Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

It's an emergent property. Tosay it doesn't exist is to be ontologically reductionist.

It exists only in your brain as it interprets wavelengths of reflected light. That is the point. Your brain could interpret it as words or sounds.

Just because commons makes it seem one way, does not mean that it is actually that way.

THAT is the point!

[wigginhall]

"Predetermined" is not quite the word I would choose, but broadly speaking, yes, the science seems absolutely on the right track to me.  The idea of consciousness lag may be counterintuitive, we are not aware of it, for obvious reasons, but it makes total sense within the broad arc of what we have come to understand about mind. The notion that subconscious mind is the real driver of human motivation goes all the way back to Freud and everything we have learned through cognitive science research and neuroscience since then has only strengthened that understanding. Furthermore we don't have to merely accept the word of scientists on this either, there are many ways to gain personal insight into it, for instance there are numerous thought experiments and cognitive illusions which expose these aspects of mind, several of such I've posted up on this thread in the past.  When you become accustomed to understanding mind in this way, you start to notice evidence for it everywhere in your personal life.

It goes back before Freud, for example Nietzsche talks about the unconscious mind.  There is also the book, "Philosophy of the Unconscious", by von Hartmann, published in 1869, and apparently influential on later writers.  It's difficult to believe that people today deny it, but then Alan has to deny anything that militates  against his version of spookiness.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi ekim,

Yes, it’s entirely possible that his needs are not satisfied by reason and logic but that then begs the question of why he keeps trying to use these tools to argue his case, albeit incompetently. Why not instead say something like, “look I know I have no reason and logic to support my beliefs but my faith tells they’re correct nonetheless and that’s the beginning and the end of it”?

On possible reason that I alluded to a while back is that he’s aware that such honesty would come at the cost of detonating his evangelism – why would anyone take any one such faith claim any more seriously than any other? – but as with everything else that undoes him I don’t suppose he’ll have the decency to engage with it.   

I disagree that it would detonate his evangelism. His evangelism a lot of the time seems to be built on subjective evidence - a try it for yourself and see how it works for you approach.

I don't think people are drawn to theism through arguments of reason and logic, though that may play a part in choosing one particular religious interpretation , value or belief over another. I think once an individual accepts the possibility of theism, if they are then drawn to explore it further by looking at different interpretations of theism, it's possible that particular religious interpretations resonate with them more than other interpretations because they help illuminate and clarify values, especially related to empathy as well as judgement and accountability (all very important values for social regulation). An individual may be experimenting with various values on an emotional level while consciously trying to decide on what moral values and beliefs they want to adopt or stand for and how best to put their moral choices into practice.

Experiments seem to show that a subject's familiarity and similarity with the object under distress as well as previous experience with the distress situation increases empathy in an animal or human observer. Which then seems to drive a lot of the moral choices and judgements - such as rats pressing a bar to lower another suspended rat to reduce its distress.

https://tinyurl.com/ydx653c4

Religions are one way of binding people together socially and creating empathy by creating points of similarity- cognitively and emotionally. Hence one of the reasons for the evangelising.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I disagree that it would detonate his evangelism. His evangelism a lot of the time seems to be built on subjective evidence - a try it for yourself and see how it works for you approach.

It would detonate it inasmuch as his evangelism entails objective claims of fact about the world – a god, a soul, a resurrection etc. “How it works for you” on the other hand concerns just the effect of beliefs about these things.     

I don't think people are drawn to theism through arguments of reason and logic, though that may play a part in choosing one particular religious interpretation , value or belief over another. I think once an individual accepts the possibility of theism, if they are then drawn to explore it further by looking at different interpretations of theism, it's possible that particular religious interpretations resonate with them more than other interpretations because they help illuminate and clarify values, especially related to empathy as well as judgement and accountability (all very important values for social regulation). An individual may be experimenting with various values on an emotional level while consciously trying to decide on what moral values and beliefs they want to adopt or stand for and how best to put their moral choices into practice.

