We are just discussing perception at the moment - if you want to discuss function and effect we could switch to "does a child understand the functional processes of a polio vaccination"
Limbo
- Thread starter alexb123
- Start date
We are just discussing perception at the moment - if you want to discuss function and effect we could switch to "does a child understand the functional processes of a polio vaccination"
Coward. The point is that while a child (or anyone without a telescope) cannot see a moon of saturn, he can wonder if that light in the sky called saturn has a moon. He can then grow up and use a telescope to see if it does or not.
Without telescopes, the idea of moons around little lights in the sky is as tenuous as the god idea. Why even postulate such a thing? If there was an effect like the light (saturn) blinking on and off regularly you might postulate something periodically blocking it. Maybe a big moon. Then you could develop tools to help with the investigation.
What unexplainable phenomena do you postulate and attribute to a god simply because you have no currently better explanation?
Thunder? Lightning? Storms? Swarms of locusts? Earthquakes? Solar eclipses? Drought? Floods? Comets? Planets? Disease (mental or physica)? Meteors?
All at one time attributed to god, some even into the 21st century. I could go on, but hopefully you see the point.
What is evidence for some is not evidence for all.
That's the second time I've said that. It was ignored the first time.
That's the second time I've said that. It was ignored the first time.
What I am saying is that we simply don't know how or why (if there is a why) the universe came into existence. This means that religion is all false from the start since god (if one exists) is completely unknowable. I rule out a sentient creator because I think it is both unlikely and at the same time too obvious. I know that is a contradiction, but I used the word 'obvious' on purpose. Obvious is always our first assumption, and closer inspection usually gives us a completely different view, as science has constantly showed us in history. Evolution is a good example of what I mean, although I should have used a less emotive (for a theist) example such as gravity.
Evidence is evidence. It's the interpretation of the evidence that's important.
A tree is evidence of something. For some, it's evidence for the intricate biological formation of structure. For others, it's evidence of god.
All I ask is what explanation has more support from all areas of human investigation (physics, biology, genetics) and more explanatory and predictive power.
Simple.
Then the only disagreement I see here is in where we assign interpretive authority when examining evidence. You're right, of course, in that scientific thought has more predictive power. It's useful because it's simple. I like simplicity.
All I'm saying is that, ultimately speaking, every person's interpretation of evidence is equal in terms of truthfulness. Some models work better than others at teaching you how to do stuff, but they are all models nonetheless. Hence, one position is not more true than another. It can only be more useful. We are in agreement on which is the more useful idea.
For me, though, an idea of less use does not make it less interesting or compelling.
Maybe not less interesting, but why not less compelling? The idea of a universal creator is very interesting as a model, but is about as compelling as the idea of eating an african dung beetle.
I just find such a blatant disregard for the models that do work in favor of the interesting but useless ones to be disturbing.
Well, I think that's a rather crude comparison, but ok. I don't find it to be about as compelling as the idea of eating an african dung beetle. I like to discuss it in the same manner that I discuss great works of literature, and that's not just cocktail party-talk either. It has real implications for the way people live their lives.
Well, useless for predicting nature, but you can use it for other things. I mean, the Mona Lisa isn't very useful, is it? Religious ideas are beautiful, which is why they persist, and moreso they are obviously the result of inherent human tendencies, since it has happened everywhere without exception, and even non-religious people show religious tendencies.
I guess my point is that it's really just life as art. It doesn't seem to bother me because I don't think that there is any inherently proper way for people to live. A religiously focused life, to me, is as fruitful as a secularly focused life.
like for instance a highschool drop out who considers all professors eggheads and the books they write full of crap could not be expected to determine much about an electron by wielding his flashlight
With this we can determine why Americans are loosing grip on education, a senior high school kid here has the equivalent education as a fith grader in Japan. My sources? The American School Board Association. Education here sucks and people like these idiots making statements such as above are the direct result of lack of understanding directly do to "lack of education" I get the feeling that LG is the idiot highshcool dropout he keeps talking about!
