Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Roses on November 28, 2018, 02:17:29 PM
-
I am of the opinion that the word 'soul' is just another term for human consciousness, which ceases to exist on death.
For those who believe the human soul is created by god and survives death, what evidence do you have to support that supposition?
I suspect this will be a very short thread. ::)
-
I suspect that the story might be something like this. The word 'soul' is a word which represents 'life' and that the 'light' of life' represents awareness or consciousness. All life forms have 'soul' within them. Humans have the ability to not only direct that 'light of life' outwards in order to facilitate the establishment of the life form, but also inwards upon the subconscious thought forms and emotions of the mind and beyond that mind upon 'soul' or life itself. The Jesus method was 'metanoia' (beyond mind), unfortunately translated as 'repent', which illuminated life to the extent that the individual could declare the realisation 'I am the Life'.
As regards 'God', there are some indications in the Bible in the belief that God is Life and life eternal and so the process then becomes 'God realisation', and death is simply the degeneration of the life form. When that happens the question then becomes one of being conscious of the Life I am or being unconscious. As regards evidence, there is none other than sustained 'Self/Life' realisation.
-
I am of the opinion that the word 'soul' is just another term for human consciousness, which ceases to exist on death.
I agree.For those who believe the human soul is created by god and survives death, what evidence do you have to support that supposition?
I think heaven and hell are in this life - they are a quality of life, not a quantity of it. There may be a conscious life after death, but we can never know. That, I suppose, is where faith comes in.
-
Why post this in the Christian topic? Other faiths and religions accept some concept of a soul as well. The concept is an ancient one, not even confined to monotheistic religions and can be a rather complex concept in some now defuncr t - or nearly defunct - religions.
-
Why post this in the Christian topic? Other faiths and religions accept some concept of a soul as well. The concept is an ancient one, not even confined to monotheistic religions and can be a rather complex concept in some now defuncr t - or nearly defunct - religions.
The Christian religion is the one with which I am familiar. I am sure the mods will place this thread on another board if they think it more appropriate.
-
Little rose your opinion-------your opinion-what does the bible say.
-
Far to many--I thinks and My opinions go to scripture.We dont want your thinks or your opinions we want you to quote scripture.
-
How do people who tell us man does not have a soul/spirit/inner man manage to talk about or explain the Spiritual rebirth,because that is what is.And it is a Spiritual Resurrection I see it as the first resurrection. 25 Believe me, an important time is coming. That time is already here. People who are dead will hear the voice of the Son of God. And those who listen will live.
-
Fascination. Do tell us more. Welcome.
What do your initials 'TW' stand for? I've seen them used in articles on the internet, I've been called a TERF but I'm not hostile.
-
Far to many--I thinks and My opinions go to scripture.We dont want your thinks or your opinions we want you to quote scripture.
Speak for yourself! Why are the opinions of the Scripture-writers more valuable than anyone else's? Please don't say "because it's the word of God": that is merely your arbitrary opinion, and is rather contradicted by the appalling cruelty apparently commanded by God that is described in the Old Testament, and the many inconsistencies within it.
-
Mr chuckleberry sorry you are wrong----- We are speaking of what the scriptures say and not your opinion.Have you not noticed it is a Christian Topic which originates in scripture.
-
Mr chuckleberry sorry you are wrong----- We are speaking of what the scriptures say and not your opinion.Have you not noticed it is a Christian Topic which originates in scripture.
Some versions of Christianity take Scripture as the ultimate authority, some Church pronouncements, and some human reason. I'm a human-reason type of Christian.
How about answering my question?
-
Mr chuckleberry sorry you are wrong----- We are speaking of what the scriptures say and not your opinion.Have you not noticed it is a Christian Topic which originates in scripture.
Doesn't work like that. The Christian Topic is there for discussion of christian topics; you cannot set your own parameters on top of that restricting the debate to what scriptures say about the concept. People from varying backgrounds can have a view on such concepts.
-
Little rose your opinion-------your opinion-what does the bible say.
What the Bible has to say is neither here or there.
-
Some versions of Christianity take Scripture as the ultimate authority, some Church pronouncements, and some human reason. I'm a human-reason type of Christian.
But history shows human reason on its own to be fickle and unreliable.
You only need to read posts on this forum to realise that human reason alone will give as many differing versions of the truth as there are posters.
My faith is primarily based on prayerful reading of the New Testament and psalms, together with what I believe to be the divinely guided authority of the Roman Catholic church.
-
But history shows human reason on its own to be fickle and unreliable.
You only need to read posts on this forum to realise that human reason alone will give as many differing versions of the truth as there are posters.
My faith is primarily based on prayerful reading of the New Testament and psalms, together with what I believe to be the divinely guided authority of the Roman Catholic church.
.. which is why science, in order to try to get closer to objective truth, long ago realised that human biases need to be eliminated as far as possible from investigation. I work in a pharma company and it is now standard practice to adopt blinded randomised trials to ascertain the effectiveness of new compounds. If you just ask people for their anecdotal opinion, you will likely be getting their bias, not objective fact. People who routinely view issues through the lens of their particular faith be it RC or whatever, are indulging the bias that is inherent in that lens. Faith, any faith, is ultimately, the enemy of truth,
-
Faith, any faith, is ultimately, the enemy of truth,
Does that mean that one should not have faith in the scientific method or even in that statement?
-
But history shows human reason on its own to be fickle and unreliable.
Whereas seeking truth via scripture and prayer is so totally reliable that everybody always agrees. That's why there's only one religion and never any disagreements about it...
::)
You only need to read posts on this forum to realise that human reason alone will give as many differing versions of the truth as there are posters.
That's not actually the case, though, is it? If you ask most people about matters of established scientific fact or mathematical reasoning, I don't think you'd get much disagreement. The device you are using to read this on is testament to the reliability of human reasoning and science.
-
Mr chuckleberry sorry you are wrong----- We are speaking of what the scriptures say and not your opinion.Have you not noticed it is a Christian Topic which originates in scripture.
Hi, TW - welcome back.
Yep; we are indeed speaking of what the Scriptures say....trouble is, there are many translations available, and ' soul' isn't used in all of them.
Of course I accept that our spirit survived - how could I not - and that we will be gloriously recreared in the continuance of our new life begun when we accept Christ for who He is; but 'soul' has a concept in other world religions, even though you and I might reject them...hence I wanted this taken from the Christian section.
Now, I'd replace it with 'New life in Christ'.
-
Does that mean that one should not have faith in the scientific method or even in that statement?
I don't think we can eliminate faith completely, it would be impractical. That is not a reason to elevate faith though, as if faith were a virtue in itself.
-
But history shows human reason on its own to be fickle and unreliable.
You only need to read posts on this forum to realise that human reason alone will give as many differing versions of the truth as there are posters.
My faith is primarily based on prayerful reading of the New Testament and psalms, together with what I believe to be the divinely guided authority of the Roman Catholic church.
Which is all the more reason for people to be very sceptical as the RCC doctrine is flawed, to say the least.
-
Hi Anchs,
Yep; we are indeed speaking of what the Scriptures say....trouble is, there are many translations available, and ' soul' isn't used in all of them.
Of course I accept that our spirit survived - how could I not - and that we will be gloriously recreared in the continuance of our new life begun when we accept Christ for who He is; but 'soul' has a concept in other world religions, even though you and I might reject them...hence I wanted this taken from the Christian section.
Now, I'd replace it with 'New life in Christ'.
The “trouble” is deeper than that I think. How religious texts should be interpreted is well and good for those who like that sort of thing, but before you get there there’s the ticklish problem of explaining why they should be considered “holy” at all. The likes of TW gloss that bit as a given, but some of us find the statement “I’m a man of faith” (with an expectation that the attendant claims should be treated with respect) actually means something like, “I privilege just guessing over reason and evidence”.
And the only rational response to that I find is, “so ****ing what?”
-
I don't think we can eliminate faith completely, it would be impractical. That is not a reason to elevate faith though, as if faith were a virtue in itself.
I think it depends upon how the word 'faith' is used. I understand that the Greek word used in the New Testament is more to do with persistence with a method to attain a believed result e.g. Heaven. Such 'faith' in the scientific method has demonstrable results to shore up that faith. What the methods don't do is confer automatic virtue on the faithful users of the methods e.g. Novichok inventors, religious persecutors, political extremists. There are elements in most religious scripture which attempt to guide the 'faithful' towards virtue and away from vice so that some kind of transformation of the human being takes place. As we can see on our streets and the Internet, the neutral scientific method can be used to promote vice as well as virtue.
