Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Sriram on October 09, 2022, 08:08:19 AM
-
Hi everyone,
We usually think of science and spirituality as opposing forces. This is largely due to the linking of spirituality with religions and mythology.
Spirituality is mainly an attempt to understand our true nature beyond appearances and to understand our future after our inevitable death.
Science also tries to understand our lives and the world around us....but restricts itself to material realities. However, in spite of its materialism, science has managed to hint at realities beyond the material in certain areas.
I have tried to identify some of those areas in science that could provide insights on the true nature nature of reality beyond the material.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/
For those who may be interested.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
We usually think of science and spirituality as opposing forces. This is largely due to the linking of spirituality with religions and mythology.
Spirituality is mainly an attempt to understand our true nature beyond appearances and to understand our future after our inevitable death.
Science also tries to understand our lives and the world around us....but restricts itself to material realities. However, in spite of its materialism, science has managed to hint at realities beyond the material in certain areas.
I have tried to identify some of those areas in science that could provide insights on the true nature nature of reality beyond the material.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/
For those who may be interested.
Cheers.
Sriram
A very comprehensive and informative survey which I think stands as a good resource in spirituality and materialism debates.
-
A very comprehensive and informative survey which I think stands as a good resource in spirituality vs materialism debates.
Thanks a lot Vlad!
-
Leaving aside no definitions being supplied, let's tame 1 sentence near the start 'Having said that however, it is a fact that reality is a spectrum': this has words I understand but adds up to a meaningless statement similar to 'Green ideas sleep furiously'. That you've declared it to be a fact woth no evidence would be tedious enough, but to create a sentence for which I can't see makes any coherent sense and in the middle declare it to be a fact is lauaghable.
-
Hi everyone,
We usually think of science and spirituality as opposing forces. This is largely due to the linking of spirituality with religions and mythology.
Spirituality is mainly an attempt to understand our true nature beyond appearances and to understand our future after our inevitable death.
It comes down to the same question as always, which you can't answer.
How can we be sure that the answers that spirituality comes up with are right?
Science also tries to understand our lives and the world around us....but restricts itself to material realities. However, in spite of its materialism, science has managed to hint at realities beyond the material in certain areas.
I have tried to identify some of those areas in science that could provide insights on the true nature nature of reality beyond the material.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/
For those who may be interested.
No. Science is only restricted to stuff that can be tested.
-
Leaving aside no definitions being supplied, let's tame 1 sentence near the start 'Having said that however, it is a fact that reality is a spectrum': this has words I understand but adds up to a meaningless statement similar to 'Green ideas sleep furiously'. That you've declared it to be a fact woth no evidence would be tedious enough, but to create a sentence for which I can't see makes any coherent sense and in the middle declare it to be a fact is lauaghable.
Definition of spectrum...'a broad range of varied but related ideas or objects, the individual features of which tend to overlap so as to form a continuous series or sequence:'
What I meant by a spectrum is that reality is not a series of discrete boxes. The subatomic world, the classic world and cosmic realities are not discrete boxes separated from one another. They mesh in. It is the subatomic realities that generate the classic world and the cosmic world. There is a continuity even though we may not be able to see it directly.
-
No. Science is only restricted to stuff that can be tested.
One wonders then what certain cosmologists are doing.
-
Definition of spectrum...'a broad range of varied but related ideas or objects, the individual features of which tend to overlap so as to form a continuous series or sequence:'
What I meant by a spectrum is that reality is not a series of discrete boxes. The subatomic world, the classic world and cosmic realities are not discrete boxes separated from one another. They mesh in. It is the subatomic realities that generate the classic world and the cosmic world. There is a continuity even though we may not be able to see it directly.
So exactly not a spectrum. What you are trying to say is that we perceive reality via a spectrum of ideas. To say reality itself is a spectrum is just wrong headed.
-
One wonders then what certain cosmologists are doing.
If you are talking about things like the multiverse, well that isn't science either. At least, not yet. Science is a process. The stages are
1. Make a guess
2. Compute the consequences of the guess
3. Test the consequences against reality.
I think the multiverse people are still having trouble with step 2.
-
You are again bringing in scientism. When certain realities themselves can only be experienced subjectively....to keep insisting that they should be tested objectively doesn't make sense. It is a mindset problem.
It is important to realize that subjectivity is the essence of existence.
-
You are again bringing in scientism. When certain realities themselves can only be experienced subjectively....to keep insisting that they should be tested objectively doesn't make sense. It is a mindset problem.
It is important to realize that subjectivity is the essence of existence.
Which science as a method recognises but you seem not to.
-
When certain realities themselves can only be experienced subjectively....
How can you be sure that these "realities" are in fact real?
More to the point: how can a neutral observer be sure?
-
How can you be sure that these "realities" are in fact real?
More to the point: how can a neutral observer be sure?
At this point, I have no idea what Sriram means by 'real'
-
At this point, I have no idea what Sriram means by 'real'
I'll admit that I don't know what these subjective realities are. But for the sake of argument, I'm happy to accept that they do exist and I just want Sriram to understand my point of view, which is that, without some kind of verification, I can't be sure they exist and neither can he.
I also see he's started playing the "scientism" card.
-
I'll admit that I don't know what these subjective realities are. But for the sake of argument, I'm happy to accept that they do exist and I just want Sriram to understand my point of view, which is that, without some kind of verification, I can't be sure they exist and neither can he.
I also see he's started playing the "scientism" card.
Oh no, I've a feeling we are slipping back into the dark times when words were dismissed merely because they ended in "ism".
-
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0cjqx25/are-we-all-living-in-a-hallucination-
-
I'll admit that I don't know what these subjective realities are. But for the sake of argument, I'm happy to accept that they do exist and I just want Sriram to understand my point of view, which is that, without some kind of verification, I can't be sure they exist and neither can he.
I also see he's started playing the "scientism" card.
Life itself is a subjective experience. What we regard as objective evidence is a form of collective subjectivity.
In that sense, spiritual experiences do have objective evidence because many aspirants around the world, do have similar experiences and they do interpret them in similar ways. These experiences can also be replicated and people can be trained to have these experiences.
My aim in this thread is to highlight those phenomena that science has already investigated and where there is enough room to lead to a better understanding of ourselves and our consciousness.
I am not playing any card. I am merely reiterating that the methods of science are limited in scope and insisting that they should be used in all matters is incorrect.
-
Life itself is a subjective experience.
Yet again you fold back into anthropocentricity.
Life isn't a subjective experience. What we describe as life is a series of self sustaining chemical processes which may have differing levels of complexity - in other words life includes bacteria (that of course have no subjective experience) just as much as humans.
What we regard as objective evidence is a form of collective subjectivity.
No it isn't - that is collective subjectivity, not objectivity. For something to be objective it needs to sit outside of subjectivity rather than being the sum of a bunch of subjectivity.
-
Life itself is a subjective experience. What we regard as objective evidence is a form of collective subjectivity.
Can you justify that statement?
In that sense, spiritual experiences do have objective evidence because many aspirants around the world, do have similar experiences and they do interpret them in similar ways.
Nobody denies that the experiences happen. What is in dispute is what causes those experiences. For example, you have yet to show that near death experiences have any meaning outside the minds of the individuals that have them.
-
We usually think of science and spirituality as opposing forces. This is largely due to the linking of spirituality with religions and mythology. Spirituality is mainly an attempt to understand our true nature beyond appearances and to understand our future after our inevitable death.
I'm sure that the motivation for spiritual people is to try to understand our 'true nature', but it doesn't seem to base that on anything - as a 'discipline' it makes assertions that are accepted based on how they make people feel rather than on any demonstrable basis.
Science also tries to understand our lives and the world around us....but restricts itself to material realities.
The scientific method does not restrict itself intrinsically to the 'material', it restricts itself to empiricism. If you can't demonstrate that something exists, if you can't measure it directly or indirectly, then it's outside of science's remit; however, if you can't demonstrate that something exists, what basis do you have for presuming that it's part of our 'true nature'?
However, in spite of its materialism, science has managed to hint at realities beyond the material in certain areas. I have tried to identify some of those areas in science that could provide insights on the true nature nature of reality beyond the material.
Here we go....
Many people have tried using science directly to study and understand spirituality. This is like using a microscope to look at the stars.
No it's like using a microscope to look at fairies.
Many different ‘realities’ exist at different levels.
Do they? Reality simply is; it can be useful, in some circumstances, to isolate one 'level' or 'scale' to try to infer or deduce information from the available data, but those 'scales' are subjective artifices, those scales are not isolated 'realities' of their own.
Anthropic Principle
The 'fine tuning' argument has been demonstrated to be flawed in any number of ways, but none quite so succinctly as Douglas Adams' puddle analogy - https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)
QM - Copenhagen Interpretation
I can't fathom the depths of the irony that is making a claim that an interpretation of quantum mechanics that requires an observer somehow justifies claims that are proposed to be outside of science's remit because they can't be observed...
Evolution: The Theory of Evolution has brought out the fact that biological life evolves from simple forms to more complex and varied forms.
A degree of caution is needed here; the theory of evolution as it currently stands shows how life CAN evolve from simple to more complex forms, but it equally shows that life can evolve from more complex to simpler forms of life, if that's what's immediately beneficial. Notwithstanding the difficulties in measuring 'complexity - there are ferns with over a thousand chromosomes, the Dapnia water flea has 30,000+ genes (vs human 25,000 or so), insects have an entire physical restructuring process mid-life... which measure of 'complexity' counts here?
Regardless, the theory of evolution is the best current model of the mechanism by which the variety of life that we see in current and historical nature has come about; it does not need any 'spiritual' component to make it work, and it does not lead to any conclusion of something 'spiritual'. Whilst it can be seen, in some ways, as a correlate for deliberate design, it is a fundamentally different process; design is guide, deliberately aimed intent depending on reliable performance, and the current theory of evolution by natural selection is explicitly based upon selection working on random variation arising from imperfect reproduction.
Therefore we cannot infer that evolution is some universal concept that underpins everything; evolution is particularly the natural, unconscious, reactive process of lifeforms adapting over time to current situations, whereas design is the deliberate reactive or proactive process of adapting to current or potential situations.
Software Model
I don't recall who it is, but there's someone on, or who has been on, the boards who is far better placed to pick apart this misunderstanding, but the 'hardware-software' model of the human brain is of at best limited usefulness - the brain physically changes under the process of learning new information, and does not respond consistently depending on variables like hormone levels, whereas the hardware of a computer remains constant.
However, where the idea of consciousness being some remote software that operates on the 'hardware' of the brain really falls down is that there's no interface. There's no evidence for activity in the brain that would require some unseen outside prompt or stimulus, there's no gap in the current explanations which only some unseen hand could explain. That doesn't definitively prove that it's not happening - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all - but it leaves disembodied consciousness as an unfounded claim, which only becomes even less tenable as we learn more and more about how the brain does actually achieve what it achieves.
Subjective nature of Reality: Science has pointed out that what we experience as objective reality is actually just a subjective experience created by our senses and brain. The objective world that we believe in as ‘real’, is just a series of impulses and images in our brain.
No, you are extending the limitations of our subjective understanding and trying to infer characteristics of reality from that. That our understanding my only ever be subjective does not mean that reality is subjective - our understanding of reality, and the reality itself, may be different things.
Triune Brain
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you've written, this is saying scientific enquiry has provided an explanation for an observable phenomenon that previously had various 'spiritual' explanations?
Neural connectivity
In teaching this is summarised as 'Practice makes permanent'. Sure, if you teach people not to think critically they will be open to a non-critical worldview. That's not a validation of spirituality, it's a battle-cry for better education.
Implicit Pattern Learning
On a spectrum of people from less to more likely to find patterns, you'd expect there to be a consequence likelihood to false positives - that's not a validation of spirituality, that's a validation of statistics.
Bacterial influence
Nothing in this is inconsistent with the interpretation that certain gut microbiomes might lead people to, say, an unwarranted acceptance of unsubstantiated claims. It doesn't lead to a conclusion of 'spiritual', although it might explain the otherwise untenable position of 'spiritual'.
Spectrum
The development of the body of scientific knowledge affording more nuance and subtlety, particularly in the 'softer' sciences, appears to be a good thing, and having more sociological, neurological and ecological activity seen as points on a scale rather than absolute positions has led to more and better discoveries and applications.
None of that, though, means that we should now accept that Jesus sits just the other side of indigo on the rainbow. 'Spiritual' is not a position on a spectrum of understanding, it's a qualitatively different type of claim.
Quantum Field Theory/String Theory
These hark back to your point on 'levels' of reality. Our brains have evolved, and our individual experiences have formed, at the 'macroscopic' level, and our subjective understanding of what happens at the quantum level is only ever going to be interpreted through that lens. It's not that quantum activity is either, or both, particle or wave, it's that those are models were using to try to interpret activity that is functionally neither. What we can't presume is that, because our understanding of that level or reality is to some extent limited or flawed, that we can therefore presume all other flawed notions have equal merit.
An imperfect model of quantum wave/particle duality does not therefore mean consciousness is a universal field; that's the same fallacy as 'I don't know, therefore Jesus'.
Parallel Worlds
It's arguably whether 'multiverse' concepts are science or not - currently there are few models which make any sort of testable or potentially testable hypotheses. Which is not to say that I don't think it's a far more likely facet of reality than 'spirit', but that's not a claim that I can justify, it's just a personal preference.
Consciousness
If no-one knows what consciousness is (I'd agree) then we can't know that it's the 'core of our subjectivity'. Everything that we are is because of consciousness - I'm not sure this is the case, I am a continuum (we go back to that 'spectrum' idea) and for at least parts of that existence I was not conscious, but I probably 'was'. Consciousness appears to emerge from us, not the other way around - again, that's not definitive, but it's certainly evidence which is lacking from the spiritual model.
Unconscious Mind
Again, here, it seems that you're acknowledging a scientific model of a phenomenon that previously was at least open to 'spiritual' explanations. This appears to limit the space for spiritual models, not expand it or justify those models.
Multiple Personality/Dissociative Identity
Again, spectrums here - there are examples of DID where there are completely different 'alters' (one called 'Kevin', say, one called 'Carl') and there are examples where they're always 'Kevin', but sometimes 'Kevin' has a tendency to anger and violence, and sometimes 'Kevin' is a calm, mousy type. Normally Kevin doesn't remember what Carl did, but in the less striated version the memory can often be intact (although put down to 'unknown influences') - it's somewhere on the crossover from DID to 'just' a mood disorder, or associations with schizophrenic disorders.
Whilst this could lead to an interpretation of cosmopsychism - or even just the idea of multiple disembodied individual consciousnesses impacting on a single brain (Hardware/Software model above), there's no need to introduce unsubstantiated notions into the equation. We already have evidence that personality and consciousness are manifestations of brain activity, and that brain activity can influence other bodily organs strongly - it's as complete an explanation to say that the two patterns of brain activity result in two patterns of bodily organ behaviour, and that explanation only requires phenomena that have already been well demonstrated and documented.
NDE - These are experiences of patients who have actually died in medical terms, due to heart attacks or accidents
No.
Life is one of those scientific concepts that seems obvious but for which we don't have a strong definition, and subsequently death as well. Going back to the 'spectrum' you talked about earlier, it seems that there is a gradation - I'd encourage you to look up the Infinite Monkey Cage's thought experiment on Schrodinger's Strawberry to get into ideas of when is something that was alive officially dead. Either way, how dead is dead is a question that we don't possibly fully understand, let alone come close to answering, so to make definitive claims about the existence of disembodied consciousnesses existence after 'death' on the basis of embodied consciousnesses subjective understanding following traumatic events and an at best partial completion of the process of 'dying' is reaching. Is it a possibility? Yes. Are there other explanations? Yes. Are any of them particularly stronger or weaker? Not that I can see. So this one probably sits under 'we just don't know', and until we understand the question better in order to have a basis for starting to determine what should constitute an answer that's likely to be as much as we can say about it.
Reincarnation
Billions upon billions of human deaths, and we have a handful of claims which have lucked onto enough accurate guesses/memories to be considered reliable (assuming that these are just guesses and not research). As an explanation, reincarnation has exactly as much basis as the idea of a group consciousness or genetic memory, and at least the last one gives us the Assassin's Creed sequence of video games. Yes, multiple cultures have claims of reincarnation, and Rupert Sheldrake, as confused as some of his claims are, at least gives us a 'scientific' explanation in his genomorphic resonance concept.
Again, it's not possible to discount it, but learnt stories are a far more likely explanation.
AI
I'm not sure where you're going with this. If consciousness is disembodied and only requires 'hardware' to run on, why is an 'artificial' brain somehow exempt? Does consciousness require hormonal influences? What if an artificial intelligence was constructed from a network of actual neurons in a gel suspension rather than a network of silicon based neural links?
They argue that…if we are able to create robots that behave like humans, it means that humans are clearly not very special and that the soul or atma is not necessary at all. This is not true!
And you are of course going to explain why that is necessarily not true, right?
Robots did not create themselves. It is directed and guided evolution driven by human intelligence that has made this kind of artificial intelligence possible.
Weren't you the one saying, above, that design was just a manifestation of the same universal evolution that gave rise to the 'complex' humans? I disagreed, I still do, but this inconsistency needs to be pointed out.
Humanity, equally, did not 'invent' itself - human culture is an expression of human behaviour, but the humans needed to be there first. If you use that as a justification to claim that therefore there must have been a consciousness that gave rise to humans, then you just keep pushing that first example further and further back - somewhere there has to be a consciousness that didn't arise as a result of the machinations of some other consciousness; if you see consciousness as emergent from other activity, this isn't an issue.
just because automatons can behave like humans, we cannot conclude that we are also automatons!
Why not? If we can accurately simulate a human's behaviour with an 'artificial' intelligence, in what way can we say that the AI and the human are different? Given the apparent fact that human biology is as deterministic in nature as the silicon-based activity of an AI, why are we presumed to be intrinsically qualitatively different?
Identifying ourselves entirely with the body and genetic programming is clearly wrong.
I'm afraid it's not as clear as you seem to think, certainly I can't see why that's wrong, and I suspect I'm not alone on that.
VR
The problem you have with VR is that you're exchanging a deliberately subjective experience for an accidentally subjective one, but all that does is highlight the subjectivity which wasn't really under question. Nothing within the subjective experience can directly tell us anything about the objective nature of reality; in order to do that we need to rely on empirical testing to try to establish underlying patterns which can be relied upon without recourse to our individual subjectivity - the scientific method is our current best tool for doing this. Spiritual claims manifestly fail to do any such thing, they operate from the presumption that we can intuit details of the objective reality from the subjective experience because they feel right, which is to not only fail to remove the subjectivity from the equation, but given that we have different subjective 'feelings' about those various spiritual claims actually doubles down on the subjectivity and compounds the problem.
O.
-
Yet again you fold back into anthropocentricity.
Life isn't a subjective experience. What we describe as life is a series of self sustaining chemical processes which may have differing levels of complexity - in other words life includes bacteria (that of course have no subjective experience) just as much as humans.
No it isn't - that is collective subjectivity, not objectivity. For something to be objective it needs to sit outside of subjectivity rather than being the sum of a bunch of subjectivity.
Please see the video I posted at reply 15.
Life IS a subjective experience. This very moment whatever you are doing or thinking is a purely subjective experience. Same with me. Consciousness is the basis for our lives...and consciousness is a purely subjective phenomenon. Even the idea of something objective existing, is a purely subjective experience. All our experiences are subjective....even the 'objective' ones.
The external world is created within our minds. What actually exists independent of our senses, brain and mind no one can possibly know.
-
Can you justify that statement?
Nobody denies that the experiences happen. What is in dispute is what causes those experiences. For example, you have yet to show that near death experiences have any meaning outside the minds of the individuals that have them.
Please also see my reply to Prof.
There is enough reason to believe that NDE's are actual experiences of real events. Corroborative evidence by nurses and doctors are available. It is across cultures, regions, gender and age. Unless it is proved without doubt that NDE's are purely imagined or hallucinatory....there is enough reason to accept them as real after death events.
-
Outrider
Wow...that is a long post. I may not be able to reply point by point. I think my article itself is sufficiently self explanatory.
By emphasizing empiricism you are advocating that only sensory experiences are real and nothing can exist beyond direct sensory perception. We have seen how limiting this can be. Our senses are meant only for our survival and they reveal only what is necessary for that purpose. Experiences beyond the five senses are also important to understand reality.
I am talking of evolution as a general process, not just in its biological form. Evolution is everywhere and therefore it is possible that consciousness (or spirit) is also evolving.
We have already seen the Hard problem of consciousness and our inability to explain qualia. We are clearly not automatons. The fact that our activities including certain decision making abilities can be replicated by AI, shows that these activities are not a part of what we really are. The idea of a 'man in a robot' (ghost in a machine) gets strengthened. And the fact that we have created AI (through our intelligent intervention and technological evolution) shows that we also could have been similarly created.
Within a VR world we can experience 'objectivity. A VR person can investigate the VR world objectively and come to any number of conclusions about it. But the fact remains that the entire experience is actually subjective and that the only reality exists outside the VR imagery. This could be true of our own lives....which is what spirituality claims.
My point in the above article is to highlight those areas where science has its theories but where there are possibilities for further research and for spiritual interpretations. Let me reiterate that I don't think of spiritual realities as 'other worldly' or as supernatural. They are just a part of the spectrum of reality beyond psychological and mental phenomena.
-
By emphasizing empiricism you are advocating that only sensory experiences are real and nothing can exist beyond direct sensory perception.
Absolutely not. We are reliably convinced of the existence of, for instance, x-rays and neutrons and deep ocean currents and heavy metals within the Earth's core, none of which we can directly perceive, but all of which we can reliably infer from effects that can be observed. If something has an effect on reality, that effect can be measured and those measurements can be used to speculate on the cause of that effect and deduce the potential nature of that cause.
If something can't be measured, if it has no direct discernible effect, in what way can it be considered to be real?
We have seen how limiting this can be. Our senses are meant only for our survival and they reveal only what is necessary for that purpose. Experiences beyond the five senses are also important to understand reality.
Currently, as I understand, we've identified about 55 distinct senses - although most of those are 'internal' (i.e. hunger) there are still more than just the classic 5 to tell us about the outside world. Our senses have developed, historically, in whatever manner gave us the best potential for successful reproduction, yes, but in deliberately engineering our culture we have moved beyond that intrinsic use.
I am talking of evolution as a general process, not just in its biological form. Evolution is everywhere and therefore it is possible that consciousness (or spirit) is also evolving.
I can't talk of 'spirit', obviously, but to conflate deliberate activities like design, cultural artefacts or technology is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of those activities.
We have already seen the Hard problem of consciousness and our inability to explain qualia.
And, equally, we have seen the problems with mind-body duality. We don't currently have a suitable model, yet, but the problem of explaining emergent consciousness is a matter of detail, whereas there is a fundamental qualitative issue with mind-body duality.
We are clearly not automatons.
You say that, but there are people out there - I'm amongst them - who don't see that we are in any way free of the determinism that appears to govern everything else in reality.
The fact that our activities including certain decision making abilities can be replicated by AI, shows that these activities are not a part of what we really are.
No it doesn't, that's just a conclusion that you need to come to in order to maintain the suggestion that we are somehow qualitatively different. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, is it more likely that it's a duck or that ducks are magical multidimensional physical-spiritual hybrids?
The idea of a 'man in a robot' (ghost in a machine) gets strengthened. And the fact that we have created AI (through our intelligent intervention and technological evolution) shows that we also could have been similarly created.
That we could have been created is not the particular issue, here, and whilst there are arguments for and against that, I don't see that they're intrinsically mixed with the idea of disembodied consciousness - they might fit with a particular model, but they're not intrinsic to the concept.
Within a VR world we can experience 'objectivity. A VR person can investigate the VR world objectively and come to any number of conclusions about it.
How? They are exactly as limited by the reliance on their sensory apparatus and cognitive biases within the VR as they are in the real world; Descartes' demon adequately demonstrates that we can't be absolutely certain that what we think of as reality is not itself just an extremely convincing artificial reality, and it's that 'reality' that we're assuming is the baseline where our subjective limitations are identified in the first place.
But the fact remains that the entire experience is actually subjective and that the only reality exists outside the VR imagery. This could be true of our own lives....which is what spirituality claims.
And I'm not saying that spirituality is definitively not the case, I'm just pointing out the innumerable ways we have to question the idea, and the particular notions that you espouse based upon it, and to say that even if it is the case you severely lack sufficient basis for talking about it as though it were settled fact or even likely conjecture.
My point in the above article is to highlight those areas where science has its theories but where there are possibilities for further research and for spiritual interpretations. Let me reiterate that I don't think of spiritual realities as 'other worldly' or as supernatural. They are just a part of the spectrum of reality beyond psychological and mental phenomena.
Fair enough, but if they are an intrinsic part of reality then why are you suggesting that they are somehow outside of science's scope of investigation?
O.
-
Life IS a subjective experience.
No it isn't - it might feel that way for humans, but life isn't restricted to humans - it encompasses countless other species which do not have sufficient complexity to have subjective experiences. So although in some cases life co-exists with subjective experience, life doesn't require this and with increasing AI technology it is easy to argue that some things that aren't living (i.e. aren't life) can have subjective experience.
This very moment whatever you are doing or thinking is a purely subjective experience.
But I'm a human - the vast, vast majority of life isn't human.
Same with me.
But you are a human - the vast, vast majority of life isn't human. What is your point.
Consciousness is the basis for our lives
It may be critical to human lives, but not all life - consciousness isn't a feature of life for the vast majority of species. Consciousness is not required for life whatsoever.
The external world is created within our minds. What actually exists independent of our senses, brain and mind no one can possibly know.
No it isn't and yes we can. We can develop and use objective equipment to measure aspects of the external world. And with this we can measure things that happened in the external world literally billions of years before humans even existed - so this couldn't possibly be the creation of our human brains.
Sriram - when will you understand that the universe doesn't revolve around one insignificant species that has existed for the blink of an eye in cosmological time terms on one tiny backwater of one solar system in one galaxy.
-
Absolutely not. We are reliably convinced of the existence of, for instance, x-rays and neutrons and deep ocean currents and heavy metals within the Earth's core, none of which we can directly perceive, but all of which we can reliably infer from effects that can be observed. If something has an effect on reality, that effect can be measured and those measurements can be used to speculate on the cause of that effect and deduce the potential nature of that cause.
Certain aspects of reality need not always be amenable to measurement through instruments. Our instruments are also designed in line with our senses and our awareness. I agree that even the non measurable reality will influence other aspects of reality in certain ways. That is precisely why I am looking at scientific ideas to see what hints they offer about the non measurable aspects.
I can't talk of 'spirit', obviously, but to conflate deliberate activities like design, cultural artefacts or technology is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of those activities.
My point is that evolution is a universal phenomenon that can be seen in all human creations as well. It is not limited to biology. So, it is possible that spirit or consciousness also evolves.
No it doesn't, that's just a conclusion that you need to come to in order to maintain the suggestion that we are somehow qualitatively different. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, is it more likely that it's a duck or that ducks are magical multidimensional physical-spiritual hybrids?
We just need to go into oneself to sense that we are different from the body/mind. It becomes obvious at one point that we are just a 'man in a robot'.
How? They are exactly as limited by the reliance on their sensory apparatus and cognitive biases within the VR as they are in the real world; Descartes' demon adequately demonstrates that we can't be absolutely certain that what we think of as reality is not itself just an extremely convincing artificial reality, and it's that 'reality' that we're assuming is the baseline where our subjective limitations are identified in the first place.
Objectivity within the VR will also be just an illusion though the person in the VR might think of it as really objective. It is all part of the subjective experience.
And I'm not saying that spirituality is definitively not the case, I'm just pointing out the innumerable ways we have to question the idea, and the particular notions that you espouse based upon it, and to say that even if it is the case you severely lack sufficient basis for talking about it as though it were settled fact or even likely conjecture.
It is one way of trying to understand our lives. It is a possibility and that is enough to discuss it seriously.
Fair enough, but if they are an intrinsic part of reality then why are you suggesting that they are somehow outside of science's scope of investigation?
Because science insists on following certain methods that itself are limiting its scope. That is the reason such thinking is called scientism
-
No it isn't - it might feel that way for humans, but life isn't restricted to humans - it encompasses countless other species which do not have sufficient complexity to have subjective experiences. So although in some cases life co-exists with subjective experience, life doesn't require this and with increasing AI technology it is easy to argue that some things that aren't living (i.e. aren't life) can have subjective experience.
But I'm a human - the vast, vast majority of life isn't human.
But you are a human - the vast, vast majority of life isn't human. What is your point.
It may be critical to human lives, but not all life - consciousness isn't a feature of life for the vast majority of species. Consciousness is not required for life whatsoever.
No it isn't and yes we can. We can develop and use objective equipment to measure aspects of the external world. And with this we can measure things that happened in the external world literally billions of years before humans even existed - so this couldn't possibly be the creation of our human brains.
Sriram - when will you understand that the universe doesn't revolve around one insignificant species that has existed for the blink of an eye in cosmological time terms on one tiny backwater of one solar system in one galaxy.
Consciousness is present in all living things (and maybe even in so called non living things). Not just in humans. You are confusing self awareness and wakefulness with consciousness. Consciousness is much more subtle.
-
Consciousness is present in all living things (and maybe even in so called non living things). Not just in humans. You are confusing self awareness and wakefulness with consciousness. Consciousness is much more subtle.
No I'm not - I am basing my comments on standard definitions of consciousness, such as:
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness
By any standard definition, bacteria are not conscious, nor are plants, fungi etc. Yet all are very clearly alive. Consciousness is not present in all living things.
-
That is where we differ. Consciousness is different from mental processes. Also....there is something called the unconscious part of consciousness. There is also the collective consciousness.
When Max Planck talked of Consciousness being fundamental, I don't think he was talking of human wakefulness or sentience.
-
That is where we differ.
Where we differ is that I use the word conscious as it is defined. You on the other had use it in a manner that has no relationship to any accepted definition of the word.
Also....there is something called the unconscious part of consciousness.
Now you are just descending into parody - you do recognise that using the prefix 'un' before a word means that it is not the suffix. Hence something that is unconscious is, by definition, not conscious.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unconscious
You can't just make up definitions that somehow suit you.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
'Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe.'
'
'the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain; having phanera or qualia and subjectivity; being the 'something that it is like' to 'have' or 'be' it; being the "inner theatre" or the executive control system of the mind.'
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
'Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7]
Which would most definitely not include bacteria or plants, or fungi.
There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe.'
Just because it is asked as a question doesn't mean the answer is yes, and of course only were it to be generally accepted that consciousness extended to bacteria or even non-living things would the definition of consciousness be changed. And it would need to change as currently accepted definitions do not include bacteria, plants etc as being conscious.
'the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain; having phanera or qualia and subjectivity; being the 'something that it is like' to 'have' or 'be' it; being the "inner theatre" or the executive control system of the mind.'
Which again would not include bacteria, plants, fungi and non-living stuff.
Let's stick to accepted definitions Sriram as otherwise we just get into nonsense territory. Anyone could choose to redefine consciousness as whatever they chose for the purpose of argument - but if they do that then that argument would be rendered meaningless and to do so would indicate that their argument is extremely weak.
I note you've not commented on your bonkers claim that conscious included unconscious - which is a completely oxymoron statement as definitionally something that is unconscious is not conscious.
-
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/unconscious
***********
The unconscious is the vast sum of operations of the mind that take place below the level of conscious awareness. The conscious mind contains all the thoughts, feelings, cognitions, and memories we acknowledge, while the unconscious consists of deeper mental processes not readily available to the conscious mind.
Much learning, especially recognition of complex patterns, takes place outside of conscious awareness. Similarly, many of the elements that go into judgments and decision-making are processed outside of awareness. Intuition, too, is a product of unconscious mental operations, a set of assumptions swiftly assembled from cumulative knowledge and experience. Much of human motivation and interpersonal attraction also take shape beyond conscious awareness.
Researchers know that the unconscious mind does the lion’s share of the brain’s work, but they don’t know exactly how all of it gets done, and it is an active subject of study.
************
-
Please see the video I posted at reply 15.
Life IS a subjective experience. This very moment whatever you are doing or thinking is a purely subjective experience. Same with me. Consciousness is the basis for our lives...and consciousness is a purely subjective phenomenon. Even the idea of something objective existing, is a purely subjective experience. All our experiences are subjective....even the 'objective' ones.
The external world is created within our minds. What actually exists independent of our senses, brain and mind no one can possibly know.
That was the nuclear option. Well done. If the above is correct, then we have no basis for discussing anything. You are effectively denying that we can know anything about reality.
The discussion is over.
-
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/unconscious
***********
The unconscious is the vast sum of operations of the mind that take place below the level of conscious awareness. The conscious mind contains all the thoughts, feelings, cognitions, and memories we acknowledge, while the unconscious consists of deeper mental processes not readily available to the conscious mind.
Much learning, especially recognition of complex patterns, takes place outside of conscious awareness. Similarly, many of the elements that go into judgments and decision-making are processed outside of awareness. Intuition, too, is a product of unconscious mental operations, a set of assumptions swiftly assembled from cumulative knowledge and experience. Much of human motivation and interpersonal attraction also take shape beyond conscious awareness.
Researchers know that the unconscious mind does the lion’s share of the brain’s work, but they don’t know exactly how all of it gets done, and it is an active subject of study.
************
An article which makes it clear that 'unconscious' is not part of 'conscious', which is of course self explanatory as unconscious means not conscious.
Hence "The unconscious is the vast sum of operations of the mind that take place below the level of conscious awareness." - in other words if something is unconscious then it is not conscious - obviously.
So all living things have unconscious actions - some living things also have conscious actions in addition to unconscious ones. Humans, and many animal species fit into the latter category. More simple animal species and plants, fungi, bacteria etc fall into the former category as the do not possess consciousness and all actions, responses etc are unconscious.
-
Goodness...you are so argumentative Prof! You just keep stretching the argument from one thing to the other...finally losing track of where it started.
You have missed the point about Consciousness being like a iceberg with most of it lying below the surface and only a small portion being seen outside. So...consciousness is one, with a large part of it working as the back office and only one part (the conscious part) working as the front office.
The word Consciousness is increasingly being used to refer to our subjectivity and the Self itself.
When people talk of Panpsychism and Cosmopsychism.....they are not referring to individual human awareness.
-
Goodness...you are so argumentative Prof! You just keep stretching the argument from one thing to the other...finally losing track of where it started.
I'm not being argumentative.
I just don't think it unreasonable to expect someone who uses a term to use an accepted definition of that term and not to make up some new definition to suit their argument. And particularly not when that definition is the complete opposite of the actual definition - such as defining unconscious as being part of consciousness, when clearly it is, by definition, not part of consciousness, hence the 'un' bit in the word.
-
You have missed the point about Consciousness being like a iceberg with most of it lying below the surface and only a small portion being seen outside.
Non-sense analogy. Let's fix it for you.
If consciousness is represented by the iceberg, then unconscious will be all the stuff that isn't part of the iceberg, not the bit of the iceberg below the surface.
Alternatively you might use an analogy where conscious and unconscious processes are represented by the iceberg with consciousness being that above the surface and unconsciousness being below the surface.
What is non-sense is to try to argue that unconscious is a sub-set of conscious - it isn't, by definition.
-
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Freuds-iceberg-model-of-unconscious-pre-conscious-and-conscious-levels_fig1_259524711
Anyway....thanks.
-
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Freuds-iceberg-model-of-unconscious-pre-conscious-and-conscious-levels_fig1_259524711
Anyway....thanks.
Thanks for proving my point Sriram.
That model is pretty well identical to the second option I gave, namely that 'conscious and unconscious processes are represented by the iceberg with consciousness being that above the surface and unconsciousness being below the surface'. The only difference being the inclusion of a 'grey area' between the two. Actually I was going to suggest this too, but would tend to use subconscious rather than preconscious.
Anyway - the key point of the model is that conscious and unconscious are distinct - one is not part of the other, as must be the case given that unconscious means not conscious. That is completely at odds with your bizarre notion that the unconscious is a part of the conscious:
'... there is something called the unconscious part of consciousness' - no there isn't and nor definitionally can there be.
-
I may be wrong but I suspect that Sriram is trying to amalgamate Western philosophy, psychology and science with Hindu philosophy e.g. the relationship of Brahman with Satcitananda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda
-
I'm not being argumentative.
Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?
-
Thanks for proving my point Sriram.
That model is pretty well identical to the second option I gave, namely that 'conscious and unconscious processes are represented by the iceberg with consciousness being that above the surface and unconsciousness being below the surface'. The only difference being the inclusion of a 'grey area' between the two. Actually I was going to suggest this too, but would tend to use subconscious rather than preconscious.
Anyway - the key point of the model is that conscious and unconscious are distinct - one is not part of the other, as must be the case given that unconscious means not conscious. That is completely at odds with your bizarre notion that the unconscious is a part of the conscious:
'... there is something called the unconscious part of consciousness' - no there isn't and nor definitionally can there be.
Ok.....one last effort.
Somnambulism or sleep walking is an area where a person is not conscious but nevertheless performs normal activities very effectively. This is the consciousness that is not 'conscious'.
Maybe we need to use different words for all these....but right now that's all we have got.
-
Ok.....one last effort.
Somnambulism or sleep walking is an area where a person is not conscious but nevertheless performs normal activities very effectively. This is the consciousness that is not 'conscious'.
If you are unconscious then you cannot be conscious, because unconscious means not conscious.
And actually when we are asleep (whether we sleepwalk or not) we aren't really fully unconscious as we can still respond to external stimuli in a similar manner to when we are fully conscious - hence we wake up when the alarm goes off. So this state is better considered to be subconscious, rather than unconscious.
Maybe we need to use different words for all these....but right now that's all we have got.
Nope - we have perfectly adequate words - you just need to use them correctly.
-
Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?
Guess it depends on when (or whether) Sriram starts using words according to their actual definition.
-
Today from The Daily Digest ..... https://tinyurl.com/33vb2zhv
Is the soul immortal?
The question of whether the human soul is immortal or not is one of the oldest questions of all time. From the earliest times philosophy, science and religion have tried in one way or another to give the right answer without ever arriving at an absolute truth, leaving it open to many interpretations depending on one's beliefs.
What is a soul
But first let's try to understand what is meant by soul. The word soul comes from the Latin anima, which is related to the Greek ànemos, meaning 'breath' or 'wind'. In many spiritual and religious traditions, the soul is the 'essence', 'spirit' or 'I' of personality.
The soul or consciousness
In more recent times, however, the soul is understood to be that part of the thinking self, like the mind or consciousness, one of the greatest mysteries of the various branches of science. A few years ago, however, a new theory was developed in collaboration with a great physicist of our time, which should shed light on this matter.
The 'Orch-OR' theory
The theory for researching consciousness and thus the soul is called 'Orch-OR' (ORCHestrated Objective Reduction) and was developed in the 1990s by the physicists Roger Penrose (pictured) and Stuart Hameroff. It is based on the idea that consciousness arises within the neurons and not through interactions between them.
Roger Penrose
Before delving into this intriguing theory that could reveal more about our soul, it's worth remembering that Roger Penrose is a distinguished mathematician, physicist, and cosmologist who received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020
Penrose received one of the highest honors in science for his work on black holes. Among his contributions is the discovery that the formation of black holes is a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Stuart Hameroff
Another author of the theory to tell us what the soul is and whether it is immortal is Stuart Hameroff, a Stutin anesthesiologist and lecturer at the University of Arizona in the United States.
A theory that needs to be tested
It should be noted at this point that the 'Orch-OR' is currently only a theory but is believed to be testable and projects are underway to test and validate it.
Which supports the 'Orch-OR' theory
Underlying the 'Orch-OR' theory developed by Penrose and Hameroff is the idea that the brain may not be controlled by algorithms, such that its physical properties are determined not by traditional mathematical formalisms but by the intriguing (and sometimes bizarre) principles of Quantum mechanics can be described.
A quantum approach
The two authors of the theory have combined their knowledge: on the one hand we have Hameroff, who wants to study the biological component of consciousness. According to Hameroff, the main structure of consciousness is the microtubule cells in the brain. On the other hand we have the physicist Penrose who brings the quantum approach.
Consciousness is a vibrating wave
According to the 'Orch-OR' theory, consciousness is a wave vibrating in the universe of subatomic particles (quantum physics is particle physics) and the microtubules act as true quantum computers, converting these vibrations into usable information.
The brain as a quantum computer
A quantum computer works differently than a normal computer. A quantum computer processes information in the form of bits, zero or one, while a quantum computer processes qbits, which can be zero and one at the same time, creating quantum superposition, a paradox difficult for our classical mechanical minds to comprehend.
Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation
This superimposition of states could be the measurement or the observation, in this case of consciousness. Here's an example to better understand what we're talking about: according to some theoretical physicists, when a person decides to eat an apple or a pear, at the moment of the decision (e.g. for the apple), the decision to eat the apple separates the pear and it continues to exist separately in another world. (Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation)
We are the reality
According to the 'Orch-OR' theory, on the other hand, the choice not made, that is, the pear, separates, but it is an unstable situation, so it collapses after a while. Two conclusions follow from this: According to proponents of Everett's many-worlds interpretation, there are many other worlds, but only one has consciousness (the world in which we are conscious), and that is a full one random fact. On the other hand, according to Penrose and Hameroff, we are the only reality, since alternative realities collapse because they are unstable.
A new way to understand the brain
This quantum thinking is then transferred to the brain, where consciousness has previously been thought of as a series of connections between neurons that function like a normal computer, but according to Hameoff, "It's an insult to the neuron itself when you think of the brain cell - the neuron - viewed as a switch that turns off or on".
What happens inside the neuron?
Again, the US doctor says: "Imagine that a single cell like the paramecium swims, finds food and a mate, mates and can learn. If a simple paramecium can be so intelligent, then how can a neuron can be so stupid? Is it just a matter of turning it on or off? I think these scientists don't take into account what's going on inside the neuron."
So is the soul immortal?
But at this point the question is legitimate: How can the soul, i.e. consciousness, be immortal in this context? Here is the 'Orch-OR' theory answer.
Information is saved
According to this theory, in a pre-death state, microtubules lose their quantum state but retain the information they contain. According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "
An intriguing but unproven theory
Of course, this is just one of many interesting theories that try to explain what consciousness is and whether it can really store information from a lifetime, but one must not forget that this has not yet been proven by science.
-
The idea that consciousness is quantum phenomenon is a fascinating idea, and the Penrose-Hameroff suggestions are certainly intriguing. There are major problems of course, especially with the microtubule cells as the main structure of consciousness, partly because microtubules transport neurotransmitters but do not seem to be involved in processing and also because they are too big and too complicated to allow quantum coherence for anything more than a few picoseconds. A later suggestion was that ion channels in neuronal cell membranes are a possible site for quantum phenomena(Al-Khalili and McFadden). It is worth pointing out, as Al-Khalili and McFadden stress, that their ideas are a world away from supporting so called 'paranormal phenomena'.
Hameroff's idea that quantum information 'just disperses and dissolves into the universe' seems to be an extension of the idea that when we die the atoms from which we are made, are dispersed. Hence, if I drink a glass of water, I might be imbibing an atom which once was part of Oliver Cromwell.
-
Certain aspects of reality need not always be amenable to measurement through instruments.
If we can't detect it, how can we have any confidence that it actually exists? If we can detect it, in principle we can devise a subtle enough instrument to measure it.
Our instruments are also designed in line with our senses and our awareness.
The output of our instruments, yes, but not the input. Magnemometers, radios, microwave emission sensors, Geiger counters - all measure things we can't sense directly.
I agree that even the non measurable reality will influence other aspects of reality in certain ways. That is precisely why I am looking at scientific ideas to see what hints they offer about the non measurable aspects.
Yet you keep talking about them being somehow beyond science - science is the tool by which we investigate those 'influences' and try to narrow down the possibilities.
My point is that evolution is a universal phenomenon that can be seen in all human creations as well.
For the reasons I've given above I fundamentally disagree - there's a reason that we needed to devise the idea of evolution, and it was because the notion of design didn't fit the evidence well. Evolution and design are fundamentally different processes.
It is not limited to biology.
Possibly not, but we've no evidence for it occurring anywhere else that I'm aware of.
So, it is possible that spirit or consciousness also evolves.
It's not impossible, but you've provided no reason to think so.
We just need to go into oneself to sense that we are different from the body/mind. It becomes obvious at one point that we are just a 'man in a robot'.
