Of stampcollectors and atheists

[lightgigantic]

I didn't bother to respond yet because Sarkus did such a very good job. However, it seems you still miss the point. My experience still cannot be evaluated by you. You can only point out that I have a fish head in my mouth and not a piece of mango. This doesn't invalidate my experience, only what I relate that experience to.

Now then, assuming I understand where you'd like this analogy to go, what fish head will you point to if I tell you my transcendent experiences differ from yours? What mango can you give me so I can share in your experience? And assuming you can give me a mango for me to taste, upon what grounds can we determine that the fish head experience is any more or less valuable, real, or true than the mango experience? More to the point, what if I take your mango and still don't like it?

~Raithere

quite simply, there are persons in said fields who's subjective experiences are given credibility by dint of their qualification.
In the case of mangoes, people who can successfully place it in their mouths tend to make up the authorities in the field.

To extrapolate further, if a doctor says that you have a tumor on your liver, you would tend to take such advice a little seriously even if you felt perfectly healthy. If you have no respect for the qualification of doctors, then life goes on anyway (although perhaps a bit more abruptly than one would anticipate).
Similarly, if one has no respect (or more realistically, no knowledge) of the qualification of theistic practitioners, then life goes on accordingly (namely going from one erroneous situation of misplaced values that result in anxiety due to transience, to another ...)

 

[greenberg]

For you to make the claim that it is God you are experiencing, however, and expect others to accept it, requires more.

Yes, it requires more from both parties.
You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.
Although Western atheists seem to be quite the victim type - thinking that if they will be lead to the water, they will also automatically drink, so they refuse to be dragged to the water in the first place.

 

[Raithere]

quite simply, there are persons in said fields who's subjective experiences are given credibility by dint of their qualification.
In the case of mangoes, people who can successfully place it in their mouths tend to make up the authorities in the field.


To extrapolate further, if a doctor says that you have a tumor on your liver, you would tend to take such advice a little seriously even if you felt perfectly healthy. If you have no respect for the qualification of doctors, then life goes on anyway (although perhaps a bit more abruptly than one would anticipate).

Yes, this is pretty much what I was expecting. And while I can accept giving some measure of trust to the opinion of an expert such as a doctor or a mechanic, this is because I understand the principles upon which their expertise is founded. Even so, I would find it foolish to go into surgery or have my engine rebuilt merely based upon the opinion of an expert without first examining the corroborating evidence or at least gathering a second expert opinion (such is even recommended by the medical establishment).

Similarly, if one has no respect (or more realistically, no knowledge) of the qualification of theistic practitioners, then life goes on accordingly (namely going from one erroneous situation of misplaced values that result in anxiety due to transience, to another ...)

Of course this is where we start running into problems. The primary of these being that there are wide discrepancies and disagreements between theistic practitioners and experts.

One god, many gods, animating life forces, dead ancestors, universality, saints, angels, devils, demons, djinn, nagas, spirits, dragons, avatars, … blood and sacrifice, offerings, meditation, inspiration, adherence to doctrine, inner wisdom, harmony, nonattachment, asceticism, self-flagellation, intercession… nirvana, heaven, hades, hell, dissolution, union, reincarnation… and that’s just the barest beginning of the contradictions.

Doctors and mechanics, in contrast, are largely in agreement. If one Doctor diagnoses me with a tumor chances are very good that any other Doctor will come up with the same diagnosis and will very often proscribe the same remedies.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is the obvious failure of religion to provide any sort of reliable outcome. In all its different guises it cannot provide any measure of consistency. Not even within the scope of any subset of any religion can it do so. The best they can provide is a vague commonality in the interpretation of purely subjective experiences. I can attain the same outcome merely by formulating a common terminology and methods of interpretation, provided I can get a group of people sufficiently invested in it. An interesting example is the transition of Angel and Demon sightings to UFO and Alien sightings. What was once commonly interpreted as a succubus attack or a visitation from an Angel is now often interpreted as a UFO abduction or Alien visitation.

I therefore question any theistic claim to authority or expertise. Religion is simply self-denying. It is the attempt to codify and institutionalize what remains a purely and intensely subjective experience.

If it helps, and in some measure of self-serving I wouldn’t mind seeing the thread resurrected, here is a more detailed thread regarding my opinion.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25532

~Raithere

 

[Myles]

It is an educated guess, an assumption - yes, but one with some merit.

Wherein lies the merit compared with that of any other assumption ?

