to respond to them.

“I am arguing that the creature we refer to as “dog” has a constant shape and functionality that is not subject to interpretation.”

I know you think its not subject to interpretation but yet some might say it is. Wittgenstein proposed that language was not really about coorlation to “objective reality” but rather a series of signs and symbols or games rather. It’s kind of complicated but the end of it is that “dog” isn’t just a “dog”. (Remember this isn’t my argument it’s W’s.) So this is how I understand the argument, if someone knows it better they can jump in.

A dog isn’t just a dog a dog. From the time we are born “dog” functions as a myriad of signs for different things. It can mean fun loving, cute and playful. It can also mean a low life and maingy. In american Idol it’s a term of endearment or a title of address. If I understand W rightly he says the “objective” meaning of the word “dog” is dependent upon the situation in which one uses it. W’s point is that we think our words are about the “outside” world but in reality they are really about how we relate to one another. I personally think there’s some merit to the argument.

This is my view once again: I dont’ know if your bi-lingual or not but I’m studying some ancient languages and some current languages. I can not count the times we asked out teacher about why the language did that(meaning a morphing of a word in a certain way) and he would just look at us and respond “just because it is”. There was no rhyme or reason to it; it was just how the language worked.

The more I learn about my second and third languages the more I realize that my entire view of the world grows out of my language. You don’t have to agree but COULD it be possible that (I don’t know if your bi- lingual or not) language could effect us in such a manner?

“Therefore, if an “objective reality” exists that is beyond our perception, then we will never be able to feel any effects from it, be inflenced by it or ifluence it in any way.”

I never said “objective reality” IS beyond our perception. What I asked was is it possible that our perception is affecting what we call “objective reality” The point isn’t that “objects” are not there. The question is can we get at them “objectively”? (by that I mean impartially, neutrally, without bias or influence) Kant’s point was: “No, we can not get at objects ‘objectively’. We drag our language into the object. We drag our expirences into the object. We drag our physiological condition into the object, and we drag or philosophy into the object.” Kant’s point is much deeper than, “Well how do we know the chair is really there?”

tim wrote:
“We are assuming that “objective reality” is beyond human perception, and therefore completely and 100% inaccessible to humans due to the fact that our only means of interaction with the world around us are our five senses,”

If you want to assume that you can… I won’t stop you. But it doens’t have to be an “all or nothing” proposition. [This, by the way, is one of the flaws (in my humble opinion, I'm still flushing this out mind you) of logic. If something isn't True than it is False. I believe, that logic pushes us to deny paradoxes that we live with everyday in favor of T/F propositions that are not necessairly true. But that's just my "view" of it.]

I never said that the “objective reality” wasn’t there. I was questioning the human minds ability to get at it “objectively”. Sure, a bus IS there but how do we think of a bus? How are we using a bus? And if you think you DON’T think about a bus in a particular manner: close your eyes and picture it. did you think of a yellow vehicle or did you think of a tiny card that goes into a computer slot? Kant’s point is that we drag out parents training, school, TV and all kinds of things into our dealing with the “objective” world.

This makes “objectively” dealing with objects nearly impossible. For example: If I were to show you a sword right now and ask what should I do with this sword logic and reason cannot give us the answer. Some may consider it a collectors item, some may consider it an object of oppression, and others a piece of art. What is it? It’s all of that, but “Objectively” arriving at the conclusion of what to do with it is impossible. (this is just an illustration NOT a proof) Now I will make this idea a little more personal.

Religion is an “object” (kind of, it’s an object in the sense of an idea) how should we “deal” with religion? Well the word it’s self is indictive of a particular world view. We in the West “classify” things and place Islam, Christianity, Hinduism into catagories that WE call “Religion”. But doesn’t that very classification place us in a catigory that is “above” all these “religions”. In some places what it means to be “human” is to be Islamic or hindi. So we “negate” their particular view in favor of OUR “objective” classification. Is such an interpretation of the “object” of religion possible?

“However, I also believe that if it is unable to detect “objective reality” to the extent you claim, then “objective reality” is inconsequential altogether (also for reasons I have explained).”

Once again, I’m not doubting that “things aren’t there”. I think Plato would question if things are “real” but you have to understand what he means by that. I believe Plato meant that “reality” is that which does not change. In that case nothing here would be “real” because everything is in a constant state of flux. (think of it like this: A car is made up of billions of atoms, iron, alumium, rust in my case. But the car is actually not real. It changes and breaks down to it’s simplest components. It’s accident’s change, what it looks like, but it’s essence is unchanging. In THIS way one could look at a car and claim it’s not really “real” but the atoms are “real”. This is actually closer to Aristotles position than Plato’s but it gets across the idea how things can be here but not “real”)

“Science” is not an entity, or a being, or a group of people. There was no objective point in history at which “science” was established.”

Ok, see right here is how you confuse me. How are you using the word “science”? ON SEP5 you said you belive “science tells you everything you need to know about the world.” Yet here you say that science has been around forever no one made it or found it. This is extremely unclear communication. According to Wikepedia science is either a systematic study or field or specifically the use of the scientific method to acquire knowledge. Now, you seem to believe that “science” has been around for forever. So you are either talking about the “science” that generally begins with the rationalists to the present, or you are talking about general human knowledge. Like Boneventure studied history his work could be called “science”. The bottom line: how are you using that word?