You keep dropping this sort of thing in, like I'm not a grown adult who has had plenty of time for introspection and has come to a different conclusion - what is it that makes your instinctive take on reality somehow more reliable than mine, given that mine cleaves to the evidence better?
Objectivity within the VR will also be just an illusion though the person in the VR might think of it as really objective. It is all part of the subjective experience.
And the same argument can be made of the 'real' world - we could just be a brain in a jar, the Matrix might be real. How do we prove otherwise from inside?
It is one way of trying to understand our lives. It is a possibility and that is enough to discuss it seriously.
Except that there is not attempt to 'understand', there's just conjecture and if it feels good you accept it as true. That it feels good might be significant, might be something worth investigating, but it's not evidence that you've got the right answer.
Because science insists on following certain methods that itself are limiting its scope.
And yet you can't explain why any of your claims are somehow beyond science's capacity to investigate. And you don't provide a methodology with any logic or validity to support your alternative ideas.
That is the reason such thinking is called scientism.
Scientism is the idea that only science can produce answers, and I've not been advocating that. However, just because I'm open to other methodologies doesn't mean that you get to say 'well it's beyond science' and then make any claim you like without basis, you still need some reason to validate your claims.
O.
-
If we can't detect it, how can we have any confidence that it actually exists? If we can detect it, in principle we can devise a subtle enough instrument to measure it.
IF we experience it directly we don't need any confirmation through instruments.
Yet you keep talking about them being somehow beyond science - science is the tool by which we investigate those 'influences' and try to narrow down the possibilities.
It is beyond science and therefore it cannot be measured directly.....but certain aspects of reality that science has investigated do offer hints at to their existence because reality is a spectrum. There is continuity but the nature of the reality changes. Psychological phenomena for example, are not as precise and predictable as physics.
For the reasons I've given above I fundamentally disagree - there's a reason that we needed to devise the idea of evolution, and it was because the notion of design didn't fit the evidence well. Evolution and design are fundamentally different processes.
Possibly not, but we've no evidence for it occurring anywhere else that I'm aware of.
It's not impossible, but you've provided no reason to think so.
You speak as though design and intelligence are automatically contraindicated just because evolution is true. This is the idea that I am questioning. In the case of products, ideas, philosophies and so on, evolution does take place but through intelligent design and intervention. Evolution and intelligent intervention are not mutually exclusive. They can exist together.
You keep dropping this sort of thing in, like I'm not a grown adult who has had plenty of time for introspection and has come to a different conclusion - what is it that makes your instinctive take on reality somehow more reliable than mine, given that mine cleaves to the evidence better?
Introspection is not enough. Everyone introspects. If you really want to know about this in real terms....choose some guru and learn some meditation and yoga. You will see what I mean.
And the same argument can be made of the 'real' world - we could just be a brain in a jar, the Matrix might be real. How do we prove otherwise from inside?
We cannot prove anything within the VR. Having an insight about the world outside the VR or getting out of the VR, is the only proof. NDE's offer some insights.
Scientism is the idea that only science can produce answers, and I've not been advocating that. However, just because I'm open to other methodologies doesn't mean that you get to say 'well it's beyond science' and then make any claim you like without basis, you still need some reason to validate your claims.
Anyone who keeps insisting on current scientific methods to investigate philosophical and abstract ideas is guilty of subscribing to scientism.
-
IF we experience it directly we don't need any confirmation through instruments.
But we can only experience things through our senses that only react to physical stimuli. Therefore anything we experience thatches from external phenomena is measurable. Even if something were directly interfering with our thoughts by bypassing our senses in some way is detectable in principle thanks to the changes in brain activity it must induce.
Anyone who keeps insisting on current scientific methods to investigate philosophical and abstract ideas is guilty of subscribing to scientism.
Shut up about scientism. This is just an attempt to poison the well.
ETA: It's fine to talk about philosophical ideas without checking them to see ofd they accord with reality but, if you fail to do the checking against reality, you can't be sure they are true.
-
IF we experience it directly we don't need any confirmation through instruments.
Yes, we do. Notwithstanding things like hallucinations and neurological problems, we know that we are unreliable instruments. We detect gravitational, and because of the limitations of our sensory apparatus, we think of it like a force, but it isn't. We have no sensory capability for 'wetness', yet we think we do.
Regardless, that wrongly answers a different question - that's a wrong answer to 'why shouldn't we investigate it with science', but you aren't suggesting that we shouldn't, you're suggesting that we can't, that it's outside of science's capability somehow.
It is beyond science and therefore it cannot be measured directly.....but certain aspects of reality that science has investigated do offer hints at to their existence because reality is a spectrum. There is continuity but the nature of the reality changes. Psychological phenomena for example, are not as precise and predictable as physics.
And that 'variability', that vagueness is something that the science can accommodate; you've still not explained that claim, made again here, that this 'is beyond science'. How? How does something with discernible effects exist outside of science's at least notional capacity to investigate those effects?
You speak as though design and intelligence are automatically contraindicated just because evolution is true.
No, I'm showing that whilst design requires intelligence, evolution does not (it doesn't explicitly preclude it, intrinsically, but the practical realities do at least raise the question).
This is the idea that I am questioning. In the case of products, ideas, philosophies and so on, evolution does take place but through intelligent design and intervention. Evolution and intelligent intervention are not mutually exclusive. They can exist together.
They can, in theory, but there's no evidence that they do. Evolution does not require a guiding intelligence, and in the absence of anything from the available evidence to suggest that one is involved, why would you add in the unsupported contention of a guiding intelligence?
Introspection is not enough. Everyone introspects. If you really want to know about this in real terms....choose some guru and learn some meditation and yoga. You will see what I mean.
Ah, no true Scotsman, the most subtle of ad hominems. If you can't explain it rationally, if you need to achieve some sort of altered mental state to just 'accept' the claim sans evidence, then you've failed to adequately support your contention.
We cannot prove anything within the VR. Having an insight about the world outside the VR or getting out of the VR, is the only proof. NDE's offer some insights.
Only if you accept them at face value, and you can no more show that they are somehow a shortcut to reality than you can show that dreams strip away the layers - they are subjective interpretation of abnormal brain activity, and to try to substantiate anything meaningful from them requires a hell of lot more explanatory investigation than you or anyone is providing.
Anyone who keeps insisting on current scientific methods to investigate philosophical and abstract ideas is guilty of subscribing to scientism.
And, again, I'm not insisting on science, but I am insisting that you need more than 'it makes me feel nice' to expect anyone to take some other methodology seriously. What's your alternative? Meditate, and just presume that gives you some sort of hypercognitive insight to reality because.... what?
O.
-
But we can only experience things through our senses that only react to physical stimuli. Therefore anything we experience thatches from external phenomena is measurable. Even if something were directly interfering with our thoughts by bypassing our senses in some way is detectable in principle thanks to the changes in brain activity
Too simplistic. What about the gaps between the raw and processed data where each process it in their own way to different conclusions and each have a different experience. E.g. your very post sets up disagreement from me but maybe warm agreement or even erotic frisson in others.
The gap between raw empirical data and experience is what some would call spirituality.
-
Too simplistic. What about the gaps between the raw and processed data where each process it in their own way to different conclusions and each have a different experience. E.g. your very post sets up disagreement from me but maybe warm agreement or even erotic frisson in others.
The gap between raw empirical data and experience is what some would call spirituality.
I'd have thought experience was raw empirical data, else you wouldn't know you'd had said experience. What you refer to as 'spirituality' seems like just another experience involving raw empirical data - but with a meaningless label attached.
-
Too simplistic.
Are you? Sorry about that, but it really isn't that complicated. You have an idea about the World works. You have no idea if it is true until you compare it to the World.
What about the gaps between the raw and processed data where each process it in their own way to different conclusions and each have a different experience. E.g. your very post sets up disagreement from me but maybe warm agreement or even erotic frisson in others.
That's why science has all these techniques and protocols like double blinding etc. Scientists accept that our perception of reality is imperfect and they expend huge amounts of energy (sometimes literally) to account for that and eliminate the problems as far as possible.
-
I'd have thought experience was raw empirical data, else you wouldn't know you'd had said experience.
I don't agree. The raw empirical data is the photons hitting and stimulating the cells of a human eye. The experience is the brain of Bernadette Soubirous interpreting those data as an appearance of the Virgin Mary, instead of, say, just some odd shaped shadows or whatever it really was.
-
I don't agree. The raw empirical data is the photons hitting and stimulating the cells of a human eye. The experience is the brain of Bernadette Soubirous interpreting those data as an appearance of the Virgin Mary, instead of, say, just some odd shaped shadows or whatever it really was.
Bernadette not only experienced the interpretation of photons hitting her eye. She also experienced the vibration of air molecules hitting her ear drum which she interpreted to be words spoken to her by the apparition. During the sixteenth vision, after three attempts to get the apparition to say who she was, the apparition eventually replied with the words "I am the immaculate conception". Was this just some random gust of wind whistling through the trees? I think not.
-
Bernadette not only experienced the interpretation of photons hitting her eye. She also experienced the vibration of air molecules hitting her ear drum which she interpreted to be words spoken to her by the apparition.
No, she may have experienced seeing something and hearing something, but we don't know if that experience was the result of photons hitting her retinae and vibrations reaching her eardrums, or if it was an artificial production within her brain. Whilst we generally accept that this is the way by which most experiences of sound and vision happen, we are aware of other circumstances.
During the sixteenth vision, after three attempts to get the apparition to say who she was, the apparition eventually replied with the words "I am the immaculate conception". Was this just some random gust of wind whistling through the trees? I think not.
I'd agree, it sounds like a psychological or neurological issue.
O.
-
... it sounds like a psychological or neurological issue.
O.
For such words to come from the brain of a 14 year old girl living in extreme poverty and with poor abilities in reading and writing due to frequent illness ... I suggest there must have been a different source for these words. A spiritual source perhaps?
-
Bernadette not only experienced the interpretation of photons hitting her eye. She also experienced the vibration of air molecules hitting her ear drum which she interpreted to be words spoken to her by the apparition. During the sixteenth vision, after three attempts to get the apparition to say who she was, the apparition eventually replied with the words "I am the immaculate conception". Was this just some random gust of wind whistling through the trees? I think not.
How have you excluded the risk that she just made it up?
-
I'd have thought experience was raw empirical data, else you wouldn't know you'd had said experience. What you refer to as 'spirituality' seems like just another experience involving raw empirical data - but with a meaningless label attached.
raw empirical data comes in volts and lumens and decibels and centibars Gordon.Hardly covers experience or consciousness does it?
-
How have you excluded the risk that she just made it up?
How can you?
-
Bernadette not only experienced the interpretation of photons hitting her eye. She also experienced the vibration of air molecules hitting her ear drum which she interpreted to be words spoken to her by the apparition.
Not necessarily.
In order for us to experience something we see or hear there are two major elements in operation - first the sensory systems themselves (the eye, the ear) which convert physical stimuli (photons hitting sensory cells, vibration detected by sensory cells) into electrical signals that are transferred to the second element. This is the brain which receives these signals and interpolates them into something we consider to be an experience - something we see, something we hear.
In most cases these two elements work in tandem but not always. So there will be circumstances where signals from the eye or ear aren't interpreted by the brain. But more relevant there will be times when brain function is triggered in a similar manner to that typically occurring when interpreting signals from the eye or ear, but without those signal being present.
This second phenomenon is pretty common and involves people thinking they see or hear or feel something that isn't actually there or actually happened. So in a similar manner to a person who is 100% convinced they can still feel an amputated limb there will be people who may also be completely convinced that they hear or see things that aren't actually there - the experience is created entirely within the brain and not by the brain interpreting signals from sensory systems.
-
During the sixteenth vision, after three attempts to get the apparition to say who she was, the apparition eventually replied with the words "I am the immaculate conception".
Hmm - child brought up in a devoutly catholic culture and society in which the notion of immaculate conception would have been drummed into her as incredible important from a very early age has visions in which immaculate conception features prominently. Hmm what are you going to tell me next - that the pope is a catholic.
Sounds exactly what you'd expect from neurological and psychological issues manifesting in a 14 year old girl brought up in such circumstances.
Now I'd be more interested if this was a 14 year old girl brought up in a society and culture devoid of catholicism where the concept of immaculate conception would be entirely alien.
-
Hmm - child brought up in a devoutly catholic culture and society in which the notion of immaculate conception would have been drummed into her as incredible important from a very early age has visions in which immaculate conception features prominently. Hmm what are you going to tell me next - that the pope is a catholic.
You are making some unqualified assumptions here.
The doctrine of the immaculate conception does not feature in the major teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
In fact few Roman Catholics know what the phrase really means. Many believe it refers to the virgin birth - but it actually refers to Mary being born without original sin. A 14 year old child brought up in a poor family is highly unlikely to have any such knowledge.
-
How can you?
Not my problem - not my claim, but a reasonable question to ask.
-
raw empirical data comes in volts and lumens and decibels and centibars Gordon.Hardly covers experience or consciousness does it?
Experience derives from the processing of said raw empirical data: that is how you get to experience, say, the sound of a car horm in the distance.
-
You are making some unqualified assumptions here.
The doctrine of the immaculate conception does not feature in the major teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
In fact few Roman Catholics know what the phrase really means. Many believe it refers to the virgin birth - but it actually refers to Mary being born without original sin. A 14 year old child brought up in a poor family is highly unlikely to have any such knowledge.
And yet arguably the only doctrine declared ex cathedra under papal infallilibity.
-
The doctrine of the immaculate conception does not feature in the major teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
In fact few Roman Catholics know what the phrase really means. Many believe it refers to the virgin birth - but it actually refers to Mary being born without original sin. A 14 year old child brought up in a poor family is highly unlikely to have any such knowledge.
Just nonsense on stilts.
The notion of immaculate conception has been an element of catholicism since medieval times. I agree that it didn't become a formal part of catholic doctrine until much later - in fact 1854 when Pope Pius IX declared it so in an apostolic constitution. This would, no doubt, have been disseminated throughout the church and therefore very likely this new element of doctrine would have been highly discussed at the time.
And guess when the 14 year old Bernadette started talking about immaculate conception - err 1858. Young impressionable girl latches onto the most recently embedded element within her catholic cultural and societal upbringing.
-
Jus nonsense on stilts.
The notion of immaculate conception has been an element of catholicism since medieval times. I agree that it didn't become a formal part of catholic doctrine until much later - in fact 1854 when Pope Pius IX declared it so in an apostolic constitution. This would, no doubt, have been disseminated throughout the church and therefore very likely this new element of doctrine would have been highly discussed at the time.
And guess when the 14 year old Bernadette started talking about immaculate conception - err 1858. Young impressionable girl latches onto the most recently embedded element within her catholic cultural and societal upbringing.
Though her knowledge of such a thing is irrelevant to whether she said it.
-
Experience derives from the processing of said raw empirical data: that is how you get to experience, say, the sound of a car horm in the distance.
Sounds like you need to get out more.
-
Though her knowledge of such a thing is irrelevant to whether she said it.
It isn't irrelevant as to whether she felt this was something that would get her noticed were she to say it. Nor as to whether there is a level of 'suggestion' as to this being important.
And most importantly it is highly relevant that it is likely that this notion would have been swirling around in the catholic circles in which she moved.
It would be fairly remarkable, certainly unexpected, where a 14 year girl in a community whether immaculate concept had never been mentioned had come out this it. It is completely unremarkable, easily explained and therefore dismissed as miraculous for a girl in Bernadette's situation to come out with this.
-
It isn't irrelevant as to whether she felt this was something that would get her noticed were she to say it. Nor as to whether there is a level of 'suggestion' as to this being important.
And most importantly it is highly relevant that it is likely that this notion would have been swirling around in the catholic circles in which she moved.
It would be fairly remarkable, certainly unexpected, where a 14 year girl in a community whether immaculate concept had never been mentioned had come out this it. It is completely unremarkable, easily explained and therefore dismissed as miraculous for a girl in Bernadette's situation to come out with this.
There is no proof she actually said it, it could be a lie by a priest. That's why it's irrelevant.
-
There is no proof she actually said it, it could be a lie by a priest. That's why it's irrelevant.
True.
But if we accept, for the sake of argument, that she did say it then it is unremarkable.
-
Outrider...
Sam Harris
https://www.wakingup.com/
-
Outrider...
Sam Harris
https://www.wakingup.com/
Think the link is incorrect, Sriram.
-
The link seems to be ok. Sam Harris has written a book called Waking UP.
https://www.getflashnotes.com/waking-up-by-sam-harris/
-
The link seems to be ok. Sam Harris has written a book called Waking UP.
https://www.getflashnotes.com/waking-up-by-sam-harris/
Ah yes - the hoary old myth that although people are turning their back on describing themselves as religious there is a huge 'hidden' group who consider themselves spiritual, but don't describe themselves as religious.
Not true - certainly not true in the UK. Just 6% of people in the UK consider themselves to be spiritual but not religious. In most cases people describing themselves as spiritual also consider themselves to be religious.
-
Ah yes - the hoary old myth that although people are turning their back on describing themselves as religious there is a huge 'hidden' group who consider themselves spiritual, but don't describe themselves as religious.
Not true - certainly not true in the UK. Just 6% of people in the UK consider themselves to be spiritual but not religious. In most cases people describing themselves as spiritual also consider themselves to be religious.
This is certainly worth discussing. I think it shows secular education in the UK to be failing in it’s task to teach that people are more than mere units in an acquisitive and materialist universe and that is not a good thing.
I think it also peculiar that the more ignorant and removed from spirituality people have become the more hostile they are to it. Public atheists are obviously successfully selling something pernicious.
-
Bernadette not only experienced the interpretation of photons hitting her eye. She also experienced the vibration of air molecules hitting her ear drum which she interpreted to be words spoken to her by the apparition. During the sixteenth vision, after three attempts to get the apparition to say who she was, the apparition eventually replied with the words "I am the immaculate conception". Was this just some random gust of wind whistling through the trees? I think not.
We don't know what it was. It might even have been her lying. The one thing we can be fairly sure of is that it wasn't the real Virgin Mary hwho had been dead for around 1800 years.
-
This is certainly worth discussing. I think it shows secular education in the UK to be failing in it’s task to teach that people are more than mere units in an acquisitive and materialist universe and that is not a good thing.
I think it also peculiar that the more ignorant and removed from spirituality people have become the more hostile they are to it. Public atheists are obviously successfully selling something pernicious.
I think young people growing up today have a pretty attuned sense of matters that go beyond acquisitive materialism - hence their clear concerns about environmental issues and issues of equality and fairness. These are clearly ethical matters.
You might not like it that young people seem to reject traditional religion and indeed spiritualism as a kind of pound-shop religion, but the reality is that plenty of young people are very well attuned to the self of self and also to the needs to respect others sense of self. From what I can see our current education system helps support his far more than was the case when I was growing up in the 70s - a time when ethical understanding was simply seem as an adjunct to religious education (or instruction) and RE was effectively top down christianity imposed on children on the basis that 'this is what we belief' whether or not kids actually believed it.
Sorry that a more open and discursive dialogue with children within our education system about ethics and belief is leading kids to reject your religion - but that speaks volumes about the credibility of the christian message, not the education system.
-
You are making some unqualified assumptions here.
The doctrine of the immaculate conception does not feature in the major teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
In fact few Roman Catholics know what the phrase really means. Many believe it refers to the virgin birth - but it actually refers to Mary being born without original sin. A 14 year old child brought up in a poor family is highly unlikely to have any such knowledge.
According to Wikipedia "Soubirous attended the day school conducted by the Sisters of Charity and Christian Instruction from Nevers". I think she was pretty likely to know a lot of the tenets of Catholicism including the immaculate conception. Even if she didn't know what it was, she almost certainly had heard the term and knew it related to Mary.
-
According to Wikipedia "Soubirous attended the day school conducted by the Sisters of Charity and Christian Instruction from Nevers". I think she was pretty likely to know a lot of the tenets of Catholicism including the immaculate conception. Even if she didn't know what it was, she almost certainly had heard the term and knew it related to Mary.
Indeed and the fact that this had become official catholic doctrine just 4 years before her 'visions' is, I suspect, also pretty important. This would have become something pushed front and centre within doctrine and teaching following in those incredibly impressionable years from 10-14.
Also notable that she described the image as being like the depictions of the virgin Mary in churches, which she would have seen all the time. There is no reason to imagine that Mary looked like this at all and those images are a catholic creation. So had she really seen a vision of the virgin Mary, surely this person would have looked like a 1stC Palestinian woman, not a stylised catholic creation. Again indicates a high degree of subtle or not so subtle psychological 'suggestion' going on, even if she or the priest aren't just flat out lying.
-
I think young people growing up today have a pretty attuned sense of matters that go beyond acquisitive materialism - hence their clear concerns about environmental issues and issues of equality and fairness. These are clearly ethical matters.
You might not like it that young people seem to reject traditional religion and indeed spiritualism as a kind of pound-shop religion, but the reality is that plenty of young people are very well attuned to the self of self and also to the needs to respect others sense of self. From what I can see our current education system helps support his far more than was the case when I was growing up in the 70s - a time when ethical understanding was simply seem as an adjunct to religious education (or instruction) and RE was effectively top down christianity imposed on children on the basis that 'this is what we belief' whether or not kids actually believed it.
Sorry that a more open and discursive dialogue with children within our education system about ethics and belief is leading kids to reject your religion - but that speaks volumes about the credibility of the christian message, not the education system.
Even in this post you cannot help conflate religion with
Spirituality. I'm not talking about religion.
If they see themselves as more than mere units of materialism in it's many forms then they are exercising their spirituality. Not as you present it, poundshop religion.
-
Even in this post you cannot help conflate religion with
Spirituality. I'm not talking about religion.
If they see themselves as more than mere units of materialism in it's many forms then they are exercising their spirituality. Not as you present it, poundshop religion.
But that is because, certainly in the UK, the two overlap. As I've said just 6% of people in the UK see themselves as spiritual but not religious. By contrast 20% see themselves as both religious and spiritual and 18% as religious but not spiritual. 55% considered themselves neither spiritual nor religious.
So spiritual is basically a sub-set of religious, except for a very small, 6% rump.
-
But that is because, certainly in the UK, the two overlap. As I've said just 6% of people in the UK see themselves as spiritual but not religious. By contrast 20% see themselves as both religious and spiritual and 18% as religious but not spiritual. 55% considered themselves neither spiritual nor religious.
So spiritual is basically a sub-set of religious, except for a very small, 6% rump.
I think i’ve Already commented on the successful Misdirection and conflation wrought by materialists.
This is yet another example of word piracy.
-
This is yet another example of word piracy.
Nope - it is called evidence. I know you aren't very keen on evidence Vlad, but that's your issue, not mine.
-
Nope - it is called evidence. I know you aren't very keen on evidence Vlad, but that's your issue, not mine.
It's evidence of how they identify and how lots of people don't really know what spirituality means.At the end of the day not feeling yourself to be a spiritual person doesn't mean you aren't acting or functioning spiritually...which isn't the same as being religious. So that's a big so what from me.
It sounds like there might have been a few leading questions in the survey. Who carried it out?
-
It's evidence of how they identify and how lots of people don't really know what spirituality means.
Sounds rather like a no true Scotsman argument.
But there is an issue here - spirituality is a vague and ill-defined notion. Something that can mean anything to anyone. That being the case I suspect the numbers of people hanging their hat on spirituality is over inflated as anyone can define it as they wish. Were there to be a tighter and clearer definition I suspect we see fewer, rather than more, people identifying.
At the end of the day not feeling yourself to be a spiritual person doesn't mean you aren't acting or functioning spiritually ...
Oh so Vlad knows better than individuals whether those individuals consider themselves to be spiritual or not. This is self-identification so it isn't up to you to tell them they are wrong. And it has to be as there is any formal definition of spirituality, nor some kind of card carrying membership that would allow others to 'count' the numbers. Self identification is all we have - unlike ...
...which isn't the same as being religious.
True - for religion you can also measure actual practice - you can objectively measure people attending religious services for example.
However that is irrelevant to my point which was to counter the hoary old myth of a vast and hidden pool of people who don't consider themselves to be religious, but do consider themselves to be spiritual. Certainly in the UK this isn't the case, and most of europe seems to be similar. Typically (certainly in the UK) the proportion of people claiming to be spiritual is less than that claiming to be religious. And those claiming to be spiritual is largely a sub-set of those claiming to be religious - in the UK just 6% claim to be spiritual but not religious.
It sounds like there might have been a few leading questions in the survey. Who carried it out?
No leading questions and carried out by the Pew Research Center which I would suggest is the world's most respected organisation that carries out analysis of religiosity.
-
It's evidence of how they identify and how lots of people don't really know what spirituality means.
Nobody knows what 'spiritual' means, it's so devoid of any attachment to anything demonstrable that it either means nothing or the interpretation is so individual as to be effectively meaningless outside of that person's own head.
At the end of the day not feeling yourself to be a spiritual person doesn't mean you aren't acting or functioning spiritually...
Ah, the 'we all believe in God really', argument, remixed for the Age of Aquarius. It was nonsense then, and it's still nonsense now. Not spiritual as a manifestation of spiritual is up there alongside atheism as a religion.
O.
-
Nobody knows what 'spiritual' means,
I do, Professor Davey does and as he points out, the pew research group think they do too. it's so devoid of any attachment to anything demonstrable that it either means nothing or the interpretation is so individual as to be effectively meaningless outside of that person's own head.
Exaggeration. Yes It isn't a scientific term but that's the point. The sense I mean it in is the broadest. It is concerned with those aspects of human life not described by science...morals, beliefs, values, self esteem etc.
Your limiting it to what hippies do is comic caricature vis
Ah, the 'we all believe in God really', argument, remixed for the Age of Aquarius. It was nonsense then, and it's still nonsense now. Not spiritual as a manifestation of spiritual is up there alongside atheism as a religion.
O.
-
I do, Professor Davey does and as he points out, the pew research group think they do too.
And yet your entire point appears to be that when they say what they think it is that's not what you think it is.
Exaggeration. Yes It isn't a scientific term but that's the point. The sense I mean it in is the broadest. It is concerned with those aspects of human life not described by science...morals, beliefs, values, self esteem etc.
It's not even hyperbole, it's just the actual case. It's not merely that it's not a scientific term, it's that it's beyond ideas like 'honour' or 'virtue', which can have common cultural elements with grey areas around individual interpretations of the fringes, it's that 'spiritual' is all fringe. Take two adjacent people's take on it, and you get a random mish-mash of formalised religion, space-age woo, oriental mysticism and folklore.
Your limiting it to what hippies do is comic caricature vis
Whereas your trying to include the behaviour of people who decry the notion of 'spirit' as somehow intrinsically spiritual doesn't rob the notion of any sort of coherence or validity? I look forward to your next post on the spiritual aspects of not stamp collecting.
O.
-
I do, Professor Davey does and as he points out, the pew research group think they do too.
No I don't - indeed in my most recent post I said that it was a "is a vague and ill-defined notion".
And actually nor do the Pew Research Center - indeed this is from the very beginning of the piece:
"Spirituality and religion can be defined in many different ways, and the distinction between the two concepts often is muddy."
And the data I used are entirely self-defined, both in terms of what an individual may consider spiritual to mean and secondarily whether, by their own definition, they consider themselves to be spiritual. Hence the question asked that relates to the data I quoted is:
"Generally speaking do you think of yourself as a spiritual person?"
Now Pew also go on to ask some further questions about elements that may be considered to define spirituality, but these are further questions after the main question above. Hence:
"For the purposes of this analysis, spirituality refers to beliefs or feelings about supernatural phenomena, such as life after death, the existence of a soul apart from the human body, and the presence of spiritual energy in physical things such as mountains, trees or crystals."
Pew additionally asks about some of these aspects, for example whether they have a soul, feel connection to things that cannot be seen or measured scientifically, whether they believe in fate, reincarnation, practice meditation etc.
But none of this affects the main question on whether someone considers themselves to be spiritual which is defined by and answered by (i.e. self identification) by the individual.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/05/29/attitudes-toward-spirituality-and-religion/
-
It is concerned with those aspects of human life not described by science...morals, beliefs, values, self esteem etc.
Nonsense - morals, beliefs etc aren't necessarily linked to spiritualism. I consider I have a pretty well defined sense of values, ethical principles etc - I don't consider myself to be spiritual and I don't consider these matters to be based on spirituality as they arise from human existence, intellect and overarching societal and cultural influence. None of this sits necessarily within spiritualism - sure some people may consider their values to be driven by their belief in spiritualism. But for others values, morals, etc etc have nothing to do with spiritualism.
-
Nonsense - morals, beliefs etc aren't necessarily linked to spiritualism.
Let me stop you there. Spiritualism is belief in and making contact with human and angelic spirits. In it's broadest sense spirituality encompasses those aspects of human life not susceptible to material investigation in my days as a school governor we were charged via the national curriculum to educate and develop the spiritual aspects of our charges and that was in all schools. In other words non religious spirituality. I consider I have a pretty well defined sense of values, ethical principles etc - I don't consider myself to be spiritual and I don't consider these matters to be based on spirituality as they arise from human existence, intellect and overarching societal and cultural influence. None of this sits necessarily within spiritualism - sure some people may consider their values to be driven by their belief in spiritualism. But for others values, morals, etc etc have nothing to do with spiritualism.
You do not consider these to be spiritualism(sic) because you have a narrow interpretation of spirituality which conflated spirituality with religion.
As for the results of the pew research group into religion, the last word religion should have alerted you to the emphasis on the research.
-
Let me stop you there. Spiritualism is belief in and making contact with human and angelic spirits.
Well that's your definition, other definitions are available which rather proves my point that there is no agreed definition of spiritualism, merely a series of vague and ill-defined definitions.
And I don't even understand, let alone accept your definition. I certainly don't believe in angelic spirits as I don't believe that angels exist. But what on earth is a "human spirit" - I have no idea and without being clear what you mean then I cannot say whether or not I believe in it. I would have thought that most definitions of spiritualism are based on the notion that there are things that sit outside of materialism - but as far as I can see anything associated with human cognition, intellect, emotions, beliefs etc etc. are clearly manifestations of our complex physiology and neurobiology, so most definitively material in origin.
In it's broadest sense spirituality encompasses those aspects of human life not susceptible to material investigation
Which would count out pretty well anything associated with human physiology, psychology, emotions, interactions, beliefs etc etc which are most definitely susceptible to material investigation. There are whole branches of science devoted to them.
... in my days as a school governor ...
That is a terrifying thought. What kind of school Vlad - faith or non faith.
-
Let me stop you there. Spiritualism is belief in and making contact with human and angelic spirits. In it's broadest sense spirituality encompasses those aspects of human life not susceptible to material investigation.
That's two different entirely different definitions in one paragraph, neither of which has any demonstrable basis.
In my days as a school governor we were charged via the national curriculum to educate and develop the spiritual aspects of our charges and that was in all schools.
The National Curriculum, though, and the Education Act 2002 (and the subsequent Academies Act 2010) fail to provide any definition of 'spirit'. Ofsted's doesn't provide a definition, but does explain what it looks for in this area:
ability to be reflective about their own beliefs (religious or otherwise) and perspective on life
knowledge of, and respect for, different people’s faiths, feelings and values
sense of enjoyment and fascination in learning about themselves, others and the world around them
use of imagination and creativity in their learning
willingness to reflect on their experiences
That doesn't sound anything like the definitions you put up, so that's a third. (I do take issue, slightly, with 'respect for different people's faiths' - their right to them, perhaps, but not the faiths themselves).
In other words non religious spirituality.
The problem isn't with divorcing religion from spirituality, or with trying to see religion as some sort of 'subset' of spirituality, but rather with giving any sort of meaning to 'spiritual'.
You do not consider these to be spiritualism(sic) because you have a narrow interpretation of spirituality which conflated spirituality with religion.
No, I have a problem with 'spiritual', because it's intrinsically linked to a notion of 'spirits' which don't appear to be real.
O.
-
The National Curriculum, though, and the Education Act 2002 (and the subsequent Academies Act 2010) fail to provide any definition of 'spirit'. Ofsted's doesn't provide a definition, but does explain what it looks for in this area:
Quote from: Ofsted
ability to be reflective about their own beliefs (religious or otherwise) and perspective on life
knowledge of, and respect for, different people’s faiths, feelings and values
sense of enjoyment and fascination in learning about themselves, others and the world around them
use of imagination and creativity in their learning
willingness to reflect on their experiences
All of which seem to be clearly manifestations of the 'material' human mind - in what manner are any of these the manifestation of some kind of non-material 'spirit' (whether human or angelic) Vlad?
-
All of which seem to be clearly manifestations of the 'material' human mind - in what manner are any of these the manifestation of some kind of non-material 'spirit' (whether human or angelic) Vlad?
It was you who brought up Spiritualism mistaking it for spirituality the broadest definition which has been spelled out for you on numerous occasions.
If you think these things like beliefs, feelings, creativity etc are measurable using science then be my guest.
In my opinion it won't be long before you reach the explanatory gap in each case.
Take as much time as you like.
-
If you think these things like beliefs, feelings, creativity etc are measurable using science then be my guest.
All of these things are manifestations of human neurobiology are are eminently measurable by standard neurobiology techniques, e.g. MRI
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-tell-someones-emotional-state-from-an-mri/
https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/brain-imaging-reveals-why-some-people-are-more-creative-than-others-296433
Not only that but creativity (and a whole range of other emotions, beliefs, feelings etc) have a genetic link. So for creativity:
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-you-inherit-creativity-science-says-yes#Your-artistic-skills-might-be-as-heritable-as-your-eye-color
-
Regarding spirituality and the national curriculum
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/ncc1993/smdev.html
-
All of these things are manifestations of human neurobiology are are eminently measurable by standard neurobiology techniques, e.g. MRI
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-tell-someones-emotional-state-from-an-mri/
https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/brain-imaging-reveals-why-some-people-are-more-creative-than-others-296433
Not only that but creativity (and a whole range of other emotions, beliefs, feelings etc) have a genetic link. So for creativity:
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-you-inherit-creativity-science-says-yes#Your-artistic-skills-might-be-as-heritable-as-your-eye-color
So what?
-
So what?
Isn't that things such as beliefs, feelings, creativity etc being measurable using science?
-
Isn't that things such as beliefs, feelings, creativity etc being measurable using science?
They aren't measurable by science without leaving an explanatory gap.
For example when measuring Joy presumably that is in volts. How do you then get from volts to joy. What is creativity measured in? Or atheism for that matter?
-
They aren't measurable by science without leaving an explanatory gap.
For example when measuring Joy presumably that is in volts. How do you then get from volts to joy. What is creativity measured in? Or atheism for that matter?
You can measure the brains activity when experiencing joy, being creative etc something you seemed to doubt possible. No idea where measuring atheism comes in - what brain response constitutes a lack of belief?
-
You can measure the brains activity when experiencing joy, being creative etc something you seemed to doubt possible. No idea where measuring atheism comes in - what brain response constitutes a lack of belief?
No it is possible but so what? You still have a huge explanatory gap between an electrical reading and the phenomenon of joy.
I don't know what brain responses happen in atheists but I'm sure they are different and since atheists are in the minority their brain responses could be said to be abnormal.
-
From the Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/askthebrains/
-
No it is possible but so what? You still have a huge explanatory gap between an electrical reading and the phenomenon of joy.
I don't know what brain responses happen in atheists but I'm sure they are different and since atheists are in the minority their brain responses could be said to be abnormal.
You suggested it wasn't possible so good you are now accepting it is. What do you specifically mean by an explanatory gap? Someone who experiences joy shows a measurable brain response. What gap are you referring too?
I would accept that people with belief have a different brain response to some things than someone without a belief have. Most people have grown up in a culture of belief so I don't think this is surprising. It doesn't really tell us anything about whether the beliefs are true though, probably tells us more about how the brain works.
-
You suggested it wasn't possible so good you are now accepting it is. What do you specifically mean by an explanatory gap? Someone who experiences joy shows a measurable brain response. What gap are you referring too?
I would accept that people with belief have a different brain response to some things than someone without a belief have. Most people have grown up in a culture of belief so I don't think this is surprising. It doesn't really tell us anything about whether the beliefs are true though, probably tells us more about how the brain works.
I never said it wasn't possible I always thought it was possible to show Joy as a voltage. But yet again so what since
I am sure that sadness is measured in volts.
Your problem is how to distinguish between 4 millivolts of sadness and 4 millivolts of Joy?
I think the trouble here is many people think that neuroscience is a bit further on than it actually is. And that is a symptom of scientism.
-
I am sure my message here can be measured on the computer somewhere in bits and bytes.....but that does not mean that the computer is writing the message.. ::)
-
No it is possible but so what? You still have a huge explanatory gap between an electrical reading and the phenomenon of joy.
Not really - the article you posted mentions dopamine release, which is closely associated with feelings of joy and can be triggered by all sorts of things. Other similar chemical messages linked to similar feelings are endorphins, serotonin and oxytocin.
Sure we don't know everything, which is why scientists continue to study this extremely interesting area. But just because we don't know everything it is bonkers to conclude that science cannot explain the things that are currently unexplained. And more bonkers still to ascribe the things we don't understand yet to non-materialism, whether spiritualism or god. Classic god of the gaps non-sense.
-
Not really - the article you posted mentions dopamine release, which is closely associated with feelings of joy and can be triggered by all sorts of things. Other similar chemical messages links to similar feelings are endorphins, serotonin and oxytocin.
Sure we don't know everything, which is why scientists continue to study this extremely interesting area. But just because we don't know everything it is bonkers to conclude that science cannot explain the things that are currently unexplained. And more bonkers still to ascribe the things we don't understand yet to non-materialism, whether spiritualism or god. Classic god of the gaps non-sense.
Yes and scientists must go on trying to elucidate any explanatory gaps. I have no problem with that.
What I think we do have a problem with is promissory scientism. The belief that science will elucidate everything if only etc.
As I have said the prospect of that not being the case terrifies some scientismatists far more than a completely material explanatory for consciousness would upset say, a theist.
-
What I think we do have a problem with is promissory scientism. The belief that science will elucidate everything if only etc.
There is a difference between will and can.
Your problem Vlad is that you posit that there are things that cannot be explained by reference to material elements and science. Just because something hasn't been explained in those terms and by those methods doesn't mean is cannot theoretically be.
-
As I have said the prospect of that not being the case terrifies some scientismatists far more than a completely material explanatory for consciousness would upset say, a theist.
Not really as the former wouldn't shake any faith or believe positions. Scientists are first and foremost pragmatists and perfectly willing to move to a new position if that is where the evidence lies - indeed we do it all the time.
By contrast were it to be (theoretically) demonstrated that there is nothing beyond the material that would shake the faith positions of the religious and theists to the core.
-
Not really as the former wouldn't shake any faith or believe positions. Scientists are first and foremost pragmatists and perfectly willing to move to a new position if that is where the evidence lies - indeed we do it all the time.
By contrast were it to be (theoretically) demonstrated that there is nothing beyond the material that would shake the faith positions of the religious and theists to the core.
But science does not go beyond the material and will therefore never demonstrate an answer to that question.
-
But science does not go beyond the material and will therefore never demonstrate an answer to that question.
I said scientists - you know people who do science, but for whom science is not some kind of faith position.
-
By contrast were it to be (theoretically) demonstrated that there is nothing beyond the material that would shake the faith positions of the religious and theists to the core.
https://flex.flinders.edu.au/items/334c8e6b-e372-4e77-9ab5-8f8b44a0ea26/1/?.vi=file&attachment.uuid=208eb4d1-2f7e-4955-92f6-0682eb8ca0a6
On Christian materialism.
-
I never said it wasn't possible I always thought it was possible to show Joy as a voltage. But yet again so what since
I am sure that sadness is measured in volts.
What the hell are you wittering on about?
The volt is the SI unit of electrical potential. Why on Earth are you claiming that human emotions are the same as potential? You are talking utter nonsense.
Brain activity is not something you can measure in volts. It's all to do with neurones firing and the patterns in which they fire.
-
What the hell are you wittering on about?
The volt is the SI unit of electrical potential. Why on Earth are you claiming that human emotions are the same as potential? You are talking utter nonsense.
Brain activity is not something you can measure in volts. It's all to do with neurones firing and the patterns in which they fire.
We have to measure the electrical activity then people have to interpret those patterns and then what?
-
We have to measure the electrical activity then people have to interpret those patterns and then what?
You can then conclude that certain brain activity is associated with joy, beliefs etc.
-
You can then conclude that certain brain activity is associated with joy, beliefs etc.
Correlation does not mean causation.
-
Correlation does not mean causation.
Didn't claim it did.
-
Correlation does not mean causation.
Something that you would do well to think about.
-
Correlation does not mean causation.
No, but 'correlation does not equal causation' does not therefore mean that every notion put forward as an alternative has equal merit with what can be shown to strongly correlate.
O.
-
Regarding spirituality and the national curriculum
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/ncc1993/smdev.html
From the paper:
"...the steps to spiritual development might include:
- recognising the existence of others as independent from oneself;
- becoming aware of and reflecting on experience;
- questioning and exploring the meaning of experience;
- understanding and evaluating a range of possible responses and interpretations;
- developing personal views and insights;
- applying the insights gained with increasing degrees of perception to one's own life."
Sounds like a synonym for 'philosophy' to me, in that usage.
O.
-
No, but 'correlation does not equal causation' does not therefore mean that every notion put forward as an alternative has equal merit with what can be shown to strongly correlate.
O.
Our experiences are correlated with changes in brain chemistry does not mean that the brain causes human experiences.
-
Our experiences are correlated with changes in brain chemistry does not mean that the brain causes human experiences.
True - but nor does this mean they aren't.
However there is exceptionally good evidence to indicate a causal link as these kinds of feelings can be reproduced artificially by mimicking the release of chemical factors such as dopamine, endorphins and serotonin.
-
Our experiences are correlated with changes in brain chemistry does not mean that the brain causes human experiences.
Not absolutely, now, but the precise measurement that shows brain chemistry which correlates with experience occurring prior to the sensation of the experience, and the lack of unexplained phenomena mean that it's a conclusion that fits with the available information, and does not leave a 'gap' which requires explanation.
If, therefore, you want to suggest some other mechanism you need a really strong support for it.
O.
-
I am not suggesting any other mechanism. I am merely saying that the brain is just a piece of flesh. A dead brain does nothing....just as a computer that is switched off does nothing. There is something other than just the 'hardware' that causes things to happen.
There is the software (the mind), then the electricity (prana) and then finally, there is the user (Consciousness). All these things put together make things happen.
The user is the one who experiences the world through all the hardware and software. Similarly, it is the Self or Consciousness or soul that experiences the world using these mechanisms. They are not an end in themselves.
-
You can then conclude that certain brain activity is associated with joy, beliefs etc.
True but that can only be a partial explanatory of what joy is and how it works.
We would be at something amounting to a full explanation were we not only able to create real joy in a mechanism but also fully understand how we achieved that.
-
True but that can only be a partial explanatory of what joy is and how it works.
We would be at something amounting to a full explanation were we not only able to create real joy in a mechanism but also fully understand how we achieved that.
Or you could just enjoy the joy and leave it at that.
-
I am not suggesting any other mechanism. I am merely saying that the brain is just a piece of flesh. A dead brain does nothing....just as a computer that is switched off does nothing.
But there is no evidence to support any claim that feelings of joy, consciousness etc continue to exist beyond irreversible and permanent brain death. There is plenty of evident to support the idea that these things are manifestations of our highly complex endocrine and neuro- physiology.
There is something other than just the 'hardware' that causes things to happen.
So having said you aren't suggesting any other mechanism you then posit the need for another mechanism. There is no evidence for any other mechanism beyond our complex endocrine and neuro- physiology and no reason to suspect there is anything needed beyond that complex endocrine and neuro- physiology.
-
You don't get it. I am just trying to go beyond the known mechanisms, not trying to create alternative ones.
The existing mechanisms do not go far enough to explain qualia and the existence of Life......the various layers that are required to explain a living against a dead person.
-
You don't get it. I am just trying to go beyond the known mechanisms, not trying to create alternative ones.
The existing mechanisms do not go far enough to explain qualia and the existence of Life
Why - as far as I can see physiology arising from, and driven by, evolution is perfectly capable of explaining these things. Sure we don't understand the details fully, but there isn't anything in the basic concepts which seem insufficient.
......the various layers that are required to explain a living against a dead person.
Actually what we call 'life' is just a type of self sustaining chemistry - we think it unique and important as we come at it from a biased perspective. In a cosmological sense it is merely a manifestation of fundamental chemistry and physics.
