God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Stranger]

Where to start. He and you missed the point of my post. Your special pleading that religion is some kind of failed world view because it is a belief.

There was no such special pleading. Any belief (about external, true for everybody, intersubjective reality) that comes with no means for testing its likely truth is equally flawed. As I said: how do we distinguish truth from mistake, wishful thinking and so on?

He repeats as you do in the notion that I reject the spiritual experience of those in other religions. I don't although I might disagree in doctrine. He therefore caricatures people of religion.

I don't think anybody doubts that people have "spiritual experiences", in fact that was part of my point. The problem is people have many, mutually exclusive, interpretations.

He shares IMHO a seeming inability to distinguish what one believes with what one knows.

Knowledge in the sense of justified true belief? So how is the distinction relevant? As already indicated, the problem here is finding any way at all to evaluate the likely truth of your interpretation of your experience along with similar claims.

There is also backswivelling, for a reason which escapes me, into a comparison of empirical evidence with religion. That certainly is a poor argument.

The only comparison is that there is a means to assess claims that provide empirical evidence. What's so complicated?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only comparison is that there is a means to assess claims that provide empirical evidence. What's so complicated?

If you want an answer for why it's ''complicated''. ask any logical positivist.

[Stranger]

If you want an answer for why it's ''complicated''. ask any logical positivist.

 

So, you totally ignore the substance of what I said and start wittering about another -ism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Where to start.

You could try being honest.

He and you missed the point of my post.

What point?

Your special pleading that religion is some kind of failed world view because it is a belief.

That’s not what “special pleading” means, and it fails epistemically not because it's a belief but because it’s a logically unsupportable belief. 

He repeats as you do in the notion that I reject the spiritual experience of those in other religions.

I have no idea what you think about the “spiritual” experiences of others. I do know though that when those experiences lead them to believe in different gods to your own, then you think them to be mistaken.

I don't although I might disagree in doctrine. He therefore caricatures people of religion.

As ever, your “therefore” is a non sequitur. We were talking about you, not “people of religion” in general, though it is true to say that for the most part believers in one god tend to discount the beliefs of others in their gods

He shares IMHO a seeming inability to distinguish what one believes with what one knows.

No he doesn’t – that’s your inability. Time and again you tell us you have a “relationship” etc without once bothering to put in the hard yards that would take you from that personal belief to objective knowledge.

There is also backswivelling, for a reason which escapes me, into a comparison of empirical evidence with religion. That certainly is a poor argument.

Then stop doing it. When theists attempt to play on materialism’s ground, they must expect to be met in like terms – and to lose. If you want to posit the immaterial though (leaving aside for now the incoherence of the thought) then if you don’t want to frame it in materialistic terms (finally) think of another method to distinguish your claims from guessing.

Presumably now you’ll stick with your standard operating practice and ignore this point-by-point rebuttal and instead fly off in a different direction using more terms you don’t understand. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

In an earlier post NS suggested that I should probably be on the Faith Sharing Section.  Well generally I have no problem posting on this section but, apart from derailing this thread, a discussion on miracles and the supernatural is one I would choose to discuss there under the rules specific to that thread.

To be fair, I think NS was replying to comments from Christians about why they shouldn’t quote Scripture in answer to questions. Trading quotes is proper to the FSA, but I see no problem with discussing here why people think as they do.

However, the main thrust of my post on the manuscripts was an attempt to demonstrate that from the perspective of ‘normal’ historical events the source data for the NT documents is superior to that for secular events of the same period.  This gives confidence in the historical reality of individuals like Jesus, Peter, Paul and others, to at least the general import of the words attributed to them, and also to events such as the Missionary Journeys.  Indeed to reject these while accepting the purely secular history accounts makes no sense to me.

What makes you think them to be superior, and what would “secular” history as opposed to any other kind of history be in any case? Surely for this purpose history is history – people write down what other people did, and sometimes why they did it. That some of the characters happen to feature in religious beliefs is a secondary matter – either someone called Paul put the milk bottles out on a Tuesday morning or he didn’t.