 

[Myles]

Yes, it requires more from both parties.
You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.
Although Western atheists seem to be quite the victim type - thinking that if they will be lead to the water, they will also automatically drink, so they refuse to be dragged to the water in the first place.

It decidedly does not require more from both parties. Talk of horses and water is irrelevant.

If you can offer objective evidence you will get a fair hearing. Don't expect it if all you can do is talk of personal experience or quote from some book, just because you believe it contains wisdom.

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
quite simply, there are persons in said fields who's subjective experiences are given credibility by dint of their qualification.
In the case of mangoes, people who can successfully place it in their mouths tend to make up the authorities in the field.


To extrapolate further, if a doctor says that you have a tumor on your liver, you would tend to take such advice a little seriously even if you felt perfectly healthy. If you have no respect for the qualification of doctors, then life goes on anyway (although perhaps a bit more abruptly than one would anticipate).
”
Yes, this is pretty much what I was expecting. And while I can accept giving some measure of trust to the opinion of an expert such as a doctor or a mechanic, this is because I understand the principles upon which their expertise is founded.

yes - and misunderstood principles will probably see you as likely to take a step inside a GP's waiting room as an atheist is likely to stroll into a place of worship

Even so, I would find it foolish to go into surgery or have my engine rebuilt merely based upon the opinion of an expert without first examining the corroborating evidence or at least gathering a second expert opinion (such is even recommended by the medical establishment).

similarly there are multiple authorities within theistic discipline also

“
Similarly, if one has no respect (or more realistically, no knowledge) of the qualification of theistic practitioners, then life goes on accordingly (namely going from one erroneous situation of misplaced values that result in anxiety due to transience, to another ...)
”
Of course this is where we start running into problems. The primary of these being that there are wide discrepancies and disagreements between theistic practitioners and experts.

only from the pov of those persons who can't distinguish between primary and secondary principles .... or even principles that are inconsistent with the practice (ie "quacks")

One god, many gods, animating life forces, dead ancestors, universality, saints, angels, devils, demons, djinn, nagas, spirits, dragons, avatars, … blood and sacrifice, offerings, meditation, inspiration, adherence to doctrine, inner wisdom, harmony, nonattachment, asceticism, self-flagellation, intercession… nirvana, heaven, hades, hell, dissolution, union, reincarnation… and that’s just the barest beginning of the contradictions.

similarly a patient may be confounded by one doctor recommending acupuncture and massage, another surgery, another a needle, and another a tablet, etc etc

Doctors and mechanics, in contrast, are largely in agreement. If one Doctor diagnoses me with a tumor chances are very good that any other Doctor will come up with the same diagnosis and will very often proscribe the same remedies.

provided you can distinguish between primary and secondary principles (and not be confounded by the variety of medical practices) .... and also being knowledgeable to put aside such peddled wares as mineral tonic raccoon oil or something ... sure, you don't have a problem

Perhaps more importantly, however, is the obvious failure of religion to provide any sort of reliable outcome.

reliable outcome is contingent on reliable practice ... I wouldn't argue with the suggestion that contemporary notions of religious practice are commonly unreliable

In all its different guises it cannot provide any measure of consistency. Not even within the scope of any subset of any religion can it do so. The best they can provide is a vague commonality in the interpretation of purely subjective experiences. I can attain the same outcome merely by formulating a common terminology and methods of interpretation, provided I can get a group of people sufficiently invested in it. An interesting example is the transition of Angel and Demon sightings to UFO and Alien sightings. What was once commonly interpreted as a succubus attack or a visitation from an Angel is now often interpreted as a UFO abduction or Alien visitation.

once again, knowledge of secondary and primary disciplines enables not only a clear understanding but also separates the wheat from the chaff

I therefore question any theistic claim to authority or expertise. Religion is simply self-denying. It is the attempt to codify and institutionalize what remains a purely and intensely subjective experience.

unless you properly arrive at the issue of examining the qualification requirements, your struggles to (in)validate an authority are futile - kind of like judging medical practice by raccoon oil peddlers or something.

As a common example, if one doesn't properly understand what is meant by the word "transcendental", forming an elaborate rebuttal of it is not particularly fruitful (eg - "and where is the empirical evidence for your so-called transcendence")

If it helps, and in some measure of self-serving I wouldn’t mind seeing the thread resurrected, here is a more detailed thread regarding my opinion.