-
You seem to know conclusively everything about everything. Your cup is full! So....nothing to discuss at all.....
-
You seem to know conclusively everything about everything. Your cup is full! So....nothing to discuss at all.....
Which part of:
'Sure we don't understand the details fully ...' implies that I seem to know conclusively everything about everything?
I'm a scientist Sriram - my whole professional life is about trying to learn more about things we don't fully understand yet. No scientist would ever suggest they know everything about everything because that would be non-sense and were it to be the case we'd be putting ourselves out of a job.
-
Why - as far as I can see physiology arising from, and driven by, evolution is perfectly capable of explaining these things. Sure we don't understand the details fully, but there isn't anything in the basic concepts which seem insufficient.
Actually what we call 'life' is just a type of self sustaining chemistry - we think it unique and important as we come at it from a biased perspective. In a cosmological sense it is merely a manifestation of fundamental chemistry and physics.
Evolution may have done it like a lot of things, but it can only be a partial explanatory for we need to know what it is evolution has actually gone and done.
There is also the matter of what emergence is...construction of a kit of parts or phenomenon not possessed by the parts?
-
Evolution may have done it like a lot of things, but it can only be a partial explanatory for we need to know what it is evolution has actually gone and done.
Amplified traits that are most likely to be inherited as they are linked to better survival, better adaptation to varying environmental conditions or are co-inherited with the former.
Because that is what evolution via natural selection is all about.
And for humans, whose ability to survive is associated with intelligence, creativity and social behaviour all these neurological and endocrine phenomena (higher consciousness, feelings of joy, empathy etc etc) are clearly likely to lead to better survival and will therefore be amplified within the population.
-
True but that can only be a partial explanatory of what joy is and how it works.
We would be at something amounting to a full explanation were we not only able to create real joy in a mechanism but also fully understand how we achieved that.
Maybe joy is just that brain activity.
-
You don't get it. I am just trying to go beyond the known mechanisms, not trying to create alternative ones.
The existing mechanisms do not go far enough to explain qualia and the existence of Life......the various layers that are required to explain a living against a dead person.
What's wrong with just saying we don't know? We don't know if current mechanisms go far enough.
-
Maybe joy is just that brain activity.
Yup - that sounds about right.
On the one hand amazing if you are the person with that brain activity. But on the other hand just a set of complex chemical/electrical activities. That those complex chemical/electrical activities feel so great to the person experiencing them doesn't stop them fundamentally being a set of complex chemical/electrical activities.
-
Saying that 'we don't know', is fine. But saying that what we know about evolution and chemical reactions is enough to explain Life and death....is too much. That is certainly not true.
-
What's wrong with just saying we don't know? We don't know if current mechanisms go far enough.
That is where philosophical speculation based on experiences such as NDE's become necessary.
-
Saying that 'we don't know', is fine. But saying that what we know about evolution and chemical reactions is enough to explain Life and death....is too much. That is certainly not true.
That is where philosophical speculation based on experiences such as NDE's become necessary.
Speculation, as we have agreed before, is fine. People can believe what they want, but if people make claims in a discussion they need to back up those claims for the discussion to be worthwhile. Science has been the best tool for giving us an understanding of the reality we all see around us (if we doubt that reality then discussions go nowhere) and has consistently explained phenomena which were previously considered supernatural. I'm not sure that philosophical speculation has done the same.
I can't say that I am particularly clear on what is meant by spiritual by the way.
-
That is where philosophical speculation based on experiences such as NDE's become necessary.
For which we have sound explanations based on electrical and chemical brain activity, likely linked to oxygen deprivation (well actually CO2 rise) that occurs near to death but also occurs in other situations where the individual isn't close to death at all. And of course the phenomenon can be mimicked experimentally based on our understanding of the triggers and mechanisms involved.
Do we know everything about these phenomena - nope - is there anything to suggest that they aren't caused by alterations in the chemical and electrical activities within the body and brain, nope.
-
That is where philosophical speculation based on experiences such as NDE's become necessary.
Not really: that someone reports feelings that they ascribe to this 'NDE' notion seems to me to be, fundamentally, no different to someone reporting being frightened on having a nightmare - they are both internalised neurological events.
-
Saying that 'we don't know', is fine.
What I said was that we don't know everything - that is different from knowing nothing. And where you know something the best approach moving forward is to take the evidence you have as a starting point to addition more knowledge and details, ultimately to know more in due course. To suggest that the best approach is to simply 'bin' the existing evidence because 'we don't know everything' and start down a route which is evidence-free and also intellectually incoherence is bonkers.
But saying that what we know about evolution and chemical reactions is enough to explain Life and death....is too much. That is certainly not true.
Again, that isn't what I said - my point was that there is very good evidence that the phenomena you mention are caused by, and manifestations of, physiological chemical and electrical activities within the brain and elsewhere in our bodies. Even though we do not have full details there is nothing inconsistent in considering that these phenomena are entirely driven by and manifestations of, physiological chemical and electrical activities. And further the origins of these phenomena are entirely consistent with the concept of evolution as they likely confer survival advantage and are hereditary. So there is no clunky 'that cannot be possible' - it is all eminently possible and plausible and there is huge amounts of evidence to support it, even if we aren't yet close to understanding the full mechanistic details.
-
Saying that 'we don't know', is fine. But saying that what we know about evolution and chemical reactions is enough to explain Life and death....is too much. That is certainly not true.
I don't agree. In my opinion it probably is true and science is the only method that can tell which of the two of us is right.
-
This kind of 'Yes it is'....'No it isn't'...arguments could go on forever.
I am of the view that our existing knowledge of evolution, chemical reactions etc. is only meant to explain mechanisms. They don't explain causes. Like explaining the running of a car through its petrol, pistons, wheels etc....without mentioning its driver. It is just not good enough and misses crucial elements of the process.
We have enough hints from scientific theories themselves (see OP) to form hypotheses about probable causes. That is my point.
You can try this also...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
Thanks guys...
-
Like explaining the running of a car through its petrol, pistons, wheels etc....without mentioning its driver. It is just not good enough and misses crucial elements of the process.
Really poor analogy as a car remains a car whether or not there is a driver sitting in it. And of course there are autonomous cars that require no driver. A driver is not a necessary element for a car to function.
And humans and other living species aren't like cars. Cars are top-down designed, living species are bottom-up evolved.
-
This kind of 'Yes it is'....'No it isn't'...arguments could go on forever.
I am of the view that our existing knowledge of evolution, chemical reactions etc. is only meant to explain mechanisms. They don't explain causes. Like explaining the running of a car through its petrol, pistons, wheels etc....without mentioning its driver. It is just not good enough and misses crucial elements of the process.
We have enough hints from scientific theories themselves (see OP) to form hypotheses about probable causes. That is my point.
You can try this also...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
Thanks guys...
What do you think reading about your beliefs and your thoughts on science would achieve beyond knowing what you believe and think about science, when we already know about that?
-
This kind of 'Yes it is'....'No it isn't'...arguments could go on forever.
Yes, it could. Science, therefore, proceeds from a point of only accepting that which can be measured, accurately predicted, and then checked by the general consensus against the prediction. That gives the proceedings of science if not an objective validation then at the very least a validation that attempts to eliminate individual subjectivity so far as is possible.
If you want your 'yes it is' to stand up against science's 'no it isn't' then you need something more than just the claim, you need a mechanism by which your claims can be validated.
I am of the view that our existing knowledge of evolution, chemical reactions etc. is only meant to explain mechanisms. They don't explain causes.
You'd need to justify the claim that there is some 'cause' at the base of all this that is not itself an effect of a prior cause. You are assuming that there is an 'intent' some 'purpose' being imposed on all this from outside somewhere, but you have not offered any justification for that beyond your own dissatisfaction with the other explanations.
Like explaining the running of a car through its petrol, pistons, wheels etc....without mentioning its driver. It is just not good enough and misses crucial elements of the process.
Except that a car will run quite happily without a driver; you can build - and indeed we have built - vehicles which navigate themselves, which propel themselves and determine their own course.
We have enough hints from scientific theories themselves (see OP) to form hypotheses about probable causes.
Except that we don't - you have a collection of fringe areas of science into which you're trying to replace the genuine 'we don't know that extent yet' with 'therefore woo'.
That is my point.
That's not a point, it's a fallacy.
You can try this also... https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
That religion persists is not necessarily testament to religion having any correct answers, but could equally be the product of religion's tendency to offer answers that are liked rather than answers that are valid. Your point also fails to address the massive disparity in retention of significant religious belief between developing and developed nations; your presumption is that because some places have technologically developed religion should have died out across the world.
Failure of Science
Most people are significantly disappointed with science? Really? On what are you basing that?
I'm not sure I'd accept that many people thought that science was going to 'easily' explain everything. Science has not 'failed to integrate' claims of 'why we are here', because so far there is no basis to think there is a reason for science to investigate. We are here, science has offered the outline of a basis by which this came to pass - with, admittedly, some gaps. In that explanation there is no requirement for a 'purpose', no need for a 'reason'.
Science is, though, despite your claim, starting to address the basis for things like aspirations and morality.
And as to the idea that science can't give an easy to understand explanation for everything - why would you presume that there is one?
It is like blind men who have never heard of an elephant, touching an elephant in different spots and putting their individual ideas together to get a picture of the whole. They end up with a picture of a tree with a snake hanging on it and a boulder next to it. Hardly a meaningful picture!
But still a better explanation than 'there's a noncorporeal sentience manifesting here, but you can't see or hear it, it has no discernible effect on the elephant, but you have to accept that it's real because I'm not happy with your level of detail'.
There is a vacuum.
No, there's space around the edges of current science because science isn't finished yet. What you do is not 'give up' on science because it hasn't produced a complete picture in 200 years, you keep doing science because it continues to be our best methodology. If you have another methodology, bring it along, but bring it alongside the incredibly successful scientific method.
Secular spirituality is the obvious answer to fill this void.
Arguably, yes, it's superficially suitable, but it tends to suffer from the same fundamental problems as the religions that came before it - there's no validity to the claims, there's no justification, there's just 'this makes me fell nice'.
And unfortunately, due to the authority yielded (sic.) by science over the last few centuries, mainstream scientists still tend to have significant influence over society.
Unfortunately? Because of that scientific influence we have improvements in medicine, communication, transport, food production, hygiene and a wealth of other areas. That science, and the findings of science, have crowded out the more overt influences of religion in at least some areas of the world is to be lauded, not derided.
Evolution involves qualities such as a need to survive, need to replicate & procreate, need to protect ones progeny, rise of complexity and fitness.
No, evolution doesn't involve a 'need' to survive, it requires an ability to survive, and then selects for that ability.
Evolution is usually ‘explained’ through random genetic variations and Natural Selection. Natural Selection is a ‘catch all’ term that doesn’t really explain anything at all.
All I can say is that you've manifestly failed to understand natural selection.
Any property that we observe in inorganic or organic compounds that cannot be explained through a direct understanding of its constituent parts, is termed its ‘Emergent Property’. It is just a label.
Not that I accept the claim, but for argument's sake let's accept this; how does this differ from 'god did it' or 'spirit' or 'magic'. These aren't explanations, these are claims to some unchallengable, uninterrogatable 'other' to close down investigation; they are then appropriated by gatekeepers who make the 'answer' sacred and sacrosanct, and the veneration of ignorance becomes shackle holding humanity to the unknowing, unquestioning past.
And the rest appears a rehash of what I already criticised at the start of the thread. You're not bringing anything to the table, you're just claiming that science is somehow not enough, asserting without a basis that your claims are of something somehow beyond science's capacity because 'spirit' and then dribbling woo all over everything. You have no methodology, you have no basis for your claims, and you have a limited understanding of the science that you're criticising.
As a basis, just as a start point: you keep saying that there is something about the human condition that is 'beyond science'. Given that anything which manifests an effect in the physical world in which we operate can be investigated with the scientific method, what exactly is it about humanity that you think is beyond science?
O.
-
.... there is exceptionally good evidence to indicate a causal link as these kinds of feelings can be reproduced artificially by mimicking the release of chemical factors such as dopamine, endorphins and serotonin.
I agree that specific chemical activity in the human brain can be associated with these types of feelings. But the chemical activity alone does not fully define an experience such as joy. The chemical activity needs to be perceived by whatever comprises our conscious awareness in order to be translated into what we experience in our mind. For example, the chemical composition of a word printed on paper has no meaning until is is perceived, just as the chemical activity in the brain has no meaning until is is perceived by our conscious awareness.
So what is conscious awareness and how does it work in scientific terms? The often used phrase "emergent property" offers no scientific explanation. In scientific terms, nothing emerges from material reactions other than more material reactions. We cannot define conscious awareness. We cannot reproduce it outside the human brain. If conscious awareness comprises more than mere chemical activity, trying to define it in scientific terms will never be possible. You cannot use science to detect what is beyond a scientific definition.
-
I agree that specific chemical activity in the human brain can be associated with these types of feelings.
Glad you agree.
But the chemical activity alone does not fully define an experience such as joy.
But 'joy' is simply how we describe the manifestation of those complex chemical and electrical activities within our neurophysiology.
The chemical activity needs to be perceived by whatever comprises our conscious awareness in order to be translated into what we experience in our mind.
Indeed it does, but that involves further chemical and electrical activities within our brains. Our conscious awareness (similar to joy) is the way we describe the manifestation of those complex chemical and electrical activities within our neurophysiology.
-
No, evolution doesn't involve a 'need' to survive, it requires an ability to survive, and then selects for that ability.
All I can say is that you've manifestly failed to understand natural selection.
Absolutely correct.
A bacterium has no need to survive, but if it has trait that improve survival and are heritable then those traits will become more prevalent in the next generation of bacteria.
But of course 'survival instinct' can also be a trait that may arise in much more complex organisms. And clearly were that to arise it is pretty easy to see how that might confer survival advantage over other members of that species that might not have that trait. And if it is heritable then we expect survival instinct to be selected for under classical evolution by natural selection.
But the point is that evolution drives the persistence of survival instinct, not the need to survive driving evolution.
-
Really poor analogy as a car remains a car whether or not there is a driver sitting in it. And of course there are autonomous cars that require no driver. A driver is not a necessary element for a car to function.
And humans and other living species aren't like cars. Cars are top-down designed, living species are bottom-up evolved.
Also the driver is a physical object that we know exists.
-
Glad you agree.
But 'joy' is simply how we describe the manifestation of those complex chemical and electrical activities within our neurophysiology.
This is a bad attempt at trying to avoid the explanatory gap. In fact, it looks like a horror mash up of reductionism and 'Bob's your uncle' thinking.
You are shortchanged everybody.
-
Our conscious awareness (similar to joy) is the way we describe the manifestation of those complex chemical and electrical activities within our neurophysiology.
Surely our conscious awareness is more than a mere description of complex electro chemical activity.
Science has yet to achieve any feasible explanation for how many discrete material reactions can manifest into a single entity of conscious awareness. As I said in my previous post - using the phrase "emergent property" is just a meaningless label with no definition of what conscious awareness is or how it works.
-
This is a bad attempt at trying to avoid the explanatory gap. In fact, it looks like a horror mash up of reductionism and 'Bob's your uncle' thinking.
You are shortchanged everybody.
Why? Please explain based on things we know.
-
Surely our conscious awareness is more than a mere description of complex electro chemical activity.
Science has yet to achieve any feasible explanation for how many discrete material reactions can manifest into a single entity of conscious awareness. As I said in my previous post - using the phrase "emergent property" is just a meaningless label with no definition of what conscious awareness is or how it works.
A single entity? What do you mean by that please? You have said we don't understand consciousness and how it works, which is fine, but then say surely it is more than complex electro chemical activity. How do you know hat if we/you don't understand how it works?
-
Absolutely correct.
A bacterium has no need to survive, but if it has trait that improve survival and are heritable then those traits will become more prevalent in the next generation of bacteria.
But of course 'survival instinct' can also be a trait that may arise in much more complex organisms. And clearly were that to arise it is pretty easy to see how that might confer survival advantage over other members of that species that might not have that trait. And if it is heritable then we expect survival instinct to be selected for under classical evolution by natural selection.
But the point is that evolution drives the persistence of survival instinct, not the need to survive driving evolution.
Any organism that avoids death has a survival instinct or a need to survive. Survival is meant for reproduction which is another need or instinct that is inherent in organisms. These needs do not arise out of evolution, they are the reason why evolution happens.
Secondly, chemical reactions do not explain Life. Chemical reactions happen around a core which is the Self or the Subject. It is the Subject that is the issue here and not the chemical reactions.
-
Why? Please explain based on things we know.
No one has yet demonstrated the causal and explanatory chain between what is measurable and the experience of Joy. So Davey's statementbis merely a sketchy explanation of a hey presto nature.
The word 'just' tips that off that he wants to explain the experience away by reducing this to physical, observable components.
This is not a good thing.
-
Any organism that avoids death has a survival instinct or a need to survive. Survival is meant for reproduction which is another need or instinct that is inherent in organisms. These needs do not arise out of evolution, they are the reason why evolution happens.
Secondly, chemical reactions do not explain Life. Chemical reactions happen around a core which is the Self or the Subject. It is the Subject that is the issue here and not the chemical reactions.
Life is chemical reactions. Life is high end biochemistry in action
-
Surely our conscious awareness is more than a mere description of complex electro chemical activity.
Science has yet to achieve any feasible explanation for how many discrete material reactions can manifest into a single entity of conscious awareness. As I said in my previous post - using the phrase "emergent property" is just a meaningless label with no definition of what conscious awareness is or how it works.
The evidence from neural correlates puts beyond reasonable doubt that subjective experience is the same thing as the neural activity, just the aspect is different. The fact that we have not nailed down every detail is a poor excuse to indulging the magical thinking of earlier times.
-
Life is chemical reactions. Life is high end biochemistry in action
Chemical reactions are a part of the process.....the physical component. Whatever triggers chemical reactions....that is Life.
-
A single entity? What do you mean by that please?
You are a single entity of conscious awareness.
An entity which can't be defined or artificially reproduced in any material form.
-
Chemical reactions are a part of the process.....the physical component. Whatever triggers chemical reactions....that is Life.
No evidence for that though. it's just irrational magical thinking with no basis in reason or evidence.
-
Any organism that avoids death has a survival instinct or a need to survive.
Absolute non-sense. That something has the ability to survive, i.e. is self sustaining, doesn't mean it has a survival instinct, nor a need to survive. That required intent, desire, decision etc and of course a bacterium has none of those as its physiology is far too simple. Survival instinct or a need to survive are much higher level elements within evolution than ability to survive. It is the ability to survive that drives evolution where it is based on heritable traits that confer a better ability to survive and pass on those traits to the next generation.
This process has been going on for billions of years and driven by ability to survive and continues today. Only much more recently has a survival instinct or a need to survive evolved in a tiny proportion of the species on earth and, of course, if that is a hereditable trait it is likely to be selected for in subsequent generations assuming that the survival instinct or a need to survive actually produced a better ability to survive and reproduce.
-
Chemical reactions are a part of the process.....the physical component. Whatever triggers chemical reactions....that is Life.
Again, non-sense. You have it entirely the wrong way around.
We have zero evidence that life exists or can exist outside or beyond those self-sustaining chemical processes. That is what life is - the name we humans give to an entity that includes a range of processes imbuing the ability to be self sustaining with only simply inputs, such as water, oxygen and nutrients.
So life doesn't trigger the key chemical processes - the combination of those key chemical process triggers and defines life.
-
The evidence from neural correlates puts beyond reasonable doubt that subjective experience is the same thing as the neural activity, just the aspect is different.
Correlation can't be used to define causation.
Not sure what you mean by "aspect" in this context.
-
Correlation can't be used to define causation.
Not sure what you mean by "aspect" in this context.
Everything has a subjective aspect (how it appears to itself) and an objective aspect (how that thing appears to a third party).
Experience is the subjective aspect of neural activity, ie what it feels like to be those neurons firing. 'Neural activity' is how the same thing is described from a third person point of view, eg that of the neuroscientist studying a patient's brain activity.
-
Surely our conscious awareness is more than a mere description of complex electro chemical activity.
Is it? Can you explain why, with evidence?
Science has yet to achieve any feasible explanation for how many discrete material reactions can manifest into a single entity of conscious awareness.
Science hasn't explained everything. Oh no! that means there must be a god and other hocus pocus.
As I said in my previous post - using the phrase "emergent property" is just a meaningless label with no definition of what conscious awareness is or how it works.
No it isn't.
-
You are a single entity of conscious awareness.
An entity which can't be defined or artificially reproduced in any material form.
Humans reproduce all the time. We're famous for it.
-
Correlation can't be used to define causation.
True, but nor does it mean there isn't causation. And therefore the best way forward is to look for evidence of causation. And, of course, there is plenty. Most notably that the neurological effects can be mimicked or altered through modification of the chemical or electrical pathways that are associated with those effects. This is the classical manner by which scientists attempt to unpick causation from correlation - change one (or more) things and see whether something else also alters. If it does it provides evidence that the second thing is caused by the first. You also, of course, need to do all sorts of other studies, e.g. doing it in reverse.
And not only have these types of study provided very good evidence of causation, we actually use this knowledge therapeutically to treat a range of phycological disorders. If there were no causation, then these pharmacological interventions wouldn't work.
-
You are a single entity of conscious awareness.
An entity which can't be defined or artificially reproduced in any material form.
We know we are entities with conscious awareness.
-
No one has yet demonstrated the causal and explanatory chain between what is measurable and the experience of Joy. So Davey's statementbis merely a sketchy explanation of a hey presto nature.
The word 'just' tips that off that he wants to explain the experience away by reducing this to physical, observable components.
This is not a good thing.
We know there is a physical response to external stimuli which we recognise as joy. What is missing in that explanation?
-
You are a single entity of conscious awareness.
An entity which can't be defined or artificially reproduced in any material form.
And yet here we are: extant materially nonetheless!
We're just brains with a bit of external packaging - and that you don't like this is a problem for your particular brain.
-
True, but nor does it mean there isn't causation. And therefore the best way forward is to look for evidence of causation. And, of course, there is plenty. Most notably that the neurological effects can be mimicked or altered through modification of the chemical or electrical pathways that are associated with those effects. This is the classical manner by which scientists attempt to unpick causation from correlation - change one (or more) things and see whether something else also alters. If it does it provides evidence that the second thing is caused by the first. You also, of course, need to do all sorts of other studies, e.g. doing it in reverse.
I do not dispute that there can be a physical cause to the change in state of our material brain which induces specific feelings.
The big question is how this change in state of the material brain gets perceived into the single entity of awareness which is you. How does the state of many brain cells get perceived and interpreted into whatever comprises your conscious awareness? Changing the state of brain cells does not in itself define conscious awareness - it is only capable of inducing reactions in other brain cells. The end result of complex chains of physical reactions is just another reaction, so how can these reactions get perceived by your conscious awareness? Awareness is a state of mind which defies physical definition.
-
We know there is a physical response to external stimuli which we recognise as joy. What is missing in that explanation?
I think from a "spiritual" perspective what you describe as a response to stimulus would be described as pleasure. Joy, bliss, blessedness, ananda is seen more as arising into consciousness when inner stillness or peace is attained rather than inner stimulus. Pleasure seeking would be seen as counter productive as it has the tendency to create attachments, addictions etc.
-
The big question is how this change in state of the material brain gets perceived into the single entity of awareness which is you. How does the state of many brain cells get perceived and interpreted into whatever comprises your conscious awareness?
Via your astonishingly complex network of neurones in your brain. Human conscious awareness does not exist outside of that neural network - it is, in reality, who we are. That's why we consider someone to be dead if there is irreversible loss off that brain activity even if other physiological functions may still be ongoing.
-
I do not dispute that there can be a physical cause to the change in state of our material brain which induces specific feelings.
The big question is how this change in state of the material brain gets perceived into the single entity of awareness which is you. How does the state of many brain cells get perceived and interpreted into whatever comprises your conscious awareness? Changing the state of brain cells does not in itself define conscious awareness - it is only capable of inducing reactions in other brain cells. The end result of complex chains of physical reactions is just another reaction, so how can these reactions get perceived by your conscious awareness? Awareness is a state of mind which defies physical definition.
Here's a definition: it's functioning biology that does the perceiving and interpreting you seem so fixated on, since the idea of non-biological perceiving and interpreting is grasping at straws: and 'conscious awareness' sounds like a terms describing a neurological brain-state.
I get that you are trying to create a 'gap', but that approach seems pointless if you have nothing substantive to fill it with - and your personal incredulity is, as always, insufficient.
-
Via your astonishingly complex network of neurones in your brain. Human conscious awareness does not exist outside of that neural network - it is, in reality, who we are. That's why we consider someone to be dead if there is irreversible loss off that brain activity even if other physiological functions may still be ongoing.
Less of the astonishingly since not everyone is astonished by it.
Complexity is not exactly the same as emergent which the same as emergent , an idea which introduces novelty rather than a mere assemblage of 'old' parts into a machine.
For you it seems the higher conscious functions must be mechanisms rather than emergent.
Feel free to correct me if You think I am wrong.
-
Here's a definition: it's functioning biology that does the perceiving and interpreting you seem so fixated on, since the idea of non-biological perceiving and interpreting is grasping at straws: and 'conscious awareness' sounds like a terms describing a neurological brain-state.
I get that you are trying to create a 'gap', but that approach seems pointless if you have nothing substantive to fill it with - and your personal incredulity is, as always, insufficient.
Not so much a gap but an unbreachable chasm.
You seem to use the term "biology" as an explanation for all that goes on within our human condition. But this is just a label which explains nothing about the way material reactions alone can generate human conscious awareness. Neither can it be used to explain how our conscious awareness can interact with the physical working of our human brain - rather than it just being a window on what has already occurred before we become aware.
-
Via your astonishingly complex network of neurones in your brain. Human conscious awareness does not exist outside of that neural network - it is, in reality, who we are. That's why we consider someone to be dead if there is irreversible loss off that brain activity even if other physiological functions may still be ongoing.
Complexity alone does not define how self awareness manifests within this complexity.
The concept of complex networks of electro chemical activity being able to generate self awareness will remain in the realms of human science fiction. It will never be a reality.
-
Not so much a gap but an unbreachable chasm.
You seem to use the term "biology" as an explanation for all that goes on within our human condition. But this is just a label which explains nothing about the way material reactions alone can generate human conscious awareness. Neither can it be used to explain how our conscious awareness can interact with the physical working of our human brain - rather than it just being a window on what has already occurred before we become aware.
Which bit of 'human conscious awareness' appears to be an example of 'material reactions', as in being an aspect of the 'physical working of our human brain', are you struggling with!
You may not like it, Alan, but your efforts to create a gap so as to insert some theobabble really are blindingly obvious, and vacuous with it.
-
I think from a "spiritual" perspective what you describe as a response to stimulus would be described as pleasure. Joy, bliss, blessedness, ananda is seen more as arising into consciousness when inner stillness or peace is attained rather than inner stimulus. Pleasure seeking would be seen as counter productive as it has the tendency to create attachments, addictions etc.
Thanks for that but no idea what 'arising into consciousness when inner stillness or peace is attained rather than inner stimulus.' means.
Merriam Webster defines pleasure as
Definition of pleasure
1: DESIRE, INCLINATION
wait upon his pleasure
— William Shakespeare
2: a state of gratification
3a: sensual gratification
b: frivolous amusement
4: a source of delight or joy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joy (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joy)
-
Thanks for that but no idea what 'arising into consciousness when inner stillness or peace is attained rather than inner stimulus.' means.
Merriam Webster defines pleasure as
Definition of pleasure
1: DESIRE, INCLINATION
wait upon his pleasure
— William Shakespeare
2: a state of gratification
3a: sensual gratification
b: frivolous amusement
4: a source of delight or joy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joy (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/joy)
Your reply shows the problem with communicating the so called "spiritual" inner state using words, which is why the (let's call them) mystics advocate a method that the enquirer can use to attain to that 'state'. When talking about it the most they can do is use an analogical language which of course is wide open to criticism by the logical mind. To make matters worse many of the words used come from a time when they meant something different to today's meaning or they have been translated into a best fit word from a foreign language. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
-
Which bit of 'human conscious awareness' appears to be an example of 'material reactions', as in being an aspect of the 'physical working of our human brain', are you struggling with!
You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.
My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.
-
You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.
My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.
You can't bring any evidence to the table that your god even exists. You can't demonstrate that conscious awareness is anything more than the emergent property of a sufficiently complex functioning brain. Free will is a logically incoherent concept.
You need more if you want to convince the atheists here that there is anything magic about consciousness.
-
You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.
Works for me (and for you too, whether you like it or not).
My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.
I know: but as has been often explained to you, what you subscribe to is illogical.
-
You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.
My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.
We've been here a thousand times before though. When we couldn't understand thunder, we invented Thor and his hammer; when we couldn't understand mental illness, we invented possession by demons. Ancient Egyptians had no knowledge of nuclear fusion, so they settled for the Sun being a god, Aten. You're just following in that line, a knowledge gap to squeeze a god into without any justification from empiricism, reason, or evidence. Such magical thinking always succumbs to the slow painstaking work of science, this is what history shows us. You're backing a loser, not a winner.
-
You seem to have a lot of faith in what can be produced by the unavoidable consequences of physically defined material reactions.
My faith is firmly routed in God's creative ability to bring you and I into existence with the amazing gifts of conscious awareness and human free will.
No good evidence your God exists.
-
Your reply shows the problem with communicating the so called "spiritual" inner state using words, which is why the (let's call them) mystics advocate a method that the enquirer can use to attain to that 'state'. When talking about it the most they can do is use an analogical language which of course is wide open to criticism by the logical mind. To make matters worse many of the words used come from a time when they meant something different to today's meaning or they have been translated into a best fit word from a foreign language. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
Thanks for trying :)
-
We've been here a thousand times before though. When we couldn't understand thunder, we invented Thor and his hammer; when we couldn't understand mental illness, we invented possession by demons. Ancient Egyptians had no knowledge of nuclear fusion, so they settled for the Sun being a god, Aten. You're just following in that line, a knowledge gap to squeeze a god into without any justification from empiricism, reason, or evidence. Such magical thinking always succumbs to the slow painstaking work of science, this is what history shows us. You're backing a loser, not a winner.
Quoting past unrelated events cannot be used to disprove people's current faith in God.
Science will never come up with an explanation for the God given gift of free will every person on this forum aptly demonstrates in every post they write - because any scientific explanation would deny our ability to guide our own thoughts, words and actions to achieve our conscious goals.
-
I don't see why such a big fuss is being made by some people about philosophical issues.
OK....I can understand arguments against beliefs such as the six day creation or Adam & Eve or other such ancient religious myths. I can also understand arguments against fanatical jihad type of beliefs or violent behavior or forced conversions.
But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!! The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.
-
But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!! The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.
No robust evidence for either of the two things you mention: it's a simple as that.
-
Quoting past unrelated events cannot be used to disprove people's current faith in God.
That just means you have not learned the lessons from history. Magical thinking always gives way to understanding, sooner or later
-
Science will never come up with an explanation for the God given gift of free will every person on this forum aptly demonstrates in every post they write - because any scientific explanation would deny our ability to guide our own thoughts, words and actions to achieve our conscious goals.
This is simplistic nonsense that has been exhaustively dealt with on other threads. The idea that we could choose which thoughts to have or what emotions to experience is irrational.
-
But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!! The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.
What would be more childish would be to believe in things for which there is no evidence. That's fantasy thinking.
-
No robust evidence for either of the two things you mention: it's a simple as that.
No robust scientific evidence you mean, however once we invoke science ....and you think you haven't because you haven't said it, we are into sufficient reason and a no reason universe isn't actually reasonable.
-
No robust scientific evidence you mean, however once we invoke science ....and you think you haven't because you haven't said it, we are into sufficient reason and a no reason universe isn't actually reasonable.
Is a no reason 'God' "actually reasonable"?
-
What would be more childish would be to believe in things for which there is no evidence. That's fantasy thinking.
No, suspending the principle of sufficient reason for the specific intent of eliminating the notion of a creator since it threatens your own position of supreme being in your own universe.....that's wishful thinking.
-
Is a no reason 'God' "actually reasonable"?
A God satisfies the principle of sufficient reason in the argument from contingency.
This is why leading physicist and public atheist Sean Carroll is working on trying to overturn the principle of sufficient reason philosophically.
-
No, suspending the principle of sufficient reason for the specific intent of eliminating the notion of a creator since it threatens your own position of supreme being in your own universe.....that's wishful thinking.
Seems to me, Vlad, your enthusiam for sufficient reason is just a handy way of dealing with an infinite regress, and also involves a touch of special pleading in favour of your preferred 'God': why can't sufficient reason equally apply to the universe, or is it reserved for 'God'?
If so, where was 'God' located before it created anything? I think you should tell us.
-
I don't see why such a big fuss is being made by some people about philosophical issues.
OK....I can understand arguments against beliefs such as the six day creation or Adam & Eve or other such ancient religious myths. I can also understand arguments against fanatical jihad type of beliefs or violent behavior or forced conversions.
But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!! The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.
I try to believe in things for which there is good evidence. I see no evidence for 'intelligence behind creation' or 'life beyond death'. People are free to believe in those things of course but if they post such things on a discussion board then obviously those who don't believe such things are going to reply/discuss.
-
Any organism that avoids death has a survival instinct or a need to survive.
By this point in evolutionary history that's probably the case, because a survival instinct is something that would be strongly selected for, but it doesn't necessarily need to be true, there's no requirement in evolutionary theory for that to be the case.
Survival is meant for reproduction which is another need or instinct that is inherent in organisms.
I don't see that survival is 'meant' for anything - it certainly has the effect of increasing the likelihood of any given organism staying around long enough to reproduce, but that it exists doesn't necessarily mean that it was a deliberate act.
These needs do not arise out of evolution, they are the reason why evolution happens.
If, as you say, they don't arise from evolutionary mechanisms then what is your explanation, and why do you think that explanation has any validity?
Secondly, chemical reactions do not explain Life.
Yes they do, we just don't fully understand the explanation yet.
Chemical reactions happen around a core which is the Self or the Subject. It is the Subject that is the issue here and not the chemical reactions.
Where is this 'self'? Where is the interaction between this disembodied 'self' and chemical reactions? What is your basis for this claim?
O.
-
I don't see why such a big fuss is being made by some people about philosophical issues.
OK....I can understand arguments against beliefs such as the six day creation or Adam & Eve or other such ancient religious myths. I can also understand arguments against fanatical jihad type of beliefs or violent behavior or forced conversions.
But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!! The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.
I don't see that that anyone is making much of a fuss, Sriram. People are just pointing out the problems associated with some of your conjectures and pointing to your lack of substantive evidence for holding such conjectures. It does seem that when your positions are challenged you find that difficult to handle and resort to charges of 'scientism'and 'childish' behaviour, hardly the best recipe in advancing any discussion.
For my own part, if I deal with the substance of your last paragraph for instance, the only problem with the idea of some form of intelligence behind creation for me is the total lack of evidence to support this idea and the absence of any need for this in evolutionary terms. Again, with the idea that there is life after death, although one cannot dismiss it in absolute terms, there is no substantive evidence to back this up, and consequentially it remains a matter of conjecture only.
-
Seems to me, Vlad, your enthusiam for sufficient reason is just a handy way of dealing with an infinite regress, and also involves a touch of special pleading in favour of your preferred 'God': why can't sufficient reason equally apply to the universe, or is it reserved for 'God'?
If so, where was 'God' located before it created anything? I think you should tell us.
I'm glad you clarified that infinite regress is insufficient reason since I wasn't totally sure.
Since the universe demonstrates contingency we could o nly say that there must be something about it which is not contingent if we were to argue that the universe were the sufficient reason. Be my guest.
-
I don't see that that anyone is making much of a fuss, Sriram. People are just pointing out the problems associated with some of your conjectures and pointing to your lack of substantive evidence for holding such conjectures. It does seem that when your positions are challenged you find that difficult to handle and resort to charges of 'scientism'and 'childish' behaviour, hardly the best recipe in advancing any discussion.
For my own part, if I deal with the substance of your last paragraph for instance, the only problem with the idea of some form of intelligence behind creation for me is the total lack of evidence to support this idea and the absence of any need for this in evolutionary terms. Again, with the idea that there is life after death, although one cannot dismiss it in absolute terms, there is no substantive evidence to back this up, and consequentially it remains a matter of conjecture only.
Great post Enki.
-
No, suspending the principle of sufficient reason for the specific intent of eliminating the notion of a creator since it threatens your own position of supreme being in your own universe.....that's wishful thinking.
Except you do suspend the principle of sufficient reason for your 'god'. So the above means you are saying your 'god' is wishful thinking.
-
I'm glad you clarified that infinite regress is insufficient reason since I wasn't totally sure.
Not really, and I didn't say that anyway - I was just observing that you seem inclined to stop any regress at you preferred 'God' without wondering if your preferred 'God' was contingent on, say, some other 'God' or, perhaps, the universe.
Since the universe demonstrates contingency we could o nly say that there must be something about it which is not contingent if we were to argue that the universe were the sufficient reason. Be my guest.
No thanks - I'm not even certain the universe does demonstrate contingency: for all I know the universe could be eternal, but then information is incomplete.
-
I'm glad you clarified that infinite regress is insufficient reason since I wasn't totally sure.
To be clear, he said that's your intention for it, he didn't say that it worked.
O.
-
Not really, and I didn't say that anyway - I was just observing that you seem inclined to stop any regress at you preferred 'God' without wondering if your preferred 'God' was contingent on, say, some other 'God' or, perhaps, the universe.
No thanks - I'm not even certain the universe does demonstrate contingency: for all I know the universe could be eternal, but then information is incomplete.
Not only is an infinite regress insufficiently reasonable in the question of why something rather than nothing ignoring contingency just compounds your retreat from the principle of sufficient reason.
I don’t believe I mentioned God here but your mind went straight there and then you have proceeded to raise any obstacles in what looks like an intellectual panic.
-
Except you do suspend the principle of sufficient reason for your 'god'. So the above means you are saying your 'god' is wishful thinking.
No a creator or necessary aspect about the universe is derived from the argument from contingency and in that respect the principle of sufficient reason is satisfied.
-
No a creator or necessary aspect about the universe is derived from the argument from contingency and in that respect the principle of sufficient reason is satisfied.
Illogical drivel. If you agree everything has a cause - the principle of sufficient reason - then arguing something you believe in does not have a cause, you are being illogical.
-
Not only is an infinite regress insufficiently reasonable in the question of why something rather than nothing ignoring contingency just compounds your retreat from the principle of sufficient reason.
Nope - I'm just questioning your arbitrary way of resolving your infinite regress: you accept an uncaused cause position and, conventiently, this turns out to be just the kind of uncaused cause that you find palatble, which is special pleading. I'm reserving judgement pending further information.
I don’t believe I mentioned God here but your mind went straight there and then you have proceeded to raise any obstacles in what looks like an intellectual panic.
I think, given your posting history, we can conclude that 'God' is what you propose, you being a theist and all.
-
.... the only problem with the idea of some form of intelligence behind creation for me is the total lack of evidence to support this idea and the absence of any need for this in evolutionary terms. Again, with the idea that there is life after death, although one cannot dismiss it in absolute terms, there is no substantive evidence to back this up, and consequentially it remains a matter of conjecture only.
I must admit amazement at anyone who can claim a total lack of evidence for the idea of intelligence behind creation.
I assume you are putting all your faith behind the capacity for the random, unguided, purposeless forces of nature, which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative, to have brought into existence the unfathomable complexity of the human mind.
Those who put their faith in the power of the theory of evolution must make many presumptions - such as to assume that every one of the countless billions of beneficial mutations needed to bring our lives into existence were generated by random events and that each one had sufficient benefit in its own right to be passed on through natural selection.
Of course you will not find evidence for life after death if you restrict it to human scientific investigation of our material universe - this is not our true home. The divine revelations of scripture indicate that our souls are not of this material universe, but there is plenty of evidence that souls which have passed on to their heavenly state have the power to intercede in the form of miracles performed in their name.
from wiki:
Beatification is a recognition accorded by the Catholic Church of a deceased person's entrance into Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name.
At least two such miracles need to be formally verified for a deceased person to be declared a saint - and there are many such declared saints. There are also many personal witnesses to such miracles which have not been processed through the formal verification procedure, but which still stand as evidence.
And there is the historical evidence for the Resurrection which many have tried and failed to dismiss.
-
I must admit amazement at anyone who can claim a total lack of evidence for the idea of intelligence behind creation.
I assume you are putting all your faith behind the capacity for the random, unguided, purposeless forces of nature, which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative, to have brought into existence the unfathomable complexity of the human mind.
Those who put their faith in the power of the theory of evolution must make many presumptions - such as to assume that every one of the countless billions of beneficial mutations needed to bring our lives into existence were generated by random events and that each one had sufficient benefit in its own right to be passed on through natural selection.
Of course you will not find evidence for life after death if you restrict it to human scientific investigation of our material universe - this is not our true home. The divine revelations of scripture indicate that our souls are not of this material universe, but there is plenty of evidence that souls which have passed on to their heavenly state have the power to intercede in the form of miracles performed in their name.
from wiki:
Beatification is a recognition accorded by the Catholic Church of a deceased person's entrance into Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name.
At least two such miracles need to be formally verified for a deceased person to be declared a saint - and there are many such declared saints. There are also many personal witnesses to such miracles which have not been processed through the formal verification procedure, but which still stand as evidence.
And there is the historical evidence for the Resurrection which many have tried and failed to dismiss.
Your personal incredulity isn't relevant.
The ToE by Natural Selection is the best explanation we currently have for the variety of species we see on the planet and which is supported by evidence. There is no evidence for intelligent design.
No evidence for souls, let alone that they intercede in the form of miracles.
No evidence for the resurrection - only that early Christians believed in it. What evidence were you thinking of?
-
Your personal incredulity isn't relevant.
What you claim to be personal incredulity is based entirely on realistic probabilities - and improbabilities
The ToE by Natural Selection is the best explanation we currently have for the variety of species we see on the planet and which is supported by evidence. There is no evidence for intelligent design.
Intelligent design does exist in our universe - evidenced by the human capacity to use their gifts of intelligence and free will to interact with this material universe to bring about human creations in the form of buildings, machines, computers etc. by consciously manipulating the forces of nature. I look upon this as a reflection of our own Creator's unimaginable intelligence which brought us into existence by similarly guiding the (otherwise destructive) forces of nature.
No evidence for souls, let alone that they intercede in the form of miracles.
How are you able to dismiss all such miracles? Could it be personal incredulity?
No evidence for the resurrection - only that early Christians believed in it. What evidence were you thinking of?
Er - not just early Christians!
The Christian faith throughout this world is firmly rooted in the truth of the Risen Christ.
And you could try Googling "historical evidence for the resurrection"- happy reading - but beware, it may change your life!
-
And you could try Googling "historical evidence for the resurrection"- happy reading - but beware, it may change your life!
How have you excluding the risks of lies and mistakes in these ancient anecdotes?
-
What you claim to be personal incredulity is based entirely on realistic probabilities - and improbabilitiesIntelligent design does exist in our universe - evidenced by the human capacity to use their gifts of intelligence and free will to interact with this material universe to bring about human creations in the form of buildings, machines, computers etc. by consciously manipulating the forces of nature. I look upon this as a reflection of our own Creator's unimaginable intelligence which brought us into existence by similarly guiding the (otherwise destructive) forces of nature.How are you able to dismiss all such miracles? Could it be personal incredulity?Er - not just early Christians!
The Christian faith throughout this world is firmly rooted in the truth of the Risen Christ.
And you could try Googling "historical evidence for the resurrection"- happy reading - but beware, it may change your life!
Nope, it's personal incredulity. You have no way of calculating the probabilities. You just can't believe it.
Of course we design things. That's not what you were talking about though was it. You can look upon that in any way you want but that doesn't make your conclusion true.
I dismiss reports of miracles due to the lack of supporting evidence. Nothing to do with personal incredulity - maybe look up what that means.
The reference to early Christians was in relation to the establishment of the belief - thought that was obvious taken the context. I don't need to Google it as I have done so in the past and read around the topic (and it didn't change my life) and am aware that there is no direct evidence of the resurrection only later reports of it by later writers and references to people believing in it. That isn't evidence for the truth of the resurrection, only evidence that early Christians believed in it (and that that belief has persisted - just in case you needed that point clarified). What do you consider evidence for the resurrection?