-
ekim,
I think it depends upon how the word 'faith' is used. I understand that the Greek word used in the New Testament is more to do with persistence with a method to attain a believed result e.g. Heaven. Such 'faith' in the scientific method has demonstrable results to shore up that faith. What the methods don't do is confer automatic virtue on the faithful users of the methods e.g. Novichok inventors, religious persecutors, political extremists. There are elements in most religious scripture which attempt to guide the 'faithful' towards virtue and away from vice so that some kind of transformation of the human being takes place. As we can see on our streets and the Internet, the neutral scientific method can be used to promote vice as well as virtue.
You’re conflating the meanings of “faith” here: “a subjective belief I hold because it’s meaningful to me”, vs “an objective belief I hold because there’s reason and evidence to support it”. I have “faith” that my car will start because it’s a reliable car; I don’t have “faith” that a St Christopher hanging from the mirror will prevent accidents.
Whether “transformation” in behaviour happens has nothing to do with it, and nor does the use to which scientific findings are put. The issue is about establishing probable truths, not about comparing the desirability of outcomes.
-
I don't think we can eliminate faith completely, it would be impractical. That is not a reason to elevate faith though, as if faith were a virtue in itself.
Blind faith is different from faith as subtle knowledge. Blind faith is believing without question some book or ancient teaching.
Often we understand certain patterns and forces working in our lives in a very subtle manner without really understanding them clearly. But we nevertheless know that these forces are there. This knowledge is faith.....because we know there is something but we don't understand it. We may label it as God or whatever, which is besides the point.
-
Sriram,
Blind faith is different from faith as subtle knowledge. Blind faith is believing without question some book or ancient teaching.
What logical path do you think there to be to take you from the former to the latter?
Often we understand certain patterns and forces working in our lives in a very subtle manner without really understanding them clearly. But we nevertheless know that these forces are there. This knowledge is faith.....because we know there is something but we don't understand it. We may label it as God or whatever, which is besides the point.
Doesn’t work. How do we “know” that rather than just have opinions about it?
-
Sriram,
What logical path do you think there to be to take you from the former to the latter?
Doesn’t work. How do we “know” that rather than just have opinions about it?
That is for every person to decide on their own as to what works for them.
-
That is for every person to decide on their own as to what works for them.
In which case, they are far more likely to make a rational, realistic, sensible and useful one if they have good, objective evidence-based information onwhich to make that decision, rather than a hotch-potch of subjective, muddled, totally unrealistic ideas gleaned from other people with that sort of muddled thinking.
-
That is for every person to decide on their own as to what works for them.
So, not actually knowing at all, just an opinion. Blind faith in your own feelings/wishes/intuition about it.
-
Sriram,
That is for every person to decide on their own as to what works for them.
As "what works for them" has nothing to do with objective truth, I guess we're agreed then that all faith is blind.
-
Sriram,
As "what works for them" has nothing to do with objective truth, I guess we're agreed then that all faith is blind.
Even objective truth needs to be experienced. It is not always as obvious as we think.
For a village full of born blind people Light will be unknown objectively. If a couple of people come along who can see...the blind people will naturally consider them as delusional.
-
Even objective truth needs to be experienced. It is not always as obvious as we think.
For a village full of born blind people Light will be unknown objectively. If a couple of people come along who can see...the blind people will naturally consider them as delusional.
Except, as has been explained to you every time you bring up this particularly daft comparison, in exactly the same way as it is possible to provide objective evidence for other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (x-rays, radio waves, etc.) that we can't see, it would be possible to do the same with light to blind people.
There would be no need for anybody to "to decide on their own as to what works for them".
-
ekim,
You’re conflating the meanings of “faith” here: “a subjective belief I hold because it’s meaningful to me”, vs “an objective belief I hold because there’s reason and evidence to support it”. I have “faith” that my car will start because it’s a reliable car; I don’t have “faith” that a St Christopher hanging from the mirror will prevent accidents.
Whether “transformation” in behaviour happens has nothing to do with it, and nor does the use to which scientific findings are put. The issue is about establishing probable truths, not about comparing the desirability of outcomes.
No, as this is a Christian topic, I am using what I understand to be the New Testament meaning of the word 'faith'(i.e. persistence with a method) rather than being synonymous with the word 'belief' as you have put it. The 'belief' you have in your car is most likely based upon a factual assessment of probability. The 'belief' in the St Christopher is most likely based upon emotional conditioning. If you see Torridon's reply to me you will see he used the word 'virtue' which I should have thought has everything to do with transformation in behaviour. Perhaps if the scientists behind Novichok established the probable truth about its use then they might have been more virtuous towards its possible outcome and abandoned its invention. Highly unlikely I suppose, given the emotional conditioning driving the researchers.
-
Sriram,
Even objective truth needs to be experienced. It is not always as obvious as we think.
Well, “coherent and investigated so as to be known to be objectively true” rather than “experienced” perhaps, but ok. Experience is, well, just that – an experience. It will often tell you very little about the explanation for the phenomenon you’re experiencing. (That’s where AB keeps going wrong over on the Searching for God thread.)
For a village full of born blind people Light will be unknown objectively. If a couple of people come along who can see...the blind people will naturally consider them as delusional.
That’s hopeless. If the seeing people said something like, “it’s my faith that there is light” they may well be thought delusional, just as they would if they said “it’s my faith that there are dragons”. If though instead they explained the reasoning and evidence that demonstrate light, the blind people would have something other than faith to evaluate.
That’s the problem you see when you privilege faith over just guessing.
-
This thread has taken off in a way I didn't expect.
-
ekim,
No, as this is a Christian topic, I am using what I understand to be the New Testament meaning of the word 'faith'(i.e. persistence with a method) rather than being synonymous with the word 'belief' as you have put it. The 'belief' you have in your car is most likely based upon a factual assessment of probability. The 'belief' in the St Christopher is most likely based upon emotional conditioning. If you see Torridon's reply to me you will see he used the word 'virtue' which I should have thought has everything to do with transformation in behaviour. Perhaps if the scientists behind Novichok established the probable truth about its use then they might have been more virtuous towards its possible outcome and abandoned its invention. Highly unlikely I suppose, given the emotional conditioning driving the researchers.
You’re the one who conflated the two meanings to imply a false equivalence, not me.
-
I don't think we can eliminate faith completely, it would be impractical. That is not a reason to elevate faith though, as if faith were a virtue in itself.
Not sure I agree but it depends on how you use the word faith.
I have completely eliminated faith, and have no faith at all in anything.
-
Sriram,
Well, “coherent and investigated so as to be known to be objectively true” rather than “experienced” perhaps, but ok. Experience is, well, just that – an experience. It will often tell you very little about the explanation for the phenomenon you’re experiencing. (That’s where AB keeps going wrong over on the Searching for God thread.)
That’s hopeless. If the seeing people said something like, “it’s my faith that there is light” they may well be thought delusional, just as they would if they said “it’s my faith that there are dragons”. If though instead they explained the reasoning and evidence that demonstrate light, the blind people would have something other than faith to evaluate.
That’s the problem you see when you privilege faith over just guessing.
I am not saying that people experience light because of faith. I am saying that, as in the case of blind people, objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think. It depends on our faculties and capability. What is obvious to some may be very difficult for some others to know.
What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith.
About faith being subtle knowledge, it works as though some of the blind people can see some flashes of light now and then but have no clear idea of it. They then have to take the word of the normal people and build on their own experiences to have some idea of what light is. In this case, they actually know that something exists but that they are unable to experience completely. This is true faith! This leads to a yearning to know more and to experience more.
-
I am not saying that people experience light because of faith. I am saying that, as in the case of blind people, objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think. It depends on our faculties and capability. What is obvious to some may be very difficult for some others to know.
What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith.
About faith being subtle knowledge, it works as though some of the blind people can see some flashes of light now and then but have no clear idea of it. They then have to take the word of the normal people and build on their own experiences to have some idea of what light is. In this case, they actually know that something exists but that they are unable to experience completely. This is true faith! This leads to a yearning to know more and to experience more.
They would not need blind faith as the existence of sight could be demstrated.
I cannot see x rays or or infra red but I am convinced the exist.
-
...objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think.
Who thinks it's always obvious? It's often rather difficult to find the objective truth but what is certain is that, if you are ever going to find it, you need an objective method of doing so.
What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith.
Utter nonsense. Do you only believe in x-rays or radio waves because of blind faith?
-
What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith.
Can't we just give these guys a light meter ? £15 at Amazon, problem solved, no faith needed.
-
Sriram,
I am not saying that people experience light because of faith. I am saying that, as in the case of blind people, objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think. It depends on our faculties and capability. What is obvious to some may be very difficult for some others to know.