I take it your “huge” post was a type of “philosophically working out” what you think on the issue? I’m going to assume that much because there was a lot there. Some I agree with and some I do not. You seem to be very close to wrestling with metaphysics but you seem afriad to go there.

I’m still not sold on what you mean by the difference between conceptual reality and physical reality. Much of your problem here, in my humble opinion, is that you don’t seem very clear on what you mean by “reality”. If you examined what I said about Plato it might help a little bit.

Even if we begin with philosophical materialism we could doubt the “reality” of the car. The car is comprised of billions of atoms each of a different kind. In materialism the atom is the “reality” and the tires, steel rods, rubber belts are simply accidents or just what shape the “reality” has been formed to make. So in this way the car isn’t “real” in the sense of being completely self contained “reality” but rather a system or a collection of “reality” that combine to form an accidental shape.

Now according to Plato the accidents are completely unimportant because they aren’t real. For him, idea’s behind the “reality” are really real. Aristotle contended that the objects contained “some reality” and in this way the study of “things” was useful.

What does this have to do with anything? This question concerning the essence of “ultimate reality” is what we are discussing. This is kind of metaphysics, the nature of “reality”.

Plato believed that reality was contained in the mind, the mind perception is reality.

Aristotle contended that there was some “reality” external to ourselves.

Kant’s point however, is that when we approach things or “objects” we bring our perception into the handeling of that very object. In that way we bring a predetermined metaphysics into the perception of that object. In other words we don’t just see and object we see and object and try to determine it’s value and use at nearly the same time. These terms “value” and “use” are not things that science, logic or empiricim can really help us handle. Yet they influence the way we “study” the object.

“I guess you have accomplished one thing thus far; you have inclined me to realize that I have described “physical reality” as “objective reality.” And from a philosophical standpoint, that is not accurate, as it assumes that “objective reality” ends at “physical reality,” which is not established and cannot be known at this point.”

I still don’t understand how you are using those two terms. You contrasted “physical reality” against “conceptional reality” not “objective reality”. In your mind how is “objective reality” different from “physical reality”?

“As such, however….logic does not concern itself with that which does not have some observable base.”

So logic is only concerned with things that can be observed? Ok this is a logical theorium:

A=B
B=C
Therefore A=C

What kind of “observable base” does this stem from? I don’t believe it does. It is a concept; logic isn’t even a concept like “falling down.” it is a model or “way of thinking” that one has to be trained into. A child is not “born” with logic. Believe me, I wish my children had it when they were born. It takes a lot of work to get a child to begin to think logically. It takes very little work to get a child to get “baba” however the above theorium would take years to get across.

For example the idea of “true” and “false” has be understood before one even begins to learn the method of logic. Try and teach a 1 year old “true” or “false” and you will realize just how much of an advance concept it is. Teaching objects is easy compared to true or false.

“I mean the method of using known factors to deduce a known factor based on a logical progression.”

Once again there are no “Known factors” there are “givens” or assumptions. For logic to function one has to have a “Truth” no given’s= no logic.
For example what does the following not prove?

X= 1245
Y= ?
G= 1252
X+Y= G
Therefore Y= 7

Things I can sense with my 5 senses are “reality”
I can touch a car
Therefore a car is reality.

What has NOT been logically “proven”?

“And this method—for reasons I hope I’ve clarified in this post—has been around since the beginning of man. It is a base aspect of how the brain functions.”

How do you know this is true?

Secondly, while logic MAY be a primary brain function how could “values” or belief’s play a roll in the brain’s use of “logic”?

“That is a perfect example of logical deduction; take one known factor, and use it to deduce another.”

You completely missed my question with the logical deduction. Believe me I get logic. My question was in the X +Y=G what was NOT proven. In that question there are NOT lots of things that are unproven. The logical theorum did NOT prove that X= 1245 nor that G = 1245 Those are GIVENS. You were GIVEN that informaition you assumed it was true. The logic is not proven. That’s my point my point is that logic does not function with out something you can begin with as assumed truth.

On my theorum on “anything I can sense with my five senses is reality” That theory is NOT proven. Those are the GIVENs. It is the same with “I touch a car”. What is proven from thost “givens” is that a car is “reality”. If those givens are true THAN it is logical to assume a “car” is reality.

I am truely flummoxed that I can not communicate this simple logical truth. That’s how logic functions. You have to have an “assumed given” for it even to work.

“The fact that “A=B” is an observation, as is the fact that “B=C.” Furthermore, it is a logical deduction to realize that, if A=B and B=C, then A and B are the same, and B and C are the same, therefore all things which are classified as “B” are also “A,” but are also “C.” The fact that this is so fundamentally true proves my point about logic.”

The fact that you think this is SO fundamentally true demonstrates that this is a foundational value of your’s. The more obvious something seems the more basic an assumption it is. Your right A= B is an observation but that just demonstrates how our “obervations” are influenced by our perception. For example:
All hispanics are theives.
Rob is hispanic
Rob is a thief.

This IS logic, but what is not proven is that African American’s are theives. That is an unproven observation. Just because something is “observed” it does not make it true. That is my point about logic. You have to know what you have or have not proven.

You asserted that “Every time a child makes a decision, he/she is using logic—it may not be complete, or it may be flawed, but it is logic.”

