Searching for GOD...

[ekim]

Could you explain the difference between going to bed at night and meditation, the only thing that sounds different to me is where the mediators think there's something very far from the normal about meditation, I think you'll find it'll take a long time to explain, is that why some tie themselves into knots when meditating as some sort of metaphor about how difficult meditation is to explain?

Regards ippy

The difference is simple to explain, in 'going to bed' it is about subduing consciousness and entering unconsciousness/sub consciousness, in meditation it is about expanding consciousness and transcending sub consciousness.

[ekim]

ekim,

But what if you're fortunate enough to feel pretty "harmonious" (or even joyous!) most of the time anyway? Your argument sounds to me like the argument of the smoker – "smoking calms my nerves" – when what's causing his nerves to need calming in the first place is nicotine deprivation!

I not sure about your analogy but to answer the question, it could be that you don't need to practice meditation as you will express joyousness, love etc most of the time and might even be aware of how to consciously be in that state all of the time (which is what I suspect 'heaven' represents).

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

...transcending sub consciousness.

Be quite a trick if it was possible! Mind you, I hear there are Indian yogis who claim to be able to transcend gravity by floating around so you never know...

[Bramble]

Could you explain the difference between going to bed at night and meditation

People do sometimes fall asleep during meditation so perhaps the distinction isn't always obvious. One 7th century Indian sage called Shantideva was actually known as the 'Three realisations' because all he seemed to do was eat, shit and sleep, though legend has it that he accomplished all three whilst engaging in advanced meditation. Maybe this is what you're doing but are just too modest to tell us. For the benefit of those less exalted it has to be said that there isn't a simple definition of meditation so making general comments about it is difficult. I rather like this take on meditation by the Zen teacher John Tarrant: 'When we meditate there is nothing else in the world, and whatever we have is enough.' It seems to me that this is a possibility all of the time, even when going to bed. In fact, when you think about it, there's a sense in which there is never anything else and whatever we have is always enough. Maybe it's just a matter of noticing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I not sure about your analogy but to answer the question, it could be that you don't need to practice meditation as you will express joyousness, love etc most of the time and might even be aware of how to consciously be in that state all of the time (which is what I suspect 'heaven' represents).

I’m in heaven! Reminds me a bit of the old story of the wealthy but uneducated aristocrat who goes to a tutor for English lessons. The tutor says, “consider how you’ve just spoken to me – that’s called “prose”.” “My god” says the delighted aristocrat, “I’ve only been here for 10 minutes and already I’ve learnt prose!”

[ekim]

ekim,

Be quite a trick if it was possible! Mind you, I hear there are Indian yogis who claim to be able to transcend gravity by floating around so you never know...

Yes, quite a trick.  Some people find it difficult enough to transcend the sub conscious outpourings of others, let alone themselves.  Still, it's keeping this topic going.

[ekim]

Especially for bluehillside  .............. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyXAB5L3EIQ

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Yes, quite a trick.  Some people find it difficult enough to transcend the sub conscious outpourings of others, let alone themselves.  Still, it's keeping this topic going.

The problem here being that most of "you" is your subconscious (which brings us back neatly to AB's odd conjectures). If anything, your subconscious is more likely to "transcend" the "you" that thinks it's most of you but isn't really than the other way around.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Especially for bluehillside  .............. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyXAB5L3EIQ

Thank you! It's just the unmitigated bollocks in a sesame bap the chap intones in the background that puts me off this kind of thing - well, that and the fact the gravity-defying bit is a big old cheat! Let me know if they post something when they don't land again every half-second or so though!

[ekim]

ekim,

The problem here being that most of "you" is your subconscious (which brings us back neatly to AB's odd conjectures). If anything, your subconscious is more likely to "transcend" the "you" that thinks it's most of you but isn't really than the other way around.

Yes, every time the mind creates a problem and thinks about it, from the mystic's point of view, the consciousness is submerged in the sub conscious (which is what I suspect descending into 'Hell' represents).