No-one suggested that objective truth is necessarily obvious. What was actually said was that for the purpose of identifying or verifying objective truth faith is no better than just guessing.
It’s not difficult.
What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith.
No they wouldn’t for the reasons I explained but, even if that was true, so what?
About faith being subtle knowledge, it works as though some of the blind people can see some flashes of light now and then but have no clear idea of it. They then have to take the word of the normal people and build on their own experiences to have some idea of what light is. In this case, they actually know that something exists but that they are unable to experience completely. This is true faith! This leads to a yearning to know more and to experience more.
This is nonsense. If you think that faith beliefs can constitute knowledge (subtle or otherwise), then you have all your work ahead of you to establish how you’d distinguish your wrong guesses from your correct ones.
And in the unlikely event that you could find such a method, then you’d have done away with faith in any case in favour of something else.
-
Even objective truth needs to be experienced. It is not always as obvious as we think.
For a village full of born blind people Light will be unknown objectively. If a couple of people come along who can see...the blind people will naturally consider them as delusional.
You haven't met many blind people, then.
-
Can't we just give these guys a light meter ? £15 at Amazon, problem solved, no faith needed.
How can a light meter or any other instrument prove to a born blind person that light exists?! He has no idea why the meter is beeping or moving or whatever. Why should he believe that it is because of some mysterious and strange thingy called light that exist everywhere?! He can do that only on blind faith.
Suppose there is a village full of blind people who have never seen anything for generations. They will live normally as though light does not exist. Their lives will be tailored around their capabilities. If one of them happens to visit another village with normal people he will relate tales of people who have supernatural abilities and strange visions of the world. The other blind people could be in awe of such new people or they could treat them as charlatans and liars.
If suddenly one of the blind people himself sees some flashes of light that the others don't see, they will treat him either as a delusional believer or as a superior prophet.
Even today we take many things on blind faith.... in scientists.....(both because of their authority and because lots of scientists together agree). Most astronomical details are taken on faith. Most people have no background in science and maths and no access to telescopes. We rely only on scientists. Dark energy, Dark Matter, the big bang, Singularity....are all taken on faith. We have no idea if these things actually exist or maybe even prove to be wrong in course of time.
Therefore faith is either blind based on what others say.....or faith can be based on ones own intermittent experiences of subtle phenomena.
-
How can a light meter or any other instrument prove to a born blind person that light exists?! He has no idea why the meter is beeping or moving or whatever. Why should he believe that it is because of some mysterious and strange thingy called light that exist everywhere?! He can do that only on blind faith.
This is both idiotic and incredibly insulting to blind people - they aren't stupid.
Just as you can assess the objective evidence for (say) x-rays, blind people could assess the evidence for light. I really don't know why you keep repeating the nonsense - it just makes you look stupid.
Even today we take many things on blind faith.... in scientists.....(both because of their authority and because lots of scientists together agree). Most astronomical details are taken on faith. Most people have no background in science and maths and no access to telescopes.
Except it isn't blind at all. You make use of the products of science and you can understand how scientific conclusions are reached and how they are checked.
...or faith can be based on ones own intermittent experiences of subtle phenomena.
Which is known to be completely unreliable.
-
How can a light meter or any other instrument prove to a born blind person that light exists?! He has no idea why the meter is beeping or moving or whatever. Why should he believe that it is because of some mysterious and strange thingy called light that exist everywhere?! He can do that only on blind faith.
Suppose there is a village full of blind people who have never seen anything for generations. They will live normally as though light does not exist. Their lives will be tailored around their capabilities. If one of them happens to visit another village with normal people he will relate tales of people who have supernatural abilities and strange visions of the world. The other blind people could be in awe of such new people or they could treat them as charlatans and liars.
If suddenly one of the blind people himself sees some flashes of light that the others don't see, they will treat him either as a delusional believer or as a superior prophet.
Even today we take many things on blind faith.... in scientists.....(both because of their authority and because lots of scientists together agree). Most astronomical details are taken on faith. Most people have no background in science and maths and no access to telescopes. We rely only on scientists. Dark energy, Dark Matter, the big bang, Singularity....are all taken on faith. We have no idea if these things actually exist or maybe even prove to be wrong in course of time.
Therefore faith is either blind based on what others say.....or faith can be based on ones own intermittent experiences of subtle phenomena.
The difference between a light meter and personal experiences is that a light meter, like a camera, cannot lie. A reading on the light meter shows that the phenomenon is real, objective, in a sense, and not just a product of a delusional mind. This why we build detectors - they are like us but without all the baggage, the prejudices, the longings. Culturally, it is impractical to eliminate trust completely, but we can take steps to reduce our exposure to risk, and this is why we develop objective methods, to bypass the notoriously unreliable agenda-driven nature of personal anecdote and testimony.
-
The difference between a light meter and personal experiences is that a light meter, like a camera, cannot lie. A reading on the light meter shows that the phenomenon is real, objective, in a sense, and not just a product of a delusional mind. This why we build detectors - they are like us but without all the baggage, the prejudices, the longings. Culturally, it is impractical to eliminate trust completely, but we can take steps to reduce our exposure to risk, and this is why we develop objective methods, to bypass the notoriously unreliable agenda-driven nature of personal anecdote and testimony.
How does the beep of a light meter or any such thing prove to a blind man that light exists? It has to be on faith. Most blind people take it on faith and on the fact that their family and people they trust say so.
-
The difference between a light meter and personal experiences is that a light meter, like a camera, cannot lie. A reading on the light meter shows that the phenomenon is real, objective, in a sense, and not just a product of a delusional mind. This why we build detectors - they are like us but without all the baggage, the prejudices, the longings. Culturally, it is impractical to eliminate trust completely, but we can take steps to reduce our exposure to risk, and this is why we develop objective methods, to bypass the notoriously unreliable agenda-driven nature of personal anecdote and testimony.
To declare only one difference as the difference is to start with a simplistic approach.
Personal experience which is a lie is not a personal experience.
Lie detectors which according to you dont lie and can be used surely to sort out which is the lie.
Another difference between lie and experience is in a lie you are conscious of making it and in an experience you are conscious of having it.
Similarly one is conscious of making a guess
Where some claim psychological incompetance surrounding experience it is suspicious that this overlays exactly with the objections of naturalists. You yourself Made the prejudiced assumption and assertion that only instruments can tell what is "real".
-
How does the beep of a light meter or any such thing prove to a blind man that light exists? It has to be on faith. Most blind people take it on faith and on the fact that their family and people they trust say so.
Drivel. Do you take the existence of radio waves on faith, just because people say they exist?
-
Drivel. Do you take the existence of radio waves on faith, just because people say they exist?
As he said, many, many people would have trusted the reports and testimony of others at a time when only a few had radios and I'm sure many at say Fukashima would have acted on others testimony even though they had no Geiger counter and no personal way of detecting radioactive rays because they trusted testimony.
-
How does the beep of a light meter or any such thing prove to a blind man that light exists? It has to be on faith. Most blind people take it on faith and on the fact that their family and people they trust say so.
I think you are going nuclear on the faith thing; I'd agree we cannot eliminate trust completely but on the other hand all faith is not blind faith, there are degrees of exposure to the risk inherent in trust and we mitigate these risks using principles such as intersubjective consensus and Okham's razor. We are all participants in a world of limited knowledge
-
How can a light meter or any other instrument prove to a born blind person that light exists?! He has no idea why the meter is beeping or moving or whatever. Why should he believe that it is because of some mysterious and strange thingy called light that exist everywhere?! He can do that only on blind faith.
Suppose there is a village full of blind people who have never seen anything for generations. They will live normally as though light does not exist. Their lives will be tailored around their capabilities. If one of them happens to visit another village with normal people he will relate tales of people who have supernatural abilities and strange visions of the world. The other blind people could be in awe of such new people or they could treat them as charlatans and liars.
If suddenly one of the blind people himself sees some flashes of light that the others don't see, they will treat him either as a delusional believer or as a superior prophet.
Even today we take many things on blind faith.... in scientists.....(both because of their authority and because lots of scientists together agree). Most astronomical details are taken on faith. Most people have no background in science and maths and no access to telescopes. We rely only on scientists. Dark energy, Dark Matter, the big bang, Singularity....are all taken on faith. We have no idea if these things actually exist or maybe even prove to be wrong in course of time.
Therefore faith is either blind based on what others say.....or faith can be based on ones own intermittent experiences of subtle phenomena.
If they are scientifically advanced, your blind race would know about electromagnetic radiation, and if the operation of the eye was explained to them, they would understand how images could be formed and transmitted to the brain by focussing radiation within a restricted wavelength spectrum. They would also, presumably, have non-functioning eyes, which would make understanding easier.
