Jpappl
”
So I ask you to repeat this. Is it a requirement to read the texts in order to believe in god ?
Any sort of belief has no sort of prerequisite.
If you're talking about a more solid standing of knowledge being a belief in an individual's experience of a phenomena, then there lies obvious advantages in the belief of texts (or the belief that a text can offer a clue or means how to verify the claim) .
One could just as easily ask does does belief in claims of physics require one reads texts. Technically you could answer no, but then you observe that the training and professional practice of it certainly requires quite a lot of it.
I mean how many people posting here (or even scientists in general) have measured the rest mass of a proton or carbon dated a fossil, yet launch into arguments that require theses issues as premises?
I'm not sure you understand.
Both parties are making the claim that they have the means to contextualize the claims of the other due to the strength of their validity.
How do you propose to resolve such a conflict?
”
I understand. What is missed here is that the information is not comparable. One can be tested and evidence provided. The other can not and never will be able to.
So even for that which is not fully understood yet, there will come a time that it is either proven or dis-proven by the scientific process.
two points
1 - If there are issues of application that surround a claim, it is testable.
2 - A post dated rain cheque can perhaps work in a bookie joint but not within a knowledge based claim ... particularly empiricism
With religion, you never have an end and no beginning is needed, just faith.
For as long as one remains divorced from issues of application, yes.
However what there is no end to is the claim "everything can eventually be proven or dis-proven by empiricism" since its very language is metonymic
“
“
My question is whether there is the possibility of embarking on the understanding of a subject without some issue of faith. (sure, once one follows through with application, they have recourse to a different grade of knowledge than those who accept or reject it on faith)
”
Right and there is, just look at mathematics. It becomes clear whether you believe in it or not, that 2 + 2 = 4. ”
Mathematics is a system of pure rationalism so its not really conducive to the topic at hand
”
Well pick another then. The bottom line is there are many instances in learning about many subjects where faith or belief is not required.
You asked the question and I provided an example.
sure but it wasn't an appropriate example
2+2=4 is not an issue of belief since its a pure logical construct
2 electrons + 2 electrons = 4 electrons is also a logical construct. It runs into the traditional practical challenges of knowledge when you want to evidence it however
“
As already mentioned, even the ideas of universal creation and annihilation are contradicted by the scientific disciplines they appear in. You just have to examine the plethora of theories that have sprung up and fallen by the way side over the past 70 years (although I will concede that certain religious texts, due to the text critical issues that surround them, are not reliable in this regard - IOW consulting the bible to troubleshoot your computer is just as fruitful as consulting physics for a moral outlook for life)
”
And we will continue to come up with theories that are later proven wrong or adjusted, that's the beauty of science. We keep searching for the truth, whatever that is and where ever that leads us.
Its not so much the beauty of science but the practical limitations of knowledge relegated to metonymic observations. As already mentioned previously, this works perfectly well in the relative world. Its perfectly lousy however for using as as a departure point for making ontological claims (such as "there will come a time when everything we don't know will be known by this process")
The difference being that they are contradictions and become corrections to the original idea. No reason or incentive to hide behind the lie, except for the human factor which does affect scientists of course.
never encountered a type I or type II error in science?
Or more to the point
Empiricists advocate that perception is most accurate when the influence of the mind on the senses is kept to a minimum. One should carefully observe and not permit preconceived ideas to interfere with objectivity. Ridiculing this notion in Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper tells of a lecture he gave in which he asked his students to carefully observe, then write down what they observe. The students naturally wanted to know what they should observe. In other words, they asked for an idea to guide their observation. The idea, in turn, has to be fixed to a perception: Watch what I do, or Watch what happens in the window. Even the empirical truth that reality is limited to what our senses can perceive is really just an idea fixed to perception.
-Substance and shadow, R. Crowley
“
There is no need to believe in it, just accept it's truth and or accept the evidence that dis-proves it. Whatever that is. ”
similarly one could argue that a person vouching for what they perceive is disproving it is simply labouring under a poor wealth of knowledge.
”
Examples please. ”
heliocentrism is not in vogue despite having quite a few strong scientific advocates several centuries ago
”
Yes, but guess what, we moved on. That's the point, to move with the truth.
Or more correctly, what was thought to be the truth was changed as new information came afoot. Hence its folly to forget that a truth shaped by metonymic language will always continue in that fashion (that's why there are many in the field of scientific philosophy who shy away from the use of "truth" in its strict sense - for instance, just imagine what a spanner it would throw in the system if it was discovered that the speed of light is not a constant). Perhaps you have an argument if you have a scientific claim that is backed up by a host of doable practices. As far as the nature of consciousness and the origin of the universe, these claims stand quite distinct from say metal smelting
So in that case, what was perceived as dis-proving it was valid.
So do you have an example where current scientific knowledge has been proven wrong by the religious texts ? Since we are operating under such a poor wealth of knowledge.
The point is that empiricism doesn't have the hardware to disprove the greater claims of theism, much like a tape measure isn't the best choice of tool to disprove the findings of a thermometer.
If you want to talk about a scientific theory about life or universal creation disproving a theistic claim, its not really valid since such claims have an absence of any doable practices that surround them. In fact, in most cases, you simply have to wait around for about 20 years to observe such theories being defeated by the very disciplines they appear in.
