Bill Snedden

Do you mean to suggest that belief or knowledge is properly random or acausal?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

soulofdarwin

Here's my take on it:

It seems to me that philosophy, sociology and science devolve to a single arena of human inquiry, as I make no distinction between philosophy and science and I am too optimistic to believe that our planetary society will remain forever uninformed. I do not separate philosophy and science because I am of the opinion that knowledge does not exist apart from that body of knowledge which comprises universal law. Clearly, we, as thinking beings, are capable of formulating ideas that have no connection to reality, and which, therefore, have nothing to do with knowledge. Because both philosophy and science have as their object the pursuit of knowledge, and because there is only one body of knowledge in existence, these two realms of intellectual endeavor are indistinguishable in my view. When we, as individuals, speak of our philosophy, we refer to the collective ideas that constitute our perception of the universe and of our relationship to it. These ideas are either correct, in which case they are knowledge, or incorrect, in which case they are only ideas. History is replete with lessons which demonstrate that attempts to conduct one’s affairs in contravention of universal law do not end well. I believe, therefore, that it is essential to our societal well being that we examine and consider “social issues� in the context of knowledge and not merely in the context of ideas.

With regard to support for the idea that it is "wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe something with no evidence", it seems to me that such support will not be forthcoming, as the idea is simply false. It is always possible that an idea that you have is correct, i.e., in consonance with the reality dictated by universal law, despite its having no basis in reason from your standpoint. We all get lucky once in awhile. I am assuming in this that the "wrong" to which you refer carries no moral connotation. Still, while I would not necessarily describe your prescription for "belief just for the hell of it" as "silly", it is unquestionably reckless and, in all probability, dangerous.

davros4269

haverbob,

I have to disagree with you. You take that as your philosophy, mine is different.

I think some of the best that mankind has to offer is from the negative. Can't we say that the negative reminds us what the positive is?

I choose the "blue pill" - if you could forget that you will die one day, would you do it?

I would absolutely _not_.

I don't find freedom or life in misrepresenting reality to myself - not that I am saying that is what you are doing, don't take offense...

I have a different kind of freedom, in any case, since I don't accept the Bible or any other religion that I've ever heard of, so I'm not worried about the consequences. Further, I can feel good about myself, for what that's worth, because I adhere to a higher moral code that the Bible provides and a more accurate one at that.

Isn't feeling living? Do you like really sad movies? I do.

I fear death and I require water - both are biological, why fight them? I could almost say that maybe we were "created" this way so we can discover a way to extend life, if I _believed_, that is

Davros

mnkbdky

Nice to hear from you Bill.

Now why would I suggest that beliefs are acausal?--especially since as a theist it is a firm belief of mine that anything and everything that begins to exist has a cause. My belief began to exist. Therefore, my belief has a cause.

As for beliefs being properly random, I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. I hope this is not a pun for properly basic.

I have been defining evidence as the outward public display of proof. Now, by saying positive evidence is no criterion for the rationality of ones beliefs I do not mean to suggest we may believe anything we wish. May it never be! For if one were to continue to believe something when sufficient contrary evidence has been provided then that would certainly be irrational. I merely mean to say that it is a contradiction to say that evidence is required for rationality. Evidence may be used to help justify ones beliefs, evidence can even be used to invalidate ones beliefs. However, lack of evidence says nothing about rationality.

Perhaps, davros believes that the evidence against the existence of God is sufficient. However, I don't think there is any evidence against his existence. When I was an atheist I could not prove that God did not exist. Rather, I just never experienced God and thought that all events could have a material explanation. When I realized that atheism was just a belief that had no evidence, rather it was just an inference from experience, I converted to agnosticism. So maybe davros concurs with Betrand Russell in that there is insufficient evidence for belief in God. This was/is much safer ground.

However, one day I experienced God. What was that experience? It was the strong sense of affirmation that God did exist that came with reading the NT. This experience is not publically demonstrable though. In fact, all experiences are not publically demonstrable. Therefore, experience cannot be considered as evidence. However, experience can be considered as grounds for belief. Robert Audi in his book Epistemology: A Contemporary Intro refers to this as experientalism. It is this experientialism that is the grounds for belief in God. It is not random and it is not acausal. Though, it is also not evidence.