-
I think you are going nuclear on the faith thing; I'd agree we cannot eliminate trust completely but on the other hand all faith is not blind faith, there are degrees of exposure to the risk inherent in trust and we mitigate these risks using principles such as intersubjective consensus and Okham's razor. We are all participants in a world of limited knowledge
To understand what I am saying you would have to imagine a world of blind people with maybe a few people having flashes of sight.
Nevertheless, my point is to say that if we don't have certain faculties we cannot experience even those things that are all around us. So, sensory inputs are not entirely reliable in terms of objective reality and everything cannot be exhibited in objective terms for all to see. Certain things we just need to experience personally.
These personal experiences are not always clear cut and can be very subtle. You know something is there but you are not sure. This is what I mean by faith.
Take even our own Unconscious mind for example. The Unconscious mind can influence us in many ways which we may realize in a subtle way but we will not be able to put our finger on it. Therefore having faith that there is something that is influencing our decisions is not wrong.
-
Have to say that I don't like the term 'faith' when it is used as a synonym for 'trust' still seems, to me anyway, to be too vague to be me be meaningful. I recall a previous Christian member here, Alien I think, advanced the line that having 'faith' in a religious sense was akin to having 'trust' in the pilot of the plane you're about to board - and the two aren't the same.
I'd say that 'justified confidence' is the key point - I can see how you could have justified confidence in the competence of the pilot but I fail to see how you could have 'justified confidence' in ancient anecdotal accounts of miracles that have uncertain provenance, since the risks of these accounts involving bias, mistakes or lies are clear risks - whereas you can check that the pilot is suitably experienced and qualified.
-
We know pilots exist and trust they will fly the plane in a competent manner, we have no such evidence that god exists.
-
Sriram,
To understand what I am saying you would have to imagine a world of blind people with maybe a few people having flashes of sight.
Leaving aside for now the stupidities baked in here (why would blind people be any less capable of conceptualising light than you are of conceptualising X-rays?), the attempted analogy is ass-backwards in any case. For it to work you'd have to start with some "light-ists" who had no idea what they meant by "light" and no means to demonstrate such a thing either to others or to themselves. Then you'd need some phlogiston-ists, some scotch mist-ists etc whose own faith beliefs were equally unqualified. Then you'd line them up in front of your blind people (or in front of any other audience possessed of functioning intellects) to assert their respective faith beliefs.
Would the audience be right to reject them all even if, just as a matter of dumb luck, one of them just happened to be correct?
Of course they would.
I'll leave you to work out why.
-
I am not saying that people experience light because of faith. I am saying that, as in the case of blind people, objective truth is not always as obvious as we like to think. It depends on our faculties and capability. What is obvious to some may be very difficult for some others to know.
What is obvious to some cannot even be communicated or made known to the others. The blind people would need to take the existence of light only on blind faith.
About faith being subtle knowledge, it works as though some of the blind people can see some flashes of light now and then but have no clear idea of it. They then have to take the word of the normal people and build on their own experiences to have some idea of what light is. In this case, they actually know that something exists but that they are unable to experience completely. This is true faith! This leads to a yearning to know more and to experience more.
"nmal people"?
Are you trying to say that those of us who are blind are not 'normal'?
Do you have a concept of waht 'blindnes' is?
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
-
Have to say that I don't like the term 'faith' when it is used as a synonym for 'trust' still seems, to me anyway, to be too vague to be me be meaningful. I recall a previous Christian member here, Alien I think, advanced the line that having 'faith' in a religious sense was akin to having 'trust' in the pilot of the plane you're about to board - and the two aren't the same.
I'd say that 'justified confidence' is the key point - I can see how you could have justified confidence in the competence of the pilot but I fail to see how you could have 'justified confidence' in ancient anecdotal accounts of miracles that have uncertain provenance, since the risks of these accounts involving bias, mistakes or lies are clear risks - whereas you can check that the pilot is suitably experienced and qualified.
I am not talking about God at all. I am talking about subtle forces, influences and patterns in our lives that are not discernible by the senses. Do such influences exist? Yes...they do. Do I understand what they are and how they work? No!
-
To understand what I am saying you would have to imagine a world of blind people with maybe a few people having flashes of sight.
Nevertheless, my point is to say that if we don't have certain faculties we cannot experience even those things that are all around us. So, sensory inputs are not entirely reliable in terms of objective reality and everything cannot be exhibited in objective terms for all to see. Certain things we just need to experience personally.
These personal experiences are not always clear cut and can be very subtle. You know something is there but you are not sure. This is what I mean by faith.
Take even our own Unconscious mind for example. The Unconscious mind can influence us in many ways which we may realize in a subtle way but we will not be able to put our finger on it. Therefore having faith that there is something that is influencing our decisions is not wrong.
If I were to follow your rather distasteful analogy, then I assume I would be one of your few amongst the blind people you talk about who have had flashes of light. Such personal experiences, as you say, 'are not always clear cut and can be very subtle.' However, for me, these 'flashes of light' give me a strong indication that nothing, I repeat, nothing, is there.
So, am I to think that in a world of 'blind' people who think that some universal consciousness is prevalent in the universe, I have the necessary insights to show that there is no such thing? Should I have faith in my own insights without any further justification?
No. I suggest that I would be in error in accepting my 'insight' as pointing to some sort of objective truth about reality. One reason for doing so would be the realization that many other people have insights, too, some of which are at complete odds to my own. The only way to judge such things would be to collate evidence by as an objective a method as possible surely.
-
Sriram,
Leaving aside for now the stupidities baked in here (why would blind people be any less capable of conceptualising light than you are of conceptualising X-rays?), the attempted analogy is ass-backwards in any case. For it to work you'd have to start with some "light-ists" who had no idea what they meant by "light" and no means to demonstrate such a thing either to others or to themselves. Then you'd need some phlogiston-ists, some scotch mist-ists etc whose own faith beliefs were equally unqualified. Then you'd line them up in front of your blind people (or in front of any other audience possessed of functioning intellects) to assert their respective faith beliefs.
Would the audience be right to reject them all even if, just as a matter of dumb luck, one of them just happened to be correct?
Of course they would.
I'll leave you to work out why.
Blind people can conceptualize light only after they have heard of it, trust the people who are claiming its existence and then get a possible description and understanding of it. All that requires faith. Taking a stubborn and skeptical blind man...you will not be able to convince him of the existence of light.
We accept X-rays because we have had x-rays taken, we trust scientists and we understand the idea of EM radiation. Before Roentgen no one would have believed in such a radiation...though obviously x rays did exist even then.
-
"nmal people"?
Are you trying to say that those of us who are blind are not 'normal'?
Do you have a concept of waht 'blindnes' is?
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
As you don't appear to be an alien from outer space, Anchorman, you are the same as the rest of us, a human, your blindness doesn't make you any less so. What is normal, for heaven's sake? I treat you like any other poster. I would never pity you, anymore than I would pity my husband, to do is demeaning and wrong. I wouldn't thank anyone for pitying me because I am a senile old bat. One thing about this forum is I can guarantee people will tell me exactly what they think of me. ;D
-
If I were to follow your rather distasteful analogy, then I assume I would be one of your few amongst the blind people you talk about who have had flashes of light. Such personal experiences, as you say, 'are not always clear cut and can be very subtle.' However, for me, these 'flashes of light' give me a strong indication that nothing, I repeat, nothing, is there.
So, am I to think that in a world of 'blind' people who think that some universal consciousness is prevalent in the universe, I have the necessary insights to show that there is no such thing? Should I have faith in my own insights without any further justification?
No. I suggest that I would be in error in accepting my 'insight' as pointing to some sort of objective truth about reality. One reason for doing so would be the realization that many other people have insights, too, some of which are at complete odds to my own. The only way to judge such things would be to collate evidence by as an objective a method as possible surely.
Yes....it is possible that people could have different interpretations. That is why we have different ideas and images of God and other such entities.
But that doesn't alter the fact that many such influences and patterns do exist in our lives which we are unable to understand or get any rational inputs about.
-
I am not talking about God at all. I am talking about subtle forces, influences and patterns in our lives that are not discernible by the senses. Do such influences exist? Yes...they do. Do I understand what they are and how they work? No!
If these subtle forces are not discernible, as you say, then it is hard to see how you could have justified confidence in them being in any sense real: that you are predisposed to them being real might just be you, and you could be wrong.
-
If these subtle forces are not discernible, as you say, then it is hard to see how you could have justified confidence in them being in any sense real: that you are predisposed to them being real might just be you, and you could be wrong.