[ippy]

People do sometimes fall asleep during meditation so perhaps the distinction isn't always obvious. One 7th century Indian sage called Shantideva was actually known as the 'Three realisations' because all he seemed to do was eat, shit and sleep, though legend has it that he accomplished all three whilst engaging in advanced meditation. Maybe this is what you're doing but are just too modest to tell us. For the benefit of those less exalted it has to be said that there isn't a simple definition of meditation so making general comments about it is difficult. I rather like this take on meditation by the Zen teacher John Tarrant: 'When we meditate there is nothing else in the world, and whatever we have is enough.' It seems to me that this is a possibility all of the time, even when going to bed. In fact, when you think about it, there's a sense in which there is never anything else and whatever we have is always enough. Maybe it's just a matter of noticing.

India yes one of those very hot countries well over 40 c for long periods even 50 c +, yoga the ultimate way of not doing anything taking your mind away from these high temperatures plus not generating bodily heat doing anything physical, makes sense to me.

Regards ippy

[ippy]

The difference is simple to explain, in 'going to bed' it is about subduing consciousness and entering unconsciousness/sub consciousness, in meditation it is about expanding consciousness and transcending sub consciousness.

Sorry ekim, sounds like high minded bollocks to me and of course morons that emerge from the ignorant masses from time to time like myself it's something we would never be able to understand, as is thought by some.

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

The difference is simple to explain, in 'going to bed' it is about subduing consciousness and entering unconsciousness/sub consciousness, in meditation it is about expanding consciousness and transcending sub consciousness.

I've seen that little phrase 'expanding consciousness' so many times during recent years, but no-one has ever been able to explain to me how you can expand your consciousness. Your brain is capable of an infinite variety of ideas, images, thoughts, etc, all of which are contained in the  consciousness which is a property of the brain, so how does the expansion work?

[Bramble]

India yes one of those very hot countries well over 40 c for long periods even 50 c +, yoga the ultimate way of not doing anything taking your mind away from these high temperatures plus not generating bodily heat doing anything physical, makes sense to me.

Regards ippy

You obviously haven't heard about heat yoga and might enjoy reading Alexandra David-Néel's 'My Journey to Lhasa' in which she describes Tibetan yogis drying wet towels on their bare backs in temperatures as low as minus 20. Could be useful for those occasions when the tumble dryer goes on the blink.

[ekim]

I've seen that little phrase 'expanding consciousness' so many times during recent years, but no-one has ever been able to explain to me how you can expand your consciousness. Your brain is capable of an infinite variety of ideas, images, thoughts, etc, all of which are contained in the  consciousness which is a property of the brain, so how does the expansion work?

It's an inadequate expression used  by some as an indication of the inner experience when you cease to focus your attention or consciousness upon e.g. ideas, images, thoughts, emotions, external events etc.  The consciousness appears as if it is boundless as opposed to being attached to the contents of the mind or the physical world.   There is nothing superior about it.  It is more about a state of simplicity rather than complexity.  An analogy might be, if a wave was consciousness and it focused upon itself and other waves it would see itself as a separate form.  If it looked within it would see itself of similar essence to other waves.  If it looked deeper it might loose its form and feel oceanic and at one with all.   To relate this to the topic, the ocean would represent God the Father, the wave would represent God the Son and the water would represent God the Holy Spirit and I would be burnt as a heretic. 

[ippy]

You obviously haven't heard about heat yoga and might enjoy reading Alexandra David-Néel's 'My Journey to Lhasa' in which she describes Tibetan yogis drying wet towels on their bare backs in temperatures as low as minus 20. Could be useful for those occasions when the tumble dryer goes on the blink.

Obviously not Bram, I don't think I'll bother with the yoga, perhaps someday if someone comes up with an explanation of its benefits if they're more so perhaps than straightforward sleep.

So far I haven't ever seen yoga described in everyday straightforward English, this kind of fact can sometimes be a good guide to how useful something/anything can or could be. 

My personal jury is out on yoga, it doesn't impress me.

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

It's an inadequate expression used  by some as an indication of the inner experience when you cease to focus your attention or consciousness upon e.g. ideas, images, thoughts, emotions, external events etc.  The consciousness appears as if it is boundless as opposed to being attached to the contents of the mind or the physical world.   There is nothing superior about it.  It is more about a state of simplicity rather than complexity.  An analogy might be, if a wave was consciousness and it focused upon itself and other waves it would see itself as a separate form.  If it looked within it would see itself of similar essence to other waves.  If it looked deeper it might loose its form and feel oceanic and at one with all.   To relate this to the topic, the ocean would represent God the Father, the wave would represent God the Son and the water would represent God the Holy Spirit and I would be burnt as a heretic. 