Perhaps, but that misses the point. AB attempts arguments and reason and logic to validate his claims of fact. It’s trivially easy to falsify those arguments etc though, which is all that’s being said here. That his claims of fact could theoretically be correct just as a matter of dumb luck on the other hand (as could mine about leprechauns) is a different matter.     

Experiments seem to show that a subject's familiarity and similarity with the object under distress as well as previous experience with the distress situation increases empathy in an animal or human observer. Which then seems to drive a lot of the moral choices and judgements - such as rats pressing a bar to lower another suspended rat to reduce its distress.

https://tinyurl.com/ydx653c4

No doubt, but there’s no reason to think that religious belief (from any tradition) is necessary for that to be so. 

Religions are one way of binding people together socially and creating empathy by creating points of similarity- cognitively and emotionally. Hence one of the reasons for the evangelising.

They’re also a very effective way to divide people and communities. The point though is that their effectiveness at creating or destroying empathy is a separate matter to their claims of objective fact. That a leprechaunist club might engender a sense of belonging for its members and run bring and buy sales for the needy tells you nothing about the existence or otherwise of leprechauns.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's not my reading of what he is saying. He talks about faith leading him to state that he knows God exists and talks about subjective evidence - perception - for his belief in God and free will. He also said prayer and scripture and personal experience led to him not just believing in God but knowing God.

He said that there may be no scientific evidence for free will, but there is plenty of evidence for it in human perception.

So no, I don't think his particular brand of evangelism has been detonated by stating sentiments about about personal experience leading to his belief that he knows God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

That's not my reading of what he is saying. He talks about faith leading him to state that he knows God exists and talks about subjective evidence - perception - for his belief in God and free will. He also said prayer and scripture and personal experience led to him not just believing in God but knowing God.

He does, but he also overreaches with that “know” into insisting that others should agree with him. Absent any method to investigate that claim (either for himself or for others), at most what he has is a belief.

He said that there may be no scientific evidence for free will, but there is plenty of evidence for it in human perception.

First, he consistently dismisses in its entirely the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness. That’s a mistake for reasons that shouldn’t have to be explained.

Second, there’s no such thing as evidence “in human perception”. There’s belief or conviction or presumption but the bar for something to be “evidence” is much higher. If you think otherwise, can I offer you the evidence of my personal convictions about leprechauns?     

So no, I don't think his particular brand of evangelism has been detonated by stating sentiments about about personal experience leading to his belief that he knows God.

Of course it has when that evangelism rests on demands that claims of fact (“god”, “soul” etc) must be accepted on the grounds merely of their asserting.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

He does, but he also overreaches with that “know” into expecting that others should agree with him. Absent any method to investigate that claim, at best what he has is “believe”.

That seems to be his way of bearing witness to God - which he stated ages ago was what he was on here to do, although he acknowledged he might be doing it badly. That's his brand of evangelism. The "know" was his way of distinguishing his current level of belief from his previous level of belief in God. "Know" refers I think to his belief that he had personally experienced God after prayer and scripture on some seminar he attended.

First, he consistently dismisses in its entirely the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness. That’s a mistake for reasons that shouldn’t have to be explained.

I don't see him dismissing in its entirety the scientific evidence available - he dismisses some of the scientific evidence and says there is much that science doesn't explain, which he then attributes to some kind of supernatural conscious awareness based on his concept of free will. His perception of free will is his evidence for free will.

Second, there’s no such thing as evidence “in human perception”. There’s belief or conviction or presumption but the bar for something to be “evidence” is much higher. If you think otherwise, can I offer you the evidence of my personal convictions about leprechauns?

We already did this argument before. Personal testimony about perception can be offered as evidence - it's another matter as to whether this evidence is accepted as persuasive or credible by anyone.

Of course it has when that evangelism rests on demands that claims of fact (“god”, “soul” etc) must be accepted on the grounds merely of their asserting.

Demands that claims of fact must be accepted? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I see him bearing witness and trying to persuade through personal testimony and his perceptions. I see him stating repeatedly that he knows God and free will exists in some supernatural, incomprehensible, scientifically unprovable way because of his personal experience and perceptions (usually during prayers I think). I took that to be his brand of evangelism - preaching his beliefs that despite the lack of testable objective evidence to support his claims, he is not just deluded or engaged in wishful thinking that God exists. That's presumably him spreading the message and advocating for his particular interpretation of Christianity.