Not so. I have already mentioned that our unconscious mind has a major influence on our lives. It takes decisions even before our conscious mind is aware of it. It affects cures through the placebo effect. It is awake even when we are asleep (somnambulism). It knows and remembers things that the conscious mind is not aware of. It is said to be like the hidden 90% of an iceberg while the conscious mind is only about 10%.
And yet we know next to nothing about the unconscious mind. Jung has even proposed a collective unconscious.
That is a good start for unknown influences in our lives.
-
"nmal people"?
Are you trying to say that those of us who are blind are not 'normal'?
Do you have a concept of waht 'blindnes' is?
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
Blindness, deafness, paralysis etc. are not normal, and I think we should stop pussyfooting around and pretending that they are. The blind, the deaf, and the paralysed are fully human, and should be treated as such, but that's not the same thing.
-
Blindness, deafness, paralysis etc. are not normal, and I think we should stop pussyfooting around and pretending that they are. The blind, the deaf, and the paralysed are fully human, and should be treated as such, but that's not the same thing.
Define normal? Is it normal to wish to clock up so many miles on a bicycle when one is in one's late 60s? Most people have something about us, which could be considered abnormal, like writing with your left hand, as I do. It is our quirks, disabilities etc, which make us human.
-
Not so. I have already mentioned that our unconscious mind has a major influence on our lives. It takes decisions even before our conscious mind is aware of it. It affects cures through the placebo effect. It is awake even when we are asleep (somnambulism). It knows and remembers things that the conscious mind is not aware of. It is said to be like the hidden 90% of an iceberg while the conscious mind is only about 10%.
And yet we know next to nothing about the unconscious mind. Jung has even proposed a collective unconscious.
That is a good start for unknown influences in our lives.
I think that is rather overplaying the mysteriousness of unconscious mind. It is not as if it is something inscrutable or external to us shaping our behaviours in mysterious ways. Think of it as being like the parts of a running computer system that are not currently present in fast memory. All the other stuff that is not needed right now is still part of us, ready to be called into memory as and when needed.
-
Define normal? Is it normal to wish to clock up so many miles on a bicycle when one is in one's late 60s? Most people have something about us, which could be considered abnormal, like writing with your left hand, as I do. It is our quirks, disabilities etc, which make us human.
As one leftie to another, I quite agree.
-
As one leftie to another, I quite agree.
I don't think I would describe myself as a leftie, more of a centerist.
-
Sriram,
Blind people can conceptualize light only after they have heard of it, trust the people who are claiming its existence and then get a possible description and understanding of it. All that requires faith. Taking a stubborn and skeptical blind man...you will not be able to convince him of the existence of light.
We accept X-rays because we have had x-rays taken, we trust scientists and we understand the idea of EM radiation. Before Roentgen no one would have believed in such a radiation...though obviously x rays did exist even then.
Now try reading what I actually said. If blind people received assertions about light on the same basis that that theists make claims about their gods, then they would be right to reject the claim.
See if you can work out why.
-
Sriram.
I am talking about subtle forces, influences and patterns in our lives that are not discernible by the senses. Do such influences exist? Yes...they do. Do I understand what they are and how they work? No!
If they are "not discernible by our sense" as you put it, how do you know that they exist?
-
Sriram.
If they are "not discernible by our sense" as you put it, how do you know that they exist?
Blue....this could go on forever....!
Its simply about objective evidence versus subjective experience. My point is simply that objective evidence is not always possible because ultimately everything is experienced subjectively....(like light). If people lack certain faculties they will not be able to experience certain things however real those may be. They will have to go with faith and trust. If people are stubborn enough they could keep denying phenomena simply because they cannot experience it.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I think that is rather overplaying the mysteriousness of unconscious mind. It is not as if it is something inscrutable or external to us shaping our behaviours in mysterious ways. Think of it as being like the parts of a running computer system that are not currently present in fast memory. All the other stuff that is not needed right now is still part of us, ready to be called into memory as and when needed.
No...I think you are avoiding the obvious simply because it takes you out of your comfort zone.
The unconscious mind is far more complex and important than you are willing to admit. You really must come out of the old school science mindset....
**************
“The conscious you, which is the part that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning, is the smallest bit of what’s happening in your head.
“It’s like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.”
David Eagleman, Neuroscientist.
**************
Taking into account different findings on Consciousness such as...
Freud on the power of the Unconscious, Jung on the collective unconscious, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, Wheeler on Participatory Anthropic Principle, Chalmers on Panpsychism, Toroni on Integrated Information theory, Eagleman on the Unconscious mind.....and many others....
the idea of the unconscious mind having a dramatic influence on us and the world around us seems to be gaining ground. It is not just a store room of repressed memories. It is much much more...and is probably running our lives and the world.
-
Have to say that I don't like the term 'faith' when it is used as a synonym for 'trust' still seems, to me anyway, to be too vague to be me be meaningful. I recall a previous Christian member here, Alien I think, advanced the line that having 'faith' in a religious sense was akin to having 'trust' in the pilot of the plane you're about to board - and the two aren't the same.
I'd say that 'justified confidence' is the key point - I can see how you could have justified confidence in the competence of the pilot but I fail to see how you could have 'justified confidence' in ancient anecdotal accounts of miracles that have uncertain provenance, since the risks of these accounts involving bias, mistakes or lies are clear risks - whereas you can check that the pilot is suitably experienced and qualified.
I think the religion you are attempting to describe here is Christianity which is not primarily assent of miracles. The lack of belief in miracles is a cover, diversion and excuse for the real objection which is we do not like being the subject of Jesus teaching on the need for salvation.
-
Its simply about objective evidence versus subjective experience. My point is simply that objective evidence is not always possible because ultimately everything is experienced subjectively....(like light). If people lack certain faculties they will not be able to experience certain things however real those may be. They will have to go with faith and trust. If people are stubborn enough they could keep denying phenomena simply because they cannot experience it.
Cheers.
Sriram
Who are all these stubborn people ? Nobody can 'experience' x-rays personally, but I've yet to hear of accident victims refusing to have their suspected fractures x-rayed because they stubbornly refuse to believe in them.
-
No...I think you are avoiding the obvious simply because it takes you out of your comfort zone.
The unconscious mind is far more complex and important than you are willing to admit. You really must come out of the old school science mindset....
**************
“The conscious you, which is the part that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning, is the smallest bit of what’s happening in your head.
“It’s like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.”
David Eagleman, Neuroscientist.
**************
Taking into account different findings on Consciousness such as...
Freud on the power of the Unconscious, Jung on the collective unconscious, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, Wheeler on Participatory Anthropic Principle, Chalmers on Panpsychism, Toroni on Integrated Information theory, Eagleman on the Unconscious mind.....and many others....
the idea of the unconscious mind having a dramatic influence on us and the world around us seems to be gaining ground. It is not just a store room of repressed memories. It is much much more...and is probably running our lives and the world.
That's something of a mashup of well-established ideas with fringe ideas, as if they were part of a coherent consensus. I haven't heard anything from Eagleman in support of Wheeler's strong anthropic principal for instance. Broadly speaking the unconscious mind is all of mind apart from that which is currently conscious; consciousness being the prioritisation of information flows. No point in focusing on remembering to breathe when there is a leopard bearing down on you. There's nothing spooky or controversial in that; a mind that did not prioritise would be a dead mind.
-
Its simply about objective evidence versus subjective experience. My point is simply that objective evidence is not always possible because ultimately everything is experienced subjectively....(like light). If people lack certain faculties they will not be able to experience certain things however real those may be. They will have to go with faith and trust. If people are stubborn enough they could keep denying phenomena simply because they cannot experience it.
And if people are stubborn enough they stick to obviously ridiculous 'arguments' no matter how many times the absurdities are pointed out to them. If people deny something (like light or X-rays) in the face of objective evidence, they are being irrational - it has nothing to do with whether they can directly experience it or not, and there is no need for faith.
-
And if people are stubborn enough they stick to obviously ridiculous 'arguments' no matter how many times the absurdities are pointed out to them. If people deny something (like light or X-rays) in the face of objective evidence, they are being irrational - it has nothing to do with whether they can directly experience it or not, and there is no need for faith.
Not the old science versus religion suite of bollocks again?
Time to change the record?
-
Not the old science versus religion suite of bollocks again?
No.
-
Sriram,
Blue....this could go on forever....!
Its simply about objective evidence versus subjective experience. My point is simply that objective evidence is not always possible because ultimately everything is experienced subjectively....(like light).
Ultimately nothing can be known with absolute certainty, but within that paradigm there are gradations of truth values. It’s probabilistically more true that the sun is 93m miles away than that there’s a dragon in my garage, let alone that I‘ve invented the four-sided triangle. The “well it’s all subjective anyway” line is called going nuclear, and it fails.