~Raithere

ok
we'll have a look

 

[Raithere]

only from the pov of those persons who can't distinguish between primary and secondary principles .... or even principles that are inconsistent with the practice (ie "quacks")
…
reliable outcome is contingent on reliable practice ... I wouldn't argue with the suggestion that contemporary notions of religious practice are commonly unreliable
…
once again, knowledge of secondary and primary disciplines enables not only a clear understanding but also separates the wheat from the chaff
…
unless you properly arrive at the issue of examining the qualification requirements, your struggles to (in)validate an authority are futile - kind of like judging medical practice by raccoon oil peddlers or something.

This boils down to a rather typical theistic response which is that if one attempts to find God and does not it is one’s own fault. Either due to following the wrong religion, improperly practicing the right religion, or the some other deficit of the practitioner (lack of faith, etc.). This argument is fraudulent (cherry-picking / selection bias) and self-affirming. It’s a way of counting the “hits” and ignoring the “misses”.

More to the point, however, it is rather easy to locate the teachings of those considered to be preeminent in the field: Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao-Tse, Moses, Vallabh Acharya, Bodhidharma, Patanjali. Additionally there are any number of revered texts whose authorship is unknown, not to mention thousands of respected commentaries and treatises of all such teachings. Taking this into account, the path to enlightenment shouldn’t be all that difficult for any diligent student to figure out.

~Raithere

 

[Myles]

This boils down to a rather typical theistic response which is that if one attempts to find God and does not it is one’s own fault. Either due to following the wrong religion, improperly practicing the right religion, or the some other deficit of the practitioner (lack of faith, etc.). This argument is fraudulent (cherry-picking / selection bias) and self-affirming. It’s a way of counting the “hits” and ignoring the “misses”.

More to the point, however, it is rather easy to locate the teachings of those considered to be preeminent in the field: Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao-Tse, Moses, Vallabh Acharya, Bodhidharma, Patanjali. Additionally there are any number of revered texts whose authorship is unknown, not to mention thousands of respected commentaries and treatises of all such teachings. Taking this into account, the path to enlightenment shouldn’t be all that difficult for any diligent student to figure out.

~Raithere

Granted, assuming that enlightenment can be unambiguously defined and that a path can be shown to exist.

 

[lightgigantic]

This boils down to a rather typical theistic response which is that if one attempts to find God and does not it is one’s own fault.

well doesn't all knowledge based claims work on identical principles?

Either due to following the wrong religion, improperly practicing the right religion, or the some other deficit of the practitioner (lack of faith, etc.). This argument is fraudulent (cherry-picking / selection bias) and self-affirming. It’s a way of counting the “hits” and ignoring the “misses”.

seems like you have issues with the nature of acquiring knowledge in general, outside of any specific issues with thesim

More to the point, however, it is rather easy to locate the teachings of those considered to be preeminent in the field: Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao-Tse, Moses, Vallabh Acharya, Bodhidharma, Patanjali. Additionally there are any number of revered texts whose authorship is unknown, not to mention thousands of respected commentaries and treatises of all such teachings. Taking this into account, the path to enlightenment shouldn’t be all that difficult for any diligent student to figure out.

once again, generally a person acquires knowledge through the agency of a practitioner rather than mere book knowledge - for instance if we want to learn about biology we go to a university and hear from a biologist as opposed top merely diving into a pile of books. If you take the diving approach, small wonder that you cannot swallow the ocean
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

thats my point
if you actually want to establish something about theism, why don't you examine it in full rather than trying to pass off some findings in the lower rung (animism for eg)as indicative of what takes place on the higher rung (monism for eg)?

I am examining it in full. Your contention that the other rungs are "higher" is unsupported, my examination reveals. I see no intrinsic hierarchy - I think you are underestimating the potential sophistication of a cargo cultist, for example.

Originally Posted by LG
The only problem I can see is that you stop it there and insist on using such examples as the final last word in theistic revelation ( a technique commonly called judging a genre by its worst stereotype)
”
I call it evaluating a method by its results, or an argument by its conclusions.
”
aka = judging a genre by its worst stereotype

No stereotypes are involved. I am evaluating an argument by its conclusions, a method by its results, an approach by its consequences.