I'm pretty sure he said something about a sincerely believing Muslim being deluded and that although he (AB) can't know whether God will save that Muslim or not, he believes that the Muslim should accept the divinity of Jesus to be sure of being saved.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

That seems to be his way of bearing witness to God - which he stated ages ago was what he was on here to do, although he acknowledged he might be doing it badly. That's his brand of evangelism. The "know" was his way of distinguishing his current level of belief from his previous level of belief in God. "Know" refers I think to his belief that he had personally experienced God after prayer and scripture on some seminar he attended.

No, he clearly thinks that the rest of us should treat his “know” about his god in the same way that we should treat his “know” about, say, the speed of light in a vacuum. This is called the fallacy of reification, and he does it a lot. They are however different categories of knowledge (personal, subjective, non-investigable etc vs objective, investigable etc).

I don't see him dismissing in its entirety the scientific evidence available - he dismisses some of the scientific evidence and says there is much that science doesn't explain, which he then attributes to some kind of supernatural conscious awareness based on his concept of free will. His perception of free will is his evidence for free will.

Then you’re not looking. There’s a huge amount of evidence from multiple academic fields that points to consciousness as a material phenomenon (essentially as an emergent property of brains). That picture is substantially in place, but it’s not complete. What AB has to do is to dismiss it entirely in order to leave the field clear for his assertions about “soul” etc. He cannot and does not say something like, “OK, this research and evidence over here is fine, but that research and evidence over there I can refute”. (He’s also incidentally entirely oblivious to the problem that, even if he could falsify every scrap of evidence against him, that would take him not even one tiny step toward providing evidence for his alternatives.)       

We already did this argument before. Personal testimony about perception can be offered as evidence - it's another matter as to whether this evidence is accepted as persuasive or credible by anyone.

Not in science it can’t. So far as possible, science seeks to eliminate precisely the personal in favour of objectively investigable data. If he wants to rebut the science, he has to play on science’s turf. When he doesn’t do that he plants himself squarely in, “that Large Hadron Collider thing doesn’t accord with my personal experience, so it must be pixies” territory.     

Demands that claims of fact must be accepted?

Yes. That’s what his evangelism requires. Presumably he wouldn’t for example be shy about trying it with children whose critical faculties haven’t developed.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I see him bearing witness and trying to persuade through personal testimony and his perceptions. I see him stating repeatedly that he knows God and free will exists in some supernatural, incomprehensible, scientifically unprovable way because of his personal experience and perceptions (usually during prayers I think). I took that to be his brand of evangelism - preaching his beliefs that despite the lack of testable objective evidence to support his claims, he is not just deluded or engaged in wishful thinking that God exists.

That’s precisely what he is in my view, at least he is in respect of the assertion “god is” (as opposed to, “my belief that god is leads me to have certain perceptions"). That’s his problem – constantly trampling over the line between claims of fact about the objects of his beliefs (god, soul etc) and the perceptions those beliefs give him. A someone once said, when your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When AB finds his car keys, for him that’s his god at work. And that’s actually what his “testimony” relates to. 
   

That's presumably him spreading the message and advocating for his particular interpretation of Christianity.

He’s entitled of course to any opinions he likes. What he’s not entitled to though are his own facts. And that’s his problem. 

I'm pretty sure he said something about a sincerely believing Muslim being deluded and that although he (AB) can't know whether God will save that Muslim or not, he believes that the Muslim should accept the divinity of Jesus to be sure of being saved.

And? That’s the thing with opinions masquerading as facts – any one such is as in/valid as any other, which goes a long way to explaining why people kill each other when their non-facts collide.   

[Alan Burns]

It goes back before Freud, for example Nietzsche talks about the unconscious mind.  There is also the book, "Philosophy of the Unconscious", by von Hartmann, published in 1869, and apparently influential on later writers.  It's difficult to believe that people today deny it, but then Alan has to deny anything that militates  against his version of spookiness.