If people lack certain faculties they will not be able to experience certain things however real those may be.
No, they will experience them still but they may not be aware of it. You experience X-rays even though you can’t sense them.
They will have to go with faith and trust.
Or reason and logic.
If people are stubborn enough they could keep denying phenomena simply because they cannot experience it.
You’re still not getting it. If for some reason someone could neither experience nor grasp the reasoning for light (to take your example) then all he'd have to go on would be an assertion that it existed, in which case he’d be right to reject the claim. Just as he would for claims of phlogiston and Scotch mist made on exactly the same basis of unqualified assertion.
Try to grasp the point here – from the preceptive of the audience (and for that matter from the perspective of the claimant) if an assertion has no reasoning or evidence to support it, then there’s no reason to accept it even if just as a matter of dumb luck it happens to be true.
-
Who are all these stubborn people ? Nobody can 'experience' x-rays personally, but I've yet to hear of accident victims refusing to have their suspected fractures x-rayed because they stubbornly refuse to believe in them.
torridon and Blue,
We accept x rays as a fact simply because we have seen x ray films of our bones. If we hadn't, we would have to go on faith. We accept cosmic rays, gamma rays, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, 11 dimensions etc. simply on faith....because we trust scientists. They could actually be wrong on many of this.
My point is simple. Evidence and proof of objective reality isn't as simple as we think. Just because people demand proof or evidence does not mean it can be produced. Can anyone produce proof that the earth is going around the sun? Can we be taken into space and shown the earth orbiting the sun? Can it be proved beyond doubt that we landed on the moon (there are skeptics!)? No....it can't be done. But we all accept it as fact largely on faith.
Similarly, it is not always possible to prove or provide evidence for our experiences.
Most of you tend to think that 'experiences' automatically mean imaginative, delusional, wishful thinking. That is not necessarily so. 'Experiences' can be real and can provide a window into another aspect of reality.
-
That's something of a mashup of well-established ideas with fringe ideas, as if they were part of a coherent consensus. I haven't heard anything from Eagleman in support of Wheeler's strong anthropic principal for instance. Broadly speaking the unconscious mind is all of mind apart from that which is currently conscious; consciousness being the prioritisation of information flows. No point in focusing on remembering to breathe when there is a leopard bearing down on you. There's nothing spooky or controversial in that; a mind that did not prioritise would be a dead mind.
This is typical Zoom-In thinking. Has anyone provided an integration of QM and Relativity yet?
The ideas I have given are an enigma in themselves. Putting them together is the next step.
The fact is that our Unconscious mind is an unknown quantity and from several research areas (that I have highlighted) it seems that understanding it would open up many new frontiers that could make current science look like alchemy.
-
Sriram,
We accept x rays as a fact simply because we have seen x ray films of our bones.
No we don’t. We accept the fact of X-rays for a variety of reasons – there’s a lot more than “faith” in the images to go on.
If we hadn't, we would have to go on faith.
No we wouldn’t if we had reason and logic to go on too.
We accept cosmic rays, gamma rays, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, 11 dimensions etc. simply on faith....because we trust scientists. They could actually be wrong on many of this.
Wrong again. Some of these things have evidence to support them but in any case when there isn’t evidence we “accept” them only as conjectures and hypotheses, not as facts.
This isn’t difficult.
My point is simple.
And wrong.
Evidence and proof of objective reality isn't as simple as we think.
Who’s “we”?
Just because people demand proof or evidence does not mean it can be produced. Can anyone produce proof that the earth is going around the sun? Can we be taken into space and shown the earth orbiting the sun? Can it be proved beyond doubt that we landed on the moon (there are skeptics!)? No....it can't be done. But we all accept it as fact largely on faith.
I explained in my last reply to you why this is wrong (your going nuclear problem). Why have you just ignored the explanation and repeated the mistake?
Similarly, it is not always possible to prove or provide evidence for our experiences.
“Our experiences” are just that – experiences. If you want to rely on them for the explanations for the phenomena we experience though then you need reason and evidence. The alternative of guessing (or, as you would call it, “faith”) is worthless for that purpose.
Most of you tend to think that 'experiences' automatically mean imaginative, delusional, wishful thinking.
Straw man. Who thinks that? No-one here that I can see. Experiences are real enough, The problem comes when you use faith for the explanatory narratives for those experiences.
That is not necessarily so. 'Experiences' can be real and can provide a window into another aspect of reality.
No-one says that “experiences” aren’t real. What’s actually said is that when you introduce faith to explain those experiences then you have no means to know whether you’ve found “another aspect of reality” or just made a wrong guess.
That’s your problem here.
Incidentally, I just explained why your blind/non-conceptualising person would be right to reject the unqualified assertion “light”. As you just ignored it, do you now understand where you went wrong there?
-
Sriram,
The ideas I have given are an enigma in themselves.
No, the "ideas you have presented" are just wrong for the reasons you've been given.
-
Sriram,
Ultimately nothing can be known with absolute certainty, but within that paradigm there are gradations of truth values. It’s probabilistically more true that the sun is 93m miles away than that there’s a dragon in my garage, let alone that I‘ve invented the four-sided triangle.
We can be absolutely certain that you haven't invented a four-sided triangle, because it's a logical contradiction. Therefore, there are some things that can be known with absolute certainty: deductive truths. It's inductive statements that can't be absolutely proved or disproved.
-
Sriram,
Ultimately nothing can be known with absolute certainty, but within that paradigm there are gradations of truth values. It’s probabilistically more true that the sun is 93m miles away than that there’s a dragon in my garage, let alone that I‘ve invented the four-sided triangle. The “well it’s all subjective anyway” line is called going nuclear, and it fails.
The triangle thing is qualitatively different to the dragon thing and the Sun thing. We know with 100% certainty that you have not discovered a four sided triangle because the definition of "triangle" is "shape with three sides".
We do not know for certain that you do not have a dragon in your garage, but since there is no verifiable evidence for dragons and your garage is probably quite small and therefore amenable to an exhaustive search, we can be pretty certain.
The Sun thing is more tricky. First of all, it is not 93 million miles away, or if it is now, it won't be by the time you read this post (the Earth-Sun distance varies between about 94.5 million miles and 91.5 million miles). Secondly, the Earth-Sun distance is measured using a series of extremely expensive experiments, that anybody could, in theory, repeat, but probably won't in practice. We do take the scientists' word for it, but we trust the scientific method to root out the mistakes.
-
Jeremy,
The triangle thing is qualitatively different to the dragon thing and the Sun thing. We know with 100% certainty that you have not discovered a four sided triangle because the definition of "triangle" is "shape with three sides".
Yes I know. I included it though to keep the analogy with religious claims. Some such claims are at least conceptually possible (a resurrection for example) whereas others are necessarily falsified by their inherent contradictions (AB’s “soul” for example, which is why he has to invoke magic to get off the hook).
We do not know for certain that you do not have a dragon in your garage, but since there is no verifiable evidence for dragons and your garage is probably quite small and therefore amenable to an exhaustive search, we can be pretty certain.
Quite. Not absolutely so, but certainly beyond any practical need to take the claim seriously.
The Sun thing is more tricky. First of all, it is not 93 million miles away, or if it is now, it won't be by the time you read this post (the Earth-Sun distance varies between about 94.5 million miles and 91.5 million miles).
You know the point I was making. That’s a difference without significance.
Secondly, the Earth-Sun distance is measured using a series of extremely expensive experiments, that anybody could, in theory, repeat, but probably won't in practice. We do take the scientists' word for it, but we trust the scientific method to root out the mistakes.
That’s missing the point. There are various means of calculating the sum that don’t require telescopes (Aristarchus used Hipparchus' calculation of the Earth-Moon distance, who in turn used Eratosthenes' calculation of the Earth's circumference to calculate the Earth/Sun distance for example); mistakes or faking of the answer would require a global conspiracy or incompetence of such enormity and robustness as to put us in “dragon in the garage” territory etc.
The point though is that all these various and independent methods coalescing on the same answer probabilistically give us a much higher truth value than the unqualified assertion of, say, “there’s a dragon in my garage”. Sriram tried the going nuclear option of “we can’t know anything with certainty in any case” as if that made all truth claims epistemologically equal, and I was just explaining to him why they’re not.
I don’t suppose it’ll register though.
-
Jeremy,
Yes I know. I only included it though to keep the analogy with religious claims. Some such claims are at least conceptually possible (a resurrection for example) whereas others are necessarily falsified by their inherent contradictions (AB’s “soul” for example, which is why he has to invoke magic to get off the hook).