-
What do you consider evidence for the resurrection?
It was a pivotal event which changed the world.
If it did not happen, Christianity would have died along with Jesus on the cross and our world would be a far different place.
-
It was a pivotal event which changed the world.
If it did not happen, Christianity would have died along with Jesus and our world would be a far different place.
That is evidence for belief in the resurrection and the consequences of belief not evidence for it actually having happened.
-
Except you do suspend the principle of sufficient reason for your 'god'. So the above means you are saying your 'god' is wishful thinking.
Shite. It has been explained to you how a necessary entity for observed contingency satisfies the principle.
-
Shite. It has been explained to you how a necessary entity for observed contingency satisfies the principle.
No, that just shows your utter inability to think logically.
-
I must admit amazement at anyone who can claim a total lack of evidence for the idea of intelligence behind creation.
I assume you are putting all your faith behind the capacity for the random, unguided, purposeless forces of nature, which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative, to have brought into existence the unfathomable complexity of the human mind.
Those who put their faith in the power of the theory of evolution must make many presumptions - such as to assume that every one of the countless billions of beneficial mutations needed to bring our lives into existence were generated by random events and that each one had sufficient benefit in its own right to be passed on through natural selection.
Of course you will not find evidence for life after death if you restrict it to human scientific investigation of our material universe - this is not our true home. The divine revelations of scripture indicate that our souls are not of this material universe, but there is plenty of evidence that souls which have passed on to their heavenly state have the power to intercede in the form of miracles performed in their name.
from wiki:
Beatification is a recognition accorded by the Catholic Church of a deceased person's entrance into Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name.
At least two such miracles need to be formally verified for a deceased person to be declared a saint - and there are many such declared saints. There are also many personal witnesses to such miracles which have not been processed through the formal verification procedure, but which still stand as evidence.
And there is the historical evidence for the Resurrection which many have tried and failed to dismiss.
Be amazed as much as you want, Alan. All I desire is hard evidence that such an intelligent entity exists, something, which in all your time on this forum, you have never been able to produce. Unlike you, I don't have such a thing as faith which, in your case, seems to be at the mercy of your own personal prejudices.
By simply making your usual absolute statements(E.g. 'this is not our true home', there are 'divine revelations of scripture' or there is such a thing as a 'soul') you do yourself no justice at all(except, of course, in your eyes, which is to be expected). Simply by saying such things does not make such things so, I'm afraid. That horrible word 'evidence' keeps getting in the way again. It was ever so.
Unfortunately for you and your ilk the historical evidence for the resurrection is greatly lacking, and even the gospel accounts are beset by glaring inconsistencies. Indeed their anecdotal nature is not exactly an acceptable standard for viable evidence. Also, you cannot say how the resurrection happened at all, except that it was a 'miracle', which has no explanatory value at all.
-
No, that just shows your utter inability to think logically.
I’m afraid an infinite natural regress only exists because of your infinite capacity for talking bollocks.
-
I’m afraid an infinite natural regress only exists because of your infinite capacity for talking bollocks.
I didn't claim an infinite regress. So you are misrepresenting me.
-
Illogical drivel. If you agree everything has a cause - the principle of sufficient reason - then arguing something you believe in does not have a cause, you are being illogical.
You misrepresent me.
I do not agree that everything has a cause. That would patently put me in the infinite regress camp.
I argue that there must be sufficient reason and the argument from contingency provides that.
The universe demonstrates contingency and thus cannot be argued to be necessary in that respect.
It's really quite straightforward
-
You misrepresent me.
I do not agree that everything has a cause. That would patently put me in the infinite regress camp.
I argue that there must be sufficient reason and the argument from contingency provides that.
The universe demonstrates contingency and thus cannot be argued to be necessary in that respect.
It's really quite straightforward
If you don't agree that everything has a cause then you implicitly accept that some things may be uncaused. So, if the universe is eternal then that it may be uncaused fits your presumption (that there are uncaused things): and to stop you dashing about frantically misrepresenting me, I'm not claiming that the universe is uncaused.
When theists deploy a 'first cause' argument then generally, and conveniently, they end up concluding that this first cause happens to be their preferred 'God' and stop the regress there, and it seems they prefer not to even countenance that their 'God'(assuming it exists) might itself be contingent.
-
And you could try Googling "historical evidence for the resurrection"- happy reading - but beware, it may change your life!
Of course if there were any such evidence, then it would be history books already. There is a reason why this topic is addressed in RE classes, but not in history classes.
-
You misrepresent me.
I do not agree that everything has a cause. That would patently put me in the infinite regress camp.
I argue that there must be sufficient reason and the argument from contingency provides that.
The universe demonstrates contingency and thus cannot be argued to be necessary in that respect.
It's really quite straightforward
I didn't say you believe in an infinite regress either. The point is one cannot say that one accepts the principle of sufficient reason - that everything has a cause and then have exception (s). It creates a form of bootstrap paradox in one's thinking.
That you then go off on the use of 'necessary' in your approach just illustrates your extremely muddled thinking. What you think is making a point is as usual just a collage of concepts that you stick together in an incoherent mess
-
I didn't say you believe in an infinite regress either. The point is one cannot say that one accepts the principle of sufficient reason - that everything has a cause and then have exception (s). It creates a form of bootstrap paradox in one's thinking.
That you then go off on the use of 'necessary' in your approach just illustrates your extremely muddled thinking. What you think is making a point is as usual just a collage of concepts that you stick together in an incoherent mess
Earlier on you were effectively trying to accuse me of having insufficient reason for my proposal seemingly oblivious that you were using the principle of sufficient reason to do so. You misunderstood my position.
Gordon wished to ignore contingency and you seemingly want to ignore necessity.
The arguments have all been outlined.
-
Earlier on you were effectively trying to accuse me of having insufficient reason for my proposal seemingly oblivious that you were using the principle of sufficient reason to do so. You misunderstood my position.
Gordon wished to ignore contingency and you seemingly want to ignore necessity.
The arguments have all been outlined.
And again you have just written a morass of confusion. Arguing that something need to have a reason to believe something is not about using the principle of sufficient (that everything has a cause). You are using different philosophical concepts which are applied at different levels and bashing them together because you seem unable to present a basic case.
-
I must admit amazement at anyone who can claim a total lack of evidence for the idea of intelligence behind creation.
It's not that there's no evidence, it's that when looked at in detail: a) the evidence has better explanations; and, b) there is no direct evidence of that supervising intelligence.
I assume you are putting all your faith behind the capacity for the random, unguided, purposeless forces of nature, which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative, to have brought into existence the unfathomable complexity of the human mind.
First, it's not 'faith', it's a combination of logical reasoning and testing against the available evidence. Second the destructive nature of those purposeless forces is INTEGRAL TO THE THEORY. If nature wasn't 'destroying' the less fit at a higher rate than the more fit, there would not be a selective pressure. If you think natural variation cannot 'create', I'd encourage you to look at the development of strains of COVID-19 in the past few years to see it in action.
Those who put their faith in the power of the theory of evolution must make many presumptions - such as to assume that every one of the countless billions of beneficial mutations needed to bring our lives into existence were generated by random events and that each one had sufficient benefit in its own right to be passed on through natural selection.
We know evolution happens, we've watched it happen in real time. We can see how often significant variations arise within reproductive cycles. And we can estimate a lower number of the billions upon billions upon billions of generations of various lifeforms in which those variations have had the opportunity to arise, spread through populations and then be selected for. I suspect that people who think it's all too unlikely just can't grasp the sheer scale of the history of life, how many iterations of each step of the evolution of life there have been; I can't demonstrate that, it's merely my suspicion.
Of course you will not find evidence for life after death if you restrict it to human scientific investigation of our material universe - this is not our true home.
And you can demonstrate that how? You might not be able to demonstrate life after death if there isn't any. You still haven't explained why this is outside of science's remit. You still haven't explained what sort of alternative methodology you have that isn't just pulling it out of mythology's arse.
The divine revelations of scripture indicate that our souls are not of this material universe, but there is plenty of evidence that souls which have passed on to their heavenly state have the power to intercede in the form of miracles performed in their name.
Divine scriptures are an argument from authority - anyone can make any claim, but the fact that they did so a hundred years ago does not make them right. That millions of people accept it as truth makes them worthy of investigation, but if all you have is that then they can be dismissed just based on the fact that people can be wrong.
from wiki:
Beatification is a recognition accorded by the Catholic Church of a deceased person's entrance into Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name.
At least two such miracles need to be formally verified for a deceased person to be declared a saint - and there are many such declared saints. There are also many personal witnesses to such miracles which have not been processed through the formal verification procedure, but which still stand as evidence.
You can take any two 'divine scriptures' and they are fundamentally at odds with each other about the detail, nature and intentions of the 'divinity' behind it all. That could be evidence of a human inability to fully comprehend, or it could be evidence of entirely separate fictions being elevated to 'sacred' for cultural reasons. You need something independent of human wish-fulfilment to base the claims upon, and you still don't have that.
And there is the historical evidence for the Resurrection which many have tried and failed to dismiss.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha....
O.
-
Gordon wished to ignore contingency and you seemingly want to ignore necessity.
Gordon is not ignoring contingency - Gordon is querying why your are limited your acceptance of an 'uncaused cause' to exclude the universe itself, which you say is contingent, and Gordon is also curious to know how you've determined that this necessary 'uncaused cause', that Christian theists usually refer to as 'God', isn't itself contingent (if it exists at all).
-
Gordon is not ignoring contingency - Gordon is querying why your are limited your acceptance of an 'uncaused cause' to exclude the universe itself, which you say is contingent, and Gordon is also curious to know how you've determined that this necessary 'uncaused cause', that Christian theists usually refer to as 'God', isn't itself contingent (if it exists at all).
Let me state it again. If we postulate necessities or uncaused causes and I suppose I am it is OK to postulate candidates like acreator OR the universe. Repeat It is OK to postulate candidates.
But then we have to examine the bona fides of those candidates and the issue here with the universe is the plethora of caused entities which are part of it.
Then there are the issues of whether the universe contains dependent parts.
Not to mention the fact that we have not observed a totally independent entity.
Now I'm aware of the problem of induction but already with the burden of contingency we cannot say that everything about the universe is uncaused. But we cannot rule out at this point that there is something about the universe that is uncaused.
But even here there are problems since an uncaused thing cannot be a part of something.
The uncaused thing must be independent, not a mechanical part of that which it is independent from and those characteristics define the uncaused cause.
-
Of course if there were any such evidence, then it would be history books already. There is a reason why this topic is addressed in RE classes, but not in history classes.
The resurrection was the event which changed history more than any other historical event.
-
The resurrection was the event which changed history more than any other historical event.
The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.
-
... than any other historical event.
There is precisely zero credible evidence that is was a historical event.
-
The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.
positive assertion...You know what you have to do.
-
There is precisely zero credible evidence that is was a historical event.
Who gets to decide what is credible in this matter?
-
positive assertion...You know what you have to do.
Don't be silly: the 'resurrection' tale does not feature in any work of history and is not taught as historical fact. It sits alongside Romulus and Remus being suckled by a female wolf - fantastical myth and legend, and therefore easy to dismiss.
But, since you take it seriously, how have you resolved the risks of mistakes and lies in these ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance?
-
The resurrection was the event which changed history more than any other historical event.
I'd put development of farming up against, but that notwithstanding... The claim of the resurrection of Jesus has a significant effect, but you've insufficient evidence to link that claim to an actual resurrection.
O.
-
The resurrection was the event which changed history more than any other historical event.
Belief in the resurrection.
-
Don't be silly: the 'resurrection' tale does not feature in any work of history and is not taught as historical fact. It sits alongside Romulus and Remus being suckled by a female wolf - fantastical myth and legend, and therefore easy to dismiss.
But, since you take it seriously, how have you resolved the risks of mistakes and lies in these ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance?
You may be arguing from your own incredulity here.
-
You may be arguing from your own incredulity here.
It's about lack of good evidence. What do you consider to be that evidence?
-
You may be arguing from your own incredulity here.
I see we can add 'incredulity' to the list of terms you don't understand: if you had said I was arguing from a position of justified scepticism then you might have been on the button, but you didn't.
-
I see we can add 'incredulity' to the list of terms you don't understand: if you had said I was arguing from a position of justified scepticism then you might have been on the button, but you didn't.
I was going to post a definition but decided not to. maybe I should have.
-
I see we can add 'incredulity' to the list of terms you don't understand: if you had said I was arguing from a position of justified scepticism then you might have been on the button, but you didn't.
I wasn't able to because you never justified it.
-
I wasn't able to because you never justified it.
Yes I did - I pointed out that the 'resurrection' wasn't a historical claim and that is was more akin to fantastical myths, such as Romulis and Remus and the she-wolf. I also noted that I've yet to see a theist clearly explain on what basis they have addressed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT stories about this 'resurrection' without recourse to fallacies.
So, I'd say that my position is one of justified scepticism since I can see no good reasons, having dispensed with the bad reasons, to think that the claimed 'resurrection' of Jesus is a proposition that merits serious consideration.
-
Who gets to decide what is credible in this matter?
Well everyone can pitch in, but clearly for any evidence to be credible it needs to be able to stand up to robust scrutiny. And of course christians don't think it does - why, because it is a matter of faith or belief to christians. If evidence is credible and strong it isn't accepted on faith or belief. I don't need faith or belief that the earth goes around the sun because the evidence for this is credible and strong.
-
Well everyone can pitch in, but clearly for any evidence to be credible it needs to be able to stand up to robust scrutiny. And of course christians don't think it does - why, because it is a matter of faith or belief to christians. If evidence is credible and strong it isn't accepted on faith or belief. I don't need faith or belief that the earth goes around the sun because the evidence for this is credible and strong.
I think it is a bit more complex than that. Christian faith is an act of commitment subsequent to the encounter with God.
But the new testament and historical culture presents itself as the same encounter in a moment of time.
Now this is a time from which not many extant documents still exist so the history is pieced together in a different way from say, contemporary history.
At the end of the day I think objections to the resurrection are not then based on history but on what normally happens and what you believe can happen. In fact some of those those who don't accept the resurrection are sceptical of history and find it unreliable.
-
Yes I did - I pointed out that the 'resurrection' wasn't a historical claim and that is was more akin to fantastical myths, such as Romulis and Remus and the she-wolf. I also noted that I've yet to see a theist clearly explain on what basis they have addressed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT stories about this 'resurrection' without recourse to fallacies.
So, I'd say that my position is one of justified scepticism since I can see no good reasons, having dispensed with the bad reasons, to think that the claimed 'resurrection' of Jesus is a proposition that merits serious consideration.
The resurrection has been claimed as historical fact for centuries and the Jesus as myth theory is not mainstream.
I think generally historical concensus is rather that the resurrection as reported in the epistles and by the historical culture was held as genuine by the very early Christian community.
After that, yes, there are aspects that you either believe or don't believe
-
I think it is a bit more complex than that. Christian faith is an act of commitment subsequent to the encounter with God.
Not quite - there may be a feeling of a personal encounter with 'God' but that is insufficient to show that this 'God' does indeed exist and was encountered. That may be enough to result in personal faith but it isn't enough to demonstrate facts that are external to these feelings.
Now this is a time from which not many extant documents still exist so the history is pieced together in a different way from say, contemporary history.
The NT accounts are of uncertain provenance and date from decades after the events the make claims about. As with any documents there are risks of bias, mistakes and lies, and while at this distance these can't be addressed and it seems to me that Christians prefer to avoid acknowledging these risks. So I'd say that the NT isn't robust enough to be considered as factual history but may well suit the different demands of personal faith: it is important not to conflate the two.
At the end of the day I think objections to the resurrection are not then based on history but on what normally happens and what you believe can happen.
You're mixing things up again: the resurrection claims aren't factual history, for the reasons noted above, and that they contain fantastical claims about dead people not staying dead futher distances them from being a portrayal of a historical event, and that some people believe the NT resurrection story as a matter of personal faith is a wholly separate issue from historical facts.
In fact those who don't accept the resurrection are sceptical of history and find it unreliable.
On that we are agreed.
-
The resurrection has been claimed as historical fact for centuries and the Jesus as myth theory is not mainstream.
Perhaps only by those with pre-exsting faith and/or who are disinclined to be sceptical when it comes to their faith-based beliefs - and you deploying an ad pop doesn't turn faith into fact.
I think generally historical concensus is rather that the resurrection as reported in the epistles and by the historical culture was held as genuine by the very early Christian community.
You're conflating faith and historical fact again. It way well be true that early Christians, and indeed later and current Christians, really believed that this 'resurrection' actually happened and is a historical reality - but thier belief alone isn't sufficient to conclude that the 'resurrection' was a actual historical event, and that is without taking into account that the these beliefs involve an acceptance of supernatural agency at work.
After that, yes, there are aspects that you either believe or don't believe
I don't that that belief, as in personal faith, is a good indicator here - is it possible that these early Christian communities you mention were quite simply wrong or were misled?
-
The resurrection has been claimed as historical fact for centuries and the Jesus as myth theory is not mainstream.
Nice bit of ramming two completely distinct elements together.
Just because people have believed in the resurrection for centuries doesn't mean that it is true, nor that their belief is based on evidence, rather than ... err ... belief!
But also it is perfectly reasonable to accept it is likely that a person called Jesus lived at that time, but also completely reject the biblical claims. Actually we have virtually zero evidence for the historicity of Jesus at all, but I and I suspect and many of us here would probably accept, for the sake of argument, that there was some historical person. What we do not accept, and will not accept without credible evidence is the miracle claims, the resurrection etc etc. So what we are left with is a guy who probably went around teaching for a while and then died - so what.
So don't try to ram these two elements - thinking that Jesus probably existed doesn't mean accepting the biblical claims whatsoever.
-
You may be arguing from your own incredulity here.
Proceeding from a place of scepticism until sufficient evidence is provided is not an argument from incredulity; that's refuting the evidence on the basis that you don't believe or understand it.
O.
-
At the end of the day I think objections to the resurrection are not then based on history but on what normally happens and what you believe can happen. In fact some of those those who don't accept the resurrection are sceptical of history and find it unreliable.
It is about evidence. I accept that belief in the resurrection existed early on but that doesn't make it an historical fact. Clearly something happened to start that belief but what that was we cannot say.
-
Nice bit of ramming two completely distinct elements together.
Just because people have believed in the resurrection for centuries doesn't mean that it is true, nor that their belief is based on evidence, rather than ... err ... belief!
But the epistles not only present the risen Jesus as history but they even offer a group of witnesses. So I would disagree with your thesis here. What you are describing is myth and the myths we are used too aren’t presented like this but in a complete context of the fantastic vis Romulus and Remus.
But also it is perfectly reasonable to accept it is likely that a person called Jesus lived at that time, but also completely reject the biblical claims. Actually we have virtually zero evidence for the historicity of Jesus at all, but I and I suspect and many of us here would probably accept, for the sake of argument, that there was some historical person. What we do not accept, and will not accept without credible evidence is the miracle claims, the resurrection etc etc. So what we are left with is a guy who probably went around teaching for a while and then died - so what.
But these are not historical objections rather probability and belief and both of these are contentious.
So don't try to ram these two elements - thinking that Jesus probably existed doesn't mean accepting the biblical claims whatsoever.
Merely because Romulus and Remus were invoked.
-
Perhaps only by those with pre-exsting faith and/or who are disinclined to be sceptical when it comes to their faith-based beliefs - and you deploying an ad pop doesn't turn faith into fact.
You're conflating faith and historical fact again. It way well be true that early Christians, and indeed later and current Christians, really believed that this 'resurrection' actually happened and is a historical reality - but thier belief alone isn't sufficient to conclude that the 'resurrection' was a actual historical event, and that is without taking into account that the these beliefs involve an acceptance of supernatural agency at work.
I don't that that belief, as in personal faith, is a good indicator here - is it possible that these early Christian communities you mention were quite simply wrong or were misled?
Are you sceptical on this or convinced that you have concrete historical proof that history took a non resurrection course?
If not then be upfront and admit you are merely sceptical and don’t believe it given your world view.
In short Gordon it seems to be you conflating historical fact and belief.
-
Proceeding from a place of scepticism until sufficient evidence is provided is not an argument from incredulity; that's refuting the evidence on the basis that you don't believe or understand it.
O.
Does that scepticism stretch to the inferred history without resurrection?
Is scepticism any good without moving on from it?
-
Are you sceptical on this or convinced that you have concrete historical proof that history took a non resurrection course?
You are certainly plumbing the depths of daftness this morning, Vlad: I'm sceptical due to the absence of robust evidence, the risks of mistakes, bias and lies and also the nature of the resurrection claims. I see you are nudging in the direction of an NPF now - the burden of proof regarding the resurrection is not mine: it's yours.
If not then be upfront and admit you are merely sceptical and don’t believe it given your world view.
I told you yesterday that I was sceptical, and that has nothing to do with any 'world view' (whatever that means) - it is the result of there being no robust evidence for any 'resurrection', and that these ancient anecdotal accounts can reasonably be doubted. I'll ask again: do you think that it is possible that these early first/second century Christians might simply be wrong, were misleading themselves or were misled?
In short Gordon it seems to be you conflating historical fact and belief.
Not guilty - you are making that mistake, not me.
-
The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.
So Gordon you made this positive assertion and then tried to justify it with an absence of robust evidence is robust evidence of absence argument rather than offering a concrete account of what actually happened.That and flannel from you and your colleagues about proceeding from scepticism.
-
You are certainly plumbing the depths of daftness this morning, Vlad: I'm sceptical due to the absence of robust evidence, the risks of mistakes, bias and lies and also the nature of the resurrection claims. I see you are nudging in the direction of an NPF now - the burden of proof regarding the resurrection is not mine: it's yours.
I told you yesterday that I was sceptical, and that has nothing to do with any 'world view' (whatever that means) - it is the result of there being no robust evidence for any 'resurrection', and that these ancient anecdotal accounts can reasonably be doubted. I'll ask again: do you think that it is possible that these early first/second century Christians might simply be wrong, were misleading themselves or were misled?
Not guilty - you are making that mistake, not me.
I have stated why I share the mainstream view that what we can say is that the resurrection was genuinely believed from the get go and I have no reason to automatically believe that the first Christians were liars. And that is historically as far as you can go and certainly beyond where your world view let’s you, hence your myth accusation.
In other words history does not suit your atheism.
-
So Gordon you made this positive assertion and then tried to justify it with an absence of robust evidence is robust evidence of absence argument rather than offering a concrete account of what actually happened.That and flannel from you and your colleagues about proceeding from scepticism.
You seem to be reduced to speaking bollocks now, Vlad: there is no robust evidence that this 'resurrection' ever happened, since if there was then it would be historical fact and no religious faith would be required. Not my job to offer some kind of 'concerte' alternative regarding 'what actually happened', since I can't exclude that the risk that story is wrong or fabricated, so scepticism seems like the only reasonable position to take.
You haven't answered my earlier question about whether you think it at least possible that the resurrection believing early-Christians that you mentioned could have been wrong, mislead themselves or were misled.
-
I have stated why I share the mainstream view that what we can say is that the resurrection was genuinely believed from the get go and I have no reason to automatically believe that the first Christians were liars. And that is historically as far as you can go and certainly beyond where your world view let’s you, hence your myth accusation.
In other words history does not suit your atheism.
Even dafter: which bit of 'genuinely believed' is not the same thing as 'historical fact' are you not comprehending.
Moreover, if you have discounted the possibility that these early Christians either lied, were lied to or were mistaken then you really shouldn't be peddling the historical fact line, especially since you seem unable to distinguish between history and belief. It seems you are now indulging in special pleading.
Being sceptical is not reserved to atheists you know.
-
You seem to be reduced to speaking bollocks now, Vlad: there is no robust evidence that this 'resurrection' ever happened, since if there was then it would be historical fact and no religious faith would be required. Not my job to offer some kind of 'concerte' alternative regarding 'what actually happened', since I can't exclude that the risk that story is wrong or fabricated, so scepticism seems like the only reasonable position to take.
You haven't answered my earlier question about whether you think it at least possible that the resurrection believing early-Christians that you mentioned could have been wrong, mislead themselves or were misled.
It is presented and presents itself as history Gordon in the memoranda of the first Christians.
Works it looks like you aren’t familiar with.
You were caught red handed making a positive assertion and not backing it up.
-
It is presented and presents itself as history Gordon in the memoranda of the first Christians.
No it doesn't: it presents as a fantastical set of anecdotes from antiquity with no robust supporting evidence, no provenance and the risks of human artifice. Put simply - easily dismissed as factual history.
Works it looks like you aren’t familiar with.
I don't treat the NT or early Christians with any reverance, that is true: but I know enough of the claims and the faiilibility of people to be reasonably sceptical.
You were caught red handed making a positive assertion and not backing it up.
Don't silly - you sound desperate now. I clearly explained why I was sceptical. btw you still haven't told me whether or not you think it possible that these early Christians could be wrong, were mislead or did any misleading - but my experience of Christians is that they won't engage with these risks in any meaningful sense, since to do so risks undermining their faith beliefs.
-
No it doesn't: it presents as a fantastical set of anecdotes from antiquity with no robust supporting evidence, no provenance and the risks of human artifice. Put simply - easily dismissed as factual history.
I don't treat the NT or early Christians with any reverance, that is true: but I know enough of the claims and the faiilibility of people to be reasonably sceptical.
Don't silly - you sound desperate now. I clearly explained why I was sceptical. btw you still haven't told me whether or not you think it possible that these early Christians could be wrong, were mislead or did any misleading - but my experience of Christians is that they won't engage with these risks in any meaningful sense, since to do so risks undermining their faith beliefs.
Ah,The fallacy of modernity...in neon.
-
Does that scepticism stretch to the inferred history without resurrection?
What would history look like if the resurrection were real? How would it look different if the resurrection were not real, but some people believed it was?
Is scepticism any good without moving on from it?
Who's not moving on? You move on when you have a justification, not when you've gotten bored of not having an answer yet.
O.
-
Ah,The fallacy of modernity...in neon.
No; but then fallacies are a mystery to you, and scepticism isn't exactly a novel approach to anything.
So - you have yet clarified whether or not you think is possible that early Christian could be wrong, were misled or did some misleading. Perhaps you could actually address that instead of ignoring and diverting.
-
What would history look like if the resurrection were real? How would it look different if the resurrection were not real, but some people believed it was?
If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so I would be looking for alternative real history which debunks the resurrection, records of the overturning and the bringing to book for the fraud...rather than religious or political offence caused.
And that is the point. If you are going to claim historical fraud, historical mass gullibility, historical mass hallucination etc. Then it strikes me you need historical evidence for those assertions.
-
No; but then fallacies are a mystery to you, and scepticism isn't exactly a novel approach to anything.
So - you have yet clarified whether or not you think is possible that early Christian could be wrong, were misled or did some misleading. Perhaps you could actually address that instead of ignoring and diverting.
wrong as in mass hallucination at different times and groups do you mean? Put the case if you think that is so. I'm not convinced, misleading? No reason after all they believed he was dead. Again, put the case.
-
wrong as in mass hallucination at different times and groups do you mean? Put the case if you think that is so. I'm not convinced, misleading? No reason after all they believed he was dead. Again, put the case.
Trying to reverse the burden of proof is one of your many tedious approaches.
-
wrong as in mass hallucination at different times and groups do you mean? Put the case if you think that is so. I'm not convinced, misleading? No reason after all they believed he was dead. Again, put the case.
Good heavens: you are dense today - the burden of proof is yours!
Let me put it simply - do you think it is possible that the NT reports of witnesses and the no doubt sincerely held beliefs of early Christians, and later ones too, could be based on the NT containing mistakes and/or lies? I'm asking you a simple question and not advancing any form of case, such as mass hallucinations, and I've already said that scepticism leads me to dismiss the story being historically accurate (even without the supernatural bits).
-
Good heavens: you are dense today - the burden of proof is yours!
No, once you say this Gordon...The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.
It’s yours.
None of your posts back your assertion.
Me, i’ve Stated how far history gets us and so your demands for further analysis are inappropriate.
-
No, once you say this Gordon...It’s yours.
None of your posts back your assertion.
Me, i’ve Stated how far history gets us and so your demands for further analysis are inappropriate.
You don't even have a coherent definition of evidence that you use.
-
You don't even have a coherent definition of evidence that you use.
Explain.
-
No, once you say this Gordon...It’s yours.
None of your posts back your assertion.
Me, i’ve Stated how far history gets us and so your demands for further analysis are inappropriate.
Bollocks - it is likely that there was a character on which the Jesus stories are based and that this person was crucified - Tacitus mentions it. However, and importantly, the 'resurrection' claim (as in being dead and then not dead) is not taught as being historical fact: it is a faith claim.
That is the issue your are avoiding.
-
Explain.
I take it you are new here? And you haven't read anything ever on this?
Explain what you mean about evidence for supernatural claims, outlining your methodology for evaluating such claims.
-
Bollocks - it is likely that there was a character on which the Jesus stories are based and that this person was crucified - Tacitus mentions it. However, and importantly, the 'resurrection' claim (as in being dead and then not dead) is not taught as being historical fact: it is a faith claim.
That is the issue your are avoiding.
It is presented as an historical fact in the epistles and what the early Christian communities believed Gordon. Now prove your assertion. What it is or isn’t taught as NOW doesn’t seem relevant but perhaps you can add that to your list of pending cases you have to make.
-
It is presented as an historical fact in the epistles and what the early Christian communities believed Gordon. Now prove your assertion. What it is or isn’t taught as NOW doesn’t seem relevant but perhaps you can add that to your list of pending cases you have to make.
Holy mispresentation, Vladman.
-
I take it you are new here? And you haven't read anything ever on this?
Explain what you mean about evidence for supernatural claims, outlining your methodology for evaluating such claims.
I’m still not following you. When did I suggest you can use science to evaluate the supernatural or mention the evaluation of supernatural claims. I may have mentioned research into how long conspiracy theories last and if not held to be true that’s what the resurrection is.
Logic never goes amiss, avoidance of the contradictory perhaps. Maybe the principle of sufficient reason too.
-
Having been retired from here these last couple of years or so I thought I’d check in again just to see whether Vlad had had enough time finally to tell us how he would propose that someone distinguish his faith claims from any other – equally heartfelt – faith claims.
Imagine therefore my surprise and disappointment to find not only that he hasn’t done that, but that instead he’s still trotting out the same old rhetorical fallacies that have been explained to him over and over again – just in this thread alone he’s tried the god of the gaps, the shifting of the burden of proof and, most recently, a fun dollop of survivor bias to boot (“If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so…” yada yada).
Never mind though – cock-eyed optimist that I am, I reckon another couple of years should be enough finally for him to get his ducks in a row.
My best wishes to you all.
-
I’m still not following you. When did I suggest you can use science to evaluate the supernatural or mention the evaluation of supernatural claims. I may have mentioned research into how long conspiracy theories last and if not held to be true that’s what the resurrection is.
Logic never goes amiss, avoidance of the contradictory perhaps. Maybe the principle of sufficient reason too.
I didn't say you could use science. Stop lying!
I asked you for your method to evaluate supernatural claims. As I have many many times, and you just avoid the question and lie. Yet again.
-
It is presented as an historical fact in the epistles and what the early Christian communities believed Gordon.
I suggest you read over what you've said here and see if you can spot the problem - I'm guessing you won't. Here's a clue - facts and beliefs aren't the same thing.
-
I didn't say you could use science. Stop lying!
I asked you for your method to evaluate supernatural claims. As I have many many times, and you just avoid the question and lie. Yet again.
sorry but when I have offered methodologies in the past you have poo pooed them . I have taken that to mean that for you there is only one true methodology. Science. Indeed i’ve Offered using logic and the principle of sufficient reason and you have rejected that.
Your line of interrogation here is very much like a religion vs science premis.
I do not see the science vs religion argument as valid. They are different domains.
Maybe maths has a methodology.
As for repeating your request over and over again. I suggest that needs looking into.
-
I suggest you read over what you've said here and see if you can spot the problem - I'm guessing you won't. Here's a clue - facts and beliefs aren't the same thing.
They are presented as facts rather than mere beliefs. It looks like you haven’t actually read the New Testament but being charitable you may just be really rusty.
-
sorry but when I have offered methodologies in the past you have poo pooed them . I have taken that to mean that for you there is only one true methodology. Science. Indeed i’ve Offered using logic and the principle of sufficient reason and you have rejected that.
Your line of interrogation here is very much like a religion vs science premis.
I do not see the science vs religion argument as valid. They are different domains.
Maybe maths has a methodology.
As for repeating your request over and over again. I suggest that needs looking into.
Your inability yet again to offer a credible methodology for your claims, and your continual lying is both obvious and tedious.
-
They are presented as facts rather than mere beliefs. It looks like you haven’t actually read the New Testament but being charitable you may just be really rusty.
Flat earthers present their beliefs as facts.
-
Flat earthers present their beliefs as facts.
So does this guy...
The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.
Flat earthers have been shown to be wrong.
-
Having been retired from here these last couple of years or so I thought I’d check in again just to see whether Vlad had had enough time finally to tell us how he would propose that someone distinguish his faith claims from any other – equally heartfelt – faith claims.
Imagine therefore my surprise and disappointment to find not only that he hasn’t done that, but that instead he’s still trotting out the same old rhetorical fallacies that have been explained to him over and over again – just in this thread alone he’s tried the god of the gaps, the shifting of the burden of proof and, most recently, a fun dollop of survivor bias to boot (“If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so…” yada yada).
Never mind though – cock-eyed optimist that I am, I reckon another couple of years should be enough finally for him to get his ducks in a row.
My best wishes to you all.
pah....More come backs than Frank Sinatra.
-
Having been retired from here these last couple of years or so I thought I’d check in again just to see whether Vlad had had enough time finally to tell us how he would propose that someone distinguish his faith claims from any other – equally heartfelt – faith claims.
Imagine therefore my surprise and disappointment to find not only that he hasn’t done that, but that instead he’s still trotting out the same old rhetorical fallacies that have been explained to him over and over again – just in this thread alone he’s tried the god of the gaps, the shifting of the burden of proof and, most recently, a fun dollop of survivor bias to boot (“If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so…” yada yada).
Never mind though – cock-eyed optimist that I am, I reckon another couple of years should be enough finally for him to get his ducks in a row.
My best wishes to you all.
Bluehillside making a voice of God type post ha ha.
-
So does this guy...Flat earthers have been shown to be wrong.
And yet again you illustrate your stupidity, your lying, or possibly your lying stupidity. Not accepting something as the truth is not the same as saying something is the truth or is not the truth.The default position is to be sceptical.
-
If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history.
Right up there alongside Mohammed's ascent on the winged horse...
Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so I would be looking for alternative real history which debunks the resurrection, records of the overturning and the bringing to book for the fraud...rather than religious or political offence caused.
Argument from incredulity duly noted. That you can't see people lacking prospects and formal education are gullible doesn't in any way validate claims of magic.
And that is the point. If you are going to claim historical fraud, historical mass gullibility, historical mass hallucination etc. Then it strikes me you need historical evidence for those assertions.
We have it in each and every denouncement of the claims of Islam by Christians, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from Muslims, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from each of the others. I just accept all of those denouncements rather than selectively exempting one of them from critical scrutiny.
O.
-
Having been retired from here these last couple of years or so I thought I’d check in again just to see whether Vlad had had enough time finally to tell us how he would propose that someone distinguish his faith claims from any other – equally heartfelt – faith claims.
Imagine therefore my surprise and disappointment to find not only that he hasn’t done that, but that instead he’s still trotting out the same old rhetorical fallacies that have been explained to him over and over again – just in this thread alone he’s tried the god of the gaps, the shifting of the burden of proof and, most recently, a fun dollop of survivor bias to boot (“If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so…” yada yada).
Never mind though – cock-eyed optimist that I am, I reckon another couple of years should be enough finally for him to get his ducks in a row.
My best wishes to you all.
Nice to see you back but I find it odd that your return is summed up purely by the reaction to Vlad. The rest of the board, and what's happened, and to help you out - quite a lot has happened, and has been posted on - and you pop back and focus on Vlad. Hmm...
And leaving aside that, you may have missed that we have not seen, and despite efforts, not received a reply from SusanDoris, and perforce we fear the worst.
-
Right up there alongside Mohammed's ascent on the winged horse...
Above and beyond, pal, above and beyond.
Argument from incredulity duly noted. That you can't see people lacking prospects and formal education are gullible doesn't in any way validate claims of magic. what are you talking about? If it wasn’t true, these people pulled of the biggest hoax in history.
Many early Christians were educated in philosophy and the like. More so than your horsemen of the apocalypse who are absolute philosophical duffers.
We have it in each and every denouncement of the claims of Islam by Christians, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from Muslims, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from each of the others. I just accept all of those denouncements rather than selectively exempting one of them from critical scrutiny.
O.
I don’t odds anyone’s spiritual experience, I merely communicate my own.
-
Right up there alongside Mohammed's ascent on the winged horse...
Argument from incredulity duly noted. That you can't see people lacking prospects and formal education are gullible doesn't in any way validate claims of magic.
We have it in each and every denouncement of the claims of Islam by Christians, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from Muslims, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from each of the others. I just accept all of those denouncements rather than selectively exempting one of them from critical scrutiny.
O.
If you hadn’t noticed Christians and other faiths denounce some of the views of their co religionists. Disagreement is common in all domains.
-
Nice to see you back but I find it odd that your return is summed up purely by the reaction to Vlad. The rest of the board, and what's happened, and to help you out - quite a lot has happened, and has been posted on - and you pop back and focus on Vlad. Hmm...
Don’t you recognise Bromance when you see it?
-
Having been retired from here these last couple of years...........
Yes, i’ve always thought guffing on about Leprechauns was a young mans game.
-
And yet again you illustrate your stupidity, your lying, or possibly your lying stupidity. Not accepting something as the truth is not the same as saying something is the truth or is not the truth.The default position is to be sceptical.
He made a positive assertion that the resurrection was not a historical fact. No attempt at turdpolishing this by you relieves him of the burden of proof.
-
He made a positive assertion that the resurrection was not a historical fact. No attempt at turdpolishing this by you relieves him of the burden of proof.
It isn't. You haven't evidenced that it is so it can be rejected as as a fact. And that's leaving aside it's a supernatural claim and you've never provided a methodology by which it might be established as such. And again leaves aside that history is methodoligical naturalistic but then you don't even understand that issue.
-
Hi NS,
Nice to see you back but I find it odd that your return is summed up purely by the reaction to Vlad. The rest of the board, and what's happened, and to help you out - quite a lot has happened, and has been posted on - and you pop back and focus on Vlad. Hmm...
I’m not “back” as such, or at least I don’t plan to be unless a theist (or any stripe) makes an argument that merits attention. I just happened to look at this thread recently and noticed Vlad peddling exactly the same fallacies he’s always relied on while still refusing resolutely ever to make a cogent argument of his own, so thought I’d note it. If anyone else has tried an argument for their god that you think doesn’t fall at the first hurdle though I’ll be grateful if you will flag it.
And leaving aside that, you may have missed that we have not seen, and despite efforts, not received a reply from SusanDoris, and perforce we fear the worst.
I’m very sorry to hear that – she and I had a warm relationship (especially about crosswords) and I do hope that, like me, she’s merely chosen to take a break for a while rather than that anything more serious has happened.
BRs
-
He made a positive assertion that the resurrection was not a historical fact. No attempt at turdpolishing this by you relieves him of the burden of proof.
Don't be stupid - the 'resurrection' element is a faith claim and not a fact claim, since if it were the latter then there would need to be a factual explanation for how a dead person, who had allegedly been dead in a warm climate for around 3 days, didn't stay dead - and there isn't. But if you think there is then please show your workings - after all you're supporting the claim.
-
I’m very sorry to hear that – she and I had a warm relationship (especially about crosswords) and I do hope that, like me, she’s merely chosen to take a break for a while rather than that anything more serious has happened.
BRs
I fear that's a forlorn hope. As covered we have made attempts to check that and get a response.
-
Don't be stupid - the 'resurrection' element is a faith claim and not a fact claim, since if it were the latter then there would need to be a factual explanation for how a dead person, who had allegedly been dead in a warm climate for around 3 days, didn't stay dead - and there isn't. But if you think there is then please show your workings - after all you're supporting the claim.
I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history. That it really happened and was truly witnessed. You should have realised that I would have thought.
To put a modern spin on it would have been something a hardened atheist could have seen...and passed of as an hallucination or not.
-
I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history. That it really happened and was truly witnessed. You should have realised that I would have thought.
To put a modern spin on it would have been something a hardened atheist could have seen...and passed of as an hallucination or not.
Why did you post an irrelevant non sequitur?
-
I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history. That it really happened and was truly witnessed. You should have realised that I would have thought.
You make little sense, grasshopper: Christians are free to believe the resurrection tale, as a matter of their personal faith, but they are over-reaching if they also insist that the rest of us should treat their core beliefs as historical fact given the weakness of the material they rely on to justify thier beliefs. You still seem to confuse belief and fact, hence your thrashing around.
To put a modern spin on it would have been something a hardened atheist could have seen...and passed of as an hallucination or not.
Not really: you need to consider the context of when and where claim originates, in this case in antiquity, in a comparatively less well informed society, where religiosity and religious authority held sway, and where religious narratives had a ready and credulous audience but no opportunity for the type of scrutiny that would happen today.
But of course such claims don't get made today, which is telling.
-
You make little sense, grasshopper: Christians are free to believe the resurrection tale, as a matter of their personal faith, but they are over-reaching if they also insist that the rest of us should treat their core beliefs as historical fact given the weakness of the material they rely on to justify thier beliefs. You still seem to confuse belief and fact, hence your thrashing around.
Not really: you need to consider the context of when and where claim originates, in this case in antiquity, in a comparatively less well informed society, where religiosity and religious authority held sway, and where religious narratives had a ready and credulous audience but no opportunity for the type of scrutiny that would happen today.
But of course such claims don't get made today, which is telling.
Isn't QAnon a similar claim? I don't think today's society is necessarily more clearly informed.
-
They are presented as facts rather than mere beliefs.
So you seem to be arguing that the test for whether something is a historical 'fact' rather than a belief or myth is whether someone presents it as a historical fact :o
Crikey that is the lowest of low bars for evidence and would require you to accept all sorts of pieces of fiction as being historical fact as someone once presented it as such.
-
So you seem to be arguing that the test for whether something is a historical 'fact' rather than a belief or myth is whether someone presents it as a historical fact :o
Crikey that is the lowest of low bars for evidence and would require you to accept all sorts of pieces of fiction as being historical fact as someone once presented it as such.
It's not even a bar. It's not evidence in any sense.
-
I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history. That it really happened and was truly witnessed. You should have realised that I would have thought.
To put a modern spin on it would have been something a hardened atheist could have seen...and passed of as an hallucination or not.
Christians have believed that for sure but that doesn't mean it is true.
-
But the epistles not only present the risen Jesus as history but they even offer a group of witnesses.
No they don't - all that there is is a few evidenceless claims - no corroboration, nothing that would remotely pass any test for credible evidence for a historical fact.
Actually what is in the epistles tells you more about Paul than it does about any historicity around Jesus - it is all about him, down to the climax of the story being Jesus appearing to him. Hmmm.
Also the 'more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time' claim is classic made-up hyperbole. Were that actually to have happened then it is unthinkable that christianity would have failed to gain a foothold in the place and amongst the people around at the time. Yet it didn't - by and large the people who would have been the claimed 500, and those who they'd have certainly told about this astonishing event, largely rejected the notion that Jesus was resurrected.
-
It's not even a bar. It's not evidence in any sense.
I was being charitable.
-
I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history.
So what - in a recent survey 10% of people in the UK think that the Manchester Arena bomb was a hoax.
That it really happened and was truly witnessed.
Yet the people most likely to have 'bought into it' - namely the general populace around the time and place where this was supposed to have happened by and large rejected the claim that Jesus was resurrected. They did not become early christians. And this is, I think, unique amongst major religions. Most gain a foothold in the place where they arose - christianity didn't meaning that the people closest to the events were least likely to believe them.
I bet the people closest to the Manchester Arena bomb are least likely to believe it to be a hoax despite what Richard D Hall (who wasn't there at the time) claims to be the historical facts.
-
So what - in a recent survey 10% of people in the UK think that the Manchester Arena bomb was a hoax. Do keep up Davey Gordon thought the resurrection has always been presented as a ''faith statement'' and not a historic fact. He says no one has taught it as history.