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
thats my point
if you actually want to establish something about theism, why don't you examine it in full rather than trying to pass off some findings in the lower rung (animism for eg)as indicative of what takes place on the higher rung (monism for eg)?
”
I am examining it in full.

no you haven't
all you've done is talked about animistic religions and tried to paint all religions with the same brush

Your contention that the other rungs are "higher" is unsupported, my examination reveals.

then obviously your examination didn't involve looking at philosophy, since it is quite apparent how and why animistic religions have practically no philosophy, polytheistic some, and monotheistic, quite a lot

I see no intrinsic hierarchy - I think you are underestimating the potential sophistication of a cargo cultist, for example.

well at the very least, you don't find elaborate treatises of universal creation or annihilation or introspective analysis of desire within the cargocult
“

Originally Posted by LG
Originally Posted by LG
The only problem I can see is that you stop it there and insist on using such examples as the final last word in theistic revelation ( a technique commonly called judging a genre by its worst stereotype)
”
I call it evaluating a method by its results, or an argument by its conclusions.
”
aka = judging a genre by its worst stereotype
”
No stereotypes are involved. I am evaluating an argument by its conclusions, a method by its results, an approach by its consequences.

unfortunately the results you draw (from animistic religion for eg) don't span the distance you are trying to stretch them (to monotheistic religion, for eg)

 

[Raithere]

Sorry for the delayed reply. I’ve been away on business.

well doesn't all knowledge based claims work on identical principles?

Actually no. Science in particular is quite the reverse. If a given experiment does not produce identical results each time it is performed it is the hypothesis that is considered erroneous or incomplete.

seems like you have issues with the nature of acquiring knowledge in general, outside of any specific issues with thesim

How so? Do you propose an alternative interpretation?

once again, generally a person acquires knowledge through the agency of a practitioner rather than mere book knowledge - for instance if we want to learn about biology we go to a university and hear from a biologist as opposed top merely diving into a pile of books. If you take the diving approach, small wonder that you cannot swallow the ocean

Generally speaking it is best to receive instruction (however it is communicated) prior to practice. While I agree that the interactive experience of guided instruction can be more fruitful, it is hardly bad practice to study the works of those considered preeminent in the field. Most classrooms use such texts as a guide to the course in the first place. You’re also presuming that book learning is all one received. I had more than 20 years of classroom and personal instruction… more than enough to continue my studies on my own.

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry for the delayed reply. I’ve been away on business.

thats ok
personally I think discussions that have longer gaps in between replies tend to cover more ground .... at least on sciforums anyway

Actually no. Science in particular is quite the reverse. If a given experiment does not produce identical results each time it is performed it is the hypothesis that is considered erroneous or incomplete.

actually I am arguing that (correct) practice comes after (correct) theory.
IOW there is no question of practice drawing identical responses unless there is some consensus on the platform of theory.
If it wasn't the case, one could participate in advanced discussions of mathematics without holding 1+1=2

While I don't doubt that you agree with this principle, it appears that you are transgressing it when you analyze theistic claims.
If you don't hold that there are distinctions of secondary and primary foundations in any knowledge based claim, one effectively curtails analysis, regardless of the subject.

Generally speaking it is best to receive instruction (however it is communicated) prior to practice.

sure
and the best way to receive that instruction is through a practitioner

While I agree that the interactive experience of guided instruction can be more fruitful, it is hardly bad practice to study the works of those considered preeminent in the field.

sure
but that is not a very effective means of acquiring knowledge
How many established biologists came to their position simply by reading and how many by receiving tutelage?
And why does biology as an industry of practice practically insist on formal accreditation through an institution?
If you truly believe this, I think you have to explain why there is a preeminent necessity for all biologists to be formally trained.

Most classrooms use such texts as a guide to the course in the first place.

All classrooms have a teacher however
And even then, what makes one classroom better or more credible than another is the teacher.
Is the distinction between harvard and community college simply one of text books?

You’re also presuming that book learning is all one received. I had more than 20 years of classroom and personal instruction… more than enough to continue my studies on my own.

~Raithere

If in that 20 years you didn't encounter a single issue of normative requirements for practice, it raises serious doubts about your training

 

[Raithere]

actually I am arguing that (correct) practice comes after (correct) theory.
IOW there is no question of practice drawing identical responses unless there is some consensus on the platform of theory.
If it wasn't the case, one could participate in advanced discussions of mathematics without holding 1+1=2

Granted. However this seems to be one of the problems in theism. One finds little consensus even amongst those of the same school there is significant dissent. So where to begin?

While I don't doubt that you agree with this principle, it appears that you are transgressing it when you analyze theistic claims.
If you don't hold that there are distinctions of secondary and primary foundations in any knowledge based claim, one effectively curtails analysis, regardless of the subject.

I'm willing to entertain any hypothesis. When I see that they fail to bear fruit I attempt to discern why and seek alternative hypotheses.

and the best way to receive that instruction is through a practitioner

In many instances, yes. That does not mean that self-study, particularly after obtaining instruction in the fundamentals, is ineffective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism

but that is not a very effective means of acquiring knowledge

Actually it is extremely effective. Note that instructors most often use such texts as a guideline for their instruction, source material, and required reading. But see, now were simply bickering over the most effective means of education. The principle arguments remain unchanged.

