Iano. My favourite theistic proponent of non-empirical evidence!! How are you? How is married life treating you?
Iano writes:
Tempted as I am to nail you to the wall regarding this hoary old dog-with-a-bone of yours...
Well it has been a while since we jousted! Are you and RAZD playing some sort of tag team debating game with me? One man off one man on? After some initial ups and downs I think (I hope) that me and you ended up with a degree of mutual respect that led to some interesting and good natured debates.
Stay Happy (and let me know how things are even if you don't have the time to start a full on debate at the moment)
Well I'm not sure what I can add to the excellent points made by RAZD and kbertsche about the acceptance of non-empirical evidence.
Well none of RAZD, kbertsche nor you can provide answers to any of the following:
1) How anything immaterial can be detected or experienced at all given the material nature of our senses* (see below).
2) Why any form of non-empirical/immaterial/transcendant "evidence" should be considered superior in terms of reliability of conclusion to wishful thinking or biased guessing given that it cannot be demonstrated to be so.
3) Why rationally I should consider any deity that you consider subjectively "sensible" as more likley to exist than the Immaterial Pink Unicorn when a vast array of objective evidence suggests that all such immaterial concepts are human inventions and nothing more.
Any requirement that we treat any one immaterial deity as any more evidenced or likely to exist than any other requires special pleading, evidential inconsistency, irrational thinking and denial of evidence. In short "delusion"........
Regardless of how inventive the human species is, the clear implication here is that the human species constantly and willingly deludes itself where anything non-empirical is concerned. This appears to be your belief. It's not a very positive view of the nature of humanity is it?
Actually I think the human capacity for invention, creation and imagination is what makes us, as individuals and as a species, what we are. I am deeply proud of it. I just think it acts as a bit of a hindrance when trying to objectively determine the nature of reality.
But I wouldn't change that for the world.
*(from 1) above)
But yes, there actually are scientific studies on topics considered to be paranormal, some of them repeated many times over. Do they prove that there is, using your terminology, a sixth sense? I think the evidence is overwhelmingly affirmative, and those who deny this either are unaware of the evidence, or are employing cognitive dissonance strategies. IMO this is what is occurring when people accept the existence of a "sixth sense" are labelled as deluded.
That is quite a claim. If I start a thread on this specifically will you present this evidence so that it can be analysed and discussed?
quote:Immaterial entities cannot be experienced by means of our material senses. So how can they be evidenced at all?
Good question. A god who does not and has never interacted with the universe (similar to Dawkins' flying teapot) would not be evidenced. There must be some sort of interaction with the universe to provide evidence for God.
Immaterial entities cannot be experienced by means of our material senses. So how can they be evidenced at all?
Good question. A god who does not and has never interacted with the universe (similar to Dawkins' flying teapot) would not be evidenced. There must be some sort of interaction with the universe to provide evidence for God.
So are you saying purely deistic non-interfering, non-interacting gods are necessarily unevidenced?
quote:Well none of RAZD, kbertsche nor you can provide answers to any of the following:
On the contrary, they and I have been answering your questions. You just don't accept the answers we've given.
My main point in this thread is that delusion is a subjective judgment. Where faith is concerned, judging someone to be delusional essentially means that you believe you have access to the truth and the other person does not. You feel you can justify this belief if you focus exclusively on empirical evidence and deny that any other kind of evidence is valid. Why do you think eyewitness testimony is considered valid in a court of law, given the human tendencies you identified of lying, hallucinating, misremembering and wishful thinking? Seems to me that there are others who also think that non-empirical evidence can be suitable in some situations.
Most of the rest of your post is simply repeating arguments you've made, which I have already addressed here. If you disagree that is your choice, but I don't see the point in going around in circles. You didn't say anything about bodhisatvas. What is your position on people who have experienced enlightenment or any profound spiritual realisation? Do you honestly have the nerve to call them deluded too, when you do not understand the nature of their experiences? Just wondering. You also did not address the comment I made twice about humans personifying the divine in order to attempt to understand it. Far easier, of course, to make fun of all the different kinds of gods on offer and throw one's hands up saying, "Which immaterial entity do you expect me to choose?" This is called creating a strawman.
quote:I just think it acts as a bit of a hindrance when trying to objectively determine the nature of reality.