The leap though is to go from that to, “and then he jumped on his unicorn and flew to the moon”. To paraphrase, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Finally two comments of a more personal nature.  First to thank you for the kind comments you made in post #156.  Much appreciated.

You’re welcome.

Second although I have been involved here since the days of the old BBC Board you will see that I am still short of 600 posts in total. This for the simple reason that I do not find much time to participate, despite being fully retired.  I am actively involved in much Christian work.  In addition I live in a most beautiful part of the world with a superb climate and magnificent mountains, beaches, flora and fauna.  My great love is hiking and whenever the opportunity arises, and while I am still able, I head off into the mountains.  So my frequent absences are not from pique or irritation but simply because I am occupied with more important priorities.

With that I will wish you goodnight as it is nearly bedtime here at the southern tip of Africa.

Now that sounds as close to wonderful as I can imagine. I did go to South Africa on business once – I remember Jo’burg being one of the scariest and Cape Town one of the most wonderful places I’d ever seen. The biltong picnic on Table Top Mountain was pretty cool, as was wine country (Constantia and Stellenbosch). Long time ago now though.

All best. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#218

Welcome back Emergence!

Vlad returned with exactly the same mistake he's had rebutted countless times and then run away from the rebuttal? Why?

I’m taking your use of the word rebuttal as a euphemism for  “ he disagreed with you”

I could equally say, “you responded with exactly the same mistake you’ve had rebutted by him countless times, and then run away from the rebuttal?” Why?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#253

There is also backswivelling, for a reason which escapes me, into a comparison of empirical evidence with religion. That certainly is a poor argument.

Then stop doing it. When theists attempt to play on materialism’s ground, they must expect to be met in like terms – and to lose.

You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind. Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to non-material claims?

Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread

Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything! When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.

[Nearly Sane]

#253
You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind. Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to non-material claims?

Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread

Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything! When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.

No, it doesn't assume it can be applied to everything and this has been pointed out to you before but hey let's twist again.


If you make a claim that isn't subject to it, you need a methodology (I have a strange sense of deja ecrit). Until you provide one, it's just guessing. And again, already written, the vague hand waving over the term induction some time ago, showed you understand neither the term methodology nor the term induction.

[wigginhall]

Sword

I don't think it's about 'not allowing the non-natural' at all.  Many people would be delighted if someone could demonstrate this, but as far as I can see, nobody has.   It's true that plenty of people talk about it, but that is not a demonstration.   

I don't think it's even about truth, but something more pragmatic - can you show it to me?   

[Gordon]

#253
You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind. Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to non-material claims?

You misunderstand yet again: he isn't, hence lots of us nasty atheists keeping asking you for a method that applies to your non-material claims. What are characteristics of this 'theist's ground' and what method have you used to identify and quantify these?

Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread

If you are referencing Vlad's approach to 'philosophical naturalism' then you are even more naive than I thought!

Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything!

It can be only be applied to that which is amenable to investigation via methodological naturalism - if this 'everything' you speak of involves stuff you think is non-natural then you'll need a method suited to that: got one?

When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.

When used outside of its scope it is being misused, but those here who understand methodological naturalism - which excludes you - do recognise it limits, hence we're always asking you guys for details of the method needed for the non-natural stuff you claim. Your lack of understanding of fallacies is glaringly obvious, since you end with a textbook example of the begging the question fallacy (plus it is a straw man).

If you've been posting this kind of stuff elsewhere I can't believe that somebody hasn't already pointed out to you just how limited your grasp of philosophical matters is.

[SusanDoris]

If you've been posting this kind stuff elsewhere I can't believe that nobody has already pointed out to you just how limited your grasp of philosophical stuff is.

I bet you're right.

(I was going to write more, containing the word'arrogance', but decided against!)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I’m taking your use of the word rebuttal as a euphemism for  “ he disagreed with you”

No – the logic disagreed with him. Until and unless he finds a way to engage with and counter-argue that logic, the rebuttal remains.

I could equally say, “you responded with exactly the same mistake you’ve had rebutted by him countless times, and then run away from the rebuttal?” Why?

