Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What desires? So far as I can tell he hasn’t said he has any.

Just out of interest, is there any discussion about any subject at all that you won’t drag Richard Dawkins into? Plumbing? Morris dancing?

I have no idea what Davies said (you haven’t provided a citation) but if RD was addressing religion then it’s hardly surprising if he was playing on its parochial turf I’d have thought.

Dawkins is obsessed by religion. Davies was commenting the inappropriateness of Dawkins inappropriately spouting his cobblers at a symposium of cosmologists.

Davey bemoans Christianity for being parochial and not cosmic enough. He must therefore desire something better. What can that thing be?......come on Hillside spit it out, you know you want to.

Drag Dawkins into Plumbing? I don't think those limp lily white hands have encountered anything nasty like that.

[Gordon]

Gordon, you strike me as a man who finds God both abbhorant but exhilarating at the same time. Hence your fascination with religion.

Nope: I may find the idea of 'God' abhorrent, or rather ideas, since there are so many of them, but not in the least "exhilarating". I'm genuinely mystified that these ideas are taken seriously by some.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Dawkins is obsessed by religion.

He’s written and spoken about it a lot, especially post 9/11. Whether he’s “obsessed” with it though is doubtful – he certainly seems to be less obsessed with religion than you are with him

Davies was commenting the inappropriateness of Dawkins inappropriately spouting his cobblers at a symposium of cosmologists.

Again, where’s the citation? If you think RD was “spouting cobblers” then you need to do more than just assert it to be so.

Davey bemoans Christianity for being parochial and not cosmic enough. He must therefore desire something better. What can that thing be?......come on Hillside spit it out, you know you want to.

Wrong again. He’s just saying that religions claim knowledge by faith they cannot know by reason or evidence. They’re parochial in the same way the Egyptian and the Roman religions were parochial – both claimed truths about their universes as they understood them to be, but those understandings were limited by their abilities to access and investigate their universes. As is ours.       

Drag Dawkins into Plumbing? I don't think those limp lily white hands have encountered anything nasty like that.

And nor 90% of the other stuff you routinely lay at his door.

[ProfessorDavey]

They’re parochial in the same way the Egyptian and the Roman religions were parochial – both claimed truths about their universes as they understood them to be, but those understandings were limited by their abilities to access and investigate their universes.

Exactly and rather better put than I did. Effectively christianity claims to provide not just truths, but The Truth, about the universe but its view of the universe is both faulty (as it is based on inadequate understanding of the universe from the 1stC) and also completely lacks perspective as its only perspective is that of one species on one planet in a blink of an eye in universe-time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong again. He’s just saying that religions claim knowledge by faith they cannot know by reason or evidence.

He speaks as though they are not enough. What then is? You are both dancing around answering this.

They’re parochial in the same way the Egyptian and the Roman religions were parochial

No they aren't. They never became world religions, probably because of their insistence on the politically important being divine. Same for Japanese religion and the island that believes that Prince Philip was the spirit of the island gone abroad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

He speaks as though they are not enough. What then is? You are both dancing around answering this.

What are you trying to ask here?

You can't make claims of universal truths unless you know what "the universe" is. By magnitudes religions know less about that than science does - their grasp extends beyond their reach. QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

) and also completely lacks perspective as its only perspective is that of one species on one planet in a blink of an eye in universe-time.

How do you obtain the perspective of more than your own species?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No they aren't. They never became world religions, probably because of their insistence on the politically important being divine. Same for Japanese religion and the island that believes that Prince Philip was the spirit of the island gone abroad.

But they extended to "the world" as they understood it, just as Christianity extends to "the world" as we understand it. Both are limited by the range of their instruments ships (the latter literally in fact, being seagoing and space respectively). On a comparable basis the Egyptian and Roman worlds were virtually the same as ours given the grand perspective of the vastness of the universe as a whole.

Even for you this is poor thinking Vladdo.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What are you trying to ask here?

If Christianity doesn't give sufficient perspective of the cosmos(Davey)and that somehow leaves Christianity wanting...what will give us that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How do you obtain the perspective of more than your own species?

Currently you can't - so why try to claim it? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If Christianity doesn't give sufficient perspective of the cosmos(Davey)and that somehow leaves Christianity wanting...what will give us that?

So far, nothing. That's why science limits itself to claims it can justify. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But they extended to "the world" as they understood it, just as Christianity extends to "the world" as we understand it. Both are limited by the range of their instruments ships (the latter literally in fact, being seagoing and space respectively). On a comparable basis the Egyptian and Roman worlds were virtually the same as ours given the grand perspective of the vastness of the universe as a whole.

Even for you this is poor thinking Vladdo.

Non sequitur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So far, nothing.

So far? So far? How far and far up what? What is it we have to go further up?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Non sequitur.

Pro bono.

Your turn for the inappropriate Latin phrase...

(... or alternatively you could look up what non sequitur actually means).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So far? So far? How far and far up what? What is it we have to go further up?

Gibberish. The point here is that you can't just assert truths you cannot justify - which is what religions attempt.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Gibberish. The point here is that you can't just assert truths you cannot justify - which is what religions attempt.

Hillside. Davey wants something that will allow humanity to see things from the perspective of other species. How is that ever going to happen? And secondly if he wants to get away from self examination how is he ever going to realise his own perspective.

And then of course is he right about religion wanting. It is what it is it seems that wanting ''more'' from it is senseless. Unless of course it's life that Davey wants more of. Look, if I want to know more of God I walk closer with him, as they say. That does not stop me from looking for empirical knowledge. I suggest Davey's vision of expanding self in the universe is just fleeing from something and maybe, filling a gap....which you seem to suggest nothing can fill.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside. Davey wants something that will allow humanity to see things from the perspective of other species.

Why are you misrepresenting him? He’s said no such thing – what he did say was that your religion is anthropocentric in character. No more, no less.

How is that ever going to happen?

Has anyone said that it ever will happen?

And secondly…

Your “firstly” has just collapsed though…

…if he wants to get away from self examination how is he ever going to realise his own perspective.

What on earth makes you think he does want to “get way from self-examination”? Certainly nothing he’s said here.

And then of course is he right about religion wanting.

Yes.

It is what it is it seems that wanting ''more'' from it is senseless.

Incoherence.

Unless of course it's life that Davey wants more of.

Ditto.

Look, if I want to know more of God I walk closer with him, as they say.

Fallacy of reification. If you “want to know more of god” then you need to justify the claim “god” first so as to know that there is a god to get closer to at all.

That does not stop me from looking for empirical knowledge.

About what?

I suggest Davey's vision of expanding self in the universe…

He’s suggested no such "vision".

…is just fleeing from something and maybe, filling a gap....

Finding no good reason to believe something is not “fleeing from something”.

…which you seem to suggest nothing can fill.

No, I’m “suggesting” that you cannot claim inerrant universal truths unless you know all the universe contains. Religions try just that though. 

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hillside. Davey wants something that will allow humanity to see things from the perspective of other species. How is that ever going to happen? And secondly if he wants to get away from self examination how is he ever going to realise his own perspective.

And then of course is he right about religion wanting. It is what it is it seems that wanting ''more'' from it is senseless. Unless of course it's life that Davey wants more of. Look, if I want to know more of God I walk closer with him, as they say. That does not stop me from looking for empirical knowledge. I suggest Davey's vision of expanding self in the universe is just fleeing from something and maybe, filling a gap....which you seem to suggest nothing can fill.

If you want to know what I think - why don't you ask me, rather than inferring (wrongly) what my position is.

My argument has been to point out how parochial christianity is - effectively merely focussing on one species, on one planet in the blink of an eye in universe-time terms.

It wasn't my intention, nor is there any requirement, to provide an alternative. The onus is on you to justify your beliefs and for me to critique them, not for me to be expected to create some new belief system that I don't believe in for you to knock down.

But you keep asking about humanity seeing things from the perfective of other species. Well that isn't the point - the point is whether your 'religion' can be seen to be relevant universally. In other words is it relevant to other species on earth; is it relevant to potential life on other planets; it is relevant to non living matter throughout the universe. The resounding answer for christianity is - no - it is only relevant to one species (humans), on one planet (earth) in the blink of an eye (the past 2000 years of the several billion year history of the universe. Hence it is inherently parochial and limited.

[Spud]

Indeed he is.

But I suspect he'd be less credulous and skeptical about similarly fantastical claims not associated with his religion. For example Icarus and Daedalus and their (literal) flight from Crete.

But religion people so often adopt double standards - applying completely different standards for the 'evidence' associated with the fantastical claims of their religion to the fantastical claims of other religions and myths.

The myth about Daedalus and Icarus was first written down about 5 centuries after they supposedly lived (from what I've read about them)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to know what I think - why don't you ask me, rather than inferring (wrongly) what my position is.

My argument has been to point out how parochial christianity is - effectively merely focussing on one species, on one planet in the blink of an eye in universe-time terms.

Shades of wishing one's life away.
It wasn't my intention, nor is there any requirement, to provide an alternative. The onus is on you to justify your beliefs and for me to critique them, not for me to be expected to create some new belief system that I don't believe in for you to knock down.

