Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Why did His story not disappear into the oblivion to which it should have been taken?  The answer, of course, is summed up in just one word - the Resurrection.

Just to note that this particular fallacy is called survivorship bias. Your mistake is to assume that something didn't disappear because it was better or more "true" than the alternatives, which you ignore. In practice though the survivors often make it for entirely different reasons - the QWERTY keyboard layout for example was designed to slow down typists on mechanical typewriters because the keys were sticking, not because it's better for computers.

Here's a link to help you out that you'll no doubt ignore nonetheless:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

 

[Alan Burns]

As ever, a simplistic analysis from you.

Anyone can construct naïve narratives that obscure more authentic ones.  English is the most widely spoken language in the world. Why ? Because it is the best language, obviously 

A deeper reading of history would reveal all manner of twists and turns that lead up to the contemporary world.  I would guess that the single biggest reason for Christianity's current widespread popularity is not the resurrection, but its backing by Constantine the Great leading to it's defacto adoption as the state religion of the Roman Empire.  If he had gone with Mithraism instead, few people today would have heard of Jesus and many would instead be worshipping Mithras, who is now largely forgotten.

But what was the motivation for Constantine the Great to become a follower of a man the Romans had condemned to death?

[torridon]

But what was the motivation for Constantine the Great to become a follower of a man the Romans had condemned to death?

We do not really know with any certainty, the scholarship is divided with some seeing his 'conversion' as a smart political strategy to unite the Empire, others consider he might have been a genuine believer, who knows

[Shaker]

But the truth is that your scientific logic alone is not sufficient to knock down my arguments for the existence of our God given spiritual nature.  So they keep popping back up!

You don't actually mount any arguments though - simply fire out assertions and ignore the responses that show them up for the nonsense they are. In the words of that eminent philosopher M. E. Palin: "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." Your fallacy-scattergun approach doesn't fit the bill. That's why nobody takes a blind bit of notice of anything you assert.

[BeRational]

But what was the motivation for Constantine the Great to become a follower of a man the Romans had condemned to death?

You cannot say for certain that Jesus actually existed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what was the motivation for Constantine the Great to become a follower of a man the Romans had condemned to death?

The "but" doesn't address your central problem of survivorship bias, and so fas as is known the answer is probably somewhere between pragmatism and expediency.

You may as well have asked, "but why do computers have QWERTY keyboards?"

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the truth is that your scientific logic alone...

It's not "scientific logic", just "logic".

...is not sufficient to knock down my arguments for the existence of our God...

Yes it is. The problem isn't that logic doesn't falsify your arguments, but rather that you don't understand why logic falsifies your arguments.

...given spiritual nature.

That's not an argument; it's just an assertion, for which you have no supporting logic or evidence of your own.

So they keep popping back up!

They only "keep popping up" because you keep repeating the same mistakes.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I do not cling to anything - I just adhere to the truth.

The search for Knowledge is not nourished by certainty: it is nourished by  a radical distrust in certainty.

This means not giving credence to those who say they are in possession of the truth. For this reason, science and religion frequently find themselves on a collision course. Not because science pretends to know ultimate answers but precisely for the opposite reason: because the scientific spirit distrusts whoever claims to be the one having ultimate answers, or privileged access to the Truth. This distrust is found to be disturbing in some religious quarters. It is not science which is disturbed by religion: there are certain religions that are disturbed by scientific thinking.[/quote]
From page 231 of 'Reality Is Not What It Seems(The Journey To Quantum Gravity)' by Carlo Rovelli

ok ...

The search for Knowledge is not nourished by certainty: it is nourished by  a radical distrust in certainty.

So why search for knowledge then? With knowledge comes the ability to search for more knowledge, but if there is a radical distrust in certainity of the existing knowledge on which the search is based ...

[floo]

This means not giving credence to those who say they are in possession of the truth. For this reason, science and religion frequently find themselves on a collision course. Not because science pretends to know ultimate answers but precisely for the opposite reason: because the scientific spirit distrusts whoever claims to be the one having ultimate answers, or privileged access to the Truth. This distrust is found to be disturbing in some religious quarters. It is not science which is disturbed by religion: there are certain religions that are disturbed by scientific thinking.
From page 231 of 'Reality Is Not What It Seems(The Journey To Quantum Gravity)' by Carlo Rovelli

ok ...
So why search for knowledge then? With knowledge comes the ability to search for more knowledge, but if there is a radical distrust in certainity of the existing knowledge on which the search is based ...

Science has a lot more credence than religion.

[SusanDoris]

So why search for knowledge then? With knowledge comes the ability to search for more knowledge, but if there is a radical distrust in certainty of the existing knowledge on which the search is based ...

I will be interested to see others' responses to this, but you seem to have missed the point here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

So why search for knowledge then? With knowledge comes the ability to search for more knowledge, but if there is a radical distrust in certainity of the existing knowledge on which the search is based ...