As you are making the link between people who think the Manchester arena was a hoax, then I and the Archbishop of Canterbury should think it's a hoax too......or are you just making a piss poor analogy?
-
This discussion seems to be becoming quite strange.
-
So you seem to be arguing that the test for whether something is a historical 'fact' rather than a belief or myth is whether someone presents it as a historical fact :o
No I'm just saying christianity presents the resurrection as a historical fact.
But if you say it isn't you have to present a concrete copper bottom alternative and you have a burden of proof by making the positive assertion. I think we have established via materialism that if life is dependent on the arrangement of matter than the technology to rearrange dead matter into living matter is not an impossibility. There is also the issue of induction.
-
Isn't QAnon a similar claim? I don't think today's society is necessarily more clearly informed.
QAnon similar to first century Christianity? I fear for your moral compass.....but yes I take your point about modern credulity.
-
It isn't. You haven't evidenced that it is so it can be rejected as as a fact. And that's leaving aside it's a supernatural claim and you've never provided a methodology by which it might be established as such. And again leaves aside that history is methodoligical naturalistic but then you don't even understand that issue.
My God just one brief encounter with Bluehillside and you are turdpolishing Gordon like a good'un.
No one is saying that the resurrection is an established historical fact but that doesn't mean it isn't. Both you and Gordon are saying that absence of robust evidence is robust evidence of absence. Gordon having made a positive assertion has the burden.
You both have a fucking cheek invoking history since you bail out of any historical enquiry far too early and switch to what you personally can handle given your world views.
-
My God just one brief encounter with Bluehillside and you are turdpolishing Gordon like a good'un.
No one is saying that the resurrection is an established historical fact but that doesn't mean it isn't. Both you and Gordon are saying that absence of robust evidence is robust evidence of absence. Gordon having made a positive assertion has the burden.
You both have a fucking cheek invoking history since you bail out of any historical enquiry far too early and switch to what you personally can handle given your world views.
Oh look, Vlad avoiding for the xxxth that he has no method for determing a supernatural claim, and flailing about showing is ignorance of historical methodology.
-
QAnon similar to first century Christianity? I fear for your moral compass.....but yes I take your point about modern credulity.
I fear your understanding of analogy is flawed. There was no moral comparison of QAnon and first century Christianity. You made that up. Possibly by ignorance, of which you have an abundance, possibly by lying, in which you are inveterate.
-
Oh look, Vlad avoiding for the xxxth that he has no method for determing a supernatural claim, and flailing about showing is ignorance of historical methodology.
I pull Gordon up for making a positive assertion and dodging the burden of proof on it and Nearly sane comes in with a massive bit of whataboutery....brilliant.
-
I pull Gordon up for making a positive assertion and dodging the burden of proof on it and Nearly sane comes in with a massive bit of whataboutery....brilliant.
Pointing out that when you are talking about a supernatural claim you have no methodology isn't whataboutery. Your eternal evasion is terminally tedious.
-
I pull Gordon up for making a positive assertion and dodging the burden of proof on it and Nearly sane comes in with a massive bit of whataboutery....brilliant.
You really are tedious, Vlad.
It may be a fact that early Christians, and later ones too, thought that the 'resurrection' actually happened and treated it as historical fact: but that they did so does not turn their belief into historical fact, especially since the claim is an extraodinary and fantastical one. For a claim like that to be substantiated would far require more that the opinions of credulous and possibly partial people in antiquity with an, understandably, limited knowledge of biology - after all, the likes of the discovery of cells (Hooke, 1665) and germ theory (Pasteur, 1861) were centuries in the future.
The link below is a document from the Curriculim for Excellence syllabus that is currently used in Scottish secondary schools - read the section in Chrstianity and you'll find that it mentions 'stories', 'beliefs', 'values' and 'traditions' - doesnt mention anything about beliefs being historical facts!
https://education.gov.scot/Documents/rme-eo.pdf
-
He made a positive assertion that the resurrection was not a historical fact. No attempt at turdpolishing this by you relieves him of the burden of proof.
No. He denied your assertion that it is a historical fact.
Nevertheless his denial has some pretty strong evidence behind it.
1 dead people do not come alive again
2 all of the accounts of the resurrection date from decades after the event
3 none of the accounts are by eye witnesses
Point 1 is so strong that any evidence you want to present must be equivalently strong, but all you have actually got is some stories of unknown providence. If this was any other religion than the one you follow, you'd dismiss the claims without a second thought.
-
No I'm just saying christianity presents the resurrection as a historical fact.
I've seen TV programmes in which the Moon Landing Hoax was presented as historical fact.
I've seen "documentaries" in which fictional pop groups Spinal Tap, Bad News and the Rutles were presented as historical fact.
I watched the BBC's Ghostwatch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwatch), in which ghosts were presented as historical fact (far too successfully, unfortunately).
But if you say it isn't you have to present a concrete copper bottom alternative and you have a burden of proof by making the positive assertion.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. OK, so your evidence isn't zero, but it barely registers given that you are claiming an extraordinary event.
I think we have established via materialism that if life is dependent on the arrangement of matter then the technology to rearrange dead matter into living matter is not an impossibility. There is also the issue of induction.
So it is your claim that Jesus got reanimated by random chance. Interesting interpretation of events. Unfortunately, after a day or too, Jesus' body would have decomposed so far that the random chance of it reassembling itself into a functional human is close enough to impossible that we can dismiss it.
-
Actually what is in the epistles tells you more about Paul than it does about any historicity around Jesus - it is all about him, down to the climax of the story being Jesus appearing to him. Hmmm.
Paul only wrote seven of the epistles (according to most scholars) and there are twenty-one in all. It's not all about him.
That said, Paul's epistles are the only ones that allude to Jesus' real life and they do spend a lot more time describing Paul, his ministry and his travels than they do talking about the life of Jesus. The bit about the 500 and the twelve seeing the resurrected Jesus is now thought to be an earlier creed. I don't know how much earlier, but accepting the christian date of Jesus' death as historical, it had about twenty years to get going before Paul wrote it down. That's plenty of time. A lie can get half way round the World before the truth gets its boots on.
-
If you hadn’t noticed Christians and other faiths denounce some of the views of their co religionists. Disagreement is common in all domains.
I'm not sure if you realise that you're making my point for me or not...
O.
-
No. He denied your assertion that it is a historical fact.
No. He asserted it wasn't then I responded to him challenging him to honour the burden of proof his statement landed him with
Nevertheless his denial has some pretty strong evidence behind it.
alas he needs copper bottom indisputable proof for a positive assertion
1 dead people do not come alive again
You aren't considering the problem of induction here. Also you've compounded the situation by making a positive assertion of your own......You know what you have to do.
2 all of the accounts of the resurrection date from decades after the event
That's true for most history
3 none of the accounts are by eye witnesses
Histories often aren't written by the people who were actually there. If you argue that the authors are unknown then you cannot justify an assertion that they weren't eyewitnesses.
Point 1 is so strong that any evidence you want to present must be equivalently strong, but all you have actually got is some stories of unknown providence. If this was any other religion than the one you follow, you'd dismiss the claims without a second thought.
That is unjustified patronising presumption on your part.
Point 1 is not a historical point it is your opinion. Which you are prepared to put greater store of than an account written 2 millenia nearer to the events described.
-
I've seen TV programmes in which the Moon Landing Hoax was presented as historical fact.
I've seen "documentaries" in which fictional pop groups Spinal Tap, Bad News and the Rutles were presented as historical fact.
I watched the BBC's Ghostwatch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwatch), in which ghosts were presented as historical fact (far too successfully, unfortunately).
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. OK, so your evidence isn't zero, but it barely registers given that you are claiming an extraordinary event.
So it is your claim that Jesus got reanimated by random chance. Interesting interpretation of events. Unfortunately, after a day or too, Jesus' body would have decomposed so far that the random chance of it reassembling itself into a functional human is close enough to impossible that we can dismiss it.
Can't put my finger on it but I think starting with an acknowledged hoax seems to be muddying the waters and/or begging the question.
The defence against your accusation is that the bigger the conspiracy the more rapidly it falls particularly if there are religious and political advantages to exposing it as a hoax.
Let me reiterate my position on this topic
1. History takes us so far...but further than any atheist on this thread is prepared to travel with it before peeling off to their own world view (return from death impossible)
2. The accounts of the resurrection and the encounter with the risen Jesus chime with my own experience.
3. Where history takes us on this is certainly going to leave us all with things that are ''Believe it or not''
4. The earliest christians declared publicly that the resurrection actually took place.
-
No. He asserted it wasn't then I responded to him challenging him to honour the burden of proof his statement landed him
The nonsense continues: you asserted that the 'resurrection' of Jesus was taken as a historical fact by early Christians, and no doubt later ones, and I noted that it isn't accepted as a historical fact and isn't taught as such (see the link in my earlier post) - it seems that only Christian apologists take it seriously.
I declined to accept your assertion, since it is patent nonsense, but then the burden of proof is another thing you don't understand. If it is a fact then you'll have a methodology that will confirm the details of how it actually happened - the CCTV would be handy (provided we check for any technical tampering) - and will resolve any doubts about mistakes, bias or lies.
You probably aren't even aware that in moving from 'faith' to 'fact' in your assertion you are actually undermining the very basis of Christianity (not that I'm unduly bothered if you do).
-
No. He asserted it wasn't then I responded to him challenging him to honour the burden of proof his statement landed him with
What? This is the first time you have ever made the assertion that Jesus' resurrection is historical?
alas he needs copper bottom indisputable proof for a positive assertion
No you don't. You need evidence to swing the balance of probabilities in your favour. Otherwise, nobody would be able to claim anything in the field of history. The problem for you is that dead people don't come alive again which puts the needle hard over on the "it didn't happen side". You therefore need some pretty strong evidence to shift it beyond there 50% mark and you don't have it.
You aren't considering the problem of induction here. Also you've compounded the situation by making a positive assertion of your own......
Please describe in your own words what you think "induction" means in this context and why it might be a problem.
That's true for most history Histories often aren't written by the people who were actually there.
Indeed, and funnily enough, historians will treat such histories with a degree of caution.
If you argue that the authors are unknown then you cannot justify an assertion that they weren't eyewitnesses.
You can if they were written a generation or two after the events and if there is no evidence that they were written by eye witnesses. Looking at the gospels, none of them claim to be eye witness accounts and Luke specifically disclaims it. None of them are written in the first person. The earliest was probably written in the 60's or 70's.
Point 1 is not a historical point it is your opinion.
It's observational fact. There has never been any reliable case of a dead person coming alive again. Not only that but people have observed the effects of death on people and have observed that the brain of somebody who has been dead for two days is well beyond repair.
Which you are prepared to put greater store of than an account written 2 millenia nearer to the events described.
The Iliad was written nearly three millennia nearer the Siege of Troy. Was Achilles really made invulnerable by being dipped in the River Styx?
-
Can't put my finger on it but I think starting with an acknowledged hoax seems to be muddying the waters and/or begging the question.
How do you know the gospel writers weren't starting with an acknowledged hoax?
The defence against your accusation is that the bigger the conspiracy the more rapidly it falls particularly if there are religious and political advantages to exposing it as a hoax.
For decades, virtually nobody in the Roman Empire believed Jesus rose from the dead. It wasn't a big hoax when it started.
1. History takes us so far...but further than any atheist on this thread is prepared to travel with it before peeling off to their own world view (return from death impossible)
2. The accounts of the resurrection and the encounter with the risen Jesus chime with my own experience.
Why are you even trying to argue the historical point then? Why don't you just say "I have my faith" and not engage any further. Why do you have this need to justify the resurrection in purely historical terms? Why does the fact that you can't eat you up so badly.
4. The earliest christians declared publicly that the resurrection actually took place.
So what? People declare publicly that the Moon Landings were fake or that the Earth is flat. It doesn't make them right.
-
Let me reiterate my position on this topic
1. History takes us so far...but further than any atheist on this thread is prepared to travel with it before peeling off to their own world view (return from death impossible)
That you think the resurrection story is established as history is problematic.
2. The accounts of the resurrection and the encounter with the risen Jesus chime with my own experience.
Except that we don't have accounts of the resurrection; we have third or fourth hand claims, selectively edited and then poetically translated from a fundamentally different language and culture.
3. Where history takes us on this is certainly going to leave us all with things that are ''Believe it or not''
History is not a list of absolute facts. It is a series of accounts and claims, and the work of historians is not to just document those claims but to establish the likely veracity of them, determine what (if any) vested interests the claimants might or might not have, whether the accounts are first, second, third-hand or worse. As such, you'll rarely find a serious work of history which attempts to validate the claims of Jesus' resurrection, given the dearth of independent accounts, the questionable provenance of the accounts we do have, and the well-documented tampering with the accounts through their history.
4. The earliest christians declared publicly that the resurrection actually took place.
And the earliest Christians whose accounts we have post-date the events by at least fifty years, are part of an established attempt to foster a new religious cult, and are at best second hand accounts.
O.
-
4. The earliest christians declared publicly that the resurrection actually took place.
Isn't that a circular argument - the very notion that they described themselves as early christians means that, by definition, they likely would have considered that the resurrection took place.
I'm actually interested in the broader opinion of those around at the time and place where this is purported to have happened. And by and large these people did not think the resurrection took place as christianity did not gain any major foothold in mid 1stC Palestine. Broadly christianity was adopted far from its origins involving people who weren't around at the time and in the place. That, I think, is significant as it suggests that those most likely to be influenced by the purported events, if they actually happened, weren't. Which suggest to me that ... err ... they didn't actually happen.
-
Isn't that a circular argument - the very notion that they described themselves as early christians means that, by definition, they likely would have considered that the resurrection took place.
Don't forget that the earliest writings we have about Christianity are those of Paul and they are considered to have been written in the 50's. One of his letters contains a defence of the resurrection, which suggests that not all of the earliest Christians believed Christ was raised.
I'm actually interested in the broader opinion of those around at the time and place where this is purported to have happened. And by and large these people did not think the resurrection took place as christianity did not gain any major foothold in mid 1stC Palestine. Broadly christianity was adopted far from its origins involving people who weren't around at the time and in the place. That, I think, is significant as it suggests that those most likely to be influenced by the purported events, if they actually happened, weren't. Which suggest to me that ... err ... they didn't actually happen.
The vast majority of people in First Century Palestine probably had no idea about Christianity even existing. They probably would have had no opinion on the resurrection, having not heard of Jesus. Paul claims there was a Christian community in Jerusalem but he doesn't say how big it was and it probably ceased to exist when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70.
-
Don't forget that the earliest writings we have about Christianity are those of Paul and they are considered to have been written in the 50's. One of his letters contains a defence of the resurrection, which suggests that not all of the earliest Christians believed Christ was raised.
But those people wouldn't have been christian as we understand it now - they'd have been a jewish sect that saw Jesus as an important teacher, a prophet, but not the messiah.
-
The vast majority of people in First Century Palestine probably had no idea about Christianity even existing. They probably would have had no opinion on the resurrection, having not heard of Jesus. Paul claims there was a Christian community in Jerusalem but he doesn't say how big it was and it probably ceased to exist when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70.
Well that depends upon whether you believe the hyperbole in the new testament or not. But my point is 'if' you accept the claims of witnesses in the NT then you actually undermine their credibility, as they suggest hundreds of people to have been eye witnesses to an astonishing miracle, yet christianity didn't gain a foothold. Something doesn't add up.
And reading the stories in the NT Jesus wasn't just teaching to two men and a dog, but literally thousands of people who made the effort to come and see him. Despite some non-sense exaggeration I suspect the population of Jerusalem and Palestine would have been pretty small in those days so thousands of witnesses would have represented a small, but sizeable chunk of the population, sufficient to garner a head of steam through word of mouth. Yet the early christians in Palestine remained a tiny, obscure and largely ignored group - the the majority continuing not to believe in their claims, despite having been the very populace around at the time when all those miracles, including the resurrection were purported to have happened.
-
But those people wouldn't have been christian as we understand it now - they'd have been a jewish sect that saw Jesus as an important teacher, a prophet, but not the messiah.
No I think you are just taking this of the top of your head now.
There were those who saw Jesus as you have described https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites , there were those who followed the teachings of the apostles and the destination of the epistles tells us that the Christian communities were international. To say the messiah bit came later is you putting a one size history (which let's face it,in your hands is just customised Science ) fits all and could be construed as a bit of ultradarwinianism. Where everything that is has to have evolved.
You don't strike me as having a very extensive grounding in history...GCSE?
Having said that the person I would really like to hear from is Anchorman who is strangely silent.
-
The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader. They had the body. All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their own lives. Job done.
So what happened?
A momentous event which changed the course of human history. It defined the datum from which history is measured. It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were. The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection. The rest is history.
Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks. And we would not be in the year 2022. It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority. Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.
-
Why are you even trying to argue the historical point then?
To reiterate. All I am interested here is that Gordon made a positive assertion...The resurrection is not a historical fact and is dodging his obligation to justify this. And you are making excuses for him in frankly a naked display of tribalism
It is not only a faith statement. Remember the claim God resurrected Jesus also contains the claim that Jesus came back from the dead.
It also seems eminently falsifiable so not a faith statement.
I happen to believe the epistoliary accounts of Jesus resurrection but as I have said repeatedly history here only takes us so far but further than atheists are willing to go.
-
To reiterate. All I am interested here is that Gordon made a positive assertion...The resurrection is not a historical fact and is dodging his obligation to justify this.
The claim that the 'resurrection is a historical fact is yours: not mine - so which secular history department(s) or historians can you cite that teaches that the 'resurrection' is a fact? I've already posted a link to show you that the syllabus for schools in Scotland does not use the term 'fact' at all - maybe you missed it, or are ignoring it.
The notion that because some early Christians are reported to have believed that the 'resurrection' tale was factually true thereby makes it a historical fact for all time is sheer idiocy.
-
The claim that the 'resurrection is a historical fact is yours: not mine - so which secular history department(s) or historians can you cite that teaches that the 'resurrection' is a fact? I've already posted a link to show you that the syllabus for schools in Scotland does not use the term 'fact' at all - maybe you missed it, or are ignoring it.
The notion that because some early Christians are reported to have believed that the 'resurrection' tale was factually true thereby makes it a historical fact for all time is sheer idiocy.
No my claim is more complex. History takes us so far but certainly not to the statement you made...an emphatic "The resurrection is not historical fact".
Whether I made the claim or didn't is irrelevant in any case you ade the positive assertion. In fact you also asserted that it was a myth and a story.It seems I have to wait in vain for historical proof of that.
If you can find a statement from me where I have said it is a historical fact rather than I believe it to be a historical fact you would do well to declare it's location.
You would also do well to switch from it not being a historical fact to you "believing" it is not a historical fact.
-
No my claim is more complex. History takes us so far but certainly not to the statement you made...an emphatic "The resurrection is not historical fact".
And I've posted a document that show that the 'resurrection' claim is not taught as fact - so read it. The only 'history' you have is what it is said early Christians believed - and if you want to claim this 'resurrection' as historical fact you'd better explain the process using a suitable methodology that turns their belief into historical facts.
Whether I made the claim or didn't is irrelevant in any case you ade the positive assertion. In fact you also asserted that it was a myth and a story.It seems I have to wait in vain for historical proof of that.
Evading again I see. This might surprise you, Vlad - but myths don't have historical proofs, which tends to indentify them as myth/legend/exaggeration - else please say hello to Neptune for me next time you go for a swim in the sea.
If you can find a statement from me where I have said it is a historical fact rather than I believe it to be a historical fact you would do well to declare it's location.
You claim that early Christians accepted it as historical fact - so, lets cut to the chase here - do you believe the 'resurrection' claim is historical fact? If not, then why not, and if so then how do you justify your position?
You would also do well to switch from it not being a historical fact to you "believing" it is not a historical fact.
Yoir idiocy is boundless it seems - I reject the notion of historical fact because there is no robust evidence to support the notion that the claim is factual and since outside the thrashing around of Christian apologists it isn't taught as historical fact in schools, as I've demonstrated.
Your are the only person I've ever come across with the ability to simultaneously paint yourself into every available corner.
-
No I think you are just taking this of the top of your head now.
There were those who saw Jesus as you have described https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites , there were those who followed the teachings of the apostles and the destination of the epistles tells us that the Christian communities were international. To say the messiah bit came later is you putting a one size history (which let's face it,in your hands is just customised Science ) fits all and could be construed as a bit of ultradarwinianism. Where everything that is has to have evolved.
Which was rather my point - although I tend not to talk about the specifics of the sects who didn't accept Jesus to be resurrected (for the reasons I will elaborate below), but to focus on the fact that very few of the people around at the time and place where this was supposed to have happened did accept it. By and large those people most likely to be early 'believers' (those around at the time and place) did not believe.
You don't strike me as having a very extensive grounding in history...GCSE?
Err yes, but as an academic I have training in the assessment of source material, which although I'm not an academic historian can readily be applied to a different field. In other word how to assess the quality and strength of a piece of source material. My son has just completed a history degree (achieved a very strong first and one of the highest marks in his dissertation) and I helped him to consider how to assess his sources.
But - and here is the nub - you mention the Ebonites - so let's look as the strength of the information on them from an academic historical perspective. Strong? Weak? Well we know nothing about them directly, everything we know comes from secondary sources, and those sources tend to be groups with a vested interest in not reporting on them objectively - hence the description of them as heretical. So we are relying on so-called early church fathers. So are they contemporary? Nope - the earliest of the early church fathers were around decades later.
But that's OK, we have what they wrote. Err, nope, in most cases we don't have anything they wrote, we have much later again (2-4thC) reports of what they wrote or centuries later copies that are likely to have been highly doctored and interpolated as they come from the era in history when the 'official' history of early christianity was being settled.
So from a historical perspective the sources we have for the Ebonites is very, very weak. As indeed it is for the whole historicity of Jesus, where information is exceptionally weak or totally non-existent. Which is why studies tend not to be consider academically to be 'history' but a different discipline all together 'bible studies', 'divinity' etc.
-
The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader. They had the body. All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their own lives. Job done.
So what happened?
A momentous event which changed the course of human history. It defined the datum from which history is measured. It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were. The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection. The rest is history.
Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks. And we would not be in the year 2022. It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority. Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.
Any evidence that the Roman and Jewish authorities tried to find evidence to falsify the claim? What is the evidence that most of the followers were executed for spreading 'the word'? Even if they were that just means they had a belief for which they were willing to die for - not that uncommon in history sadly.
To be honest, where is the evidence for your first paragraph? This is the story in the Gospels but we don't know who wrote them - they record events in the third person and don't claim to have been present at the events mentioned but they would have been written down decades after the events. They are records of stories which circulated orally amongst early Christians. We can't take any of them as necessarily factual without evidence which can be objectively verified.
The only fact is that Christianity grew and became a world wide religion and that is evidence for belief not that the events actually happened.
-
Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks. And we would not be in the year 2022. It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority. Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.
But all this tells you is that people continue to 'believe' the story - it tells us nothing about whether the story is actually true, whether it was a historical fact.
But for the sake of arguments let's assume that the continuation of a belief provides evidence that the belief is true. Were that to be the case then you'd need to also accept that the faith claims of other religions are true, given that there are still people who believe, and in many cases that continuation of belief has lasted much longer than 2000 years. And so you'd need to accept the faith claims of muslims and hindus and buddhists etc etc ... and Jews, including their rather more long-lasting claim that they are still waiting for the messiah and that Jesus was not the messiah nor was resurrected.
So your argument leads you to be required to accept as fact that Jesus was the messiah and was resurrected, and also that Jesus was not the messiah and was not resurrected :o
-
And I've posted a document that show that the 'resurrection' claim is not taught as fact - so read it. The only 'history' you have is what it is said early Christians believed - and if you want to claim this 'resurrection' as historical fact you'd better explain the process using a suitable methodology that turns their belief into historical facts.
Evading again I see. This might surprise you, Vlad - but myths don't have historical proofs, which tends to indentify them as myth/legend/exaggeration - else please say hello to Neptune for me next time you go for a swim in the sea.
You claim that early Christians accepted it as historical fact - so, lets cut to the chase here - do you believe the 'resurrection' claim is historical fact? If not, then why not, and if so then how do you justify your position?
Yoir idiocy is boundless it seems - I reject the notion of historical fact because there is no robust evidence to support the notion that the claim is factual and since outside the thrashing around of Christian apologists it isn't taught as historical fact in schools, as I've demonstrated.
Your are the only person I've ever come across with the ability to simultaneously paint yourself into every available corner.
There is much that is non sequitur here.
I haven't made any bones about believing the resurrection to have actually happened.
The issue seems to be your confusion about what anyone knows and what anyone believes.
A common mistake in those whose atheism is pathological.
-
The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader. They had the body. All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their
own lives. Job done.
So what happened?
A momentous event which changed the course of human history. It defined the datum from which history is measured. It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were. The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection. The rest is history.
Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks. And we would not be in the year 2022. It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority. Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.
The story could be utterly false in factual terms but still have societal consequences, especially where it became linked with political power.
There is no evidence that either the Roman or Jewish authorities saw the reported demise of Jesus as being of any great significance at the time, and survivorship bias does not imply that the NT stories and anecdotes are true beyond the trivial (such as there is a place called Jerusalem).
-
There is much that is non sequitur here.
I haven't made any bones about believing the resurrection to have actually happened.
The issue seems to be your confusion about what anyone knows and what anyone believes.
A common mistake in those whose atheism is pathological.
You wouldn't know a non sequitur if you tripped over one!
So, if you believe the resurrection actually happened is your belief a matter of fact or a matter of faith?
-
Which was rather my point - although I tend not to talk about the specifics of the sects who didn't accept Jesus to be resurrected (for the reasons I will elaborate below), but to focus on the fact that very few of the people around at the time and place where this was supposed to have happened did accept it. By and large those people most likely to be early 'believers' (those around at the time and place) did not believe.
Err yes, but as an academic I have training in the assessment of source material, which although I'm not an academic historian can readily be applied to a different field. In other word how to assess the quality and strength of a piece of source material. My son has just completed a history degree (achieved a very strong first and one of the highest marks in his dissertation) and I helped him to consider how to assess his sources.
But - and here is the nub - you mention the Ebonites - so let's look as the strength of the information on them from an academic historical perspective. Strong? Weak? Well we know nothing about them directly, everything we know comes from secondary sources, and those sources tend to be groups with a vested interest in not reporting on them objectively - hence the description of them as heretical. So we are relying on so-called early church fathers. So are they contemporary? Nope - the earliest of the early church fathers were around decades later.
But that's OK, we have what they wrote. Err, nope, in most cases we don't have anything they wrote, we have much later again (2-4thC) reports of what they wrote or centuries later copies that are likely to have been highly doctored and interpolated as they come from the era in history when the 'official' history of early christianity was being settled.
So from a historical perspective the sources we have for the Ebonites is very, very weak. As indeed it is for the whole historicity of Jesus, where information is exceptionally weak or totally non-existent. Which is why studies tend not to be consider academically to be 'history' but a different discipline all together 'bible studies', 'divinity' etc.
No it was you who mentioned the ebionites and indeed suggested that the early Christian Church was ebionite in nature.
And if I have it right, you are now suggesting that they may not have been a thing. If as you suggested the early church was ebonite they would hardly consider themselves as heretical would they. Apostolic christianity also at that time was not some kind of huge magisterial that could squash doctrinal dissent anyway.
I thought you might be a GCSE man. I'm a "history boy" having passed A Level history. I didn't do it at degree level but my degree dissertation was supervised by the history department .
-
No it was you who mentioned the ebionites and indeed suggested that the early Christian Church was ebionite in nature.
And if I have it right, you are now suggesting that they may not have been a thing. If as you suggested the early church was ebonite they would hardly consider themselves as heretical would they. Apostolic christianity also at that time was not some kind of huge magisterial that could squash doctrinal dissent anyway.
I thought you might be a GCSE man. I'm a "history boy" having passed A Level history. I didn't do it at degree level but my degree dissertation was supervised by the history department .
https://youtu.be/NK5-2fPyCjA
-
But all this tells you is that people continue to 'believe' the story - it tells us nothing about whether the story is actually true, whether it was a historical fact.
But for the sake of arguments let's assume that the continuation of a belief provides evidence that the belief is true. Were that to be the case then you'd need to also accept that the faith claims of other religions are true, given that there are still people who believe, and in many cases that continuation of belief has lasted much longer than 2000 years. And so you'd need to accept the faith claims of muslims and hindus and buddhists etc etc ... and Jews, including their rather more long-lasting claim that they are still waiting for the messiah and that Jesus was not the messiah nor was resurrected.
So your argument leads you to be required to accept as fact that Jesus was the messiah and was resurrected, and also that Jesus was not the messiah and was not resurrected :o
There is a profound difference between the spread of faiths of other religions and Christianity.
From what I know, the propagation of other faiths were not ignited by such a miraculous event as the resurrection of Jesus, son of God.
From the NT, it is clear that the early disciples, (most of whom were fishermen), were inspired not only by knowledge of the resurrection, but by the power of the Holy Spirit as celebrated in the great feast of Pentecost.
-
There is a profound difference between the spread of faiths of other religions and Christianity.
From what I know, the propagation of other faiths were not ignited by such a miraculous event as the resurrection of Jesus, son of God.
From the NT, it is clear that the early disciples, (most of whom were fishermen), were inspired not only by knowledge of the resurrection, but by the power of the Holy Spirit as celebrated in the great feast of Pentecost.
The NT was written decades after the event by people who believed Jesus was the Son of God and had been resurrected. Where is the supporting evidence for the stories told?
-
There is a profound difference between the spread of faiths of other religions and Christianity.
Which is what?
From what I know, the propagation of other faiths were not ignited by such a miraculous event as the resurrection of Jesus, son of God.
Muslims will point to Mohammed's ascension without dying, as I understand it. Hindus have their own 'miracles', religions that died off long ago had their stories of magic and wonder - Christianity does not appear much different in this regard.
From the NT, it is clear that the early disciples, (most of whom were fishermen), were inspired not only by knowledge of the resurrection, but by the power of the Holy Spirit as celebrated in the great feast of Pentecost.
From the New Testament - all of which was written at least decades after the event, and then was selectively truncated much later to remove 'unorthodox' content. The New Testament is not a particularly robust historical work, and certainly not of the period it claims to be telling the story of.
O.
-
The NT was written decades after the event by people who believed Jesus was the Son of God and had been resurrected. Where is the supporting evidence for the stories told?
I'm not sure I would put the epistles in the category of storytelling. They are more like the memos of the early church often taking for granted the existence of an orthodoxy. It provides a snapshot set of how the Church is doing and the issues it is dealing with at the time.
-
I'm not sure I would put the epistles in the category of storytelling. They are more like the memos of the early church often taking for granted the existence of an orthodoxy. It provides a snapshot set of how the Church is doing and the issues it is dealing with at the time.
Yes, that's true.
-
You wouldn't know a non sequitur if you tripped over one!
So, if you believe the resurrection actually happened is your belief a matter of fact or a matter of faith?
In terms of belief I believe my encounter and subsequent experience with Christ to be a matter of fact. As far as history goes and in the light of my experience where it is shared by first century Christians I believe intellectually on balance that it confirms the resurrection as having happened. This is reinforced by inadequate alternative history on the part of those objecting.
-
In terms of belief I believe my encounter and subsequent experience with Christ to be a matter of fact. As far as history goes and in the light of my experience where it is shared by first century Christians I believe intellectually on balance that it confirms the resurrection as having happened.
Then it's a faith belief you have - since you have no facts, and even if your experience felt very real to you it existed only within the confines of your skull unless you can demonstrate some fact(s) about your experience that are external to you - I'd say that what you felt may be akin to a vivid dream, and is equally subjective but can feel very real - you'd have to exclude this risk of course before claiming your experience as 'fact'.
This is reinforced by inadequate alternative history on the part of those objecting.
Again you don't understand that the burden of proof is yours alone and that those objecting (like me) are not obliged to provide any kind of 'alternative history', which seems like an invitation to just make stuff up.
Take, for example, that possible risk that the 'resurrection' claim is fictitious propaganda for Jesus by his fans (and note that I'm not claiming it is) - how does one propose an 'alternative history' to something that may not be historical in the first place, aside from making more stuff up that is.
-
But those people wouldn't have been christian as we understand it now
A lot of people at the time who called themselves Christians didn't adhere to what is now canonical doctrine. We only see them now through Paul's eyes.
-
Well that depends upon whether you believe the hyperbole in the new testament or not. But my point is 'if' you accept the claims of witnesses in the NT then you actually undermine their credibility, as they suggest hundreds of people to have been eye witnesses to an astonishing miracle, yet christianity didn't gain a foothold. Something doesn't add up.
Well, first of all, the hundreds of witnesses is clearly made up.
Secondly, Christianity did gain a foothold. In fact, it's still here.
If you are trying to base an argument on Christianity not being popular in Palestine, it doesn't work because, as Paul tells us, there was a church in Palestine. There's no reason to believe Christianity was any less popular there than in Corinth or Rome.
And reading the stories in the NT Jesus wasn't just teaching to two men and a dog, but literally thousands of people who made the effort to come and see him.
Stories written forty years later by people who were Christians and who wanted to spread Christianity.
Despite some non-sense exaggeration I suspect the population of Jerusalem and Palestine would have been pretty small in those days
Have you done any research to find out how big the population was in the first century? This link might be a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem#1st_century_Judea
I think we can probably safely assume there were a few hundred thousand people in the area in which Jesus operated.
As for "non-sense [sic] exaggeration", Tacitus and Josephus both seem to have exaggerated their figures by an order of magnitude. Has it not occurred to you that the Gospel authors could easily have done the same?
so thousands of witnesses would have represented a small, but sizeable chunk of the population, sufficient to garner a head of steam through word of mouth. Yet the early christians in Palestine remained a tiny, obscure and largely ignored group - the the majority continuing not to believe in their claims, despite having been the very populace around at the time when all those miracles, including the resurrection were purported to have happened.
I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Christians everywhere were a tiny, obscure and largely ignored group for a couple of decades after Jesus died. There was a church in Jerusalem during the time Paul was operating and even he seems to consider that it was the centre of the Christian world. Its disappearance is easily explained by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE by the Romans.
-
The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader. They had the body. All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their own lives. Job done.
It's unlikely that they did have the body. As an executed criminal, Jesus would have been tossed in a mass grave. Chances are that, by the time Christianity had become popular enough to become a threat, nobody knew where the body was and, if they did, it wouldn't have been recognisable.
So what happened?
A momentous event which changed the course of human history. It defined the datum from which history is measured. It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were. The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection. The rest is history.
Do you have any evidence that they even looked for evidence? I don't know if you were aware but Pilate's MO did not really involve careful weighing of evidence. He was considered quite brutal even by the Romans.
Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks. And we would not be in the year 2022. It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority. Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.
Do you agree that Joseph Smith made up all the stuff about the Book of Mormon? If so, shouldn't it have been easy to quash all traces of Mormonism?
I'll remind you that this discussion is taking place in the science and technology section. You need evidence, not stories.
-
Then it's a faith belief you have - since you have no facts, and even if your experience felt very real to you it existed only within the confines of your skull unless you can demonstrate some fact(s) about your experience that are external to you - I'd say that what you felt may be akin to a vivid dream, and is equally subjective but can feel very real - you'd have to exclude this risk of course before claiming your experience as 'fact'.
Again you don't understand that the burden of proof is yours alone and that those objecting (like me) are not obliged to provide any kind of 'alternative history', which seems like an invitation to just make stuff up.
Take, for example, that possible risk that the 'resurrection' claim is fictitious propaganda for Jesus by his fans (and note that I'm not claiming it is) - how does one propose an 'alternative history' to something that may not be historical in the first place, aside from making more stuff up that is.
Gordon, you asked me what I believed and I told you and you are now accusing me of making belief statements.
I think that would go down as entrapment.
As I have pointed out you have problems telling the difference between beliefs and knowledge.
We only have the evidence of the documents of the church and of the early Christian communities which are of a commensurate historical nature of other ancient data. In fact much Christian documentation is closer to events than that for universally accepted history. Historical documentation contradicting the Christian claim or for it being a hoax is lacking.
So any objections cannot be primarily historical.
When you positively assert it is myth and stories therefore you cannot and have never been able to establish the truth of your positive statement that the resurrection is not historical fact but myth and story.
As for me I have never said there was any more evidence than what there is.
Any dismissal by you is based on your own world view I.e.a faith position.
-
Again you don't understand that the burden of proof is yours alone and that those objecting (like me) are not obliged to provide any kind of 'alternative history', which seems like an invitation to just make stuff up.
No, you have the burden of proof by positively asserting the resurrection is not a historical fact and you have an extra burden since you have said it was myth and story.
-
No, you have the burden of proof by positively asserting the resurrection is not a historical fact and you have an extra burden since you have said it was myth and story.
Give it up, Vlad - you sheer stupidy is wearing.
It isn't a historical fact, since if it were you could present the methods used to factually confirm that a dead man didn't stay dead.
-
Give it up, Vlad - you sheer stupidy is wearing.
It isn't a historical fact,
He's done it again!
-
He's done it again!
Yep - I'm rejecting your idiotic assertion because you've failed to substantiate it (that the 'resurrection' is historical fact) - maybe you can cite a secular historian or historical work that refers to the 'resurrection' as historical fact: I doubt you'll find one.
You can wriggle all you like but the burden of proof is yours - and I've already shown you one example of religious education that does not use the term 'fact' in relation to the stories and traditions of Christianity.
Since you can't demonstrate the 'fact' bit I'm free to reject the notion out of hand.
-
He's done it again!
What?
Stated the bleeding obvious?
It's a historical fact that there are a number of stories about the resurrection that almost certainly date from the 1st century. But there's no reason to believe they are true.
-
It's a historical fact that there are a number of stories about the resurrection that almost certainly date from the 1st century.
Yes, I think history takes us a bit further to say communities were formed around a genuine belief that this happened But there's no reason to believe they are true.
I disagree. I think that depends on your own worldview or belief set.
-
Yes, I think history takes us a bit further to say communities were formed around a genuine belief that this happened I disagree. I think that depends on your own worldview or belief set.
Clearer following the edit.
I would say that generally just because people believe something happened it doesn't mean it did, regardless of what it was. The resurrection is just one such situation but one which has greater significance to people's life than other things in history.
-
Yes, I think history takes us a bit further to say communities were formed around a genuine belief that this happened
'Genuine belief' among certain communities is not the same thing as 'established fact' though: it seems you are struggling with this.
I disagree. I think that depends on your own worldview or belief set.
Nope - for beliefs to be considered as facts/knowledge there needs to be justification that both fits the nature of the belief (some kind of suitable methodology) and that also takes into account the risks of human artifice.
-
For something to be seen as an historical fact you ideally need multiple independent verifiable sources about it. This isn't the case with the resurrection. Historians do talk about what is most likely to have happened, based on the available evidence, and so a position that early followers of Jesus came to believe he had been resurrected is reasonable but beyond that historians cannot make a judgement as there is no direct evidence, only supposition (that for people to have believed it must have been true).
-
For something to be seen as an historical fact you ideally need multiple independent verifiable sources about it. This isn't the case with the resurrection. Historians do talk about what is most likely to have happened, based on the available evidence, and so a position that early followers of Jesus came to believe he had been resurrected is reasonable but beyond that historians cannot make a judgement as there is no direct evidence, only supposition (that for people to have believed it must have been true).
I'm not sure a historian would agree on the notion of independent witness, so I go with the term of historical fact as something which actually occurred. Historians are not scientists since there is an unrepeatability about historical events.
We are then down to best evidence and interpretation and here
Modern atheist or scientismatists clearly show more bias in what they accept as evidence and how they interpret.
Going back to my definition of fact. None of us were there at that pont in history so unless you can demonstrate impossibility....improbability is the best you can hope for.
-
I'm not sure a historian would agree on the notion of independent witness, so I go with the term of historical fact as something which actually occurred.
Hopeless - to determine that something occurred you need supporting evidence to scrutinise, which includes witness statements - I suspect that most if not all historian would see independent witnesses as valuable - remember the 'scrutinise' bit though for witness can be mistaken and can lie.
Historians are not scientists since there is an unrepeatability about historical events.
You are confusing yourself -whereas some events aren't repeatable, so we can't re-run, say, the Battle of Trafalgar, we can look to replicate how certain things worked, such as weapons or recipes from history.
We are then down to best evidence and interpretation and here
Evidence and 'interpretation' are not the same thing though.
Modern atheist or scientismatists clearly show more bias in what they accept as evidence and how they interpret.
You mean that some of us are more sceptical than we are gullible.
Going back to my definition of fact. None of us were there at that pont in history so unless you can demonstrate impossibility....improbability is the best you can hope for.
Nope - some things really are impossible as far as we are aware, and 3-day dead people (who were genuinely dead) don't recover from death - ask your local undertaker.
-
Oh, Gordon's post has reminded me, I forgot to add historians actually read the evidence.
-
Oh, Gordon's post has reminded me, I forgot to add historians actually read the evidence.
and are methodologically naturalists so the concept of evidence does not apply to supernatural claims. Therefore by your own position in using the study of history as your method, you exclude the claim of a resurrection from it.
-
and are methodologically naturalists so the concept of evidence does not apply to supernatural claims. Therefore by your own position in using the study of history as your method, you exclude the claim of a resurrection from it.
If they are some kind of Methodological naturalist then they will methodological physicalists also therefore a physical resurrection comes under there remit and the New testament suggests a physical resurrection.
-
I'm not sure a historian would agree on the notion of independent witness, so I go with the term of historical fact as something which actually occurred. Historians are not scientists since there is an unrepeatability about historical events.
We are then down to best evidence and interpretation and here
Modern atheist or scientismatists clearly show more bias in what they accept as evidence and how they interpret.
Going back to my definition of fact. None of us were there at that point in history so unless you can demonstrate impossibility....improbability is the best you can hope for.
They would consider that ideally, which is what I said. In the absence of independent sources the likelihood of accepting something as an historical fact is reduced.
I don't think you can define something as a fact just because you can't disprove it. You can say something is more likely to have happened or not based on the evidence.
No idea what a scientistmatists is - but clearly people form opinions based on their own interpretation of things but that doesn't mean anyone's interpretation is a fact. That requires evidence.
I'm not saying that the resurrection didn't happen because I can't demonstrate that but I don't think there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it did. I'm not going to believe something based on reports written down decades after the events and on the fact that other people believe. To believe it I would need evidence that Jesus died and was seen again alive several days later. I don't know of any contemporary evidence of that - only later reports/stories written by those with a belief that Jesus was God incarnate.
-
Oh, Gordon's post has reminded me, I forgot to add historians actually read the evidence.
I've read a lot on the topic. What evidence are you referring too other than the NT?
-
If they are some kind of Methodological naturalist then they will methodological physicalists also therefore a physical resurrection comes under there remit and the New testament suggests a physical resurrection.
Nope, it's a supernatural claim. It falls outside of methodological naturalism.
-
They would consider that ideally, which is what I said. In the absence of independent sources the likelihood of accepting something as an historical fact is reduced.
I don't think you can define something as a fact just because you can't disprove it. You can say something is more likely to have happened or not based on the evidence.
No idea what a scientistmatists is - but clearly people form opinions based on their own interpretation of things but that doesn't mean anyone's interpretation is a fact. That requires evidence.
I'm not saying that the resurrection didn't happen because I can't demonstrate that but I don't think there is sufficient evidence for me to believe it did. I'm not going to believe something based on reports written down decades after the events and on the fact that other people believe. To believe it I would need evidence that Jesus died and was seen again alive several days later. I don't know of any contemporary evidence of that - only later reports/stories written by those with a belief that Jesus was God incarnate.
The concept of evidence as defined by the study of history does not apply to a supernatural claim such as the resurrection.
-
The concept of evidence as defined by the study of history does not apply to a supernatural claim such as the resurrection.
Evidence that Jesus died and then was seen later alive would be evidence he came back from the dead but not how that happened - but history can't really provide that evidence I agree.
-
Evidence that Jesus died and then was seen later alive would be evidence he came back from the dead but not how that happened - but history can't really provide that evidence I agree.
No, if there is a supernatural ckaim, history cannot study it. You can have evidence that someone was thought to be dead, and then it was established that they were not. Since the study of history is methodological naturalistic the conclusion is either that the reports of their death were greatly exaggerated, or that some naturalistic method of revivification that was not understood had been used. Miracle/supernatural claims are about a suspension of all the assumptions on which the study of history is based.
