Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I agree that it's certainly not unique to religions. Not by a long way. Not sure about the trans issue though - presumably they don't argue that, say, transwomen should have the right to a hysterectomy do they?   

There are those arguing rather for uterus implants, and for general access to gynaecological care, and there's a thread if you want to investigate on this.


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15994.0

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Do you have an argument to make?

Yes Alf. This ''Johnny Speight'' of a statement is so riddled with your personal prejudices and unjustified assertions, it needs you to make a case for it.

Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have). QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes Alf. This ''Johnny Speight'' of a statement is so riddled with your personal prejudices and unjustified assertions, it needs you to make a case for it.
Quote
Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have). QED

I know you struggle with the concept of argument, but why not try at least to explain which part of what I said you don’t agree with and why?

You know, just this once actually try to argue for something. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I know you struggle with the concept of argument, but why not try at least to explain which part of what I said you don’t agree with and why?

You know, just this once actually try to argue for something.

Hillside, you made the assertion that religious people are satisfied with any old shit. Please Justify. What do you mean by it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, 

You mean reason like this?

Vlad - 'My resurrection is bigger than you resurrection.'
Everyone else - 'Why?'
Vlad - 'Cos it is'
Everyone else - 'But that's not an explanation - there's no more evidence for your resurrection than any of the others. Why is yours more important'
Vlad - 'Cos it is'
Everyone else - 'But that's not an explanation - why wont you engage with the point?'
Vlad - 'I'll squeem and squeeze until I'm sick. Yah boo - secular humanism, Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins'
 

[Robbie]

Typical.

[Nearly Sane]

Typical.

?

[SteveH]

There are those arguing rather for uterus implants, and for general access to gynaecological care, and there's a thread if you want to investigate on this.


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15994.0

Not on the NHS, I hope!

[ProfessorDavey]

You mean reason like this?

I was using that post to indicate the paucity of cogent argument that we typically get from you Vlad, in a slightly humorous manner.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was using that post to indicate the paucity of cogent argument that we typically get from you Vlad, in a slightly humorous manner.

I'm afraid to have to report the failure of this enterprise.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm afraid to have to report the failure of this enterprise.

I think that's for others to judge.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, you made the assertion that religious people are satisfied with any old shit. Please Justify. What do you mean by it?

I meant by it what you meant by it when you introduced that phrase. Absent any means or method to investigate and verify the faith claims all religions make (the point at which you always run away) “any old shit” as you put it seems apt to me. By all means show me to be wrong though and finally, after all these years, suggest a method to distinguish the faith claims in which you happen to believe from the faith claims from all the other religious traditions.     

I'm afraid to have to report the failure of this enterprise.

A false report – and that will continue to be until and unless you do actually manage an argument to justify your claims and assertions that isn’t hopeless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I meant by it what you meant by it when you introduced that phrase. Absent any means or method to investigate and verify the faith claims all religions make (the point at which you always run away) “any old shit” as you put it seems apt to me. By all means show me to be wrong though and finally, after all these years, suggest a method to distinguish the faith claims in which you happen to believe from the faith claims from all the other religious traditions.     

I just preempted your reaction and correctly assertained the value you put on religion. Religion, particularly the world religions cannot IMHO be looked upon as ''just shit''. This stuff survives. Judaism is about a people of a nation as much as anything else. Christianity is not about the survival of any nation but about the salvation of individuals, Islam is about submission to God, Hinduism is philosophy expressed as narrative and so on and so forth. By your own admission you think this is old shit.

I move that once one adheres to the principles of these world religions one is not going to be satisfied with local pantheons.

Why religious people are not likely to believe in leprechauns or indeed Santa has been explained to you many times...So Leprechauns and Ant Gods are the type of old shit I am talking about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I just preempted your reaction and correctly assertained the value you put on religion. Religion, particularly the world religions cannot IMHO be looked upon as ''just shit''.

Did anyone say they were? What I actually said was: “Religions are "basically all the same" inasmuch as they rely on faith rather than reason to justify their various claims, and you would be satisfied with "any old shit" (as indeed you are) provide the story had sufficient emotional appeal (which the story to which you happen to be most enculturated does have).”