I will continue to deny any theory which effectively removes the reality that we are capable of driving our own thoughts and invoking conscious choices.  Not spookiness, just demonstrable reality.

[Gordon]

I will continue to deny any theory which effectively removes the reality that we are capable of driving our own thoughts and invoking conscious choices.  Not spookiness, just demonstrable reality.

No, Alan: you deny anything that doesn't include a space for your God, and that includes all of what we label as being science.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I will continue to deny any theory…

You can deny anything you like, but denying something and falsifying it are entirely different things. You may as well deny the theories that apples fall because of gravity and that germs cause disease for all the epistemic value your denial has.
 

…which effectively removes…

Argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. Again. Whether a theory removes an alternative you happen to like tells you nothing about the validity of the theory. Lots of theories have removed and replaced previously held beliefs – the theory of evolution replacing creationism for example.

…the reality that we are capable of driving our own thoughts and invoking conscious choices.

That’s not “the” reality, it’s just “a” reality that you happen to harbour because you intuit things to be that way, and because it opens the door to the various religious speculations you assert to be facts that depend on it.

Not spookiness…

No, incoherence.

…just demonstrable reality.

In which case why not finally have a go at demonstrating this supposed reality? If your standard trope of, “the fact that I can write this” etc is all you have though, then please don’t bother as it’s been falsified so many times now that it’s not even funny any more.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No, he clearly thinks that the rest of us should treat his “know” about his god in the same way that we should treat his “know” about, say, the speed of light in a vacuum. This is called the fallacy of reification, and he does it a lot. They are however different categories of knowledge (personal, subjective, non-investigable etc vs objective, investigable etc).

Then you’re not looking. There’s a huge amount of evidence from multiple academic fields that points to consciousness as a material phenomenon (essentially as an emergent property of brains). That picture is substantially in place, but it’s not complete. What AB has to do is to dismiss it entirely in order to leave the field clear for his assertions about “soul” etc. He cannot and does not say something like, “OK, this research and evidence over here is fine, but that research and evidence over there I can refute”. (He’s also incidentally entirely oblivious to the problem that, even if he could falsify every scrap of evidence against him, that would take him not even one tiny step toward providing evidence for his alternatives.)       

Not in science it can’t. So far as possible, science seeks to eliminate precisely the personal in favour of objectively investigable data. If he wants to rebut the science, he has to play on science’s turf. When he doesn’t do that he plants himself squarely in, “that Large Hadron Collider thing doesn’t accord with my personal experience, so it must be pixies” territory.     

Yes. That’s what his evangelism requires. Presumably he wouldn’t for example be shy about trying it with children whose critical faculties haven’t developed.

That’s precisely what he is in my view, at least he is in respect of the assertion “god is” (as opposed to, “my belief that god is leads me to have certain perceptions"). That’s his problem – constantly trampling over the line between claims of fact about the objects of his beliefs (god, soul etc) and the perceptions those beliefs give him. A someone once said, when your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When AB finds his car keys, for him that’s his god at work. And that’s actually what his “testimony” relates to. 
   
He’s entitled of course to any opinions he likes. What he’s not entitled to though are his own facts. And that’s his problem. 

And? That’s the thing with opinions masquerading as facts – any one such is as in/valid as any other, which goes a long way to explaining why people kill each other when their non-facts collide.

If someone sad they "know" what the speed of light is, I wouldn't take their word for it. I would expect them to state what they think the speed of light is and then I would check if it corresponds to the current thinking based on the available objective evidence for the speed of light.

AB has said he can't define God and can't refer to any objective evidence to support the existence of God, and then just refers us to his subjective evidence and his perceptions - so no, I don't see him on science's turf, I don't see any ability to rebut science - I just see him evangelising his personal perceptions, narratives and interpretations.