A dog see’s a milk bone. It wants the milk bone it takes the milk bone. Has the dog employed “logic”?

According to you a decision making process is the same as “using logic”

Secondly, if “logic” is a decision making process than why do we have to be “trained” how to use it?
Thirdly, if every one employs logic and uses it than who says what is the “right” way of thinking verses this is just OUR way of thinking?

Tim wrote:
“Whatever the case, morals are not objective or final in any person’s mind; it’s been shown time and again that, if a person is willing, he or she can “condition” him- or herself into a different mindset;”

How do we know that “logical” thinking isn’t a “conditioning” just like we do with Morals?”

P.S. I thought of something else while I was at work today….I’ll admit it’s a bit off the topic, but it’s a thought that has interested me, nonetheless. Earlier, you said this with regard to scientific studies 150 years ago:

Everything in history 150 years ago is nothing but “I read what this person said.” How do we know it’s reliable? How do we know it’s true? You don’t. You take peoples word for it.

Now, would you say the same thing about the Bible? Why, or why not? How is it different, if at all, and why should I take the Bible (or any other religious text) more seriously than any scientific study? If scientific studies that go back a mere 150 years or so are untrustworthy, then what makes a religious text regarding the supernatural—which may have even been passed down for eons before being written down, according to Biblical historians, and therefore possibly subject to the error of human memory many times over—more trustworthy?

Actually, what I said was that history is NOT verifiable through the “scientific process”. There is NO one around now who was around 150 years ago. So it can not be tested, it can not be verified. Secondly I’ve not made any comment that you should or should not believe the scriptures. Why do you keep returning to that issue, as if by my failure to make a positive point about “religous texts” is a positive point towards “scientific investigation?”

Things that were not documented, no. And technically, not even things that were documented. But what does this prove? Humans are not all-powerful—we cannot violate the laws of time and space—and no process can realize such evalution of history.

On top of that, I’d be hard-pressed to find any scientific issues that base themselves on discoveries made over 150 years ago. Things like evolution and the dinosaurs and whatnot, these are all things that we have come to learn about due to discoveries that were made in modern times—discoveries of dinosaur skeletons, knowledge of radiation and carbon-dating to determine the approximate age of an object.

Your argument against reason (aside from citing packaged philosophers’ quotes) seems to be that it can’t show us everything right now. I don’t really see how that’s enough of a reason for me to disbelieve in reason when discoveries are happening every day; there is progress in nearly every scientific field almost every day. I don’t mean to be rude, but your arguments here are hardly convincing enough for me to simply abandon reason the progress that humans have made as a result of reason, technologically or otherwise.

As you have enjoyed pointing out there are millions of possibilities about what may or may not be true. Asking me about a position I may or may not hold is not sufficient to “believe” in the scientific process. The onus is on you to demonstrate why such specific belief in the empirical procgress is merited over the objections of the likes of Kant, Foucault, Derridea and Nietzche.

I don’t know if you read me correctly, but the Bible question was beside my point; I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything by asking it, or defend my own perception. I simply wanted to know how the Bible fits into your reasoning; if indeed you’re the same Mike who posted the following comment, I can only assume that you believe in the Bible over reason:

It has been interesting to have conversations with athiests, your site appears to have civil people open minded and willing to discuss the issue of faith. I believe it was a couple posts back some one said they tire of hearing christians give the same old lines… do you think christians might tire of hearing the same old lines from athiests? people can only browse so many athiest sites before they feel compelled to respond. Believe me believers have heard just about every “Argument” against God as you have heard “arguments” for God. there is nothing here being said that isn’t being said a hundred sites over. most arguments com from a few placed athiest: Dawkins, ect. now to be fair most christians take their arguments from a few placed christians: c.s. Lewis, blase pascal ect. the idea that your smarter than simple minded “believers” is arrogance and isn’t really that civil. As one of your bloggers pointed out most of you have had painful experiences with the church and the rejection is emotional. Christians however have had a different expirence and their attachment is equally emotional. I would challange you to be honest, you have rejected God because of the emotional baggage not because your smarter than those whom believe.

And this belief in the Bible over reason—given your arguments—presents a few logical inconsistencies on your part.

“Your argument against reason (aside from citing packaged philosophers’ quotes) seems to be that it can’t show us everything right now.”

No my question isn’t that it can’t show us everything right now. I am a patient person. I believe most of these people (neitache, foucault Kant) were patient people the question I am bringing up is not whether science will give us the “truth” but that is it even capable of giving us the “objective truth”?

This statement in particular bothers me:

“On top of that, I’d be hard-pressed to find any scientific issues that base themselves on discoveries made over 150 years ago. Things like evolution and the dinosaurs and whatnot, these are all things that we have come to learn about due to discoveries that were made in modern times”

Are you saying that unless something was “discovered” less than 150 years ago it is unreliable? Or does that mean it is untrue?

Tim wrote: “Yes, the dog has employed logic.”

Logic according to Dictionary.com: “the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.”

“The dog see’s the milkbone the dog wants the milk bone the dog takes the milk bone.” Has the dog used any principles or even rationalized anything in it’s head? A decision making process is NOT logic.