Flat wrong again. You seem to think that someone asserting “2+2=5” and someone else taking to time to explain why 2+2≠5 is mere difference of opinion.

It isn’t.

You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind.

No, you have. Some theists will attempt to use materialistic terms to validate their beliefs. When they do this, they lose.

Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to claims of the non-material?

First, it’s not my materialism – it’s just materialism.

Second, materialism assumes no such thing. It’s just indifferent to claims of the supernatural because they offer nothing with which the tools of materialism can engage. That’s why neither I nor anyone else here tries to apply it to non-material claims.

The problem for those who would make those claims though is that they have no method to put in its place so as to distinguish their claims from just guessing.
 

Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread

Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything!

Why are you lying about this?

When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.

Even for you this is particularly dim. Celestial teapots and the like are arguments in logic (itself a naturalistic phenomenon by the way) used to rebut bad attempts at logic made by theists (“you can’t disprove it, therefore it’s true” etc). For that purpose, they’re fine. 

Have you any sense how far out of your depth you are here?

Anything?   

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside #261

I think the response to the final question in your post is' no idea at all'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

it fails epistemically not because it's a belief but because it’s a logically unsupportable belief. 
 

That's a positive assertion and I look forward to it's justification......perhaps when Darwinian evolution gets round to supplying future porcines with wings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

#253
You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind. Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to non-material claims?

Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread

Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything! When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.

Hi Sword.

Yes you've caught the gist. There is on the part of some a retreat back into the halo of methodological materialism whenever the going gets tough...........a case of ''Philosophising? Not me governor!''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You misunderstand yet again: he isn't, hence lots of us nasty atheists keeping asking you for a method that applies to your non-material claims. What are characteristics of this 'theist's ground' and what method have you used to identify and quantify these?

If you are referencing Vlad's approach to 'philosophical naturalism' then you are even more naive than I thought!

It can be only be applied to that which is amenable to investigation via methodological naturalism - if this 'everything' you speak of involves stuff you think is non-natural then you'll need a method suited to that: got one?

When used outside of its scope it is being misused, but those here who understand methodological naturalism - which excludes you - do recognise it limits, hence we're always asking you guys for details of the method needed for the non-natural stuff you claim. Your lack of understanding of fallacies is glaringly obvious, since you end with a textbook example of the begging the question fallacy (plus it is a straw man).

If you've been posting this kind of stuff elsewhere I can't believe that somebody hasn't already pointed out to you just how limited your grasp of philosophical matters is.

Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality. There is therefore no warrant or virtue making it central to arguments about Religion.

Nearly Sane states the obvious by inferring it is the only methodology there is and somehow that has assumed the status of ''The knock down argument''. Perhaps someone can explain how that has gone from an amusing non sequitur to cause celebre of atheism around here?

[Gordon]

Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality.

You were doing o.k. until you mentioned morality.

Yourself and Sword make a lovely pair: brothers in confusion, perhaps.

[Stranger]

Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality. There is therefore no warrant or virtue making it central to arguments about Religion.

Nearly Sane states the obvious by inferring it is the only methodology there is and somehow that has assumed the status of ''The knock down argument''. Perhaps someone can explain how that has gone from an amusing non sequitur to cause celebre of atheism around here?

Enough of the pointless and gratuitous slaughtering of armies of straw men! Nobody is claiming that we need to use any sort of materialism to asses your claims - but we do need some way of doing so, if they are to be taken seriously.

So, have you come up with any way at all to assess claims of gods, so that they can be distinguished from mistakes or guessing and so on?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As you’ve gone for a trifecta of wrongness I’ll rebut them in one go.

That's a positive assertion and I look forward to it's justification......perhaps when Darwinian evolution gets round to supplying future porcines with wings.

The logical unsupportability of your claims is shown every time you attempt them and they’re rebutted. That you ignore, lie about or mischaracterise those rebuttals does not diminish their force. 

Hi Sword.

Yes you've caught the gist. There is on the part of some a retreat back into the halo of methodological materialism whenever the going gets tough...........a case of ''Philosophising? Not me governor!''.

No he hasn’t. I corrected him on this error in a previous post.

Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God…

The claim “God”, but yes – finally you’re getting it!

…or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God …

Again, the claim “God” but you’re doing well so far…

…or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality.

Aw no – it was going so well too! How on earth would you find a logical path from the claim “God” to morality?

There is therefore no warrant or virtue making it central to arguments about Religion.

No-one does. When some people makes materialist claims about their “God” though, then they must expect the tools of science to shoot them down Deepak.

Nearly Sane states the obvious by inferring it is the only methodology there is and somehow that has assumed the status of ''The knock down argument''. Perhaps someone can explain how that has gone from an amusing non sequitur to cause celebre of atheism around here?

Easily. It’s a knock-down point inasmuch as you have no method of any kind for anyone else to distinguish your claims and assertions from just guessing. You can tell yourself you’re in “a relationship” with a universe-creating deity as much as you like if that makes you feel all snuggly, but if you want anyone else to take the claim seriously then you have no choice but to accept as true too the bajillion other personal beliefs out there with no method of investigation either. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, have you come up with any way at all to assess claims of gods, so that they can be distinguished from mistakes or guessing and so on?

If you perceive that something is indistinguishable from a mistake then have you concluded it is a mistake? same with guessing.

If you are a dyed in the wool so called ''solely methodological materialist and not a philosophical materialist'' you are stuffed I'm afraid.

The claims of Gods are open for comparison I would have thought. In fact you probably have your preference for which version of God you would think is more likely. Do you find that thought uncomfortable?

[Nearly Sane]

Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality. There is therefore no warrant or virtue making it central to arguments about Religion.

Nearly Sane states the obvious by inferring it is the only methodology there is and somehow that has assumed the status of ''The knock down argument''. Perhaps someone can explain how that has gone from an amusing non sequitur to cause celebre of atheism around here?

Perhaps you should stop lying about what people state!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you’ve gone for a trifecta of wrongness I’ll rebut them in one go.

The logical unsupportability of your claims is shown every time you attempt them and they’re rebutted. That you ignore, lie about or mischaracterise those rebuttals does not diminish their force. 

No he hasn’t. I corrected him on this error in a previous post.

The claim “God”, but yes – finally you’re getting it!

Again, the claim “God” but you’re doing well so far…

Aw no – it was going so well too! How on earth would you find a logical path from the claim “God” to morality?

No-one does. When some people makes materialist claims about their “God” though, then they must expect the tools of science to shoot them down Deepak.

Easily. It’s a knock-down point inasmuch as you have no method of any kind for anyone else to distinguish your claims and assertions from just guessing. You can tell yourself you’re in “a relationship” with a universe-creating deity as much as you like if that makes you feel all snuggly, but if you want anyone else to take the claim seriously then you have no choice but to accept as true too the bajillion other personal beliefs out there with no method of investigation either.

Hillside
Science doesn't do God.
Why do you think it is the central plank in your arguments about God and religion?

[Nearly Sane]

Hillside
Science doesn't do God.
Why do you think it is the central plank in your arguments about God and religion?

he doesn't, you lie about it. Why do you lie?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you perceive that something is indistinguishable from a mistake…

It’s not just a perception – it’s a fact. If you think you’ve finally come up with a method to distinguish your claims from mistake or guessing though, why not share it?

… then have you concluded it is a mistake? same with guessing.

Nope – stop lying. If something is indistinguishable from a mistake or guessing, why would you treat it as anything other than a mistake or guessing?

If you are a dyed in the wool so called ''solely methodological materialist and not a philosophical materialist'' you are stuffed I'm afraid.

No he’s not for the good reason that you rely entirely on straw man versions of these terms.

The claims of Gods are open for comparison I would have thought. In fact you probably have your preference for which version of God you would think is more likely. Do you find that thought uncomfortable?

No, just fallacious. How would you propose to go about comparing god stories, and why would anyone think any of them to be more likely than any other?

[Gordon]

Hillside
Science doesn't do God.
Why do you think it is the central plank in your arguments about God and religion?

For crying out loud, Vlad - this is misrepresentation of the most idiotic kind.