If in that 20 years you didn't encounter a single issue of normative requirements for practice, it raises serious doubts about your training

You presume this because?

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually I am arguing that (correct) practice comes after (correct) theory.
IOW there is no question of practice drawing identical responses unless there is some consensus on the platform of theory.
If it wasn't the case, one could participate in advanced discussions of mathematics without holding 1+1=2 ”

Granted. However this seems to be one of the problems in theism. One finds little consensus even amongst those of the same school there is significant dissent. So where to begin?

with theory.
where else?
Sure I would agree that theism has some "formal accreditation issues" - much like the medical field was full of quacks prior to being standardized.

“ While I don't doubt that you agree with this principle, it appears that you are transgressing it when you analyze theistic claims.
If you don't hold that there are distinctions of secondary and primary foundations in any knowledge based claim, one effectively curtails analysis, regardless of the subject. ”

I'm willing to entertain any hypothesis. When I see that they fail to bear fruit I attempt to discern why and seek alternative hypotheses.

and the fruit is?
(it will probably reveal your theoretical foundations)

“ and the best way to receive that instruction is through a practitioner ”

In many instances, yes. That does not mean that self-study, particularly after obtaining instruction in the fundamentals, is ineffective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism

sure
but you see that most of the persons referenced in the link are either from the early twentieth century at the latest (when issues of formal accreditation were in their infancy)or involved in fields that don't require a high degree of technical prowess (eg aesthetic fields like say literature of film making).

To get back to my previous point,

How many established biologists came to their position simply by reading and how many by receiving tutelage?
And why does biology as an industry of practice practically insist on formal accreditation through an institution?
If you truly believe this, I think you have to explain why there is a preeminent necessity for all biologists to be formally trained.

What is the need that drives the formal accreditation of science? Simply educators in pursuit of a wage?

“ but that is not a very effective means of acquiring knowledge ”

Actually it is extremely effective. Note that instructors most often use such texts as a guideline for their instruction, source material, and required reading. But see, now were simply bickering over the most effective means of education. The principle arguments remain unchanged.

even this argument you are offering requires instructors.
And it is still related to the principle of the argument - namely that if you want to know something (particularly something that has a high degree of technical and practical knowledge) the easiest and most effective way to learn it is to approach someone who already knows


[

QUOTE]“ If in that 20 years you didn't encounter a single issue of normative requirements for practice, it raises serious doubts about your training ”

You presume this because?[/QUOTE]
you suggest you have studied the issue for twenty years and say things like
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1853253&postcount=200

If I said I had been studying computer electronics for twenty years and said it was all an issue of subjectivity (ie no issues of normative descriptions can bear any influence) what would you think?

 

[Raithere]

with theory.
where else?
Sure I would agree that theism has some "formal accreditation issues" - much like the medical field was full of quacks prior to being standardized.

Accreditation means squat. We're talking about formalized theory, a consensus on practice, elucidation of effects. I'd even settle for a working hypothesis but there isn't even really a consensus of what the field of theology is about. How about we start there?

and the fruit is?
(it will probably reveal your theoretical foundations)

I'm a pragmatist at heart. I want to see something work. When someone tells me that religious practice offers results, I want to see them. I want to know how it works, and when it doesn't I want to know why. Regarding religion I'd accept any number of outcomes but the offering seems largely insubstantial and what does exist is far more easily explained in other terms.

sure but you see that most of the persons referenced in the link are either from the early twentieth century at the latest (when issues of formal accreditation were in their infancy)or involved in fields that don't require a high degree of technical prowess (eg aesthetic fields like say literature of film making).

Am I to understand that your argument is that religious practice is such a specialized knowledge that only the few, the best, the brightest, and the most dedicated can ever aspire towards its realization? This brings numerous problems and questions to mind. Not the least of which is, "Why is God trying so hard to hide?"

To get back to my previous point,

How many established biologists came to their position simply by reading and how many by receiving tutelage?
And why does biology as an industry of practice practically insist on formal accreditation through an institution?
If you truly believe this, I think you have to explain why there is a preeminent necessity for all biologists to be formally trained.

What is the need that drives the formal accreditation of science? Simply educators in pursuit of a wage?