With this we can determine why Americans are loosing grip on education, a senior high school kid here has the equivalent education as a fith grader in Japan. My sources? The American School Board Association. Education here sucks and people like these idiots making statements such as above are the direct result of lack of understanding directly do to "lack of education" I get the feeling that LG is the idiot highshcool dropout he keeps talking about!
Nah, I bet LG is mostly self-educated, having largely ignored public schooling because he probably doesn't have much respect for it. It seems obvious sometimes that he is misusing terminology, but his intentions and ideas are certainly in the intellectual sphere. Most people who speak in this area, whether they are correct or not, are usually people who have learned far more from their own studies than from public education. LG isn't stupid, I just think he's largely misguided.With this we can determine why Americans are loosing grip on education, a senior high school kid here has the equivalent education as a fith grader in Japan. My sources? The American School Board Association. Education here sucks and people like these idiots making statements such as above are the direct result of lack of understanding directly do to "lack of education" I get the feeling that LG is the idiot highshcool dropout he keeps talking about!
Oh yea, quite knocking High School dropouts. You're all offending baumgarten.
Jaster, I can offend any high school dropouts I feel like, specially since I'm one of them
LOLI'm mostly self educated as well, however there seems to be a minor difference in actually realizing our capacity to understand things, I guess a rational, logical mind does have a better prespective on things.
Most people have rational, logical minds. That doesn't mean they don't behave irrationally at times, or believe irrational things.
like for instance a highschool drop out who considers all professors eggheads and the books they write full of crap could not be expected to determine much about an electron by wielding his flashlight
With this we can determine why Americans are loosing grip on education, a senior high school kid here has the equivalent education as a fith grader in Japan. My sources? The American School Board Association. Education here sucks and people like these idiots making statements such as above are the direct result of lack of understanding directly do to "lack of education" I get the feeling that LG is the idiot highshcool dropout he keeps talking about!
Actually I am using it as an absurdism - if the term highschool drop out seems to rub people the wrong or not in line with the ASBA maybe we could just switch it to a japanese 5th grader or whatever - either way you haven't addressed how truths, even important and fundamental truths, can be invisible to people, particularly if they exhibit problems of attitude
I think they just are sometimes. I wrack my brain whenever someone doesn't seem to accept something patently obvious. And I don't mean abstract ideas like God or whatever, I mean stuff that you can go out and look at on a Saturday morning. I need to stop doing that.
superluminal
A further complication is whether you have the ability to gather the evidence in the first place
A further complication is whether you have the ability to gather the evidence in the first place
What are you saying? Truth is dependant on votes?
Usually I don't take the side of superluminal, but here goes...
Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.
No, he's asking which model is more useful.
The only way for your statement to be true would be if you are currently omniscient and could fathom what is eternally knowable and unknowable in all time places and circumstances - for instance if there is a god with omnipotent potencies, don't you think it would be possible for him to empower anyone with any level of knowledge? (Of course you being an atheist I am only asking you theoretically)
Jaster Mereel
you must be bored then
So why did einstein discover something that newton did not? Was it because he had a better sense of sight, touch or taste?
He's determining the relative success of such models by vox populi or hoi polloi
Yea, something like that. Also, I figured I should even up my talk so that I don't look like I'm on anyone's side.Jaster Mereel
you must be bored then
Simple. He had a moment of insight.
He's determining the relative success of such models by the usefulness of the fields in which they are used.
Jaster Meree
Rather than giving the illusional of impartiality you should just advoacte those things that you perceive as truthful - the world has a greater variety than you have magnanimity - you will just end up falling short by neglecting norweigien lesbian pro anti neo post modern fascists or something
So in other words perceiving evidence is more than just a sense gathering exercise
That doesn't appear to be what he is saying - he appeasr to be saying that empirical science ( which is currently lead by reductionists) is the most popular method therefore it is the best in all matters - if however he is saying something more in line with what you are suggesting, then I wouldn't disagree, since it would suggest that theistic truths are dependant on theistic processes to perceive them