Hi Panda,
I'd like to clear up an issue or two here.
Straggler writes:
Whatever Straggles writes about my position, you can be sure that it is his interpretation of his impression based on his biases, and not my position. He has some kind of stick up his posterior projection about what I believe and my approach to reality, and no amount of discourse has been able to convince him that almost all of his imagined problems are of his own making. He INVENTS positions for me. Most of the time it is amusing to watch him stomp around the forum like some kind of comic avenger.
But I think he does have a consistent position: he will say anything to maintain his belief in a deity.
No. I will not argue that my personal opinions and beliefs are anything but my personal opinions and beliefs and it is irrelevant to me whether you or anyone think it is valid or justified or not. I care more about ant frass in Antarctica than I do about anyone's opinion of my opinions and beliefs. In addition, being open minded, my opinions and beliefs are subject to change.
What I WILL argue for is the logic of the agnostic position, that without sufficient evidence pro or con, that there is no compelling reason to be other than agnostic -- or an open minded skeptic (a more descriptive term imho).
question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no ... but ...
/ | |
decide why make a
based on decide decision
inadequate at this anyway
evidence time? based on
=guess =wait =opinion
(B) (C) (D) |
Both Case (A) and Case (C) are logical positions, based on evaluation of the available evidence. Case (B) is taking a "best guess" under duress of survival etc, while Case (D) is assuming that your opinion is valid.
Personally I feel that it is important to keep an open mind, and not make arbitrary decisions based more on opinion than evidence. Frankly I am rather amused by the way some people feel they must
rush to reach decisions when there is no compelling reason to do so, and insufficient empirical objective evidence to use as a basis for a rational choice.
But I also feel that it is important to be skeptical of claims that are not sufficiently supported by objective empirical evidence. I doubt you, or anyone rational, would disagree with that. This skepticism works both ways, however: when there is a lack of supporting evidence and a lack of contrary evidence, I feel it is necessary to be skeptical of both ends of the issue (and leading back to agnostic). It is important to be skeptical of your opinions and beliefs as much as it is important to be skeptical of the opinions and beliefs of others.
When we look into concepts like the
Easter Bunny, we can see that both the bunny and eggs were symbols of fertility used by the Norse Goddess Eoster -- I told Straggles that he could look up the information, but it seems to me that he would rather make pompous asinine statements about me than actually do some work in this regard. In any event there is no evidence I am aware of that the modern folklore concept is anything more than a conflation of several things that were not in the original religious beliefs. Thus I am skeptical, but open to further evidence showing otherwise.
Switching...
quote:
Another drawing of Eostre, the Teutonic Goddess of Spring and the Full Moon, Her basket filled with eggs dyed red, daffodils, lilies-of-the-valley, and a pair of baby hares.
No "easter bunny" there. The dyed eggs and the baby rabbits are in the same basket, and are symbols of fertility.
Amusingly, I have been aware of this for over a decade. What I told Straggles is that we can each make up our own minds based on the evidence that is available. This was just after I had done a run-down on Santa Clause, showing where the original St Nick came from and where, when and by whom, several aspects of modern folklore were added. I told Straggles that he could apply similar research to the Easter Bunny, and noted that he could form his opinion and I could form mine from the evidence. It seems he would rather decide based on his opinions and beliefs.
Message 44: RAZD says:
"we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.""
Chuck cheers.
I say:
"We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have predict that the pen will fall downwards."
RAZD cheers.
I say:
"We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings."
Chuck jeers.RAZD acknowledges the reply.
Curiously, what you fail to see here, is that there is a vast difference in the quantity and quality of evidence, test methods and information between {the age of the earth and gravity} and {the supernatural beings}.
There is no evidence I am aware of that shows that a single supernatural being found in a religious text has been demonstrated to be the product of human imagination.
There is no test that I am aware of that can distinguish an actual experience of supernatural presence and an experience that is imaginary, except by assuming that it is one or the other. We see Chuck77 assume it is one, and PaulK assume it is the other.
Curiously, the continued
LACK of evidence, and the continued
LACK of a valid test method, leaves us only with information, mostly anecdotal, and subjective interpretation of it. This leaves me with very little confidence that it is anything other than wishful thinking and confirmation bias.
The age of the earth has been confirmed by so many different means, from astronomy to physics to geology to the simple counting of layers, and the vast consilience between the different methodologies, from evidence as small as a
Uranium Halo to something as large as the solar system.
One can still be skeptical of the actual age and each of the different methodologies, but to be skeptical of the entire mass of information, data, test validations etc etc etc, one is essentially forced to consider that the only alternative is for the evidence to be false, intricately contrived, rather than representative of reality. Of course, the root problem here, is that this is
assumed not to be the case, that science makes this assumption and then proceeds from there. This is the root cause of the necessary tentativity of science. You can't Know.
Likewise the issue of gravity. There exists reams of evidence and data from testing and further testing and refinements of testing, each time getting closer and closer each time in the approximation of reality that science is.
One can still be skeptical of the latest results for gravity and each of the different methodologies,but to be skeptical of the entire mass of information, data, test validations etc etc etc, one is essentially forced to consider that the only alternative is for the evidence to be false, intricately contrived, rather than representative of reality. Of course, the root problem here, is that this is
assumed not to be the case, that science makes this assumption and then proceeds from there. This is the root cause of the necessary tentativity of science. You can't Know.
The hypothetical conjecture that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination does not have any confirming evidence, nor does it have a test methodology -- both bluegenes and the Peanut Gallery have failed to provide any, which is remarkable for something claimed to be scientifically investigated and supported by "plenty of evidence" - - - unless what you are dealing with is pseudoscience, confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
Rather obviously, imho, if you think that it is evidenced as well as the age of the earth or as well as gravity, you are mistaken. They are not comparable concepts.
But I think he does have a consistent position:
... that pseudoscience, false (pseudo) skepticism, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias,
idee fixe and wishful thinking are not science?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : replaced stilted nonsense subtitle
™ Version 4.2
(1)