Thank you for reply. It is a pity so many on other forums think they have access to some secret dimension/consciousness/etc that poor atheists cannot possibly reach or imagine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you for reply. It is a pity so many on other forums think they have access to some secret dimension/consciousness/etc that poor atheists cannot possibly reach or imagine.

And tomorrow no doubt you will criticise these people for trying to convince you can.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Very sneaky. In Reply 29133 I said:

"Which is fine when people say, "I find believing X to be true is useful" and it doesn't matter much what "X" happens to be - your god, another god, whatever - it's basically a game of celestial yoga. The minute though such people overreach into objective claims of fact about the world - there really was a resurrection, there really was a "prophet", there really is a "soul" etc - then it all collapses in a heap of competing (and often mutually incompatible) claims and assertions."

That is I expressly opposed subjective claims of ideas and beliefs that people find personally useful with objective claims of fact about the world.

In your Reply to that post specifically 29136 you said:

"Not sure what you mean by "it all collapses". Competing claims of belief aren't necessarily problematic, and people not sharing your beliefs or claims of fact goes with the territory of beliefs that can't be objectively validated as true.

I can see it is an issue when people try to force their ideas through using violence or intimidation, but using language to seek to persuade others to support an idea through the use of rhetoric and metaphors and similes seems fairly standard behaviour, as we are seeing in the Brexit debate. Lots of competing claims of facts or predictions for the future.

I get that it appears particularly problematic for you that competing religious claims have a supernatural element, but I don't see it as any more problematic than competing claims about national strategic interests. Some people do strange and sometimes horrible things to promote their claims and ideas, but many don't."

I then explained your category error of comparing “religious claims” with “claims about national strategic interest” when the religious claims are claims of objective fact (“god”, “soul”, “prophet” etc) whereas the claims you used for analogy purposes do not entail claims of objective fact.

Since then you’ve twisted in the wind by trying to elide the two, but the qualitative difference between them is perfectly clear.

To be frank I don’t care much: either accept that the analogy failed because it was a category error, or that you weren’t attempting an analogy but that the “national strategic interest” stuff therefore had no relevance to the topic of claiming objective facts about the world.   

The “privileging of faith claims over guessing” bit? Why? Are you seriously suggesting that pretty much all “people of faith” don’t think that heir faith is a more reliable guide to truth than just guessing?

Seriously though?

That’s up to you, but you’re wrong not to have “a problem” about that I think. It’s a general principle - if in the public square you privilege one “but that’s my faith” over just guessing, on what basis could you then deny any other “but that’s my faith” over just guessing when the methodology (such as it is) is the same in each case – faith?     

Easily. There’s a fundamental qualitative difference in principle between “X is an objective fact about the world because my faith tells me it’s a fact” and “Y is a fact if various investigable metrics tell me so”. No matter how difficult those metrics may be to use in practice, the difference between the two positions is a profound one. It’s the difference if you like between “God is because that’s my faith” and “the Higgs-Boson looks likely, and here are the (very difficult) experiments you’d need to do to confirm or deny the proposition”.     

He claims “souls” to be an objective fact about the world. He doesn’t bother with the evidence bit. That’s the point.   

You misunderstand. You’ve tried to elide “ideas” in general (about strategic planning for example) with claims of objective fact (“gravity exists”, "God is” etc) about the world as if they’re epistemically equivalent. They’re not. There’s a fundamental difference between a claim of something objectively existing/not existing in the world and a subjective experience (“believing in god X makes me feel better about myself” etc).

BHS – ok, I see you've come back with more of your assertions for me to respond to. At least this time you made some attempt to evidence them by quoting posts, albeit your assertions are still incorrect.

As I explained in #29136 there are lots of competing claims of fact or predictions for the future when it comes to Brexit.