IMO it can also be a hinderance to insist on using one way of obtaining knowledge at the exclusion of all others. We're back to the discussion earlier of the limits of empiricism. But I expect that trying to go there again would be about as productive as Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill.
quote:If I start a thread on this specifically will you present this evidence so that it can be analysed and discussed?
I let a lot of people with similar world views to yours lure me into a variety of threads where I got ganged up on when I joined this forum, and it was rather a surprise, though it shouldn't have been; I had to do some quick learning about how their minds worked. Most of the evidence that would have helped me, I discovered in retrospect. I'm not ready to get into that again just yet, but yes I can defend my comments and I'm willing to do so when I'm not so busy talking here and elsewhere. I started a thread about some of Rupert Sheldrake's experiments at the Dreamcatcher forum and ended up getting bogged down in an argument with a poster who was unpleasant to talk with. It was very time consuming. I'd have to think about an approach that wouldn't require hours of thought and research for each post, and it's been a while since I've read anything in this particular subject.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : I'm never happy with the way I initially word things!
My main point in this thread is that delusion is a subjective judgment.
And my main point is that it isn't. Evidence either leads to results that are demonstrably superior to guessing or it doesn't. If it doesn't then claiming it as evidence is unjustified.
What is your position on people who have experienced enlightenment or any profound spiritual realisation? Do you honestly have the arrogance to call them deluded too, when you do not understand the nature of their experiences?
I am sure that their expereinces were very personally convincing. But on what rational basis should I consider them as superior to simply wishful thinking or biased guessing? Am I supposed to take into account some sort of spiritual "qualification"?
Why do you think eyewitness testimony is considered valid in a court of law, given the human tendencies you identified of lying, hallucinating, misremembering and wishful thinking? Seems to me that there are others who also think that non-empirical evidence can be suitable in some situations.
How do you think that claiming that an immaterial entity was involved in a crime would go down in a court of law? Conflating anecdotal evidence (AKA subjective evidence) regarding material experiences with those that require a sixth sense is RAZD's favourite hobby. It is unjustified and dishonest IMO.
"Which immaterial entity do you expect me to choose?" This is called creating a strawman.
That is not my question. I am an atheist. I am told by you, RAZD and others that I should rationally be agnostic. I ask you if you are atheistic or agnostic towards the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. I ask you why rationally I should be any less atheistic towards any deity that you consider "sensible" as I am towards the IPU. Why is any one deity less likely the product of human invention that any other?
Then the bad tempered and accusatory posts begin.........
But no answers are forthcoming. There is a definite pattern emerging and I don't see how I am doing anything other than asking questions that you guys don't like and cannot adequately answer.
Straggler on LL's claims of evidence for a 6th sense writes:
If I start a thread on this specifically will you present this evidence so that it can be analysed and discussed?
I let a lot of people with similar world views to yours lured me into a variety of threads where I got ganged up on when I joined this forum, and it was rather a surprise because I had to do some quick learning about how their minds worked.
I guess that is a "No". If the evidence is there I would say let it talk. But that is your call. I might start the thread anyway and see where it goes.
quote:Evidence either leads to results that are demonstrably superior to guessing or it doesn't. If it doesn't then claiming it as evidence is unjustified.
Depends on the kind of evidence. Why do you think it's wrong of me to ask you about eyewitness testimony? Many self-styled skeptics -- and I've talked with a number here -- utterly deny the validity of anecdotal evidence. I'm guessing that you would throw this out, too, no matter how substantial the body or how much consilience the stories have. You'd also throw out personal experience, wisdom, gut feelings, inner voice. These can of course be much more difficult to assess the validity of than, say, the correct figure for the speed at which light travels. It's messy, and it can lead you up a blind alley. IMO it can also be scary for people who like things in life to be well defined. Unfortunately, life doesn't always comply with our wishes.
quote:I am sure that their expereinces were very personally convincing. But on what rational basis should I consider them as superior to simply wishful thinking or biased guessing? Am I supposed to take into account some sort of spiritual "qualification"?
