The problem with atheism – No rational connection between the methodology and object

[iceaura]

I mean seriously, you don't see how cognitive horizons of a dog make for a mostly incomplete picture of human affairs?

So? Who needs "complete" ? Your contention was that the cognitively and physically "greater" were forever completely beyond our investigations or reasoning, that we could learn nothing about them.

Empty question anyway - if we can't determine anything about its nature or even establish its existence, asserting that it is "cognitively and physically greater than ourselves" is obviously just talking.
”
the issue is that you can't establish that with the controlled experiment... s

No, the issue is that given such condition (claimed by you) you can't establish that in any way whatsoever. Hence "empty".

 

[phlogistician]

and?
I mean using allegory is a valuable tool in communication and making an issue comprehensible, don't you think?

No I don't think. I think you should make clear concise statements about the subject, not try and prove one thing by discussing another.

I know.
Yet for some reason they take it upon themselves

No, that's just you claiming they do.

yet here you are, to inform the world

I'm just clearing up after you stuffing that straw man. You make claims about atheists that are false. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong.

tell me once again how god doesn't exist.

I haven't told you once before, so I cannot do it again. That's you making claims, and stuffing that straw man again.

Now, say something honest, and we'll see if we can find a debate here.

 

[Raithere]

But in terms of knowing that it is an arm, that it belongs to a body, that it belongs to a particular body etc etc .... all this is beyond the ants cognitive horizons .

One does not need to be able to conceive and understand something in its entirety to understand components of it or that something is occurring. If the effects of something can be experienced and measured its existence can be detected.

To borrow your analogy, if one periodically dropped food near an ant mount the ants would quickly discern that something was changing their environment in a way that was beneficial for them. Indeed they do respond to such stimulus even though they are incapable of understanding or even conceiving a sentient human. We can take the analogy further and speculate that conscious ants might even develop religion, praying and building alters to an unknowable deity in hopes of eliciting a response. If indeed one decided to respond to such behavior, offering food more often or only to those who did, the ants would easily be able to determine that something was indeed occurring even if they didn't know how or exactly why.

Another is it’s not possible for one to have experienced one’s own conception, therefore one cannot speak with absolute certainty where one came from. When something is the source of something else (in the biological sense) it sets up an epistemological relationship (a relationship of knowability). If I produce something, I know what I produce, but the product cannot know.

You mistake the difference between experience and knowledge here. While it may be impossible, due to temporal restrictions, for one to have direct experience of one's conception there are other methods of obtaining knowledge. See FR's excellent post.

When I choose a particular process to know, the very choice of a method predetermines the range and extent of things I can know. If I chose the thermometer as an instrument, that predetermines what I can know ( namely temperatures).

This much is indeed true, though I had to excise the first sentence. Knowledge is not limited to that which is inferior or less than us. Valuations such as "less" or "inferior" are ethical determinations in the first place and have no bearing on upon epistemology. The universe is certainly "greater" and "superior" to us in many regards. It is likely that we will never be able to understand or conceive of it in its entirety. Yet we still have knowledge of it. Indeed there is nothing that we have complete knowledge of. I can ascertain the existence of an apple on my desk yet it is impossible to know it in its entirety (quantum states, history of its component atoms through time, etc, etc, etc).

The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you.

If spirituality is indeed an epistemologically valid method of obtaining knowledge where are its results? What are the facts thusly derived and where is the evidence to support its assertions?

~Raithere

 

[Myles]

There is evidence of spirituality in the insect world. Who has not heard of the PRAYING MANTIS ?

 

[Enmos]

There is evidence of spirituality in the insect world. Who has not heard of the PRAYING MANTIS ?

They fake it, they never close their eyes.

 

[DeepThought]

If you want to know what time it is, you can stare at a thermometer all day ...yet you will not be enlightened.

There's a problem with this analogy, as there is some relationship between time of day and temperature.

 

[greenberg]

Yes, there have been a number of studies that tried to show a connection between prayer and recovery. All failed.

What such studies tend to fail to take into account is that spiritual practice is not about improving physical health just for the sake of it.
In traditional Buddhist meditation, for example, it is clearly pointed out that one should not meditate for the sake of improving one's physical health. Improved physical health may be a side-effect of meditation, but it is not the goal of meditation.