Your assertion that I am not looking is not a persuasive argument - maybe you are just seeing what you want to see. He acknowledges cause and effect and the influences of prior events and various chemical reactions and interactions in decision-making. Evidence might point to consciousness as an emergent property of the brain but it doesn't reach any conclusion that it is an emergent property of just the brain and nothing else. Since we don't have sufficient information on everything the brain interacts with to produce consciousness, create self-awareness or abstract thought, that leaves space for AB's assertions as much as it leaves space for assertions about pixies. Of course, as he can't provide any objective evidence or even a method to test his assertions about what the possible something else that leads to consciousness might be, there is no reason for anyone to take his assertions as true, but that's not his problem - my impression is that he's just here to spread the message that it's a soul and not pixies because that narrative appeals to him. That's his brand of evangelism - seeking to persuade others to adopt his particular narrative without objective evidence. And it may well appeal to some other people who might read his posts - who knows - so presumably that is what motivates him to continue with his assertions.

Lots of people don't kill each other when their non-facts collide. They just agree to disagree.

[Alan Burns]

If your standard trope of, “the fact that I can write this” etc is all you have though, then please don’t bother as it’s been falsified so many times .......

I must have missed them all

[Alan Burns]

There’s a huge amount of evidence from multiple academic fields that points to consciousness as a material phenomenon (essentially as an emergent property of brains).

Just to clarify.
I have not dismissed any scientific findings to my knowledge.

What I do question is the extrapolated speculation that conscious awareness can be defined as an emergent property of material reactions.  Without a material definition of how conscious awareness actually works, it is just speculation to assume that it can be defined by material reactions alone.  The main reasoning behind this speculation would appear to be the fact that we can't detect anything else but material reactions, but as I have previously pointed out this is a very short sighted view.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

If someone sad they "know" what the speed of light is, I wouldn't take their word for it. I would expect them to state what they think the speed of light is and then I would check if it corresponds to the current thinking based on the available objective evidence for the speed of light.

Quite.

]AB has said he can't define God and can't refer to any objective evidence to support the existence of God, and then just refers us to his subjective evidence and his perceptions - so no, I don't see him on science's turf, I don't see any ability to rebut science - I just see him evangelising his personal perceptions, narratives and interpretations.

He’s precisely on science’s turf when he wants to falsify the science. Or at least he is if he wants to be taken seriously. His schtick is that the science is factually wrong – not just that he happens to have some personal opinions about its wrongness.   

Your assertion that I am not looking is not a persuasive argument - maybe you are just seeing what you want to see. He acknowledges cause and effect and the influences of prior events and various chemical reactions and interactions in decision-making. Evidence might point to consciousness as an emergent property of the brain but it doesn't reach any conclusion that it is an emergent property of just the brain and nothing else.

You’re playing fast and loose with the word “conclusion” here. The evidence and reasoning science provides points very substantially to a conclusion, but it recognises too that the picture is as yet incomplete. What AB does is to play the god of the gaps game by inserting incoherent and irrational speculations as facts into the missing spaces without bothering to provide any evidence at all for them.         

Since we don't have sufficient information on everything the brain interacts with to produce consciousness, create self-awareness or abstract thought, that leaves space for AB's assertions as much as it leaves space for assertions about pixies.

And you think that to be helpful to him?

Of course, as he can't provide any objective evidence or even a method to test his assertions about what the possible something else that leads to consciousness might be, there is no reason for anyone to take his assertions as true, but that's not his problem…

It is when he dresses his assertions as facts and expects them to be treated that way.

- my impression is that he's just here to spread the message that it's a soul and not pixies because that narrative appeals to him.

Quite. For some reason though he doesn’t appear to grasp the problem that this epistemic equivalence between pixies and "soul" gives him. 

That's his brand of evangelism - seeking to persuade others to adopt his particular narrative without objective evidence. And it may well appeal to some other people who might read his posts - who knows - so presumably that is what motivates him to continue with his assertions.

No, he precisely wants people to think his arguments to be evidence, and he continually says as much. And he thinks that “evidence” to be every bit as objectively true as the evidence for, say, eclipses however ludicrous the proposition. 

Lots of people don't kill each other when their non-facts collide. They just agree to disagree.