I see a woman I want to have sex with the woman I have sex with the woman. Have I employed logic? No, because I didn’t ask any questions about wether I should or should not act in the manner I did. I haven’t used ANY principles to know if I have made a “reliable” inference or not. In short I have not employed LOGIC. I may have followed my instincts I may have made a decision but the LAST thing I have done is employ logic.
For example a dog see’s a yellow car. Is the car yellow or not Yes or no? The CONCEPT of True or False has to be understood in logic before you can employ it. You can’t teach a dog “Yes” or “no”. It’s an idea. You can teach him to nod his head or shake it but the concept of True or False is beyond his ability to comprehend.

So let’s follow your logic. If a decision making process is the same thing as logic and there are multiple ways to make decisions than there are multiple logic’s. Then the statement “that’s not logical” is innan because by definition to make ANY decision is to employ “logic”. That’s like saying “You chose the yellow car, that’s not a decision.” By choosing the car you’ve made a decision.

If that is true than your confidence in “logic” doesn’t seem very founded. You believe that logic and reason will lead us to the truth. But by logic you mean the process of making a decision (whether one considers arguments to be valid or not is irrelevant). So you’re confident that man kinds ability to make a decision will tell us the “Truth” about the universe? How does that work.

Tim, I belive you’re a smart person but your use of terms is extremely lax. There are very few people who would consider “logical” thinking to be the same as “making a decision”. A decision can be logical or it can be illogical but that’s a way of describing a TYPE of decision that is made. .

You most certainly are allowed to think that “logic” and “decision making process” are the same thing. However, this is how confusion occurs in conversations.

When you are talking about logic. I believe you are speaking about the proper method of determining if a thought process is valid or invalid. To you “logic” means the process every living thing employs to make decisions. When you or I write the word “logic” we are envisioning two different things. Now here we are we both speak english. We are both employing the computer to communicate and yet… we are not comunicating. (By the way a dog is not determining if the thought process of “take the bone” is valid or invalid, logical or illogical. It is acting on instinct and taking the bone.)

“Apologize if this has lead to any serious confusion”

I wish I could just blow this one off and say no big deal. I really do. Except it is a big deal. Your belief since the very beginning has been that through: “logic” and “reason” man kind can arrive at the “truth”. You have contended that “logic” is the basis of all creatures in making decisions. You have also contended that this requires NO training what-so-ever in the development of a human being. All creatures use and employ “logic” whenever they approach any topic. You have contended that “logic” is inherent in the universe and all things use it and employ it (and if I remember correctly you even had balls employing “logic”) Our discussion over the last couple of days has centered upon this. This was your argument for us relying upon “logic” to lead us.

Are you now changing your understanding of “logic” and are you shifting that definition over to “reason”?

So do you still contend that “logic” is THE source for determining the objective truth about all that is around us?

Now as to our misunderstanding
“Not at all; you commented that scientific points which were recorded 150+ years ago were not reliable (though the Bible seems exempt from this).”

I don’t believe I ever stated that the “bible” was exempt from anything. And I didn’t say that it’s unreliable. That is an inference based upon YOUR understanding of how I mean “empirically verifiable”. Just because something is not empirically verifiable it does NOT logically follow that anything prior to 150 years ago is therefor UNreliable.

The implication that we can only learn about the world through “science” (and I have to narrow that down to “empiricism” so I can function logically in this paragraph) implies that prior to empiricism our “knowledge” is “unreliable”. This is because history is completely unempirical. You CANNOT test any theories about Alexander the Great, the man is dead and gone. You can’t even test any theories about Henry the VII Nothing is repeatable or therefore redemonstratable. What you have to do is employ the MINDSET of a scientist and approach the topic with dispassionate resolve.

But as I pointed out earlier our mindset plays a pivotal roll in how we determine what is “true” and what is “false”.

How I feel about the “bible” is this: From a historical standpoint it should be held to the same level of scrutiny that any other historial event or lit. is held too. I believe that is “fair” scrutiny.

Tim wrote: “all of the things we now recognize as true are things that we can see (I use “see” metaphorically here to mean “observe and understand”)”

Here you use the words pretty good. Observe and understand you have coupled with the word “seeing” this is EXACTALLY how the priest was using the word “seeing” in his conversation with you that you posted earlier. To “see” is to observe and not only observe but put the information into a useful coherent “pattern”.

For example: imagine a person from Africa watching two kids play a video game. The information would be too much. What’s important? The black box? The X box underneith it? The sticks they push with their thumbs? The yelling? The inchoerent colors on the screen flashing and moving quickly? None of the information would make any sense to him. It would be incoherent and nonsense, because he wouldn’t understand or know what he was “seeing”. Science is like a friend who sits down beside the African and points out the colors on the screen. He helps the child “see” the car and he would help the child “see” how it reacted with the joysticks. In that way science acts like a guide “painting” a picture prior to understanding the game. In this way before the kid could play the game he would need to “see” in order to “know”.

In that way the mentality of “science” or materialism takes the random pictures and incoherent activities and puts them into a coherent pattern so the “seer” can actually “see” what is happening.

This pattern or “vision” is frequently called a paradigm. It is this paradigm that Kant places squarely ontop of “rationalism” and hence “science”.

Reading back on my earlier comments as a whole, I realize that I may have become a little too forward with my proclamations….forgive me for this, and allow me to compensate by backing up just a little bit.