Your straw man here is to change the reference to the epistemological value of faith-based claims to the general statement that religions in toto are “just shit”.

This stuff survives. Judaism is about a people of a nation as much as anything else. Christianity is not about the survival of any nation but about the salvation of individuals, Islam is about submission to God, Hinduism is philosophy expressed as narrative and so on and so forth. By your own admission you think this is old shit.

I said no such thing.

I move that once one adheres to the principles of these world religions one is not going to be satisfied with local pantheons.

What are you trying to say here?

Why religious people are not likely to believe in leprechauns or indeed Santa has been explained to you many times...So Leprechauns and Ant Gods are the type of old shit I am talking about.

And what’s been explained to you many, many times is that the analogy isn’t between leprechauns/Santa and gods at all. Rather the analogy concerns the use of the arguments attempted to justify beliefs in these things. Thus if an argument tried to validate your claim “god” works equally for my claim “leprechauns” then either both are true, or it’s a bad argument.

Why this simple point eludes you such that you resort to straw man version of it whenever it occurs is beyond me, and you’re still avoiding your central problem of framing an argument for one faith-based fact claim that distinguishes it epistemically from any other faith-based fact claim.

Why?     

[ProfessorDavey]

I move that once one adheres to the principles of these world religions one is not going to be satisfied with local pantheons.

But christianity is achingly parochial, which is one of the reasons why it seems so limited and limiting given what we now know about the universe (which of course the people who developed christianity knew nothing about).

So christianity is a religion that effectively speaks to just one species on a single planet. Realistically much narrower that that - a religion based around the people's in one place (palestine) at a tiny blink of an eye in terms of universe time. It has nothing to say to other species, even on this planet, nothing to say to the rest of the universe, nothing to say to people from the millions of years of human history prior to the 1stC, likely nothing to say to humans in millions of years time.

So christianity is just that - a local pantheon, and the most local of local. If you want something that goes beyond that you need a religion or view that is equally relevant to some potential life in some other part of the universe, billions of years ago or billions of years from now. And actually it should go beyond mere 'life' and be inherently relevant to all matter, whether living or not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But christianity is achingly parochial, which is one of the reasons why it seems so limited and limiting given what we now know about the universe (which of course the people who developed christianity knew nothing about).

Christianity is a world religion with cosmic interest. It is not an alternative to knowledge about nature but it focusses on the Divine. Science is a method. Scientism is a belief

So christianity is a religion that effectively speaks to just one species on a single planet.

So what? Since it is about the need for salvation of man, perhaps other species get a free pass. How could you even begin to assess the spiritual life of other species?

Realistically much narrower that that - a religion based around the people's in one place (palestine)

No, as I keep telling you, Christianity is a world religion

at a tiny blink of an eye in terms of universe time.

Christianity is not about the salvation of the universe although there are metaphors for that, it is primarily about the salvation of humans each of whom hold miniscule dimension within the universe but then who says size is important?

It has nothing to say to other species, even on this planet, nothing to say to the rest of the universe, nothing to say to people from the millions of years of human history prior to the 1stC, likely nothing to say to humans in millions of years time.

If there are humans of million years time and they are recognisably human then the experience of human existence will be recognisably human and therefore still in need of salvation.
I think this theme of advanced conscious civilisation has been well addressed in the film ''Forbidden Planet''

So christianity is just that - a local pantheon, and the most local of local.

I think you know by now the reasons I disagree with you

If you want something that goes beyond that you need a religion or view that is equally relevant to some potential life in some other part of the universe, billions of years ago or billions of years from now. And actually it should go beyond mere 'life' and be inherently relevant to all matter, whether living or not.

How does life elsewhere and in the future impinge on our need for salvation? Sounds like an excuse to avoid God by escaping into the past future and into space.

[ProfessorDavey]

Christianity is a world religion with cosmic interest.

It is very limited as a world religion as it speaks pretty well exclusively to a single species (guess what the world doesn't revolve around humans). It has no meaningful cosmic engagement, not least because the people who developed Christianity had no meaningful understanding of the cosmos.

So what? Since it is about the need for salvation of man ...

It is entirely anthropocentric and therefore cannot be considered to be anything other than parochial. A religion or belief that is so entirely focussed on one species on one planet, largely within a time timeframe in terms of the history of that planet (let alone the cosmos) is parochial.

... perhaps other species get a free pass.

Do they? Why doesn't Christianity tell us ... oh yes, I forgot, it's because it is only interested in humans.

How could you even begin to assess the spiritual life of other species?

Wrong question - why would you need to 'assess' spirituality. It may well be that 'spirituality' as you call it (but isn't really defined) is an inherently human characteristic and the notion that a religion like christianity places emphasis on spirituality shows again it is anthropocentric.

No, as I keep telling you, Christianity is a world religion Christianity is not about the salvation of the universe although there are metaphors for that, it is primarily about the salvation of humans each of whom hold miniscule dimension within the universe but then who says size is important? If there are humans of million years time and they are recognisably human then the experience of human existence will be recognisably human and therefore still in need of salvation.

In other words it is a religion by humans, for humans - in what way can that be considered global (note we are just one species) let alone cosmic in its reach and outlook.

Point is that I (and perhaps others) see christianity as achingly anthropocentric and therefore man-made and for-humans. It therefore doesn't come close to rocking my boat if I want to understand 'the meaning of life' as those Alpha courses claim that Christianity will reveal.

It is a bit like wanting to understand the relevance of sport - to be told that its relevance is entirely about the 1960/61 season of the Spurs football team.

[jeremyp]

If there are humans of million years time and they are recognisably human then the experience of human existence will be recognisably human and therefore still in need of salvation.

What need for salvation? This is not a universal human characteristic, it is a concept invented by Christians. If all knowledge of Christianity were forgotten somehow, there would be no guarantee that the need for salvation would ever be re"discovered".

[ProfessorDavey]

What need for salvation? This is not a universal human characteristic, it is a concept invented by Christians. If all knowledge of Christianity were forgotten somehow, there would be no guarantee that the need for salvation would ever be re"discovered".

Indeed.

And what relevance is 'salvation' to a small moon circling a planet in a solar system on the other side of our galaxy. One that might not include any life. That christianity continually focusses on matters that are entirely human-centric (albeit not even universally human-centric) tells use that we are dealing with a religion made by humans for humans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What need for salvation? This is not a universal human characteristic, it is a concept invented by Christians. If all knowledge of Christianity were forgotten somehow, there would be no guarantee that the need for salvation would ever be re"discovered".

By salvation I suppose I mean rescued from the alienation one has from God from others and indeed one self.
What other magic bullet exists out there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Christianity is a world religion…

Just as the Egyptian or the Roman gods were the "world" religions for the world as their Empires understood them to be. So?

…with cosmic interest.

What “cosmic interest”? Do you mean the actual cosmos that astronomy tells us about (about which your “holy” texts are silent), or the mythological faith one (heaven, hell etc)? 

It is not an alternative to knowledge about nature but it focusses on the Divine.

Yes it is. “The divine’ is not nature.

Science is a method.

Actually it’s a method and an accumulation of knowledge.

Scientism is a belief

That no-one I know of subscribes to, despite your endless misattribution of it to people here.

So what? Since it is about the need for salvation of man, perhaps other species get a free pass.

What “need for salvation of man”? That’s just another baseless faith claim.

How could you even begin to assess the spiritual life of other species?

You have yet to demonstrate that there’s such a thing as a “spiritual life” at all. Whether non-human species would have it too is therefore a second order matter to that.

No, as I keep telling you, Christianity is a world religion

One of several, and only because “the world” it occupies has better communications than the worlds that predecessor religions occupied. Oh, and why just this relatively minuscule world in any case? 

Christianity is not about the salvation of the universe although there are metaphors for that, it is primarily about the salvation of humans each of whom hold miniscule dimension within the universe but then who says size is important?