Which says nothing to the fact of lots of people killing each other (or trying to) too. I was merely pointing out that religious belief isn’t the unalloyed good you implied it to be. Northern Ireland alone should tell you that. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I must have missed them all

Why? They've been set out perfectly clearly for you what, 100 times maybe? 200 perhaps? Missing something and choosing to ignore something are not the same thing. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to clarify.
I have not dismissed any scientific findings to my knowledge.

You have when those findings involve the prevailing theories of mind.

What I do question is the extrapolated speculation that conscious awareness can be defined as an emergent property of material reactions.

It’s not an “extrapolated speculation”. It’s a heavily evidenced and robustly supported model for consciousness that accords with emergent property theory in any other area of research.
 

Without a material definition of how conscious awareness actually works, it is just speculation to assume that it can be defined by material reactions alone.

Wrong (yet) again. “Speculation” is the fallacy of pejorative language and moreover it’s a term that applies properly to claims when there’s no evidence at all – “soul” for example. And there’s no “assumption”, any more than there’s an assumption that gravity (also an incomplete theory) can be explained by material “reactions” alone. Rather the only assumption involved is that there are no good reasons to incorporate inherently irrational and entirely un-evidenced guesses into the models we do have, let alone to junk them.     

The main reasoning behind this speculation would appear to be the fact that we can't detect anything else but material reactions, but as I have previously pointed out this is a very short sighted view.

And as I have pointed out (and you’ve continually ignored) that’s stupid. If we “can’t detect anything else", on what possible basis would anyone think that it’s there in any case?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to clarify.
I have not dismissed any scientific findings to my knowledge.

Just by way of a coda, that’s very funny by the way given that just five posts ago on this very thread you said:

I will continue to deny any theory which effectively removes…etc

Or are you now going to try to insert a fag paper of meaning between “dismiss” and “deny any”?

Can you see now why some of look askance when – apparently with a straight face – you tell us that you think about things?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just by way of a coda, that’s very funny by the way given that just five posts ago on this very thread you said:

Or are you now going to try to insert a fag paper of meaning between “dismiss” and “deny any”?

Can you see now why some of look askance when – apparently with a straight face – you tell us that you think about things?

Can you not differentiate between scientific findings and theories?

[ippy]

I try to tell myself a lie when that other football team that's not Spurs the team that emigrated to North London from Woolwich, when it wins a game I try to think they didn't win really, at least I'm aware I'm trying to tell myself an untruth, this is bad enough but then again telling yourself anything baseless and then somehow persuading yourself you really believe it in spite of zero supporting evidence, well, I would have thought anyone guilty of being as closed minded as that has to be classified  as a no hoper?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why? They've been set out perfectly clearly for you what, 100 times maybe? 200 perhaps? Missing something and choosing to ignore something are not the same thing.

I think we can agree to differ in what you and I consider to have been be  falsified.

[Alan Burns]

And as I have pointed out (and you’ve continually ignored) that’s stupid. If we “can’t detect anything else", on what possible basis would anyone think that it’s there in any case?

It all depends on what you use as a means of detection.  We can only detect the presence of gravity by what it does.  Similarly with the human soul - it does what pure material entities can't do - which is the capacity to consciously invoke acts of will.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Quite.

He’s precisely on science’s turf when he wants to falsify the science. Or at least he is if he wants to be taken seriously. His schtick is that the science is factually wrong – not just that he happens to have some personal opinions about its wrongness.

Nope - he is saying there is a gap in the explanations that science has provided and he fills it with his evangelism. Whether he gets taken seriously or not is not his problem - his evangelism requires him to pass on the message and that is what he is doing. 

You’re playing fast and loose with the word “conclusion” here. The evidence and reasoning science provides points very substantially to a conclusion, but it recognises too that the picture is as yet incomplete. What AB does is to play the god of the gaps game by inserting incoherent and irrational speculations as facts into the missing spaces without bothering to provide any evidence at all for them.