First off; the reason logic, reason and science—in tandem—are the most “sensible” or “obvious” solutions to the questions of why things happen in the physical world is just as obvious to the casual onlooker: Because it can be seen, because it can be examined and interfaced with. Compare this to God, which cannot be detected at all, seen, or otherwise interacted with.

Now, I understand your point about having to trust in something; however, in order for any thought process to function, it must begin with trust in something; whether that trust is placed in one’s own impulses, one’s own desires, or something else is not relevant so much as the fact that trust must be placed in some outside (and by “outside” I mean “beyond one’s own control”) factor in order for movement—both metaphorical and physical—can take place. If one were to refuse to take any sort of action or direction simply because “we can’t be sure if such-and-such is trustworthy” (which is true of anything, ultimately, if we take it apart and decompose it to the most basic, fundamental logical state), then actions would not take place—humanity would never advance in any direction, positive or negative.

This would seem to open up religious thought and science, logic and reason (i.e. belief in things which can be observed) as equal alternatives; however, I disagree. Logic, reason and science should serve as a default position for any person, religious or not, simply because these things are common between every person and every force in the universe—to bring up the desk again, one can believe with all one’s heart that one is capable of passing through the desk’s physical matter composition, but that will not change the fact that one is not capable of such a feat. Physical reality is “consistent,” whether or not it is “objectively real” by your definition. Religion, on the other hand, is by its very nature subject to interpretation and basically “inconsistent.” There is no set “right” interpretation of the Bible’s many stories.

But this does not rule out religious thought altogether; not at all. It is a common (thought not necessary or all-encompassing by any means) life strategy to center oneself around an idol, be it due to moral capacity, a particular talent, or something else. Some choose to center their lives around Jesus (both to positive and negative results which vary greatly from individual to individual, due to the overall inconsistencies in the different interpretations of the Christian Bible); others may choose to center their lives around a favorite singer, or writer, or fictional television show- or storybook-character. I don’t think you’ll find much argument with regard to this. However….danger is posed when a person’s dependence on this foreign source of influence moreso than that which can be seen and observed directly. I believe (and yes, I’m stepping out on a limb here and incorporating my own philosophy) that it can be productive if one uses one’s influence to further the course of the consistent world—for example, if a person is able to improve his/her daily life and work more efficiently because of a particular source of influence, then that will improve the quality of that person’s work and make it better than it could have been on its own. There is a danger that is posed when a person chooses to hold one’s own personal philosophy (which is subject to interpretation and personal variation) in higher regard than consistent reality (which is not). For this reason, I don’t hold it against religious folks for believing the way they do; for reasons we’ve already discussed, God’s existence (in any form) is ultimately moot, since it can never be proven through any known means (though there are several fair arguments against the existence of any particular religious deity, in my opinion).

But back to physical reality….an example of a productive influence in my book. Think of science in relation to physically consistent “reality” as being similar to the way a doctor attempts to diagnose a patient. The “tests” scientists conduct are not done on a random impulse; they are done in response to a question that needs an answer. Without a posed question, there is no field in which to give the test a concrete purpose. Just as a doctor does not randomly test the patient for things that are not apparently affecting him/her; a doctor will measure the symptoms of a patient and use those symptoms to deduce what is wrong with the patient. A(n effective) doctor will not allow his/her own personal philosophy with regard to God’s interference in physical reality to interfere with his/her judgement of the situation; for example, he/she will not tell the patient to go home and repent because God is punishing him/her for some misdeed or another, even if he/she believes that is the case. A doctor knows that there is some physical cause for the symptoms—symptoms don’t simply take place, they happen for a reason, like all of physical reality (that is an identifying property of consistent physical reality).

Now….if we think of “effects” that things in physical reality have on one another, we can relate these to medical “symptoms.” For example, global warming—an issue almost everyone can relate to in some way. We know that the atmospheric temperature in certain measured areas is rising very, very slightly over long periods of time—this can be observed in scientific studies conducted in various locations across the world. But to assume without further observation that humans are causing this decrease (or even capable of causing it) would be faulty, much like your thief analogy (and my Parsely analogy); it does not follow through logically to assume that two aspects are causically related simply because they are shared. So what we have is this:

Symptom: Increasing temperature
Probable Cause: ????

We first developed theories as to what could be causing it; through conducting experiments that attempted to reproduce atmospheric conditions in certain environments (which, furthermore, consisted of a series of many smaller experiments which attempt to record precise, accurate and consistent depictions of said atmospheric conditions), we determined that it was almost certain that humans had some effect on this climate alteration. The question then was, to what degree? Among both conservative and liberal scientific communities, there is not much of a debate among whether or not the earth is warming, and to a lesser degree, on whether or not humans are affecting the climate. The debate seems to be centered around the urgency of the issue; some think it is a natural result of our interaction with the environment, others believe it is something that will eventually lead to natural disaster. The danger comes from neither of these sides—as debate is key in a healthy society, in order for the people to experience all of the evidence for each viewpoint—but from those who use faulty reasoning to enforce their decision. In one of Hemant’s postings on the date of this comment, he mentions Rush Limbaugh’s comments on global warming being “liberal propaganda,” citing the argument that man cannot destroy what God has created, so it’s not a problem. The reason this is wrong is because it favors one’s own personal interpretation over what has been suggested as a possibility by consistent physical reality. People like him believe that this debate shouldn’t exist—and that all who disagree with him are incorrect and need to be silenced—because of this mindset. We know for a fact that the atmospheric temperature is rising slightly; we know that there are well-founded studies which suggest that humans’ carbon emissions are responsible for this. We are simply torn over whether or not it will lead to global catastrophe in 100 years, or whether it is minimal enough to ignore.