At some point, yes. To some degree it is also a rite of passage. More formally it is simply a means whereby one can be satisfied that the biologist has at least a passing understanding of the required knowledge. But passing biology is no guarantee that the student will become a preeminent biologist, most do not. This brings to mind an interesting observation. Most scientific breakthroughs are made by the young, those new to the field, relatively inexperienced, and their ideas come from outside mainstream curricula. If long knowledge of theory and relentless practice were the key to understanding shouldn't we expect the reverse?

even this argument you are offering requires instructors.
And it is still related to the principle of the argument - namely that if you want to know something (particularly something that has a high degree of technical and practical knowledge) the easiest and most effective way to learn it is to approach someone who already knows

But that's not what you're saying. You're not telling me it's just the easiest or the best way, you're telling me that it is all but impossible otherwise.

you suggest you have studied the issue for twenty years and say things like

Actually, I said I had training in the field for about 20 years. But I've studied for quite a bit longer than that. I went to Sunday School and Bible Study. I've gone to services and masses at numerous churches. I've talked and studied with many religious educators and even attended a religious University where I received education in a number of faiths. I've gone outside of Christianity and studied, attended classes, and have had long discussions with many people erudite in their particular faith. I believe I am well versed enough to continue to study on my own and formulate my own hypotheses. One does not remain a student eternally.

If I said I had been studying computer electronics for twenty years and said it was all an issue of subjectivity (ie no issues of normative descriptions can bear any influence) what would you think?

I'd think you probably did well when you got to the course on relativity. But towards your point I maintain that experience is always subjective. Even the experience of a concrete, material object is a subjective thing. The best we can do towards formulating an objective viewpoint is to survey the experiences of many, consolidate the information and attempt to explain it.

If I told you that, when released, the apple always falls to the ground you would think me daft or hallucinating if your experience was of the apply flying up into the sky. It is only through our consensus of experience that we glean a hopeful inkling of objectivity. Luckily, in regards to most things this consensus is readily obtained. In regards to religion however, I see no such consensus even among the learned.

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

Raithere

with theory.
where else?
Sure I would agree that theism has some "formal accreditation issues" - much like the medical field was full of quacks prior to being standardized.
”
Accreditation means squat. We're talking about formalized theory, a consensus on practice, elucidation of effects. I'd even settle for a working hypothesis but there isn't even really a consensus of what the field of theology is about. How about we start there?

when in doubt, consult a dictionary

theology - The rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth

“
and the fruit is?
(it will probably reveal your theoretical foundations)
”
I'm a pragmatist at heart. I want to see something work. When someone tells me that religious practice offers results, I want to see them. I want to know how it works, and when it doesn't I want to know why. Regarding religion I'd accept any number of outcomes but the offering seems largely insubstantial and what does exist is far more easily explained in other terms.

so what are you looking for exactly?
What is it specifically that religion is supposed to "do" that you are looking for?

“
sure but you see that most of the persons referenced in the link are either from the early twentieth century at the latest (when issues of formal accreditation were in their infancy)or involved in fields that don't require a high degree of technical prowess (eg aesthetic fields like say literature of film making).
”
Am I to understand that your argument is that religious practice is such a specialized knowledge that only the few, the best, the brightest, and the most dedicated can ever aspire towards its realization? This brings numerous problems and questions to mind. Not the least of which is, "Why is God trying so hard to hide?"

the problems are not so complex
I mean probably the most common reason that only a handful of people have verified electrons is that most other people are busy with other engagements (IOW they don't see the value of it, so the discipline of knowledge never even arises) - this of course doesn't make the field of knowledge any less valid or important - it simply indicates where people are at in their desires

“
To get back to my previous point,

How many established biologists came to their position simply by reading and how many by receiving tutelage?
And why does biology as an industry of practice practically insist on formal accreditation through an institution?
If you truly believe this, I think you have to explain why there is a preeminent necessity for all biologists to be formally trained.

What is the need that drives the formal accreditation of science? Simply educators in pursuit of a wage?
”
At some point, yes.

I take it you have never investigated a "scientific journal" from the 19th century.
You might be surprised to see what subjects some of the articles are written about

To some degree it is also a rite of passage. More formally it is simply a means whereby one can be satisfied that the biologist has at least a passing understanding of the required knowledge.

and why is that so important do you think?

But passing biology is no guarantee that the student will become a preeminent biologist, most do not. This brings to mind an interesting observation. Most scientific breakthroughs are made by the young, those new to the field, relatively inexperienced, and their ideas come from outside mainstream curricula. If long knowledge of theory and relentless practice were the key to understanding shouldn't we expect the reverse?

but even if a breakthrough is to be a "breakthrough" it has to meet certain formal requirements.
At the very least, I assume you don't doggedly scan the latest posts on sciforums to be on the cutting edge of science, even though many of the contributers are certainly "young and innovative".