See my comments above. It's quite clear by now that you are insisting that empiricism is the only way of knowing. Do you think that repeating it over and over is going to make it more correct?
quote: I am told by you, RAZD and others that I should rationally be agnostic. I ask you if you are atheistic or agnostic towards the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. I ask you why rationally I should be any less atheistic towards any deity that you consider "sensible" as I am towards the IPU. Why is any one deity less likely the product of human invention that any other?
Then the bad tempered and accusatory posts begin.........
I don't think there's any "rational" way of believing in the transcendent, because it's transcendent of rationalism. Empiricism is unlikely to lead anyone to divine revelations but as I've said before, absence of empirical evidence is not evidence of absence. You are also continuing your strawman argument by continually asking why people think you should believe in a certain deity above others; interestingly, you have more or less ignored every comment I have made on this.
quote:But no answers are forthcoming. There is a definite pattern emerging and I don't see how I am doing anything other than asking questions that you guys don't like and cannot adequately answer.
The "inadequacy" of our answers is your opinion. You also seem to be assuming that your questions are somehow problematic or disconcerting. What's really disconcerting is that you are beginning to sound like the creationists I debate who have presented little evidence for their views, ignored what I've said, and then concluded that they have devastatingly shown that I am wrong. Now how do you define that word "delusion" again . . .?
quote:I guess that is a "No". If the evidence is there I would say let it talk. But that is your call. I might start the thread anyway and see where it goes.
So instead of being willing to wait until I have the time to research and present my side in a topic well, you want to rush into it with or without me so that you can reassure yourself that you're right. I would indeed have a lot to say in such a topic but I'm asking you to respect the boundaries that I have. If you start it then you start it without me and I would have to ask what you expect to gain from such an endeavour.
It's quite clear by now that you are insisting that empiricism is the only way of knowing. Do you think that repeating it over and over is going to make it more correct?
Er no. You have got me wrong. Whilst verifying evidence in a scientific manner is undeniably a means of making it much more reliable insisting on this in all situations is unrealistic. I have no problem with eyewitness testimonial with corroborating physical evidence in courtroom situations for example.
My only real requirement regarding the nature of evidence is that the form of evidence in question be demonstrably superior to guessing. In practical terms this means limiting evidence to that which can be materially detected by means of our material senses.
Unless of course it can be reliably shown that we can detect the immaterial by means of a "sixth sense" somehow. In which case I will change my position on that too. I am not the immovable zealout you seem intent on painting me as.
Empiricism is unlikely to lead anyone to divine revelations but as I've said before, absence of empirical evidence is not evidence of absence. You are also continuing your strawman argument by continually asking why people think you should believe in a certain deity above others; interestingly, you have more or less ignored every comment I have made on this.
OK let me ask it another way. Is it rational to be atheistic with regard to some immaterial entities for which there is an "absence of evidence" whilst being agnostic about others for which there is an equal "absence of evidence"? Is not this evidentially inconsistent and thus irrational?
AbE - By "absence of evidence" I mean any an absence of any form of evidence that can be shown to lead to conclusions that are superior to guessing. Empirical or otherwise.
So instead of being willing to wait until I have the time to research and present my side in a topic well, you want to rush into it with or without me so that you can reassure yourself that you're right. I would indeed have a lot to say in such a topic but I'm asking you to respect the boundaries that I have. If you start it then you start it without me and I would have to ask what you expect to gain from such an endeavour.
Not at all. I took your answer to mean "No". If you actually meant "Not yet" then I will wait and look forward to it.
Things got nasty between me and RAZD and the tone of your posts is slowly going the same way. There is really no need for this.
quote:My only real requirement regarding the nature of evidence is that the form of evidence in question be demonstrably superior to guessing. In practical terms this means limiting evidence to that which can be materially detected by means of our material senses.
Unless of course it can be reliably shown that we can detect the immaterial by means of a "sixth sense" somehow. In which case I will change my position on that too. I am not the immovable zealout you seem intent on painting me as.
I'm not trying to paint you any particular way. I was drawing conclusions based on the comments you were making.
I'm not sure how you would apply "guessing" to certain situations. What is there to guess about the experience of enlightenment? About one's personal experiences?