We have heard contrasting claims of objective fact and statistics, for example about the ways in which joining the EU has impacted Britain's economy and way of life. Hence I said in #29136  “and people not sharing your beliefs or claims of fact goes with the territory of beliefs that can't be objectively validated as true.”

I wrote my post some time after hearing a difference of opinion on LBC while driving in the car about claims of objective fact since 1973. Statistics and facts were quoted but there was a difference of opinion about not just the facts and statistics but also how much of those facts and statistics should be attributed to UK membership of the Common market and then the EU, and how much to other factors. There was also a difference of opinion on, for example, definitions of concepts such as “failure” and “success”, and on examples of EU interference in parliamentary sovereignty.

It didn’t seem particularly problematic in the real world that different people believe different facts as objectively true, or cannot agree on a definition of a concept, in so much as we manage, through the process of democracy and the rule of law, to make decisions and tolerate difference of beliefs of fact that we cannot validate as objectively true. Some of these claims about objective facts and some of these concepts are even privileged in our society by the democratic process and rule of law. For example, the Economist recently had an interesting article on how the concept of death and the metrics accepted as evidence of the ending of life can be defined differently in different countries, and the attempts in various societies to change both the definitions and the metrics chosen to indicate end of life. This of course impacts on issues to do with resuscitation, medical treatment, insurance, probate etc.

I therefore think the point I was making is very relevant to your repetitive assertions about religious people who make claims of objective fact about resurrections etc. My point being – so what if they do make claims of objective fact?

It isn’t any more problematic for society that there are competing claims of fact about the supernatural that you can’t validate, compared to all the other competing claims of fact about the natural world that we also can’t validate in reality, regardless of whether in theory someone can come up with some method of investigating or validating those facts or metrics, though the difficulties of doing so accurately in practice mean no consensus on the metrics or facts will happen.

We manage to function without knowing the truth was my point, so I am baffled by your continued comedic routine about the supernatural. If it's because a couple of planes flew into a building and killed 3000 odd people, that's hardly significant compared to the number of deaths attributed to non-religious political causes that we all manage to put in perspective and continue with our lives.

As I said, I get you think the theoretical difference between the 2 types of claims of objective fact is profound. I look at the real world result of competing claims of objective fact and I don’t find the difference profound.
 
Having made that point, not really sure there is any point in responding individually to the rest of your assertions.

I would restate that no, I don't think "pretty much all “people of faith”... think that their faith is a more reliable guide to truth than just guessing". I think a lot of people of faith, as with beliefs of a non-religious nature, stick to their faith or beliefs because they have a felt a positive impact on their life from holding that faith or religious/ non-religious beliefs, and it presumably is valid in a democracy to advocate for beliefs that they feel have a positive impact on people's lives, and to oppose attempts to stifle expression and practice of those beliefs.

In a democracy it is also perfectly valid for people opposed to certain beliefs to try to prevent the practice of them in the public and sometimes private sphere, depending on the nature of the belief.

ETA: I think you have interpreted my phrase "national strategic interests" in some unique way that I am not familiar with. Given your other interpretations of texts, where we have disagreed, that you have arrived at your own particular interpretation is not surprising to me.

[SusanDoris]

#29,289 Gabriella

I listened all the way through. I see that you have as often is the case eluded the point.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

#29,289 Gabriella

I listened all the way through. I see that you have as often is the case eluded the point.

Susan, i see that you have, as is so often the case, written a post that adds nothing of value to the discussion and was hardly worth whatever little effort it took you to write it nor whatever little effort it took me to read it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS – ok, I see you've come back with more of your assertions for me to respond to. At least this time you made some attempt to evidence them by quoting posts, albeit your assertions are still incorrect.

As I explained in #29136 there are lots of competing claims of fact or predictions for the future when it comes to Brexit.

We have heard contrasting claims of objective fact and statistics, for example about the ways in which joining the EU has impacted Britain's economy and way of life. Hence I said in #29136  “and people not sharing your beliefs or claims of fact goes with the territory of beliefs that can't be objectively validated as true.”