In the absence of defeaters--sufficient contrary evidence or reasons--the person who bases their beliefs off of experience has grounds for their beliefs and is therefore justified in their belief. The person who believes based on experience, even with lack of evidence, is behaving rationaly. That is, believing something based on experience in the absence of sufficient contrary evidence is not irrational.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

davros4269

Mntbdky,

No, you are responding because you want to I responded, you just didn't like my response. Again, if you choose not to respond, that is your option.

Here you said: It is the second bolded section that is the problem. You say there is nothing that isn't accepted and verified by science. I beg to differ.

What is an example of something that isn't accepted and verified by science? Dark matter may not be verified as of yet, but it certainly plays nice with cosmology and explains things nicely, I would say this qualifies; it has some evidence. I would also say that thought qualifies. I give these examples in case you choose to spend several paragraphs explaining what "verified" and "accepted" means.

If you don't give an example, I won't respond! Just kidding, I'll respond either way, and just point out that you failed to provide an example

Regarding: Is this claim/belief verified by science? Can you provide me with scientific evidence that this statement is true?

Can you provide me with _scientific_ evidence that it _isn't_ true? I believe you said this was called, "parity".

Let me make an extrapolation that will no doubt get responses of "out of context" and "misquote" from you, but you seem to be saying the following:

I have an innate-sense-of-god, therefore, god exists.
I understand it's not evidence, but it's ok to believe in things without evidence.
Further, you must provide me with evidence as to why we cannot believe in things without evidence!

Are you playing word games? Is there debate-jargon to descrbe this tactic as well?

Isn't all philosophy based on some knowledge (and knowledge being something we can assume to exist and therefore can be verified by science)?

Isn't your soul idea based on your knowledge of ancient philosophy in accordance with the Bible?

Without your knowlege of the soul idea, why would you accept it? Can't we then say that that which exists is sort of a default value, going into the debate? Taking this further, I point out science does not in fact accept the notion of a soul, therefore, your knowledge is false and you must go back to the drawing board.

First, give me a philosophy based on something else, and prove it to be true. Prove karma, for example.

Second, what tactic is it when one uses word games to make a seemingly simple statement into what seems like circular logic, but isn't? Take this:

Your claim is a bit stronger in that you are saying "it is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe something with no [scientific] evidence."

Do you see the problem? There is no evidence for that belief.

If there is no evidence for that belief, than why do _you_ have trouble accepting it , since you say that evidence _isn't_ required? When you play word games like this, it gets us nowhere fast. We can use these tactics against each other for pages and pages and pages...

I take what _is_ as a default position. Maybe English is inadequete for properly formulating the sentence in the proper way? Only god would know...

You once told me that you don't care what I believe. Well, although I _do_ care what you believe to some extent, since you have already admitted a complete lack of evidence for god, and since I don't, in the slightest, accept your info. on the "soul", I'd say that I won the debate, lol.

Tootles,

Davros

davros4269

Mntbdky,

In response to another post, you said this:So maybe davros concurs with Betrand Russell in that there is insufficient evidence for belief in God. This was/is much safer ground.


What do you mean by "safer"? Atheism isn't a religion for me. I'm an atheist because I am a skeptic, not the other way around.

Of course I can't prove god doesn't exist, why should I have to unless, the default position is that he does exist?

My default position is that he doesn't exist until there is proof. I'm a skeptic, and don't buy into dogma, even of the atheistic kind. If there would be some proof tomorrow, I'd believe.

If all things are equal, that is, we can't disprove or prove god, don't we need to take it a lower, simpler lever?

If that level uses any text to give said god properties, I can most certainly disprove those - how many volmues have been written that disprove <insert your favorite holy book here>?

If your god is just a vauge, vaporous, "idea", without properties, what "good is it"? We can't prove or disprove it, why accept god as your default position? I ask in general, since I know why you accept god as your default posotion, mntbdky.

What troubles me specifically about your "why" is that conciousness is bound within the physical brain. We have demonstrated some of the effects you describe in lab conditiions. How do you know if what you experienced is god, or chemicals? Can you ever distinquish? Can anyone? Wouldn't this take you back to plane number 1: god may exist or he may not?

I guess the question for you is, why would you accept god existing as your default position, knowing that what you think you know, you may not actually know? Does that even make sense as a question?

BTW, nothing disallows us from substituting gods for god, which of course conflicts with all modern mono-theistic religions of which I am aware.

-forgot to ask- you said you had this experience while reading the NT - the New York Times?

Davros

Bill Snedden

What you said could have been interpreted to mean that. I was sure that you did not, but my question was designed to ensure a response.