That sounds like you are agreeing there are gaps in the explanations provided by science. Science has not identified everything the brain interacts with and how it interacts with them to produce conscious awareness, selective perceptions, abstract concepts. My point was that these gaps are where AB introduces his evangelism, so his evangelism isn't torpedoed. Since some people may have a preference for the particular evangelical abstract thoughts that his brain produces to explain the gaps, his evangelism continues.           

And you think that to be helpful to him?

It is helpful to him because his evangelism isn't torpedoed - you can continue to assert that it is if you want, but I think his evangelism will appeal to some people, even if it doesn't appeal to you, so for him it's apparently worth his while continuing.

It is when he dresses his assertions as facts and expects them to be treated that way.

I think he thinks there is a possibility his assertions for the gaps in science's explanations will be persuasive to some people, hence he continues to evangelise.

Quite. For some reason though he doesn’t appear to grasp the problem that this epistemic equivalence between pixies and "soul" gives him.

I don't think it's a big problem for him. He is on here to evangelise, and that is what he is doing, so he meets some of his objectives. Of course he would prefer it if people were persuaded, but even if they aren't he has an objective to bear witness about his particular abstract supernatural concepts and he has met that objective, repeatedly.

No, he precisely wants people to think his arguments to be evidence, and he continually says as much. And he thinks that “evidence” to be every bit as objectively true as the evidence for, say, eclipses however ludicrous the proposition.

We've had this argument before. "Objectively true" means that there is objective evidence for it i.e. there is a method to investigate and test it. He has presented no objective evidence so what is your evidence that he thinks he has objective as opposed to subjective evidence such as personal testimony about his perceptions of his experiences? What he thinks without objective evidence is the same as saying he believes it based on faith. I see AB as someone who wants to persuade people to accept his testimony.

Which says nothing to the fact of lots of people killing each other (or trying to) too. I was merely pointing out that religious belief isn’t the unalloyed good you implied it to be. Northern Ireland alone should tell you that.

I didn't imply that religious belief is unalloyed good. I don't even think that it is. I just made a comment about AB's preference for a narrative that a sincerely believing Muslim was deluded. As usual, you are reading your own interpretation into other people's words and getting it wrong.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I try to tell myself a lie when that other football team that's not Spurs the team that emigrated to North London from Woolwich, when it wins a game I try to think they didn't win really, at least I'm aware I'm trying to tell myself an untruth, this is bad enough but then again telling yourself anything baseless and then somehow persuading yourself you really believe it in spite of zero supporting evidence, well, I would have thought anyone guilty of being as closed minded as that has to be classified  as a no hoper?

ippy

AB's supporting evidence appears to be his perceptions of his personal experiences while reading scripture and praying. It doesn't appear that he needs to persuade himself - his brain believes the narrative it produces. My brain also believes the narratives it produces - I don't need to persuade myself. I don't expect anyone else to believe the narratives my brain produces if I can't produce objective evidence for those narratives.

Actually, after the Brexit debates and Trump's continuous brays of "fake news" I don't expect people to believe the narratives even if I did manage to produce objective evidence. 

On another thread, I was questioning the research evidence and conclusions that people's experiences show that physiologically they can't lose weight and keep it off by restricting their calories, given there are other studies to show that other people's experiences are that they can lose weight and keep it off by restricting their calories to 810 calories a day and getting psychological support. So I am undecided about what I believe on that issue. But I prefer the narrative that you can lose weight by restricting calories, based on my personal experience.

[torridon]

Just to clarify.
I have not dismissed any scientific findings to my knowledge ....

Eh ?  You have very short memory.  Here you are in #31408, just a little further up this same page  :

"I will continue to deny any theory which effectively removes the reality that we are capable of driving our own thoughts and invoking conscious choices.  Not spookiness, just demonstrable reality."

This thread would have finished thousands of posts ago but for your insistent denial of the findings of cognitive science, not to mentions various others such as evolutionary biology.

Just claiming our apparent reality is a "demonstrable reality" is facile.  You might as well push two apples to discover that they can touch and then declare that atomic theory and the whole of particle physics is wrong.  We might as well ditch the whole project of science if we are going to be satisfied that our apparent reality is the only game in town and it just springs out of nowhere with no underlying derivation.