But I digress….all that aside, we have a symptom and a probably cause:

Symptom: Increasing temperature
Probable Cause: Carbon contributing to the atmosphere, which reacts with materials present in the atmosphere and creates holes in the atmospheric layers.

Much of science operates like this; person sees a strange, seemingly disembodied effect (symptom). One desires to know the cause (disease) of this effect; one attempts to recreate the situation and study all of the factors involved (biopsy); one draws a logical conclusion (diagnosis), based on the conditions suggested by the results brought about by testing the factors. While science is not perfect—if there are unknown factors which are not observable without some further degree of technology, then the results might not be accurate—it is 100% accurate with regard to known factors. For this reason, if a person interprets the results correctly (i.e. one is generally aware of the fact that a glass of water’s inability to survive rough contact with a paved surface is not the cause of a bird’s ability to fly, because there is no connection between the two) and yet the results are still either inconclusive or inconsistent, then the only remaining physical possibility is that there are factors which have not been considered. This is how we are able to detect whether or not we know if something is physically consistent (or “real”): if there is even a single loose end somewhere, then the equation is not complete because not every factor is accounted for, and so the cycle of experimentation repeats itself.

On a closing note (I am very tired, as I’ve been working), I want to say that, while I don’t agree with religious decisions, I don’t see them as “anti-logical” or “anti-scientific.” I believe people try to make them so by accepting illogical philosophical interpretations in place of physically consistent reality, but I don’t believe that religion is by its nature anti-progression so much as it simply tries to make leaps that cannot be scientifically enforced (the reason religion is surrounded by so much uncertainty on both sides is because there is no way to prove it one way or the other—if it could, then there would not be any debate about it.). Rather, I choose to see logic, science and reason as the foundation for other belief systems; I don’t see any harm in choosing to believe in anything, as long as logic and reason are at the foundation, and as long as those things don’t come in conflict with physically consistent reality. Physical reality is not simply a suggestion, it exists; it would not exist without reason. If we are not to trust in its existence (and in the ability of our senses to detect it), then why does it exist? With respect to that, I only think that religion is harmful when people allow themselves to believe that (A) physical reality is an illusion wherever it comes into conflict with religion, and (B) a religious person, for some reason, has the right to enact physical or emotional harm upon another person or that person’s property in the name of promulgating one’s own faith.

tim wrote:” Reading back on my earlier comments as a whole, I realize that I may have become a little too forward with my proclamations….forgive me for this, and allow me to compensate by backing up just a little bit.”

What are you retracting? your immediate post or many of the posts that have come before?

Tim wrote:”First off; the reason logic, reason and science—in tandem—are the most “sensible” or “obvious” solutions to the questions of why things happen in the physical world is just as obvious to the casual onlooker:”

some times I feel like I am saying the same things over and over again… It’s kind of like the twilight zone . Obvious to whom? Sensible to whom?

You retracted once again on what you mean by “reason” and “logic”. Part of our problem here tim is how your using these terms. What do you mean by “logic”? What do you mean by “reason” and what do you mean by “science”? I think you are assuming once again that I am thinking what you are thinking. But as I pointed out before… you thought that dogs employ logic. When you write the word “logic” for me I envision the method of determining wether an assertion is valid or invalid using rules of logical inference. When you wrote it you envisioned “a decision making process”. We are going to struggle in our communication until we can come together in agreement upon these terms.

I want to affirm that I do not side with rush limbaugh on this issue so don’t think this is about global warming. You wrote:

“Symptom: Increasing temperature
Probable Cause: Carbon contributing to the atmosphere, which reacts with materials present in the atmosphere and creates holes in the atmospheric layers.”

This is a logical inference true. However what HAS NOT been proven is that this temperature situation isn’t a cycle. We have only been keeping track of temperatures about 120 to 150 years. How do we know if the earth isn’t on some kind of wierd cycle where the temperature over a very long time raises and lowers? Since we have only been keeping track for 150 year or so there is no way to tell. I would say yes it is possible that our carbon emmisions have caused this problem. However, volcaones have been errupting for millions of years dumping more CO2 into our atomsphere than we ever thought of dumping. How has volcano erruptions affected CO2 input verse man made emmisions?

Now, I will say it is entirely possible that we are to blame. It is not illogical to believe that we have caused this environmental crisis. However, while it may be logical to place blame upon ourselves LOGICALLY it MAY be something else that we have yet to identify. This is where I believe we are having problems. Just because we have been presented with a logical theorium it does not follow that the theory is actually true. For example

I see a boy throwing a ball.
I go upstairs and come back down and my window is broken
Is it logical to assume the boy broke my window?
Yes. It is logical but it does not follow that it is true.
The best we can say without further information is the boy might have broken the window. Which is not the same as saying the boy broke the window.
What does all this have to do with anything?