Hehehehe..... No, just if they should be considered as properly acausal or random. You pretty much clear it up here:

Okay, this pretty much clears it up. In context of "belief" or "knowledge", I usually think of evidence as "reason". There has to be some sort of reason why we believe something rather than nothing or believe one thing as opposed to another. Some type of cause or principle. I've never heard the "inward/outward" distinction, but I can understand why you make it.

Understood, when I understand that you mean "evidence" not to include completely subjective experience.

* Shrugs * Could be. That would be my experience as well. You should recognize, however, that, strictly speaking, "atheism" does not entail a denial of God's existence, merely a failure to acknowledge it. "Agnosticism" is a term denoting a relationship to knowledge, "atheism" a term denoting a relationship to belief.

Well, I wouldn't normally make that distinction. I consider subjective experience as evidence; evidence for oneself alone, surely, but evidence nonetheless. However, how reliable is it?

I have had an experience that was in some ways similar to your own. I was also reading the Bible, and while doing so had a strong sense of affirmation that the whole affair was nothing more than ancient mythology. Justification for a failure to affirm belief, perhaps, but as justified as your own?

Surely you would have to answer in the affirmative, but shouldn't that at least give you pause?

Absolutely. But I don't think that's anything different from what Clifford was saying (realizing that I would count subjective experience as evidence). So, from my standpoint, you would actually affirm Clifford's dictum.

But do you then make no distinction between experiential and empirical evidence? You say, "(i)n the absence of defeaters..." so I assume that you do acknowledge that experience can be overriden, but by what? Only more experience?

Is experiential evidence on par with empirical evidence? Let's take the following two scenarios:

A) I had a dream last night in which Halle Berry told me that she loved me and wanted to indulge me in a night of passionate lovemaking.

B) I saw Halle Berry on television and she told the reporter she loved me and wanted to indulge me in a night of passionate lovemaking.

Is there one of these upon which I would be more justified in actually believing that Halle Berry loved me and that I was in for a night of passionate lovemaking?

And if it's "A", do you happen to have her phone number?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

mnkbdky

Ex. #1: Your belief that it is true that you should only believe what there is scientific evidence for.

This is the whole point davros. You cannot claim that evidence is required for belief when the claim it self has no evidence. It is self-refuting. I don't have to give proof that it is false. You already did by stating the claim. The reason why it is false is because it is a contradicton. Anything that is contradictory is false. Therefore, your belief is false. You did it for me.


Let's just put it this way.

I have God experiences and therefore believe God exists
Any belief that is based on experience in the abscence of defeaters--sufficient contrary evidence--is justified and is a grounded belief and is therefore rational.
There is not sufficient contrary evidence against the existence of God
Therefore, my belief in God is a justified and grounded belief and therefore rational.

Because it is a contradiction and I don't like to believe things that are contradictory. Those who believe in contradiction are irrational or maybe transrational--though I am not sure what the difference would be.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

Like I said yesterday...... I didn't leave Mnkbdky..... You're just ignoring me. Scroll up (and/or) back a little bit and you'll see a post from me with your name on it.

:boohoo:

mnkbdky

Though I am not a parent I have babysat my friends kids before and trust me when they say they're just going to have some fun I make them define it.

I remeber telling my parents when I was a teenager that I was just going to have some fun. Fun did not mean I was going to play putt-putt. When someone asks what is meant by fun they are not asking for another word. They are asking what is it that you have fun doing? Or where do you find your enjoyment? Definitions are vital. Your definitions of fun get us nowhere , just like your former defintions. Here is your argument:

SF is going to have fun
Fun is enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure
Therefore, SF is going to have enjoyment, amusement or pleasure.

This really doesn't tell us much, does it? Your former argument is just as vague. Being so vague resulted in you mixing your definitions throughout the argument. That is equivocation.

Words can mean more than one thing. However, to use a word in more that one way inside an argument is sloppy philosophy. Sometimes it is hard to realize that one is doing this and at other times it is very easy. In your case it is easy.

I thought I responded to this but I guess I didn't. The response I thought I gave is this: I am not appeared to by ducks everyday but I know they exist. Not experiencing something constantly or perpetually is by definition an inconsistent experience. However, just because the experience is inconsistent does not mean the argument is. I sure hope I don't have to constantly experience a duck to be consistent when I say that a duck exists.

I realize I skipped some of your comments but that is because they are either irrelevant or are not worthy of comment.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky