Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Hope]

Exactly who has been told before? Every time that you've been asked to provide a methodology for the examination and evaluation of supernatural claims you've blobbed it.
So what is it? How is it applied? How does it function? How do you know that it functions accurately? Why have you consistently failed to provide answers to any of these specific questions?

Shaker, you quoted the answer to your first pair of questions within your own post.  As for the second paragraph, I could ask you the equivalent question regarding cancer.  Is it predominantly 'bad luck' as a study carried out a few months ago seemed to suggest, or predominantly lifestyle-related as a more recent study claims? 

However, I suppose one way of seeing whether it functions correctly is whether or not the various alternative explanations given can be made without pretty straight-forward devalidation.

[Hope]

Part of the issue here is a sort of dual category error. Vlad and others of his ilk see their god as a solution to a transcendental search (note that neither justifies the solution or validates the search). Merely substituting another set of terms doesn't mean there is no solution or that the search is invalid. The correct approach is to ask for the question to be validated.

Two points here; not sure that I've ever come across a person of faith who regards "their god as a solution to a transcendental search", though there may be some.   Could the same argument not be made for the searching that scientists are so busy doing even as we debate? 

[Shaker]

Shaker, you quoted the answer to your first pair of questions within your own post.

Don't lie. My questions were "Who [membership of this forum] has been told of this alleged methodology for evaluating supernatural claims?" and "What is the methodology for evaluating supernatural claims?"

I didn't "Quote the answer" to these questions at all. I'm asking you to provide the answers thereof. What are they? Or will you just dodge, bluster, evade, obfuscate, obscure, bullshit and finally run away as usual?

[Shaker]

Two points here; not sure that I've ever come across a person of faith who regards "their god as a solution to a transcendental search", though there may be some. Could the same argument not be made for the searching that scientists are so busy doing even as we debate?

What does "transcendental" actually mean?

Scientists are searching to find out how reality works.

[Hope]

Don't lie. My questions were "Who [membership of this forum] has been told of this alleged methodology for evaluating supernatural claims?" and "What is the methodology for evaluating supernatural claims?"

I didn't "Quote the answer" to these questions at all. I'm asking you to provide the answers thereof. What are they? Or will you just dodge, bluster, evade, obfuscate, obscure, bullshit and finally run away as usual?

OK, let's start at the beginning.  There are a number of people of faith on this board who have found a methodology for evaluating 'supernatural claims', as you call them.  It is as a result of such a methodology that they are peopole of faith.  However, since these supernatural claims are, by definition, outside of the purely physical, scientific aspect of reality that you and your ilk believe to be the limits of that reality, it is nigh on impossible to explain in naturalistic language how that methodology works.  The nearest analogy I can think of now is Archimedes' 'Eureka' moment when he understood something that had been outside his comprehension - but which had existed for an eternity prior to that moment.  I suppose another analogy would be drinking percolated coffee for the first time after years of drinking instant.  One suddenly realises that the former is an experience that the latter doesn't really come near to.

As for your comment that 'I didn't "Quote the answer" to these questions at all' , perhaps you missed the piece in the section you quoted that said:

"except that, because it is suited to the non-physical aspect of nature that is what you call the supernatural, it doesn't work with the mindset that you have."

[jeremyp]

bh, as usual you refer to the situation of oral re-telling from within the context of a high-literacy context.  As I have pointed out before, that is far too simplistic an approach to the situation that would have existed in 1st century Palestine.

And as I have pointed out, your assignation of super human retelling abilities to early Christian communities is completely without foundation. If anything, the evidence contradicts your assertion.

The problem here is that documentary material began to appear fall sooner than 'decades' after the events involved.  We know that Paul's first epistle - to the Galatians - dates from as early as 45AD,

And what does that tell us about the life of Jesus?

and even the most sceptical of Biblical scholars seem to posit the existence of a written record that was independent of Paul, and which the Gospel writers drew upon.

Are you talking about Q? Nobody knows the date of that document if it even existed.

Furthermore, since the events of Easter and Pentecost occurred only weeks apart, it is likely that any Jews from the diaspora woud have stayed for both events, thus acting - unwittingly perhaps - as eye-witnesses in addition to the 11 disciples and the other 60-odd followers of Jesus.

Now you are making stuff up.

[Hope]

What does "transcendental" actually mean?

Good question; perhaps you ought to be asking NS, as it was he who introduced the idea.  For me, it means 'relating to the spiritual'.  However, I was questioning the use of the term associated with 'search' in his post, as I'm not sure that many regard their faith as a search merely for something spiritual, but for reality as well.

Scientists are searching to find out how reality works.

Which reality?  That which is limited to the physical, or that which includes the full gammut of our senses?

[jeremyp]

OK, let's start at the beginning.  There are a number of people of faith on this board who have found a methodology for evaluating 'supernatural claims', as you call them.

No. There are a number of people who claim to have found a methodology for evaluating supernatural claims. None of them, however, seem keen on sharing that method with the rest of us. I think we can be forgiven for thinking they are all bullshitting.

[Shaker]

OK, let's start at the beginning.  There are a number of people of faith on this board who have found a methodology for evaluating 'supernatural claims', as you call them.

Let's start even closer to the beginning than that; there's at least one person "of faith" on this board who thinks that they know of a methodology for evaluating supernatural claims (as just about eveybody calls them) but who consistently fails to provide a definition and procedure of such a so-called method when asked to do so by multiple people multiple times.

[Shaker]

Good question; perhaps you ought to be asking NS, as it was he who introduced the idea.  For me, it means 'relating to the spiritual'.

Or the subsitution of one woolly, oft-used but poorly-if-ever-defined word with another. Capital.

Which reality? That which is limited to the physical, or that which includes the full gammut of our senses?

Are these things different? What are your reasons for thinking so?

[Hope]

And, again, this myth of mystical recall abilities amongst pre-literate cultures is not supported by the evidence. Review of tales from extant pre-literate cultures shows that themes carry on, with some gradual drift, but precise details are lost relatively quickly.

Yet studies also show that pre-literate cultures had linguistic mechanisms by which to stabilise stories and details.  Hebrew is often given as an examplar languageof this.

But it's questionable whether the Paul of the epistles is the Paul mentioned in the Gospels, ...

Its also questionable as to whether Paul is mentioned in the Gospels any way.  Iirc, the first mention of Paul is in Acts 13.

[Hope]

And as I have pointed out, your assignation of super human retelling abilities to early Christian communities is completely without foundation. If anything, the evidence contradicts your assertion.

A number of people, over the years, have suggested that the evidence contradicts my assertion - yet have never produced any evidence.

And what does that tell us about the life of Jesus?

and what relevance does this have to the debate; the question wasn't about the life of Jesus but how an author might or might not have eliminated errors of transmission - and if the material was written a lot earlier than what some here would like it to have been, they would have been more likely to have been able to refer to the eye-witnesses.

Are you talking about Q? Nobody knows the date of that document if it even existed.

I was, though I have to say that I am fairly dubious about the idea - but it does seem to be a fairly common thread in the arguments of a whole host of scholars, including those of non-Christian or no religious beliefs. 

[Hope]

Let's start even closer to the beginning than that; there's at least one person "of faith" on this board who thinks that they know of a methodology for evaluating supernatural claims (as just about eveybody calls them) but who consistently fails to provide a definition and procedure of such a so-called method when asked to do so by multiple people multiple times.

Largely because, as has been said by several people, the explanation would be outside the scientific mindset of the likes of yourself.

[Shaker]

Largely because, as has been said by several people, the explanation would be outside the scientific mindset of the likes of yourself.

So what procedure do you have for ascertaining as to whether these so-called claims amount to anything or nothing?

[Hope]

So what procedure do you have for ascertaining as to whether these so-called claims amount to anything or nothing?

Again, as I've pointed out in an earlier post this evening, the flimsy nature of the alternative explanations suggests that the 'traditional' ones aren't as unviable as some here would have us believe.  Secondly, there is experience - something that even scientists rely on as one form of confirmation; thirdly, there is study such as Biblical criticism and theology, history and linguistics.

As for your question about reality "Are these things different? What are your reasons for thinking so?" I have heard eminent scientists state that the physical, scientific aspects of life aren't the be-all and end-all of reality.  Not to mention supporters of science making such comments as 'science doesn't deal in right and wrong'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

There are tons of words that have changed meaning, but if we use objectively to mean not objectively, we then need another word surely? If you want to use objective in a non classical sense then I suggest you really need to be clear about it.

Not really - there are lots of words like that, and either we endlessly stick to strict, classical definitions or we roll with it for the sake of easy discourse. People almost invariably say "anticipate" when they actually mean "expect" for example (and indeed they use "invariably" when they actually mean "usually") but for the sake of normal conversation I generally accept the usage the author seems to intend rather than pull them up on strict definitions.

Having said that, Vlad in particular seems to have a set of meanings all of his own for commonplace words - "feelings" for example - but until he finally provides a Vladdish/English dictionary to help out, the rest of us have little choice but to use the actual meanings nonetheless. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

But there is a problem here Hillside. To make spaghetti, flying and monstrosity to be merely intuited we have to ask in what sense we are to understand these terms.

If we are talking about invisible spaghetti, flying etc we have to ask in what sense they are those things.

But that's not a problem at all if you continue to assume that the rest of us will accept the same inexactitude about your your claims for a "god". In what "sense" does this god of yours have the characteristics you claim about "him"?

Unless you can answer that, all you have is special pleading. 

[Shaker]

Again, as I've pointed out in an earlier post this evening, the flimsy nature of the alternative explanations suggests that the 'traditional' ones aren't as unviable as some here would have us believe.

Such as?

Secondly, there is experience - something that even scientists rely on as one form of confirmation

Actually no. Founded upon empiricism as it is, direct personal apprehension by the senses is the highest court of appeal of science there is. Occasionally you get the odd scientist who thinks that mathematical beauty is higher - Dirac came close to this point of view, and he was a very odd man indeed - but it fails the acid test of experience. It's not possible for the unaided human eye to see atoms directly; but by various highly sophisticated technical methods it is. That's an issue of size and scale, not a logical or intrinsic bar. I can't see a distant relative in Canada, but that's not because she is incredibly small.

thirdly, there is study such as Biblical criticism and theology, history and linguistics.

A quite staggering exercise in both hand-waving and question-begging. Are you actually serious?

As for your question about reality "Are these things different? What are your reasons for thinking so?" I have heard eminent scientists state that the physical, scientific aspect of life isn't the be-all and end-all of reality.

I suppose congratulations are in order - you've just added another dud to your dismal arsenal of fallacies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

OK, let's start at the beginning.  There are a number of people of faith on this board who have found a methodology for evaluating 'supernatural claims', as you call them.  It is as a result of such a methodology that they are peopole of faith.

Really? Wow! That's great, because I've chased the likes of Vlad all over this mb to find out what that method might be, only he and others endlessly run away from the question.

Could you just share then finally what even one of these methods might be?

Ta everso.

However, since these supernatural claims are, by definition, outside of the purely physical, scientific aspect of reality that you and your ilk believe to be the limits of that reality, it is nigh on impossible to explain in naturalistic language how that methodology works.

Not a problem. Just use any language you like, provided of course it enables the dispassionate reader to distinguish these claims from just guessing about stuff.

Go for it!

The nearest analogy I can think of now is Archimedes' 'Eureka' moment when he understood something that had been outside his comprehension - but which had existed for an eternity prior to that moment.  I suppose another analogy would be drinking percolated coffee for the first time after years of drinking instant.  One suddenly realises that the former is an experience that the latter doesn't really come near to.

Aw stop now. The Eureka moment was then testable against real world, observable phenomena. What test would you propose to evaluate the claim "God!" so the rest of us could determine that the claimant wasn't wrong about that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Oh, and as you have just ignored my previous rebuttal of your last effort here here it is again:

"Hope,

bh, as usual you refer to the situation of oral re-telling from within the context of a high-literacy context.  As I have pointed out before, that is far too simplistic an approach to the situation that would have existed in 1st century Palestine.

And as usual you have no evidence of any kind to suggest that the people involved were any less prone to recall error than are modern people. It's an intriguing notion to speculate that games of Chinese whispers couldn't have worked because everyone then had perfect memories, but unless you can point to some change over the last 2,000 years in the physiological way memory actually works then all you have is wishful thinking.

And besides, as I've explained to Vlad several times (but he's just ignored) even if by some unknown process they did have perfect recall, still all they'd have is, "Fred thinks he saw a miracle" - which of course says nothing to whether Fred actually did see a miracle.

The problem here is that documentary material began to appear fall sooner than 'decades' after the events involved.  We know that Paul's first epistle - to the Galatians - dates from as early as 45AD, and even the most sceptical of Biblical scholars seem to posit the existence of a written record that was independent of Paul, and which the Gospel writers drew upon. 

Furthermore, since the events of Easter and Pentecost occurred only weeks apart, it is likely that any Jews from the diaspora woud have stayed for both events, thus acting - unwittingly perhaps - as eye-witnesses in addition to the 11 disciples and the other 60-odd followers of Jesus.

That's not the problem at all. However many times you repeat, "Fred thinks he saw a miracle" still all you'd have is a story that Fred thinks he saw a miracle. The real problem is that, if Fred himself had no way (or possibly inclination either) to test his hypothesis, then those who had only his version of events repeated to them would have had no way to do it either.   

Before one can "begin to realise the hopelessness of one's position" one has to be presented with viable altewrnatives that don't rely on misrepresentation of a number of scientifically-proven and -provable aspectsd of the situation.

Flat wrong. History is naturalistic in character - it has no tools to assess the veracity or otherwise of miracle stories, whether yours or anyone else's. That's why claiming historical evidence for miracles is ipso facto hopeless. 
 

Things that can equally be applied to your position, by the way.

