Food for thought for Christians

[ProfessorDavey]

.....Any progress on getting from methodological naturalism to ontological naturalism?

Any progress on addressing the issues I raised with you up-thread.

You have this rather annoying habit of going suspiciously quiet when a tricky question is asked of you even in response to your own line of argument, yet are all over others for failing to comply with your endless and pointless requests.

So to reiterate:

'In which case tell me the things I believe in - noting that we are only talking about things which I believe are objectively true, not just true for me - and I'd be happy to oblige.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

Quite. I used to wonder whether Trollboy was a very stupid poster making very stupid posts because he knew no better, or an intelligent poster deliberately making stupid and dishonest posts his trolling ways to pursue.

I've concluded now that he's a hybrid of the two - just intelligent enough to put together more or less comprehensible sentences, but not intelligent enough to troll without being recognised as a troll. Why he persists on polluting this mb when he's been found out is anyone's guess, but there it is nonetheless.   

Well Hillside, I guess in your crazy world of mighty morphin' variable power philosophers anybody can be a combination of anything.

[Stranger]

Shakes,

But their schism from the True Begotten Order of the Bacon Sandwich lot was so nuanced that it passed most of us by. Interestingly I hear that Muffin Methodists are packing them in these days, but that's another story... 

No, you're thinking of the Beef Curtains Baptists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2mdfa6C5vY

 


[It's only a Monty Python song]

[ProfessorDavey]

Essentially his trolling consists entirely of lying about the arguments that undo his position and never, ever, ever even attempting an argument for whatever it is he believes in.

Indeed, which is why the following quotes from him are jaw-dropping:

'So now we have people who either ''have no beliefs'', or ''beliefs that others can somehow by the power of mysticism not comprehend'' so they can suggest strongly but never be pinned down as proposing anything.'

And:

'That is completely non sequitur to a request to provide evidence to justify things someone does believe in.'

The evader in chief claims that others cannot be pinned down on their beliefs and their justifications for them. Remarkable in his lack of self awareness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well stop being shy then.

I will repeat my earlier question.

Ok I want to explore good questions but please don't expect of pat soundbite answers.

You say how can we know we are not making mistakes........ so we are really talking about certainty......may I ask you at what level of certainty do you hold your present views? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Indeed, which is why the following quotes from him are jaw-dropping:

'So now we have people who either ''have no beliefs'', or ''beliefs that others can somehow by the power of mysticism not comprehend'' so they can suggest strongly but never be pinned down as proposing anything.'

And:

'That is completely non sequitur to a request to provide evidence to justify things someone does believe in.'

The evader in chief claims that others cannot be pinned down on their beliefs and their justifications for them. Remarkable in his lack of self awareness.

Quite, though to be fair he has finally learnt to spell "non sequitur" so that must count as progress of some kind mustn't it? Mustn't it?

After all, they say you can't fix stupid but you can train it so perhaps there's a glimmer of hope there somewhere. Whether it'll work for the pathological dishonesty is another matter of course, but there it is.   

[ProfessorDavey]

but please don't expect of pat soundbite answers.

Well we know that you are the master of the nonsensical pat soundbite, but also seem incapable of actually answering any questions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well we know that you are the master of the nonsensical pat soundbite, but also seem incapable of actually answering any questions.

At least you have no problems answering questions....How do you get from methodological naturalism to ontological naturalism?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

At least you have no problems answering questions....How do you get from methodological naturalism to ontological naturalism?

Classic Trollboy:

1. Completely avoid answering a question by instead asking a different and unrelated question;

2. Make sure the question is couched in his personal misunderstandings of some long words so as to trigger a fruitless explanation of what they actually mean that'll extend for so long that his original evasion of the question put to him is long-forgotten. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

Classic Trollboy:

1. Completely avoid answering a question by instead asking a different and unrelated question;

2. Make sure the question is couched in his personal misunderstandings of some long words so as to trigger a fruitless explanation of what they actually mean that'll extend for so long that his original evasion of the question put to him is long-forgotten.

Just when one is after someone who can answer a straight question two come along at the same time.
So Hillside, your question is............. what is ontological naturalism?

[ProfessorDavey]

At least you have no problems answering questions....How do you get from methodological naturalism to ontological naturalism?

I have no idea - why are you asking me? Have I ever said this to be important or claimed it to be the case? I don't believe I ever have so I fail to see whig this question is relevant to me.