You posit the possibility of a "sixth sense" though I'm not sure how open-minded you are about this after having read your posts. That's OK. I just don't like the term "sixth sense." I prefer to say that I believe there are other ways of being and experiencing than by using our 5 senses.
quote:OK let me ask it another way. Is it rational to be atheistic with regard to some immaterial entities for which there is an "absence of evidence" whilst being agnostic about others for which there is an equal "absence of evidence"? Is not this evidentially inconsistent and thus irrational?
I don't think what I'm saying is getting through. Your comments above only apply if you believe that the only way of knowing or experiencing is empirical (through the 5 senses). This is why, even though you said above that you're open to other possibilities, you are still very much in the mode of arguing with the underlying assumption that empiricism is the only way to the truth. If you disagree then try re-reading your posts with a more critical eye.
quote:Things got nasty between me and RAZD and the tone of your posts is slowly going the same way. There is really no need for this.
I'm not angry, and I have been enjoying the discussion. Though it can get a little frustrating when I respond to some of your comments or make my own, and the only response I get is reiteration of your personal viewpoint. Funnily, Percy banned me from here for a year and a half for that reason. Creationists do it with me all the time but I have higher expectations from this forum.
I'm not sure how you would apply "guessing" to certain situations. What is there to guess about the experience of enlightenment? About one's personal experiences?
What experiences? Dreams? Waking visions? Hearing the "voice of god"? Are all forms of "personal experience" evidence? Or only some? If I close my eyes and envisage the ethereal yellow squirrel is the actual existence of the ethereal yellow squirrel now evidenced?
Now this is usually where things generally get bad tempered because it looks like I am taking the piss. BUT this is a serious question. On what basis do you include or disclude different types of "personal experiences" as evidence? For example RAZD discluded dreams as a form of evidence. But I honestly and genuinely don't see how he could claim that any other form of immaterial "evidence" was demonstrably more reliable or superior.
I don't think what I'm saying is getting through. Your comments above only apply if you believe that the only way of knowing or experiencing is empirical (through the 5 senses). This is why, even though you said above that you're open to other possibilities, you are still very much in the mode of arguing with the underlying assumption that empiricism is the only way to the truth. If you disagree then try re-reading your posts with a more critical eye.
I am open to any form of evidence that can be demonstrated as superior to guessing. To my knowledge material evidence is the only form of evidence that meets this criteria. Show me otherwise and I will change my mind.
But unless there is a method of differentiating between the Immaterial Pink Unicorn and any other immaterial deity by means of ANY form of evidence that is demonstrably superior to guessing I am rationally and evidentially justified in my atheism towards both. Right?
quote:So are you saying purely deistic non-interfering, non-interacting gods are necessarily unevidenced?
I'm saying that only a god who has never interacted with the universe, not even in its creation, would be necessarily unevidenced. A deistic god is conceived to be a creator god; the existence of the universe itself would therefore be evidence of such a god. (Perhaps RAZD or someone else who claims to be a deist could answer this question better?)
So are you saying purely deistic non-interfering, non-interacting gods are necessarily unevidenced?
I'm saying that only a god who has never interacted with the universe, not even in its creation, would be necessarily unevidenced. A deistic god is claimed to be the creator; the existence of the universe itself would therefore be evidence of such a god. (Perhaps RAZD or someone else who claims to be a deist could answer this question better?)
But do you think that a god/deity that is completely and inherently immaterial is able to be evidenced by means of personal experience? Genuinely immaterial entities cannot be experienced by our material senses. Right?
Whether or not the existence of the universe provides empirical evidence of a "creator" is a completely different (albeit interesting) question.
quote:But do you think that a god/deity that is completely and inherently immaterial is unable to be evidenced by means of personal experience? Genuinely immaterial entities cannot be experienced by our material senses. Yes?
If man is an interacting combination of material and immaterial (i.e. body and soul), then can't the immaterial part of man experience an immaterial god?
Further, if this immaterial God is truly the creator and sustainer of all that is material (i.e. the Christian view of God), then can't He interact with the material world (and our material senses) as well?
The broad spectrum of evidence - and our degree of confidence in it
Hi again, kbertsche, sorry it's taken so long to get back, but I had business to attend to (and still need to, but I'll steal a few minutes here).
Agreed; perhaps a distinction between objective and subjective evidence is not the best.