-
No, if there is a supernatural ckaim, history cannot study it. You can have evidence that someone was thought to be dead, and then it was established that they were not. Since the study of history is methodological naturalistic the conclusion is either that the reports of their death were greatly exaggerated, or that some naturalistic method of revivification that was not understood had been used. Miracle/supernatural claims are about a suspension of all the assumptions on which the study of history is based.
Yes.
-
No, if there is a supernatural ckaim, history cannot study it. You can have evidence that someone was thought to be dead, and then it was established that they were not. Since the study of history is methodological naturalistic the conclusion is either that the reports of their death were greatly exaggerated, or that some naturalistic method of revivification that was not understood had been used. Miracle/supernatural claims are about a suspension of all the assumptions on which the study of history is based.
I think you are burdening us with your definitions of supernatural and methodology.
The supernatural claim is that God raised him from the dead. The physical claim is that Jesus returned from the dead.
Can there be a natural materialistic explanation for this? Well yes there can, rather like say, a virgin birth could be explained by advanced cloning techniques.
I think you are taking the impossibility line by the back door.
Finally, I'm approaching history as whatever happened and arbitrarily limiting history to repeatable events within an empiricism isn't the ticket.
-
I think you are burdening us with your definitions of supernatural and methodology.
The supernatural claim is that God raised him from the dead. The physical claim is that Jesus returned from the dead.
Can there be a natural materialistic explanation for this? Well yes there can, rather like say, a virgin birth could be explained by advanced cloning techniques.
I think you are taking the impossibility line by the back door.
Finally, I'm approaching history as whatever happened and arbitrarily limiting history to repeatable events within an empiricism isn't the ticket.
Nope. The claim to a resurrection is not that Jesus was from a sufficiently advanced civilisation. You are just showing your ignorance of both the study of history, and indeed an ignorance of the theology of Christianity which is where the 'impossibility' idea arises from.
This isn't about repeatability, and nothing in my post relates to that.
-
Nope. The claim to a resurrection is not that Jesus was from a sufficiently advanced civilisation. You are just showing your ignorance of both the study of history, and indeed an ignorance of the theology of Christianity which is where the 'impossibility' idea arises from.
This isn't about repeatability, and nothing in my post relates to that.
There are two claims here a physically resurrected person. And God did it.
An advanced civilisation is not mooted but an advanced technology, technology in the simplest sense of technique, seems necessary in the case of a resurrection.....although you could dispense with advanced whatever by suggesting this is a fluke natural event I suppose.
You are though turning historians into scientists .....it seems. On what warrant. Citations please for history being methodologically and arbitrarily naturalist.
-
There are two claims here a physically resurrected person. And God did it.
An advanced civilisation is not mooted but an advanced technology, technology in the simplest sense of technique, seems necessary in the case of a resurrection.....although you could dispense with advanced whatever by suggesting this is a fluke natural event I suppose.
You are though turning historians into scientists .....it seems. On what warrant. Citations please for history being methodologically and arbitrarily naturalist.
Just to be clear I am talking about the study of history being methodologically naturalistic. You seem to use history/study of history as occasionally interchangeable and occasionally different. Given your excerable prose, it's impossible to tell if that is because you are being ignorant, lying, can't write clearly, or some combination of the 3.
As for citation on the study of history being methodologically naturalistic, I'll cite all courses at UK universities.
Of course, to evaluate any supernatural claim you would need a suitable methodology. I am not aware of any, and desite me asking you for one, many hundreds of times, you have provided none.
-
Tell me, Vlad, if somebody told you they had seen a ghost, and if you regarded this person as being sincere, would that be enough for you to conclude that ghosts existed?
-
Just to be clear I am talking about the study of history being methodologically naturalistic. You seem to use history/study of history as occasionally interchangeable and occasionally different. Given your excerable prose, it's impossible to tell if that is because you are being ignorant, lying, can't write clearly, or some combination of the 3.
As for citation on the study of history being methodologically naturalistic, I'll cite all courses at UK universities.
Of course, to evaluate any supernatural claim you would need a suitable methodology. I am not aware of any, and desite me asking you for one, many hundreds of times, you have provided none.
And you seem to have an issue sorting physical claims from supernatural claims. This is an intellectual difficulty on your part.
In terms of equating history with science which you stubbornly refuse to move away from I'm pretty sure that if universities succumbed to your interpretation they could save money by the combination.
SO to recap a resurrected person is a physical claim.
God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim.
-
SO to recap a resurrected person is a physical claim.
God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim.
So - you say that the 'resurrection' claim has two elements: the physical and the supernatural. Therefore, and putting the physical to one side for now, what specific methods would be suited to investigating the supernatural bit of the claim?
-
And you seem to have an issue sorting physical claims from supernatural claims. This is an intellectual difficulty on your part.
In terms of equating history with science which you stubbornly refuse to move away from I'm pretty sure that if universities succumbed to your interpretation they could save money by the combination.
SO to recap a resurrected person is a physical claim.
God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim.
You not having a method for your supernatural claim is your problem.
-
So - you say that the 'resurrection' claim has two elements: the physical and the supernatural. Therefore, and putting the physical to one side for now, what specific methods would be suited to investigating the supernatural bit of the claim?
Another topic which I will gladly discuss with you on another thread. If only to stop such a diversion from what sort of claim the resurrection is, appearing like a turdpolish...
Will it be you who starts the new thread?
-
Another topic which I will gladly discuss with you on another thread. If only to stop such a diversion from what sort of claim the resurrection is, appearing like a turdpolish...
Will it be you who starts the new thread?
More evasion from you.
-
You not having a method for your supernatural claim is your problem.
I don't find my inability to satisfy you to be any kind of a problem for me.
-
Another topic which I will gladly discuss with you on another thread. If only to stop such a diversion from what sort of claim the resurrection is, appearing like a turdpolish...
Will it be you who starts the new thread?
Which is code for: a) you don't have a basis to support your spurious claims of supernatural agency (and those of the religion you subscribe to), and b) you'd rather indulge in some goal-post moving as a diversion, albeit a failed one. More naunced Christians would tend to have avoided the hole you dug for yourself, and well before you then decided to jump in.
Your easy way out now is to concede that your belief that the 'resurrection' actually happened is a faith-based one and not a historical fact - that way your struggle against reality will be over, and we'll leave you to it!
-
Which is code for: a) you don't have a basis to support your spurious claims of supernatural agency (and those of the religion you subscribe to), and b) you'd rather indulge in some goal-post moving as a diversion, albeit a failed one. More naunced Christians would tend to have avoided the hole you dug for yourself, and well before you then decided to jump in.
Your easy way out now is to concede that your belief that the 'resurrection' actually happened is a faith-based one and not a historical fact - that way your struggle against reality will be over, and we'll leave you to it!
Since you do not want to discuss this elsewhere in order to divert from your failure to justify your positive assertions it looks like we will have to do this here.
First of all I think you need to tell us what you mean by methodology and also supernatural and why we should even be using the term. That then gives a proper frame of reference with which to proceed.
-
Since you do not want to discuss this elsewhere in order to divert from your failure to justify your positive assertions it looks like we will have to do this here.
This thread is fine.
First of all I think you need to tell us what you mean by methodology and also supernatural and why we should even be using the term. That then gives a proper frame of reference with which to proceed.
No I don't - the claim is yours, so you need to explain how supernatural claims are verifified, and if you think the term 'supernatural' is wrong then you need to explain how not staying dead can be natural.
You have a dilemma though, since in your #390 you said "God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim."
-
This thread is fine.
No I don't - the claim is yours, so you need to explain how supernatural claims are verifified, and if you think the term 'supernatural' is wrong then you need to explain how not staying dead can be natural.
You have a dilemma though, since in your #390 you said "God doing the resurrecting is a supernatural claim."
I can't proceed to even attempt to answer your question if you aren't prepared to outline what you mean.
I KNOW WHAT I mean by supernatural . What do you mean by it? Same goes for methodology.
-
I can't proceed to even attempt to answer your question if you aren't prepared to outline what you mean.
I KNOW WHAT I mean by supernatural . What do you mean by it? Same goes for methodology.
It's YOUR claim so tell us what YOU mean by supernatural, since it seems you know what YOU mean - stop evading.
Don't be shy: out with it; spill the beans.
-
Nope, it's a supernatural claim. It falls outside of methodological naturalism.
I move that a physically resurrected human being is eminently observable and examinable and falsifiable...You know what you have to do.
-
It's YOUR claim so tell us what YOU mean by supernatural, since it seems you know what YOU mean - stop evading.
Don't be shy: out with it; spill the beans.
Someone who doesn't honour the burden of his own assertions is not worthy of honour from me.
-
Someone who doesn't honour the burden of his own assertions is not worthy of honour from me.
My irony meter has been locked in a darkened room - of course you're wumming now.
-
I've read a lot on the topic.
I can't odds your claim. What was it that sparked your interest in this topic?
-
I move that a physically resurrected human being is eminently observable and examinable and falsifiable...You know what you have to do.
Again you are ignoring your supernatural claim. If you are making a natural claim about someone coming back from dead and being observed than that's your burden of proof.
-
I can't odds your claim. What was it that sparked your interest in this topic?
Odds your claim??? Anyway .... I'm interested in what people believe and why. I like to understand people and how they think. I like to understand the world and religions and religions are a big part of the world but I just don't get them, they seem totally foreign to me. The reasons for the birth of Christianity is one of several things which interest me - I sometimes imagine what events would i go and witness if I had a time machine and the events around the resurrection are one, but so would be watching what happened at Stonehenge or Avebury, being on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas when JFK was shot (to understand why people think shots were fired from there), seeing who Jack the Ripper was and so on - history's mysteries. It isn't because I have a secret belief in Jesus I'm afraid if that was what you were thinking/hoping.
-
Again you are ignoring your supernatural claim. If you are making a natural claim about someone coming back from dead and being observed than that's your burden of proof.
And if you make the claim that somebody didn't and historical evidence is mere myth and storiesd
then that's your burden of proof. I'm not saying I could find you guilty of that but you have been uncritical of Gordon who has.
As I have said the historical evidence, the new testament and what we know of the early christians, is all out there. I have also said that there is a point where you decide you believe it or don't. For me my experience of Christ helps me to recognise the experience of those who met the risen christ in an empathetic way so for me the history highlighted by the epistles is authentic.
-
Odds your claim??? Anyway .... I'm interested in what people believe and why. I like to understand people and how they think. I like to understand the world and religions and religions are a big part of the world but I just don't get them, they seem totally foreign to me. The reasons for the birth of Christianity is one of several things which interest me - I sometimes imagine what events would i go and witness if I had a time machine and the events around the resurrection are one, but so would be watching what happened at Stonehenge or Avebury, being on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas when JFK was shot (to understand why people think shots were fired from there), seeing who Jack the Ripper was and so on - history's mysteries. It isn't because I have a secret belief in Jesus I'm afraid if that was what you were thinking/hoping.
An interesting set of drivers for your interest in these matters and interesting use of your ability to visualise things, may it continue to turn up riches for you.
My motivation for accepting Gospel and epistoliary material as history and reportage is my own experience of Christ which started from intellectual interest in big questions about the universe and morality from which I became aware of the voice beyond the theory and ideas. But a major turning point was the realisation that I had disregarded the actual documents of Christianity.
-
And if you make the claim that somebody didn't and historical evidence is mere myth and storiesd
then that's your burden of proof. I'm not saying I could find you guilty of that but you have been uncritical of Gordon who has.
As I have said the historical evidence, the new testament and what we know of the early christians, is all out there. I have also said that there is a point where you decide you believe it or don't. For me my experience of Christ helps me to recognise the experience of those who met the risen christ in an empathetic way so for me the history highlighted by the epistles is authentic.
I am pointing out that you don't have a method to evaluate your supertural claim. That's saying nothing about what if anything it is based on.
As to the evidence of the physical, it's mixed up contradictory statements by unknown individuals, so in terms of evidence worthless.
As for your feelz, also in terms of evidence, worthless.
-
I am pointing out that you don't have a method to evaluate your supertural claim. That's saying nothing about what if anything it is based on.
As to the evidence of the physical, it's mixed up contradictory statements by unknown individuals, so in terms of evidence worthless.
As for your feelz, also in terms of evidence, worthless.
Feelz worthless? Must have some evolutionary value.
-
Feelz worthless? Must have some evolutionary value.
The is referring to evidentiary value in terms of the historical method.
-
The is referring to evidentiary value in terms of the historical method.
Somebody who dismisses history because it's 'just a load of old dusty books' is going to have less empathy with the handling of the evidence than somebody who recognises the value of it. Similarly someone with experience is going to be able to make a better evaluation than the non expert.
Anybody who sees God raised Jesus and jesus was seen post mortem as the same claim has not analysed the evidence sufficiently....in the words of Newman and Baddiel in history today.....That's you that is....
-
Somebody who dismisses history because it's 'just a load of old dusty books' is going to have less empathy with the handling of the evidence than somebody who recognises the value of it. Similarly someone with experience is going to be able to make a better evaluation than the non expert.
Anybody who sees God raised Jesus and jesus was seen post mortem as the same claim has not analysed the evidence sufficiently....in the words of Newman and Baddiel in history today.....That's you that is....
It really would help discussion if you didn't misrepresent me. I have discussed the supernatural claim, and any physical claim seperately. Stop lying.
-
And if you make the claim that somebody didn't and historical evidence is mere myth and storiesd
then that's your burden of proof. I'm not saying I could find you guilty of that but you have been uncritical of Gordon who has.
As I have said the historical evidence, the new testament and what we know of the early christians, is all out there. I have also said that there is a point where you decide you believe it or don't. For me my experience of Christ helps me to recognise the experience of those who met the risen christ in an empathetic way so for me the history highlighted by the epistles is authentic.
It seems that you are basically saying 'true for me but not true for you'. I would have thought that for something to be considered an historical fact one would need far greater and more objective standards than your(or my) own feelings and experiences. In the absence of such standards(which have been clearly pointed out to you by others) I fail to see why one should consider the resurrection to be an historical fact.
-
It seems that you are basically saying 'true for me but not true for you'. I would have thought that for something to be considered an historical fact one would need far greater and more objective standards than your(or my) own feelings and experiences. In the absence of such standards(which have been clearly pointed out to you by others) I fail to see why one should consider the resurrection to be an historical fact.
Nobody takes the word of one person.
All I'm saying is someone with experience is often able to discern the authenticity of an account or otherwise.
e.g. experienced teachers know when a pupil is trying to pull the wool over their eyes or a detective will recognise when someone's story does or doesn't add up.
That is why we recognise the value of exper-ience and exper-tise.
-
Nobody takes the word of one person.
All I'm saying is someone with experience is often able to discern the authenticity of an account or otherwise.
e.g. experienced teachers know when a pupil is trying to pull the wool over their eyes or a detective will recognise when someone's story does or doesn't add up.
That is why we recognise the value of exper-ience and exper-tise.
You seem to be saying though that you are experienced in some area of expertise, as well as having a non evidentiary experience but conflating the two.
-
You seem to be saying though that you are experienced in some area of expertise, as well as having a non evidentiary experience but conflating the two.
You'll have to define what you mean by non evidentiary experience.
-
You'll have to define what you mean by non evidentiary experience.
In terms of historical evidence, remember it's naturalistic as per all UK university courses, a 'meeting' with some form of spirit is not part of that.
And can you cover if you are confusing experience of a subject of expertise, with any 'experience'?
-
In terms of historical evidence, remember it's naturalistic as per all UK university courses, a 'meeting' with some form of spirit is not part of that.
And can you cover if you are confusing experience of a subject of expertise, with any 'experience'?
YES We know what methodological naturalism entails, we'll, kind of. Experience, of anything, is non transferable however experience can help us in DECIDING what is or is not authentic about others experience.
As a new Christian I was recommended a book called Evidence that demands a verdict by an eminent lawyer.His route to Christianity was a legal investigation of the evidence.
A different way in from my experience.
-
YES We know what methodological naturalism entails, we'll, kind of. Experience, of anything, is non transferable however experience can help us in DECIDING what is or is not authentic about others experience.
As a new Christian I was recommended a book called Evidence that demands a verdict by an eminent lawyer.His route to Christianity was a legal investigation of the evidence.
A different way in from my experience.
Note I've seen 3 books that might fit this, recommended on here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Mcdowell/dp/1401676707 - not by a lawyer - not read it
https://www.davidlimbaugh.com/books/jesus-on-trial/
Not called Evidence, by a lawyer, read it. Not based on a legal approach, despite what it says.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00A71Y7I8/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0
Not called Evidence, not by a lawyer, but a detective. Read it. Laughable.
-
The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader. They had the body. All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their own lives. Job done.
So what happened?
A momentous event which changed the course of human history. It defined the datum from which history is measured. It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were. The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection. The rest is history.
Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks. And we would not be in the year 2022. It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority. Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.
Alan, I was wondering where you were with finding the evidence that most of the disciples were executed for spreading the word of Jesus. I know that that is church tradition but do you have any actual evidence? Thanks.
-
Nobody takes the word of one person.
All I'm saying is someone with experience is often able to discern the authenticity of an account or otherwise.
e.g. experienced teachers know when a pupil is trying to pull the wool over their eyes or a detective will recognise when someone's story does or doesn't add up.
That is why we recognise the value of exper-ience and exper-tise.
None of which has much bearing on whether the resurrection is an historical fact. As I said before,'the historical evidence for the resurrection is greatly lacking, and even the gospel accounts are beset by glaring inconsistencies. Indeed their anecdotal nature is not exactly an acceptable standard for viable evidence'. To which I would add that the fact that someone's experiences can convince them(or others) that the resurrection happened is a pretty poor standard for ascertaining whether it is factual or not, and, as the Wearside Jack hoax showed, detectives too can be completely fooled by being blinkered into thinking that they were listening to the Ripper.
-
None of which has much bearing on whether the resurrection is an historical fact. As I said before,'the historical evidence for the resurrection is greatly lacking, and even the gospel accounts are beset by glaring inconsistencies. Indeed their anecdotal nature is not exactly an acceptable standard for viable evidence'. To which I would add that the fact that someone's experiences can convince them(or others) that the resurrection happened is a pretty poor standard for ascertaining whether it is factual or not, and, as the Wearside Jack hoax showed, detectives too can be completely fooled by being blinkered into thinking that they were listening to the Ripper.
Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible. Of course there is a risk of bias but that could be true of a philosophical naturalist.
Given the professionalism of historians it is no wonder that the
Consensus is that Jesus life and death gave rise to resurrection believing communities across the Middle East within a couple of decades.
There is insufficient evidence for history running another way.
Now, philosophical naturalists have little or no experience of being part of a small converted community and I would move lack understanding of them.
-
Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible. Of course there is a risk of bias but that could be true of a philosophical naturalist.
Given the professionalism of historians it is no wonder that the
Consensus is that Jesus life and death gave rise to resurrection believing communities across the Middle East within a couple of decades.
There is insufficient evidence for history running another way.
Now, philosophical naturalists have little or no experience of being part of a small converted community and I would move lack understanding of them.
Leaving aside the veneration of a specific subjective experience, what is the relevance of 'philosophic naturalists' here?
-
Leaving aside the veneration of a specific subjective experience, what is the relevance of 'philosophic naturalists' here?
Veneration? Rhetorical stinking atheist shite.
On the matter of philosophical naturalists , sure, people who are philosophically y naturalist read and comment on the scriptures.
-
Veneration? Rhetorical stinking atheist shite.
On the matter of philosophical naturalists , sure, people who are philosophically y naturalist read and comment on the scriptures.
Ah, the joys of being an atheist where we get to create rhetoric, and bathe in bathos, make merry in metaphor, and sycopate in synecdoche while the poor theists must trudge to daily drudge at the word mines, eking out their bare sparse denuded language, only able to eat, pray, love with the atheist scraps.
-
Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible. Of course there is a risk of bias but that could be true of a philosophical naturalist.
Professional training in tested medical science can also equip people to deal with the delusional...
Given the professionalism of historians it is no wonder that the Consensus is that Jesus life and death gave rise to resurrection believing communities across the Middle East within a couple of decades.
No. The consensus is that within a hundred years or so of the purported events that there were believing communities across the Middle-East - the presence of those communities no more validates the claims of a magical Jesus than the presence of Scientologists supports the contention that Xenu's space-faring DC-10s are an historical fact.
There is insufficient evidence for history running another way.
But there is insufficient evidence of the 'historians' consensus' that you claim.
Now, philosophical naturalists have little or no experience of being part of a small converted community and I would move lack understanding of them.
You don't need to be part of something to understand it. You don't need to accept it to understand it.
O.
-
Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible.
Except, of course, conversion is exceptionally rare. So in the UK (and other countries are similar) virtually everyone who is an adherent of a religion (and therefore may believe the faith claims of that religion) was brought up in that religion as a child and therefore brought up to believe those faith claims. Of the rest most were brought up as adherents of a different religion and then may have shifted religion, but still have an upbringing with an expectation that faith claims are to be believed.
So where exactly is the 'conversion' as in pretty well all cases a specific religion (or at least religion) is baked into that person from birth through upbringing.
If you are actually interested in conversion then the place to look is the huge numbers of people brought up religious who then 'convert' to being non religious and/or atheist. That accounts for pretty well 50% of people brought up in a religious manner. That involves people brought up to believe the faith claims of christianity and yet, as adults, when they are able to analyse those claims in a more objective and mature manner ... err ... reject them.
-
Except, of course, conversion is exceptionally rare. So in the UK (and other countries are similar) virtually everyone who is an adherent of a religion (and therefore may believe the faith claims of christianity) was brought up in that religion as a child. Of the rest most were brought up as adherents of a different religion and then may have shifted religion.
So where exactly is the 'conversion' as in pretty well all cases a specific religion (or at least religion) is baked into that person from birth through upbringing.
If you are actually interested in conversion then the place to look is the huge numbers of people brought up religious who then 'convert' to being non religious and/or atheist. That accounts for pretty well 50% of people brought up in a religious manner. That involves people brought up to believe the faith claims of christianity and yet, as adults, when they are able to analyse those claims in a more objective and mature manner ... err ... reject them.
I think we can all play what is going on in someone else's head doctor. And given atheists description of what is going on with an atheist that ranges from not a lot to whatever is going on with the four horsemen and their posse of scientismatists.
-
I think we can all play what is going on in someone else's head doctor. And given atheists description of what is going on with an atheist that ranges from not a lot to whatever is going on with the four horsemen and their posse of scientismatists.
Yawn - why don't you actually address the point I am making.
To summarise - except in very, very rare cases people who believe faith claims as adults were brought up to believe those faith claims as children - where exactly is the 'conversion'.
By contrast many people who do not believe faith claims as adults were brought up to believe those faith claims as children - that sounds like a conversion to me, and that's where the interest lies. Why is it firstly that so many people reject faith claims when they grow up and secondly why faith claims are pretty well universally unbelievable unless you've been brought up to believe those faith claims.
-
Yes, I think history takes us a bit further to say communities were formed around a genuine belief that this happened
The word "genuine" there is tautological. Yes, it is true that early Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That doesn't mean he actually did.
I disagree. I think that depends on your own worldview or belief set.
You're on the science and technology board. Dead people cannot come alive again. The end.
-
Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible. Of course there is a risk of bias but that could be true of a philosophical naturalist.
Whether conversion claims are true or not would depend on whether there is enough evidence for such claims, and n the case of the resurrection, the evidence is decidedly weak.
Given the professionalism of historians it is no wonder that the
Consensus is that Jesus life and death gave rise to resurrection believing communities across the Middle East within a couple of decades.
There is insufficient evidence for history running another way.
None of which addresses the point that the resurrection is/isn't an historical fact and hence has little significance to the point I am raising. Or are you saying that because certain communities believed that x took place, then x must be an historical fact? If you are, that would be an incredibly weak position to take.
Now, philosophical naturalists have little or no experience of being part of a small converted community and I would move lack understanding of them.
Whether that is true or not, it has no bearing on whether the resurrection is/is not an historical fact.
-
Whether conversion claims are true or not would depend on whether there is enough evidence for such claims, and n the case of the resurrection, the evidence is decidedly weak.
And given that the claim itself is extraordinary, unprecedented and, evidence suggests, physiologically impossible then the evidence would also need to be extraordinarily strong for claim to be given any credence.
And yet the 'evidence' comprises no more than 'someone said it happened' - and the person reporting someone else's claimed experience is writing decades after the claimed occurrence with a lack of clarity over who they are, the link with the original person and the extent to which their writing has been doctored over time (noting that the earlier extant version we have are decades later).
And even the claims themselves have far more likely explanations that dead person suddenly becomes not dead.
-
Except, of course, conversion is exceptionally rare. So in the UK (and other countries are similar) virtually everyone who is an adherent of a religion (and therefore may believe the faith claims of that religion) was brought up in that religion as a child and therefore brought up to believe those faith claims. Of the rest most were brought up as adherents of a different religion and then may have shifted religion, but still have an upbringing with an expectation that faith claims are to be believed.
So where exactly is the 'conversion' as in pretty well all cases a specific religion (or at least religion) is baked into that person from birth through upbringing.
If you are actually interested in conversion then the place to look is the huge numbers of people brought up religious who then 'convert' to being non religious and/or atheist. That accounts for pretty well 50% of people brought up in a religious manner. That involves people brought up to believe the faith claims of christianity and yet, as adults, when they are able to analyse those claims in a more objective and mature manner ... err ... reject them.
I don't know why you are bringing up a christianity 2000 years after the event when we are talking about Christianity in it's earliest stages. Conversions may be rarer now but they weren't then. Christianity garners converts from a range of other faiths.
After the period of evangelical expansion, professing Christianity, while not acting it out to ensure social status becomes the norm. Then as it has flagged and become ecclesiastical and traditional, evangelical revivals have occurred.
Not sure this is quite the thread for your theory of conversion which reads in part like a huge argumentum ad populum.
I will cheerfully discuss conversion with you on another thread
Perhaps so you can amaze us with your profile of the Daveyan convert.
-
And given that the claim itself is extraordinary, unprecedented and, evidence suggests, physiologically impossible then the evidence would also need to be extraordinarily strong for claim to be given any credence.
And yet the 'evidence' comprises no more than 'someone said it happened' - and the person reporting someone else's claimed experience is writing decades after the claimed occurrence with a lack of clarity over who they are, the link with the original person and the extent to which their writing has been doctored over time (noting that the earlier extant version we have are decades later).
And even the claims themselves have far more likely explanations that dead person suddenly becomes not dead.
But I don't think you quite understand what a conversion is.
It is not merely intellectual consent but encounter with Christ and response . One believes that one's sin has been forgiven, there is the recognition of one's state of sin and that God has provided the answer. Christ's death and resurrection is commensurate with all that. Basically no one is a convert until they have experienced this.
No. Reading what people say, they do not have any historical evidence to counter gospel and epistiolatory evidence.
In fact frequently the New Testament sources are ignored because of what amounts to a genetic fallacy about Christians but definitely apriori objections to the concept of miracle in which the proponent rather than believing that these are rare suspensions of the usual believes this kind of thing goes on all the time.
So your position becomes a wager based on probability at best and suspension of the issue of induction which also doesn't takes no account of one's existential realisation.
As Paul ventured, if Christ was not raised we are all quite dead in our sin.
-
Whether conversion claims are true or not would depend on whether there is enough evidence for such claims, and n the case of the resurrection, the evidence is decidedly weak.
None of which addresses the point that the resurrection is/isn't an historical fact and hence has little significance to the point I am raising. Or are you saying that because certain communities believed that x took place, then x must be an historical fact? If you are, that would be an incredibly weak position to take.
Whether that is true or not, it has no bearing on whether the resurrection is/is not an historical fact.
Being a convert to intellectual belief in the resurrection is not necessarily the same as being converted to christianity.
Someone may look at the gospel and epistolary evidence and evidence of the early Christian community and conclude that there is no smoke without fire. Another may be convicted that their existential position is due to a spiritual encounter with a Jesus who was supposed to have been dead and buried centuries ago and resurrection is commensurate with that and there is no contemporary contradicting evidence.
Both these are converts to different things I would move.
-
Professional training in tested medical science can also equip people to deal with the delusional...
No. The consensus is that within a hundred years or so of the purported events that there were believing communities across the Middle-East - the presence of those communities no more validates the claims of a magical Jesus than the presence of Scientologists supports the contention that Xenu's space-faring DC-10s are an historical fact.
But there is insufficient evidence of the 'historians' consensus' that you claim.
You don't need to be part of something to understand it. You don't need to accept it to understand it.
O.
I'm only aware of mass psychiatric concern about religious belief in totalitarian States. Your post is therefore avowedly Stalinist.
-
The word "genuine" there is tautological. Yes, it is true that early Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That doesn't mean he actually did.
You're on the science and technology board. Dead people cannot come alive again. The end.
But that isn't proper popperian science is it Jeremy?, it doesn't deal with the issue of induction.
-
But that isn't proper popperian science is it Jeremy?, it doesn't deal with the issue of induction.
Why do think induction is a problem when it comes to dead people not staying dead?
-
But that isn't proper popperian science is it Jeremy?, it doesn't deal with the issue of induction.
What do you mean by 'induction' Vlad - don't understand so cannot comment.
-
But I don't think you quite understand what a conversion is.
It is not merely intellectual consent but encounter with Christ and response .
So how come the only people 'converted' - using your definition are those brought up to believe the in the faith claims of christianity. Surely if 'conversion' is as you say then everyone, regardless of their upbringing, would be equally ripe to this encounter. That they aren't suggests one of the following:
1. Jesus ignores people who aren't cradle christians
2. The faith claims of christianity are only believable to those told to believe those stories from childhood
3. An 'encounter' with Jesus is only possible to those who have had that 'suggestion' inculcated from the earliest of ages - in other words not a real, external encounter, but all in the mind of a pre-existing believer.
The first (which is the only one consistent with an actual encounter with Jesus doesn't seem plausible. Firstly as there are occasional, but rare examples, of people not brought up christian converting - did Jesus misunderstand that these people weren't cradle christians, and if not why them and not others. And secondly - surely if Jesus wanted impact he'd largely ignore those brought up in the faith but focus on those who aren't already part way there.
But in the most extreme case this simply never, ever happens - there is no example of a non-contacted community (i.e. a community who will never have encountered people who believe in christian claims) who independently come to that belief. Christianity is always transmitted by people, never directly by god/Jesus. We never see a tribe that has never encountered a christian before discovered to be worshipping Jesus. Why not? If Jesus can communicate directly, why not directly with a non-contacted community in the Amazon - yet never happens.
-
So your position becomes a wager based on probability at best and suspension of the issue of induction which also doesn't takes no account of one's existential realisation.
Still don't understand what you mean by 'suspension of the issue of induction' - please explain.
I would consider a better way to understand this is that some people succumb to suggestion - a deep ingrained believe inculcated in them since birth that the faith claims of christianity are true. And therefore when some life event comes along their response (due to that ingrained suggestibility) is to explain that as an encounter with Jesus. Others having the same experience would explain it in a different manner - maybe even as an encounter with some other purported supernatural entity. But what we are really revealing isn't a real encounter with a real Jesus, but a folding back into ingrained belief based on suggestion.
So an an analogy, if a person had been brought up to believe that the earth was flat and that each night the sun drops below the edge and is extinguished, when they see a glorious sunset their ingrained belief manifested through suggestion will tell them that they are watching the sun go out. They aren't, but suggestion is a very powerful thing.
-
I'm only aware of mass psychiatric concern about religious belief in totalitarian States. Your post is therefore avowedly Stalinist.
Luckily for all of us, reality is not limited to solely what you or I are aware of :)
O.
-
Being a convert to intellectual belief in the resurrection is not necessarily the same as being converted to christianity.
To me that's not important. I'm simply discussing the historicity of the resurrection.
Someone may look at the gospel and epistolary evidence and evidence of the early Christian community and conclude that there is no smoke without fire. Another may be convicted that their existential position is due to a spiritual encounter with a Jesus who was supposed to have been dead and buried centuries ago and resurrection is commensurate with that and there is no contemporary contradicting evidence.
I'm sure any or all of that may be true. However, this has little bearing as to whether the resurrection was an historical fact.
Both these are converts to different things I would move.
Whatever!
-
But that isn't proper popperian science is it Jeremy?, it doesn't deal with the issue of induction.
I've asked you before what you understand by the word "induction". I don't think you understand it.
Inductive reasoning is central to science. Without it, we can't understand anything about the real world.
Dead people do not come alive again. Literally billions of people have died and there's no credible evidence that any of them came alive again - there's some induction. Furthermore we can observe the effect that being dead has on people's bodies and we observe that being dead for nearly two days turns your brain into an irrecoverable mush.
This is a thread on the science board. Unless you can show the above is wrong by naturalistic means, you lose.
-
Prof,
What do you mean by 'induction' Vlad - don't understand so cannot comment.
Vlad struggles with understanding many of the terms he attempts. In this case what he means by “the issue of induction” though is the extrapolation of a conclusion on the basis of the past. It’s the black swan problem: the fact of no reliable evidence for a black swan did not mean that a black swan did not exist; the lack of reliable evidence for a resurrection does not mean that a resurrection did not occur.
He's also though lost in a world of the difference between an event and the language used to describe it. Gordon is quite right to say that the resurrection is not a “historical fact”. This is because the terms “historical” and “fact” have meanings that the resurrection narrative fails to satisfy. That’s not to say that there wasn’t a resurrection, and nor that it didn’t happen in the past. It is though to say that currently you cannot use either term to describe it. Furthermore, Vlad’s misunderstanding of the burden of proof is that he thinks that by saying “it’s not a historical fact” Gordon has to show that there was no resurrection. He doesn’t. All he has to show is that the resurrection narrative fails to satisfy the definitional requirements of “fact” and “historical” – a simple thing to do.
As I’m not really here these days I won’t bother with the other fallacies he’s unwittingly crashing through, though his “…/my conversion experience aligns with the Bible story, therefore the Bible is true; the Bible is true/my conversion experience aligns with…” etc ad infinitum is textbook circular reasoning.
-
Dead people do not come alive again. Literally billions of people have died and there's no credible evidence that any of them came alive again - there's some induction.
And yet Vlad would have us believe that just because someone once wrote (decades after the purported event) that someone else saw a guy who was dead and was then alive, that this is sufficient evidence for a resurrection.
And interestingly - which of the NT 'post-resurrection' appearances are clear that this is a dead guy alive again - certainly not Paul, certainly not the original Mark. Typically the narrative talks of 'appearances' - but literature is littered with ghost appearances, we don't consider these to be resurrections, nor these appearances to be a once dead, but now alive person. Nope these tend to be considered to be appearances of a dead person.
-
Prof,
Vlad struggles with understanding many of the terms he attempts. In this case what he means by “the issue of induction” though is the extrapolation of a conclusion on the basis of the past. It’s the black swan problem: the fact of no reliable evidence for a black swan did not mean that a black swan did not exist; the lack of reliable evidence for a resurrection does not mean that a resurrection did not occur.
He's also though lost in a world of the difference between an event and the language used to describe it. Gordon is quite right to say that the resurrection is not a “historical fact”. This is because the terms “historical” and “fact” have meanings that the resurrection narrative fails to satisfy. That’s not to say that there wasn’t a resurrection, and nor that it didn’t happen in the past. It is though to say that currently you cannot use either term to describe it. Furthermore, Vlad’s misunderstanding of the burden of proof is that he thinks that by saying “it’s not a historical fact” Gordon has to show that there was no resurrection. He doesn’t. All he has to show is that the resurrection narrative fails to satisfy the definitional requirements of “fact” and “historical” – a simple thing to do.
As I’m not really here these days I won’t bother with the other fallacies he’s unwittingly crashing through, though his “…/my conversion experience aligns with the Bible story, therefore the Bible is true; the Bible is true/my conversion experience aligns with…” etc ad infinitum is textbook circular reasoning.
Unfortunately Gordon's full assertion was not only is it not historical fact, but that the resurrection is myth and story.
Gordon does not mention the word narrative but is talking about the resurrection itself.
That is as plain as anything.
-
I've asked you before what you understand by the word "induction". I don't think you understand it.
Inductive reasoning is central to science. Without it, we can't understand anything about the real world.
Dead people do not come alive again. Literally billions of people have died and there's no credible evidence that any of them came alive again - there's some induction. Furthermore we can observe the effect that being dead has on people's bodies and we observe that being dead for nearly two days turns your brain into an irrecoverable mush.
This is a thread on the science board. Unless you can show the above is wrong by naturalistic means, you lose.
I don't think you understand the scope of popperian science.
Also, the resurrection is proposed as a miracle in the full knowledge that the normal run of things is suspended.
So part of the non historical objection is based on atheism.
-
Luckily for all of us, reality is not limited to solely what you or I are aware of :)
O.
But this whole thread is about what reality we are prepared to accept.
I was converted from one view to another. Would you let experience come in the way of your world view?
-
Vlad,
Unfortunately Gordon's full assertion was not only is it not historical fact, but that the resurrection is myth and story.
Gordon does not mention the word narrative but is talking about the resurrection itself.
That is as plain as anything.
And he was correct to do so – the resurrection claim satisfies the definitional criteria for “myth” and “story”, but falls short of the definitional criteria for “fact” and “historical”.
That is as plain as anything.
Anyway, enough already.
-
But this whole thread is about what reality we are prepared to accept.
No, this whole thread is about whether our perception of reality is necessarily a reliable indicator of reality, and if not how we can attempt to remove some of that unreliability.
I was converted from one view to another. Would you let experience come in the way of your world view?
My world view is a product of my experience, as is everyone else's - I can no more stop my experiences shaping my world-view than I can stop having the experiences or a world-view. All i can do is rely on my experience to show me that things are often more complicated than they seem, and not to necessarily take experiences at face value. The world lies, people lie to us, we lie to ourselves...
O.
-
I was converted from one view to another.
Really Vlad?!?
I think we'd established previously that your upbringing was pretty christian, both in specific terms (attendance at church/Sunday School, going to a faith school for part of your education) and in general cultural/societal terms - people of our age brought up in the UK will have been brought up within a culture and society where the default view was that there was a god and that that god was the christian god.
So I'm struggling to see how you converted from one view to another - nope you seem to have folded into the view that you were brought up in.
So you seem to me to be the equivalent of someone who as a child is taught that father christmas exists, wears red and comes around on christmas eve. So when some years later one christmas eve you glimpse something red outside, out of the corner of your eye, and convince yourself this is father christmas.
-
But this whole thread is about what reality we are prepared to accept.
I was converted from one view to another. Would you let experience come in the way of your world view?
What was your view pre conversion?
-
What was your view pre conversion?
Agnostic non religious.
-
Really Vlad?!?
I think we'd established previously that your upbringing was pretty christian, both in specific terms (attendance at church/Sunday School, going to a faith school for part of your education) and in general cultural/societal terms - people of our age brought up in the UK will have been brought up within a culture and society where the default view was that there was a god and that that god was the christian god.
So I'm struggling to see how you converted from one view to another - nope you seem to have folded into the view that you were brought up in.
So you seem to me to be the equivalent of someone who as a child is taught that father christmas exists, wears red and comes around
on christmas eve. So when some years later one christmas eve you glimpse something red outside, out of the corner of your eye, and convince yourself this is father christmas.
No professor we had established nothing of the sort and you merely convinced of something within what you think a conversion is.
The last jibe is just your unalloyed childish pantwetting excitement that the Christ troller in chief, has returned to the gang den.
-
Agnostic non religious.
And before that Vlad - in other words your upbringing.
-
No professor we had established nothing of the sort and you merely convinced of something within what you think a conversion is.
I think we'd established that as a child you:
1. Attended church services
2. Attended Sunday School
3. For a part of your education went to a faith school
-
Agnostic non religious.
Vlad loves to portray himself as this non religious person who found christianity, but the reality is rather different. As far as I'm aware (and we discussed this at length on another thread), Vlad's upbringing was pretty standard religious of the time (church attendance, Sunday School, a faith school for a while). He appears to have stepped away from his religious upbringing for a while and then moved back to it in what he described as his 'conversion'.
So my issue is two-fold - first he seems happy to talk about his conversion, as he sees it from non-religious agnosticism to christianity, yet seems never to acknowledge an earlier 'conversion' from his broadly religious christian upbringing to non-religious agnosticism. My second problem is that I don't really see someone who is brought up in a particular religious manner and folds back into this as an adult, even if (as often happens) they stepped away from it for a while in teenage/early adult years as a conversion. Really all this is is a reversion to upbringing. In this regard Vlad seems rather similar to his idol C S Lewis - christian upbringing, rebelled for a while and then comfortably reverted to the religion of his upbringing.
-
The last jibe is just your unalloyed childish pantwetting excitement that the Christ troller in chief, has returned to the gang den.
Presumably that makes some kind of sense in your rather bizarre mind. For the rest of us, I suspect, it is gobbledegook.
-
I think we'd established that as a child you:
1. Attended church services
2. Attended Sunday School
3. For a part of your education went to a faith school
You've been to a garage but I'd hardly call you a car.
You've been to a cinema but you can hardly be called a movie star.
You've turned up for work each day but I'd hardly call you..........
-
You've been to a garage but I'd hardly call you a car.
You've been to a cinema but you can hardly be called a movie star.
You've turned up for work each day but I'd hardly call you..........
Disingenuous in the extreme - I don't think your attendance at church/Sunday School/faith school was a one off. I understand these were things that you probably had little say over, but non-the-less attendance at such organisations as a child is indicative of a religious upbringing, given that most kids won't have attended Sunday School, church or a faith school.
And even with your examples - if you regularly went to a cinema as a child, encouraged by your parents I think that would be an indication that you were being brought up to appreciate and enjoy films.
-
You've been to a garage but I'd hardly call you a car.
You've been to a cinema but you can hardly be called a movie star.
You've turned up for work each day but I'd hardly call you..........
I note no denial.
So we can conclude that as a child your parents chose to send you to church, Sunday School and a faith school. Hmm, why might they have done that - perhaps because they wanted you to have, and therefore gave you, a religious upbringing.
-
Disingenuous in the extreme - I don't think your attendance at church/Sunday School/faith school was a one off. I understand these were things that you probably had little say over, but non-the-less attendance at such organisations as a child is indicative of a religious upbringing, given that most kids won't have attended Sunday School, church or a faith school.
And even with your examples - if you regularly went to a cinema as a child, encouraged by your parents I think that would be an indication that you were being brought up to appreciate and enjoy films.
Every ten years, there is a drive by the British Humanists, promoted by some famous people to get nominal Christians, people who may have been taken to church, attended Sunday school, to put down on the census what they actually were in terms of BELIEF...I.e. non religious. Most of the traffic at present is that way. There are historical reasons why people automatically put CofE or Roman Catholic.
And yet you see no difference between a nominal Christian and a believer.
The point is though is by conversion we are talking about the movement between nominal, familial choice,get married in the church,get the kids into a good school religion to an actual belief and adult commitment to a faith.....not an organisation, not a community, but a faith.
I know that, Richard Dawkins knows that, Humanist uk knows that......and you?
Also you are shooting yourself in the foot as using your logic it can be argued that atheists and apatheists “get it from their upbringing”
-
Every ten years, there is a drive by the British Humanists, promoted by some famous people to get nominal Christians, people who may have been taken to church, attended Sunday school, to put down on the census what they actually were in terms of BELIEF...I.e. non religious. Most of the traffic at present is that way. There are historical reasons why people automatically put CofE or Roman Catholic.
Which is, of course, about a person's position at a specific moment. There are other surveys that also ask about a person's upbringing. That is my point - you were brought up as a christian in a largely christians societal setting, hence the notion of the truthfulness of christian claims will have been imbued in you from a very early age.
It is then disingenuous of you to claim some kind of massive 'conversion' to christianity, when that was the religion you were brought you were brought up to believe. And if you want to claim a 'conversion' why do you never talk about the necessary other conversion, for your later conversion to make any kind of sense, that from your christian upbringing to being agnostic and non religious, as you claim.
And yet you see no difference between a nominal Christian and a believer.
Children tend to 'believe' in a different way to an adult - I think there is even a bible quote about this! So, of course, your childhood christian beliefs are unlikely to be the same as your adult christian beliefs. But they were there nonetheless, supported by your attendance in church, at Sunday School, within a faith school. So you cannot deny the link.
A good analogy would be a child whose parents take them to gymnastics every week - as a child they aren't particularly good, might be quite grumpy about going, but they are being taught the basics and taught to enjoy and love it eventually. Even if they perhaps stepped back from it for a while, if that person became a professional gymnast as an adult are you really claiming that their adult abilities and commitment to gymnastics have absolutely nothing to do with their childhood experience. And also it is pretty unlikely that they would have come to full professional gymnast status as an adult without that childhood experience. Firstly because they'd have been way behind in learning the basics, but perhaps more importantly their parents might have inculcated a different 'love', perhaps playing the piano so gymnastics would be something they probably would never have encountered or considered.
-
Also you are shooting yourself in the foot as using your logic it can be argued that atheists and apatheists “get it from their upbringing”
Except it can't.
While it is true that virtually every religious person was brought up as religious - and in the vast majority of cases a person who is an adherent of a specific religion was brought up to believe in that religion the same cannot be said for atheists and the non religious.
Sure people brought up non religious will almost certainly end up non religious as adults - but that is looking at it the other way around. The key difference is that about 50% of people brought up in a religious household choose to turn their backs on that upbringing, becoming non religious or perhaps atheist as adults.
So the bottom line is that (except in very rare circumstances) to be religious as an adult requires that you were brought up religious. To be non religious as an adult, or atheist, does not require you to have been brought up in a non religious household or even atheist. Our current numbers of adult non religious people are split pretty evenly between those brought up non religious and those brought up in a religious household.
So non-religion is 'believable' even if you weren't brought up in that manner. Religion is (by and large) only believable to those brought up religious.
-
Which is, of course, about a person's position at a specific moment.
Then it's funny that over the past few years i've never caught you in one of your christian or hindu moments...I always seem to catch you on an atheist day There are other surveys that also ask about a person's upbringing. That is my point - you were brought up as a christian in a largely christians societal setting, hence the notion of the truthfulness of christian claims will have been imbued in you from a very early age.
And yet I went through a period as a grown ass man as treating them as myth and before that several years as well meaning morality tales.
It is then disingenuous of you to claim some kind of massive 'conversion' to christianity, when that was the religion you were brought you were brought up to believe.
I think you are suggesting here that since the majority of christian bought up to believers as you call them go the secular way that there is something odd about me. Sure, i'm not an apatheist. Also weare back to your definition of convert. What is blindingly clear here is you are sticking to your definition of convert, which incidently I shared, right up to the moment of converting and committing my life to ChristAnd if you want to claim a 'conversion' why do you never talk about the necessary other conversion, for your later conversion to make any kind of sense, that from your christian upbringing to being agnostic and non religious, as you claim.
so you believe that christian converts never truly are atheist, agnostics or non religious. I thought as much...although you have contradicted yourself on this by saying ''Which is, of course, about a person's position at a specific moment''
Children tend to 'believe' in a different way to an adult - I think there is even a bible quote about this! So, of course, your childhood christian beliefs are unlikely to be the same as your adult christian beliefs. But they were there nonetheless, supported by your attendance in church, at Sunday School, within a faith school. So you cannot deny the link.
I think many converts would talk about their transition prior to conversion, of christians they had come into contact with, and of literature they would have read and suffice it to say that non contact or deliberate avoidance of which results in non conversion.
A good analogy would be a child whose parents take them to gymnastics every week - as a child they aren't particularly good, but they are being taught the basics and taught to enjoy and love it. Even if they perhaps stepped back from it for a while, if that person became a professional gymnast as an adult are you really claiming that their adult abilities and love of gymnastics have absolutely nothing to do with their childhood experience. And also it is pretty unlikely that they would have come to full professional gymnast status as an adult without that childhood experience. Firstly because they'd have been way behind in learning the basics, but perhaps more importantly their parents might have inculcated a different 'love', perhaps playing the piano so gymnastics would be something they probably would never have encountered or considered.
I would call this poor analogy since you are likening getting on the equipment and doing it to sitting in a church reluctantly listening to a crusty droning on where being with your parents in church is like being with your parents in Marks and Spencer.
Again you are contradicting yourself by claiming that churchgoing as a child, where there might be no faith or familial faith rather than personal conversion and commitment to and encounter with christ, is the crowning experience of faith.
-
Except it can't.
While it is true that virtually every religious person was brought up as religious - and in the vast majority of cases a person who is an adherent of a specific religion was brought up to believe in that religion the same cannot be said for atheists and the non religious.
Sure people brought up non religious will almost certainly end up non religious as adults - but that is looking at it the other way around. The key difference is that about 50% of people brought up in a religious household choose to turn their backs on that upbringing, becoming non religious or perhaps atheist as adults.
So the bottom line is that (except in very rare circumstances) to be religious as an adult requires that you were brought up religious. To be non religious as an adult, or atheist, does not require you to have been brought up in a non religious household or even atheist. Our current numbers of adult non religious people are split pretty evenly between those brought up non religious and those brought up in a religious household.
So non-religion is 'believable' even if you weren't brought up in that manner. Religion is (by and large) only believable to those brought up religious.
I see no reference here to the views of Humanist UK that people are claiming religious affiliation by census but not registering their actual non religion
Since you talk about the effect of societal religion, you are contradicting yourself by talking here of non religious households. If a society is christian then there cannot be non religious households or indeed uninfluenced people at all.
Finally you can transmit familially a lack of something. Divorcees raise divorcees apparently, people with a lack of cultural appreciation raise people with a lack of cultural appreciation.
Vast majorities are the stuff of argumenta ad populum.
-
And yet I went through a period as a grown ass man as treating them as myth and before that several years as well meaning morality tales.
So what, we are discussing your upbringing, which was clearly christian. Your 'conversion' was a reversion to the religion of your childhood. Had you suddenly become a hindu having not been brought up as a hindu then we might be talking about conversion, regardless of whether you'd had a period thinking your childhood christianity was a myth.
I think you are suggesting here that since the majority of christian bought up to believers as you call them go the secular way that there is something odd about me.
Actually I'm not describing you as being odd, nor unusual actually. There are plenty of people with exactly your profile - brought up in a specific religious context, drift away for a while, and then fold right back into the faith of their childhood. There are, of course, others who are brought up in that manner, drift away and never revert. What is exceptionally rare is someone brought up in a non-religious manner who suddenly converts to a religious faith as an adult.
I would call this poor analogy since you are likening getting on the equipment and doing it to sitting in a church reluctantly listening to a crusty droning on where being with your parents in church is like being with your parents in Marks and Spencer.
Actually I'm not - in my edited version (edited before you posted) I actually specifically said that the child might be pretty grumpy about being taken to gymnastics every week. I think the gymnastics analogy is a good one, as it is about parents doing something because of how they want their child to be brought up. That is completely different to M&S where trapsing round with your parents would be a completely practical manner. No parent decided they want to instil in their child a belief in M&S.
-
I see no reference here to the views of Humanist UK that people are claiming religious affiliation by census but not registering their actual non religion
Because that is a totally separate issue. HumanistsUK have campaigned over this due to be the non neutral wording of the census question, which pushes people into thinking that they must have a religion ("what is your religion?") and therefore may see the reference as the religion of their upbringing despite not being at all religious at the point they are answering the census.
-
Because that is a totally separate issue. HumanistsUK have campaigned over this due to be the non neutral wording of the census question, which pushes people into thinking that they must have a religion ("what is your religion?") and therefore may see the reference as the religion of their upbringing despite not being at all religious at the point they are answering the census.
No it isn't. Your definition of being non religious is at variance with their's since apparently,according to you someone who becomes a Christian was never an atheist, agnostic or non religious. You come out a very confused bunny professor.
The humanists have campaigned on two fronts firstly to get nominal christians or whatever faith to put ''non religious'' and secondly they have campaigned to have the census changed to reflect belief.
-
Since you talk about the effect of societal religion, you are contradicting yourself by talking here of non religious households. If a society is christian then there cannot be non religious households or indeed uninfluenced people at all.
Not really - in the UK it is difficult to assess the impact of societal religious setting as that will largely be the same for everyone, so there is no easy 'control' group to compare. There will be very rare examples, but these will largely be ultra-religious communities that largely cut themselves off from broader society.
That's why studies have focussed on the upbringing of children within a household. In other words is that household religious or non-religious and whether there is evidence of an active decision to bring up a child within a specific religion, which would be layered on top of the broader societal 'mood music'.
So if you were a child in the UK growing up in the 60s and 70s you couldn't escape the christian mood music and no doubt at school (faith or non faith) you'd be regularly singing hymns, saying christian prayers etc etc. Where the distinction would lie would be whether your parents went up and beyond that societal mood music. For example by talking you to church (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to church regularly) enrolled your child in Sunday School (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to Sunday School) or perhaps chose a faith school with a specific mission to bring children up in a specific religion (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to a faith school).
So in my case, yes there was the mood music, my non faith schooling included a heavy dollop of christian practice. But beyond that my parents didn't add an overlay of religion, nor were they themselves overtly religious. There were some tensions and distinctions with earlier generations, so I am now aware (I wasn't then) that there was discussion between my father's parents (who were quite domineering) and my father as to why the kids weren't going to church/Sunday School. And very occasionally we were required to attend church when visiting the grandparents. But this was pretty clearly a visiting 'obligation' as it didn't reflect what happened week in, week out in my actual household.
-
Theophany stories occur in many religious traditions…
In ancient Greece Semele was enculturated to the Greek gods, and had an episode she ascribed to an encounter with Zeus.
In the Hindu faith people enculturated to the Hindu avatars have episodes they ascribe to encounters with Vishnu, Krishna and Rama.
In various tribal theisms people enculturated to spirit animals have episodes they ascribe to encounters with those animals.
Vlad was enculturated to the Christian faith and had an episode he ascribes to an encounter with the Christian man/god.
Confirmation bias is a powerful thing, and ‘twas ever thus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
-
No it isn't. Your definition of being non religious is at variance with their's since apparently,according to you someone who becomes a Christian was never an atheist, agnostic or non religious.
Where have I ever said that Vlad. My point isn't that someone might not have been, for a time, agnostic or atheist. My point is there is a major different in terms of conversion/reversion between:
1. Someone brought up christian (or another religion), becomes atheist/agnostic/non-religious for a while, and then reverts back to christianity (or their previous religion)
2. Someone brought up in a non religious manner, then converts to christianity
or indeed:
3. Someone brought up christian who later converts to hinduism (whether or not they had a period of agnosticism/atheism) and
4. Someone brought up christian, becomes atheist/agnostic/non-religious and retains that lack of religion
You are in the first camp Vlad and if you want to describe your shift from atheism/agnosticism to christianity as conversion, then your shift from christianity to atheism/agnosticism is also a conversion. In fact it is more so as you'd never had a tradition of atheism/agnosticism/non-religion, whereas your 'conversion' to christianity from atheism/agnosticism cannot be seen outside of the context of having been brought up as a christian. So perhaps your real journey is:
1. Someone brought up christian, converts to atheist/agnostic for a while, and then reverts back to christianity
And by the way scenarios 1 and 4 are pretty common, scenarios 2 and 3 are extremely rare.
-
Not really - in the UK it is difficult to assess the impact of societal religious setting as that will largely be the same for everyone, so there is no easy 'control' group to compare. There will be very rare examples, but these will largely be ultra-religious communities that largely cut themselves off from broader society.
That's why studies have focussed on the upbringing of children within a household. In other words is that household religious or non-religious and whether there is evidence of an active decision to bring up a child within a specific religion, which would be layered on top of the broader societal 'mood music'.
So if you were a child in the UK growing up in the 60s and 70s you couldn't escape the christian mood music and no doubt at school (faith or non faith) you'd be regularly singing hymns, saying christian prayers etc etc. Where the distinction would lie would be whether your parents went up and beyond that societal mood music. For example by talking you to church (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to church regularly) enrolled your child in Sunday School (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to Sunday School) or perhaps chose a faith school with a specific mission to bring children up in a specific religion (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to a faith school).
So in my case, yes there was the mood music, my non faith schooling included a heavy dollop of christian practice. But beyond that my parents didn't add an overlay of religion, nor were they themselves overtly religious. There were some tensions and distinctions with earlier generations, so I am now aware (I wasn't then) that there was discussion between my father's parents (who were quite domineering) and my father as to why the kids weren't going to church/Sunday School. And very occasionally we were required to attend church when visiting the grandparents. But this was pretty clearly a visiting 'obligation' as it didn't reflect what happened week in, week out in my actual household.
I think the thing is you cannot go beyond the concept of cultural religion but then again that supposes that we are what our culture is and that is clearly an oversimplification. My parents never added an overlay of religion nor were they themselves overtly religious...but you say they were, and of course you have a fat academic salary and an ology to say I know nothing of my own upbringing...and that I think is where your pleadings probably begin to look over the top.
-
Theophany stories occur in many religious traditions…
In ancient Greece Semele was enculturated to the Greek gods, and had an episode she ascribed to an encounter with Zeus.
In the Hindu faith people enculturated to the Hindu avatars have episodes they ascribe to encounters with Vishnu, Krishna and Rama.
So what you are saying is Vishnu is up there looking down down on me saying ''You is rejecting me Vlad coz I is Blue''? Don't be fucking ridiculous.
-
Theophany stories occur in many religious traditions…
In ancient Greece Semele was enculturated to the Greek gods, and had an episode she ascribed to an encounter with Zeus.
I'm not arguing that she didn't. Would she have argued that he lived on Mount Olympus considering you can actually take a hike up it?
In the Hindu faith people enculturated to the Hindu avatars have episodes they ascribe to encounters with Vishnu, Krishna and Rama.
But are they historical figures?
In various tribal theisms people enculturated to spirit animals have episodes they ascribe to encounters with those animals.
Animals are not people, cannot represent people and christianity had moved from the sacrifice of any animal to the sacrifice of the son of God.
Vlad was enculturated to the Christian faith and had an episode he ascribes to an encounter with the Christian man/god.
Cultural religion isn't personal religion. I could have been a unitarian. That sounds quite english.
-
My parents never added an overlay of religion ...
Yes - they did as they, at the very least, supported you going to church, to Sunday School, to faith schools. And as parents tend to dictate those kinds of things I imagine it was more than a passive acquiescence on their parent but an active decision to overlay those additional religious elements in your childhood over the general christian societal mood music.
Parents who aren't bringing their children up as christian tend not to send them (or take them) to church nor send them to Sunday School. I accept that schooling can be a little different in terms of decision making, but going to church and Sunday School are completely discretionary activities, with most people choosing not to send their kids to them.
-
... nor were they themselves overtly religious...
That always depends on your perspective.
From the perspective of a completely non religious upbringing parents choosing to take their child to church/Sunday school seems to be an indication of significant religiosity on their part, at the very least desired religiosity for their child.
Sure if you are someone who attends church every day and whose whole life completely revolves around religion, occasional church-goers might not seem overly religious. But you have to put it in a broader context - if 80-90% of people never attend church then simply attending church puts you in the 20% most religious (using attendance as a measure). And that is the case here - even in the 60s and 70s church going, sunday school attendance and faith school attendance were minority persuits, largely restricted to the religious.
-
Vlad was enculturated to the Christian faith and had an episode he ascribes to an encounter with the Christian man/god.
Confirmation bias is a powerful thing, and ‘twas ever thus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Indeed - and I'd bet my bottom dollar that had Vlad been born in Turkey, been brought up a muslim, the same experience would have led him to 'convert' or rather 'revert' to islam.
-
That always depends on your perspective.
No, apparently it depends on yours.
-
Indeed - and I'd bet my bottom dollar that had Vlad been born in Turkey, been brought up a muslim,
Careful now, You are introducing a more superior methodology to the one you've been using.
-
Indeed - and I'd bet my bottom dollar that had Vlad been born in Turkey, been brought up a muslim, the same experience would have led him to 'convert' or rather 'revert' to islam.
And what would you have been?
-
Vlad,
So what you are saying is Vishnu is up there looking down down on me saying ''You is rejecting me Vlad coz I is Blue''? Don't be fucking ridiculous.
Your bizarre straw man bears no relation at all to anything I said. I merely explained to you that your “encounter” with a supposed deity is likely to be every bit as much confirmation bias as were the “encounters” with the supposed deities of peoples from different faith traditions. No amount of your circular reasoning, special pleading etc changes that.
-
Vlad,
Your bizarre straw man bears no relation at all to anything I said. I merely explained to you that your “encounter” with a supposed deity is likely to be every bit as much confirmation bias as were the “encounters” with the supposed deities of peoples from different faith traditions. No amount of your circular reasoning, special pleading etc changes that.
I think it was Spike Milligan who declared when interviewed by Gerald Priestland for BBC's religious department that he was both a Christian and a Buddhist and there are certainly theologians who argue that a multitude of religions could be viably true without impingeing on the other. But you won't , of course, have factored anything like that.
At the very least different religions say different things about different aspects of life unless you are saying that basically all religions are the same.
Otherwise it seems you have returned to the board to continue your shamanic dance around me waving your magic list of self excuse and damning errors like survivor bias, leprachology, and assorted fallacies hoping that the smell might cling to me.
-
No, apparently it depends on yours.
Nope - it is based on the notion that different people will have a different perspective depending on their own experience and background.
So, just as an example, my wife's family are catholic, she went to a catholic school, pretty well all of the social activities she engaged in as a child were with the practising catholic community associated with her church and school. That community was pretty insular, they had an informal list of tradespeople from their community, so would always employ catholic plumbers etc etc.
Ask someone in that community whether they were particularly religious and despite going to mass every week (at least), attending catholic schools etc etc, they'd probably see themselves as middle of the road in terms of religiosity as everyone else they knew also went to church every week, sent their kids to the catholic school etc etc.
But from a different perspective, all of those people are in the highest grouping for religiosity as most people don't do to church, send their kids to catholic schools, only employ plumbers of their faith etc etc.
And of course the second perspective is much more akin to the societal norm that the first.
So I'm not arguing that everything depends on my perspective - what I am saying is that in a country where only one in ten people goes to church it isn't credible to claim that someone one of those 10% most religious (in terms of attendance) is somehow 'not very religious' - in societal terms they are extremely religious.
-
And what would you have been?
I don't know - but I'm not claiming some kind of major 'conversion' am I.
-
Vlad,
I think it was Spike Milligan who declared when interviewed by Gerald Priestland for BBC's religious department that he was both a Christian and a Buddhist and there are certainly theologians who argue that a multitude of religions could be viably true without impingeing on the other. But you won't , of course, have factored anything like that.
At the very least different religions say different things about different aspects of life unless you are saying that basically all religions are the same.
More straw manning won’t help you here. When people “encounter” deities almost invariably the deities concerned are only the ones to which they’re most enculturated. That’s called confirmation bias, and your “encounter” story is a textbook example of it.
Otherwise it seems you have returned to the board to continue your shamanic dance around me waving your magic list of self excuse and damning errors like survivor bias, leprachology, and assorted fallacies hoping that the smell might cling to me.
If you don’t like having the roster of fallacies on which you rely pointed out you should stop committing them.
Long ago and far away I commented that I wasn’t sure whether you were an intelligent person trying very hard to look stupid, or vice versa. Eventually I worked it out, and your efforts here do nothing to suggest I was wrong about that.
Oh well.
-
I don't know - but I'm not claiming some kind of major 'conversion' am I.
No you aren't which makes me wonder whether you still have your familial faith or, as is more evident, your apparent allegiance to scientism.
-
Vlad,
More straw manning won’t help you here. When people “encounter” deities almost invariably the deities concerned are only the ones to which they’re most enculturated. That’s called confirmation bias, and your “encounter” story is a textbook example of it.
If you don’t like having the roster of fallacies on which you rely pointed out you should stop committing them.
Long ago and far away I commented that I wasn’t sure whether you were an intelligent person trying very hard to look stupid, or vice versa. Eventually I worked it out, and your efforts here do nothing to suggest I was wrong about that.
Oh well.
No Hillside you wave a list of fallacies about and hope that one or more of your wee wizards bites. You must fucking hate everybody on this board....in my humble opinion.
-
Vlad,
No Hillside you wave a list of fallacies about and hope that one or more of your wee wizards bites. You must fucking hate everybody on this board....in my humble opinion.
Unhinged.
-
Vlad,
Unhinged.
At least I have hinges Hillside.
-
No you aren't which makes me wonder whether you still have your familial faith or, as is more evident, your apparent allegiance to scientism.
But as I have pointed out (actually many, many times on various threads) that I am non religious provides no likely insight into upbringing, because although kids brought up in a non religious household are almost certain to remain non religious as adults about 50% of those brought up in religious households will end up non religious.
So there isn't an equivalence with religious adults whatsoever.
So - show me an adult non religious person and it would be difficult to predict their upbringing.
Show me an adult religious person and I would predict, with almost certainty, that I'm looking at a person with a religious upbringing.
-
Careful now, You are introducing a more superior methodology to the one you've been using.
Nope just using a commonly known colloquial phrase.
-
But as I have pointed out (actually many, many times on various threads) that I am non religious provides no likely insight into upbringing, because although kids brought up in a non religious household are almost certain to remain non religious as adults about 50% of those brought up in religious households will end up non religious.
But a recent survey of religious switching by the pew research group demonstrate a quarter of adults raised in non religious households have switched to a religion and 23% switched to christianity. This report can be found here https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/
So there isn't an equivalence with religious adults whatsoever.
There is religious switching of those brought up in a non religious household to christianity according to survey. Not so much but switching does occur
So - show me an adult non religious person and it would be difficult to predict their upbringing.
That's no kind of methodology for a scientist, surely.
Show me an adult religious person and I would predict, with almost certainty, that I'm looking at a person with a religious upbringing.
What, even though a recent survey says that a quarter of adults from a non religious household switch to religious affiliation?
The report also talks about generational snowballing. By which presumably there will be more non religious people because their parents were non religious.
Basically the trends seen in non religious populations have been seen at one time or another in religious populations. Non christian religions seem to have a higher retention than either christianity or non religion. IMO this shows that other religions are transmitted more in a cultural or familial manner than christianity so it would be wrong to merge religion here.
-
But a recent survey of religious switching by the pew research group demonstrate a quarter of adults raised in non religious households have switched to a religion and 23% switched to christianity. This report can be found here https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/
The link you quote is about religiosity in the US - do you have a similar link to anything specific to the UK situation?
-
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/
And there was me thinking you were brought up in the UK Vlad - I hadn't realised you were American.
-
Vlad,
At least I have hinges Hillside.
”The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
-
The link you quote is about religiosity in the US - do you have a similar link to anything specific to the UK situation?
Yes - the seminal work of David Voas - e.g. his Believing not Belonging study and others that have demonstrated a similar effect.
The key relevant summary finding relating to whether an adult will be religious or not depending on their upbringing are:
For children raised in a religious household, where both parents are religious - 46% will be religious as an adult
For children raised in a household where one parent is religious and the other not religious - 23% will be religious as an adult
For children raised in a non religious household - just 3% will be religious as an adult
There are all sorts of other details in the studies, but they paint a broadly similar picture.
-
The link you quote is about religiosity in the US - do you have a similar link to anything specific to the UK situation?
There was also a recent survey of the breakdown of catholics in England and Wales, which showed a similar finding, but with knobs on.
So just 0.9% of current catholics were brought up in a non religious manner. 92.3% of current catholics were brought up catholic, although a catholic upbringing isn't very 'sticky' in terms of retention as only 55% of people brought up as catholics remain catholics as an adult.
The study also made comparisons with the other major christian denominations in the Uk, with similar findings, so 2% of current anglicans were brought up non religious, same for baptists and 0.8% of methodists were brought up non religious.
There is also a tiny proportion of current christians in the UK (0.1-0.4%) brought up non christian religion.
So except for a couple of % current chrstians weer brought up in their current denomination or were brought up in a different christian denomination. So the only meaningful 'conversion' to christianity in numerical terms is from one christian denomination to another.
-
The link you quote is about religiosity in the US - do you have a similar link to anything specific to the UK situation?
A tad parochial and nationalistic.
The US survey is the larger sample.
The Pew research center did a world survey in 2015,
-
Vlad,
”The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I think there is a thread on this site about how the Dunning Kruger effect might not actually be a thing so your post
Is passe Hillside.
-
And there was me thinking you were brought up in the UK Vlad - I hadn't realised you were American.
I can see how you might respond to this since the universality of many of your contentions. I will cheerfully discuss why Britain and the US seem to be at variance with UK data.
The main take away for me is that retention is greater in almost all other religions than christianity showing as far as I can see a difference in transmission.
-
A tad parochial and nationalistic.
Seeing as we were talking about your upbringing then it is entirely relevant to discuss that in the context of the society in which you were brought up - which I gather is the UK. The US has a very different cultural and societal relationship to religion that we do, although I suspect it is quite rapidly moving in the same direction, but perhaps a couple of decades behind us, as your survey shows.
The Pew research center did a world survey in 2015,
Which showed what in relation to upbringing and retention of religiosity in the UK?
-
The main take away for me is that retention is greater in almost all other religions than christianity showing as far as I can see a difference in transmission.
The main take away from which survey.
I don't think the UK research I've described looked in any detail at non christian religions. Nor I think does the Pew research - meaning I can't see any data on the stickiness of non christian religions.
-
Vlad,
I think there is a thread on this site about how the Dunning Kruger effect might not actually be a thing so your post
Is passe Hillside.
Except, ironically, your efforts here continue to demonstrate that it’s very much a “thing”.
-
Vlad,
Except, ironically, your efforts here continue to demonstrate that it’s very much a “thing”.
I'm sure there are thousands out there saying "Oh no, Hillside's Dunning again...I do wish he would give it a rest."....
-
I don't think you understand the scope of popperian science.
I don't think you understand how little I care about your "look a squirrel" moments.
Also, the resurrection is proposed as a miracle in the full knowledge that the normal run of things is suspended.
You're on the science board here. Your appeals to supernatural nonsense have no weight.
-
Following on from the discussion on the resurrection - an interesting view on the profound effects the resurrection had on three fundamental aspects of our world today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTeY7RDtWRg
(published just three days ago)
-
Following on from the discussion on the resurrection - an interesting view on the profound effects the resurrection had on three fundamental aspects of our world today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTeY7RDtWRg
(published just three days ago)
Belief in the resurrection maybe.
Any progress on finding that evidence about the Apostles mostly being killed for their beliefs - beyond Church tradition?
-
Following on from the discussion on the resurrection - an interesting view on the profound effects the resurrection had on three fundamental aspects of our world today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTeY7RDtWRg
(published just three days ago)
I think you need to demonstrate that the resurrection actually happened before ascribing effects to it.
What you describing are effects of a belief in the resurrection, which is an entirely different thing.
-
Belief in the resurrection maybe.
Any progress on finding that evidence about the Apostles mostly being killed for their beliefs - beyond Church tradition?
I can understand disbelief in the resurrection. But I am interested in Why you doubt the reported fate of the apostles.
-
I can understand disbelief in the resurrection. But I am interested in Why you doubt the reported fate of the apostles.
Because the reports are later church tradition on the whole with no supporting evidence.
-
Because the reports are later church tradition on the whole with no supporting evidence.
So does that mean they didn't die or didn't die for their faith?
-
But I am interested in Why you doubt the reported fate of the apostles.
I genuinely don't know the answer, but are there any contemporary or close to contemporary reports other than from christian sources that provide accounts of the deaths of the apostles. I would imagine that were they executed by others those others would have reported this too.
-
I think you need to demonstrate that the resurrection actually happened before ascribing effects to it.
What you describing are effects of a belief in the resurrection, which is an entirely different thing.
I think Alan is saying is" here are the effects what is the cause?"
The other approach is to suggest subterfuge, madness, gullibility, conspiracy and hoax but not commit to anything.
-
So does that mean they didn't die or didn't die for their faith?
It means we don't know anything about the death of the majority of the apostles. Alan used the 'fact' that most of the apostles died for their faith as support for the belief that the resurrection happened but we don't know that that is what happened. it may just be later stories and traditions.
-
I genuinely don't know the answer, but are there any contemporary or close to contemporary reports other than from christian sources that provide accounts of the deaths of the apostles. I would imagine that were they executed by others those others would have reported this too.
A few reports about deaths but certainly not in the case of most of the apostles. I have seen discussions involving historians around maybe three at most - and maybe not all of those were 'for their faith'.
-
I think Alan is saying here are the effects what is the cause.
The other approach is to suggest subterfuge, madness, gullibility, conspiracy and hoax but not commit to anything.
No need to suggest alternatives, just to ask for evidence to support the claim.
-
It means we don't know anything about the death of the majority of the apostles. Alan used the 'fact' that most of the apostles died for their faith as support for the belief that the resurrection happened but we don't know that that is what happened. it may just be later stories and traditions.
I'm sorry but you are deliberately ignoring church reports here.
Why?
-
I'm sorry but you are deliberately ignoring church reports here.
Why?
Because they are later traditions from sources which are not independent.
-
No need to suggest alternatives, just to ask for evidence to support the claim.
No I don't think you can ignore alternatives since that is what provides the basis of your enquiry.
If you conclude it didn't happen then you have to do so on the basis of an alternative.
EG The Queen did not die in 2021 because she died a year later.
-
No I don't think you can ignore alternatives since that is what provides the basis of your enquiry.
If you conclude it didn't happen then you have to do so on the basis of an alternative.
EG The Queen did not die in 2021 because she died a year later.
I didn't conclude that it didn't happen but said there is no evidence it did, so we don't know. There is no need to provide alternatives when not accepting something due to lack of evidence to support the claim.
-
Because they are later traditions from sources which are not independent.
No reason to ignore them.
There are no records whatsoever of them dying for any reason but but I don't see you asking for evidence for that.
It looks like bias on your part.
-
No reason to ignore them.
There are no records whatsoever of them dying for any reason but but I don't see you asking for evidence for that.
It looks like bias on your part.
It is a reason not to consider them as reliable evidence for what happened to the apostles. Not sure what your point about them dying is supposed to be, I haven't commented on their deaths. You seem willing to accept church traditions as reliable evidence, I'm not convinced they are.
Your favourite New Testament scholar, Bart Erhman says
'For none of the apostles do we have reliable historical records? For most of them, we don’t even have legends. For those for whom we do have legends (Peter, Paul, John, and a couple of others) the legends are not historically trustworthy.
The best-attested case is the apostle Peter. I think he probably was indeed martyred. But I don’t think we have the details. What we have is a couple of early allusions to his death and an amazing legend, from about a hundred years after he died.'
Even a website like compellingtruth.com says 'While many accounts are uncertain traditions' https://www.compellingtruth.org/apostles-die.html (https://www.compellingtruth.org/apostles-die.html)
-
It is a reason not to consider them as reliable evidence for what happened to the apostles. Not sure what your point about them dying is supposed to be, I haven't commented on their deaths. You seem willing to accept church traditions as reliable evidence, I'm not convinced they are.
Your favourite New Testament scholar, Bart Erhman says
'For none of the apostles do we have reliable historical records? For most of them, we don’t even have legends. For those for whom we do have legends (Peter, Paul, John, and a couple of others) the legends are not historically trustworthy.
The best-attested case is the apostle Peter. I think he probably was indeed martyred. But I don’t think we have the details. What we have is a couple of early allusions to his death and an amazing legend, from about a hundred years after he died.'
Even a website like compellingtruth.com says 'While many accounts are uncertain traditions' https://www.compellingtruth.org/apostles-die.html (https://www.compellingtruth.org/apostles-die.html)
It seems to me that you are demonstrating deliberate bias apart from that not considering later reports probably disqualifies much of history.
I'm not sure professional historians would buy your line.
-
The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end. What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day. Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter? If not, what could possibly have brought about such a profound world changing scenario?
-
The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end. What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day. Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter? If not, what could possibly have brought about such profound world changing scenario?
This is a rosy view that overlooks the twists and turns of the power structures over history. Christianity piggy backed on the might of the Roman Empire and was subsequently spread worldwide thanks to European imperialism. Had Emperor Constantine gone with Mithraism, churches over the world would be dedicated to Mithras now and the Jewish heretical sect of first century Judea would be a curious footnote for historians.
-
It seems to me that you are demonstrating deliberate bias apart from that not considering later reports probably disqualifies much of history.
I'm not sure professional historians would buy your line.
Historians consider what is most likely t have happened based on their analysis of the evidence, how reliable they think it is, how many different sources are there, are the sources biased, are they independent. They don't just accept tradition but question it then give their opinion on what most probably happened. Regarding the martyrdom of the apostles it may have happened, but the evidence is small and comes form sources which are biased (looking to present a particular history for example). Am I saying it definitely didn't happen? No. Am I saying it might have happened? Yes. Am I saying it probably happened or probably didn't happen? No - because I haven't studied in enough depth to reach an informed conclusion. What I am saying however is that legends and stories are not good evidence for the claim that the resurrection actually happened - which is a claim Alan, and others, have made.
If you take the story of George Washington and the cherry tree as an example. A story was made up intended to show Washington in a positive light but 'The cherry tree myth is the most well-known and longest enduring legend about George Washington.'
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/cherry-tree-myth (https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/cherry-tree-myth)
-
The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end. What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day. Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter? If not, what could possibly have brought about such a profound world changing scenario?
Christianity becoming adopted as the official religion of Rome is a big factor of course. But as has been said, belief in something doesn't mean it actually happened, even if that belief spreads around the world.
-
The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy ...
Actually it didn't. The life and death of Jesus created hardly a ripple in the religious hierarchy at the time and place in which it happened. Before Jesus, most people in Palestine were Jewish, with some minor sects and of course different religion of the Roman occupiers. After Jesus life and death the status quo was pretty well entirely retained - the only difference being a minor and non-influential community of early christian who never gained any kind of traction amongst those local communities, you know the ones who would have been witnesses to Jesus life. And those early christians had so little impact that largely they became scattered and had to move to other places to gain any kind of traction as communities.
And also don't forget that as far as we are aware those early christians thought that the end of the world was coming within years and had no interest in creating some kind of world religion, as there was no point - they were preparing for the imminent second coming etc. It is only much later that christianity as we might understand it become established and this was very different from its initial form and, of course, didn't involve anyone who was around at the time of Jesus' life and death.
, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end.
Ah - now you are beginning to understand it - the event that was instrumental in creating a new religious hierarchy with world reach wasn't the purported resurrection but the fact that centuries later christians were able to persuade the leader of a world empire to adopt their belief. Clearly great PR and marketing, as as if often the case there is a heavy dollop of being around at the right time and place. But this is now all about belief not about what actually may have happened as we are talking about 300 years after the purported events.
What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day.
Yup - because the leader of the most powerful empire in Europe decided that christianity was going to be promoted across his empire.
-
The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy
And again around 600AD
... and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end.
All sorts of afterlife myths were around before this, and after this.
What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day.
Trump's election-denial has reverberated through Brazil, and been utilised by the Russian disinformation machine. Holocaust deniers keep on crawling out of the woodwork and energising far-right campaigns all over the place. Something doesn't have to be true to be effective or believed.
Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter?
It wasn't. It was brought about by educated people with an agenda talking about Jewish tradesmen.
O.
-
And again around 600AD
But that one did gain traction amongst the people who would have known Mohammed and heard him. Unlike christianity which was pretty well ignored by the people around at the time and place.
-
The bottom line is that something happened two thousand years ago which caused a profound shake up of the established religious hierarchy, the political power of the mighty Roman empire and the logical human thinking that all natural life will come to a natural end. What happened reverberated around the whole world, and continues to this day. Could this "happening" have really been brought about by a group of Jewish fishermen led by the son of a carpenter? If not, what could possibly have brought about such a profound world changing scenario?
Not really: at the time the alleged life and death of Jesus was of little import. It was only much later when Christianity was picked up by those wielding political power, around the early 4th century CE: but the right type of Christianity of course, and even after Constantine there were differences and disputes in the Roman hierarchy. The upshot was that Christianity became a key element in political power in Europe, and it was also the cause of much friction too.
In some places though, where Christianity had retained political power and influence for centuries, that influence is now waning - the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the UK is a good example of positive social change happening despite the objections of established Christianity.
-
Not really: at the time the alleged life and death of Jesus was of little import. It was only much later when Christianity was picked up by those wielding political power, around the early 4th century CE:
Correct - the christianity that eventually gained global success was hugely different to the christianity of the earliest adherents. Literally beyond belief as those early christian communities firmly believed that the end of times would have happened centuries before Constantine was even born.
-
Not really: at the time the alleged life and death of Jesus was of little import. It was only much later when Christianity was picked up by those wielding political power, around the early 4th century CE: but the right type of Christianity of course, and even after Constantine there were differences and disputes in the Roman hierarchy. The upshot was that Christianity became a key element in political power in Europe, and it was also the cause of much friction too.
In some places though, where Christianity had retained political power and influence for centuries, that influence is now waning - the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the UK is a good example of positive social change happening despite the objections of established Christianity.
I doubt if Constantine would have picked up an inconsequential religion. It's likely that, by the fourth century, Christianity was widespread and an influential religion.
-
I doubt if Constantine would have picked up an inconsequential religion. It's likely that, by the fourth century, Christianity was widespread and an influential religion.
As I recall the history, part of Constantine's aim was to sort out splits among Christians, and especially Arianism, and impose some sort of discipline/orthodoxy - hence the Council of Nicea.
-
I doubt if Constantine would have picked up an inconsequential religion. It's likely that, by the fourth century, Christianity was widespread and an influential religion.
Not sure that's what he said. I think he implied, correctly, that christianity was inconsequential as a religion in the early period after Jesus - so probably through to 150CE.
By 300CE it had become an established, but minor religion - Constantine chose to make it meanstream. I've read suggestions that by around 300CE perhaps 10% of the population may have been christian. A pretty small minority but still one that would be noticed. What propelled christianity from minority to established was Constantine. Without him would christianity have continued to grow - who knows. Perhaps - maybe it would have grumbled along at about 10% or maybe drifted away.
Another interesting question is what would have happened had Mohammed have been born 300 years earlier. Islam was massively more successful at establishing itself compared to christianity. Had Constantine been offered islam rather than christianity in 300-ish, which way would he have jumped.
-
As I recall the history, part of Constantine's aim was to sort out splits among Christians, and especially Arianism, and impose some sort of discipline/orthodoxy - hence the Council of Nicea.
Yes, but that was after he "adopted" it. The battle of Milvian bridge happened 13 years before the Council of Nicaea.
Side note: Apple thinks Milvian should be autocorrected to Melvin.
-
Not sure that's what he said. I think he implied, correctly, that christianity was inconsequential as a religion in the early period after Jesus - so probably through to 150CE.
By 300CE it had become an established, but minor religion - Constantine chose to make it meanstream. I've read suggestions that by around 300CE perhaps 10% of the population may have been christian. A pretty small minority but still one that would be noticed. What propelled christianity from minority to established was Constantine. Without him would christianity have continued to grow - who knows. Perhaps - maybe it would have grumbled along at about 10% or maybe drifted away.
I don't think that a religion having 10% of the population of the Roman Empire should be considered a minor religion. It was likely amongst the larger religions of the empire and it would have to be if Constantine was going to use it as a means to exert political power.
Another interesting question is what would have happened had Mohammed have been born 300 years earlier. Islam was massively more successful at establishing itself compared to christianity. Had Constantine been offered islam rather than christianity in 300-ish, which way would he have jumped.
Islam spread through conquest. It's unlikely that Constantine would have viewed it as a suitable for his purpose, more as a threat to the empire. However, if it had been available to him and he had chosen it, Christianity would probably now be viewed as a pagan cult that died in the fourth century, if we knew anything about it at all, that is.
-
Correct - the christianity that eventually gained global success was hugely different to the christianity of the earliest adherents. Literally beyond belief as those early christian communities firmly believed that the end of times would have happened centuries before Constantine was even born.
I wonder then why you have inflicted your theory about how the later Christian church gains and retains members on the early church.
Certainly and eventually nominal, socially incentivised Christianity became more of a thing where as in the growth period repentance and personal encounter would have driven the faith.
You say Christianity failed to grab the locals.So what? Judaism was very much the religion for locals and had, I would imagine already embraced nominality and birth qualifications for membership in the way Christianity never did.
On another matter the religious magisterium of the Roman Empire was never as big as the post Constantine Catholic magisterium and as such I think Christianity was a bigger deal than you make out.
What I find fascinating is Atheist detractors of today seem to think the church was influential enough to derail and sap the muscularity and pud out of the Roman Empire , which presumably would have experienced some kind of enlightenment through culture and reason on it’s own and on the other hand influential enough to have changed the policy on slavery which seems to go against your small, fairly invisible sect Hypothesis.
I still get the whiff of argumentum ad populum from your efforts.
-
I don't think that a religion having 10% of the population of the Roman Empire should be considered a minor religion. It was likely amongst the larger religions of the empire and it would have to be if Constantine was going to use it as a means to exert political power.
Islam spread through conquest. It's unlikely that Constantine would have viewed it as a suitable for his purpose, more as a threat to the empire. However, if it had been available to him and he had chosen it, Christianity would probably now be viewed as a pagan cult that died in the fourth century, if we knew anything about it at all, that is.
Had it been a hoax it should have died out sooner.
Hoaxes of longevity should still be around today....You’ll be able to list the hoaxes of similar longevity I take it.
-
Had it been a hoax it should have died out sooner.
How have you excluded the possibility of it being a hoax?
Hoaxes of longevity should still be around today....You’ll be able to list the hoaxes of similar longevity I take it.
Since you mention it, what other possible long-term hoaxes are you thinking of?
-
How have you excluded the possibility of it being a hoax?
Since you mention it, what other possible long-term hoaxes are you thinking of?
I have quoted one or two papers concerning hoaxes and their longevity and how I take my cue from those regarding Christianity being a hoax rather than the “guid auld common sense” schtick.
-
I have quoted one or two papers concerning hoaxes and their longevity and how I take my cue from those regarding Christianity being a hoax rather than the “guid auld common sense” schtick.
Evasive drivel, as usual: please cite these papers since I have no idea what you are on about.
Love your attempt at Scottish vernacular - why it's almost as if we Scots constantly speak with reference to the Harry Lauder songbook.
-
Evasive drivel, as usual: please cite these papers since I have no idea what you are on about.
Love your attempt at Scottish vernacular - why it's almost as if we Scots constantly speak with reference to the Harry Lauder songbook.
Arse clenching codswallop.
I have researched it not being a hoax and being a hoax.
If it is a hoax then it's by far the best con in history by a country mile....that usually cues up people saying that's impossible because Christians cannot be good at anything ha ha.
-
Arse clenching codswallop.
I have researched it not being a hoax and being a hoax.
If it is a hoax then it's by far the best con in history by a country mile....that usually cues up people saying that's impossible because Christians cannot be good at anything ha ha.
Sources?
-
Vlad,
I have researched it not being a hoax and being a hoax.
If it is a hoax then it's by far the best con in history by a country mile....that usually cues up people saying that's impossible because Christians cannot be good at anything ha ha.
Just to correct you: whether the resurrection story is a hoax, a mistake, a deliberate manipulation of the facts, a case of survivorship bias or anything else naturalistic is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether or not the Christian version of the story satisfies the basic tests of historicity which, for reasons that have been set out exhaustively on the this mb, it does not. That’s why it has no place in academic history.
No amount of your “look over there” distractions about other possible explanations changes that – even if you conclude that every known possible naturalistic explanation fails the tests of historicity too, that does not have any effect on the validity of the supernatural version.
Short version: the burden of proof is still with you to demonstrate your claim, not with others to demonstrate alternatives.
You’re welcome.
-
Sources?
That it is a hoax? No historical sources
-
Vlad,
Just to correct you: whether the resurrection story is a hoax, a mistake, a deliberate manipulation of the facts, a case of survivorship bias or anything else naturalistic is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether or not the Christian version of the story satisfies the basic tests of historicity which, for reasons that have been set out exhaustively on the this mb, it does not. That’s why it has no place in academic history.
No amount of your “look over there” distractions about other possible explanations changes that – even if you conclude that every known possible naturalistic explanation fails the tests of historicity too, that does not have any effect on the validity of the supernatural version.
Short version: the burden of proof is still with you to demonstrate your claim, not with others to demonstrate alternatives.
You’re welcome.
There are no historical documents outlining the hoax hypothesis, how it was done or who perpertrated it.
It absolutely falls on what the resurrection is accused of.
A bit like that other antitheist gaffe...accusing the principle of sufficient reason of not having sufficient reason.
-
Vlad,
There are no historical documents outlining the hoax hypothesis, how it was done or who perpertrated it.
It absolutely falls on what the resurrection is accused of.
A bit like that other antitheist gaffe...accusing the principle of sufficient reason of not having sufficient reason.