Quite. Not absolutely so, but certainly beyond any practical need to take the claim seriously.
You know the point I was making. That’s a difference without significance.
That’s missing the point. There are various means of calculating the sum that don’t require telescopes (Aristarchus used Hipparchus' calculation of the Earth-Moon distance, who in turn used Eratosthenes' calculation of the Earth's circumference to calculate the Earth-Sun distance for example); mistakes or faking of the answer would require a global conspiracy or incompetence of such enormity and robustness as to put us in “dragon in the garage” territory etc.
The point though is that all these various and independent methods coalescing on the same answer probabilistically give us a much higher truth value than the unqualified assertion of, say, “there’s a dragon in my garage”. Sriram tried the going nuclear option of “we can’t know anything with certainty in any case” as if that made all truth claims epistemologically equal, and I was just explaining to him why they’re not.
I don’t suppose it’ll register though.
I don't think that it will register with Sriram also, Blue. When I suggested quite truthfully that I have had certain 'experiences' which overwhelmingly suggested to me that there was no conscious universal existence in the universe, his response was to accept that people might have different interpretations of their experiences, and then to go on to suggest that that is why there are different ideas and images of God etc. This, of course, totally ignored the point that my experiences were lacking in any God concept at all.
All he could add was that this doesn't alter the fact that such influences and patterns do exist in our lives, and yet he ignored the fact that because of their wide range and often contradictory nature(as witnessed, for instance, by my experiences) they cannot, on their own, be trusted to be any sort of a guide as to what reality is in any objective sense. I actually ended by saying that 'The only way to judge such things would be to collate evidence by as an objective a method as possible surely.' but this also seems to have been entirely lost on him.
So, I agree, I don't think that it will register with him at all.
-
:D :D
What I am saying doesn't register with any of you. Why would you expect anything you say to register with me?!!! So, learn to discuss without getting annoyed or impatient or angry.
Coming to your point enki. Your experience of no conscious universal existence is nothing new. Check on Theravada Buddhism. It is a common experience. You should know how to interpret it.
-
Sriram,
What I am saying doesn't register with any of you. Why would you expect anything you say to register with me?!!!
Because (naively perhaps) some of make the initial assumption at least that the person we’re dealing with has at least some grasp of rational argument.
So, learn to discuss without getting annoyed or impatient or angry.
More frustrated I’d say at your unwillingness or inability to engage with the arguments. I explained to you for example why the person who couldn’t conceptualise light would be right to reject the unqualified assertion “light” (thereby falsifying your analogy), yet you just ignored that. Why?
Coming to your point enki. Your experience of no conscious universal existence is nothing new. Check on Theravada Buddhism. It is a common experience. You should know how to interpret it.
How would you propose that someone "interpret” something when you have only personal faith to suggest it exists at all?
-
Hi enki,
I don't think that it will register with Sriram also, Blue. When I suggested quite truthfully that I have had certain 'experiences' which overwhelmingly suggested to me that there was no conscious universal existence in the universe, his response was to accept that people might have different interpretations of their experiences, and then to go on to suggest that that is why there are different ideas and images of God etc. This, of course, totally ignored the point that my experiences were lacking in any God concept at all.
Yes. He seems fine with “faith” as an epistemically useful tool when it serves the notion “god”, but not when it suggest the alternative of “no god”. A bad case of confirmation bias methinks!
All he could add was that this doesn't alter the fact that such influences and patterns do exist in our lives, and yet he ignored the fact that because of their wide range and often contradictory nature(as witnessed, for instance, by my experiences) they cannot, on their own, be trusted to be any sort of a guide as to what reality is in any objective sense. I actually ended by saying that 'The only way to judge such things would be to collate evidence by as an objective a method as possible surely.' but this also seems to have been entirely lost on him.
See above. How he’d get from faith that something is true to demonstrating that it’s true is anyone’s guess, not least because he seems to be awful shy about telling us. He seems to think that there are “subtle forces” or some such for example that “our senses cannot detect”, yet neglects to explain how, if that is the case, he knows they’re there at all rather than just imagined.
So, I agree, I don't think that it will register with him at all.
Truly you have the power of foresight!
-
If you have got time Sriram, read this short story by H.G. Wells...... https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Country_of_the_Blind
-
:D :D
What I am saying doesn't register with any of you. Why would you expect anything you say to register with me?!!! So, learn to discuss without getting annoyed or impatient or angry.
Coming to your point enki. Your experience of no conscious universal existence is nothing new. Check on Theravada Buddhism. It is a common experience. You should know how to interpret it.
I take it that you think that people who disagree with you are probably 'annoyed or impatient or angry'. You don't seem to be a very good judge of character, do you, as the word 'saddened' would be much more appropriate in my case.? Also, perhaps you might learn to discuss something by actually responding to points made rather than ignoring them. It does help you know in making the discussion constructive.
On the subject of your second paragraph, Sriram, at no point did I say that my experiences were anything new. Indeed, you make my point for me when I referred to the wide range and often contradictory nature of such experiences, positing my experience as an example. As for interpreting it, I have already suggested what I should and indeed have done, when I said:
The only way to judge such things would be to collate evidence by as an objective a method as possible surely.
So you see, your advice has already been heeded and is therefore redundant. :)
-
If you have got time Sriram, read this short story by H.G. Wells...... https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Country_of_the_Blind
You brought this up before, Ekim, in 2017. Remember?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13324.0
Look down to post 17 onwards. There was plenty of discussion on it then by Sriram, Torri, Stranger, Outrider and others, including myself (see post 53, for instance).
For my money, Bramble's response in post 55, was the most telling. :)
-
You brought this up before, Ekim, in 2017. Remember?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13324.0
Look down to post 17 onwards. There was plenty of discussion on it then by Sriram, Torri, Stranger, Outrider and others, including myself (see post 53, for instance).
For my money, Bramble's response in post 55, was the most telling. :)
Thanks for that Enki. I'd second that, a lovely post from Bramble worth re-reading.
-
You brought this up before, Ekim, in 2017. Remember?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13324.0
Look down to post 17 onwards. There was plenty of discussion on it then by Sriram, Torri, Stranger, Outrider and others, including myself (see post 53, for instance).
For my money, Bramble's response in post 55, was the most telling. :)
My reply no 60 (in the linked thread) is also very relevant to your point in the above thread.
-
If you have got time Sriram, read this short story by H.G. Wells...... https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Country_of_the_Blind
Yes...I have read it. Thanks.
That atheists are no different from religious fanatics is obvious from the manner in which they keep repeating their beliefs without changing their perspective even when radically new information is provided.
-
So...coming back....there is now a thrust to understand Consciousness. And chances are that, most of the spiritual philosophies that emphasize consciousness as central to our lives and to the universe, could be vindicated.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
That atheists are no different from religious fanatics is obvious from the manner in which they keep repeating their beliefs without changing their perspective even when radically new information is provided.
You haven't produced any new information or even anything remotely like a coherent argument to consider. As for you accusing others people of repeating stuff in the light of new information... wow, I mean... just wow...
-
Sriram,
That atheists are no different from religious fanatics is obvious from the manner in which they keep repeating their beliefs without changing their perspective even when radically new information is provided.
Wrong again.
1. “Atheists” are very different from religious fanatics inasmuch as they/we have logic and reason on their side.
2. Atheism is the absence of a belief, not a belief.
3. Atheism would change its arguments if ever new information was provided. So far at least, none has been. There are only so many ways to explain that 2+2≠5, no matter how many times the error is repeated.
Oh, and as you’ve just ignored it again should I take it that you now see where you went wrong re your light analogy (ie, that you now do grasp that someone given no good reason to believe something to be true would be right to reject the assertion that it is true, even it if it is true just as a matter of dumb luck)?
-
Sriram,
So...coming back....
Does "coming back" mean something like, "I'm just going to slide around the last problem I gave myself and will try instead something else in the hope that no-one notices"?
...there is now a thrust to understand Consciousness.
There's no "now" about it - consciousness has been an active field of study for a long time.
And chances are that, most of the spiritual philosophies that emphasize consciousness as central to our lives and to the universe, could be vindicated.
So you assert. In the absence of hard or complete data though, how would you know that?
-
My reply no 60 (in the linked thread) is also very relevant to your point in the above thread.
It didn't impress me then, and still doesn't. Even if what you say has a smattering of truth(i.e. that there are stages we go through when searching for the truth) then I really would have no idea if the so called stage that I am at is more advanced than the one you are at or even vice versa. The only way of even approaching any sensible answer to this would be to call upon external, more objective agencies which might be able to enlighten our rather closeted subjective ideas by producing some sort of valid evidence(or lack of). However I have to say that this idea of yours that we must necessarily go through stages in searching for some inner truth doesn't really cut any ice as far as I am concerned. I'll just go on living and learning hopefully till the day I die, and then, as far as I am concerned, that's it!
