The Illusion of Self

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi SHakes,

Or as old Johnny Locke famously put it: "I find every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly: and where it fails them, they cry out, It is matter of faith, and above reason."

Ooh - nice find. That's my point exactly - it's faith all the way until some kind logic seems to appear, then when it collapses ("derived power", "god dodging", "philosophical naturalism" etc) we're back to faith again.

Funny that.

[Walter]

It's very weird reading Russell/Copleston, as the debate doesn't seem to have changed in 70 years.  I'm not sure if that's testimony to its vitality, or decrepitude.

Wiggs
the 'debate' only exists in the minds of those who believe they have a valid point to make . They have never proved it nor will they ever be able to. No matter how cleverly and forcefully they use the English language to argue their position ultimately they will fail.
There is just one question to ask them WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? unless they can produce it there is nothing to discus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Walter,

the 'debate' only exists in the minds of those who believe they have a valid point to make . They have never proved it nor will they ever be able to. No matter how cleverly and forcefully they use the English language to argue their position ultimately they will fail.
There is just one question to ask them WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE? unless they can produce it there is nothing to discus.

It's actually a bit more nuanced than that I find (though not by much).

Some theists will say, "but there is evidence". Already they're on iffy ground because evidence is itself a naturalistic concept, yet they think it can be jemmied into service to demonstrate a supernatural "God" nonetheless. Notwithstanding, the next problem is that the term has to be so devalued that it effectively becomes meaningless – essentially “any argument I can think of” is deemed evidence. The acid test here I think is to ask whether they’d accept qualitatively the same evidence for the gods in which they don’t believe.

Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse for example is as much “witnessed” as the resurrection of Jesus, yet it’ll be dismissed out of hand as plainly ridiculous. That the Muslim reaches exactly the same conclusion about the resurrection and for just the same reason seems to bother the evidence-claiming Christian not a jot though.

Odd eh?

[Walter]

Hi Walter,

It's actually a bit more nuanced than that I find (though not by much).

Some theists will say, "but there is evidence". Already they're on iffy ground because evidence is itself a naturalistic concept, yet they think it can be jemmied into service to demonstrate a supernatural "God" nonetheless. Notwithstanding, the next problem is that the term has to be so devalued that it effectively becomes meaningless – essentially “any argument I can think of” is deemed evidence. The acid test here I think is to ask whether they’d accept qualitatively the same evidence for the gods in which they don’t believe.

Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse for example is as much “witnessed” as the resurrection of Jesus, yet it’ll be dismissed out of hand as plainly ridiculous. That the Muslim reaches exactly the same conclusion about the resurrection and for just the same reason seems to bother the evidence-claiming Christian not a jot though.

Odd eh?

Ill tell you what is odd, the fact that you and me are here on this board attempting to , well I don't know what we are attempting to do  but what I notice is what ever we say has no effect on the believer .
What I have experienced in life and on this board is that you cannot change their mind .

In complete contrast to that, I would change my mind  in an instant if one slightest bit of incontrovertible evidence came to light .
 I mean some of those bible stories make great blockbusting films , wouldn't it be great if they could say BASED ON A TRUE STORY. at the introduction.

[SusanDoris]

#477 & #478

Just the most huge problem, and the dam that is holding back the increasing awareness of what scientists and technologists can do, and powerful and influential religious leaders and beliefs cannot, is the certainty of the latter group that what they are saying is truth, and pretty much truth for all! I bet there will come a time when suddenly a large number of people at once will point out that the emperor has no clothes, the dam will break and God/god/s and their priests will be relegated to a minor role.  The humanist philosophy of Star Trek was way ahead of its time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

#477 & #478

Just the most huge problem, and the dam that is holding back the increasing awareness of what scientists and technologists can do, and powerful and influential religious leaders and beliefs cannot, is the certainty of the latter group that what they are saying is truth, and pretty much truth for all! I bet there will come a time when suddenly a large number of people at once will point out that the emperor has no clothes, the dam will break and God/god/s and their priests will be relegated to a minor role.  The humanist philosophy of Star Trek was way ahead of its time.

Oh dear................ another science/scientism mash up. Science is not scientism. Humanism is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh dear................ another science/scientism mash up. Science is not scientism. Humanism is.

That's three nopes in one sentence:

1. First, all Susan said was that she bets something - not that it would as a matter of fact be the case.

2. Second, you have no idea what "scientism" actually means despite having the term explained to you many times. You cannot therefore introduce it when what you mean by it is just your own personal re-definition.

3. Third, humanism isn’t scientism at all – they have different meanings.

Apart from all that though…

...good effort!

[Alan Burns]

.... wouldn't it be great if they could say BASED ON A TRUE STORY. at the introduction.

And wouldn't it be great if you could accept the truth, because the truth will indeed set you free.

[Shaker]

And wouldn't it be great if you could accept the truth, because the truth will indeed set you free.

When you can demonstrate that it's true rather than the hopeful guessing it looks like, Alan, we'll consider it

[Sebastian Toe]

And wouldn't it be great if you could accept the truth, because the truth will indeed set you free.

And wouldn't it be great if you could do exactly the same?

[Walter]

And wouldn't it be great if you could accept the truth, because the truth will indeed set you free.

please demonstrate to me this truth so I can be set free (of what, I am not sure) because I already feel free.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's very weird reading Russell/Copleston, as the debate doesn't seem to have changed in 70 years.  I'm not sure if that's testimony to its vitality, or decrepitude.

And if I remember rightly, the original debate ended on a note of very humorous inconclusion. Always helps to be a bit light-hearted when revisiting re-hashed versions of Aquinas' old hat.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And wouldn't it be great if you could accept the truth, because the truth will indeed set you free.

Several problems there, not least:

1. The poverty of argument you attempt to demonstrate "God" gives the rest of no reason at all to think that you have found "the truth"; and

2. You give every appearance of being enslaved by your beliefs - pretty much the opposite of being set free. Does it ever occur to you to think how liberating it could be if you didn't choose to live in a sort of celestial North Korea?

[Dicky Underpants]

3. Third, humanism isn’t scientism at all – they have different meanings.

Apart from all that though…

...good effort!

I should say not - the Christian Erasmus was a humanist - but maybe that's a special form of humanism which we should brush under the carpet.