“
even this argument you are offering requires instructors.
And it is still related to the principle of the argument - namely that if you want to know something (particularly something that has a high degree of technical and practical knowledge) the easiest and most effective way to learn it is to approach someone who already knows
”
But that's not what you're saying. You're not telling me it's just the easiest or the best way, you're telling me that it is all but impossible otherwise.

it gets back to your mention that you have read everything from Pantajil to Paul yet you can't see the foundation of theism.
My point is that this is not how knowledge, in general, works .... so it's hardly surprising that you see nothing but contradiction, fallacy, etc etc

“
you suggest you have studied the issue for twenty years and say things like
”
Actually, I said I had training in the field for about 20 years. But I've studied for quite a bit longer than that. I went to Sunday School and Bible Study. I've gone to services and masses at numerous churches. I've talked and studied with many religious educators and even attended a religious University where I received education in a number of faiths. I've gone outside of Christianity and studied, attended classes, and have had long discussions with many people erudite in their particular faith. I believe I am well versed enough to continue to study on my own and formulate my own hypotheses. One does not remain a student eternally.

sure
when a student applies the theory, they become a practitioner
until then, they remain a student

“
If I said I had been studying computer electronics for twenty years and said it was all an issue of subjectivity (ie no issues of normative descriptions can bear any influence) what would you think?
”
I'd think you probably did well when you got to the course on relativity. But towards your point I maintain that experience is always subjective. Even the experience of a concrete, material object is a subjective thing. The best we can do towards formulating an objective viewpoint is to survey the experiences of many, consolidate the information and attempt to explain it.

its not just the views of the many, but the views of the qualified.
For instance the opinions of ten doctors on the health implications of cigarette smoking can easily outweigh the opinions of ten thousand dock workers on the same topic

If I told you that, when released, the apple always falls to the ground you would think me daft or hallucinating if your experience was of the apply flying up into the sky. It is only through our consensus of experience that we glean a hopeful inkling of objectivity. Luckily, in regards to most things this consensus is readily obtained. In regards to religion however, I see no such consensus even among the learned.

If you insist on verifying things by a mere consensus without approaching issues of qualification (ie persons involved in issues of application of theory) you have just turfed out about 95% of human advancement (and interestingly enough its the top half). Of course the example of the apple is quite simple. The most essential quality you need is a functioning eyeball, so its hardly unique. Start talking about the rest mass of an electron and the ratio will start to slide ....

If you want to argue that you are including persons who are "learned" in the field of theism, I think you have to be a bit more specific in indicating how you deem them as truly learned and qualified.
For instance if I told you 8 out of 10 doctors say there is no harm in smoking cigarettes, I can guarantee that your next questions would surround the issues of the doctor's qualifications.

 

[Raithere]

theology - The rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth

Religion and religious truth is?

What is it specifically that religion is supposed to "do" that you are looking for?

For the moment, I'll settle for even a common definition of god and man's relation to it.

I mean probably the most common reason that only a handful of people have verified electrons is that most other people are busy with other engagements (IOW they don't see the value of it, so the discipline of knowledge never even arises) - this of course doesn't make the field of knowledge any less valid or important - it simply indicates where people are at in their desires

Ah, but few people give more than even a passing thought to atomic physics while everyone has heard of religion and most people consider themselves practitioners. Religion, in this context, is more analogous to cooking than the study of the electron. There may be relatively few elite chefs but most people have more than a passing understanding of the topic.

I take it you have never investigated a "scientific journal" from the 19th century.
You might be surprised to see what subjects some of the articles are written about

Actually, I have an encyclopedia from 1879. But to elaborate further, biology (indeed all the hard sciences) has become a very specialized field of study. The focus and knowledge is very narrow and very deep. Formal accreditation is merely a means of verifying that an individual has covered and has an understanding of the knowledge base. This does not mean that one could not gain the same set of knowledge independently.

it gets back to your mention that you have read everything from Pantajil to Paul yet you can't see the foundation of theism.

I didn't say that at all. I believe I understand the foundations of religion. I just disagree with theists as to what it is. Put simply religion is the projection of our selves onto our perception of the universe. Add in our desire to surpass death, our tendency to superstition (our desire to control that which we cannot), folk stories, philosophy, lots of politics, bake for a few millennia and voila. Religion is about us, which is why there is little consensus... everyone has their own point of view.