Proclaiming that something is logical does not mean it is truthful.

tim wrote: “This is how we are able to detect whether or not we know if something is physically consistent (or “real”)”

Once again you have assumed to know what is real. If we are trying to determine what is “real” we do not begin by defining that which we are trying to determine.
Question: Is physcial reality all there is?
A: Yes
Q: How do we know?
A: Empiricism(science) denies us the ability to test anything not physcially there.
Q: Doesn’t that imply that our method of inquiry may be limited?
A: No, because we know that physical reality is all there is.
Q: How do we know that?
A: Because! Empiricism denies us the ability to test anything not physically there.

If I were to sum up the last 30 days of interaction it would look something very similar to this. Much of our interation has centered upon this… This by the way is Kants point. A metaphysical position is ASSUMED inorder to build up a perspective that allows “reason” to function.

You have begun this discussion with the assumption that physical reality is all that there is and that “science” tells us exactally what we “know” about this reality.

I have to confess I kind of set you up with my television illustration. Yes, science is like the friend who sits down beside the lost african boy and “illustrates” the video game. However, the illustration ASSUMES the other boy is in a superior position to the african. To have a consistant illustration neither boy should be able to “understand” the game perfectly. In my illustration the other boy is like GOD he know’s what the game is about he knows the rules and how they all interact perfectly. But, and Kant makes this point very well, there is no one who approaches the game with a “blank” mind capable of viewing the “images” and “actions” with “impartial, neutral objectivity”. Such a person would be GOD like- perfect in all knowledge and in all ability. So in short there is no other boy who in God like perfection paints “objective reality” so we can understand it as it really is.

Every once in a while a new boy sits down beside us and he revolutionizes the way we view and understand the “game”.

Thomas Kuhn’s work points out that our Knowledge is truely “incoherent”. Inother words if we truely operated only on what we “know” reality would be incoherent. How does Justice fit in with Islam? How does death fit in with the Indy 500? Facts NEVER speak for themselves, they require interpretation.

Try this with me. Get a book out that has the classic “evolution” picture. You know the ones with all the creatures in a sort of time line. Cut them all out and lay them on the floor in a incoherent haphazzard manner. Then try and put them back together. Your mind will remember that time line and force the “facts” of the “short necked” four legged creature and the “horse”it is related to together. This isn’t your fault. I would do the same thing because through education and training we are trained to view extinct animal through the lense of how they progress towards modern animals. That’s how we have been trained to think. that is the power of training.

Once again you have assumed to know what is real. If we are trying to determine what is “real” we do not begin by defining that which we are trying to determine.
Question: Is physcial reality all there is?
A: Yes
Q: How do we know?
A: Empiricism(science) denies us the ability to test anything not physcially there.
Q: Doesn’t that imply that our method of inquiry may be limited?
A: No, because we know that physical reality is all there is.
Q: How do we know that?
A: Because! Empiricism denies us the ability to test anything not physically there.

The point of my placing “real” in quotations was that, for the duration of my statement, I was placing the assumption that physical reality was all there is. I am not separately stating that this is true….

And I have not denied the possibility that there is more than the physical world….all I have denied is that there is a way to interact with what may or may not exist outside of the physical world. Human beings are physical beings, and are therefore restricted to the laws of the physical world. I will gladly reconsider my position if you can offer some non-empirical, rational (i.e. not assumptive) way of consistently observing this world which may or may not exist outside of our own.

All of which serves my other main point, which is that you are criticizing these thought processes for being unable to consistently do something that no other thought process is capable of doing consistently. If this is not true, then you should at least be able to prove me wrong.

P.S. One of the things that irritates me most about the creationist community (in general) is that, on the one hand, they lash out at scientific communities for reasons similar to yours here (minus the textbook references). But on the other hand, they see how mass amounts of people flock to empiricism for answers, and so they try to classify their own non-empirical claims as empirical. This seems very hypocritical to me.

Our fundamental problem at communication center upon your assumption that if there is another “reality” empiricism should be able to find it. By it’s own methodology it CANNOT find it.

No, my assumption was that, if there is another reality that can affect our own, empiricism will confirm its existence. And that, if another such reality exists but cannot affect us in any way, then it is ultimately inconsequential.

so I cannot give you what you’r asking for. I can say many people have had many experiences that are difficult to explain “empiricall” or “naturallisticaly”. I had friends involved in occultic practices come home and find their pots and pans swirling around their kitchen. They were heavily involved in occult practices and it scared them badly. They did become christians mainly because of that particular expirence.

I’m glad you brought this up, because the experience of having pots and pans swirling around one’s kitchen is empirically verifiable….and yet, for some reason, every single time such a claim has ever surfaced, it has always been in a situation in which the actual act was only observed by one person, and that person always seems to have been involved in the occult (or religion in general) anyway, creating a bias with interest to letting others know (for Christians, similar unvarifiable claims are often used as “evidence” that God exists, used to convert others, which creates a conflict of interest).

If such a thing ever happens and is empirically confirmed, I will gladly forfeit my current position on the matter (which is that such claims are basically “hooey”).

This will continue until YOU are confronted with something that shifts your perspective. Me pecking away on a computer… can’t do that. It requires an AH HA moment.

I’m glad you realize this; your ability to influence my beliefs in that which cannot be proved in some way is completely moot. Many people don’t seem to realize this about themselves.