Did you not read the correction you were given, or did you not understand it?
-
On the viability of Conspiratorial beliefs David Grimes PLOS ONE
Magazine.
How long does it take for a conspiracy to come out S. Blaiw The Correspondent.
-
On the viability of Conspiratorial beliefs David Grimes PLOS ONE
Magazine.
How long does it take for a conspiracy to come out S. Blaiw The Correspondent.
Links please.
-
Gordon,
Links please.
Just out of interest, why? I’ve already explained to him (and he’s ignored or not understood) that even if there were not one piece of evidence for a hoax or for any of the many other possible naturalistic explanations for the resurrection story, that would move the epistemological dial on the Christian narrative not one jot of a smidgen of an iota. If the Christian story fails the basic tests of historicity (as it does) then no amount of evidence or lack of it for other possible explanations changes that.
Vlad is just playing his “look over there” distraction card while he makes good his escape, so I don’t see how asking him where “there” is would address anything useful or relevant.
-
Had it been a hoax it should have died out sooner.
Hoaxes of longevity should still be around today....You’ll be able to list the hoaxes of similar longevity I take it.
What's your view on Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism? Are these hoaxes? Why haven't they died out?
-
Links please.
You 've been provided with the references please don't take the piss.
-
You 've been provided with the references please don't take the piss.
stop lying
-
Hinduism is at least 4000 years old....maybe older... It is also probably the most acceptable philosophical position (among all religious philosophies) in today's world.
-
What's your view on Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism? Are these hoaxes? Why haven't they died out?
Buddhism IMHO is an anthropology philosophy with techniques that apparently work. Hinduism is a range of religious practices with an underlying monist philosophy. Philosophies are not hoaxes.
Islam is a monotheism, Mormons is an American Christian sect based on Gold artifacts which couldn't later be produced, a polygamy that seems to be a male fantasy and an alternative history that is majorly contradictory to evidence.
-
Buddhism IMHO is an anthropology philosophy with techniques that apparently work. Hinduism is a range of religious practices with an underlying monist philosophy. Philosophies are not hoaxes.
Islam is a monotheism, Mormons is an American Christian sect based on Gold artifacts which couldn't later be produced, a polygamy that seems to be a male fantasy and an alternative history that is majorly contradictory to evidence.
'anthropology philosophy', you eating alphabetti spaghetti?
-
'anthropology philosophy', you eating alphabetti spaghetti?
Sorry they don't have commas in alphabetti spaghetti.
-
Sorry they don't have commas in alphabetti spaghetti.
Obviously not.
-
Had it been a hoax it should have died out sooner.
But surely the key point of a hoax is that it is a deliberate deception - in other words the hoaxer knows that the story is one that they have made up and isn't true.
That isn't the same as a genuine belief in something that isn't true.
So I doubt there are many people who think that christianity arose due to a hoax - in other words those actually present at the time made up stuff they know to be untrue. Possible of course, but completely unnecessary for the development of christianity later. I suspect the most likely explanation is that later authors etc embellished, exaggerated and/or misinterpreted what had come from earlier. So an empty tomb is interpreted as a resurrection (when that may not be what those there at the time thought), a dream like vision is exaggerated to a real physical Jesus with wounds you can push your finger in, a vague recollection passed down through several generation is embellished to create a detailed (too details to be believable) narrative.
Now unless those people in the late 1stC through to the middle 4thC (note that none of them were there at the time of the purported resurrection) genuinely knew that they were creating something untrue - in other words they knew there was no resurrection but made stuff up nonetheless, then there is no hoax. What you have is genuine believers creating stories and documents that support their genuinely held belief, regardless of whether what they believe is true or not.
It is only a hoax if the people transmitting the story know it to be untrue but make up stuff to deliberately deceive. I see no more reason for that to be the case for the resurrection than for a belief that the earth was flat or the sun went round the earth - genuinely held beliefs that were passed on for generations, with stories to embellish etc. Neither is true, but I see no hoax there as I don't see evidence of people who knew the earth was round or went round the sun deliberately creating a deception.
-
On the viability of Conspiratorial beliefs David Grimes PLOS ONE
Magazine.
How long does it take for a conspiracy to come out S. Blaiw The Correspondent.
Actually those articles are about conspiracy theories which aren't the same as hoaxes. And the second is really just a summary of the first - links here for those interested.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
https://thecorrespondent.com/653/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-conspiracy-to-come-out
But back to hoaxes - as these require deliberate deception - in other words the perpetrator knows the thing they are foisting on the public is untrue, it is hard to see how the hoax, rather than the belief in the untrue thing can exist for long. How come - well imagine if someone creates a hoax - they, by definition know this to be untrue, but the (perhaps gullible) who belief it think it is true rather than know it is untrue. Once the original hoaxer dies then unless that hoaxer passes on not just the belief that the thing is true, but also the knowledge that it is untrue (i.e. a hoax), then the hoax cannot be perpetuated as a hoax.
Either the person will reveal it to be untrue in which case the hoax will die. Alternatively they won't reveal it to be untrue and later generations will have a genuine belief that it is true rather than a knowledge that it is untrue. So there is no longer deliberate deception so the hoax no longer exists, although the belief in something that is not true persists.
Now I suspect there are countless things that might have originally been a hoax, that persist as genuine beliefs. But as the hoaxer is long gone in many cases we will never know whether the person originally creating the story knew it to be untrue and therefore a hoax.
-
Prof,
Actually those articles are about conspiracy theories…etc
All true, but with respect I think you’re getting suckered into Vlad’s look over there distraction scam.
Imagine that he’d pitched up here propounding his belief that storks deliver babies (perhaps he read it in a book that referenced an ancient stork tale that had been recorded by the priests of a nascent stork faith several decades after a stork was supposedly seen in the vicinity of a newborn). What then if you were to counter with, “but what about the cabbage patch story, or the good fairy story?” and Vlad replied, “but there’s no firm evidence for either – and what’s more, here’s a link that says that there isn’t”.
And let’s say that the link is from a reputable source, and that it does indeed show that there’s no good evidence for the cabbage patch or the good fairy stories.
How then would that be relevant to Vlad’s stork claim, let alone up the epistemological ante for it?
-
But surely the key point of a hoax is that it is a deliberate deception - in other words the hoaxer knows that the story is one that they have made up and isn't true.
That isn't the same as a genuine belief in something that isn't true.
So I doubt there are many people who think that christianity arose due to a hoax - in other words those actually present at the time made up stuff they know to be untrue. Possible of course, but completely unnecessary for the development of christianity later. I suspect the most likely explanation is that later authors etc embellished, exaggerated and/or misinterpreted what had come from earlier. So an empty tomb is interpreted as a resurrection (when that may not be what those there at the time thought), a dream like vision is exaggerated to a real physical Jesus with wounds you can push your finger in, a vague recollection passed down through several generation is embellished to create a detailed (too details to be believable) narrative.
Now unless those people in the late 1stC through to the middle 4thC (note that none of them were there at the time of the purported resurrection) genuinely knew that they were creating something untrue - in other words they knew there was no resurrection but made stuff up nonetheless, then there is no hoax. What you have is genuine believers creating stories and documents that support their genuinely held belief, regardless of whether what they believe is true or not.
It is only a hoax if the people transmitting the story know it to be untrue but make up stuff to deliberately deceive. I see no more reason for that to be the case for the resurrection than for a belief that the earth was flat or the sun went round the earth - genuinely held beliefs that were passed on for generations, with stories to embellish etc. Neither is true, but I see no hoax there as I don't see evidence of people who knew the earth was round or went round the sun deliberately creating a deception.
I'm not the one saying it's a hoax though. There are no historical records of hoaxing anywhere near the start of the first century. We know hoaxing to be a feature of publishing and pamphleteering(encyclopedia britannica) So we are in the wrong kind of time for hoaxing both in terms of it being much of a thing and the consequences of being swayed by it or being in on it.
But supposing it was a deliberate hoax...what is the motivation for it? If we say to make pots of money?to achieve political power, to be the vehicle by which the roman empire culturally survives collapse then we are crediting the perpetrators with supernatural foresight which is of course a bit of a thin hypothesis.
-
Vlad,
I'm not the one saying it's a hoax though. There are no historical records of hoaxing anywhere near the start of the first century. We know hoaxing to be a feature of publishing and pamphleteering(encyclopedia britannica) So we are in the wrong kind of time for hoaxing both in terms of it being much of a thing and the consequences of being swayed by it or being in on it.
But supposing it was a deliberate hoax...what is the motivation for it? If we say to make pots of money?to achieve political power, to be the vehicle by which the roman empire culturally survives collapse then we are crediting the perpetrators with supernatural foresight which is of course a bit of a thin hypothesis.
Look over there - a squirrel!
-
I'm not the one saying it's a hoax though.
So why are you raising it - we are in the world of genuine belief in something that is untrue, rather than a hoax which is a deliberate attempt to pass of something the hoaxer knows to be untrue as being true.
There are no historical records of hoaxing anywhere near the start of the first century. We know hoaxing to be a feature of publishing and pamphleteering(encyclopedia britannica) So we are in the wrong kind of time for hoaxing both in terms of it being much of a thing and the consequences of being swayed by it or being in on it.
I disagree - I suspect hoaxing has gone on over the centuries and certainly the manner of dissemination of biblical claims, via textural documents and word of mouth are perfectly amenable to hoaxing. But when we are dealing with beliefs, rather than something with a physical footprint (like a mashed together human and monkey skeleton) it is pretty well impossible to tell the difference, at a distance of centuries, between genuine belief in something that isn't true and a deliberate deception.
But supposing it was a deliberate hoax...what is the motivation for it? If we say to make pots of money?to achieve political power, to be the vehicle by which the roman empire culturally survives collapse then we are crediting the perpetrators with supernatural foresight which is of course a bit of a thin hypothesis.
Given that, as you say, no-one is claiming a hoax then this question has no relevance. But for the sake of arguments there are plenty of reasons why someone may claim that they were witnesses to something 'miraculous', even if they know it isn't true. It plays to some fairly basic psychology of making stuff up to gain attention. And if you claim a special proximity to a miracle then there is the glow of specialness that will flow from a claim of witnessing a 'miracle'.
-
So why are you raising it - we are in the world of genuine belief in something that is untrue, rather than a hoax which is a deliberate attempt to pass of something the hoaxer knows to be untrue as being true.
I disagree - I suspect hoaxing has gone on over the centuries and certainly the manner of dissemination of biblical claims, via textural documents and word of mouth are perfectly amenable to hoaxing. But when we are dealing with beliefs, rather than something with a physical footprint (like a mashed together human and monkey skeleton) it is pretty well impossible to tell the difference, at a distance of centuries, between genuine belief in something that isn't true and a deliberate deception.
Given that, as you say, no-one is claiming a hoax then this question has no relevance. But for the sake of arguments there are plenty of reasons why someone may claim that they were witnesses to something 'miraculous', even if they know it isn't true. It plays to some fairly basic psychology of making stuff up to gain attention. And if you claim a special proximity to a miracle then there is the glow of specialness that will flow from a claim of witnessing a 'miracle'.
I think when hoaxing means execution then that isn't a very fertile context for hoaxing,
-
I think when hoaxing means execution then that isn't a very fertile context for hoaxing,
I thought we were talking about the purported resurrection, not the earlier death.
I think people coming back to life is a well-trodden and fertile claim down the centuries.
-
Buddhism IMHO is an anthropology philosophy with techniques that apparently work. Hinduism is a range of religious practices with an underlying monist philosophy. Philosophies are not hoaxes.
I think that depends on the philosophy.
Islam is a monotheism,
But is it a hoax or is it true, and if the former, why hasn't it died out?
Mormons is an American Christian sect based on Gold artifacts which couldn't later be produced, a polygamy that seems to be a male fantasy and an alternative history that is majorly contradictory to evidence.
So it is a hoax and yet it has failed to die out just like Christianity.
-
I think that depends on the philosophy.
But is it a hoax or is it true, and if the former, why hasn't it died out?
So it is a hoax and yet it has failed to die out just like Christianity.
It is a monotheism and in that respect it is true imo.
I don't think anyone was trying to hoax anyone. I'm sure Mohammed sincerely believed his experience. Obviously we disagree on the trinity
-
It is a monotheism and in that respect it is true imo.
Islam and Christianity can't both be true. Jesus can't both be the son of God and a mere prophet at the same time.
I don't think anyone was trying to hoax anyone. I'm sure Mohammed sincerely believed his experience. Obviously we disagree on the trinity
So it's possible that Jesus and his followers sincerely believed their experience and yet were wrong.
-
Islam and Christianity can't both be true. Jesus can't both be the son of God and a mere prophet at the same time.So it's possible that Jesus and his followers sincerely believed their experience and yet were wrong.
He can't be a mere prophet but he can be a prophet too. And it would be easier and seem more convenient in certain contexts to believe he was a mere prophet.
-
He can't be a mere prophet but he can be a prophet too. And it would be easier and seem more convenient in certain contexts to believe he was a mere prophet.
So Islam is wrong in your opinion. But here it is not dying out.
-
it is essential for spirituality and science to co-exist and get integrated....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/about/
-
So Islam is wrong in your opinion. But here it is not dying out.
Aren’t you making an argumentum ad populum?
-
Aren’t you making an argumentum ad populum?
No.
-
Please avoid discussing religions on this thread.
I am trying to discuss spirituality rather than religion. Spirituality is secular and is relevant to all humans (even atheists).....all life in fact. It is about the purpose of life and death and the development of consciousness.
-
Please avoid discussing religions on this thread.
I am trying to discuss spirituality rather than religion. Spirituality is secular and is relevant to all humans (even atheists).....all life in fact. It is about the purpose of life and death and the development of consciousness.
But it’s no more science than religion is.
-
Please avoid discussing religions on this thread.
I am trying to discuss spirituality rather than religion. Spirituality is secular and is relevant to all humans (even atheists).....all life in fact. It is about the purpose of life and death and the development of consciousness.
You say that spirituality is about 'purpose', and presumably you don't mean our individual hopes and aspirations for ourselves and our families. If so, then 'purpose', on a grander scale, seems to me like a quasi-religious term and not one that an atheist like me could ever identify with.
For me 'spirituality', though the term is imprecise, seems to be no more than certain thoughts and feelings that produce a sense of profound awe and wonder to which some people ascribe significance beyond themselves - in other words, 'spiritualiy' is a product of our biology, as is consciousness.
-
Difference between spirituality and religion.....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
-
Difference between spirituality and religion.....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/spirituality-and-religion/
Surely both 'spirituality' and 'religion' tend to operate in the world of trying to address the 'why' question - we will come back to that later. I suppose there are also aspects of things that people ascribe to spirituality that have nothing to do with the 'why' question, but are entirely about personal well-being and development. For example meditative practices or yoga, which are well know to have physiological effects that can be beneficial - similar to other practices such as other types of exercise, singing etc. Many people will engage in meditation or yoga with no consideration of the 'why' question.
I would have thought that the key difference is that religions tend to be organised and collective, involving communities of people coming together. In that respect religions also often add a layer of social control, as you mention.
So, to an extent religions are a subset of spirituality approach.
But back to the 'why' - before spending time and energy on this question you need to be sure there is a 'why' - in other words some sense of human-like intention, design or purpose to the universe. I, and many others here, are not convinced that there is - there is certainly no evidence for this. And while it is understandable that humans tend to see the world through the lens of human-like approaches, that is highly anthropocentric thinking. And the universe does not revolve around humans.
-
Please avoid discussing religions on this thread.
I am trying to discuss spirituality rather than religion. Spirituality is secular and is relevant to all humans (even atheists).....all life in fact. It is about the purpose of life and death and the development of consciousness.
I'm afraid you don't get to define spirituality as a general term, Sriram, only your own sense of spirituality. There are numerous interpretations of spirituality which may or may not include the religious person. My own spirituality, I would suggest, is far removed from your own take on it and doesn't involve any ideas of some sort of unifying consciousness or even purposes of life and death. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in these subjects, indeed, for me, they are the subject of intense curiosity but spirituality, for me, is much more associated with connection with nature and reflection.
-
I'm afraid you don't get to define spirituality as a general term, Sriram, only your own sense of spirituality. There are numerous interpretations of spirituality which may or may not include the religious person. My own spirituality, I would suggest, is far removed from your own take on it and doesn't involve any ideas of some sort of unifying consciousness or even purposes of life and death. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in these subjects, indeed, for me, they are the subject of intense curiosity but spirituality, for me, is much more associated with connection with nature and reflection.
I think that is correct - there is no clear and broadly accepted definition of spirituality, which leads individuals to define in a manner which they feel appropriate and then to determine whether they consider themselves to be spiritual or not.
Now I suspect there will be differences across differing societies, but certainly in the UK spirituality is seen as a sub-set of religious, rather than the other way around. The reason being that very few people who self-define as spiritual don't also self define as religious.
-
You say that spirituality is about 'purpose', and presumably you don't mean our individual hopes and aspirations for ourselves and our families. If so, then 'purpose', on a grander scale, seems to me like a quasi-religious term and not one that an atheist like me could ever identify with.
For me 'spirituality', though the term is imprecise, seems to be no more than certain thoughts and feelings that produce a sense of profound awe and wonder to which some people ascribe significance beyond themselves - in other words, 'spiritualiy' is a product of our biology, as is consciousness.
'Purpose' means the reason why Life exists, evolution takes place, complexity increases and so on. You could of course attribute all this to chance and randomness. But I and many others in the world believe that there is an inner intelligence that guides and directs life and evolution.
The purpose and direction that we attribute can be based on local culture and religion (Jehovah decides, Vishnu decides etc) or it can be open ended without any specific God. This attributes the wisdom and direction to our own inner consciousness. This is spirituality without religion. It can be about ones inner development rather than about the teachings of any one person or any scripture.
The reason atheists also can identify with this is because there is no specific God or mythology (as in Samkhya, Jainism and Buddhism) involved. Many secular techniques like Yoga and meditations are available for undertaking such inner development.
-
'Purpose' means the reason why Life exists, evolution takes place, complexity increases and so on.
Which is begging the question.
You could of course attribute all this to chance and randomness. But I and many others in the world believe that there is an inner intelligence that guides and directs life and evolution.
Which to my mind is quasi-religious.
The purpose and direction that we attribute can be based on local culture and religion (Jehovah decides, Vishnu decides etc) or it can be open ended without any specific God. This attributes the wisdom and direction to our own inner consciousness. This is spirituality without religion. It can be about ones inner development rather than about the teachings of any one person or any scripture.
Which arises from people being people in different times and cultures.
The reason atheists also can identify with this is because there is no specific God or mythology (as in Samkhya, Jainism and Buddhism) involved. Many secular techniques like Yoga and meditations are available for undertaking such inner development.
Again this is just people being people: no doubt some people find medidation and yoga useful irrespective of their take on theism, though neither interests me personally.
-
'Purpose' means the reason why Life exists, evolution takes place, complexity increases and so on.
But your terminology demonstrates bias - purpose implies intention, objective or aim, which presupposed some direction that isn't purely mechanistic. If you want a neutral starting point the term you should use is mechanism, not purpose. A mechanism can be random, purely driven by physics etc. or can be by design. Both are in play. Using purpose implies that there is something beyond the basic mechanism and until or unless you have demonstrated that considering purpose is moot.
You could of course attribute all this to chance and randomness.
Indeed you could and there is a wealth of evidence to demonstrate this to be the case in all sorts of circumstances.
But I and many others in the world believe that there is an inner intelligence that guides and directs life and evolution.
We know you do, but you don't have a shred of credible evidence to back up your claim in contrast to those who ascribed mechanisms based on sound principles of physics, chemistry and biology.
The purpose and direction that we attribute can be based on local culture and religion (Jehovah decides, Vishnu decides etc) or it can be open ended without any specific God. This attributes the wisdom and direction to our own inner consciousness. This is spirituality without religion. It can be about ones inner development rather than about the teachings of any one person or any scripture.
Oh dear, Sriram folds back into anthropocentricity yet again. Why on earth would a cosmic 'purpose' or mechanism involve something as obscure and parochial as religions followed by a single species on one tiny planet in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms.
The reason atheists also can identify with this is because there is no specific God or mythology (as in Samkhya, Jainism and Buddhism) involved. Many secular techniques like Yoga and meditations are available for undertaking such inner development.
You are confusing cosmic 'purpose' with individual purpose and/or well being. I've no issue with the notion that meditation or yoga etc may be hugely individually purposeful to people and promote individual well being etc, but that doesn't mean they have any meaning or purpose whatsoever in cosmic terms.
-
The laws of physics, chemistry and biology.... and an inner intelligence driving these mechanisms, are not mutually exclusive.
-
The laws of physics, chemistry and biology.... and an inner intelligence driving these mechanisms, are not mutually exclusive.
True - but also not necessary. Therefore if you are going to posit an inner intelligence driving these mechanisms then the onus is on you to provide the evidence. You, of course, have none.
Meanwhile science trundles on generating more and more evidence to explain the universe at its largest scale, at its smallest scale including life using those laws of physics, chemistry and biology without needing to resort to claims of inner intelligence.
We once used to explain thunder by reference to the actions of some intelligent god - now we are able to explain these phenomena satisfactorily on the basis of physics, without needing to resort to claims of some god.
-
it is essential for spirituality and science to co-exist and get integrated....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/about/
Only if you can show that spirituality (and, I suppose, science) are themselves essential, and I think that's difficult.
The laws of physics, chemistry and biology.... and an inner intelligence driving these mechanisms, are not mutually exclusive.
No, but neither are they all demonstrably real. Vlad, I'm sure, could be all over whether materialist notions like physical laws can ever be absolutely validated (and he'd be right, but science is technically always provision no matter how much we might act as though it's settled fact), but the notion of an underlying intelligence and intent to reality is far from even vaguely supported by anything more than wishful thinking.
O.
-
OF course they are necessary. Mere mechanisms don't explain anything. How and why these mechanisms and laws came about are very important questions. Wishing away the questions is like wearing blinkers.
I agree that 'God did it' could be a simplistic answer. But spirituality does not just say that. It provides us an avenue to see for ourselves the possibilities of our inner consciousness. You can see it too.
About happiness...happiness is of two kinds. First kind of happiness can be experienced through gratification of needs and desires. The second kind can be experienced through elimination of needs and desires. The second is a more permanent and stable kind of happiness. Once we achieve this, our vision and view of the world automatically changes.
Spirituality is hardly anthropocentric. It includes all life forms through the idea of spiritual evolution or consciousness evolution. It views the huge cosmos as just an illusion. Like a Virtual Reality world. Real enough when we are experiencing it, but disappears as soon as we remove the headset and see reality.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/reality/
-
OF course they are necessary.
It might appear self-evident to you, but given the number of people claiming otherwise just here on this board then, at the very least, it's not self-evident to everyone. You therefore need to explain WHY you think they are necessary, not just claim it as a given.
Mere mechanisms don't explain anything.
They are sufficient to explain the phenomena, generally. They are not definitively complete explanations, there might be something more - and in some of the cases of what's currently at the fringes of scientific understanding they are, of course, incomplete - but your incredulity does not invalidate those explanations nor mean that something more is required from them.
How and why these mechanisms and laws came about are very important questions.
How they emerged is an interesting, and arguably important, question, yes. Why, though - what makes you think there's a why?
Wishing away the questions is like wearing blinkers.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy. No-one is wishing away the question, people are asking you to justify the assumptions that would make the question relevant.
I agree that 'God did it' could be a simplistic answer. But spirituality does not just say that. It provides us an avenue to see for ourselves the possibilities of our inner consciousness. You can see it too.
Except that you've failed to justify the need to go looking for something that's unnecessary.
About happiness...happiness is of two kinds. First kind of happiness can be experienced through gratification of needs and desires. The second kind can be experienced through elimination of needs and desires.
Elimination of needs and desires is not happiness, I'd suggest, it's apathy. You're not unhappy, but happiness is not merely the absence of unhappiness.
The second is a more permanent and stable kind of happiness.
But it's forgoing so much of what makes being human so potentially wonderful.
Once we achieve this, our vision and view of the world automatically changes.
Post hoc ergo procter hoc? Surely the change in world view is what leads to accepting this state?
Spirituality is hardly anthropocentric.
I've not seen any foxes opining on spirituality.
It includes all life forms through the idea of spiritual evolution or consciousness evolution.
So people, once they've presumed something about humanity, then imprints that on other animals - that's pretty much the definition of anthropocentrism.
It views the huge cosmos as just an illusion. Like a Virtual Reality world.
We have the ability to interact with and interpret exactly one life, as things currently stand, and you advocate dismissing that and ignoring its potential in a wild goose chase for some unevidenced 'other'?
Real enough when we are experiencing it, but disappears as soon as we remove the headset and see reality.
When we 'remove the headset' - die - it does seem as though we no longer experience this world, but that doesn't automatically mean that something of us goes to some other place. You've neither demonstrated that 'soul' that might move on, nor demonstrated that there's anywhere to move on to.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/reality/
You fundamentally fail when you try to parallel 'subjective' and 'objective' realities as somehow separate and equally 'valid'. Our subjective reality is dependent upon the objective reality, it is a particular viewpoint. If objective reality is a multi-coloured sphere, every subjective view is going to have a different colour spread, but they're all going to be round.
We can miss things, we can misinterpret things, but given that we are part of the reality, our understanding is a part of objective reality as well.
We use these faculties to see and interact with the world at a certain level and scale. We don’t actually experience ‘reality’.
Yes, we do. We interpret it imperfectly, although we can improve that with rigorous methodology, but we do actually experience reality - we have no other option.
Instruments and photographs are merely extensions of our senses and are made in line with our sensory requirements. They are designed to see ‘reality’ the way we perceive it.
Initially this was the case - microscopes and telescopes simply changed the scale we could look at, microphones transferred sounds that we couldn't get close to. As we have progressed, though, we have developed instruments to expand into areas that we don't have direct sense of - gravitometry, radio telescopes, magnetometers and others.
Without our senses and without our brain, would the world look the same, sound the same, feel the same? This is something that is impossible to know.
Without our senses the world would be exactly the same, we just would have an even less clear understanding of it. Without our brains there wouldn't be us to even consider it.
Tons of Dark Matter could be sitting on your table right now, but we don’t see it or feel it or experience its presence in any way whatsoever!! This is because Dark Matter does not interact with normal matter. It cannot therefore be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or even felt.
Dark matter does interact with the rest of reality, that's why we need any hypothesis as to what it might be, because we have observed phenomena that require an explanation. In particular we see significant gravitational effects which require an explanation - if we had 'tons' of dark matter, that mass would still be having an effect on the world around us. Would we appreciate that it was there? Perhaps - we don't notice the tons of air that's on top of our table, but it would suddenly be a lot darker than usual.
We think that reality ends with small elementary particles on one side and with large galaxies on the other. Actually, there are no dead ends on either side.
So far as I can tell we don't claim to know the upper and lower limits of reality - we have a scale for which we have reasonable amounts of evidence or testable hypotheses; beyond that we have musings, but we don't have many firm reasons to think that there's an absolute limit that we've reached.
It is also true that according to Quantum Field Theory, what we perceive as discrete particles are actually just points or waves or excitations in various Fields that exist like fluids across the universe.
No. What we think of as quanta are just that, they are neither particles nor waves. In certain circumstances it can be easier for us to consider them as such as they exhibit common behaviours, but that's - to refer back - a facet of our limitations of understanding. We have no direct experience which approximates quantum behaviour, which means we can't easily frame it in its entirety in anything but detached mathematics.
There is probably a Biofield that connects all biological matter and constitutes a subtle part of our biology. Our Mind and Consciousness are also probably fields of some kind.
That just drops in out of nowhere. You have a citation chaser to go with that? That's a massive leap that not only have you completely failed to substantiate, but which conventional science - which you've otherwise been obliquely referencing - does not back up. You could suggest that it's a possibility that requires investigation, and I'd respond that there are probably more promising avenues of exploration but whatever floats your boat, but to suggest that it's settled fact is just plain wrong.
O.
-
Spirituality is hardly anthropocentric. It includes all life forms through the idea of spiritual evolution or consciousness evolution. It views the huge cosmos as just an illusion. Like a Virtual Reality world. Real enough when we are experiencing it, but disappears as soon as we remove the headset and see reality.
Are you for real Sriram.
You claim that your version of spirituality isn't anthropocentric, and then literally claim that the cosmos is somehow something that only exists in the minds of people.
I mean, really!!!
-
It is not anthropocentric because it does not apply only to humans. It applies to all life. The fact that humans come up with this philosophy and animals don't, does not make it anthropocentric.....for heavens sake!
-
It is not anthropocentric because it does not apply only to humans. It applies to all life. The fact that humans come up with this philosophy and animals don't, does not make it anthropocentric.....for heavens sake!
Anthropocentricity doesn't mean that something is only applied to humans - it means that it is centred on humans. And everything you describe is achingly anthropocentric - perhaps the most obvious being that you feel the need to ascribe something that is a particularly important human characteristic (consciousness) to other elements within the cosmos where the notion of consciousness is a complete anathema and totally irrelevant.
Your whole philosophy is seen through the lens of human shaped goggles - hence it is anthropocentric.
And in doing so it cannot give any meaningful understanding of the cosmos as for all but the blink of an eye humans didn't exist within that cosmos. Any understanding of the cosmos needs to still have as much relevance on the basis that humans do not exist, did not exist and might never exist. Human existence is a mere chance happening - there is no necessity for humans to exist for the cosmos to exist and to function.
-
I suspect that Sriram meant to say that 'Spirit' is not anthropocentric. 'Spirit' is probably his best fit word for 'prana' which symbolises a life force believed to be present in all life forms.
-
I suspect that Sriram meant to say that 'Spirit' is not anthropocentric. 'Spirit' is probably his best fit word for 'prana' which symbolises a life force believed to be present in all life forms.
But when the 'spirit' have clearly human-like properties, e.g. consciousness, which is of course not present in all living things, then it is anthropocentric.
But even if you are linking it to life forms it remains, if not anthropocentric, but viviocentric (if that is a word), in other words centred on the importance of living things. Now from a cosmological perspective this is still non-sense as there is no requirement whatsoever for life to exist in the cosmos. The cosmos does not need life and the cosmos can, and almost certainly did, exist comfortably without life.
-
As I understand Sriram's position, the human form is like a gate through which all life forms must eventually pass to realise their cosmic purpose. I'd call that pretty anthropocentric, yet another spin on the familiar 'all about us' narrative. It's more than a little ironic that loss of ego is taken to be crucial to the whole project. If we really want to deflate our bubble there are probably better ways we could learn to relate to the 'lower' animals.
-
But when the 'spirit' have clearly human-like properties, e.g. consciousness, which is of course not present in all living things, then it is anthropocentric.
But even if you are linking it to life forms it remains, if not anthropocentric, but viviocentric (if that is a word), in other words centred on the importance of living things. Now from a cosmological perspective this is still non-sense as there is no requirement whatsoever for life to exist in the cosmos. The cosmos does not need life and the cosmos can, and almost certainly did, exist comfortably without life.
Well, I don't know what 'consciousness' is as a objective property so wouldn't be able to determine whether e.g. a sponge contains it or not. There is a biocentric idea 'that regards conscious, organic observers as the basis rather than the by-product of the universe, holding that their biological patterns of perception and information processing effectively determine the universe’s space-time structure and its key physical constants'.
I am just a simple minded person so I would not be able to make absolute statements regarding whether the cosmos has needs or not. There are many Hindu schools of thought and within some of them are methods or practices to detach one's awareness from external objects and internal thought forms so that consciousness prevails in a more pristine 'state'. To engage in cosmological speculation would be seen as counter productive.
-
Humans are regarded as the highest level of consciousness in which form we become capable of self awareness and conscious self development. This is considered important to be able to transcend our material life.
There is nothing anthropocentric about it. We truly are the most complex and self aware organism in existence. There is no doubt about this. We are able to think beyond ourselves and our ego centric point of view.
About consciousness....I have already high lighted in other threads that even plants have consciousness. I have also highlighted how Tononi's IIT supports the idea of panpsychism. I have brought out NDE's to support an after life.
Nothing much more that can be done to explain these matters.
-
There is no doubt ...
Great doubt, great awakening
Little doubt, little awakening
No doubt, no awakening
(Buddhist saying)
-
Humans are regarded as the highest level of consciousness in which form we become capable of self awareness and conscious self development.
Considered to be by whom Sriram - oh yes that would be humans.
This is considered important to be able to transcend our material life.
Considered to be important to what - of yes, again that would be humans. I doubt some rock on a moon orbiting a planet in a far, far galaxy would recognise that importance.
There is nothing anthropocentric about it.
So you define things in a completely human-centric manner and then deny you are being anthropocentric :o
We truly are the most complex and self aware organism in existence.
Are we - how do you know that Sriram. And why is this important except if you take a completely anthropocentric viewpoint. I'm sure other life forms would consider that the attributes humans have might be irrelevant and attributes that they have much more important. If you were a tree I think (if you were a thinking tree) that human's are a bit rubbish as they cannot even generate their own energy from light.
There is no doubt about this. We are able to think beyond ourselves and our ego centric point of view.
You have literally gone beyond parody now Sriram - you have effectively said that there is no doubt that humans are the most advanced organisms and that human characteristics are the most important things ... and then claimed to go beyond our own ego!!! I mean FFS is there anything more egocentric (not to mention anthropocentric) than claiming that there is no doubt that humans are top of the tree, so to speak.
-
Humans are regarded as the highest level of consciousness in which form we become capable of self awareness and conscious self development.
Only by some humans.
This is considered important to be able to transcend our material life.
I'm not sure that we do "transcend our material life" - some may think that, but these thoughts seems to be just an example of material stuff working.
There is nothing anthropocentric about it. We truly are the most complex and self aware organism in existence. There is no doubt about this. We are able to think beyond ourselves and our ego centric point of view.
That you have no doubt seems, ironically, to be a fairly ego-centric position to adopt.
About consciousness....I have already high lighted in other threads that even plants have consciousness. I have also highlighted how Tononi's IIT supports the idea of panpsychism. I have brought out NDE's to support an after life.
This is just quasi-religious stuff for which there is no credible evidence but, seemingly, and bizarrely to my mind, there are credulous people.
Nothing much more that can be done to explain these matters.
Perhaps because the idea of panpsychism and an 'after-life' are just quasi-religious ideas that needn't be taken seriously, even if they attract enthusisam among the credulous.
-
Humans are regarded as the highest level of consciousness in which form we become capable of self awareness and conscious self development. This is considered important to be able to transcend our material life.
There is nothing anthropocentric about it. We truly are the most complex and self aware organism in existence. There is no doubt about this. We are able to think beyond ourselves and our ego centric point of view.
About consciousness....I have already high lighted in other threads that even plants have consciousness. I have also highlighted how Tononi's IIT supports the idea of panpsychism. I have brought out NDE's to support an after life.
Nothing much more that can be done to explain these matters.
As most of the assertions in your first two paragraphs have been roundly and, as I see it, successfully challenged, I'll reserve my comments to your paragraph 3, where you say:
About consciousness....I have already high lighted in other threads that even plants have consciousness. I have also highlighted how Tononi's IIT supports the idea of panpsychism. I have brought out NDE's to support an after life.
Most scientists do not accept that plants show consciousness.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w
If you can't be arsed to read the details just look at the conclusions. At the very least it starts to show your assertion that 'plants have consciousness' is decidedly suspect.
On the subject of Integrated Information Theory and Panpsychism, don't forget that even IIT regards consciousness as only possible in a system of at least two elements which have cause/effect potentials on one another, so objects such as rocks which have no phi don't count. I assume you are also aware of some of the objections to IIT, from philosophers such as Searle or scientists such as Aaronson. Indeed Aaronson showed that if you take a physical representation of an expander graph, it could have a higher phi value than the human brain and hence a higher degree of consciousness, which is clearly ludicrous. Also, don't forget that it seems IIT is not consistent with any form of panpsychism that attributes mental properties to basic elements, an idea which is evident in Chalmer's view of panpsychism.
And for your last point about NDEs. You have presented no evidence that link NDEs to the idea of an afterlife at all as has been shown time and time again on this forum.
-
All thoughts, theories and philosophies are of human origin. Chimps and tigers and aliens (to our knowledge) don't do such things. That does not make all our ideas anthropocentric.
The Abrahamic religions considered humans to be the only living things with a soul while all animals were considered as mere automatons created for the benefit of humans. This idea can be considered as anthropocentric. Not all human thoughts and philosophies. That is ridiculous!
On earth we are the most complex organisms capable of thinking beyond ourselves. If you know of any other species please let me know.
All life has consciousness and whatever philosophy we come up with has to apply to them as well. Many of you subscribe to a materialistic philosophy....which is neither here nor there. I obviously don't agree with that.
Ego centricity has to do with individual ego and impressions of individual self importance and not with the philosophy of development of consciousness.
-
Nobody is saying that human ideas are necessarily anthropocentric. Ecocentrism is a human idea. However, the beliefs you articulate on this forum, which form the components of what purports to be a grand cosmic narrative, accord central importance to human life. This is by definition anthropocentric. It’s what the word means.
Even if all life has consciousness the fact remains that you effectively believe all non-human life is unable to realise its cosmic purpose and significance until it takes human form. In other words human life is the final end and goal of all spiritual and conscious evolution in the universe as we know it. We are the unique portal through which consciousness might come to know itself as Brahman. Everything leads up to us. Other creatures are in effect little more than lower steps on a stairway whose destination is humanity. No other being has our special significance in this drama. It’s all really about us.
Your story is certainly more inclusive than the narratives found in Abrahamic religions but not really any less anthropocentric. Why should herons and hedgehogs, for example, be mere stepping stones on a journey to us? That would make them just a means to an end. Of course, for you we are also a means to an end but a much more significant one because the cosmic purpose is never realised in herons and hedgehogs.
Humans engage in spirituality because we have a high degree of self-consciousness, but it is this identification with self that causes us the psychological problems we seek to alleviate by spiritual practice. In other words we are (probably) uniquely ‘disabled’ by our cognitive complexity. Looked at from that perspective our specialness seems less attractive. Your idea of spirituality seems to valorise complexity and seeks progress through advancing knowledge, but maybe what we need is to return to something simpler and more honest. Perhaps, if we can find a little humility, it’s our animal nature that will save us from ourselves.
-
That is absurd. Our complexity and the accompanying mental conflicts are a stage forward. These conflicts arise due to self awareness and self analysis which are uniquely human abilities.
Going back to the animal nature is not progress. That would amount to shedding our self analytical abilities. Going forward beyond the human condition by using our self analytical abilities, is progress.
Once we manage to calm the conflicted mind, we go beyond the animal nature which is what is considered as liberation.
By considering other species as stages in the process, we are not demeaning them. We are including them as part of the spiritual evolutionary process. They are part of the different stages of development of consciousness.
-
Well, good luck, Sriram, if you really think 'Our complexity and the accompanying mental conflicts are a stage forward'. You'll certainly not be disappointed if more conflict is what you're looking for. Most folk seem to reach for spiritual help because they've had enough of mental conflicts. Quite how you think the conflicted mind will become calmed by the 'progress' of further complexity and accompanying mental conflicts beats me. As far as I know, no non-human animal ever gets itself into that kind of knot. And for the record, we can't 'go back' to our animal nature because we've never left it.
You know, life doesn't have to be this tangled. Sometimes the best way to undo a tricky knot is to stop pulling on it.
Happy Christmas to you.
-
Well......Happy Christmas to you too!
-
Not a great speaker - but some very poignant facts and stats:
The Latest Scientific Evidence of God and the Soul – Fr Robert Spitzer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvghlgftwnE
-
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/one-five-people-revived-cardiac-150000269.html
-
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/one-five-people-revived-cardiac-150000269.html
Actually not that new, Alan. Several studies around the 2000s came up with similar results for Western incidences of NDEs for cardiac arrest. E.g. Greyson 2003(23%), Orne 1995(23%), Van Lommel 2001(18%).
I do find it interesting however, if you read further on, that this article suggests that:
'The team also tested for hidden brain activity during CPR and found spikes in gamma, delta, theta, alpha and beta waves up to an hour into the resuscitation process.'
and that:
'Some of these brain waves normally occur when people are conscious and performing higher mental functions, including thinking, memory retrieval, and conscious perception'.
Seems like NDEs are a result of a physical process.
-
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/one-five-people-revived-cardiac-150000269.html
IIRC you are an RC. How do you fit NDEs into that theology? Is it an error or an advert of coming attractions?
-
Actually not that new, Alan. Several studies around the 2000s came up with similar results for Western incidences of NDEs for cardiac arrest. E.g. Greyson 2003(23%), Orne 1995(23%), Van Lommel 2001(18%).
I do find it interesting however, if you read further on, that this article suggests that:
'The team also tested for hidden brain activity during CPR and found spikes in gamma, delta, theta, alpha and beta waves up to an hour into the resuscitation process.'
and that:
'Some of these brain waves normally occur when people are conscious and performing higher mental functions, including thinking, memory retrieval, and conscious perception'.
Seems like NDEs are a result of a physical process.
The soul is obviously connected to the body in some way through the mind and conscious processes. When death occurs it is possible that the memory of the experience gets passed on to the conscious mind through normal physical processes. That does not necessarily mean that the entire process is purely physical or brain related.
-
The soul is obviously connected to the body in some way through the mind and conscious processes. When death occurs it is possible that the memory of the experience gets passed on to the conscious mind through normal physical processes. That does not necessarily mean that the entire process is purely physical or brain related.
As there is plenty of evidence that the body exists and as I know of no evidence that a 'soul' exists and as there appears to be some evidence that the brain can still function to some extent during the resuscitation period, I'm sure you won't mind if I take your assertion with a pinch of salt and stick to the idea that NDEs probably have a physical explanation. ;)
-
The soul is obviously connected to the body in some way through the mind and conscious processes. When death occurs it is possible that the memory of the experience .....
So what exactly is it that is experiencing the 'event'?
-
When we communicate through computers, obviously everything that gets communicated to you has to be fed into the computer in some way....without which you cannot know of it. That does not mean that I don't exist independent of the computer.
Think of the computer memory and display as the conscious mind and my own human mind as the soul mind. My experiences have to necessarily get fed into the computer if it is to be conveyed to you.
The one who has the experience is me....not the computer.
-
When we communicate through computers, obviously everything that gets communicated to you has to be fed into the computer in some way....without which you cannot know of it. That does not mean that I don't exist independent of the computer.
Think of the computer memory and display as the conscious mind and my own human mind as the soul mind. My experiences have to necessarily get fed into the computer if it is to be conveyed to you.
The one who has the experience is me....not the computer.
Always lovely starting the day with an infinite regress :)
-
Shouldn't this thread be in 'Christian Topic', where all the boring, repetitive, never-ending threads go?
-
Shouldn't this thread be in 'Christian Topic', where all the boring, repetitive, never-ending threads go?
That would be an ecumenical matter
-
That would be an ecumenical matter
Down with this sort of thing.
-
NDE research is a part of science....
-
Just a thought. Would atheist neuroscientists be acting correctly if they treated atheists as the control or the normal in their investigations into religion and supernatural phenomena?
-
Just a thought. Would atheist neuroscientists be acting correctly if they treated atheists as the control or the normal in their investigations into religion and supernatural phenomena?
If the research participants consented appropriately and the project received the correct ethical approval - then why not. I'm struggling to see the relevance of the notion that one arm of a research study are atheist in terms of acting correctly.
And why would it make any difference if the researcher was an atheist or not - provided the study was conducted professionally and ethically I cannot see the relevance of a belief in god or otherwise on the part of the researchers.
-
If the research participants consented appropriately and the project received the correct ethical approval - then why not. I'm struggling to see the relevance of the notion that one arm of a research study are atheist in terms of acting correctly.
And why would it make any difference if the researcher was an atheist or not - provided the study was conducted professionally and ethically I cannot see the relevance of a belief in god or otherwise on the part of the researchers.
It should make no difference in a properly constituted scientific experiment. The problem comes with cultural bias eg.
the majority of people in a country are non religious....therefore that is considered the norm.
-
It should make no difference in a properly constituted scientific experiment. The problem comes with cultural bias eg.
the majority of people in a country are non religious....therefore that is considered the norm.
I think you are confusing something that is the most common thing withnit being thought of as right. This is, ironically, not uncommon and means that the use of 'abnormal' causes issues since it now has a pejorative meaning.
You also appear confused about what a control group is. It's not about what's normal it's about having a group that does not have the variable you are testing.