I wrote my post some time after hearing a difference of opinion on LBC while driving in the car about claims of objective fact since 1973. Statistics and facts were quoted but there was a difference of opinion about not just the facts and statistics but also how much of those facts and statistics should be attributed to UK membership of the Common market and then the EU, and how much to other factors. There was also a difference of opinion on, for example, definitions of concepts such as “failure” and “success”, and on examples of EU interference in parliamentary sovereignty.

It didn’t seem particularly problematic in the real world that different people believe different facts as objectively true, or cannot agree on a definition of a concept, in so much as we manage, through the process of democracy and the rule of law, to make decisions and tolerate difference of beliefs of fact that we cannot validate as objectively true. Some of these claims about objective facts and some of these concepts are even privileged in our society by the democratic process and rule of law. For example, the Economist recently had an interesting article on how the concept of death and the metrics accepted as evidence of the ending of life can be defined differently in different countries, and the attempts in various societies to change both the definitions and the metrics chosen to indicate end of life. This of course impacts on issues to do with resuscitation, medical treatment, insurance, probate etc.

I therefore think the point I was making is very relevant to your repetitive assertions about religious people who make claims of objective fact about resurrections etc. My point being – so what if they do make claims of objective fact?

It isn’t any more problematic for society that there are competing claims of fact about the supernatural that you can’t validate, compared to all the other competing claims of fact about the natural world that we also can’t validate in reality, regardless of whether in theory someone can come up with some method of investigating or validating those facts or metrics, though the difficulties of doing so accurately in practice mean no consensus on the metrics or facts will happen.

We manage to function without knowing the truth was my point, so I am baffled by your continued comedic routine about the supernatural. If it's because a couple of planes flew into a building and killed 3000 odd people, that's hardly significant compared to the number of deaths attributed to non-religious political causes that we all manage to put in perspective and continue with our lives.

As I said, I get you think the theoretical difference between the 2 types of claims of objective fact is profound. I look at the real world result of competing claims of objective fact and I don’t find the difference profound.
 
Having made that point, not really sure there is any point in responding individually to the rest of your assertions.

I would restate that no, I don't think "pretty much all “people of faith”... think that their faith is a more reliable guide to truth than just guessing". I think a lot of people of faith, as with beliefs of a non-religious nature, stick to their faith or beliefs because they have a felt a positive impact on their life from holding that faith or religious/ non-religious beliefs, and it presumably is valid in a democracy to advocate for beliefs that they feel have a positive impact on people's lives, and to oppose attempts to stifle expression and practice of those beliefs.

In a democracy it is also perfectly valid for people opposed to certain beliefs to try to prevent the practice of them in the public and sometimes private sphere, depending on the nature of the belief.

ETA: I think you have interpreted my phrase "national strategic interests" in some unique way that I am not familiar with. Given your other interpretations of texts, where we have disagreed, that you have arrived at your own particular interpretation is not surprising to me.

So back in Reply 29194 you posted a string of missteps, mistakes, misrepresentations and misunderstandings that in Reply 29201 I took the time to correct. In response you’ve stuck with your standard plan (presumably learnt at the knee of Vlad) of just ignoring the corrections and repeating your same mistakes. I note too that you return over and again to the term “assertions”, which seems to be code for, “OK, I’ve been shown to be badly out of my depth here and I have no rebuttals available so I’ll just use a term I hope is sufficiently pejorative for no-one to notice that I’ve been kippered again".

Fair enough. If that’s how you roll then go with it, albeit at the price of confirming that you have nothing to contribute here. 

As for your basic mistake that I see you’ve returned to as a dog returns to its vomit, could you at least try to think before committing it again?

Veeery slowly now…

1. There’s a qualitative, categoric difference between claims that are investigable in their nature (eg, Brexit) and claims that are not (eg, “god”). However hard, uncertain, ambiguous, difficult, whatever the practical investigation of the first group may be, they are at least in principle investigable. The second group in themselves though are not.

It would help if you’d indicate that you’d at least grasped this point now. Note too by the way that I make no comment yet on why that matters – we’ll come to that – I’m just trying to get you to take the baby steps of understanding the principle.