Your statement here is also why I support people’s freedom to choose their own religious beliefs, as well as the idea that no religion is affirmably “right” in the grand scheme of things.

So why am I speaking with you? I’m hoping that while we are conversing you may have an AH HA moment and see what I am speaking about when it comes to how our perspective limits our ability to “know” objectively.

Aye….we have already discussed this, have we not? I am not arguing our ability to know “objectively” anymore. I am arguing the potential for the “great beyond” to influence us here on earth. My point still stands that, were something from “beyond physical reality” to influence us in any way, then we would be able to empirically confirm it; by the very nature of influence, something must change. This creates an alteration in the physical world; something that was one way is now another way. If this difference completely contradicts a fundamental physical truth (i.e. matter cannot be created or destroyed), then this is evidence that something from beyond the physical world has interacted with the physical world (since it cannot be something of physical origin, as all physical objects are bound by the fundamental laws of physics).

If there is no way to observe the change, then no such change has taken place….because we would be able to observe that something is different.

Tim that was a well put together post an quite coherent. I’m not interested in proving how anything can interact with the physical world. I’m interested in your philosophy and your world view and your ability to rationally communicate such view.

Tim wrote:”we have already discussed this, have we not? I am not arguing our ability to know “objectively” anymore. I am arguing the potential for the “great beyond” to influence us here on earth.”

You never really made it clear to me that you had conceded the point that we cannot objectively know about the world around us.

Timr wrote: “No, my assumption was that, if there is another reality that can affect our own, empiricism will confirm its effect on our world. And that, if another such reality exists but cannot affect us in any way, then it is ultimately inconsequential.”

I really don’t like to do this: But lets take tony dungy for example. Tony dungy won the super bowl and praised God for his teams win. It was his contention that God took them through the longer route to win the superbowl. Now Tony dungy has proclaimed that so it has had an affect upon our world. It is not the effect that you are looking for but it has affected our world. Dungy is a physcial being, empirically we have it on tape that he said it. Wether God is physically real or not there has been a documented effect upon our world because of this idea.

It’s would work the same with the pathagorium theorium.
A2+B2 = C2 There is no physical reality that equalls the pathagorium theory it just so happens to have an effect upon our world. It is an idea a theory that when you try it on triangles it just happens to work. But it’s not physically real… it’s a concept an idea. In the same way… God may not be real in the terms of physically real but it has affected our world in many many ways.

Like I said I don’t really like to do this because now we’ll quibble about my view instead of about what youre thinking but it’s only fair because I’ve been pecking you for a while…

P.S.

You never really made it clear to me that you had conceded the point that we cannot objectively know about the world around us.

September 23:

(2) I am not (unless otherwise stated) debating whether or not humans are capable of accessing “objective reality.” We are assuming that “objective reality” is beyond human perception, and therefore completely and 100% inaccessible to humans due to the fact that our only means of interaction with the world around us are our five senses, which (Mike Brown argues) are by their nature part of our perception, and therefore untrustworthy with regards to the study of “objective reality.”

In other words while you conceeded that objective reality was unknownable you also stated it was of “no consequence” so forgive me if I mistook your “concession” as a temporary concession for the sake of argument. You likewise went on to argue how animals use “logic” and reason. So if your concession on the 23rd was a real conession than the concession above is equally a “real” concession.

I am conceding that, according to the rationale you have offered here, no, it is not possible for us to know if we know things for sure. However, as it is my perogative to place trust in that which I can immediately experience (i.e. my five senses and whatnot), I believe that science, logic and reason are consistent enough to provide us with useful devices and methodoligies (though I acknowledge your point that they cannot test or observe things which may not play by the rules of physical reality, even though I doubt the existence of such things for reasons I’ve explained). But that is not the point; if I understand our points correctly, this discussion is not about changing what either of us believe so much as it is reaching a common-ground understanding (and, if possible, agreement) about certain things.

So I would question such a conession. Just because we cannot know “objectively” about the world around us, does it therefore deny us the abiltiy to know anything at all? Isn’t it possible that while we confess that we cannot know perfectly we do know somethings “imperfectly” albeit with our perspective tainting our conclusions? Isn’t that possible?

Well, by your own statement….if “objective reality” is separated from us by our perceptions, then it is technically impossible to know if what we know is objective. So we can understand that which is physical, and we can know it, understand it and observe it….but since we are by our nature limited to the physical world, we can never truly understand anything that does not interact with such a world in some way or another.

What an amazing claim. You don’t know these people… you don’t know me, You don’t know the situation yet you have assumed that this situation is “just like every other time.” You have presumed to know about a situation that you don’t know all the fact. How can you do this? THAT is what I mean by approaching a topic with a set of assumptions. You have approached the evidence with a bias that has influenced your decision. Before you even knew the situation you assumed certain things about it.

I do know that there is no hard proof of such incidents. If there were, then it would be documented (as “hard proof” is that which can either reproduce the original incident or prove that it took place), and these sorts of things would be accepted scientific facts. Just like with God—people say that there’s proof one way or the other, but if there was, then the debate itself wouldn’t exist on such a massive scale.

What does that have to do anything? Just because it was observed by only one person it does not automatically follow that it is unrealiable. There are many many things that have happened where