How Do Theists Separate Fact from Fiction?

[swarm]

That's what they said about meditation.

No, meditation requires doing it and it produces results which are measurable.

Just imagining god doesn't.

 

[lightgigantic]

Be specific please.

well, you feel no need to investigate the nature of being free from anger, fear and attachment (given as normative descriptions) because you feel that you already are.

If he's a good surgeon, what do I care?

That a surgeon requires to see what they're cutting open, perhaps.

Oh, no. That sort of illumination is quite sudden. Learning can be gradual or immediate, thats part of the fun.

Nevertheless you see most courses require several semesters as opposed to a mere moment.

Actually he's a philosopher and is it really surprising that a philosopher is interested in normatives? It is endlessly amusing to see theists think they have a monopoly on morality.

Just thought it might help you not be so alienated by the term "normative" when its referenced in a standard analysis of scientific practices

Much like your ability to keep calling Putnam a scientist? You are oh, so spot on for everything.

Seriously?
You can't see any connection between Putnmam and science, or are you just being anal?

I'm out to give you a chance to make good on your claims. I'd like to think you have a shred of personal integrity. Please stop disappointing me.

Anyone with a shred of intelligence can understand that this is merely a charade.
You have no intention of applying yourself.

Oh, for the record I don't consider myself an atheist or a theist. I'm interesting in what is true. If you can make your case instead of pussyfooting around then I'd be quite satisfied with whatever the outcome is.

and lo and behold, your models for discerning truth (particularly the truth of the claim of god) lie smack bang in the middle of atheism
:shrug:

Nouns do not explain anything. Nouns are the object about which explanations are directed toward. Nouns are the what, not the how - to use your words. Look its obvious you don't understand any of this and aren't interested in learning and it isn't really relevant. Let's get back to the actual details.

so you don't think the noun "scientist" brings with it a host of details on what a scientist ought to be or do in order to make the word meaningful?
(at the very least, your getting antsy about Putnam tends to indicate otherwise)

Shape? You and your weasel words. Normative descriptions are expressions of the community standards and that can impact the researcher's ability to function within the community.

You can't comprehend that community standards (often) reflect the prerequisites of the task to be performed. For instance is the requirement of eye sight for a surgeon simply a social construct or a dependent criteria for the task of performing surgery?

You should at the very least read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

at the very least, you should read the links you reference.

Many modern naturalistic philosophers see no impenetrable barrier in deriving "ought" from "is" believing an "ought" can derive from an "is" whenever we analyze goal-directed behavior, and a statement of the form "In order for A to achieve goal B, A ought to do C" exhibits no category error and may be factually verified or refuted.

You seem to be conflating goal directed behavior with moralistic prognostications.

You seem to be unable to reconcile the requirements for achieving theistic goals (namely that the very tool that one uses for the task, is the self, or consciousness itself, as opposed to the senses, which are secondary corollaries of the self)

Be specific.

I am.

I even gave hint

Try this example.

"Being capable of walking up a flight of stairs, people can enter the roof"

Can you rack your brain to determine what capacity a person requires to go to the roof?

If so, go back to BG 4.10 and tell me what you find.

So you were conflating the two. Good grief you are obtuse. Yes I know about goal directed language. It is imprecise, but convenient from an ordinary speech perspective.

So you want to discuss application without goal directed language?

I expect you to continue your campaign of obfuscation because you are immoral and empty handed.

One can only go as far as one's values permit ... which in your case is not very far in uncoding any theistic claim.

But set you heart at ease, I've been familiar with goal directed language for about 40+ years now. It is amazing that you've only just discovered it and so wonder if others were as in the dark as you were. But the rest of the world gets access to it pretty early in life.

It must seem pretty amazing to you.

sheesh
40 years experience and you still can't decipher the relationship between theory, application and conclusion.