From what I have seen of those studies researching the effects of prayer and meditation, the researches either had a vastly different conception of life, the mind/body connection than the studied subjects and as such could not take this difference into account, or the studied subjects had a materialistic conception of life, the mind/body connection to begin with.

My pointing this out might seem like a cop-out. My point is, however, that if we study something with criteria which are extraneous to it, surely we won't get meaningful results or it will seem that the study failed.
People normally do not measure time with thermometers. But somehow, many people think it would be okay to study spiritual practice by employing non-spiritual criteria!

 

[Myles]

They fake it, they never close their eyes.

Good 'un ! lmao

 

[Myles]

There's a problem with this analogy, as there is some relationship between time of day and temperature.

Rubbish. When the temperature peaks, you will know it is midday.

 

[DeepThought]

Rubbish. When the temperature peaks, you will know it is midday.

What's rubbish?

Your poor ability at reading comprehension?

 

[Myles]

What such studies tend to fail to take into account is that spiritual practice is not about improving physical health just for the sake of it.
In traditional Buddhist meditation, for example, it is clearly pointed out that one should not meditate for the sake of improving one's physical health. Improved physical health may be a side-effect of meditation, but it is not the goal of meditation.

From what I have seen of those studies researching the effects of prayer and meditation, the researches either had a vastly different conception of life, the mind/body connection than the studied subjects and as such could not take this difference into account, or the studied subjects had a materialistic conception of life, the mind/body connection to begin with.

My pointing this out might seem like a cop-out. My point is, however, that if we study something with criteria which are extraneous to it, surely we won't get meaningful results or it will seem that the study failed.
People normally do not measure time with thermometers. But somehow, many people think it would be okay to study spiritual practice by employing non-spiritual criteria!

You are overlookink a small detail. People who take part in these experiments believe in the power of prayer. That is why they pray in the first instance.When the result is a lemon, they will have some get-out clause that takes the form of "god knows best " so their prayers were not answered for a reason. They cannot, of course, say what the reason is.

 

[Myles]

What's rubbish?

Your poor ability at reading comprehension?

You are obviously not cut out to be a scientist, Try this;

Sit outdoors with a thermometer which is shaded from direct sunlight. Use graph paper and a pencil to plot time on the x axis and temperature on the y axis. Plot temp against time at intervals until temperature peaks indicating midday. The rest is easy. Continue plotting and at sunset join up the dots and divide tour graph into an equal number of segments. 12 is useful in this respect. Now , from your midday point, you will have am to the left and pm to the right. Simple.

This method was used with great success by Colonel Percy Fawcwett during a trans-Saharan expedition when his watch was trodden on by a camel, as he performed his morning ablutions.

 

[spidergoat]

What such studies tend to fail to take into account is that spiritual practice is not about improving physical health just for the sake of it.
In traditional Buddhist meditation, for example, it is clearly pointed out that one should not meditate for the sake of improving one's physical health. Improved physical health may be a side-effect of meditation, but it is not the goal of meditation.

From what I have seen of those studies researching the effects of prayer and meditation, the researches either had a vastly different conception of life, the mind/body connection than the studied subjects and as such could not take this difference into account, or the studied subjects had a materialistic conception of life, the mind/body connection to begin with.

My pointing this out might seem like a cop-out. My point is, however, that if we study something with criteria which are extraneous to it, surely we won't get meaningful results or it will seem that the study failed.
People normally do not measure time with thermometers. But somehow, many people think it would be okay to study spiritual practice by employing non-spiritual criteria!

That's not the point of the tests for prayer. They are not testing wether prayer or mediation helps the person who practices it. The people praying for quick recovery were other volunteers. Most people do accept that prayer or meditation can have physical and psychological benefits.

 

[Myles]

What's rubbish?

Your poor ability at reading comprehension?

Do you make allowances for poor eyesight ? Your manner of posting and the sentiments you express are so like LG's that I have difficulty telling you apart.

 

[DeepThought]

You are obviously not cut out to be a scientist,

Maybe not, but I'd suggest for your own sake you steer clear of the laboratory (and the road for that matter).

Your manner of posting and the sentiments you express are so like LG's that I have difficulty telling you apart.

Are you sure your reading the posts right?