Because the search for knowledge enables us to create more robust explanatory models of he universe. Sometimes those models lead to discoveries of practical value - like medicines and motor cars - and sometimes they're just interesting in themselves. Certainty though is anathema to that – once you convince yourself that you're certain of an answer, why bother looking further?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Because the search for knowledge enables us to create more robust explanatory models of he universe. Sometimes those models lead to discoveries of practical value - like medicines and motor cars - and sometimes they're just interesting in themselves. Certainty though is anathema to that – once you convince yourself that you're certain of an answer, why bother looking further?

Because in some cases, that certainty can be built on; it allows for further development.

For example: Try doing Maths without some kind of certainty.

The analogies you give both show the value of certainty. If one could never be certain that some medicines work, could the standard of medical care we have today have ever been reached? If one could never be certain that motor cars work, would we still be relying on our own two feet, horse and cart and bicycles to get around?

[Shaker]

If one could never be certain that some medicines work, could the standard of medical care we have today have ever been reached?

Have you any conception whatever of the testing process(es) that potential medicines go through? And even then: thalidomide? Lariam? Dime bar? Do you consider that testing procedure to be demonstrative of certainty?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Because in some cases, that certainty can be built on; it allows for further development.

For example: Try doing Maths without some kind of certainty.

The analogies you give both show the value of certainty. If one could never be certain that some medicines work, could the standard of medical care we have today have ever been reached? If one could never be certain that motor cars work, would we still be relying on our own two feet, horse and cart and bicycles to get around?

Yes and yes - these things are probabilistic, not absolute.

You've confused "certainty" with "evidence-based working assumptions".

[SusanDoris]

I'm taking one particular medication at the moment which is definitely not certain! Statistically, it shows benefits, so the advantages  of taking it outweigh the disadvantages.

[Enki]

ok ...
So why search for knowledge then? With knowledge comes the ability to search for more knowledge, but if there is a radical distrust in certainity of the existing knowledge on which the search is based ...

But if we are certain of nothing, how can we possibly rely on what science tells us? The answer is simple. Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. Science is the most we know so far about the problems confronting us. It is precisely this openness, the fact that it constantly calls current knowledge into question, which guarantees  that the answers it offers are the best so far available: if you find better answers, these new answers become science.

From page 230 of 'Reality Is Not What It Seems(The Journey To Quantum Gravity)' by Carlo Rovelli

[wigginhall]

Because in some cases, that certainty can be built on; it allows for further development.

For example: Try doing Maths without some kind of certainty.

The analogies you give both show the value of certainty. If one could never be certain that some medicines work, could the standard of medical care we have today have ever been reached? If one could never be certain that motor cars work, would we still be relying on our own two feet, horse and cart and bicycles to get around?

Are we certain that medicines work?   I don't think so.   I remember taking antibiotics, and they didn't work, so took a different one.    As for cars, no, they break down.   As others have said, try probabilistic, not certain. 

[Shaker]

I suspect it's the probabilistic nature of the universe (and this goes all the way down to the basement floor, as we currently half-understand it) that the certainty junkies have a problem with, ultimately.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

You have no means of knowing whether the author is a “dogmatic agnostic”, nor indeed a dogmatic anything else.

You have no means of knowing what the author may or may not be “looking for”.

“Methodological naturalism” precisely backs up his opinion because it proceeds on the assumption of a naturalistic universe but makes no claims to certainty about that.

I’ve corrected you on this mistake many times now. I've even used the quotes you thought would support you to show you to be wrong. Why then are you still making it? 

Another great example of you asserting precisely the opposite of the case. He’s not “conflating” anything – he’s comparing and contrasting science and religion.

You also by the way overreach yet again with “antitheism”. Pointing out that there’s no method to validate certainty is not antitheistic, it’s just a commonplace.

If you seriously think the observation to be wrong though, then it’d be easy for you to correct. All you’d have to do would be (after what, a 100 times of asking? A 1,000 times maybe?) is to tell us what that method would be, rather than your standard tactic of disappearing out of the door leaving behind a flurry of irrelevance, lies and insult.

I won’t hold my breath about that though if you don’t mind.

Non sequitur.

[Shaker]

Lazy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lazy.

Alright then Hillside casts methodological naturalism as a philosophy whether he likes it or not.
The method can never establish what the universe is....only analyse material and the physical.

It's a bit of a contradiction in terms really naturalism being a philosophy.

[Shaker]

Alright then Hillside casts methodological naturalism as a philosophy whether he likes it or not.
The method can never establish what the universe is....only analyse material and the physical.

Is there anything other than these?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Non sequitur.

It's no such thing, as presumably you'd know if you knew what non sequitur actually means.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Alright then Hillside casts methodological naturalism as a philosophy whether he likes it or not.

Stop lying.

The method can never establish what the universe is....only analyse material and the physical.

Which is all it purports to do and no-one suggests otherwise, despite your attempt to pin your personal re-definition of the term to other people.

It's a bit of a contradiction in terms really naturalism being a philosophy.

No it isn't. Try reading the quote from RationalWiki again that you thought supported you but that in fact flatly contradicted you:

"Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case, but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method).[3]"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

[Shaker]

Don't moan. Unlike tu quoque at least he can spell it.