It’s important if you want to claim that your religion that occupies a tiny slice of the universe in time and space has any significance beyond those extremely narrow limits. Why would a god that had created the whole Sahara be interested in only one of its grains of sand?

If there are humans of million years time and they are recognisably human then the experience of human existence will be recognisably human and therefore still in need of salvation.

Non sequitur. The “therefore “ fails because you’ve yet to establish your premise. “In need of salvation” remains just theobabble until you can finally show it to be more than just a baseless faith claim.
 

I think this theme of advanced conscious civilisation has been well addressed in the film ''Forbidden Planet''

?

I think you know by now the reasons I disagree with you

And you know now why those reasons are all wrong.

How does life elsewhere and in the future impinge on our need for salvation? Sounds like an excuse to avoid God by escaping into the past future and into space.

Again, “the need for salvation” is just superstitious drivel. Demonstrate such a thing rather than just parrot it and there’ll be something to talk about. Until then though, it’s epistemically equivalent to my need for leprechauns to leave pots of gold at the ends or rainbows.

Apart from all that though..   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

By salvation I suppose I mean rescued from the alienation one has from God from others and indeed one self.
What other magic bullet exists out there?

Apposite use of "magic" there, "its magic innit?" being effectively your recourse when asked to justify the various faith claims you make.

What "other" magic answers could there be? Well, there's magic leprechauns for starters... 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is very limited as a world religion as it speaks pretty well exclusively to a single species

OK this is going beyond a joke, what does speak to other species. Are you trying to say you are Dr Doolittle? What are you on about? (guess what the world doesn't revolve around humans).[/quote]No but I understand that human greed , commerce and the quest for identification through consumption( seen positively by some as ''Enlightenment'') has played a big part in the global crisis

It has no meaningful cosmic engagement, not least because the people who developed Christianity had no meaningful understanding of the cosmos.

They didn't have science but science is a different domain to religion and, as far as christianity is concerned science is a tool.

It is entirely anthropocentric

So I understand are midwifery, surgery and psychology

and therefore cannot be considered to be anything other than parochial.

But only if you are given to hyperbole .

Do they? Why doesn't Christianity tell us ... oh yes, I forgot, it's because it is only interested in humans.

I don't think that is so and so what if it doesn't wear it's animal and plant welfare concerns on it's sleeve.

Wrong question - why would you need to 'assess' spirituality. It may well be that 'spirituality' as you call it (but isn't really defined) is an inherently human characteristic and the notion that a religion like christianity places emphasis on spirituality shows again it is anthropocentric.
In other words it is a religion by humans, for humans - in what way can that be considered global (note we are just one species) let alone cosmic in its reach and outlook.

Point is that I (and perhaps others) see christianity as achingly anthropocentric and therefore man-made and for-humans. It therefore doesn't come close to rocking my boat if I want to understand 'the meaning of life' as those Alpha courses claim that Christianity will reveal.

I think you have a very, very narrow view of christianity. Now science is a tool. You can use it, I can use it. You say we are all spiritual I say we are all scientific. Proving at the very least you have thrown in one thing of little importance.

I think I need to warn you again of the dangers of scientism and the misuse of science as a way of achieving ecstacy, i.e. taking yourself out of having to survey your self and your inner life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Apposite use of "magic" there, "its magic innit?" being effectively your recourse when asked to justify the various faith claims you make.

What "other" magic answers could there be? Well, there's magic leprechauns for starters...

I think it was Pasteur who referred to his Rabies vaccine as ''A magic bullet'' so I'm afraid your input is rather wasted here. I fear the Prof is a bit given to scientism like yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think it was Pasteur who referred to his Rabies vaccine as ''A magic bullet'' so I'm afraid your input is rather wasted here. I fear the Prof is a bit given to scientism like yourself.

Lying about people's supposed adherence to scientism when they've consistently told you they do no such thing won't dig you out of the hole you've made for yourself.

My rebuttals to your previous litany on nonsense, non sequiturs, fallacies etc are in my prior Reply to you. Doubtless you'll run away from those too though.

Oh well.