My point is that this is not how knowledge, in general, works .... so it's hardly surprising that you see nothing but contradiction, fallacy, etc etc

If knowledge can only be attained at the feet of experts how was this knowledge acquired in the first place?

its not just the views of the many, but the views of the qualified.
...
f you want to argue that you are including persons who are "learned" in the field of theism, I think you have to be a bit more specific in indicating how you deem them as truly learned and qualified.
For instance if I told you 8 out of 10 doctors say there is no harm in smoking cigarettes, I can guarantee that your next questions would surround the issues of the doctor's qualifications.

It has nothing to do with qualifications or expertise, only the argument. If 1 out of 100 doctors says there is no harm in smoking cigarettes and her argument is better (causal explanations, evidence) than the other 99 then the 1 is right. It just needs to be verified independently so that we can ascertain its validity. Witness Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein.

~Raithere

 

[superstring01]

I don't see any people who don't collect stamps forming a group denouncing stamp collectors. Do you?

DOWN WITH ALL STAMP COLLECTORS!

I'm forming a group tomorrow.

~String

 

[lightgigantic]

Raithere

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
theology - The rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth
”
Religion and religious truth is?

I generally subscribe to

Religion - It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; likely from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect."

IOW religion is about the connection of the living entity to god .... much like the word yoga and its roots

“
What is it specifically that religion is supposed to "do" that you are looking for?
”
For the moment, I'll settle for even a common definition of god and man's relation to it.

well that's easy
summum bonum, cause of all causes, etc etc

“
I mean probably the most common reason that only a handful of people have verified electrons is that most other people are busy with other engagements (IOW they don't see the value of it, so the discipline of knowledge never even arises) - this of course doesn't make the field of knowledge any less valid or important - it simply indicates where people are at in their desires
”
Ah, but few people give more than even a passing thought to atomic physics while everyone has heard of religion and most people consider themselves practitioners.

I would argue that the difference indicates the different values behind the knowledge. I think even you would agree that there would be more value in understanding something about god (and not in a cynical atheistic sense) than there is compared to an atom

Religion, in this context, is more analogous to cooking than the study of the electron. There may be relatively few elite chefs but most people have more than a passing understanding of the topic.

differences lie in the actual "doing" though ... as opposed to a mere passing understanding.

for instance if you examine the normative descriptions that surround theistic revelation, it should be quite clear that not every one qualifies

“
I take it you have never investigated a "scientific journal" from the 19th century.
You might be surprised to see what subjects some of the articles are written about
”
Actually, I have an encyclopedia from 1879. But to elaborate further, biology (indeed all the hard sciences) has become a very specialized field of study. The focus and knowledge is very narrow and very deep. Formal accreditation is merely a means of verifying that an individual has covered and has an understanding of the knowledge base. This does not mean that one could not gain the same set of knowledge independently

.
so once again, if its not necessary, why is accreditation in place if not simply because it is the easiest and most reliable means of coming to a certain standard of knowledge?

“
it gets back to your mention that you have read everything from Pantajil to Paul yet you can't see the foundation of theism.
”
I didn't say that at all.

I believe I understand the foundations of religion. I just disagree with theists as to what it is. Put simply religion is the projection of our selves onto our perception of the universe. Add in our desire to surpass death, our tendency to superstition (our desire to control that which we cannot), folk stories, philosophy, lots of politics, bake for a few millennia and voila. Religion is about us, which is why there is little consensus... everyone has their own point of view.

but that's my point
you arrive at such a conclusion because you see contradiction etc. So if it is seen that you violate the procedure, why would one expect a conclusion otherwise?

“
My point is that this is not how knowledge, in general, works .... so it's hardly surprising that you see nothing but contradiction, fallacy, etc etc
”
If knowledge can only be attained at the feet of experts how was this knowledge acquired in the first place?

at the feet of god of course (hence "cause of all causes")

“
its not just the views of the many, but the views of the qualified.
...
f you want to argue that you are including persons who are "learned" in the field of theism, I think you have to be a bit more specific in indicating how you deem them as truly learned and qualified.
For instance if I told you 8 out of 10 doctors say there is no harm in smoking cigarettes, I can guarantee that your next questions would surround the issues of the doctor's qualifications.
”
It has nothing to do with qualifications or expertise, only the argument. If 1 out of 100 doctors says there is no harm in smoking cigarettes and her argument is better (causal explanations, evidence) than the other 99 then the 1 is right. It just needs to be verified independently so that we can ascertain its validity. Witness Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein.

so how do you propose to analyze "the argument" while remaining unclear of issues of qualification?