But you keep asking about humanity seeing things from the perfective of other species. Well that isn't the point - the point is whether your 'religion' can be seen to be relevant universally. In other words is it relevant to other species on earth; is it relevant to potential life on other planets; it is relevant to non living matter throughout the universe. The resounding answer for christianity is - no - it is only relevant to one species (humans), on one planet (earth) in the blink of an eye (the past 2000 years of the several billion year history of the universe. Hence it is inherently parochial and limited.

How are you going to get the perspective of other species?
            What is ''wrong'' with something applying just to humanity. I see no complaint about say, Midwifery or Psychiatry. There is nothing stopping anybody from doing science. So what is the problem?

I think that what we have been skirting about these past few posts is actually you stealthy promoting a kind of scientism. I'm afraid yours and Hillsides 'vision' of a better tomorrow rather impoverishes humanity while making putting yourself, if you hadn't notice rather in the rank of high priest of your new revelation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Shades of wishing one's life away.

Now that actually is a non sequitur. What on earth has it to do with PD’s explanation?

But you keep asking about humanity seeing things from the perfective of other species.

No, he’s saying that your choice of faiths doesn’t do that; it’s anthropocentric.

How are you going to get the perspective of other species?

That’s your problem, not his.

What is ''wrong'' with something applying just to humanity.

Nothing, but only provided you don’t also make no claims beyond that – certainly not universal ones.

I see no complaint about say, Midwifery or Psychiatry. There is nothing stopping anybody from doing science. So what is the problem?

That’s because these disciplines limit themselves to the subjects of which they have knowledge. Religions on the other hand reach way beyond their knowledge base.

I think that what we have been skirting about these past few posts is actually you stealthy promoting a kind of scientism.

Don’t be silly. He’s pretty much done the opposite of that (as do I).

I'm afraid yours and Hillsides 'vision' of a better tomorrow rather impoverishes humanity while making putting yourself, if you hadn't notice rather in the rank of high priest of your new revelation.

What “vision” would that be then?

You're all over the place there.

[Gordon]

The myth about Daedalus and Icarus was first written down about 5 centuries after they supposedly lived (from what I've read about them)

It's always an issue, Spud, when the earliest known accounts of something are produced decades or centuries after the supposed events the accounts of this something contain: I'll leave you to cogitate on that for a while. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Now that actually is a non sequitur. What on earth has it to do with PD’s explanation?

No, he’s saying that your choice of faiths doesn’t do that; it’s anthropocentric.

That’s your problem, not his.

Nothing, but only provided you don’t also make no claims beyond that – certainly not universal ones.

That’s because these disciplines limit themselves to the subjects of which they have knowledge. Religions on the other hand reach way beyond their knowledge base.

Don’t be silly. He’s pretty much done the opposite of that (as do I).

What “vision” would that be then?

You're all over the place there.

1: Comparing world religions with local religions in the context of ''parochiality'' is as I pointed out highly debatable.
2: The parochiality of a religion which proposes the universe created ex nihilo is also highly debatable, that it only deals with humanity, so what. This seeing the perspective of other species has not been adequately explained by either of you and is probably irrelevent any way.
3: Since religions of the ''world' type are visionary and revelatory, I'm afraid you boys have been saying they are not visionary or revelatory enough and then you offered your own improvements which as point 2 shows are pointless and pretty meaningless.
4: It took a long time for Davey to respond hopefully that is you doing your normal stunt of speaking for others and not him letting you do it.

Now we could have had a fairly decent exchange but that seems impossible for you.

[Spud]

It's always an issue, Spud, when the earliest known accounts of something are produced decades or centuries after the supposed events the accounts of this something contain: I'll leave you to cogitate on that for a while.

Which is why I don't believe the Icarus myth. Luke says "many have undertaken to write down the things that have been fulfilled among us", and in my opinion he used Matthew as his main source, and other eyewitnesses. Mark, who used Matthew and Luke, also added extra eyewitness detail, such as names of people. So the gospels are not myth.

[jeremyp]

Which is why I don't believe the Icarus myth. Luke says "many have undertaken to write down the things that have been fulfilled among us", and in my opinion he used Matthew as his main source, and other eyewitnesses. Mark, who used Matthew and Luke, also added extra eyewitness detail, such as names of people. So the gospels are not myth.

Oh dear, oh dear.

How could Mark have added extra eyewitness detail? His gospel is significantly shorter than the other two.

As we have discussed before, it is highly probable that Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke copied him whilst adding extra detail (not from eye witnesses though).

As an exercise, why don't you find some examples of alleged eye witness testimony in the gospels and explain to us how you know they are eye witness testimony.