-
You brought this up before, Ekim, in 2017. Remember?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13324.0
Look down to post 17 onwards. There was plenty of discussion on it then by Sriram, Torri, Stranger, Outrider and others, including myself (see post 53, for instance).
For my money, Bramble's response in post 55, was the most telling. :)
Yes, I vaguely remembered it but had forgotten how the discussion had developed. I am surprised that anybody else remembered it. For my money the response to Bramble's questions in post 59 was the most telling. ;)
I also remember bringing up about listening to a woman who had been blind since birth and who had had an operation in adult life which gave her vision. She was overwhelmed with joy at the blueness of the sky and greenness of the grass. She found that she could name some simple objects from visual input, but some e.g. a kettle defeated her and she had to close her eyes and identify it with touch. This was a story of a blind person living in the 'The Country of the Sighted'.
-
Yes, I vaguely remembered it but had forgotten how the discussion had developed. I am surprised that anybody else remembered it. For my money the response to Bramble's questions in post 59 was the most telling. ;)
I also remember bringing up about listening to a woman who had been blind since birth and who had had an operation in adult life which gave her vision. She was overwhelmed with joy at the blueness of the sky and greenness of the grass. She found that she could name some simple objects from visual input, but some e.g. a kettle defeated her and she had to close her eyes and identify it with touch. This was a story of a blind person living in the 'The Country of the Sighted'.
In the days before born-blind people could be given their sight in later life, it was a moot philosophical point as to whether they would be able to recognise objects they knew by touch by sight alone. The question wasn't settled until the mid-19th Century, when it became possible to operate on congenital cataracts.
-
Hi OC,
In the days before born-blind people could be given their sight in later life, it was a moot philosophical point as to whether they would be able to recognise objects they knew by touch by sight alone. The question wasn't settled until the mid-19th Century, when it became possible to operate on congenital cataracts.
Reminds me a bit of the Mary’s Room thought experiment:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/What_Did_Mary_Know
-
That’s missing the point. There are various means of calculating the sum that don’t require telescopes (Aristarchus used Hipparchus' calculation of the Earth-Moon distance, who in turn used Eratosthenes' calculation of the Earth's circumference to calculate the Earth/Sun distance for example); mistakes or faking of the answer would require a global conspiracy or incompetence of such enormity and robustness as to put us in “dragon in the garage” territory etc.
Aristarchus' value was wrong by a factor of of nearly 62 in terms of Earth radii and that would be compounded by whatever error was in Eratosthenes measurement (we don't know for sure because we don't know for sure exactly how long a stade is).
To get the number 93 million miles that you quoted requires heavy investment in scientific technology including at the very least good telescopes in order to calculate very small parallax values and ideally rocket ships to take laser reflectors to the Moon to get a really good estimate of the Earth-Moon distance.
The point though is that all these various and independent methods coalescing on the same answer probabilistically give us a much higher truth value than the unqualified assertion of, say, “there’s a dragon in my garage”.
And my point was that, although, in principle, you and I can replicate the observations, in practice, we trust the scientists to get it right and we trust the scientific method to correct them when they get it wrong.
Sriram tried the going nuclear option of “we can’t know anything with certainty in any case” as if that made all truth claims epistemologically equal, and I was just explaining to him why they’re not.
I don’t suppose it’ll register though.
I agree. There are degrees of certainty. The triangle thing is absolute. The dragon in the garage is not absolute but, I could be as near as dammit certain if I had ten minutes access to your garage. Also there are various reasons why dragons as described by most mythology would be extremely unlikely.
The Earth's orbit is a different thing because it is a measurement and there will be a margin of error associated with it that. If we take 93 million as the mean distance, it's wrong but we know it is pretty close to the true distance. (The Astronomical Unit is defined as about 92.956 million miles.)
-
I am of the opinion that the word 'soul' is just another term for human consciousness, which ceases to exist on death.
For those who believe the human soul is created by god and survives death, what evidence do you have to support that supposition?
I suspect this will be a very short thread. ::)
What do you suggest is a soul and how are you supporting the soul dies at death?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZqAmIXCkNA
Out of bodies experiences where they see things from a height or position the brain could not imagine because it isn't programmed to see the things the eye cannot itself see.
I am thinking as you grow older Roses that you now approach the time of making your mind up. Supposition.... what are the experiences that brain can see things which the eyes are not seeing through the soul?
-
What do you suggest is a soul and how are you supporting the soul dies at death?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZqAmIXCkNA
Out of bodies experiences where they see things from a height or position the brain could not imagine because it isn't programmed to see the things the eye cannot itself see.
I am thinking as you grow older Roses that you now approach the time of making your mind up. Supposition.... what are the experiences that brain can see things which the eyes are not seeing through the soul?
I don't believe the so called 'soul' is a separate entity to the human body. I think once we die we stay dead, end of story. I certainly hope that is the case.
As for out of the body experiences, the brain is a remarkable organ, which can create such experiences, imo.
-
I think 'out of body' experiences are dreams, LR.
Some are quite enjoyable.
-
I think 'out of body' experiences are dreams, LR.
Some are quite enjoyable.
Have you ever had one?
-
I think 'out of body' experiences are dreams, LR.
Some are quite enjoyable.
There is a distinct difference between dreams and out of body experiences for those who have had them.
Dreams are often vaguely remembered, difficult to recall in detail and are quickly forgotten, but witnesses to out of body experiences claim that they are recalled in very fine detail and the memory remains with them for the rest of their lives.
-
There is a distinct difference between dreams and out of body experiences for those who have had them.
Dreams are often vaguely remembered, difficult to recall in detail and are quickly forgotten, but witnesses to out of body experiences claim that they are recalled in very fine detail and the memory remains with them for the rest of their lives.
If you are at all interested in OBEs, you might like to look at this article by Dr Susan Blackmore, who has studied them extensively. The second part of this article deals with OBEs which are related particularly with NDEs(Near Death Experiences). To my mind she approaches the whole subject fairly objectively and with a wealth of knowledge at her fingertips. Well worth reading if you are at all interested in the subject.
https://www.susanblackmore.uk/articles/are-out-of-body-experiences-evidence-for-survival/
-
Alan, you may also be interested in Pim van Lommel studies - a cardiologist of 25yrs experience who witnessed patients that related NDEs:
https://pimvanlommel.nl/en/
I too have a friend that has had numerous OBEs since she was a child. One of these she describes as travelling to a corner of the ceiling in her nephew's bedroom that she had never actually visited. When she described the room to her brother he was amazed by the accurate detail she portrayed.
-
Alan, you may also be interested in Pim van Lommel studies - a cardiologist of 25yrs experience who witnessed patients that related NDEs:
https://pimvanlommel.nl/en/
I too have a friend that has had numerous OBEs since she was a child. One of these she describes as travelling to a corner of the ceiling in her nephew's bedroom that she had never actually visited. When she described the room to her brother he was amazed by the accurate detail she portrayed.
Whose work in this field is pseudoscience.
See: http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/paranormal/near-death-experiences/the-dying-brain.php
t is important to be clear that van Lommel et al. provided no evidence at all that the mind or consciousness is separate from brain processes. In addition, there were no direct measures of anoxia, and no measures of neuroelectrical brain activity from their patients. Their findings are entirely consistent with contemporary neuroscience and are in line with the general dying-brain account of Near Death Experiences. As such, this study poses no challenge at all to either psychological or neuroscientific accounts for the Near Death Experience. From this we can see that their claim of the need for a new science of consciousness (which makes provision for some form of dualism) is unfounded and unnecessary. In the absence of strong evidence for survival, it appears that the position of the survivalist is still one based on faith.
-
Whose work in this field is pseudoscience.
See: http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/paranormal/near-death-experiences/the-dying-brain.php
Not sure about Van Lommel but the article you are appealing to immediately goes into dogma when it declares itself worried about dualism. There is then a bit of scientific padding throughout the reading of which, one must remember that Critical Thinking might not be a neuroscientific journal...…….is it?
-
Not sure about Van Lommel but the article you are appealing to immediately goes into dogma when it declares itself worried about dualism. There is then a bit of scientific padding throughout the reading of which, one must remember that Critical Thinking might not be a neuroscientific journal...…….is it?
It is a site that reviews from the perspective of critical thinking, hence its name, and the chap critiquing van Lommel's work here, and exposing it as NDE pseudoscience, is a UK based academic with an extensive publication history in the field of psychology.