“
“ If you have 30 great students studying a bunch of nonsense, they will not have gained any knowledge no matter how hard they study. ”
If you have 30 students applying themselves in a nonsensical manner, the result is identical
”
ok, but if you have one applying themselves and the information is valid, then he/she will gain knowledge.
if the information is invalid, then nobody will gain knowledge.
Sure
hence you have the potential for error at the position of theory.
My point however is that you also have the potential for error at the point of application .... and also that the best method to test for error at the theory stage is to move onto the application stage.
(but it doesn't end there, since one can also make errors at the stage of conclusion ... or by reading the information incorrectly ... hence coming the full circle to an error at the stage in conclusion takes one back to theory and the cycle of knowledge continues - that is at least how ascending knowledge, or knowledge that works with the individual at the top of the pyramid)
“
“ A bad student with good information available will at least learn something of value, even if they didn't fully apply themselves. ”
sure
Its not uncommon to encounter an atheist who quotes a few scriptural passages to back up their claim
”
LOL, but a negative I am sure.
that's just because they didn't fully apply themselves
Hence if you read my posts carefully, you see I argue more to the point that one cannot evidence a claim to an individual who messes up at the point of application
”
But you said we don't need to read the texts to believe. So how can we mess up ?
I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say
So who do you distrust or have a bigger issue with. Those who are atheist and don't read your texts, or those who believe and don't read your texts.
Kind of like asking whether you have a greater problem with persons who challenge science and don't read about it, or people who support it and don't read about it.
:shrug:
“
“ I realize that doesn't change your belief, but you can't offer clear evidence for the belief to offer a justification for me to believe. ”
What I can't offer is a means to evidence the claim via the methodology you insist on using. This says nothing about the claim, but many things about your attitude to the subject.
”
What does my attitude on the subject have to do with anything.
Because you are redefining the epistemology to suit a bias
I am not asking for you to produce god, you said you could prove it. I didn't offer any suggestions on what that proof needs to be, but I know you know what the word means.
So you tell me what method you prefer.
A practical example might be a discussion on the method one would use to directly perceive the president. In one sense, he is simply a person behind a door, so all you really need to do is walk in to his office. Since however they are greater than yourself, it would be more practical to cultivate a shared interest with them.
One also uses a similar method of submission when applying for an elite position in a corporation of institution. If you go there with the attitude "if you're so great I will give you the opportunity to prove it to me in the next half an hour" they won't be calling you back for the second intake.
“
“ So the failure, getting back to the student and the information, is the information and not the student. ”
Basically there are three points where a student can mess up - theory, application and conclusion. If they can't even theoretically get it right as to what direction the means of application lies, the buck stops right there.
”
Ok, so if a person wants to study bigfoot, the information (evidence and details about bigfoot ) is not as important as hard they study it.
IOW, if the apply themselves enough, bigfoot will be real.
well yeah ... I guess that's what the bigfoot claim needs, a means of application. Don't you?
“
“
“ "I believe in bigfoot, if only you would study it you would realize it's real" ”
a meaningless statement unless there are pending issues of application to back it up.
”
What do you mean ? please re-phrase ”
If there isn't a means of application, there isn't a strong case for realization. IOW just as the strength of application rests on the back of theory, the strength of conclusion rests on the back of application
Its difficult to find what are the normative descriptions surrounding the claim that big foot exists
”
It doesn't matter, if it doesn't exist, there will be no good information.
hence "absence of normative descriptions for practitioners" = "no good information"
“
My point is that your not having recourse to the means to apply yourself , and thus rendering the question of god unable to be proved or disproved, is much like the status of any person who lies outside the professional arena of any discipline of knowledge.
”
Ok, thanks. The difference being that there are those who are experts in professional fields that can provide evidence for their claims. Over and over again.
The same can't be said about the claim of god's existence, no matter the perceived expertness.
why not?
After all, I could play the part of an antagonist and label all physicists as egg heads and all their work as a pile of crap. Of course it probably wouldn't impress the professionals in the field, but that alone doesn't dislodge me from my ignorance.
“
Its the nature of empiricism taking the lag of rationalism.
For instance there is tons of work to be done in understanding the origins of the universe and not so much in determining the boiling point of water.
btw change is also there in theistic disciplines. It just moves more slowly instead since it operates through the language of social values of communities
”
But there is no change to the claims of origin.
there is also no change to the claims of origin for empiricism either (namely the senses). I don't think this necessarily makes it weaker (although it does help one determine in which circumstances it is less practical to use it than others)
This is why I don't respect religions. I do have respect for individuals belief in god or gods. I do understand that there is some value in the texts.
But it makes no sense to put my faith in a particular belief when the information supporting that particular belief is so freaking wrong it's laughable.
Given the fallibility of the senses, its metonymic language and the cheating propensity of the marginalized living entity, there is also a means to determine it as similarly laughable.
So, in short there is more evidence in the texts to not believe, if that is the cornerstone for the belief itself.
You could belittle all those texts about the ocean on the authority of observations of one's bathroom basin. Whales? Giant squid? Plankton? And to think that it doesn't have a plug? Just look at how my bathroom basin effectively disproves the claims of oceanographers!