 

[Cris]

LG,

How much more is the burden on us to make an impression on god? I mean suppose you entered an application interview for a graduate school and said “If you’re really lucky I may go here, and if you really want me, I’ll let you try and convince me that you are worth my trouble – go ahead I will give you five minutes” ... that’s probably not the best way.
Yet with something infinitely greater than graduate school , god, some people do exactly that. Like, “ ok if god exists I’ll give him two minutes.... I want to see a flash of light some thunder ... go ahead god , impress me”

And when that doesn’t work we move onto more appropriate questions of how do we even know this entity even exists if it won’t show itself? There really is little point in trying to impress something where there is no meaningful degree of certainty that it actually exists.

The graduate school comparison fails in that we know its existence, protocol, and requirements is a certainty. Not so with an imagined entity.

 

[Cris]

LG,

The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you.

That’s fine but you have no mechanism that shows that spirituality contains any truth or is a viable mechanism for establishing knowledge. Empiricism can.

Why ever choose an alleged mechanism that has a zero track record of success over one that has been shown to be phenomenally successful?

 

[Cris]

lg,

If we are to a god what an ant is to a human then there can be no mechanism for us to know such a god. The chasm is too huge.

 

[Myles]

Maybe not, but I'd suggest for your own sake you steer clear of the laboratory (and the road for that matter).




Are you sure your reading the posts right?

I'm reading the posts right,right.Next time I'll explain how to find outwhere you are with an analogue watch.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Raithere

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But in terms of knowing that it is an arm, that it belongs to a body, that it belongs to a particular body etc etc .... all this is beyond the ants cognitive horizons . ”
One does not need to be able to conceive and understand something in its entirety to understand components of it or that something is occurring. If the effects of something can be experienced and measured its existence can be detected.

Hence measurement is the first aspect of control. Being able to measure something is what distinguishes between something we can and cannot control in principle

To borrow your analogy, if one periodically dropped food near an ant mount the ants would quickly discern that something was changing their environment in a way that was beneficial for them. Indeed they do respond to such stimulus even though they are incapable of understanding or even conceiving a sentient human. We can take the analogy further and speculate that conscious ants might even develop religion, praying and building alters to an unknowable deity in hopes of eliciting a response. If indeed one decided to respond to such behavior, offering food more often or only to those who did, the ants would easily be able to determine that something was indeed occurring even if they didn't know how or exactly why.

It’s not clear how this analogy addresses a point of any different than what was originally offered – namely the limitations of empirical methods in determining the nature of something cognitive and physically greater than ourselves
“

Another is it’s not possible for one to have experienced one’s own conception, therefore one cannot speak with absolute certainty where one came from. When something is the source of something else (in the biological sense) it sets up an epistemological relationship (a relationship of knowability). If I produce something, I know what I produce, but the product cannot know. ”
You mistake the difference between experience and knowledge here. While it may be impossible, due to temporal restrictions, for one to have direct experience of one's conception there are other methods of obtaining knowledge. See FR's excellent post.

And I responded, you just have to examine the history of that knowledge to determine how reliable it is … especially in comparison to experience.
For instance who do you think would be in a better position to determine the actual age of the universe?
Someone who was actually present there are the time or someone who is trying to make a guess by extrapolation?
I mean, why are eye witnesses such an important element in legal proceedings?

“

When I choose a particular process to know, the very choice of a method predetermines the range and extent of things I can know. If I chose the thermometer as an instrument, that predetermines what I can know ( namely temperatures). ”
This much is indeed true, though I had to excise the first sentence. Knowledge is not limited to that which is inferior or less than us. Valuations such as "less" or "inferior" are ethical determinations in the first place and have no bearing on upon epistemology.

So ants are in just as good a position to be knowledgeable about human affairs as humans?

The universe is certainly "greater" and "superior" to us in many regards. It is likely that we will never be able to understand or conceive of it in its entirety. Yet we still have knowledge of it.

Sure
Just like an ant has knowledge of hairs, freckles etc

Indeed there is nothing that we have complete knowledge of.

There is the issue however of which methodologies give a more complete run down than others - I mean you can determine compass points with an analogue watch, but most seafarers would prefer a compass

I can ascertain the existence of an apple on my desk yet it is impossible to know it in its entirety (quantum states, history of its component atoms through time, etc, etc, etc).

The cognitively inferior aspect of an apple certainly makes your investigations easier
“

The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you. ”
If spirituality is indeed an epistemologically valid method of obtaining knowledge where are its results?

In practice, just like any other epistemology

What are the facts thusly derived and where is the evidence to support its assertions?

Never encountered a normative description within scripture or encountered a claim of appositive result from following such normative descriptions?