2. In answer to your “so what?” though, the answer of course is “so a lot”. For the non-investigable set (“god”, “soul”, “prophet” etc) those words are the beginning and the end of it. They’re white noise. There’s nothing more to consider because there’s no way to investigate these claims. That’s why it’s a very bad idea for people to assert them as facts – any such claim is epistemically identical to any other, so if you think the claim "god" is a fact because that's your faith you have no choice but to permit "leprechauns" as fact too because that's my faith. This means that all faith claims can be put in the same box marked "guesses".

For the second set though, there is something to investigate it and a means to do it – the results may be incomplete or hard to evaluate, but they are results nonetheless.

Thus if, say, someone says, “one year after leaving the EU everyone will be £1k richer” and in fact after one year everyone is £1k poorer, the claim can be shown to have been false. And by this method we reach consensus - for example, "nazism = bad; philanthropy = good". That is, we have a means to distinguish one investigable claim from another investigable claim and to select or reject on that basis.

And that's why the difference between the investigable in principle and the non-investigable in principle matters. Incidentally, you make the same mistake here that Vlad routinely makes by the way - that unless a truth can be shown to be absolute, then all truth claims are equal. It's bollocks of course because all that matters is that some truths are more serviceable than others, and thus that we can apply some and reject others in a coherent manner.

Is any of this sinking in yet?

Anything at all??

3. Now consider the terrorist whose defence for blowing up a ‘plane is, “but that’s my faith”. Can you see the problem now? The answer to that of course is, “so fucking what?” but his response then would be, “but you too privilege faith as a method to establish truths. I do the same, so who are you to say that I’m wrong?”

What then would your rebuttal be? Now, finally, can you begin at least to grasp why privileging faith in the public square over just guessing is such a bad idea – it renders you defenceless against the same argument for any manner of horrors that you’d abhor but that you now cannot rebut because they’re just the same argument your rely on for your beliefs – faith.                 

4. As for your, “I would restate that no, I don't think "pretty much all “people of faith”... think that their faith is a more reliable guide to truth than just guessing" I assume you’re joking or feeling unwell or something. Are you seriously suggesting that if you went into a church or a mosque or a temple and asked the worshippers there whether they thought their faith meant their beliefs were no more likely to be true than just guessing just about every one of them wouldn’t disagree? Seriously though?

5. Short version – Susan was right: as always, the point has eluded you and the welter of irrelevant, irrational vitriol you throw at it instead of engaging with it does you no credit.

Apart from all that though…

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Susan, i see that you have, as is so often the case, written a post that adds nothing of value to the discussion and was hardly worth whatever little effort it took you to write it nor whatever little effort it took me to read it.

Wrong again. Susan correctly pointed out that you had, yet again, entirely missed the point and thus that it's you who has failed to add anything of value.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

So back in Reply 29194 you posted a string of missteps, mistakes, misrepresentations and misunderstandings that in Reply 29201 I took the time to correct. In response you’ve stuck with your standard plan (presumably learnt at the knee of Vlad) of just ignoring the corrections and repeating your same mistakes. I note too that you return over and again to the term “assertions”, which seems to be code for, “OK, I’ve been shown to be badly out of my depth here and I have no rebuttals available so I’ll just use a term I hope is sufficiently pejorative for no-one to notice that I’ve been kippered again".

Assertion  - therefore irrelevant.

As for your basic mistake that I see you’ve returned to as a dog returns to its vomit, could you at least try to think before committing it again?

Assertion - therefore irrelevant.

Veeery slowly now…

1. There’s a qualitative, categoric difference between claims that are investigable in their nature (eg, Brexit) and claims that are not (eg, “god”). However hard, uncertain, ambiguous, difficult, whatever the practical investigation of the first group may be, they are at least in principle investigable. The second group in themselves though are not.

It would help if you’d indicate that you’d at least grasped this point now. Note too by the way that I make no comment yet on why that matters – we’ll come to that – I’m just trying to get you to take the baby steps of understanding the principle.

It would help if you could read and understand the words "As I said, I get you think the theoretical difference between the 2 types of claims of objective fact is profound. I look at the real world result of competing claims of objective fact and I don’t find the difference profound. " as opposed to demonstrating your usual inability to comprehend words that contradict your blindly held assertions and bias, followed by you returning to your tired comedy routine like a fly returns to crap. Fair enough. If that’s how you roll then go with it, albeit at the price of confirming that you have nothing to contribute here. 