No, because arguments stand or fall on their merits. "Hopes and fears" and the like on the other hand offer nothing for others to consider and critique.

Again, a criticism that can be equally be applied to the many alternative scenarios that have been posited by a variety of posters and debaters over the years/decades.

You're missing it. The supposedly philosophical arguments for god(s), from Aquinas to Lane Craig, can be undone by more rational argument. The "alternative scenarios" to which you refer are plausible, real world explanations that require fewer assumptions than supernatural ones (not least the existence of the supernatural in the first place) and so Occam's razor applies.

It's simple enough."

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Yet studies also show that pre-literate cultures had linguistic mechanisms by which to stabilise stories and details.  Hebrew is often given as an examplar languageof this.

"Studies" eh? Well, that'll be the definitive answer then.

Hang on though - just to seal the deal you understand - what studies would they be exactly? And while you're about it, perhaps you would explain the non-possibility of even minor mistakes given the cumulative effect such mistakes can have on the final versions of the stories.

Thanks.

PS Oh, and even if you do manage to demonstrate that by some means unknown to medical science some people 2,000 years ago did have eidetic memories, how then would that even begin to approach the "Fred thinks he saw a miracle" problem?

[jeremyp]

A number of people, over the years, have suggested that the evidence contradicts my assertion - yet have never produced any evidence.

That is a lie. You choose not to hear the evidence is more like it.

How do we know the evidence contradicts your assertion? Because Paul tells us that divine revelation trumped oral storytelling. Paul does not claim to have received the gospel accurately from the other Apostles, he claims to receive the gospel by revelation. The early Christian communities placed more faith in divine revelation than stories from eye witnesses. This means that they have no motive to accurately transit oral histories.

Then we examine the gospels. Matthew and Luke both use Mark as a source and both make editorial changes. They both use another document called Q (or Luke had Matthew as a source) and at least one of them makes editorial changes to that. So here we have two earlyish Christians, neither of whom seem above changing the text to suit their purposes. So there's no reason to suppose that their predecessors were above changing the text either.

and what relevance does this have to the debate;

I don't care. You just made a blatantly false assertion about the oral transmission of the gospels and I will continue to call you out on it every time you do it, because it is dishonest and you are lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

No. There are a number of people who claim to have found a methodology for evaluating supernatural claims. None of them, however, seem keen on sharing that method with the rest of us. I think we can be forgiven for thinking they are all bullshitting.

Didn't we chase Hope himself all over this mb for an answer to that, only for him finally to propose that "it's in the Gospels" was his "method"? Why on earth he'd think that to be a method of any kind is anyone's guess, but that was the best he had I think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

But that's not a problem at all if you continue to assume that the rest of us will accept the same inexactitude about your your claims for a "god". In what "sense" does this god of yours have the characteristics you claim about "him"?

Unless you can answer that, all you have is special pleading.

But this is a standard bluehillside Category Cock Up isn't it.

Comparing invisible spaghetti to omniscient God.....or worse, thinking that invisible spaghetti is the same category as an invisible God. That just flags you up as a materialist...in which case I can sum up your position in a few words what you take reams to do and then we have to pick.

The only God which could exist is a measurable one so God does not exist.

or to put it another way if it's invisible or impervious to empirical measurement or sense.........how can we know it is spaghetti and in what sense is it spaghetti?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

But this is a standard bluehillside Category Cock Up isn't it.

There is no "standard bluehillside category error" (a term you've never understood by the way) and no it isn't. If you seriously think that personal intuition is a reliable guide to an objective truth for the rest of us, then you have no choice but to accept the same "method" for any other claim of objective truth.

That you may want to garland the claim with characteristics downstream of the notion that personal intuition is a reliable guide to objective truth is a separate matter that fails in any case on its own terms, but it has nothing to do with the original contention about intuition.     

Comparing invisible spaghetti to omniscient God.....or worse, thinking that invisible spaghetti is the same category as an invisible God. That just flags you up as a materialist...in which case I can sum up your position in a few words what you take reams to do and then we have to pick.

And again you make the same epic error as always. The point is that the argument for god and the FSM - ie, personal intuition - is the same, not that the eventual details of the outcome of that argument are the same.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

The only God which could exist is a measurable one so God does not exist.

You said it...

...or to put it another way if it's invisible or impervious to empirical measurement or sense.........how can we know it is spaghetti and in what sense is it spaghetti?

If it's invisible or impervious to empirical measurement, how can we know that it's concerned with human affairs, merciful, vengeful, in thrall to chucking thunderbolts around or any other of the countless claims you and others make for this god?

You can't have it both ways: either you can make claims about the properties of this god (in which case you can make claims about the properties of the FSM) or you can't (in which case you can make claims about neither).

Which one do you plump for?