But perhaps you might start by defining your terms - banding about 'big words' like you understand them isn't very helpful unless you actually explain what you mean. Then maybe we can have a discussion, although I still struggle to see why this line of argument is relevant to me as I've never claimed that getting from methodological naturalism to ontological naturalism is important.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Ok I want to explore good questions but please don't expect of pat soundbite answers.

You say how can we know we are not making mistakes........ so we are really talking about certainty......may I ask you at what level of certainty do you hold your present views?

Actually I wasn't talking about certainty. And as to my present views, it depends on the individual view.

• Am I going to have a heart attack in the next five minutes. Pretty certain >99% I'm going to be OK. Relatively young and healthy, no current symptoms of an impeding attack.
  
  Will England make it to the quarter finals of the upcoming Euros? 50:50.
  

Why don't you tell us with what certainty you hold your belief in God to be real is?

[ProfessorDavey]

OK I would say that terms of having experienced God more certain than you of not having a heart attack in the next five minutes.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I will assume you are talking about your claimed experience of god.

The question arises - how do you know that what you have experienced and think is experiencing god is perhaps nothing of the sort.

So to use the heart attack analogy - someone might have chest pains etc etc and be absolutely convinced that they are experiencing a heart attack. In fact it may be something else entirely and only objective assessment using medical tools would determine whether or not they had actually experienced a heart attack.

So how do you know what what you experience and claim to be experiencing god isn't just indigestion rather than a heart attack. Problem is that in your case there are no diagnostic tools to determine reality from delusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I will assume you are talking about your claimed experience of god.

The question arises - how do you know that what you have experienced and think is experiencing god is perhaps nothing of the sort.

So to use the heart attack analogy - someone might have chest pains etc etc and be absolutely convinced that they are experiencing a heart attack. In fact it may be something else entirely and only objective assessment using medical tools would determine whether or not they had actually experienced a heart attack.

So how do you know what what you experience and claim to be experiencing god isn't just indigestion rather than a heart attack. Problem is that in your case there are no diagnostic tools to determine reality from delusion.

You are perfectly free to diagnose my experience as something else but I suspect that would be within bias toward an ontological naturalistic explanation.

I make no heart attack analogy since there are obvious problems with reductionism of ''the heart is an organ, the brain is an organ'' type argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually I wasn't talking about certainty. And as to my present views, it depends on the individual view.

• Am I going to have a heart attack in the next five minutes. Pretty certain >99% I'm going to be OK. Relatively young and healthy, no current symptoms of an impeding attack.
  
  Will England make it to the quarter finals of the upcoming Euros? 50:50.
  

Why don't you tell us with what certainty you hold your belief in God to be real is?

Asked for your views you choose to be very flippant?
How certain are you of your belief that existence is essentially material?

[ProfessorDavey]

You are perfectly free to diagnose my experience as something else but I suspect that would be within bias toward an ontological naturalistic explanation.

I make no heart attack analogy since there are obvious problems with reductionism of ''the heart is an organ, the brain is an organ'' type argument.

But to fail to diagnose in that manner you are yourself guilty of a gross reductionism - such that god is merely a subjective feeling.

Now it may well be true that the reality is that god is merely a 'true for you' rather than true, but I wouldn't have thought that was the way you be wanting to take that discussion. If you want to try to claim that god actually exists, i.e. outside of the experience of believers then you are going to have to address objective reality, not just subjective 'true for me' stuff.

And the bias is entirely on you - effectively you are trying to claim that just because you experience something that it must be objectively true - that is the most grossing biasing in favour of your own subjective experience. It is the equivalent of me saying that because I think Gerald Finzi is a fantastic composer that it must be objectively true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But to fail to diagnose in that manner you are yourself guilty of a gross reductionism - such that god is merely a subjective feeling.

The trouble is though God crops up everywhere.....experience, cosmology, philosophy etc.

The time has come to cut to the chase. Science doesn't have the descriptive linguistic framework to encompass the experience or the philosophy but religion and the stock of Christian discourse gets closer.

[ProfessorDavey]

The trouble is though God crops up everywhere.....experience, cosmology, philosophy etc

No he/she/it doesn't - the issue is an experiential one - you and I may experience the same things but conclude differently. For you they are all evidence of god, for me none are, yet we may be experiencing the same thing. Which is further evidence that god is just a 'true for you' rather than a true.

[ProfessorDavey]

The time has come to cut to the chase. Science doesn't have the descriptive linguistic framework to encompass the experience or the philosophy but religion and the stock of Christian discourse gets closer.

I agree and disagree.

I agree that science and philosophy are different things, although they need to be consistent one with another. I disagree that religion including christianity gets us closer. The problem being that religion goes beyond being simply philosophy (although it tends to include that), it also tries to tread on the toes of a much better method of telling us what is objectively true, namely science. So it regularly imparts falsehoods (things which are demonstrably not true, such as young earth creationism, any number of claimed miracles, objections to evolution etc etc) and tries to add those as a bedrock on which the philosophy is written. That takes us further away as we build our philosophy on things which are wrong.

Further dogma resists change even when proven to be incorrect, so religions are extraordinarily bad at adapting to new situations because it may underline dogma. A good example being the resistance of the RCC to countenance the use of condoms as one of the tools to try to prevent HIV transmission.

[Stranger]

The trouble is though God crops up everywhere.....experience, cosmology, philosophy etc.

Except that cosmology is a science and doesn't include any gods; experience is subjective, individual and leads different people to different and mutually exclusive conclusions about gods; and frankly, all the philosophical 'arguments' for god I've encountered have been comical.

So, still no evidence or reasoning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No he/she/it doesn't - the issue is an experiential one - you and I may experience the same things but conclude differently. For you they are all evidence of god, for me none are, yet we may be experiencing the same thing. Which is further evidence that god is just a 'true for you' rather than a true.

But you are bias against the truth of experience from the get go.

However the logical end of your argument i.e. psychological incompetence has ramifications for knowing anything.

There is a linguistic framework which describes the experience.

I am sure we all experience God all the time as we are experiencing much that classical naturalism offers no explanation for however the experience of God at conversion, encounter and response, is obviously not experienced all the time.

God however is found in cosmology, moral philosophy and general philosophy and you would be foolish to deny that and I'm afraid it is that which threatens the cosy consumerist ''true for you'' schtick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that cosmology is a science and doesn't include any gods; experience is subjective, individual and leads different people to different and mutually exclusive conclusions about gods; and frankly, all the philosophical 'arguments' for god I've encountered have been comical.

So comical that even Dawkins and Sagan cannot rule God out.
Vis a Vis Cosmology being a science it contains a lot of stuff for which falsifiability is not certain.
Vis a vis your Good self I don't know why I am wasting my time on a Complete Cuntist.

[ProfessorDavey]

But you are bias against the truth of experience from the get go.

On the contrary - by your very use of the term 'the truth of experience' you are demonstrating your bias ably. The truth of experience is nothing more (nor less) than 'true for me', or 'true for you'. It isn't objectively true unless it is always true for everyone (in an experiential manner), which it clearly isn't or can be demonstrated to be true by objective means.

I am sure we all experience God all the time as we are experiencing much that classical naturalism offers no explanation for however the experience of God at conversion, encounter and response, is obviously not experienced all the time.

That is complete bollocks - you cannot know what I experience and I cannot know what you experience. You are doing the classic logical fallacy of assuming that just because you experience something in a particular way then I (and everyone else must too. You are making a claim equivalent to stating that all people must thing that Finzi is a fantastic composer because that is my experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the contrary - by your very use of the term 'the truth of experience' you are demonstrating your bias ably. The truth of experience is nothing more (nor less) that true for me, or true for you. It isn't objectively true unless it is true for everyone (in an experiential manner), which it clearly isn't or can be demonstrated to be true by objective means.
That is complete bollocks - you cannot know what I experience and I cannot know what you experience. You are doing the classic logical fallacy of assuming that just because you experience something in a particular way then I (and everyone else must too. You are making a claim equivalent to stating that all people must thing that Finzi is a fantastic composer because that is my experience.

And that would all be lovely if God didn't appear in philosophy, moral philosophy Cosmogeny and that is why God if he exists would be true for all of us.

[Stranger]

So comical that even Dawkins and Sagan cannot rule God out.

Ruling out (most) gods is a very different prospect to providing a good argument for any of them. How about you provide such an argument...?

Vis a Vis Cosmology being a science it contains a lot of stuff for which falsifiability is not certain.

There are speculative hypotheses - that's normal for a science. Some conclusions based on these hypotheses don't appear to be falsifiable. Insofar as they are not, they can never be classed as confirmed theories.

So what? What has that got to do with some god "cropping up" in it?

Vis a vis your Good self I don't know why I am wasting my time on a Complete Cuntist.

Don't think I've been described as 'Good' with a capital 'G' before - does it have some religious significance?