2. In answer to your “so what?” though, the answer of course is “so a lot”.

No - not really, quite often it doesn't no matter how much you like to pretend it matters in the real world.

For the non-investigable set (“god”, “soul”, “prophet” etc) those words are the beginning and the end of it. They’re white noise. There’s nothing more to consider because there’s no way to investigate these claims. That’s why it’s a very bad idea for people to assert them as facts – any such claim is epistemically identical to any other, so if you think the claim "god" is a fact because that's your faith you have no choice but to permit "leprechauns" as fact too because that's my faith. This means that all faith claims can be put in the same box marked "guesses".

For the second set though, there is something to investigate it and a means to do it – the results may be incomplete or hard to evaluate, but they are results nonetheless.

So what? In practical terms, as opposed to theoretical terms, the difference between claims of fact that can't be validated in the first set and many of the claims of fact that can't be validated in the second set are meaningless. Maybe not to you because it gives you something to hang your chosen philosophical argument on, but in the real world where people make decisions or adopt positions without being able to agree on, let alone investigate the facts or the truth, your philosophical argument is often irrelevant. 

Thus if, say, someone says, “one year after leaving the EU everyone will be £1k richer” and in fact after one year everyone is £1k poorer, the claim can be shown to have been false. And by this method we reach consensus - for example, "nazism = bad; philanthropy = good". That is, we have a means to distinguish one investigable claim from another investigable claim and to select or reject on that basis.

You do know these simplistic examples do nothing to discredit my point. This is not even remotely close to the complexity people face in the real world and therefore irrelevant to the point I made.

And that's why the difference between the investigable in principle and the non-investigable in principle matters.

The difference sometimes matters, and other times it doesn't matter in the real world.

Incidentally, you make the same mistake here that Vlad routinely makes by the way - that unless a truth can be shown to be absolute, then all truth claims are equal. It's bollocks of course because all that matters is that some truths are more serviceable than others, and thus that we can apply some and reject others in a coherent manner.

I have not said anything about all truth claims - I'll leave the inaccurate generalisations to you.

3. Now consider the terrorist whose defence for blowing up a ‘plane is, “but that’s my faith”. Can you see the problem now? The answer to that of course is, “so fucking what?” but his response then would be, “but you too privilege faith as a method to establish truths. I do the same, so who are you to say that I’m wrong?”

Can you provide evidence of a terrorist making this argument or is this just another example of you being unhinged from reality.

What then would your rebuttal be? Now, finally, can you begin at least to grasp why privileging faith in the public square over just guessing is such a bad idea – it renders you defenceless against the same argument for any manner of horrors that you’d abhor but that you now cannot rebut because they’re just the same argument your rely on for your beliefs – faith.

Except it doesn't leave you defenceless at all because in the real world we just work on the principle that the rule of law allows us to try to stop people who commit or try to commit criminal acts. And hopefully you have grasped by now that I think privileging certain aspects of faith in the public square is not necessarily a bad idea, if a democratic process is followed, but privileging certain other acts of faith in the public square might be.                   

4. As for your, “I would restate that no, I don't think "pretty much all “people of faith”... think that their faith is a more reliable guide to truth than just guessing" I assume you’re joking or feeling unwell or something. Are you seriously suggesting that if you went into a church or a mosque or a temple and asked the worshippers there whether they thought their faith meant their beliefs were no more likely to be true than just guessing just about every one of them wouldn’t disagree? Seriously though?

Do you have a link to some evidence of such a study or are you just guessing?

The people who are certain in their belief, would be as a result of their interpretations of personal experiences for which they obviously cannot provide objective, testable evidence.

5. Short version – Susan was right: as always, the point has eluded you and the welter of irrelevant, irrational vitriol you throw at it instead of engaging with it does you no credit.

Apart from all that though…

Susan was wrong. As are you about the significance of your philosophical distinctions in the real world. Apart from that though....

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

In the post above, you say

the difference between claims of fact that can't be validated in the first set and many of the claims of fact that can't be validated in the second set are meaningless.

do you think you can provide one objective fact about the God you believe in , or any god for that matter? If so, could you please present it.