I think you are falling into the trap of thinking of this as a dichotomy with two distinct groupings. It isn't: there is a multi-dimensional spectrum of evidence and of the degree of confidence we have in the evidence being actual evidence of reality.
All evidence starts out as a subjective experience, because that is the way our mind works. The next thing that happens is that many experiences are repeated and repeated and repeated until they reach a level of familiarity that we automatically think of these experiences as evidence of reality: the chairs and the tables at the coffee store. We can call these type experiences mundane experiences - they happen every day.
The next level is where these common are shared by people, and in conversation (anecdotal evidence of the other's mundane experiences) we find concordance\consilience in our impression that these experiences are evidence of reality. We cannot "read" the other people's minds to verify their experiences directly, and thus all we have is the anecdotal evidence of their experiences, based on how they relate\communicate them to us. We can call these experiences shared mundane experiences.
We generally have (whether it is justified or not) a very high degree of confidence that our mundane experiences are evidence of reality because of the repetition and the validation by anecdotal evidence of similar experience by others.
(I believe that there is objective as well as subjective evidence for the Christian faith, but I would not call any of this scientific evidence per se.)
The faith of various religions, to me, falls into the category of shared mundane experiences, culturally acceptable experiences, regardless of culture or religion. As noted above, we tend to have a high degree of confidence in such shared mundane experiences, whether it it justified or not, because of the repetition and the anecdotal validation.
Note that the virtually universal (especially within a specific culture) acceptance of these shared mundane experiences is done without rigid scientific testing, the next level of evidence. There is little doubt in anyone's mind, when entering the coffee shop that the chairs will support their weight and the table their coffee. We refer to these things as "objective" reality because they are objects rather than concepts.
Curiously, what humans live in would more appropriately be called "conceptual reality" - everyone has an individual concept of the world of reality and how they relate to it is part of that world concept, their "world view":
What we really see in the coffee shop is our personal conception of the tables and chairs, etc. It has been filtered by our senses and by our world view of reality.
Our worldview is constructed from the many many mundane experiences we have known and shared with people, and from our education and personal testing of knowledge against our personal experiences, and our beliefs about how the universe works. This is where we filter new evidence and make initial judgments about their validity: how well do they fit in to our perceptions and understanding of how the universe works, how well do they conform to our world view, versus how much do they contradict or seem contrary to those views and beliefs.
Maybe scientific versus non-scientific evidence is more pertinent.
Interestingly, where we need scientific evaluation of concepts is not when they involve mundane concepts of reality, but when they seem to challenge our previous understanding of the universe. We don't need to test the table in the coffee shop to see if it is real, we do need to test theories that change our way of thinking about reality: evolution, astronomy, geology, physics, etc., as this method provides a way to validate evidence and concepts in spite of contrary beliefs and opinions of people.
The most important moments in science are marked with two exclamations:
(1) "... that's curious ..." and (2) "eureka!"
The first is where something unexpected or unusual occurs, something contrary to our understanding of the way the universe works, and the second is when a new explanation of seemingly contrary or ambiguous information and evidence suddenly fall into a logical pattern that explains the evidence.
This is getting long, and I need to get back to work (I need to be finished for Monday am), so I'll just close by observing that there are several kinds of experience\concepts,
mundane personal experience\concepts
anecdotal shared mundane experiences\concepts
tested and evaluated experiences\concepts
hypothesized experiences\concepts that are untested as yet
hypothesized experiences\concepts that we don't know if we can test
Not all of these are either\or subjective or objective, nor are they either\or scientific or non-scientific, as each of these attempts to "dichotomize" the evidence is frustrated by overlapping categories. It is my personal opinion that any and all attempts to pre-define categories of evidence will fail to explain all the different categories of experiences\concepts.
The important thing, whether the experiences\concepts involve personal experiences, or testable experiences\concepts or whatever other ways you want to attempt to categorize, define, parse, and segregate evidence, is that it is the unusual, the unexpected, the unexplained, the contrary to one's world view experiences\concepts that are (or should be) of interest.
If we are only interested in concepts that match our world view, then we are guilty of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
The approach I take is what I call open-minded skepticism, basically saying
™ Version 4.2